There was twitter thread with leaked PFIZER MANUFACTURING AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT https://twitter.com/eh_den/status/1419653002818990085 . the contents of the tweet details are now deleted but i found tweets backup at https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/54777.html
Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal
21–30 of 68 posts
Re: Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
But who foots the bill when you have problems with your heart afterwards? I mean in America where everything is private, is there some sort of fund for it?
yes, there is general fund [1] for all vaccination side affects but it pays out "very little". I don't know if the covid vaccine is part of that fund however [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compen...
From your link:
> By 1999 the average claim took two years to resolve, and 42% of resolved claims were awarded compensation, as compared with 23% for medical malpractice claims through the tort system.
That doesn’t seem like “very little”. Or do you mean the amount paid out for successful claims is lower than in regular court?
Re: Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal
#23That is such a fertile ground for anti-vaxxers. Number one argument I hear is “If vaccines are so safe, why does nobody take responsibility for the side-effects?”. And to some extent, they’re right, you know. I bet pharma execs are walking away with six-seven figure bonuses no matter what.
Re: Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal
#24"This would apply even if the case were brought due to the company’s own acts of negligence, fraud or malice." Uh, yeah, no. I fully support my country's stance on this. We simply cannot afford to indemnify an multinational company from their own product.
Reading closely, it looks like they are still indemnified. It seems like the only term that was struck out was the one demanding sovereign assets as collateral. With my cynical hat on, that clause feels like a tactic - an unreasonable demand that tests desperation but also allows for a face-saving concession in negotiations.
You know your company is successful when you can strongarm foreign governments into using their military bases as collateral.
Re: Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the difference is that in the U.S. there is a law that protects Pfizer from lawsuits. In South Africa they wanted assets incase such a law isn't enforced or exists?
The other difference is that US courts and other civil institutions have integrity. Outside of the civilized world it's a little bit 'no man's land' - SA's former leader is going to jail on corruption charges, and the country let lose with mass violence. If there ever was an interesting example of 'information suppression' (or avoidance), and there are many, it's the problems recently in SA. There's so little coverag…
> There's so little coverage of the insane violence.
The tinfoil hat in me believes that media is not really interested in foreign violent demonstrations and reports as biased as possible about domestic protests turning violent (e.g. BLM), so that the domestic population doesn't even get the idea that violent protest can actually achieve something. Just look at French labor/social protests... immensely violent, and pretty effective when compared to Germany where the social net was pretty torn up during the last decades.
Re: Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal
#26That is such a fertile ground for anti-vaxxers. Number one argument I hear is “If vaccines are so safe, why does nobody take responsibility for the side-effects?”. And to some extent, they’re right, you know. I bet pharma execs are walking away with six-seven figure bonuses no matter what.
Pfizer now sees $33.5 billion in 2021 vaccine sales, up from $26 billion, and says a third dose of its #COVID19 shot "strongly" boosts protection against the Delta variant.
Re: Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal
#27> During Covid-19 vaccine negotiations, the company sought indemnity against civil claims from citizens who had experienced adverse vaccine effects — meaning that the government would have to cover the costs instead. Aren't those "unreasonable" terms already the case in the U.S.? There's no liability, right?
You think it's reasonable to let companies rake huge profits without any responsibility? And that's how it should be... because it's the norm in America? I find this world view concerning
It's not reasonable, but if you want that vaccine quickly for your citizens, you can be sure the company making it won't want to assume liability.
Re: Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal
#28That is such a fertile ground for anti-vaxxers. Number one argument I hear is “If vaccines are so safe, why does nobody take responsibility for the side-effects?”. And to some extent, they’re right, you know. I bet pharma execs are walking away with six-seven figure bonuses no matter what.
> Number one argument I hear is “If vaccines are so safe, why does nobody take responsibility for the side-effects?”. And to some extent, they’re right, you know.
Aren't people saying the government does compensate people who experience side effects? https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html
Re: Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal
#29Love the fact that a few years ago, Big Pharma, including Pfizer, was the devil for most people, but now that they are providing vaccines and asking for extraordinary measures to be protected from any kind of lawsuit, then everyone is quick to forget their past practices and "swallows the pill" as if nothing ever bad happened with this companies before.
Re: Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal
#30That is such a fertile ground for anti-vaxxers. Number one argument I hear is “If vaccines are so safe, why does nobody take responsibility for the side-effects?”. And to some extent, they’re right, you know. I bet pharma execs are walking away with six-seven figure bonuses no matter what.
> Number one argument I hear is “If vaccines are so safe, why does nobody take responsibility for the side-effects?”. And to some extent, they’re right, you know. Aren't people saying the government does compensate people who experience side effects? https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html
I clicked on "Covered Vaccines". The COVID-19 vaccines aren't on the list.