South African Pfizer Contract - Forced Release ! A Pact with the "Pfizer"

God help the rest of the World if they entered into similarly worded Pfizer Contracts

Ocrpfizer 1 Redacted With Bookmarks

13.5MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

This Contract is Dated March 30th, 2021
And in this contract Pfizer Explicitly gets the purchaser to acknowledge that the vaccines are not known to be safe nor effective in the long term..

---

“Purchaser further acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known”

---

In the graph below we see on the 28th March, BEFORE the contractual clause from Pfizer in the South African supply Contract, stating their vaccines are not known to be safe nor effective in the long term; Pfizer had begun the roll out of Billions of their cash cow product.
Did these countries sign similar contracts will similar advice ?
And, knowing what was in the Contracts, did these Governments then strongly encouraging their populations to be injected with this product.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

Were ANY of the hapless recipients told, as per a moral compass or as per their countries’ vaccine guidelines on informed consent, “that the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known” ?

Or were they told then, as they are still being told now, that the Novel technology, Lipid Nano Particle, Synthetic messenger RNA Genetic Instructions (that are the Pfizer mRNA vaccines) were and would be safe and effective.

What we do know is that ,at the same time countries were rolling out the "vaccines", these countries were both
A) Doing nothing to promote the uptake of known beneficial to the immune system Vitamins and Minerals such as Vitamins C, D and Zinc
B) Actively discouraging the use of seeking early treatments involving peer reviewed safe and effective short and long term protocols involving Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.

To Understand the Vital Role that HCQ and Ivermectin had to play (But for the obstruction of Medications by the TGA and other Health Regulators around the Globe) in potentially saving around 80% of the median age 86 Years Old Victims of Australian Covid-19 ; see the long published peer reviewed early treatment Covid-19 treatment protocols that were made available to the TGA (Specifically John Skerritt) prior to the TGA banning Ivermectin and during the still current TGA ban on Hydroxychloroquine.

https://aapsonline.org/CovidPatientTreatmentGuide.pdf
The actual version of the guide in the hands of John Skerrit of the TGA in December of 2020 can be found here

---

PFIZER CONTRACT FOCUS ON INDEMNITY

---

indemnity:
"protection against possible damage or loss, especially a promise of payment, or the money paid if there is such damage or loss"

The Pfizer Contract contains 54 instances involving one of the following words:
Indemnified, Indemnitees, Indemnification, Indemnify, Indemnity, Indemnitee, Indemnitee(s), Indemnitees’ and Indemnitee(s)’s

From Pg 23 and 24:

---

"Indemnification by Purchaser. Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer, BioNTech, each of their Affiliates, contractors, sub-contractors, licensors, licensees, sub-licensees, distributors, contract manufacturers, services providers, clinical trial researchers, third parties to whom Pfizer or BioNTech or any of their respective Affiliates may directly or indirectly owe an indemnity based on the research, development, manufacture, distribution, commercialization or use of the Vaccine, and each of the officers, directors, employees and other agents and representatives, and the respective predecessors, successors and assigns of any of the foregoing ("Indemnitees"), from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements,penalties, fines, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' and other counsels' fees and other expenses of an investigation or litigation), whether sounding in contract, tort (delict), intellectual property, or any other theory, and whether legal, statutory, equitable or otherwise by any natural or legal person (collectively,"Losses") caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the Vaccine, including but not limited to any stage of design , development, investigation, formulation , testing, clinical testing, manufacture, labeling, packaging, transport, storage, distribution, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, · licensing, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, provision, or use of the Vaccine, any information, instructions, advice or guidance provided by Pfizer, or BioNTech or any of their respective Affiliates and relating to the use of the Vaccine, or any processing or transfer of anyone's personal information processed and transferred by Purchaser to the Indemnitees ("Covered Activities").

---

In signing the contract with Pfizer the South African Government has agreed to provide protection to Pfizer for any claims of damage from the use of the Pfizer Product.

Surely such a clause could not be enforced if there were negligence on the part of Pfizer; right ?
Here’s what the Contract says about that…
Form page 25

---

Subject to the exclusions set forth in Section 9.3, in no circumstances shall (i) either Party be liable to the other Party or its Affiliates, whether arising in tort (including, without limitation, negligence), contract or otherwise, for any indirect, special, consequential, incidental or punitive damages, whether in contract, warranty, tort, negligence, strict liability or otherwise arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the transactions contemplated therein or any breach thereof (whether or not reasonably foreseeable and even if the first Party had been advised of the possibility of the other Party incurring such loss or type of loss), and (ii) in the case of Pfizer and its Affiliates, in no event shall Pfizer be liable to Purchaser for any direct damages except to the extent such direct damages were a result of a material breach of a representation or warranty by Pfizer under this Agreement that directly and solely caused the damage. In no instance shall Pfizer and its Affiliates be liable to Purchaser (whether arising in warranty, tort (including, without limitation, negligence), contract, strict liability or otherwise) for any liabilities of Purchaser to any third party, including, without limitation, through contribution, indemnity, or for any claim for which Purchaser would have to indemnify Pfizer if that claim were brought directly against Pfizer.

---

A Reasonable Person might think this amount to unfair contractual terms.
I, as the buyer, have to indemnify the Seller against damages that the Seller’s Negligence has caused ?

It gets even more one sided:

Section 8.4 on Page 24 states:
In the circumstance where there is a claim due to the product (Which Pfizer are already indemnified against paying; the Government needs to pay any such claim) if the Purchaser fails to defend the claim to Pfizer’s satisfaction:

"Pfizer shall have the right to assume control of such defense (directly or through either one of its Affiliates or BioNTech), and Purchaser shall pay (as incurred and on demand), all Losses, including, without limitation, the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred by Indemnitee(s), in connection with the Indemnified Claim."

How many people (who were encouraged, coerced or mandated) would have rejected the Pfizer product if they were aware of this indemnity focus within the Pfizer Supply Contract , a focus that extends through to the point of indemnifying negligence on the part of Pfizer ?
One would need to be on the point of near certain death to personally accept these terms and allow the product to be injected into oneself let alone one’s parents or one’s precious children.

---

PFIZER CONTRACT FOCUS ON SAFETY

---

The Contract contains 7 instances involving the words "Safe" & "Safety"
And not one of those instances are in reference to the product being safe:
One of the instances is in reference to “potential issues of safety”
One is in reference to the safe return of equipment
Four instances are in reference to the safe handling of the product
One is in reference to Safety Data Sheets of Dry Ice

---

CONCLUSION

---

The wielding of emergency powers by Government allowing for the bypass of protections on civil liberties, bypassing if laws and treaties protecting the people and the laws laws ensuring due government process has almost certainly led to catastrophic population wide Health Outcomes with still longer term catastrophes on the horizon. Emergency powers must never again be allowed to get to a point where a Government can make such catastrophic decisions that are forced, coerced or mandated on its people.

Pressure from Commercial Interests associated with and by Pfizer must have been anywhere from intense to overwhelming for South Africa’s Director General of Health, Dr. Sandile S.S. Buthelezi to have ever have agreed to such a Contract. Much of this pressure is known to have emanated from the World Health Organization.
The World Health Organization is a majority privately controlled entity, with those running it in a Tax Haven with Diplomatic Immunity, and those controlling it making massive profits from Pandemics!

From here every country need to insist on the release of the Contract their Government has been “encouraged” to sign with the Covid-19 “vaccine” manufacturers at the calling of the World Health Organization or at the calling of any other Globalist organizations.
This “Vaccine” supply contract and particularly the indemnity, safety and efficacy assurances or lack thereof needs to be part of public knowledge for a free and informed consent for any further uptake of these products.
Until such time that your country can provide you with the supply contract perhaps the safest assumption is that their supply contract will be very similar to the one with South Africa that has currently been exposed through persistent court actions of a heroic group.

From here every country’s health regulatory authority needs to be prepared to withdraw Covid-19 “vaccines” from the market based on the emerging data that is backing up Pfizer strongly worded insistence within their supply contract that:

“Purchaser further acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known”

---

Please Share:

Share with SMS/Text the following link : http://tribeqr.com/v/apactwiththepfizer

SMS / Text Link:

https://twitter.com/tniwef/status/1701130376176120227

Disclaimer:   All content is presented for educational and/or entertainment purposes only. Under no circumstances should it be mistaken for professional advice, nor is it at all intended to be taken as such. The contents simply reflect current newsworthy items on Covid that are freely available. It is subject to error and change without notice. The presence of a link to a website does not indicate approval or endorsement of that web site or any services, products, or opinions that may be offered by them.

Neither this Substack nor any of its principals or contributors are under any obligation to update or keep current the information contained herein.

Although the information contained is derived from sources which are believed to be reliable, they cannot be guaranteed.

Disclosure: We accept no advertising or compensation, and have no material connection to any products, brands, topics or companies mentioned anywhere on this post.

Fair Use Notice: This post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This post is making such material available in efforts to advance understanding of issues of social significance. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.