dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Every hospital should require their employees be vaccinated. Schools too. These rules already exist for other diseases.

---

True, but those other diseases are not prevented by a new type of vaccine that didn't undergo proper clinical trials.

---

I'm going to put it at 99% certainty that the FDA will fully approve them. Only a matter of time.

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Every hospital should require their employees be vaccinated. Schools too. These rules already exist for other diseases.

---

True, but those other diseases are not prevented by a new type of vaccine that didn't undergo proper clinical trials.

---

I'm going to put it at 99% certainty that the FDA will fully approve them. Only a matter of time.

---

They have to now.

Can you imagine what the result would be if they didn't?

There's too much pressure to approve now which may call into question the integrity of any FDA approvals.

The FDA has approved a lot of dangerous drugs.

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Every hospital should require their employees be vaccinated. Schools too. These rules already exist for other diseases.

---

True, but those other diseases are not prevented by a new type of vaccine that didn't undergo proper clinical trials.

---

I'm going to put it at 99% certainty that the FDA will fully approve them. Only a matter of time.

---

They have to now.

Can you imagine what the result would be if they didn't?

There's too much pressure to approve now which may call into question the integrity of any FDA approvals.

The FDA has approved a lot of dangerous drugs.

---

It's obvious the vaccine is safe because millions of people have taken it already. The evidence is on the ground.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/biontech-covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-delta-booster-51627302003?siteid=yhoof2

Comparison of vaccine effectiveness AstraZeneca vs Pfizer UK



https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891

The floodgates have opened for vaccine mandates - Axios


https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-vaccine-mandates-support-health-workers-4055b559-6d32-4824-a2a0-976e483c8d6a.html

Anarchistbear said:

---

Comparison of vaccine effectiveness AstraZeneca vs Pfizer UK



https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891

---

This study you post is an estimate of the effectiveness based on results against alpha. Pfizer helps fund NEJM. Moderna's chief trial investigator is editor in chief of NEJM. Israel has real data of 39.5% effectiveness. I believe that effectiveness against severe disease is still very high, as it also is with other vaccines.

oski003 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Comparison of vaccine effectiveness AstraZeneca vs Pfizer UK



https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891

---

This study you post is an estimate of the effectiveness based on results against alpha. Pfizer helps fund NEJM. Moderna's chief trial investigator is editor in chief of NEJM. Israel has real data of 39.5% effectiveness. I believe that effectiveness against severe disease is still very high, as it also is with other vaccines.

---

No, both alpha and delta. Read the table

Anarchistbear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Comparison of vaccine effectiveness AstraZeneca vs Pfizer UK



https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891

---

This study you post is an estimate of the effectiveness based on results against alpha. Pfizer helps fund NEJM. Moderna's chief trial investigator is editor in chief of NEJM. Israel has real data of 39.5% effectiveness. I believe that effectiveness against severe disease is still very high, as it also is with other vaccines.

---

No, both alpha and delta. Read the table

---

Can you explain what adjusted vaccine effectiveness is?

oski003 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Comparison of vaccine effectiveness AstraZeneca vs Pfizer UK



https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891

---

This study you post is an estimate of the effectiveness based on results against alpha. Pfizer helps fund NEJM. Moderna's chief trial investigator is editor in chief of NEJM. Israel has real data of 39.5% effectiveness. I believe that effectiveness against severe disease is still very high, as it also is with other vaccines.

---

No, both alpha and delta. Read the table

---

Can you explain what adjusted vaccine effectiveness is?

---

Explained in the asterisk below the table

Anarchistbear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Comparison of vaccine effectiveness AstraZeneca vs Pfizer UK



https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891

---

This study you post is an estimate of the effectiveness based on results against alpha. Pfizer helps fund NEJM. Moderna's chief trial investigator is editor in chief of NEJM. Israel has real data of 39.5% effectiveness. I believe that effectiveness against severe disease is still very high, as it also is with other vaccines.

---

No, both alpha and delta. Read the table

---

Can you explain what adjusted vaccine effectiveness is?

---

Explained in the asterisk below the table

---

Basically, very little Delta data stretched out with modeling based on Alpha. Also skewed because, in the U.S., they stopped testing the vaccinated unless major symptoms.

oski003 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Comparison of vaccine effectiveness AstraZeneca vs Pfizer UK



https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891

---

This study you post is an estimate of the effectiveness based on results against alpha. Pfizer helps fund NEJM. Moderna's chief trial investigator is editor in chief of NEJM. Israel has real data of 39.5% effectiveness. I believe that effectiveness against severe disease is still very high, as it also is with other vaccines.

---

No, both alpha and delta. Read the table

---

Can you explain what adjusted vaccine effectiveness is?

---

Explained in the asterisk below the table

---

Basically, very little Delta data stretched out with modeling based on Alpha. Also skewed because, in the U.S., they stopped testing the vaccinated unless major symptoms.

---

This is your scientific opinion.

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Every hospital should require their employees be vaccinated. Schools too. These rules already exist for other diseases.

---

True, but those other diseases are not prevented by a new type of vaccine that didn't undergo proper clinical trials.

---

I'm going to put it at 99% certainty that the FDA will fully approve them. Only a matter of time.

---

They have to now.

Can you imagine what the result would be if they didn't?

There's too much pressure to approve now which may call into question the integrity of any FDA approvals.

The FDA has approved a lot of dangerous drugs.

---

It's obvious the vaccine is safe because millions of people have taken it already. The evidence is on the ground.

---

Yeah, I don't think you can say that yet.

What does "safe" mean? Does it mean you won't keel over and die immediately? Sure, then it's safe.

Is accutane a safe drug? It was an FDA-approved drug on the market for 27 years.

Lots of people took it seemingly without incident.

And it's not just safety, but also efficacy. It's not clear what sort of long-term protections these vaccines may offer.

Large numbers of people taking a vaccine can uncover some issues, but others will only be uncovered over time.

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Every hospital should require their employees be vaccinated. Schools too. These rules already exist for other diseases.

---

True, but those other diseases are not prevented by a new type of vaccine that didn't undergo proper clinical trials.

---

I'm going to put it at 99% certainty that the FDA will fully approve them. Only a matter of time.

---

They have to now.

Can you imagine what the result would be if they didn't?

There's too much pressure to approve now which may call into question the integrity of any FDA approvals.

The FDA has approved a lot of dangerous drugs.

---

It's obvious the vaccine is safe because millions of people have taken it already. The evidence is on the ground.

---

Yeah, I don't think you can say that yet.

What does "safe" mean? Does it mean you won't keel over and die immediately? Sure, then it's safe.

Is accutane a safe drug? It was an FDA-approved drug on the market for 27 years.

Lots of people took it seemingly without incident.

And it's not just safety, but also efficacy. It's not clear what sort of long-term protections these vaccines may offer.

Large numbers of people taking a vaccine can uncover some issues, but others will only be uncovered over time.

---

So your contention is that no one should trust FDA approval until we have had many years to determine if there are additional future side effects we don't know about yet? And that no other groups should require vaccinations until this happens?

This seems impractical and extremely suboptimal when it comes to curbing the current global pandemic. I'll take my chances with widespread COVID vaccine usage. If more side effects are revealed later, fine . . . update the literature and change the guidance. That's what happened with Accutane, which is still an approved and prescribed drug, by the way. I don't think nearly as many people took Accutane as have taken Pfizer/Moderna/JnJ COVID vaccines, though.

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Every hospital should require their employees be vaccinated. Schools too. These rules already exist for other diseases.

---

True, but those other diseases are not prevented by a new type of vaccine that didn't undergo proper clinical trials.

---

I'm going to put it at 99% certainty that the FDA will fully approve them. Only a matter of time.

---

They have to now.

Can you imagine what the result would be if they didn't?

There's too much pressure to approve now which may call into question the integrity of any FDA approvals.

The FDA has approved a lot of dangerous drugs.

---

It's obvious the vaccine is safe because millions of people have taken it already. The evidence is on the ground.

---

Yeah, I don't think you can say that yet.

What does "safe" mean? Does it mean you won't keel over and die immediately? Sure, then it's safe.

Is accutane a safe drug? It was an FDA-approved drug on the market for 27 years.

Lots of people took it seemingly without incident.

And it's not just safety, but also efficacy. It's not clear what sort of long-term protections these vaccines may offer.

Large numbers of people taking a vaccine can uncover some issues, but others will only be uncovered over time.

---

So your contention is that no one should trust FDA approval until we have had many years to determine if there are additional future side effects we don't know about yet? And that no other groups should require vaccinations until this happens?

This seems impractical and extremely suboptimal when it comes to curbing the current global pandemic. I'll take my chances with widespread COVID vaccine usage. If more side effects are revealed later, fine . . . update the literature and change the guidance. That's what happened with Accutane, which is still an approved and prescribed drug, by the way. I don't think nearly as many people took Accutane as have taken Pfizer/Moderna/JnJ COVID vaccines, though.

---

My contention is that we shouldn't force people to take a novel type of vaccine that hasn't been FDA-approved and which will probably obtain FDA approval under duress.

At this point the people who need to be come into contract with infected individuals to do their jobs, such as medical workers and prison guards, should be required to be vaccinated.

Those at risk such as the elderly should be required to be vaccinated if they live in a sharing living situation.

You mentioned hospitals. I think that's a good idea. Schools? Maybe so.

I won't dispute that.

However, I don't agree that everyone (or most everyone) in the US should be forced to be vaccinated at this time.

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Every hospital should require their employees be vaccinated. Schools too. These rules already exist for other diseases.

---

True, but those other diseases are not prevented by a new type of vaccine that didn't undergo proper clinical trials.

---

I'm going to put it at 99% certainty that the FDA will fully approve them. Only a matter of time.

---

They have to now.

Can you imagine what the result would be if they didn't?

There's too much pressure to approve now which may call into question the integrity of any FDA approvals.

The FDA has approved a lot of dangerous drugs.

---

It's obvious the vaccine is safe because millions of people have taken it already. The evidence is on the ground.

---

Yeah, I don't think you can say that yet.

What does "safe" mean? Does it mean you won't keel over and die immediately? Sure, then it's safe.

Is accutane a safe drug? It was an FDA-approved drug on the market for 27 years.

Lots of people took it seemingly without incident.

And it's not just safety, but also efficacy. It's not clear what sort of long-term protections these vaccines may offer.

Large numbers of people taking a vaccine can uncover some issues, but others will only be uncovered over time.

---

So your contention is that no one should trust FDA approval until we have had many years to determine if there are additional future side effects we don't know about yet? And that no other groups should require vaccinations until this happens?

This seems impractical and extremely suboptimal when it comes to curbing the current global pandemic. I'll take my chances with widespread COVID vaccine usage. If more side effects are revealed later, fine . . . update the literature and change the guidance. That's what happened with Accutane, which is still an approved and prescribed drug, by the way. I don't think nearly as many people took Accutane as have taken Pfizer/Moderna/JnJ COVID vaccines, though.

---

My contention is that we shouldn't force people to take a novel type of vaccine that hasn't been FDA-approved and which will probably obtain FDA approval under duress.

At this point the people who need to be come into contract with infected individuals to do their jobs, such as medical workers and prison guards, should be required to be vaccinated.

Those at risk such as the elderly should be required to be vaccinated if they live in a sharing living situation.

You mentioned hospitals. I think that's a good idea. Schools? Maybe so.

I won't dispute that.

However, I don't agree that everyone (or most everyone) in the US should be forced to be vaccinated at this time.

---

That's fine, and I doubt a blanket requirement would pass muster. Those who don't get vaccinated should be denied entry to certain kinds of jobs, places, and events. People who work with medical patients, old folks, and kids are first on the list for the requirement.

Supplying the product:

"Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates... nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product."#PfizerLeak#Pfizer pic.twitter.com/KuDP4oQ0oI

— Ehden (@eh_den) July 26, 2021

Pfizer's supply contract is insane. Full indemnification against liability. Purchaser is responsible for purchase price even if Pfizer doesn't meet supply deadlines or experimental product is no longer needed or desired, etc...

oski003 said:

---

Supplying the product:

"Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates... nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product."#PfizerLeak#Pfizer pic.twitter.com/KuDP4oQ0oI

— Ehden (@eh_den) July 26, 2021

Pfizer's supply contract is insane. Full indemnification against liability. Purchaser is responsible for purchase price even if Pfizer doesn't meet supply deadlines or experimental product is no longer needed or desired, etc...

---

None of this was surprising. The whole point of operation warp speed was to do everything possible to get these vaccines to market. Once the money was out the door, it wasn't coming back. All of that was known from the beginning. I don't know who this tweeter is, but the fact that he mentions Ivermectin is curious and telling.

The idea that somehow Ivermectin (which is still being studied rigorously) is being suppressed because of these supply contracts is tinfoil nonsense and I think you know that.

Ivermectin is the new Forsythia after HCQ turned out to be a mirage. Maybe they will figure out a way to get some use out of Ivermectin, but as I mentioned previously the big touted Ivermectin study was a product of plagiarism and plagued with errors. If Ivermectin was the panacea that it's proponents say it is, it should be easy to demonstrate.

By comparison, no one disputes that dexamethasone has worked wonders for COVID patients and it's been widely used all over the world. It's also extremely cheap and easy to administer. Why didn't scary conspiratorial big pharma prevent dexamethasone from being used far and wide? The answer is simple and yet somehow defeats those looking for conspiracies around every turn.

At some point perhaps you will realize how far down the rabbit hole you've gone.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Supplying the product:

"Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates... nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product."#PfizerLeak#Pfizer pic.twitter.com/KuDP4oQ0oI

— Ehden (@eh_den) July 26, 2021

Pfizer's supply contract is insane. Full indemnification against liability. Purchaser is responsible for purchase price even if Pfizer doesn't meet supply deadlines or experimental product is no longer needed or desired, etc...

---

None of this was surprising. The whole point of operation warp speed was to do everything possible to get these vaccines to market. Once the money was out the door, it wasn't coming back. All of that was known from the beginning. I don't know who this tweeter is, but the fact that he mentions Ivermectin is curious and telling.

The idea that somehow Ivermectin (which is still being studied rigorously) is being suppressed because of these supply contracts is tinfoil nonsense and I think you know that.

Ivermectin is the new Forsythia after HCQ turned out to be a mirage. Maybe they will figure out a way to get some use out of Ivermectin, but as I mentioned previously the big touted Ivermectin study was a product of plagiarism and plagued with errors. If Ivermectin was the panacea that it's proponents say it is, it should be easy to demonstrate.

By comparison, no one disputes that dexamethasone has worked wonders for COVID patients and it's been widely used all over the world. It's also extremely cheap and easy to administer. Why didn't scary conspiratorial big pharma prevent dexamethasone from being used far and wide? The answer is simple and yet somehow defeats those looking for conspiracies around every turn.

At some point perhaps you will realize how far down the rabbit hole you've gone.

---

I am focused on the contract language that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WARP SPEED. This is not the contract for the U.S. government. This is a contract for a poorer country desperate for a vaccine.

I also have never made a comment about Ivermectin. Please stop deflecting.

Please push your biases aside and use the cognitive abilities you developed at Berkeley.

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Supplying the product:

"Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates... nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product."#PfizerLeak#Pfizer pic.twitter.com/KuDP4oQ0oI

— Ehden (@eh_den) July 26, 2021

Pfizer's supply contract is insane. Full indemnification against liability. Purchaser is responsible for purchase price even if Pfizer doesn't meet supply deadlines or experimental product is no longer needed or desired, etc...

---

None of this was surprising. The whole point of operation warp speed was to do everything possible to get these vaccines to market. Once the money was out the door, it wasn't coming back. All of that was known from the beginning. I don't know who this tweeter is, but the fact that he mentions Ivermectin is curious and telling.

The idea that somehow Ivermectin (which is still being studied rigorously) is being suppressed because of these supply contracts is tinfoil nonsense and I think you know that.

Ivermectin is the new Forsythia after HCQ turned out to be a mirage. Maybe they will figure out a way to get some use out of Ivermectin, but as I mentioned previously the big touted Ivermectin study was a product of plagiarism and plagued with errors. If Ivermectin was the panacea that it's proponents say it is, it should be easy to demonstrate.

By comparison, no one disputes that dexamethasone has worked wonders for COVID patients and it's been widely used all over the world. It's also extremely cheap and easy to administer. Why didn't scary conspiratorial big pharma prevent dexamethasone from being used far and wide? The answer is simple and yet somehow defeats those looking for conspiracies around every turn.

At some point perhaps you will realize how far down the rabbit hole you've gone.

---

I am focused on the contract language that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WARP SPEED. This is not the contract for the U.S. government. This is a contract for a poorer country desperate for a vaccine.

I also have never made a comment about Ivermectin. Please stop deflecting.

Please push your biases aside and use the cognitive abilities you developed at Berkeley.

---

The US wasn't the only one with motivations - it was the same everywhere. The US wasn't alone in wanting to address the pandemic through vaccinations. Countries who wanted vaccines in arms had to take on financial risk to incentivize companies to invest in vaccine production.

You posted a tweet that connected ivermectin to these vaccine contracts so stop pretending like I'm the one deflecting. If you want to distance yourself from the tweet you posted, please feel free to do so. Feel free to stop posting anti-vax drivel and fear-mongering garbage like this. No one is forcing you to do so.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Supplying the product:

"Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates... nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product."#PfizerLeak#Pfizer pic.twitter.com/KuDP4oQ0oI

— Ehden (@eh_den) July 26, 2021

Pfizer's supply contract is insane. Full indemnification against liability. Purchaser is responsible for purchase price even if Pfizer doesn't meet supply deadlines or experimental product is no longer needed or desired, etc...

---

None of this was surprising. The whole point of operation warp speed was to do everything possible to get these vaccines to market. Once the money was out the door, it wasn't coming back. All of that was known from the beginning. I don't know who this tweeter is, but the fact that he mentions Ivermectin is curious and telling.

The idea that somehow Ivermectin (which is still being studied rigorously) is being suppressed because of these supply contracts is tinfoil nonsense and I think you know that.

Ivermectin is the new Forsythia after HCQ turned out to be a mirage. Maybe they will figure out a way to get some use out of Ivermectin, but as I mentioned previously the big touted Ivermectin study was a product of plagiarism and plagued with errors. If Ivermectin was the panacea that it's proponents say it is, it should be easy to demonstrate.

By comparison, no one disputes that dexamethasone has worked wonders for COVID patients and it's been widely used all over the world. It's also extremely cheap and easy to administer. Why didn't scary conspiratorial big pharma prevent dexamethasone from being used far and wide? The answer is simple and yet somehow defeats those looking for conspiracies around every turn.

At some point perhaps you will realize how far down the rabbit hole you've gone.

---

I am focused on the contract language that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WARP SPEED. This is not the contract for the U.S. government. This is a contract for a poorer country desperate for a vaccine.

I also have never made a comment about Ivermectin. Please stop deflecting.

Please push your biases aside and use the cognitive abilities you developed at Berkeley.

---

The US wasn't the only one with motivations - it was the same everywhere. The US wasn't alone in wanting to address the pandemic through vaccinations. Countries who wanted vaccines in arms had to take on financial risk to incentivize companies to invest in vaccine production.

You posted a tweet that connected ivermectin to these vaccine contracts so stop pretending like I'm the one deflecting. If you want to distance yourself from the tweet you posted, please feel free to do so. Feel free to stop posting anti-vax drivel and fear-mongering garbage like this. No one is forcing you to do so.

---

Here is the content lest you get distracted by other things. Look a fly!

"Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates... nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product."

"Pfizer shall decide on necessary adjustments to the number of Contracted Doses and Delivery Schedule due to the Purchaser ... based on principles to be determined by Pfizer ... Purchaser shall be deemed to agree to any revision."

"Purchaser hereby waives all rights and remedies that it may have at Law, in equity or otherwise, arising from or relating to:.. any failure by Pfizer to deliver the Contracted Doses in accordance with the Delivery Schedule."

"Under no circumstances will Pfizer be subject to or liable for any late delivery penalties."

"Pfizer will not, in any circumstances, accept any returns of Product (or any dose)...no Product returns may take place under any circumstances."

$12 per dosage for about 250K units.
Pfizer charged US taxpayers $19.50 per dose.

About payment, the country has no right "to withhold, offset, recoup or debit any amounts owed to Pfizer, whether under this Agreement or otherwise, against any other amount owed (or to become due and owing) to it by Pfizer or a Pfizer Affiliate."

"For clarity, Purchaser shall not be entitled to reject any Product based on service complaints unless a Product does not materially conform to Specifications or cGMP."
No cGMP specifications existed for mRNA vaccines.

Purchaser acknowledges...the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known."

Termination for cause:
There are clauses about termination possibility, but in fact, as you saw so far, the buyer has almost nothing that can be considered a material breach, while Pfizer can easily do so if they don't get their money or if they deem so. Please see link for language as it is in an image.

You must pay Pfizer for the dosages you ordered, no matter how much you consumed, regardless if Pfizer got it approved (it was a pre-EU approval) or if they delivered the Contracted Doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates set forth herein. See link for image.

"Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS Pfizer, BioNTech (and) their Affiliates...from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses..."

The state must defend Pfizer:
"(Pfizer) shall notify Purchaser of Losses for which it is seeking indemnification... Upon such notification, Purchaser shall promptly assume conduct and control of the defense of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of (Pfizer)"

However, "Pfizer shall have the right to assume control of such defense... and Purchaser shall pay all Losses, including, without limitation, the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred."

Pfizer is making sure the country will pay for everything:
"Costs and expenses, including... fees and disbursements of counsel, incurred by the Indemnitee(s) in connection with any Indemnified Claim shall be reimbursed on a quarterly basis by Purchaser"

Liability:
"this shall not include, nor constitute, product liability insurance to cover any third party/patients claims and such general liability insurance shall be without prejudice to Purchaser's indemnification obligation as set out in this Agreement."

There is no limit to the liability of the country in case of:
"the indemnity given by it under Section 8 (Indemnification)" or if the Purchaser failed to pay Pfizer"

The Purchaser waives any right for immunity, it give up any law that might cap the obligation to pay damages to Pfizer.
Comment: The court is in NY has the capacity to hold international assets of a country if the country failed the contract.

Condition to supply:
Purchaser must provide Pfizer protection from liability for claims and all Losses, must implement it via statutory or regulatory requirements, and the sufficiency of such efforts shall be in Pfizer's sole discretion.

"The provisions of this Section 10 (Confidential Information) shall survive the termination or expiration of the this Agreement for a period of ten (10) years"

Arbitration must be done in New York, in according to Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, govern by the laws of the State of New York, USA.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Cool, so what exactly is your complaint? You pretend to be some rational mRNA skeptic but you leave no stone unturned in criticizing vaccine suppliers. Now you want us to dig into supplier contracts?

This is such a petty crusade of yours at this point.

---

Why is it a petty crusade? As I have stated many times in this thread, BP is dictating public policy. This contract is an example of it. The lower prices are offset by language incredibly favorable to the supplier. This contract is designed to lock poorer countries in with no reasonable ability to breach, and to lock out competition. Desperate countries were put in a position months ago to wait for their Pfizer vaccine and to make sure, when they finally get it, that their people will want it because the doses have been bought and paid for with no hope for a refund. Feel free to go back and read my posts because you clearly couldn't tie this to what I have been saying this entire time.

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Cool, so what exactly is your complaint? You pretend to be some rational mRNA skeptic but you leave no stone unturned in criticizing vaccine suppliers. Now you want us to dig into supplier contracts?

This is such a petty crusade of yours at this point.

---

Why is it a petty crusade? As I have stated many times in this thread, BP is dictating public policy. This contract is an example of it. The lower prices are offset by language incredibly favorable to the supplier. This contract is designed to lock poorer countries in with no reasonable ability to breach, and to lock out competition. Desperate countries were put in a position months ago to wait for their Pfizer vaccine and to make sure, when they finally get it, that their people will want it because the doses have been bought and paid for with no hope for a refund. Feel free to go back and read my posts because you clearly couldn't tie this to what I have been saying this entire time.

---

This sounds like . . . capitalism.

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Cool, so what exactly is your complaint? You pretend to be some rational mRNA skeptic but you leave no stone unturned in criticizing vaccine suppliers. Now you want us to dig into supplier contracts?

This is such a petty crusade of yours at this point.

---

Why is it a petty crusade? As I have stated many times in this thread, BP is dictating public policy. This contract is an example of it. The lower prices are offset by language incredibly favorable to the supplier. This contract is designed to lock poorer countries in with no reasonable ability to breach, and to lock out competition. Desperate countries were put in a position months ago to wait for their Pfizer vaccine and to make sure, when they finally get it, that their people will want it because the doses have been bought and paid for with no hope for a refund. Feel free to go back and read my posts because you clearly couldn't tie this to what I have been saying this entire time.

---

You are just ignoring reality. I'll tell you what, you go find me a country that doesn't like it's Pfizer contract and I will happily buy up all of their extra doses at $12 per. I can find plenty of countries that would happily pay me to pick up that production. There is a shortage of vaccine doses the world over. Every country with an allocation of Pfizer production is thanking their lucky stars they were able to do so. The rest are hoping to get donations from the US and other wealthy countries.

You seemed to be so wrapped up in your anti-vax propaganda rat hole that you are failing to understand what most of the world really wants. It's to get over the pandemic, not to wallow in pity that we don't have even better vaccines.

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Cool, so what exactly is your complaint? You pretend to be some rational mRNA skeptic but you leave no stone unturned in criticizing vaccine suppliers. Now you want us to dig into supplier contracts?

This is such a petty crusade of yours at this point.

---

Why is it a petty crusade? As I have stated many times in this thread, BP is dictating public policy. This contract is an example of it. The lower prices are offset by language incredibly favorable to the supplier. This contract is designed to lock poorer countries in with no reasonable ability to breach, and to lock out competition. Desperate countries were put in a position months ago to wait for their Pfizer vaccine and to make sure, when they finally get it, that their people will want it because the doses have been bought and paid for with no hope for a refund. Feel free to go back and read my posts because you clearly couldn't tie this to what I have been saying this entire time.

---

This sounds like . . . capitalism.

---

Yes, it does. Bought and paid for advantages stifling competition leading to one-sided contracts and incredible profits. Hiring Dr. Gottlieb from his role as FDA Commissioner onto the Pfizer Board was a beautiful move.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Cool, so what exactly is your complaint? You pretend to be some rational mRNA skeptic but you leave no stone unturned in criticizing vaccine suppliers. Now you want us to dig into supplier contracts?

This is such a petty crusade of yours at this point.

---

Why is it a petty crusade? As I have stated many times in this thread, BP is dictating public policy. This contract is an example of it. The lower prices are offset by language incredibly favorable to the supplier. This contract is designed to lock poorer countries in with no reasonable ability to breach, and to lock out competition. Desperate countries were put in a position months ago to wait for their Pfizer vaccine and to make sure, when they finally get it, that their people will want it because the doses have been bought and paid for with no hope for a refund. Feel free to go back and read my posts because you clearly couldn't tie this to what I have been saying this entire time.

---

This sounds like . . . capitalism.

---

Yes, it does. Bought and paid for advantages stifling competition leading to one-sided contracts and incredible profits. Hiring Dr. Gottlieb from his role as FDA Commissioner onto the Pfizer Board was a beautiful move.

---

I think your problem is more with the fact that Pfizer and other companies want to make profits on their products (capitalism) and not so much that anything untoward is actually happening with these vaccines. I'm not sure we can wait for a full reworking of our global economic system before we can start to effectively fight COVID-19.

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Cool, so what exactly is your complaint? You pretend to be some rational mRNA skeptic but you leave no stone unturned in criticizing vaccine suppliers. Now you want us to dig into supplier contracts?

This is such a petty crusade of yours at this point.

---

Why is it a petty crusade? As I have stated many times in this thread, BP is dictating public policy. This contract is an example of it. The lower prices are offset by language incredibly favorable to the supplier. This contract is designed to lock poorer countries in with no reasonable ability to breach, and to lock out competition. Desperate countries were put in a position months ago to wait for their Pfizer vaccine and to make sure, when they finally get it, that their people will want it because the doses have been bought and paid for with no hope for a refund. Feel free to go back and read my posts because you clearly couldn't tie this to what I have been saying this entire time.

---

This sounds like . . . capitalism.

---

Yes, it does. Bought and paid for advantages stifling competition leading to one-sided contracts and incredible profits. Hiring Dr. Gottlieb from his role as FDA Commissioner onto the Pfizer Board was a beautiful move.

---

I think your problem is more with the fact that Pfizer and other companies want to make profits on their products (capitalism) and not so much that anything untoward is actually happening with these vaccines. I'm not sure we can wait for a full reworking of our global economic system before we can start to effectively fight COVID-19.

---

You are being too charitable . He will take any criticism of the vaccines and spread it here. He has exactly 1 goal in mind and it is to discredit the vaccines by any means necessary.

Let's not pretend like he cares what terms France agreed to.

wraptor347 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Supplying the product:

"Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates... nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product."#PfizerLeak#Pfizer pic.twitter.com/KuDP4oQ0oI

— Ehden (@eh_den) July 26, 2021

Pfizer's supply contract is insane. Full indemnification against liability. Purchaser is responsible for purchase price even if Pfizer doesn't meet supply deadlines or experimental product is no longer needed or desired, etc...

---

None of this was surprising. The whole point of operation warp speed was to do everything possible to get these vaccines to market. Once the money was out the door, it wasn't coming back. All of that was known from the beginning. I don't know who this tweeter is, but the fact that he mentions Ivermectin is curious and telling.

The idea that somehow Ivermectin (which is still being studied rigorously) is being suppressed because of these supply contracts is tinfoil nonsense and I think you know that.

Ivermectin is the new Forsythia after HCQ turned out to be a mirage. Maybe they will figure out a way to get some use out of Ivermectin, but as I mentioned previously the big touted Ivermectin study was a product of plagiarism and plagued with errors. If Ivermectin was the panacea that it's proponents say it is, it should be easy to demonstrate.

By comparison, no one disputes that dexamethasone has worked wonders for COVID patients and it's been widely used all over the world. It's also extremely cheap and easy to administer. Why didn't scary conspiratorial big pharma prevent dexamethasone from being used far and wide? The answer is simple and yet somehow defeats those looking for conspiracies around every turn.

At some point perhaps you will realize how far down the rabbit hole you've gone.

---

I am focused on the contract language that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WARP SPEED. This is not the contract for the U.S. government. This is a contract for a poorer country desperate for a vaccine.

I also have never made a comment about Ivermectin. Please stop deflecting.

Please push your biases aside and use the cognitive abilities you developed at Berkeley.

---

The US wasn't the only one with motivations - it was the same everywhere. The US wasn't alone in wanting to address the pandemic through vaccinations. Countries who wanted vaccines in arms had to take on financial risk to incentivize companies to invest in vaccine production.

You posted a tweet that connected ivermectin to these vaccine contracts so stop pretending like I'm the one deflecting. If you want to distance yourself from the tweet you posted, please feel free to do so. Feel free to stop posting anti-vax drivel and fear-mongering garbage like this. No one is forcing you to do so.

---

Here is the content lest you get distracted by other things. Look a fly!

"Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates... nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product."

"Pfizer shall decide on necessary adjustments to the number of Contracted Doses and Delivery Schedule due to the Purchaser ... based on principles to be determined by Pfizer ... Purchaser shall be deemed to agree to any revision."

"Purchaser hereby waives all rights and remedies that it may have at Law, in equity or otherwise, arising from or relating to:.. any failure by Pfizer to deliver the Contracted Doses in accordance with the Delivery Schedule."

"Under no circumstances will Pfizer be subject to or liable for any late delivery penalties."

"Pfizer will not, in any circumstances, accept any returns of Product (or any dose)...no Product returns may take place under any circumstances."

$12 per dosage for about 250K units.
Pfizer charged US taxpayers $19.50 per dose.

About payment, the country has no right "to withhold, offset, recoup or debit any amounts owed to Pfizer, whether under this Agreement or otherwise, against any other amount owed (or to become due and owing) to it by Pfizer or a Pfizer Affiliate."

"For clarity, Purchaser shall not be entitled to reject any Product based on service complaints unless a Product does not materially conform to Specifications or cGMP."
No cGMP specifications existed for mRNA vaccines.

Purchaser acknowledges...the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known."

Termination for cause:
There are clauses about termination possibility, but in fact, as you saw so far, the buyer has almost nothing that can be considered a material breach, while Pfizer can easily do so if they don't get their money or if they deem so. Please see link for language as it is in an image.

You must pay Pfizer for the dosages you ordered, no matter how much you consumed, regardless if Pfizer got it approved (it was a pre-EU approval) or if they delivered the Contracted Doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates set forth herein. See link for image.

"Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS Pfizer, BioNTech (and) their Affiliates...from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses..."

The state must defend Pfizer:
"(Pfizer) shall notify Purchaser of Losses for which it is seeking indemnification... Upon such notification, Purchaser shall promptly assume conduct and control of the defense of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of (Pfizer)"

However, "Pfizer shall have the right to assume control of such defense... and Purchaser shall pay all Losses, including, without limitation, the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred."

Pfizer is making sure the country will pay for everything:
"Costs and expenses, including... fees and disbursements of counsel, incurred by the Indemnitee(s) in connection with any Indemnified Claim shall be reimbursed on a quarterly basis by Purchaser"

Liability:
"this shall not include, nor constitute, product liability insurance to cover any third party/patients claims and such general liability insurance shall be without prejudice to Purchaser's indemnification obligation as set out in this Agreement."

There is no limit to the liability of the country in case of:
"the indemnity given by it under Section 8 (Indemnification)" or if the Purchaser failed to pay Pfizer"

The Purchaser waives any right for immunity, it give up any law that might cap the obligation to pay damages to Pfizer.
Comment: The court is in NY has the capacity to hold international assets of a country if the country failed the contract.

Condition to supply:
Purchaser must provide Pfizer protection from liability for claims and all Losses, must implement it via statutory or regulatory requirements, and the sufficiency of such efforts shall be in Pfizer's sole discretion.

"The provisions of this Section 10 (Confidential Information) shall survive the termination or expiration of the this Agreement for a period of ten (10) years"

Arbitration must be done in New York, in according to Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, govern by the laws of the State of New York, USA.

---

Why are you taking this string of tweets at face value? I looked at their profile and the author has been spamming anti-vax / alt-right folks trying to get themselves publicity. I can't find any information on their credentials. The website linked in their bio looks like a red-pill blog and completely irrelevant to vaccines (though there is talk about autism, so that might explain their anti-vax tilt).

I don't see why I should trust this person or any of the conclusions they draw about the contract.

Besides, is the Albanian government upset about the contract in question? Or are you getting worked up on their behalf? The delivery schedule in the contract referenced by the tweet thread has 450k+ doses scheduled for Q3/Q4 (page 40) - only ~40k were due beforehand. AFAICT Pfizer is not currently "in the red" w.r.t. vaccines they owe Albania.

If governments were not happy with the terms Pfizer laid out, they could have negotiated or pursued a different manufacturer. Albania (and many other European countries) did in fact pursue several manufacturers. From a quick search, there are several vaccines currently being offered to Albanian citizens - not just the Pfizer vaccine. Albania is also a COVAX recipient so it's not like they're completely reliant on this "problematic" Pfizer contract.

---

I appreciate this constructive criticism of my posts, and you have many valid points. I believe American BP has set back better vaccines for their own profit. I was hoping better safer vaccines would be available for my children and as my booster. Now, I am not so sure. So, yes, I criticize the vaccines.

oski003 said:

---

wraptor347 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Supplying the product:

"Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates... nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product."#PfizerLeak#Pfizer pic.twitter.com/KuDP4oQ0oI

— Ehden (@eh_den) July 26, 2021

Pfizer's supply contract is insane. Full indemnification against liability. Purchaser is responsible for purchase price even if Pfizer doesn't meet supply deadlines or experimental product is no longer needed or desired, etc...

---

None of this was surprising. The whole point of operation warp speed was to do everything possible to get these vaccines to market. Once the money was out the door, it wasn't coming back. All of that was known from the beginning. I don't know who this tweeter is, but the fact that he mentions Ivermectin is curious and telling.

The idea that somehow Ivermectin (which is still being studied rigorously) is being suppressed because of these supply contracts is tinfoil nonsense and I think you know that.

Ivermectin is the new Forsythia after HCQ turned out to be a mirage. Maybe they will figure out a way to get some use out of Ivermectin, but as I mentioned previously the big touted Ivermectin study was a product of plagiarism and plagued with errors. If Ivermectin was the panacea that it's proponents say it is, it should be easy to demonstrate.

By comparison, no one disputes that dexamethasone has worked wonders for COVID patients and it's been widely used all over the world. It's also extremely cheap and easy to administer. Why didn't scary conspiratorial big pharma prevent dexamethasone from being used far and wide? The answer is simple and yet somehow defeats those looking for conspiracies around every turn.

At some point perhaps you will realize how far down the rabbit hole you've gone.

---

I am focused on the contract language that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WARP SPEED. This is not the contract for the U.S. government. This is a contract for a poorer country desperate for a vaccine.

I also have never made a comment about Ivermectin. Please stop deflecting.

Please push your biases aside and use the cognitive abilities you developed at Berkeley.

---

The US wasn't the only one with motivations - it was the same everywhere. The US wasn't alone in wanting to address the pandemic through vaccinations. Countries who wanted vaccines in arms had to take on financial risk to incentivize companies to invest in vaccine production.

You posted a tweet that connected ivermectin to these vaccine contracts so stop pretending like I'm the one deflecting. If you want to distance yourself from the tweet you posted, please feel free to do so. Feel free to stop posting anti-vax drivel and fear-mongering garbage like this. No one is forcing you to do so.

---

Here is the content lest you get distracted by other things. Look a fly!

"Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates... nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product."

"Pfizer shall decide on necessary adjustments to the number of Contracted Doses and Delivery Schedule due to the Purchaser ... based on principles to be determined by Pfizer ... Purchaser shall be deemed to agree to any revision."

"Purchaser hereby waives all rights and remedies that it may have at Law, in equity or otherwise, arising from or relating to:.. any failure by Pfizer to deliver the Contracted Doses in accordance with the Delivery Schedule."

"Under no circumstances will Pfizer be subject to or liable for any late delivery penalties."

"Pfizer will not, in any circumstances, accept any returns of Product (or any dose)...no Product returns may take place under any circumstances."

$12 per dosage for about 250K units.
Pfizer charged US taxpayers $19.50 per dose.

About payment, the country has no right "to withhold, offset, recoup or debit any amounts owed to Pfizer, whether under this Agreement or otherwise, against any other amount owed (or to become due and owing) to it by Pfizer or a Pfizer Affiliate."

"For clarity, Purchaser shall not be entitled to reject any Product based on service complaints unless a Product does not materially conform to Specifications or cGMP."
No cGMP specifications existed for mRNA vaccines.

Purchaser acknowledges...the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known."

Termination for cause:
There are clauses about termination possibility, but in fact, as you saw so far, the buyer has almost nothing that can be considered a material breach, while Pfizer can easily do so if they don't get their money or if they deem so. Please see link for language as it is in an image.

You must pay Pfizer for the dosages you ordered, no matter how much you consumed, regardless if Pfizer got it approved (it was a pre-EU approval) or if they delivered the Contracted Doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates set forth herein. See link for image.

"Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS Pfizer, BioNTech (and) their Affiliates...from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses..."

The state must defend Pfizer:
"(Pfizer) shall notify Purchaser of Losses for which it is seeking indemnification... Upon such notification, Purchaser shall promptly assume conduct and control of the defense of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of (Pfizer)"

However, "Pfizer shall have the right to assume control of such defense... and Purchaser shall pay all Losses, including, without limitation, the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred."

Pfizer is making sure the country will pay for everything:
"Costs and expenses, including... fees and disbursements of counsel, incurred by the Indemnitee(s) in connection with any Indemnified Claim shall be reimbursed on a quarterly basis by Purchaser"

Liability:
"this shall not include, nor constitute, product liability insurance to cover any third party/patients claims and such general liability insurance shall be without prejudice to Purchaser's indemnification obligation as set out in this Agreement."

There is no limit to the liability of the country in case of:
"the indemnity given by it under Section 8 (Indemnification)" or if the Purchaser failed to pay Pfizer"

The Purchaser waives any right for immunity, it give up any law that might cap the obligation to pay damages to Pfizer.
Comment: The court is in NY has the capacity to hold international assets of a country if the country failed the contract.

Condition to supply:
Purchaser must provide Pfizer protection from liability for claims and all Losses, must implement it via statutory or regulatory requirements, and the sufficiency of such efforts shall be in Pfizer's sole discretion.

"The provisions of this Section 10 (Confidential Information) shall survive the termination or expiration of the this Agreement for a period of ten (10) years"

Arbitration must be done in New York, in according to Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, govern by the laws of the State of New York, USA.

---

Why are you taking this string of tweets at face value? I looked at their profile and the author has been spamming anti-vax / alt-right folks trying to get themselves publicity. I can't find any information on their credentials. The website linked in their bio looks like a red-pill blog and completely irrelevant to vaccines (though there is talk about autism, so that might explain their anti-vax tilt).

I don't see why I should trust this person or any of the conclusions they draw about the contract.

Besides, is the Albanian government upset about the contract in question? Or are you getting worked up on their behalf? The delivery schedule in the contract referenced by the tweet thread has 450k+ doses scheduled for Q3/Q4 (page 40) - only ~40k were due beforehand. AFAICT Pfizer is not currently "in the red" w.r.t. vaccines they owe Albania.

If governments were not happy with the terms Pfizer laid out, they could have negotiated or pursued a different manufacturer. Albania (and many other European countries) did in fact pursue several manufacturers. From a quick search, there are several vaccines currently being offered to Albanian citizens - not just the Pfizer vaccine. Albania is also a COVAX recipient so it's not like they're completely reliant on this "problematic" Pfizer contract.

---

I appreciate this constructive criticism of my posts, and you have many valid points. I believe American BP has set back better vaccines for their own profit. I was hoping better safer vaccines would be available for my children and as my booster. Now, I am not so sure. So, yes, I criticize the vaccines.

---

By what means would you determine which vaccines are safer or better?

tRump is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans because of his botched response to the pandemic.

He is the gift that keeps giving because he, and his disciples, have continued to politicize the pandemic by tying the vaccine, masks and social distancing to The Left. Luckily, if the science is accurate with regard to the efficacy of the vaccines against variants, it is primarily his cult followers in the Red States that will suffer and die. tRump is basically playing the role of the Rev. Jim Jones.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

wraptor347 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Supplying the product:

"Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates... nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product."#PfizerLeak#Pfizer pic.twitter.com/KuDP4oQ0oI

— Ehden (@eh_den) July 26, 2021

Pfizer's supply contract is insane. Full indemnification against liability. Purchaser is responsible for purchase price even if Pfizer doesn't meet supply deadlines or experimental product is no longer needed or desired, etc...

---

None of this was surprising. The whole point of operation warp speed was to do everything possible to get these vaccines to market. Once the money was out the door, it wasn't coming back. All of that was known from the beginning. I don't know who this tweeter is, but the fact that he mentions Ivermectin is curious and telling.

The idea that somehow Ivermectin (which is still being studied rigorously) is being suppressed because of these supply contracts is tinfoil nonsense and I think you know that.

Ivermectin is the new Forsythia after HCQ turned out to be a mirage. Maybe they will figure out a way to get some use out of Ivermectin, but as I mentioned previously the big touted Ivermectin study was a product of plagiarism and plagued with errors. If Ivermectin was the panacea that it's proponents say it is, it should be easy to demonstrate.

By comparison, no one disputes that dexamethasone has worked wonders for COVID patients and it's been widely used all over the world. It's also extremely cheap and easy to administer. Why didn't scary conspiratorial big pharma prevent dexamethasone from being used far and wide? The answer is simple and yet somehow defeats those looking for conspiracies around every turn.

At some point perhaps you will realize how far down the rabbit hole you've gone.

---

I am focused on the contract language that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WARP SPEED. This is not the contract for the U.S. government. This is a contract for a poorer country desperate for a vaccine.

I also have never made a comment about Ivermectin. Please stop deflecting.

Please push your biases aside and use the cognitive abilities you developed at Berkeley.

---

The US wasn't the only one with motivations - it was the same everywhere. The US wasn't alone in wanting to address the pandemic through vaccinations. Countries who wanted vaccines in arms had to take on financial risk to incentivize companies to invest in vaccine production.

You posted a tweet that connected ivermectin to these vaccine contracts so stop pretending like I'm the one deflecting. If you want to distance yourself from the tweet you posted, please feel free to do so. Feel free to stop posting anti-vax drivel and fear-mongering garbage like this. No one is forcing you to do so.

---

Here is the content lest you get distracted by other things. Look a fly!

"Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates... nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product."

"Pfizer shall decide on necessary adjustments to the number of Contracted Doses and Delivery Schedule due to the Purchaser ... based on principles to be determined by Pfizer ... Purchaser shall be deemed to agree to any revision."

"Purchaser hereby waives all rights and remedies that it may have at Law, in equity or otherwise, arising from or relating to:.. any failure by Pfizer to deliver the Contracted Doses in accordance with the Delivery Schedule."

"Under no circumstances will Pfizer be subject to or liable for any late delivery penalties."

"Pfizer will not, in any circumstances, accept any returns of Product (or any dose)...no Product returns may take place under any circumstances."

$12 per dosage for about 250K units.
Pfizer charged US taxpayers $19.50 per dose.

About payment, the country has no right "to withhold, offset, recoup or debit any amounts owed to Pfizer, whether under this Agreement or otherwise, against any other amount owed (or to become due and owing) to it by Pfizer or a Pfizer Affiliate."

"For clarity, Purchaser shall not be entitled to reject any Product based on service complaints unless a Product does not materially conform to Specifications or cGMP."
No cGMP specifications existed for mRNA vaccines.

Purchaser acknowledges...the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known."

Termination for cause:
There are clauses about termination possibility, but in fact, as you saw so far, the buyer has almost nothing that can be considered a material breach, while Pfizer can easily do so if they don't get their money or if they deem so. Please see link for language as it is in an image.

You must pay Pfizer for the dosages you ordered, no matter how much you consumed, regardless if Pfizer got it approved (it was a pre-EU approval) or if they delivered the Contracted Doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates set forth herein. See link for image.

"Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS Pfizer, BioNTech (and) their Affiliates...from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses..."

The state must defend Pfizer:
"(Pfizer) shall notify Purchaser of Losses for which it is seeking indemnification... Upon such notification, Purchaser shall promptly assume conduct and control of the defense of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of (Pfizer)"

However, "Pfizer shall have the right to assume control of such defense... and Purchaser shall pay all Losses, including, without limitation, the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred."

Pfizer is making sure the country will pay for everything:
"Costs and expenses, including... fees and disbursements of counsel, incurred by the Indemnitee(s) in connection with any Indemnified Claim shall be reimbursed on a quarterly basis by Purchaser"

Liability:
"this shall not include, nor constitute, product liability insurance to cover any third party/patients claims and such general liability insurance shall be without prejudice to Purchaser's indemnification obligation as set out in this Agreement."

There is no limit to the liability of the country in case of:
"the indemnity given by it under Section 8 (Indemnification)" or if the Purchaser failed to pay Pfizer"

The Purchaser waives any right for immunity, it give up any law that might cap the obligation to pay damages to Pfizer.
Comment: The court is in NY has the capacity to hold international assets of a country if the country failed the contract.

Condition to supply:
Purchaser must provide Pfizer protection from liability for claims and all Losses, must implement it via statutory or regulatory requirements, and the sufficiency of such efforts shall be in Pfizer's sole discretion.

"The provisions of this Section 10 (Confidential Information) shall survive the termination or expiration of the this Agreement for a period of ten (10) years"

Arbitration must be done in New York, in according to Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, govern by the laws of the State of New York, USA.

---

Why are you taking this string of tweets at face value? I looked at their profile and the author has been spamming anti-vax / alt-right folks trying to get themselves publicity. I can't find any information on their credentials. The website linked in their bio looks like a red-pill blog and completely irrelevant to vaccines (though there is talk about autism, so that might explain their anti-vax tilt).

I don't see why I should trust this person or any of the conclusions they draw about the contract.

Besides, is the Albanian government upset about the contract in question? Or are you getting worked up on their behalf? The delivery schedule in the contract referenced by the tweet thread has 450k+ doses scheduled for Q3/Q4 (page 40) - only ~40k were due beforehand. AFAICT Pfizer is not currently "in the red" w.r.t. vaccines they owe Albania.

If governments were not happy with the terms Pfizer laid out, they could have negotiated or pursued a different manufacturer. Albania (and many other European countries) did in fact pursue several manufacturers. From a quick search, there are several vaccines currently being offered to Albanian citizens - not just the Pfizer vaccine. Albania is also a COVAX recipient so it's not like they're completely reliant on this "problematic" Pfizer contract.

---

I appreciate this constructive criticism of my posts, and you have many valid points. I believe American BP has set back better vaccines for their own profit. I was hoping better safer vaccines would be available for my children and as my booster. Now, I am not so sure. So, yes, I criticize the vaccines.

---

By what means would you determine which vaccines are safer or better?

---

Safety data in the trial results for all phases as well as subsequent VAERS data, even if some is fake or clearly unrelated and only other countries have the balls to tie side effects to the mRNA vaccines.

---

So basically you want a bunch of other vaccines released into the wild so you can compare data, as opposed to what we have with the three currently in market.