The Devil is in the (Contractual) Details

Countries all over the world signed agreements with the pharmaceutical companies that manufactured the experimental mRNA treatments intended to mitigate the effects of infection with the Wuhan Coronavirus. Those agreements were kept secret, although they were known to indemnify the manufacturers from any liability for harm caused by their “vaccines”.

Various details of the agreements have leaked, and the entire unredacted contract between the European Union and Moderna has now been exposed.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Report24. The translator includes this note:

For the legal part I can give no guarantee. It was machine translated into German and I tried to the best of my ability and with help of a legal language dictionary to get it back into English. I really do hate this gobbledygook.

The translated article:

After Pfizer, EU secret contracts with Moderna also leaked: no liability, no guarantee

Report24 was one of the first media outlets in German-speaking countries to point out the full, unredacted secret agreements between the European Union and Pfizer. Romanian alternative media also published the full, unredacted text of the contract with Moderna last year.

[Redacted version of the agreement]

This is the document SANTE/2020/c3/054 SI2.838958, in which Mrs. Stella Kyriakides, as EU Commissioner, signed the contract with Moderna Switzerland GmbH on December 4, 2020 (page 30).

The documents are available at in Romania and again at the Italian broadcaster RAI, which to this day also offers the unredacted version of the Pfizer contracts.

Worth mentioning: Only recently the democratic process in Switzerland to force the government to disclose vaccine contracts failed. In both countries, citizens have to pay billions for active ingredients whose properties have not yet been clarified; there are justified doubts and questions about production and shelf life and contracts they are unaware of.

Big problems with Pfizer contracts

Legal experts describe many passages of the parts of the contract with Pfizer that have become known to date as immoral, and those who signed for the EU never had the political mandate to make such far-reaching concessions that contradict the applicable laws, standards and rules. A complete analysis of the Pfizer contract by a qualified legal scholar is unfortunately not known to us to date, but would be very important in terms of informing and educating the public. Now we can hope that knowledgeable lawyers will also take a look at the contract with Moderna.

Moderna contract designed significantly differently

The EU presented the process of ordering 80 million doses of Moderna through the contracts linked above as simply “contract approval”. The relevant official EU press document can be found here:

The contract provides for the initial purchase of 80 million doses of vaccine on behalf of all EU Member States, with an option to order an additional 80 million doses.

The agreed price was USD 22.50 per dose (page 19) — a total of USD 1.8 billion. The recipients of the vaccines — i.e. the participating EU countries — must submit any complaints within 20 days. If they fail to do so, the product is considered accepted and the manufacturer is released from any liability (page 17). As far as product quality is concerned, it is also interesting that the member state is solely liable for damage occurring after delivery. At first glance, that may not sound explosive, but if you look at the specifications for storage and cooling at extremely low temperatures and the complete freedom from vibration, numerous questions arise.

Effect not guaranteed

The fact that the manufacturer gives no guarantees about the effectiveness and properties of its “vaccines” and that the products can have “unacceptable” side effects is already stated on page 3. It also states that in the event of a lack of availability, a lack of effectiveness and “unacceptable” side effects, the costs and liability are borne by the buyer, i.e. the member states.

The parties acknowledge that the accelerated timelines for the development, production, sale and delivery of the Product mean that as of the effective date of this APA, the Contractor cannot under any circumstances guarantee or accept any liability that the Product will finally be available or achieves the desired results, i.e. shows sufficient efficacy to prevent COVID-19 infection or is without unacceptable side effects. Participating Member States agree to share these risks, including the obligation of Participating Member States to indemnify the Contractor and its CMOs for liability incurred, settlements paid and certain costs.

Limitation of Liability

Page 33 states that the manufacturer’s liability is limited to a maximum of 20 percent of the contract amount. The formulations under (II.5 Indemnification) are certainly explosive. It is about a limitation of liability for basically everyone involved in the development, manufacture, testing and sale of the vaccines, with the exception of “willful misconduct, gross negligence or failure to follow good manufacturing practice.” Otherwise, the “participating member state” has to reimburse an accused for any costs:

In the event that a indemnified Person becomes aware of any claim, demand, suit, or proceeding, or the threat of any claim, demand, suit, or proceeding against such indemnified Person that may reasonably be believed to involve a loss cause or are subject to the indemnification herein (and in the Vaccine Order Form with each Participating Member State) (a “Claim”), the Contractor shall ensure that such Released Persons promptly notify the Participating Member State of the Claim and that such indemnified Person communicates with such Participating Member State cooperate appropriately and the participating Member State concerned (at the expense and expense of the participating Member State, deemed to be losses of the indemnified persons) access to such documents and information as are reasonably necessary and appropriate.

The Participating Member State shall indemnify those indemnified persons in respect of that claim and shall verify that the conditions set out in Article A II.5.1 are met, in the event that a Participating Member State becomes aware of a claim against an indemnified person, the participating Member State shall promptly notify the Contractor in writing of such claim, together with any information relating to such claims that are owned or controlled by that participating Member State.

5 thoughts on “The Devil is in the (Contractual) Details

  1. The manufacturers of the notavax were confident in their product that they insisted on not being held liable and didn’t guarantee its performance.
    How charming. What sort of idiots would sign such a contract?

  2. The contract itself appears to be a violation of the Nuremburg Protocols. Why wasn’t Ivermectin and acquired immunity ever considered?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.