In February, Pfizer was accused of “bullying” governments in COVID vaccine negotiations in a groundbreaking story by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.[1] A government official at the time noted, “Five years in the future when these confidentiality agreements are over you will learn what really happened in these negotiations.”[2]
Public Citizen has identified several unredacted Pfizer contracts that describe the outcome of these negotiations. The contracts offer a rare glimpse into the power one pharmaceutical corporation has gained to silence governments, throttle supply, shift risk and maximize profits in the worst public health crisis in a century. We describe six examples from around the world below.[3]
TABLE 1: SELECT PFIZER CONTRACTS REVIEWED[4]
| Purchaser | Date | Type | Doses | Price Per Dose | Total Cost |
| Albania | Draft[5] | Draft Definitive Agreement | 500,000 | $12 | $6 million |
| Brazil | 03/15/21[6] | Definitive Agreement | 100 million | $10 | $1 billion |
| Colombia | 02/02/21[7] | Definitive Agreement | 10 million | $12 | $120 million |
| Chile | 12/01/20[8] | Definitive Agreement (Redacted) | 10 million | Redacted | Redacted |
| Dominican Republic | 10/29/20[9] | Binding Term Sheet[10] | 8 million | $12 | $96 million |
| European Commission | 11/20/20[11] | Custom Advance Purchase Agreement | 200 million | $18.6[12] | $3.7 billion |
| Peru | 17/9/20[13] | Binding Term Sheet | 10 million | $12 | $120 million |
| United States | 21/07/20[14] | Custom Advance Purchase Agreement (Redacted) | 100 million | $19.5 | $1.95 billion |
| United Kingdom | 12/10/20[15] | Custom Advance Purchase Agreement (Redacted) | 30 million | Redacted | Redacted |
Pfizer’s demands have generated outrage around the world, slowing purchase agreements and even pushing back the delivery schedule of vaccines.[16] If similar terms are included as a condition to receive doses, they may threaten President Biden’s commitment to donate 1 billion vaccine doses.[17]
High-income countries have enabled Pfizer’s power through a favorable system of international intellectual property protection.[18] High-income countries have an obligation to rein in that monopoly power. The Biden administration, for example, can call on Pfizer to renegotiate existing commitments and pursue a fairer approach in the future. The administration can further rectify the power imbalance by sharing the vaccine recipe, under the Defense Production Act, to allow multiple producers to expand vaccine supplies.[19] It can also work to rapidly secure a broad waiver of intellectual property rules (TRIPS waiver) at the World Trade Organization.[20] A wartime response against the virus demands nothing less.
1. Pfizer Reserves the Right to Silence Governments.
In January, the Brazilian government complained that Pfizer was insisting on contractual terms in negotiations that were “unfair and abusive.”[21] The government pointed to five terms that it found problematic, ranging from a sovereign immunity waiver on public assets to a lack of penalties for Pfizer if deliveries were late. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism soon published a scathing story on Pfizer’s vaccine negotiations.[22]
Less than two months later, the Brazilian government accepted a contract with Pfizer that contains most of the same terms that the government once deemed unfair.[23] Brazil waived sovereign immunity; imposed no penalties on Pfizer for late deliveries; agreed to resolve disputes under a secret private arbitration under the laws of New York; and broadly indemnified Pfizer for civil claims.[24]
The contract also contains an additional term not included in other Latin American agreements[25] reviewed by Public Citizen: The Brazilian government is prohibited from making “any public announcement concerning the existence, subject matter or terms of [the] Agreement” or commenting on its relationship with Pfizer without the prior written consent of the company.[26] Pfizer gained the power to silence Brazil.
Brazil is not alone. A similar nondisclosure provision is contained in the Pfizer contract with the European Commission and the U.S. government.[27] In those cases, however, the obligation applies to both parties.
read more:
Replies