Documents sent Ministry of Foreign Affairs The Kovit Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CBI) shows that it was only on February 24 that it asked federal embassies for information on the “Lyonine” clauses in the Pfizer-Jansen agreement. Most embassies said the countries had accepted the suggestions.
In February 2021, Pfizer had already made six offers for vaccine sales to Brazil, three in August, two in November and one in February 15. The The signing of the contract with Pfizer and Johnson was carried out On March 19th.
Government signs agreement to purchase 138 million dose vaccines from Pfizer and Johnson
According to documents sent by Ithamarati to Kovit’s CBI TV Globo Because of the access, the ministry asked embassies to assess whether the terms of the contract imposed by the pharmaceutical companies for the sale of vaccines were well accepted by other countries. In total, 18 embassies and consulates responded to requests from late February to early March.
The delay in closing contracts with Pfizer and Johnson is justified by clauses imposed by federal agencies. Since the talks began in 2020, Kovit’s CBI has been investigating why the government closed the contracts only in 2021. The CBI leadership understands that the vaccine would have already progressed in Brazil if the government had accepted the proposals earlier.
Itamarti’s request was sent to embassies: Berlin (Germany), Bern (Switzerland), Canberra (Australia), Jakarta, Lisbon (Portugal), London (England), Mexico, Ottawa (Canada), Paris (France), Pretoria (South) Africa , Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), Santiago (Chile), San Jose (Costa Rica), Seoul (South Korea), Singapore, Tel Aviv (Israel), Tokyo (Japan) and Washington (USA).
In its request, Itamarati said it was “MS negotiations” [Ministério da Saúde] There were “obstacles arising from certain contract terms” with Johnson and Pfizer.
Subdivisions considered by the Lyonine government:
- Disposal of the country’s assets abroad for the benefit of the pharmaceutical company as a guarantee of payment;
- The definition of an arbitral tribunal in New York to resolve any disputes between the company and the government;
- The federal government accepts responsibility for vaccine damage.
The rule of liability for potential side effects of the vaccine is a barrier to agreement between the federal government and Pfizer
In response to Italy’s request, most countries accepted the so-called “Lyonine” subdivisions by the Brazilian government.
The Brazilian embassy in Washington, D.C., responded that the outbreak had crossed the barrier in March 2020, at the onset of the epidemic. The answer also states that there is a law in the United States authorizing the Secretary of Health to, in cases of health crisis, the Secretary of Health. Declare a supplier company exempt from legal liability for a product.
“The procedure was implemented in March 2020 and the vaccine against Covit-19 applies to suppliers’ cases to the US government. Therefore, the company cannot sue for damage caused by its vaccine and at this time acquires immunity. ‘Deliberate misconduct’,” he said. .
The UK embassy said it agrees with the terms of account, calling it “the most accepted practice in the British government” and “even more so in times of epidemics.”
‘In the UK, pharmacists and health professionals are expected to be immune from the possible side effects of using vaccines under emergency use. As one spokesman for the Post put it, ‘This has long been accepted by the British government’ – rather, in times of epidemics, ‘when we needed fast and quantitative vaccines,’ the document said.
The Brazilian embassy to the European Union pointed out that the difference in the matter proposed to Brazil was small. “There are some differences in the terms for accepting civil liability for damage to vaccines to third parties,” he said.
Australia has also shown its commitment to accountability, as Itamarati has returned to the federal government. It ultimately agreed with the mechanism for avoiding compensation “due to the need to adequately share the risks of obtaining early access to a vaccine”.
In response, Canada agreed to the treaty, saying “it is no different from any other country in the world.”
“To the Minister [de Compras Governamentais] He further confirmed that there are compensation terms in the vaccine contracts and added that “Canada is ((of course) no different from any other country in the world”. [definitivamente não é diferente de qualquer outro país neste mundo]”.
Chile’s health minister told the embassy that he was seeking legislation to allow them to take responsibility for any adverse reactions. According to the Brazilian embassy in Tokyo, Japan has already approved a similar law.
The embassy in Mexico said, “There are at least two factors that indicate that Mexico is accepting the terms imposed by the pharmaceutical companies.”
“The first is the opposition to disclosing any details about the treaties, and the second is the registration time for the country to close such contracts, which puts Mexico among the top ten countries to launch a vaccination campaign,” the document says.
Other embassies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, have not been able to obtain definitive information from local authorities.
Indonesia similar to Brazil
Only the Brazilian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, pointed out that the clauses imposed by the company would make it difficult to close the agreement.
According to the report, Indonesia pointed to contract requirements and logistics difficulties as major obstacles to the conclusion of negotiations, due to the need to store vaccines at very low temperatures.
The document states that the person in charge of obtaining vaccines in the country is “not prepared to write,” referring to Pfizer’s requirement not to be politely liable for any legal claims arising from the use of immunosuppressive agents.
This rule has been adopted in other countries such as Canada. The Seoul embassy pointed out that “where the arbitration will take place” was not stated, but pointed out that the setting up of arbitration mechanisms in the respective host cities was “the most common practice in this type of agreement”. Companies.
As for the EU, negotiations allowed for a change in the choice of the courts in Brussels, Belgium, to resolve conflicts between the treaty parties.
This requirement is not made available to all countries. The United Kingdom and South Korea have said no such agreement is needed. As in the case of the EU, he explained that the vaccines were paid in advance.
“The shortfall in selling assets abroad to guarantee the payment of contracts is justified, at least in part by the EC’s widespread practice of pre-payment to pharmaceutical companies. These” advance payments “are a way to finance production costs and reduce the risk of large-scale orders,” he said. .