On Monday October 10, the European Parliament organized its second hearing with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry who worked on the development of anti-Covid-19 vaccines. Among the personalities that the MEPs wanted to audition, Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer was eagerly awaited. The latter, however, declined this request for a hearing, preferring to send in his place Janine Small, regional president of Pfizer, responsible for the development of international markets.
The absence of Albert Bourla does not pass
The European Union bought vaccines from pharmaceutical giant Pfizer for 75 billion euros. Of all the emergency vaccines authorized against Covid-19, Pfizer’s Comirnaty is the one that has been most widely deployed in the general population in Europe.
More than a year and a half after the start of the global vaccination campaign, the very many questions that remain on the vaccines, but also on the contracts signed between the European Commission and the laboratory, have led European parliamentarians to ask several pharmaceutical industry officials, including Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, to appear for a hearing in Brussels by the European Parliament’s special committee on Covid.
This request for a hearing from the CEO of Pfizer followed the conclusions of September 12, 2022 of the European Court of Auditors, which did not hesitate to denounce the abnormal conditions of contract negotiation (paragraphs 35 to 39 of the document).
In the absence of Albert Bourla, who declined the request for a hearing, it was Janine Small who represented the Pfizer laboratory. When asked by MEP Sara Cerdas (Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament) whether Albert Bourla’s absence was due to the report of the European Court of Auditors, Ms Small wanted to reassure her by saying: I am at your disposal, I can guarantee you that it is not linked to the report of the Court of Auditors “. Then the latter claimed to be the ” better placed to answer all their questions. An answer which did not convince the MEPs who did not hesitate to show their dissatisfaction with the withdrawal of Albert Bourla.
© F. Froger / Z9, for FranceSoir
The opacity around Pfizer’s vaccine purchase contracts
Highly anticipated on the issue of text messages exchanged between European Commission President Ursula Von Der Lyen and Pfizer CEO Janine Small, attempting to trivialize this practice to justify it, said:
« During the pandemic, we all teleworked and therefore, I am sure that Mr. Bourla provided his telephone number to be able to exchange with leaders around the world including myself… I was able to do it and we we were able to discuss the situation. Regarding your question, specifically the negotiation of a contract of this type, you spoke of 1.8 billion doses…negotiated by SMS, I can tell you categorically: that was not the case. I tell you this because I myself took part in all the negotiations at the beginning of 2020. Very clear procedures are planned with very clear methods at Pfizer, but also in the institutions, with the authorities, the various organizations. There is a huge team working on both sides to negotiate all the intricate aspects contained in such a contract. It is not possible, I can assure you that I will conduct these negotiations by SMS”.
If she admitted the existence of these SMS without giving the number exchanged, a statistic that the MEPs demanded, but which she does not have, Ms Small however categorically denied the negotiation of contracts via this communication channel, inappropriate for carrying out such complex operations, he said.
Response from Janine Small Regional President of #Pfizer (IDM) heard today by MEPs She admits the existence of SMS and parallel channels but denies the negotiation of contracts #Vaccine via SMS. +Interventions by:
– @ladyonorato ????????
– @MicheleRivasi ????????
– @v_joron ???????? pic.twitter.com/ChMKNWP9Pv— THE OFFICIAL GENERAL©???? (@Le__General_0ff) October 10, 2022
On the question of the contracts signed between the European Commission and the Pfizer laboratory, MEPs asked to see all the documents. To which Ms. Small replied that they ” are available to MEPs “. A response that exasperated the parliamentarians who hastened to denounce the opacity of the documents, many parts of which were blacked out to remain confidential.
Read also: “Where is the transparency?” MEPs call for accountability on health policies
Many questions left unanswered
Faced with the very many questions from MEPs, Janine Small remained very evasive in the vast majority of her answers. Struggling to face the white-hot MEPs, she had all the difficulty in the world to offer precise and convincing answers. The impatience was legible among many parliamentarians such as Mr Marc Botenga (The left group in the European Parliament) when the latter, annoyed, ended up asking for “yes” or “no” answers, in order to get concrete information.
On the question of the composition of vaccines, Janine Small did not provide any information likely to satisfy MEPs. Also present at the hearing, Franz Werner Haas, CEO of CureVac, which developed the vaccine with Pfizer, merely repeated that in terms of safety, CureVac was very demanding.
Franz Werner Haas (© F. Froger / Z9, for FranceSoir)
Same disappointment on the answers concerning the prices of the vaccines since Janine Small declared: “ I understand that you come back a lot to the pricing policy. But from our point of view, we cannot raise the issue around the pricing policy. Pricing remains confidential. And with that, I know, again, you’re going to be frustrated with my answer. I see it on your faces. But pricing is confidential. And, from that point of view, I cannot discuss this with you.”
This avoidance on the part of the representative of Pfizer to provide concrete elements on prices did not prevent MEP Virigine Joron (Identity and Democracy) from bouncing back by putting the cost of side effects on the table.
« You don’t want to talk about price, so we’re going to talk about the side effects that have a price” declared Ms. Virginie Joron who listed the figures of the latest report from the Medicines Safety Agency ” which has listed in France more than 30,000 serious cases such as stroke, pulmonary embolism and death (…) while at European level, it is more than 900,000 side effects including 8,209 fatal outcomes”. Based on this observation, Mrs. Joron asked the question of the responsibility of the laboratory and asked Mrs. Small what internal procedure for monitoring side effects has Pfizer put in place? She also raised the issue of compensation for victims.
At the end of this hearing, several MEPs agreed to respond to journalists from France Soir.
MEPs (© F. Froger / Z9, for FranceSoir)
MEP Michelle Rivasi (Greens / European Free Alliance), did not hide her dissatisfaction, not hesitating to denounce ” a sham investigative commission ».
« There are no answers to our questions. In addition, we invite the director, he does not come without proof. However, at present, Pfizer is practically alone in producing vaccines throughout Europe. He was ordered 1.8 billion doses, this is the last contract for 35 billion euros. These are gigantic contracts and this gentleman is not coming because he is attacked with the President of the European Commission, because they exchanged text messages on the last contract, so around 35 billion, without going through the structures that negotiated the contracts “, she said again.
« What happened is what happens every time: we don’t get the answers. And that’s why this Committee is completely ridiculous. It’s a democratic illusion… it’s meant to make people believe that we’re working through these issues that have arisen with the vaccine contracts. But none of that is progressing with this Committee. And earlier, I asked that this Committee be declared incompetent when it comes to clarifying certain issues. And I’m talking about vaccine contract issues. But the president of the Committee (the MEP Kathleen Van Brempt) again refused to put this proposal to a vote. So that shows how ridiculous this committee is. And if the goal is to get answers, we are not allowed to do our job! »was offended MEP Christine Anderson (Identity and Democracy) at the microphone of France Soir.
Despite understandable and legitimate requests from European parliamentarians who believe they have the right of access to the clauses of the contracts signed between the European Commission and the Pfizer company, Janine Small used the right to confidentiality for reasons of competition in order to justify his lack of response to the questions raised.
As Stephane de La Rosa, Professor of Law at the University of Paris-Est Créteil, explains in a text published in Le Club des juristes, the whole question is whether the clauses protecting the commercial interests of pharmaceutical laboratories (dir 2014/24) (CJEU, March 20, 2018, Commission v. Austria, case C-187/16) may be challenged on the grounds of an overriding general interest which could justify the disclosure of the requested documents. In other words, can commercial interests be balanced against the public interest?
Everything suggests that this is possible. For this question to be resolved, this legal battle would be played out around the interpretation by the Court of Justice of Regulation 1049/2001 on the right of access to documents held by the institutions. In the context of markets for the acquisition of vaccines, the Court of Justice must determine whether the European Parliament, the only democratically elected institution, can justify, in the name of the public interest, transparency on the prices of vaccines or on the grounds for exoneration from liability in the event of a breach of a contractual obligation.