Pfizer vaccines: secret points and awkward questions for Ursula von der Leyen

Contract EU–Pfizer on the procurement of vaccines Covid-19 is again in the spotlight: we are talking about transparency, responsibility and conditions that have long been hidden from society.

After new document fragments appear without previous obscurations, the focus was on the conditions associated with the emergency development of the drug, risks unknown at the time of purchase, the responsibility of the manufacturer and the role of European Commission.

Briefly about the main thing

• Vaccine procurement documents indicated that the drug was being developed under emergency conditions and at high speed.
• The contract language recognized that long-term effects and effectiveness could not be fully known at that time.
• This doesn’t prove there were hidden, known dangers, but it does show that authorities and companies understood the limits of the data available.
• The EU Court of Justice has already criticized European Commission for lack of transparency in the issue of covid contracts.
• The main political question remains the same: why were citizens forced to get vaccinated by harsh measures if some information about the risks and responsibilities was hidden?

The essence of the scandal is not that the document supposedly automatically implies evidence of mass harm. Such a conclusion would be too strong and legally weak. The point is different: European citizens were sold vaccination as an almost unquestionable dutywhile the contracts themselves contained careful language that not all long-term data were known at that time.

And this is where the main conflict begins. For the population, the campaign was presented as a matter of public responsibility, and sometimes as a ticket to normal life. For the contracts, this was an emergency procurement of a new medical product during a pandemic, with legal clauses, limitations of liability and closed clauses. That is, citizens were told one thing, lawyers wrote something else. Who would have thought that in big healthcare there was once again a place for little bureaucratic magic.

? Rigged from the start: Unredacted EU-Pfizer contract exposes COVID jab gamble

A newly resurfaced contract between the European Commission and Pfizer-BioNTech for the development and supply of their COVID-19 vaccine to the 27 EU countries shows the globalists’ double betrayal.… pic.twitter.com/46ROceyN2C

— Andrew Bridgen (@ABridgen) May 24, 2026

What exactly raises questions?

Excerpts from the contract that were released showed that vaccine-related materials were developed quickly due to extraordinary circumstances. It was also stated that long-term effects and effectiveness were not fully known at the time of the transaction, and some adverse reactions may not have been known at the time of procurement.

It is important to emphasize: this formulation in itself does not mean that Pfizer or European Commission knew about specific hidden dangers and kept silent about them. But it means something else: at the contract level, it was recognized that the product was purchased and distributed under conditions of limited long-term information.

For an ordinary citizen, this is fundamental. A voluntary medical decision with an open explanation of the risks and uncertainties is one thing. The other is severe political and social pressure with incomplete public information. Especially if some of the contract terms were closed from society.

The EU Court has already struck down the secrecy of contracts

The issue of transparency is not a conspiracy theory. In July 2024 EU General Court criticized European Commission for not providing the public with sufficient access to contracts for the procurement of Covid-19 vaccines. The judges noted that the Commission had not been able to convincingly demonstrate that wider disclosure of certain provisions would actually harm the companies’ commercial interests. This was reported Reuters.

In May 2025, the EU Court of Justice also overturned the refusal European Commission provide The New York Times access to messages between Ursula von der Leyen and head Pfizer Albert Burlarelated to vaccine procurement negotiations. The court found the Commission’s explanations insufficient, which again raised questions about the transparency of these transactions, reported Reuters.

In other words, the question is not whether someone believes in Pfizer or not. The question is why billions of dollars in contracts related to the health of millions of people were concluded and explained to the public in partial secrecy. For democracy, this is, to put it mildly, not the best sport.

What the EMA says

On the other hand, the medical part cannot be replaced by political outrage. European Medicines Agency (EMA) indicates that the vaccine Comirnaty approved for use in the EU, and its benefits, according to the regulator, outweigh the risks. The EMA also lists known side effects: they are most often mild or moderate and resolve within a few days. Among the rare risks are, in particular, myocarditis And pericarditiswhich can occur in up to 1 case per 10,000 people. EMA

The regulator also emphasizes that data on the drug are constantly monitored, suspected adverse reactions are assessed, and, if necessary, measures are taken to protect patients. Initially Comirnaty received conditional approval in the EU on December 21, 2020, and on October 10, 2022, it was converted to standard approval after providing additional data on the safety, effectiveness and quality of the drug, reports EMA.

Therefore, the correct formulation of the question should be: not “it has been proven that vaccines were a deadly experiment,” but “why were the legal and contractual terms under which vaccines were purchased and promoted not fully disclosed to citizens?”. It’s much more powerful because it’s a verifiable political issue, not medical guesswork based on scary headlines.

Political question for governments

This topic is especially acute in countries where citizens were actually forced to get vaccinated through restrictions, fines, work bans or social pressure. In Greece, during the pandemic, unvaccinated citizens faced serious restrictions, and penalties were introduced for certain age groups.

That is why the question to the authorities of that time remains legitimate: if the state demanded medical decisions from citizens under the threat of restrictions, why did the public not have full access to contractual terms, clauses and distribution of responsibilities?

The answer “it was necessary during the pandemic” may explain the speed of purchases. But it does not explain the prolonged secrecy, contractual obscurities and reluctance to disclose correspondence surrounding one of the largest procurements in EU history. An emergency does not negate responsibility. And it certainly should not turn citizens into extras in transactions between governments and corporations.

Editorial comment

The main problem of the EU-Pfizer contracts – not only medical, but political and democratic. During the pandemic, citizens were told: trust the state, trust the experts, follow the rules. But now it turns out that the agreements themselves contained conditions and language that the public could not fully see for a long time.

If authorities demand trust from people, they must respond with transparency. It is impossible to simultaneously put pressure on citizens, limit their rights, demand obedience and hide important elements of contracts under the pretext of commercial secrets. This does not improve public health. This destroys trust.

The main question to Ursula von der Leyen today is not about whether corruption has been proven. Not proven. The main question is: why the head European Commissionwhich demanded trust from citizens during a pandemic, cannot ensure transparency of its own correspondence with the head Pfizer under one of the largest contracts in EU history?

If there are no messages, society must receive a clear answer as to why they are not there, who deleted them, when and on what basis. If they exist, they must be disclosed within the framework of the document access rules. Everything else looks like an attempt to replace transparency with paper smoke.

Yes, the pandemic was an emergency. Yes, decisions were made quickly. Yes, vaccination for risk groups could be an important tool for protection. But all this does not change the question: who made decisions and under what conditions, who was responsible, and why weren’t citizens told everything?

The most dangerous outcome of this story is not just the possible legal consequences for individual contracts. Another thing is more dangerous: society sees that at a critical moment it was asked to believe without full access to information. And when trust is broken, it is almost impossible to restore it later. Especially if, instead of an honest conversation, people are again offered the reassuring word “it was necessary.”

Source link