New York Times beskriver hur “Dödens Spekulanter” kammar hem vinsterna för vaccinet mot Covid-19!

Hur ser Sveriges kontrakt med läkemedelsföretagens ut?

New York Times beskriver hur “Dödens Spekulanter” kammar hem vinsterna för vaccinet mot Covid-19!

Av Dick Emanuelsson

”Skattebetalarna betalar kalaset”, brukar det låta medan ”krämarna tar hem vinsterna”! Och i fallet vaccinet mot Covid-19 är prognosen att denna ”investering”, som för läkemedelsföretagen INTE är en investering för den betalar, just det, skattebetalarna, så kommer vinstresultatet för dessa bolag att rusa mot astronomiska höjder.

För nyliberalerna kommer det att registreras som ytterligare ett exempel på kapitalismens förträfflighet. Men frågan är om ens nyliberaler i regeringsställning, som nu har ett helt folk som ska vaccineras och är desperata eftersom bolagen inte producerar i den takt de utlovade när de HEMLIGA kontrakten skrevs, instämmer.

 

ETT ANTAL REPORTRAR och ”grävare” i New York Times har försökt gräva för att få fram detaljer i de kontrakt som olika regeringar i världen har skrivit med giganter som Pfizer eller AstraZeneca. Men de är nästan uteslutande hemliga, både om pris på vaccinet som konsekvenser om vaccinet inte håller måttet eller om tragedier utspelas i kölvattnet av en massvaccinering.

Och trots att det är skattebetalarna som gör investeringarna för att få fram ett vaccin, så är det läkemedelsföretag som vanligtvis blir ägare av patenten. ”Det betyder att företag kan bestämma hur och var vacciner tillverkas och hur mycket de kostar. Såsom det förklaras i CureVac-avtalet så ska företaget `ha ensamrätt att utnyttja´ denna äganderätt”, skriver USA-reportrarna i sitt reportage.

Och de fortsätter:

 

”DETTA HAR BLIVIT EN KÄLLA till tvist under flera månader. En samling av länder, ledda av Indien och Sydafrika har till Världshandelsorganisationen ansökt om att läkemedelsbolagen ska avstå från rätten till `copyrighten´ för att generiska läkemedelsproducenter kan börja producera vaccinerna. WHO, Världshälsoorganisationen har stött denna idé, men den har praktiskt taget fördömts av opposition från regeringarna i USA och Europa, vars läkemedelsföretag hävdar att patent- och vinsten från dem - är livsnerven för innovation”.

En cynisk inställning eftersom det är staternas regeringar, inte bolagen som har satsat miljarder för att snabbt få fram ett vaccin.

Bolagen kräver också att de viktigaste villkoren för vaccinkontrakt, priset per dos ska censureras i de offentliga versionerna i kontrakten med regeringarna. Det är fallet med Colombia där spekulationerna talar om att regeringen betalar tio gånger priset och att en stor del av pengarna stoppas i egna fickor. För läkemedelsföretagens del hävdar dessa att det är en ”affärshemlighet”.

”Vissa läkemedelsföretag har inkluderat klausuler i sina leveransavtal som gör det möjligt för dem att avbryta leveranser om länder avslöjar priset”, understryker New York Times.

”Genom att insistera på att deras priser förblir konfidentiella har tillverkarna övertag över statliga förhandlare, som inte vet hur mycket andra länder betalar”.

MEN DET LÄCKER, så klart, också bland de inblandade regeringarna.

”Enligt rapporter i media betalade Europeiska Kommissionen 2,19 dollar för varje dos av vaccinet som utvecklats av University of Oxford och AstraZeneca, medan Sydafrika betalade mer än dubbelt, 5,25 dollar. Läkemedelsföretagen svarade inte heller på förfrågningar (från NYT) om att se kontrakten eller förklarade varför sekretess var nödvändigt”.

Reportrarna nämner fallet med en belgisk tjänsteman felaktigt avslöjade en prislista som visade att skattebetalare i USA betalade 19,50 dollar per dos Pfizer-vaccin, medan européerna betalade 14,70 dollar.

 

”I USA ÄR LÄKEMEDELSFÖRETAGEN skyddade från nästan allt ansvar om deras vacciner inte fungerar eller orsakar allvarliga biverkningar. Regeringen skyddar tillverkare av läkemedel för att behandla COVID-19 enligt lagen om allmän beredskap, en åtgärd från 2005 som syftar till att påskynda tillgången till droger under hälsokriser”.

Så fungerar kapitalismen där moral är ständigt frånvarande, allt för att profiten ska registrera nya höjder.

.................

Secret deals for vaccines against Covid-19

By Matt Apuzzo and Selam Gebrekidan / New York Times

 

When members of the European Parliament came together this month to read the first publicly available contract for the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines , they noticed something was missing. In fact, many things were missing.

 

The price per dose? Censored The delivery schedule? Censored The amount of money paid in advance? Censored.

 

And that contract, between the German pharmaceutical company CureVac and the European Union, is considered one of the most transparent in the world.

 

Governments have invested billions of dollars to help drug companies develop vaccines and are spending billions more to buy the doses. But most of the details of the agreements with those companies remain secret. Governments and public health organizations have agreed to the demands of the pharmaceutical companies that ask to keep the details secret.

 

Only a few weeks have passed since the vaccination campaign began, but that secrecy is already making accountability difficult. Pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and AstraZeneca recently announced that they would not be able to meet their delivery deadlines in Europe, causing widespread concern over the spread of dangerous variants of the virus. However, the terms of their contracts remain closely guarded secrets, making it difficult to question company or government officials about responsibilities or solutions.

 

However, available documents suggest that drug companies demanded and got flexible delivery times, patent protection, and immunity from being held liable if something goes wrong. In some cases, countries are prohibited from donating or reselling doses, a ban that could hamper efforts to bring vaccines to poor countries.

 

Governments are signing at least three types of vaccine deals: some buy directly from drug companies. Others buy through regional bodies like the European Union or the African Union. Many will turn to the Global Access Fund for COVID-19 Vaccines (COVAX), an alliance of more than 190 countries that is buying from drug companies with the goal of making vaccines available worldwide - in especially in poor countries — for free or at reduced cost. Some governments have signed agreements with both manufacturers and COVAX.

 

The United States has reserved 400 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, enough for 200 million people, and is close to ordering an additional 200 million doses by the summer, with options to buy up to 500 million more. It also has advance purchase agreements for more than 1 billion doses from four other companies whose inoculations do not yet have US regulatory approval.

 

The European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union that negotiates on behalf of its 27 member states, has almost 2.3 billion doses under contract and is negotiating for about 300 million more, according to data compiled by UNICEF and Airfinity, an analytics company. scientists.

 

COVAX says it has agreements for just over 2 billion doses of vaccines, although it also keeps its contracts secret. Only about a dozen of the 92 countries that qualify for vaccine subsidies from the alliance have managed to secure deals with individual companies, for a total of 500 million doses.

 

Despite the secrecy, some government and regulatory documents, public statements, interviews and the occasional slip-up have revealed some important details about the vaccine deals. This is what we know so far.

 

Governments helped create vaccines

 

Developing vaccines is a risky business. Companies rarely invest in manufacturing until they are confident that their vaccines are effective and can gain government approval. That's part of the reason why they often take so long to develop and distribute.

 

To accelerate this process, governments - mainly those of Europe and the United States - and non-profit organizations such as the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), absorbed part or all of this risk. .

 

The United States, for example, has pledged up to $ 1.6 billion to help Maryland-based Novavax develop its coronavirus vaccine, according to regulatory documents. CEPI provided up to $ 400 million in grants and interest-free loans.

 

Other companies have received even more help. Massachusetts biotech company Moderna not only used government-developed technology as the basis for its vaccine, but also received nearly $ 1 billion in government grants to develop the drug. Then, in August, the government placed an initial $ 1.5 billion order for the vaccine . The company has said that the project was paid for in full by the federal government .

 

These types of agreements were designed to help companies start manufacturing and cover costs such as clinical trials.

 

But companies will keep the patents

 

Despite huge taxpayer investments, pharmaceutical companies are typically full owners of the patents. That means companies can decide how and where vaccines are made and how much they cost. As explained in the CureVac contract, the company “shall have the exclusive right to exploit” those proprietary rights.

 

This has been a source of contention for months. A coalition of countries, led by India and South Africa, has asked the World Trade Organization to cede intellectual property rights so that generic drug manufacturers can start producing the vaccines. The World Health Organization has endorsed this idea, but it has been practically condemned by the opposition of the United States and Europe, whose pharmaceutical companies claim that patents - and the profits derived from them - are the lifeblood of innovation.

 

"Governments are creating artificial scarcity," said Zain Rizvi of the monitoring group Public Citizen. "When citizens fund the knowledge required to end a pandemic, that should not remain a secret."

 

Prices will vary

 

One of the key terms of vaccine contracts - price per dose - is frequently censored in public versions of government contracts. Companies consider it a trade secret. Some pharmaceutical companies have included clauses in their supply contracts that allow them to suspend deliveries if countries reveal the price.

 

By insisting that their prices remain confidential, manufacturers have the upper hand over government negotiators, who don't know how much other countries are paying.

 

Although governments accepted that provision, certain leaks and official reports show some of the disparities. According to media reports , the European Commission paid $ 2.19 for each dose of the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, while South Africa paid more than double, $ 5.25.

 

Pharmaceutical companies did not respond to requests to see the contracts or explain why secrecy was necessary. A Moderna spokesperson limited himself to pointing out a regulatory document that said the contract "contains customary terms and conditions."

 

That's why there was such a stir last month when a Belgian official mistakenly revealed a price list , showing that American taxpayers were paying $ 19.50 per dose of Pfizer vaccine, while Europeans were paying $ 14.70. .

 

Dag Inge Ulstein, Norway's minister for International Development, said countries and international organizations must do more to publicize contracts. He also called on countries to share vaccine technology and said rich governments should donate vaccines to poor countries in the early stages of vaccination even as they continue to vaccinate their own citizens, as the Norwegian government plans to do .

 

"There must be transparency in procurement agreements," he said in an interview. To that end, he shared with The New York Times his country's purchase agreement with COVAX. That organization has refused to make public its negotiations, either with drug manufacturers or with the countries to which it sells

 

COVAX's contracts with countries assume a cost of $ 10.55 per dose, but warn that the final cost could be higher after including an "access / speed premium," which COVAX said is used to help companies. to launch their vaccines on the market.

 

Donations and resales are restricted

 

Public health activists have asked rich countries - which have practically monopolized the market for the first doses - to donate or sell vaccines to poor countries. However, the contracts could restrict buyers' ability to export doses, which could reduce sales by pharmaceutical companies.

 

The CureVac contract, for example, prohibits European countries from reselling, exporting, or donating doses — even to COVAX — without company authorization. Some contracts in the United States have similar restrictions.

 

A spokesman for the European Commission said that companies included that provision to ensure that wherever their drugs were used, they were covered by the same legal protections.

 

And governments are trying to find other ways to restrict exports.

 

On Tuesday last week, Germany lobbied the European Commission to allow its member states to block vaccine exports to countries outside the bloc after the slow start of vaccine distribution in Europe.

 

Vaccines will arrive when companies decide

 

Delivery times are considered proprietary information, so there are no public benchmarks against which a company's performance can be measured.

 

This has been most evident in the European Union's fight with AstraZeneca over the company's announcement that it would not be able to deliver the expected number of doses in the first quarter of this year. The European authorities claim to have received specific contractual guarantees for these deliveries. The company says it only promised to do its best to achieve those goals.

 

European officials, who initially agreed to keep the contract a secret, are now asking the company to make it public. Unless that happens, there is no way to determine who is responsible.

 

But there is no doubt that the drug companies have achieved ample room for maneuver for such an ambitious and complicated launch as this one. The CureVAc contract says that delivery dates (all censored) should be considered estimates. "On the estimated delivery dates there may be no product available or only reduced volumes of the product," the contract says. Similar provisions exist in other contracts.

 

Almost all vaccine manufacturers have similarly told investors that they may not achieve their goals. "We may not be able to create or expand production capacity on time," warned Pfizer in a corporate document in August .

 

That uncertainty has frustrated health officials. When Pfizer recently told Italy that it was temporarily reducing deliveries by 29 percent , the government said it was considering prosecuting the company. If that lawsuit materializes, some details of the European Union's contract with Pfizer could be disclosed, which remains totally secret.

 

"At one point they even promised more vaccines or faster vaccines," said Steven Van Gucht, the Belgian government's top virus expert. "And in the end they couldn't deliver."

 

Some governments are benefiting

 

At the beginning of the pandemic, the European Investment Bank, the European Union's lender, made a $ 100 million loan to the German company BioNTech, which partnered with Pfizer to produce a vaccine.

 

In addition to the interest on the loan, the European bank will receive up to $ 25 million in vaccine proceeds, according to a redacted version of the contract that BioNTech submitted to regulators.

 

The bank said the profit-sharing arrangements reflect the risk involved in early financing. Public Citizen's Rizvi argued that it puts governments on the same side as drug makers and reduces any incentive to make drugs cheap and widely available.

 

Companies are protected from liability for damages

 

In the United States, drug companies are protected from almost any liability if their vaccines don't work or cause serious side effects. The government covered manufacturers of drugs to treat COVID-19 under the Public Emergency Preparedness Act, a 2005 measure aimed at speeding up access to drugs during health emergencies.

 

That means that people cannot sue companies, even in cases of negligence or recklessness. The only exceptions are cases of proven “intentional abuse”.

 

Pharmaceutical companies are seeking similar disclaimers in negotiations with other countries. European negotiators have refused to grant those requests. COVAX also insists that countries accept full responsibility as part of their contracts.

 

The contract between CureVac and the European Union protects the company from much of the liability, but with several exceptions. Those exceptions are censored.

 

Monika Pronczuk contributed to this report.

 

Matt Apuzzo is a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter based in Brussels. He has covered security and law enforcement issues for over a decade and is a co-author of the book Enemies Within . @mattapuzzo

 

Selam Gebrekidan is an investigative reporter for The New York Times and is based in London. She was previously a data and business reporter for Reuters, where she wrote about migration to Europe and the war in Yemen, among other stories. It has also covered the oil markets of the United States.

 

Monika Pronczuk contributed to this report.

 

Matt Apuzzo is a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter based in Brussels. He has covered security and law enforcement issues for over a decade and is a co-author of the book Enemies Within. @mattapuzzo

 

Selam Gebrekidan is an investigative reporter for The New York Times and is based in London. She was previously a data and business reporter for Reuters, where she wrote about migration to Europe and the war in Yemen, among other stories. It has also covered the oil markets of the United States.