Thread by @eh_den

#PFIZERLEAK - CRIMES AGAINST #EU-MANITY.

HOW THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION DECEIVED EU MEMBER STATES AND EU CITIZENS.

The story behind the biggest European Commission (EC) regulatory scandal of all times.

Welcome to 21st century totalitarianism, EC style.

(thread)

#PfizerLeak

On the 17th of June 2020 the EC declared the "EU Strategy for COVID-19 vaccines".

It was based on two pillars:

1) "Securing sufficient production of vaccines in the EU through Advance Purchase Agreements (APAs)" with manufacturers.

#PfizerLeak
eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/…

2) Adapt the "regulatory framework ...making use of existing regulatory flexibility to accelerate the development, authorisation and availability of vaccines while maintaining the standards for vaccine quality, safety and efficacy."
#PfizerLeak

The regulatory method which the EC has triggered is called Emergency Support Instrument (ESI). Via it, the "Commission carries out the procurement on behalf of the Member States including the terms applicable to such procurement."

#PfizerLeak

However, by using the ESI "the liability for the deployment and use of the vaccine, including any specific indemnification required by a given APA will remain with the purchasing Member States".

#PfizerLeak

The following criteria were supposed to be considered:
1) Soundness of scientific approach and technology used, including drawing on any evidence related to quality, safety and efficacy"
2) Liability: what special liability coverage, if any, companies would require.
#PfizerLeak

Vaccines themselves are not supposed to be pathogenic (capable of causing disease). However, because all the vaccines were gene therapy. which are pathogenic, these products fell under the definition of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

ct.catapult.org.uk/sites/default/…

#PfizerLeak

As part of the ESI, the EC proposed "a regulation to derogate temporarily... from certain provisions of the GMO Directive for clinical trials with COVID-19 vaccines (and also COVID-19 treatments) that contain or consist of GMOs."

#PfizerLeak

Notice how this derogation has been applied "to the operations necessary for the clinical trial phase and for compassionate or EMERGENCY USE IN THE CONTEXT OF COVID-19."

This is why manufacturers did not have to go via the normal EU gene therapy safety process...

#PfizerLeak

The EU strategy for COVID-19 vaccines raised a lot of concerns, so on the 24th of September 2020 the EU published a press release entitled "Questions and Answers: Coronavirus and the EU Vaccines Strategy".

ec.europa.eu/commission/pre…

#PfizerLeak

Member states were only given FIVE DAYS to decide if they want to be part of the agreement or not. It meant they were only given 5 days to do a risk assessment to it. Member States were responsible for purchasing the vaccines when they became available.

#PfizerLeak

"MEPs were given the opportunity to see the contracts ... but only for a very short period of time, and without being allowed to...photocopy anything...they could not tell...what they had found out or share the information with the public."

europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document…
#PfizerLeak

When being asked if the EC will publish the contracts, they justified not doing so because it contained "sensitive business information".
The EC claimed it is accountable towards European institutions and the European citizen, but only mentioning financial elements.
#PfizerLeak

LIABILITY & INDEMNIFICATION
EC was asked if it made concessions on liability to #BigPharma, in particular on indemnification for certain liabilities. It replied that agreements through the Vaccines Strategy will be compliant with EU law & Product Liability Directive.

#PfizerLeak

Two months later, the Commissioner for Health, Stella Kyriakides, said that this would not, in fact, be the case. 'If the company is not held responsible, it will not be required to pay compensation’.

europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document…

#COptiGate

In fact, the reason for it was because if "the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when [they] put the product into circulation was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered."

#PfizerGate

COMPANIES WERE RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE THEY KNEW ABOUT POSSIBLE DEFECTS! Please read in my #COptiGate threads, start at the summary edition, and go back and read more about the worst design flaw in human history that is impacting your health.

https://twitter.com/eh_den/status/1433428404712337419

#PfizerLeak

According to the EC communication from September 2020, "Member States (were) to indemnify the manufacturer for possible liabilities incurred ONLY UNDER SPECIFIC CONDITIONS set out in the APAs."

#PfizerGate

AstraZeneca "specific conditions" (1/2):
"Member State shall indemnify and hold harmless AstraZeneca…FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND LIABILITIES...RELATING TO…THE USE OR ADMINISTRATION OF THE VACCINE."
(except Willful Misconduct or cGMP failure)

#PfizerLeak

AstraZeneca "specific conditions" (2/2)
"with claims for death, physical, mental, or emotional injury, illness, disability, or condition, fear of the foregoing, property loss or damage, and business interruption of the injured party or a Related Person".

#PfizerLeak

Pfizer "specific conditions" (1/2):
"indemnify and hold harmless (Pfizer)…from and against any and all liabilities incurred...arising from or related to...transport, storage, distribution, handling, USE, ADMINISTRATION, or change in the condition of the Vaccine."
#PfizerLeak

Pfizer "specific conditions" (2/2):
This Indemnification is only "for the following losses suffered by (people)…: death, physical injury, mental or emotional injury, illness, disability, property loss or damage, economic losses or business interruption."

#PfizerLeak

Moderna "specific conditions" (1/2):
"indemnify and hold harmless (Moderna)…FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL DAMAGES LIABILITIES…regardless of whether the losses…regarding…USE OR DEPLOYMENT of the product"

#PfizerLeak

As you saw above, when the EC claimed the "indemnification of manufacturer for possible liabilities incurred ONLY (occurs) UNDER SPECIFIC CONDITIONS set out in the APAs" they forgot to mention that THESE CONDITIONS PROVIDED 100% INDEMNIFICATION.

This was a deception.

#COptiGate

THIS THREAD WILL CONTINUE SOON !!!!

Coming soon - legal opinion on the indemnification clause, and much, MUCH more!

PLEASE RE-VISIT THIS THREAD AND SHARE IT WITH OTHERS!

[please use the "Show replies" below to read the rest.]
👇👇👇

In March 2021, a Belgian law firm has conducted an "analysis of the legality of the exemption clauses in the contracts with the manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines made public by the European Commission"

#PfizerLeak

Since the Belgian law governed all the EC contracts, this opinion answered "the question of whether the manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines can rely, against the Member States, on the exemption clauses provided for in the analysed agreements."

#PfizerLeak

"Under Belgian law, the (contracts) clauses… should, a priori (in principle), be considered illegal" because the contract indemnification clauses "deprive the contracts of their substance and any useful effect."

#PfizerLeak

Because of the indemnification, "manufacturers no longer have any real incentive to deliver and guarantee effective and safe vaccines. As a result, there is no substance to the manufacturers' commitment."

#PfizerLeak

HOWEVER, a "judge may use…the exceptional circumstances…to mitigate the apparent unlawfulness of these clauses"

#PfizerLeak

"it is possible…the judge declare the clauses valid if manufacturers…demonstrate (they could not) foresee the existence of serious adverse effects and/or inefficacy"

#PfizerLeak

three main types of “exemption” clauses in the…agreements.
(i) liability,
(ii) warranty
(iii) indemnification clauses.

"Clauses exempting liability must be interpreted in a manner unfavorable to the party benefiting from them."

#PfizerLeak

"These clauses must be interpreted and enforced in the light of the principle of good faith". "exemption clause grants to one party a "manifestly disproportionate" advantage in view of the "extremely serious consequences of the injuries suffered" by the victim".
#PfizerLeak

"liability and warranty exemption or limitation clauses cannot produce effects (obligations) towards third parties."

#PfizerLeak

Exemption clauses are not valid if they relate to "essential obligations of the parties", meaning, if there is a fraud conducted by one of the parties, nor it can protect from criminal liability.

#PfizerLeak

These exemption clauses are also not valid if there was intentional misconduct, and/or there are specific laws which prohibit liability & warranty exemption clauses.

#PfizerLeak

"Warranty limitation or exemption clauses are allowed and can cover different aspects such as the warranty period, defects (apparent or latent), etc."

#PfizerLeak

The Belgian law relating to latent defects (A hidden or concealed defect which could not be discovered by reasonable and customary observation or inspection) is "suppletive and the parties may validly derogate from them contractually."

#PfizerLeak

When it comes to warranty, According to the Belgian law, "manufacturers…must demonstrate that they could not have known, under any circumstances, the existence of the defect or…that the defect was absolutely undetectable"
#PfizerLeak

In Belgium, INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSES are governed by similar principles of liability and warranty, with some very distinct differences.

#PfizerLeak

The indemnification clauses are not questionable, and allow the transfer of the burden of indemnification of the victim from one party to the other, EVEN IN THE CASE OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE, ALSO FOR PERSONAL INJURY.

#PfizerLeak

Based on the above, the AstraZeneca contract, "do not warrant or assume any liability arising out of or relating to lack of safety or efficacy of COV1D-19 vaccines"… and the … "Belgian law allows such clauses", however the scope & validity can be questioned.

#PfizerLeak

Because "the purpose or the effect of liability and warranty exemption clauses cannot be that of exempting the party benefiting from them from its criminal liability", so if the product is dangerous there is a criminal liability to unintentional homicide or injuries.

#PfizerLeak

Because of the wording of the contract and because of the exemption obligation which deprive the manufacturer from their commitments of a large part of their substance, prima facie, unlawful.

#PfizerLeak

"Under Belgian law, the seller has two main obligations: to deliver and to guarantee the product he sells" so a "safe and effective vaccine is an essential obligation of the seller", so any exemption clauses that try to remove these obligations make it invalid.

#PfizerLeak

Unless manufacturers can prove they could not have known, under any circumstances, about the existence of product defects, including latent defects, they cannot be exempted from liability. As I mentioned above - they cannot claim it.

https://twitter.com/eh_den/status/1434585716990828551

#PfizerLeak

Manufacturers will use the "exceptional circumstances" to justify all the exemption, and claim that "the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when the product was out into circulation did not allow the existence of the defect to be detected"

#PfizerLeak

Manufacturers might claim that because they got an approval from the EMA their product should be presumed as safe, but a recent case-law @ European Court of Human Rights declared that if "safe" is "defective” the victim would be entitled to indemnification.

#PfizerLeak

In 2017 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) said vaccine injured parties can bring "serious, specific and consistent evidence" and it can prevail if it shows the vaccine is "the most plausible explanation for the occurrence of the damage".

curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
#PfizerLeak

Even with "exceptional circumstances", "IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE MANUFACTURER KNEW OR COULD HAVE DETECTED THE SERIOUS ADVERSE EFFECTS AND/OR INEFFECTIVENESS OF THE VACCINE AT THE TIME THE VACCINES WERE LAUNCHED THE EXEMPTION CLAUSES SHOULD BE DECLARED INVALID".

#PfizerLeak

SUMMARY:

1) The medical regulator in Europe (EMA) knew about the concerns related to gene therapy treatment, some related to codon optimization technology.
See the 1st #COptiGate thread if you have not read it yet.

https://twitter.com/eh_den/status/1426885632140394499

2) The EC used the EU Strategy for COVID-19 vaccines to remove the safety protocols by implementing "flexibility", ignoring the key criteria of its own vaccine program which was to draw "on any evidence related to quality, SAFETY AND EFFICACY".

The proof is in the pudding.

3) The EC has MISLED member states, Members of European Parliament (MEPs), and the general public in September 2020 when it published the "Questions and Answers: Coronavirus and the EU Vaccines Strategy".

4) Not allowing MEP to perform their duty and perform real due diligence by preventing them from getting expert advice on the matter and by giving countries ONLY FIVE days to decide whether or not to join the EC contract was unethical, unreasonable, and undemocratic.

5) under the claims of "sensitive business information" THE EC HAS CONCEALED from the people of the European Union THE INDEMNITY CLAUSES and LIED WHEN CLAIMING THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION IS ONLY UNDER SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.

6) the EC continues to mislead MEPs. On 31/8/2021 it informed a MEP that "manufacturers of pharmaceutical companies would be held liable for the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines in accordance with the Product Liability Directive."
It is not the case.
europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document…

7) The contract that was signed with the manufacturers superseded and overruled the Product Liability Directive. It gives total indemnity.

Either the EC has signed an illegal contract with the manufacturers, or the EC is misleading MEPs and to the public. You choose.

8) Based on the legal opinion I have shared, IT IS POSSIBLE TO CHALLANGE THE CONTRACT BASED ON THE USAGE OF CODON OPTIMIZATION AND THE VARIOUS DESIGN DECISIONS (SUCH AS USING S-2P).

See more on #COptiGate - the summary edition

https://twitter.com/eh_den/status/1433428404712337419

APPENDIX A:
Contracts are located at:
T.ME/EH_DEN_FILES

APPENDIX B:
PFIZERLEAK: EXPOSING THE PFIZER MANUFACTURING AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT.
(the thread that started it all)...
#PfizerLeak

https://twitter.com/eh_den/status/1419653002818990085

APPENDIX C:
My telegram channel
T.ME/EH_DEN

Appendix D:
My blog:
SenseOfAwareness.com

PLEASE RETWEET THIS THREAD!

PLEASE SUPPORT MY WORK via the following channels:

PayPal: paypal.me/ehdenbiber
Bitcoin: bit.co.in/ehden
XRP: rUpmsXibCjtFpPaP4GmzRCuU4tx5UaP1Js
Patreon: patreon.com/ehden

EHDEN

#PFIZERLEAK - CRIMES AGAINST #EU-MANITY - BONUS EDITION

More treasures from the Belgian legal opinion...

This time, about the validity of the indemnification clauses in the agreements

#PfizerLeak

The legal opinion which I have shared with you had one more section, in which the legal firm looked into the indemnification clauses as appeared in the redacted contract of AstraZeneca, CureVac, and Sanofi.

#PfizerLeak

Sadly, the reviewers did not have the unredacted contracts; I am sure that if they would have seen the other parts which I showed via my #PfizerLeak posts, they would have been even more shocked than they were. Here's the Brazilian contract:

senseofawareness.com/2021/07/31/pfi…

#PfizerLeak

The clauses in the contracts indeed, according to the Belgian law, qualify as indemnification clauses.

THE AUTHORS OF THIS OPINION DESCRIBE THEM AS "REMARKABLE" - again, they never saw the embassy's clauses or the exemption from long-term related complications…

#PfizerLeak

What makes these agreements special is the broadness of the indemnification - it is being given not only to the manufacturers, but also to all affiliates, partners etc., as well as officers, directors etc.

The contracts give total immunity to anyone involved.

#PfizerLeak

There is an interesting aspect to the contracts - Belgian law permits parties "to contractually provide that one of the parties will bear compensation for" death or damage to physical integrity; however these are covered by CRIMINAL LAW.

#PfizerLeak

Surprisingly, "the lawfulness of an indemnification clause applicable to the civil consequences of a criminal offence is not yet clearly established by the case-law."
Such clauses should be considered unlawful, especially if involving an intentional element.

#PfizerLeak

On top of that, "the indemnification clause cannot be interpreted as relating to possible criminal fines that the offending party (in this case, the manufacturer) will have to pay."

Because of the broadness of the problematic clauses, the (essential) obligation of the manufacturers to deliver and guarantee effective and safe vaccines is, in reality, non-existing, because the contract is under complete control and power of the manufacturers.

#PfizerLeak

Article VI.91/5.30 of the Code of Economic Law (CEL) describes a contract where risk was placed only on one party when they normally are not supposed to be an unfair contract.
The article is not applicable to this contract, but it demonstrates the problematic clauses.
#PfizerLeak

"if the manufacturers and/or their agents, servants or representatives are found to have committed an intentional fault (manufacturers planned it to cause harm) or to have violated "good manufacturing practices", the indemnification clauses are not valid.

#PfizerLeak

SANCTION APPLICABLE TO UNLAWFUL CLAUSES:
Let's assume a judge decides that the indemnification clauses (or any problematic clauses) to be invalid. What sanctions can we expect a judge to declare as a result of that?

#PfizerLeak

If the judge finds it as such, the solution is the nullification of the whole contract, unless the parties have severability clauses. Pfizer & Moderna have such elements which state removed clauses must be replaced; AstraZeneca only describe removal, no replacement.
#PfizerLeak

HOWEVER, if the indemnification clauses are such an essential part of the contract (almost precondition), the agreement must be cancelled in its entirety.

#PfizerLeak

ALSO, the judge can decide that even though there are severability clause, if the unlawful clauses are so inseparable from the rest of the agreement in the minds of the parties that the contract must be cancelled.

#PfizerLeak

A judge cannot decide to replace unlawful clauses with another clause, but it can nullify part some of the clauses or part of them, if:
1) Clauses can be removed
2) Removal will correspond to the common intention of the parties upon signing.
3) It is permitted by law
#PfizerLeak

Sides might agree contractually to review the review clause to renegotiate nullified clauses (if a court rules so).
Contractually, Pfizer has it, Moderna does not seem as if it has one (no "good faith"), and AstraZeneca doesn't.

#PfizerLeak

It is obvious from the contracts that manufactures would not have entered it without the problematic clauses, and the problematic clauses should lead to nullification of the contract.

HOWEVER the legal opinion assumes it will only lead to partial nullification.

#PfizerLeak

The reason the opinion does not believe it will lead to total nullification is because the current condition we are in will incentivize the judge to nullify only the problematic clauses and keep the contract not nullified.

#PfizerLeak

FINALLY, If a judge would rule to nullify only the indemnification clauses, the manufacturers will not be allowed to change the pricing of the product.

#PfizerLeak

A song for your hearts, after this LONG thread:
…
Your devotion
Opens all life's treasures
And deliverance
From the fruits of evil.
…
For you here's a song
To make your day brighter
One that will last you long
Through troubled days
…
You need devotion…