COVID Vaccine – The Deal With The Devil

The Manhattan-based pharmaceutical giant has maintained tight levels of secrecy about negotiations with governments over contracts that can determine the fate of populations. One thing that resonated in the agreements was that they consistently place Pfizer’s interests before public health imperatives,”

Another common theme is that disputes are settled in secret arbitration courts. Pfizer can change the terms of critical decisions, including delivery dates, and demand public assets as collateral.

Pfizer and Moderna, another U.S. company that has developed these vaccines using mRNA technology, face pressure from critics who accuse them of building a “duopoly.” 

Though Pfizer did not accept government funding through Operation Warp Speed, it received substantial advance orders from the United States.

Some of the terms of contracts with foreign governments suggested that some demands are extreme. For example, agreements reached with Brazil, Chile, Colombia and the Dominican Republic saw states government “immunity against precautionary seizure of any of [their] assets.”

Some described some of the agreements of collateral. It’s almost as if the company would ask the United States to put Grand Canyon as collateral. 

Pfizer has formalized 73 deals for its coronavirus vaccine. According to Transparency International, a London-based advocacy group, only five contracts have been formally published by governments, and these with “significant redactions.”

Hiding contracts from public view or publishing documents filled with redacted text means we don’t know when vaccines will arrive, what happens if things go wrong and the level of financial risk buyers are absorbing. This information is only known to the government and the drug companies. So much for government transparency. It makes one wonder what the hell they are covering up?

The contract reached with Brazil prohibits the government from making any public announcement concerning the existence, subject matter or terms of the Agreement. It also prohibits or comments on its relationship with Pfizer without the prior written consent of the company.

This is next-level stuff since in contracts with Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Peru, governments were required to sign a document that says they expressly and irrevocably waives any right of immunity. It further stipulates, either it or its assets may have or be acquired in the future. The first four were also required to waive immunity against the precautionary seizure of their assets.

These contracts stipulate that the signing government ensures to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Pfizer from and against any suits, claims, actions, demands, damages, costs, and expenses related to vaccine intellectual property.

Pfizer has not seen the same level of public scrutiny as Moderna, accused of price-gouging and delaying deliveries. It’s been predicted Pfizer will sell $54.5 billion worth of coronavirus vaccine next year, almost twice the value of Moderna’s sales.

Israel with 9,3 million inhabitants was among the first to sign an agreement with Pfizer. The vaccination rate in the country is 55 percent, and 11 051 469 vaccine doses have been distributed. On June 30, the alarming news broke that fully vaccinated patients accounted for half of COVID adults hospitalized in Israel. In just over a month, the numbers have increased dramatically. This continues to worsen in the UK, Sweden, Italy and all over the world. 

A group of independent investigative journalists in South America has revealed that Pfizer in negotiations with Brazil and Argentina, among others, demanded that the country provide state assets such as embassy buildings and military bases as a guarantee for future costs for possible lawsuits.

Pfizer has negotiated with more than a hundred countries and signed agreements with a dozen countries in Latin America that have been forced to agree to the company’s outrageous demands. 

The industry’s greed and abuse are blatant. Pfizer and other vaccine manufacturers had and continue to receive generous grants of hundreds of millions of dollars from several governments throughout the vaccine development process. The German government, for example, gave Pfizer’s business partner BioNTech $445 million.

Sweden has recently and obediently agreed to increased prices per vaccine dose in the EU’s latest Agreement with Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna. For Pfizer/BioNTech, this is an increase from around SEK 160 to SEK 200 per dose. For Moderna from 190 to about 220 kronor, according to the Financial Times.

There is no way out or any way for the buyers to break the Agreement if it turns out that the “vaccine” is harmful and significant parts of the population suffer from death or other serious side effects. The buyer must complete the Agreement and pay the total amount anyway.


  • The purchaser is aware that the efficacy and long-term effects of the vaccine are unknown and that side effects may occur which are not currently known.
  • The buyer must pay Pfizer for the ordered doses, regardless of how many you use and regardless of whether Pfizer has the preparation approved by the authorities.” (This was written before the FDA’s emergency approval of the so-called “vaccines”).
  • The buyer hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Pfizer/BioNTech and their subsidiaries indemnified against all claims, documents, claims, losses, damages, debts, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses.
  • The buyer must pay all losses, including and without limitation costs for legal fees and other legal costs.
  • Buyer must indemnify Pfizer for claims and all losses and must implement this through statutory or regulatory requirements.
  • Pfizer has the right to make necessary adjustments to the agreed number of contracted doses and delivery schedule, based on principles decided by Pfizer. The buyer is obliged to agree to any change.
  • The Agreement must be kept secret for ten years.
  • However, for the state of Israel’s agreement with Pfizer, signed by the Israeli Ministry of Health on January 6, a full 30 years of secrecy apply. The reason is unclear.

In a surprisingly underreported event, many of the world’s biggest media agreed to promote the global vaccine rollout and focus on combating the spread of harmful vaccine disinformation.

Thus the world’s most influential media groups decided to act as megaphones for the interests of the vaccine industry and state pharmaceutical authorities. The Agreement explains something that has long been obvious to many media consumers, namely the media’s startling one-sided propaganda for the vaccines. We have all seen those Facebook in-your-face fact-checking. It seems big tech can dissect trillions and trillions of messages, posts and tweets in a split second and provide a fact check and give you a link to some propaganda information, but they can’t find any traffic that has to do with child porn. 

These are some of the largest and leading media houses and news agencies in the world, including the news agencies AP and AFP, Reuters, British BBC, CBC Canada, European Broadcast Union, Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google, YouTube, The Hindu, Microsoft, Twitter and the Washington Post.

Due to their extreme profitability, privately owned online platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google evidently colluded with the established media in their efforts to restrict freedom of expression, something that millions of users have experienced in recent years. 

In Sweden, a seemingly lobotomized and paralyzed journalist corps has so far acted as the megaphones of the Public Health Agency and the vaccine industry and only delivered one-sided vaccine propaganda. The same shills are seen over and over on media platforms, voicing no criticism, opposing views or even questions.

And as if that were not bad enough, one and the same person, James Smith, sits on the board of both Reuters news agency and Pfizer: Two incompatible roles.

“If you were wondering why Ivermectin was suppressed, it is because the Agreement that countries had with Pfizer does not allow them to escape their contract, which states that even if a drug will be found to treat COVID19 the contract cannot be voided. I have mentioned this before and I have seen this posted about these contracts many times. 

In the U.K., as of July 15, 87.5% of the adult population had received one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and 67.1% had received two. Yet, symptomatic cases among partially and fully vaccinated are on the rise, with an average of 15,537 new infections a day being detected, a 40% increase from the week before.

In a July 19 report from the CDC, the agency also reported that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had received 12,313 reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine — more than doubling from the 6,079 reports of death from the week before.

Soon after the report, however, they reverted the number to 6,079 from the week before, indicating by default that no deaths from the vaccine had occurred that week,34 raising serious questions about transparency and vaccine safety.

Many other adverse events are also appearing, ranging from risks from the biologically active SARS-CoV-2 spike protein used in the vaccine to blood clots, reproductive toxicity and heart inflammation. As you can see in the confidential indemnification agreements, however, even if the vaccine turns out to be a dismal failure and a risk to short and long-term health, countries have no recourse, nor does anyone who received the experimental shots.

One question that we should all be asking is this: If the COVID-19 vaccines are, in fact, as safe and effective as the manufacturers claim, why do they require this level of indemnification?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s