Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal(mg.co.za)
mg.co.za
Pfizer backs down over ‘unreasonable’ terms in South Africa vaccine deal
https://mg.co.za/news/2021-04-19-pfizer-backs-down-over-unreasonable-terms-in-south-africa-vaccine-deal/
67 comments
Yes you cannot go through a normal court. The US uses a vaccination compensation fund. If someone is harmed by vaccines, they can make a claim with evidence in a special court and the court will determine the compensation. Each dose sold has a 25 cent surcharge to fund these claims. For Covid I think they will do it differently since the government is paying directly.
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html
The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program doesn’t seem to prevent you from going through a regular court. From your link
> The special master's decision may be appealed and petitioners who reject the decision of the court (or withdraw their petitions within certain timelines) may file a claim in civil court against the vaccine company and/or the health care provider who administered the vaccine.
> The special master's decision may be appealed and petitioners who reject the decision of the court (or withdraw their petitions within certain timelines) may file a claim in civil court against the vaccine company and/or the health care provider who administered the vaccine.
The FAQs make it seem like it's not as straightforward.
"Most of the time, you must first file and have your claim processed with the VICP before a civil lawsuit can be filed against the vaccine company or the person who gave the vaccine"
"Most of the time, you must first file and have your claim processed with the VICP before a civil lawsuit can be filed against the vaccine company or the person who gave the vaccine"
> The US uses a vaccination compensation fund
So, the same terms as Pfizer was trying to negotiate in South Africa?
Doesn't make it any more/less unreasonable, but the article should at least mention that millions of doses have been given under similar arrangements.
So, the same terms as Pfizer was trying to negotiate in South Africa?
Doesn't make it any more/less unreasonable, but the article should at least mention that millions of doses have been given under similar arrangements.
> demand that the South African government put up sovereign assets guaranteeing an indemnity against the cost of any future legal cases.
The bigger issue was requiring to put up sovereign assets as a guarantee. That is not something Pfizer would ask of the US government.
The bigger issue was requiring to put up sovereign assets as a guarantee. That is not something Pfizer would ask of the US government.
> The US uses a vaccination compensation fund.
Well Americans always explain why they pay more for drugs is that they subsidise the rest of the world(drug companies). One could say the US economy is based around the people(government) giving money(subsidising) to the rich(drug companies).
So the terms may not seem unreasonable in the us but are in other countries. Since the condition is effectively the government covering the risk rather than the drug company paying for insurance like they should in a market economy
>Americans always explain why they pay more for drugs is that they subsidize the rest of the world
And receive talent from the rest of the world... Take in mind also that US patents and benefits economically also from lots of discoveries made from non American researchers out of US. People that were subsidized and educated with money of their own countries and emigrated later to US. Is more a symbiosis than a charity.
And receive talent from the rest of the world... Take in mind also that US patents and benefits economically also from lots of discoveries made from non American researchers out of US. People that were subsidized and educated with money of their own countries and emigrated later to US. Is more a symbiosis than a charity.
I’m pretty sure this is the case in the UK too - Pfizer basically immune from any claims resulting from side effects etc.
Quite a few countries have used vaccine injury compensation schemes over the years.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Countries-and-provinces-...
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Countries-and-provinces-...
So they can focus in continue saving millions of lives since December, providing a solution that works in a record short amount of time.
It seems a fair deal for society
It seems a fair deal for society
That's sort of how I explained it to a friend.
Manufacturers would not be willing (or allowed) to distribute without the full trials and recognition by the FDA. Where the government, on behalf of the sovereign, decides "no, we NEED it now" the full authority for the risks is declared not by the manufacturer but by the sovereign. Thus, in their great need and power, the sovereign gives them immunity in their actions in writing via the EUA.
It's good to be the king...but who laid the crown?
It's good to be the king...but who laid the crown?
>So they can focus in continue saving millions of lives since December
Not sure. Are the researchers working on the vaccine are the one handling the claims? I mean, whats this thing about "focusing on saving lives" got to do with being not responsible for the product?
>It seems a fair deal for society
Only if these companies act in good faith. Knowing what we know about Pharmaceutical companies, It is beyond me why anyone would think they would..
If you said that "we were desperate so we have to take the risk of them possibly behaving bad", then it would have made much more sense.
Not sure. Are the researchers working on the vaccine are the one handling the claims? I mean, whats this thing about "focusing on saving lives" got to do with being not responsible for the product?
>It seems a fair deal for society
Only if these companies act in good faith. Knowing what we know about Pharmaceutical companies, It is beyond me why anyone would think they would..
If you said that "we were desperate so we have to take the risk of them possibly behaving bad", then it would have made much more sense.
If the defendant is not an individual male then UK courts are not interested.
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?
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...
[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?
> 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?
I'm referring to the cost of healthcare in the U.S. compared to the awarded amount. If serious health effects exist I assume the care will exceed the amount awarded.
The average awarded amount per case, depending on the year, is between $250k and $1m. Considering this is the average of hundreds of cases there must awards significantly above this for those who have serious health effects.
[deleted]
That's my interpretation as well. This is a situation where a dollar valuation of the trust in the justice systems is being made.
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 coverage of the insane violence.
It's reasonable that a company is not going to want subject themselves to that system.
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 coverage of the insane violence.
It's reasonable that a company is not going to want subject themselves to that system.
> 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.
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.
There is definitely an aspect of fear contagion, but nobody is 'in charge' of the media so these things are harder to pinpoint.
Yes and the reason why vaccine injury funds were developed are:
"It was created in the 1980s, after lawsuits against vaccine companies and health care providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce U.S. vaccination rates, which could have caused a resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases."
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html
"It was created in the 1980s, after lawsuits against vaccine companies and health care providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce U.S. vaccination rates, which could have caused a resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases."
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html
vmception(1)
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
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.
If you dont expect quick vaccination then you can obviously deny the company from providing it. But alas, you cant have your cake and eat it too
"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.
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.
Then they simply may not sell it.
The potential liabilities are gigantic, and the risk calculation may put the equation under water.
It's the problem with a lot of medical products, particularly vaccines which are hard for pharma companies to market.
But it's made worse in regimes that are either litigious, have little in the way of caps over civil claims, or have Justice Systems which are compromised.
South Africa is a very corrupt state, it's just too easy for that system to act in a way that does not have integrity.
That's the real world risk/reward equation and it's unavoidable.
It's for similar reasons that it's a lot harder to raise financing for building infrastructure in SA (or anything else) than otherwise - the interest rates charged are considerably more as there's greater risk of failure, or problems, and even addressing commercial concerns becomes difficult if the justice system is compromised. For this reason, the loans to SA would have those risks 'priced in' at much higher interest rates ... which by the way is the other way pharma companies would normally give on the indemnity issue negotiation - by raising prices, but price becomes a problem for other ethical reasons.
The potential liabilities are gigantic, and the risk calculation may put the equation under water.
It's the problem with a lot of medical products, particularly vaccines which are hard for pharma companies to market.
But it's made worse in regimes that are either litigious, have little in the way of caps over civil claims, or have Justice Systems which are compromised.
South Africa is a very corrupt state, it's just too easy for that system to act in a way that does not have integrity.
That's the real world risk/reward equation and it's unavoidable.
It's for similar reasons that it's a lot harder to raise financing for building infrastructure in SA (or anything else) than otherwise - the interest rates charged are considerably more as there's greater risk of failure, or problems, and even addressing commercial concerns becomes difficult if the justice system is compromised. For this reason, the loans to SA would have those risks 'priced in' at much higher interest rates ... which by the way is the other way pharma companies would normally give on the indemnity issue negotiation - by raising prices, but price becomes a problem for other ethical reasons.
That argument might hold... but other commenters here suggested the same terms were put to first world countries, like the US and UK.
> “South Africa is a very corrupt state, it's just too easy for that system to act in a way that does not have integrity.”
Being a corrupt state does not imply a corrupt legal system. SA’s legal system is based very closely on the UK’s (with some Dutch law and African customary law tweaks thrown in) and is considered to be very good actually. Some legal systems around the world are weakened by lobbying and politically placed judges and there is lack of evidence that this is a problem in the SA legal system.
A recent demonstration of this resilience to corruption is the fact that the courts recently put the ex-president Zuma in jail; someone with a lot of corrupt power.
Besides, protecting yourself against a corrupt legal system with beneficial legal clauses just doesn’t make sense. Why even use a contract at all if you don’t believe in the legal system? They put those clauses in there precisely because the legal system is good and they will be held to account.
No, Pfizer is just being a bully because they think they can get away with it. Same thing happens every day when individuals feel trapped into signing unfavourable employment contracts because they are too far along and feel that there are no reasonable alternatives. I think that it’s a good thing that this generated bad PR for Pfizer.
Being a corrupt state does not imply a corrupt legal system. SA’s legal system is based very closely on the UK’s (with some Dutch law and African customary law tweaks thrown in) and is considered to be very good actually. Some legal systems around the world are weakened by lobbying and politically placed judges and there is lack of evidence that this is a problem in the SA legal system.
A recent demonstration of this resilience to corruption is the fact that the courts recently put the ex-president Zuma in jail; someone with a lot of corrupt power.
Besides, protecting yourself against a corrupt legal system with beneficial legal clauses just doesn’t make sense. Why even use a contract at all if you don’t believe in the legal system? They put those clauses in there precisely because the legal system is good and they will be held to account.
No, Pfizer is just being a bully because they think they can get away with it. Same thing happens every day when individuals feel trapped into signing unfavourable employment contracts because they are too far along and feel that there are no reasonable alternatives. I think that it’s a good thing that this generated bad PR for Pfizer.
Corruption is usually systematic, and it doesn't take that much one way or the other.
And yes, it's helpful to have indemnity clauses especially in a corrupt system, because it becomes easier to negotiate within the system, and politically.
Pfizer is not a bully, they're trying to protect themselves in a very corrupt place.
And yes, it's helpful to have indemnity clauses especially in a corrupt system, because it becomes easier to negotiate within the system, and politically.
Pfizer is not a bully, they're trying to protect themselves in a very corrupt place.
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.
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.
Too late for that. Indemnity is a condition of Emergency Use Authorization in place by the FDA in the USA, Canada, anywhere else I know of.
> 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.
Your choice then. In the EU and NA, wherever nations pride themselves on their vaccination drives, either the makers of the vaccines have been indemnified by law or everyone who wants the vaccine has to sign an indemnification clause before getting the vaccine. In Germany the latter is the case.
It is a highly rational concern to distrust highly experimental vaccines, which these vaccines all are. The question in the risk calculation is, can you afford to position yourself against a means that can lessen the impact of a highly damaging virus? Perhaps individuals should make that choice, if states don't want to.
Your choice then. In the EU and NA, wherever nations pride themselves on their vaccination drives, either the makers of the vaccines have been indemnified by law or everyone who wants the vaccine has to sign an indemnification clause before getting the vaccine. In Germany the latter is the case.
It is a highly rational concern to distrust highly experimental vaccines, which these vaccines all are. The question in the risk calculation is, can you afford to position yourself against a means that can lessen the impact of a highly damaging virus? Perhaps individuals should make that choice, if states don't want to.
The vax has been rushed to market and the risk of unpleasant side effects is probably a lot higher than normal.
Throughout the chain of manufacturing, sales and distribution will be a myriad of people with a profit motive, so even if feedback starts to be received that the drug is causing nasty things to happen, the risk of news suppression and continued sale is probably high. E.g., if power goes out at a storage facility and the temperature at which the drug is held exceeds recommended levels, people might still sell it to get their income and avoid blame even though they know the batch has limited usefulness. Pfizer probably has to protect itself from these elements of fraud and / or negligence which are probably exacerbated by the basic risk of the drug's effects and efficacy.
If the drug has been rushed to market, it is probably not only the drug's effects which have been compromised, but the security and integrity of the entire supply chain that will support how, when and where the drug is administered and by whom.
Yes, Pfizer could just package 100 million vials of tap water and send them to SA. However, whether SA was powerless to do something to the co or not as a result of the agreements it had signed, I very much doubt Pfizer would last long after the news of its behaviour reached the rest of the world. I am sure it still needs to ensure that it does the best job it can.
On the other hand, politicians are masters of the blame game and of wriggling out of any agreement. Even if their language does not allow for deniability, circumstances may change so that old agreements are rendered unenforceable.
I have no doubt that if SA (or many other countries) found it to their advantage to not honour their side of the agreement when circumstances allowed, that they would do so - potentially even without raising any spurious reason to do so other than "we don't want to and you can't make us".
So although I find the terms Pfizer negotiated distasteful, I do not blame them.
I do wonder, though, whether their terms are universally the same for all countries they deal with here. I suspect not, because SA does not have the power of USA or China or even Australia. It is far easier to say to SA 'we do not believe you, so give us the rights to your military base as a guarantee' than it is to say this to many other countries.
But, much of the blame for this poor negotiating position rests with SA itself.
Throughout the chain of manufacturing, sales and distribution will be a myriad of people with a profit motive, so even if feedback starts to be received that the drug is causing nasty things to happen, the risk of news suppression and continued sale is probably high. E.g., if power goes out at a storage facility and the temperature at which the drug is held exceeds recommended levels, people might still sell it to get their income and avoid blame even though they know the batch has limited usefulness. Pfizer probably has to protect itself from these elements of fraud and / or negligence which are probably exacerbated by the basic risk of the drug's effects and efficacy.
If the drug has been rushed to market, it is probably not only the drug's effects which have been compromised, but the security and integrity of the entire supply chain that will support how, when and where the drug is administered and by whom.
Yes, Pfizer could just package 100 million vials of tap water and send them to SA. However, whether SA was powerless to do something to the co or not as a result of the agreements it had signed, I very much doubt Pfizer would last long after the news of its behaviour reached the rest of the world. I am sure it still needs to ensure that it does the best job it can.
On the other hand, politicians are masters of the blame game and of wriggling out of any agreement. Even if their language does not allow for deniability, circumstances may change so that old agreements are rendered unenforceable.
I have no doubt that if SA (or many other countries) found it to their advantage to not honour their side of the agreement when circumstances allowed, that they would do so - potentially even without raising any spurious reason to do so other than "we don't want to and you can't make us".
So although I find the terms Pfizer negotiated distasteful, I do not blame them.
I do wonder, though, whether their terms are universally the same for all countries they deal with here. I suspect not, because SA does not have the power of USA or China or even Australia. It is far easier to say to SA 'we do not believe you, so give us the rights to your military base as a guarantee' than it is to say this to many other countries.
But, much of the blame for this poor negotiating position rests with SA itself.
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
Interesting read, but the website author is a bit wacky and conspiratorial.
"If you were wondering why Ivermectin was suppressed..."
As someone who has a been party to a contract like this, not much of it is all that unusual.
"If you were wondering why Ivermectin was suppressed..."
As someone who has a been party to a contract like this, not much of it is all that unusual.
I know WHO has been concerns about this and setting up a compensation fund for developing countries.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-va...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-va...
What I would find interesting to know if people would trust more a vaccine from their government (for example the CDC) or a private vaccine maker that has immunity and wants to make a profit? Also how this differs from country to country.
The CDC holds patents for vaccines.
I thought it was NIH, they are usually entitled to a percentage, if not half, of the royalties on all vaccines.
https://www.axios.com/moderna-nih-coronavirus-vaccine-owners...
https://www.axios.com/moderna-nih-coronavirus-vaccine-owners...
Love 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.
Companies can do good things and simultaneously be criticized for the bad shit they do.
Nobody forgot about anything.
Nobody forgot about anything.
why give them a blank check?
At face value this doesn't seem unreasonable. Pfizer is offering to supply a vaccine that is generally being approved under emergency conditions, could cause harm to recipients (even a small number) which would put the company at risk of hundreds of civil lawsuits across the globe.
Western countries generally have vaccine funds where the gov't promises to shoulder the burden of any vaccine injuries. This shields the manufactures from liability. When France or the UK say they will cover the costs you can count on their word. When developing countries say this, you may want some way to hold them to the promise.
Western countries generally have vaccine funds where the gov't promises to shoulder the burden of any vaccine injuries. This shields the manufactures from liability. When France or the UK say they will cover the costs you can count on their word. When developing countries say this, you may want some way to hold them to the promise.
Pfizer should be judged by the Morales of Mephistopheles.
That 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.
> 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
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.
It's under a separate program for products used during pandemics (versus just routine vaccines).
https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp
https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp
Was the comment about COVID-19 vaccines specifically or about vaccines in general? I thought the latter.
The government might compensate, but people don’t trust a vaccine if the manufacturer isn’t willing to accept the responsibility.
> “If vaccines are so safe, why does nobody take responsibility for the side-effects?”
Well in the case of the current one, it's because we really, really want them and the governments of the countries buying them are happy to waive liability in this case to combat a pandemic that's killed about 4 million people round the world.
Pharma companies that have managed to create something so useful in such a short time and at such a huge scale pretty much deserve to do well. I don't begrudge them a bit of a bonus off the back of this.
Well in the case of the current one, it's because we really, really want them and the governments of the countries buying them are happy to waive liability in this case to combat a pandemic that's killed about 4 million people round the world.
Pharma companies that have managed to create something so useful in such a short time and at such a huge scale pretty much deserve to do well. I don't begrudge them a bit of a bonus off the back of this.
Pharma does deserve to do well in case they accept responsibility. But if they say “hey, if we screw up you’re paying for it”, that’s just having all the good stuff without any risk.
But in this case we're begging them to have it early. We're giving them a pass because we need what they've developed so badly.
The risk was development. Look at all the pharma companies that didn't make it to market.
The risk was development. Look at all the pharma companies that didn't make it to market.
There was still the risk of doing the research without having an outcome, or an issue in manufacturing causing them to not meet demand.
Wasn’t Moderna funded by the government? And they also got government contracts before they had a final product.
Aren't those "unreasonable" terms already the case in the U.S.?
There's no liability, right?