What DEAL does GIBRALTAR have with PFIZER? Understanding this deal could explain everything.

The deal would explain why the Government of Gibraltar, its ministers and its health officials act the way they do.

1. It would explain their actions to push the vaccines and boosters – to the point of coercion without proper informed consent.

2. It would explain reasons they deny vaccine injury and death – to the point of hiding adverse effects data from public knowledge.

3. It would explain their obstinacy ­– to the point they ignore and manipulate facts; ignore independent experts and new and mounting evidence that the vaccines are dangerous and deadly.

While the United Kingdom and Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) played a key role in securing doses for Gibraltar –

“I want to express the gratitude of the Government and People of Gibraltar to the United Kingdom Government for the supply of these vaccines, which are presently not otherwise commercially available. The team at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) in London and in Gibraltar have been incredible in supporting us in obtaining access to the vaccine,” said Gibraltar Governor David Steel.

Consignments of vaccines from Pfizer would not have been brought to The Rock without a contract also signed :writing_hand: by local government officials.

Gibraltar would have received a portion of the 30 million doses that the UK agreed to buy in its initial deal with Pfizer.

Secret Deals – Undisclosed and Redacted

It has already come to light that Pfizer made SECRET DEALS with governments. The UK government’s deal has been redacted. Furthermore, it would be naïve to assume Gibraltar officials are not party to these non-disclosed contracts.

Please read this report by Public Citizen: Pfizer’s Power.

It outlines Pfizer’s secret government contracts for COVID vaccines; how Pfizer puts profits over public health; and reveals seven of its contracts are worth billions.

Before the Federal Drug Administration in the U.S. tried to block information about Pfizer’s Covid19 data from being released until 2076 – when most injured and involved would be long dead – Pfizer was busy protecting itself and wielding its power in the short-run with these secret contracts with governments. And it seems these contracts also deal with governments defending Pfizer in infringement of intellectual property suits.

Nothing is free – so what did Gibraltar government officials sign up :writing_hand: for with Pfizer and the FCDO?

Gibraltarians Became Human Subjects (guinea-pigs) in Pfizer Trials

Did the Government of Gibraltar consign the Gibraltarian population to be human subjects in a massive experiment that PARALLELS what the :israel: State of Israel did?

Please read this detailed article linked below by the Alliance for Human Research Protection. Buckle up, because, unlike government hyperbole, this article explains what most likely did happen:

Government Consigned Israeli Population to be Human Subjects in a Massive Experiment

The “deal” helped accelerate the production and distribution of Covid-19 vaccines.

Officials failed to disclose to their constituents that the COVID-19 (mRNA) vaccines were/are experimental. The COVID-19 vaccine phase 3 clinical trials have not yet been completed and are authorized under emergency use only. The long-term risks are unknown. The short-term risk of harm from the vaccine is far greater than the risk of dying from COVID-19.

Lack of evidence that the vaccine will, in fact, prevent infection, is not Pfizer’s concern, sales and profits are – and this means a high vaccination rate – which became the designated focus of officials in Gibraltar, as they kept up their part of the bargain.

Article excerpt, of which the same can be said about Gibraltar:

“Demand for the vaccines has been generated by the continuous scaremongering propaganda which fomented a heightened degree of fear and panic. Public health officials DISCARDED the precautionary principle in medicine – “First, do no harm” – and despite serious uncertainty, officials proceeded full speed ahead, with mass vaccination. It is astonishing that the government of Israel entrusted the health of the people to Pfizer; by entering into a secret contract that enrolled the Israeli population to become research subjects, without their knowledge or consent.”

Given the commitment of Gibraltar officials to “ENSURE” the entire population is inoculated with these experimental vaccines, we can postulate that the wording of Gibraltar’s agreement with Pfizer would be similar:

“Under the contract, Real World Epidemiological Evidence Collaboration Agreement, the (Israeli) government signed a commitment to vaccinate the entire seven million adult population and to provide weekly data on its citizens during a 24-month surveillance follow-up study. The government disregarded potentially serious medical risks from the experimental vaccine and risks to privacy.”

Israel is considered an ideal place for a vast epidemiological study, encompassing 9.3 million people, because of its universal, state-sponsored healthcare system in which insurers maintain 40 years of digitized medical records, including vaccination records for each Israeli citizen. This centralized system helped Israel administer more than 2 million doses of the vaccine in under a month. In exchange, Israel received priority delivery of millions of doses of the vaccines.

“Benjamin Netanyahu stated, “Israel has committed to send Pfizer data, and details especially gathered for them, including the consequences of the inoculations, side effects, efficacy, amount of time it takes to develop antibodies according to different types of population, age, gender, pre-existing conditions etc. The agreement extensively details the various parameters that will be sent to Pfizer… This data is a treasure trove for Pfizer.”

This would explain ministers, like Samantha Sacramento, fumbling around questions about data collection of local adverse effects. If Gibraltar’s contract forbids disclosure of these details – that active surveillance is being conducted and reported directly to Pfizer – then officials like Sacramento would rather appear incompetent than risk breach of contract, which would come with some pretty hefty penalties.

Or it could simply be that if she admitted the same as Netanyahu, it would make her and other officials complicit in committing crimes against humanity, by breaching the Nuremberg and Declaration Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights Codes – BECAUSE THEY SIGNED GIBRALTAR UP :writing_hand: making the decision that Gibraltarians participated in the experimental trials.

Sacramento admitted that there is some central person collecting data. Was this person to report directly to Pfizer?

Marlene Hasson-Nahon asked, "Has the government kept a record of side effects eminatting from the administration of the Pfizer vaccine; one, who is keeping this record; and two when will it be made public?

Sacremento said, "the side effects from the administration of any vaccines are always recorded. This includes the adminstration of the Pfizer vaccine. Minor side effects are recorded in the patient's electronic medical records. Serious side effects are similarly recorded, but are also reported through the Yellow Card Scheme to regulatory authorities. There is no intention to make this information public as it is medical in confidence information."

Marlene Hasson-Nahon asked, "... in the same way as we get information that doesn't breach protection about people and their circumstances when they acquire Covid-19, why wouldn't statistics of the effects of a vaccination in our community minor or otherwise, be made public. I can't understand what breach that is. If the minister could enlighten me.

Not reading from a script, Sacremento, fumbling with the papers, said, "um, what, there is of course someone centralizing the collection of this information; and when the time is right, uh-ah, I ...and by that... I mean, when enough time has elapsed from the administration of the vaccine to be able to make a proper analysis, then there will be a report."

Would she care to explain more? Are these patient details also given to Pfizer? And will Pfizer run the analysis, when the Phase 3 ends?

If a specific reporting protocol is in place, it would also explain why the government or Gibraltar Health Authority weren’t too concerned about ensuring that the public knew how to report adverse effects through the Yellow Card system early on – only recently adding the information when Vaccine Awareness Gibraltar raised concerns.

Isn't it possible that this protocol could give the GHA, or PHE, or NHS censorship abilities? Because that's not how reporting adverse effects, or informed consent, works. It's how CONTROL WORKS. It's how "blocking" information works.

The government’s excuse not to disclose these adverse reactions to the public is to protect privacy. Again, is the information being given to Pfizer?

Gibraltar could easily use the same protocol as Yellow Card, EudraVigilance, and VAERS to report this data, which doesn’t disclose identities.


Also interesting, it was Together Gibraltar leader Marlene Nahon Hassan who asked Sacremento these questions; and Marlene's sister Fleur Hassan-Nahoum is the Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem.


What role does the National Health Service play in this scheme?

In the early negotiations of securing the vaccines, Krish Rawal said that the GHA essentially falls under the NHS. Thus, is it the NHS coordinating how reporting is handled on The Rock? The NHS may be acting as the UK liaison between Pfizer and Gibraltar, as part of the “deal” connected to that UK-Pfizer (redacted) agreement. And if so how was this coordinated? How would the NHS have gone about ensuring that all adverse effects in this experimental trial were reported directly to them for Pfizer, rather than to the Yellow Card? Conveniently the Gibraltar Official Secrets Act includes employees of the GHA, thus Gibraltar would be a prime candidate to conduct the trials and keep a lid on the details.

We know the NHS manipulated UK doctors about the vaccines as disclosed by Dr. Samuel White – Dr Sam White Wins High Court Case – NHS had suspended him for raising concerns about the safety of the Covid injection and informed consent.

Dr White, who was a partner at a practice in Hampshire, posted a seven-minute video to Instagram in June explaining why he had resigned from his job, saying he could no longer work “because of the lies” around the pandemic, which he said had been “so vast” he could no longer “stomach or tolerate” them.

Why would it be any different in :gibraltar: Gibraltar, if the GHA falls under the NHS?

Or perhaps the arrangement between GHA and NHS translates to Public Health England (PHE), because Sacremento thanked PHS for its “advice and support” –

"All of us that have benefited from this amazing programme need to sincerely thank everyone involved - the UK Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office for ensuring that Gibraltar had the vaccine; Public Health England for their advice and support on the vaccination programme…”

Note: The NHS is ultimately responsible for providing and commissioning public health services in England, but will follow advice given by, and be supported by, Public Health England.

Consider the wording above from the leaked Pfizer document and ask did Gibraltar officials sign up :writing_hand: to similar?

Are Gibraltar health professionals keeping their mouths shut, as part of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), or interim gag order involving any of these organizations (GoG, GHA, PHE, NHS, UK)? Are they afraid of losing their jobs – so much so that they would risk doing harm to others?

The NHS tried to make an “example” of Sam White by suspending him. But if you look at what’s happened to Sam White since he put his head above the parapet, he was the one who came out ahead. He became free to focus on his dream of offering functional medicine.

White is also part of the team bringing charges against the NHS and British government, a challenge to the MHRA.

"Your (MHRA) failure to investigate known concerns amounts to gross negligence in office," Hyland continued, "and renders you and the executive board liable for serious misconduct in office, mal or misfeasance in public office and, or, rendering all the office holders potentially liable for corporate manslaughter in that you have been wilfully blind to the known harms of the SARS-CoV-2 injections. You have taken no action.”

White also joined the People’s Union of Britain [PUB] in their case against Matt Hancock and others.

In :gibraltar: Gibraltar, the only way this insanity makes sense, is if public and health officials are parties in one or more SECRET DEALS.

Who are they really protecting – themselves?

Indemnification by Purchaser

We can continue the parellel between the :israel: State of Israel and Gibraltar:

Essentially, like Israelis, Gibraltarians most likely “became the unwitting human subjects of a massive, unethical, unapproved, non-consensual human experiment. The public was not informed that (a) the vaccine is experimental; (b) the population was being used as human subjects for a two-year epidemiological study; the data is meant to be shared with foreign countries and journals; the secrecy of the contract has led to strong suspicions, that (c) their personal medical record – “a data treasure-trove” – would be shared with Pfizer.”

Pfizer seeks to obtain basic safety and efficacy information that it lacks, in order for its vaccine to be eligible for an official license.

“First, the company needs to demonstrate that the vaccine is effective in preventing infection when one is exposed to the virus. Second, serious adverse effects need to be identified and their frequency and duration determined. Third, the risk for specific populations, including children, pregnant women and the elderly need to be identified and weighed against the benefits. Fourth, causes of deaths during the trial need to be documented.”

Pfizer will use, to their advantage, all data collected and reported back to them by participating governments. How is collected data channelled to Pfizer from Gibraltar?

Life and Death Decisions

Medicine is not like a commodity; medical decisions are personal, requiring the weighing of benefits against risks. Medicine often involves life and death decisions. Without informed consent of the individual, medicine can be, and has been, weaponized.

Chief Minister Fabian Picardo called the vaccine booster “a matter of life and death”.

His government not disclosing data on adverse reactions – to the point of covering them up with lame excuses – should be very concerning. Gibraltarians are unable to give informed consent, because they are not fully informed about efficacy and adverse effects that are glossed over by officials. The officials instead badger Gibraltarians to keep participating in Pfizer’s trial and keep up their “agreed upon high vaccination rate”.

The news articles about Gibraltar’s high vaccination rate was two-fold:

1. It was propaganda for the UK and other countries that a high rate would mean opening up and lifting restrictions (although that was short-lived).

2. It was a public announcement that Gibraltar was keeping its end of the bargain, for its own commitment to a high vaccination rate, which would also help accelerate Pfizer’s plan.

How long will the coercion persist on The Rock? Pfizer’s trials don’t end until 2023.

This may boil down to it being life or death for Picardo and other officials. What happens if they fail to keep up their parts of the bargain?

But more importantly, what happens when the TRUTH IS REVEALED and these criminals are punished for their crimes against humanity?

Unlike what Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Justin Welby, Gibraltar’s own Robin Gill, or other false prophets tell you – Christ emphatically does NOT support vaccination:

Life or Death: Pharmaceutical “Plandemic” Poisonous Vaccines, or the Healing of the Holy Spirit – Your choice


Matthew 12:30 He that is not WITH me is AGAINST me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.


Everyone on this planet is currently choosing their side – Good or Evil, Life or Death.

Why Gibraltarians Make the Perfect Candidates For Pfizer “Secret” Trials

1. Officials could guarantee it could get Gibraltarians to comply, because the Government of Gibraltar has enjoyed controlling the narrative for many years, either through its government-sponsored media, intimidation tactics, or the well-established practice of not disclosing other contracts or memorandums of understanding. GoG operates with impunity, which should be a red flag, Gibraltar isn’t really a democracy.

2. Gibraltar has a large elderly population – which is the first, targeted, subject group.

3. Gibraltar’s population is small, but dense, offering a representation of larger populations – a perfect trial group of different ethnic individuals, as well as individuals with underlying issues like cancer. How would they respond in the trials?

4. Gibraltar has embraced the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR)

4IR involves the creation of digital identities to link individual medical, financial, and credit data together, but no concern has been brought up that “the transfer of extensive, sensitive medical data to a multi-national foreign corporation exposes every citizen to extraordinary risks of harm. The most important commodity today is data. The transfer of its citizens’ medical data exposes Gibraltarians to security risks.”

Jonathan Klinger, a cyberlaw attorney and legal adviser for the Israeli Digital Rights Movement, a non-profit group, agrees: “We don’t really know what’s being shared. Even if aggregated or anonymous data is transferred, it could be re-identified. This is still a concern.”

Gibraltar’s Vaccine Propaganda is really a Defence

In history’s largest medical experiment with “vaccines” that have not been approved for use in humans, it is the buyers’ responsibility to defend Pfizer for causing harm, leaked documents showed.

Please read this detailed article linked below pushed by Free West Media. Buckle up, because unlike government hyperbole, this article explains what most likely did happen:

Bombshell leak: Countries that buy Pfizer’s vaccine undertake to break the law

Pfizer has escaped all liability and is indemnified, arguing that side effects and the long-term effects of the injections are unknown – to the company as well. Pfizer thus admits that an insufficiently tested product is being pushed in literally billions of doses on the world market.

This means that all responsibility for costs, healthcare, etc. due to vaccine damage – no matter how large and onerous – is passed on to the taxpayers in the countries that have signed the agreements. Since the agreements put each country’s own laws out of play, they have all been signed at government level.

The design of the agreements is an important explanation for why the propaganda for mass vaccination is of a totalitarian nature and does not allow for debate or questioning.

In view of the fact that the majority of those now in hospital for Covid-19 are fully vaccinated – a situation that buyers could never have anticipated – the agreements certainly appear to be criminal.

Gibraltar officials may have not known in advance that the vaccinated would be the ones getting ill or hospitalized, but they KNOW NOW. And instead of halting or investigating, they are aiding and abetting Pfizer with their continued promotion of these poisons. “Let us be clear” – as Picardo often says – the vaccines are causing harm in Gibraltar.

Gibraltarian officials continue to defend the vaccines and their uptake, being obstinate and ignoring the facts in front of them. Again, the only way to explain this insanity is that they are bound to something far more sinister than they will ever admit.

Interestingly, it was Israeli cyber security expert, Ehden Biber who is responsible for the leak regarding the agreements of Pfizer and its customers.

Consider this case, which is one of many:

A group of independent investigative journalists in South America has revealed that Pfizer in negotiations with Brazil and Argentina, among others, demanded that the country provide state assets such as embassy buildings and military bases as a guarantee for future costs for possible lawsuits.

Because the UK’s agreement with Pfizer is redacted, which translates into the deal with Gibraltar as being confidential, we have to ask if the UK also had to provide assets. Did Gibraltar provide assets as collateral against future lawsuits as well? It is a valid question, but we also know that the UK government is part of vaccine development, and would benefit from these negotiations; and thus may be part of the heavy hand placed on poorer countries.

Some samples from the confidential agreements:

  • The purchaser is aware that the efficacy and long-term effects of the vaccine are unknown and that side effects may occur which are not currently known.

  • The buyer must pay Pfizer for the ordered doses, regardless of how many you use and regardless of whether Pfizer has the preparation approved by the authorities. ” (This was written before the FDA’s emergency approval of the so-called “vaccines”).

  • The buyer hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Pfizer/BioNTech and their subsidiaries indemnified against all claims, documents, claims, losses, damages, debts, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses.

  • The buyer must pay all losses, including and without limitation costs for legal fees and other legal costs.

  • Buyer must indemnify Pfizer for claims and all losses and must implement this through statutory or regulatory requirements.

  • Pfizer has the right to make necessary adjustments to the agreed number of contracted doses and delivery schedule, based on principles decided by Pfizer. The buyer is obliged to agree to any change.

READ THESE LAST TWO WITH INTEREST -

  • The agreement must be kept secret for ten years.

  • However, for the State of Israel’s agreement with Pfizer, signed by the Israeli Ministry of Health on January 6, a full 30 years of secrecy apply. The reason is unclear.

Why is the State of Israel’s agreement a further 20 years out? Would that have to do with its special arrangement with Pfizer, where it signed up the Israeli population to be guinea-pigs without their informed consent? And what about Gibraltar – how long do officials have to keep quiet, given the parallels outlined above?

Pfizer’s Power over Gibraltar – is it really any different than in other places?

Review the Public Citizen report – Pfizer’s Power:

There should be plenty of attorneys in Gibraltar to understand the LEGALESE:

  • Pfizer Reserves the Right to Silence Governments
  • Pfizer Controls Donations
  • Pfizer Secured an “IP Waiver” for Itself; Private Arbitrators, not Public Courts, Decide Disputes in Secret
  • Pfizer Can Go After State Assets
  • Pfizer Calls the Shots on Key Decisions

Also see specific paragraphs of the leaked agreement: Pfizer leak: exposing the Pfizer manufacturing and supply agreement

And if they don’t challenge the government’s crimes against humanity, they are complicit in them.

The only thing from the start that has been coming out of officials’ mouths is praise for the vaccines – to the extent they are all party to marketing testimonials to ensure a “high vaccination rate”.

  • Fabian Picardo: I have registered for the vaccine already and I urge everyone to do so and in that way help us to turn the corner and get Gibraltar and our economy and public finances back on track!”

  • Samantha Sacramento: Every injection that we give from tomorrow starts to reduce the likelihood of people in Gibraltar becoming seriously ill or even dying. As soon as it is my turn I will be taking this vaccine.”

  • Krish Rawal: There is no doubt in my mind that having this vaccine is the right thing to do. The vaccine is now the best way to do that and I am proud to say that as a front-line doctor I will be amongst the first to be vaccinated tomorrow.

  • Sohail Bhatti: The Pfizer vaccine has produced a superior immune response in people of all ages more quickly than any other COVID-19 vaccine that is currently available so I am delighted that this is the vaccine that has been supplied to Gibraltar. Please take your one chance to be released from the nightmare of the last year and give yourself freedom from fear and uncertainty. When it is my turn I will be taking this vaccine.”

Consider the contrast in what they are selling Gibraltar with what is disclosed in Paragraph 5.5 from the leaked document:

Was the Government also privy to the fact that lucrative boosters would be introduced?

And would they be responsible for the high uptake of boosters as well for the trials?

This would explain why officials have become Gibraltar Booster Boosters.

Read this March 2020 admission from Sacramento from Gibraltar Vaccine Champion Launches Operation Freedom:

By the end of March, Gibraltar is on track to have completely vaccinated all residents over 16 and its vast imported workforce, Health Minister Samantha Sacramento told The Associated Press. That's over 40,000 people. Only 3.5% have so far rejected the vaccine. But Gibraltar's struggle to regain normality is only just starting. It still faces the many challenges of reopening in a globalized world with unequal access to vaccines and new virus variants emerging. Sacramento has been working on contingency plans, including topping up vaccinations with a booster.

In Jan 2021, Olive Press ran the article – 'BRACE YOURSELVES': Gibraltar's Fabian Picardo declares COVID-19 'worst loss of life in over 100 years' and warns 'we will lose more' as 128 care home residents infected.

Picardo warned Gibraltarians to “Brace Yourselves” For the Worst.

On 31 December 2021, Fabian Picardo warned Gibraltar to "fasten seatbelts" and "brace for 2022”.

What parallels are we going to be able to follow with these warnings?

It’s about time to stop bracing and fastening seatbelts to prepare for their sinister plans, and, instead, to gird our loins with the full Armour of God and speak boldly.


Ephesians – King of kings’ Bible
6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].
6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with Truth, and having on the Breastplate of Righteousness;
6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
6:16 Above all, taking the Shield of Faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
6:17 And take the Helmet of Salvation, and the Sword of the Spirit, which is The Word of God:
6:18 Praying constantly (without ceasing) with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all holy people;
6:19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
6:20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.


Answering any number of these posed questions could explain everything.

And one last question:

Because Christ is Mediator and Judge, how long do these perpetrators in Gibraltar have before they will be held accountable for their crimes against humanity? It’s not really a case of IF, it’s a case of WHEN.

6 Likes

Yes, it certainly would. The people of Gibraltar have a right to know. Conflicts of interests may be considered "legal" if both parties had an agreement of disclosure at the start, BUT the people are not unaware of any agreement. If disclosure of information is deemed private, understood. But, if a contract was signed or an agreement made, the people have a right to know about it in order to determine a "conflict of interest". If so, a self-appointed committee of people could begin an audit of the efficacy of data collected and an independent data collection of the vax program.
Data analysis and quality assurance is not difficult, but it can be time consuming. Accuracy is of the utmost importance. Perhaps, volunteers among the people with access to computers might be a starting point. At the very least, the gov't or medical systems refusal to release data to the people would be a real eye-opener for many who trust the gov't have their best interests in mind.

3 Likes

Medical (Gibraltar Health Authority)

  1. Subject to the provisions of section 20, no personal liability shall attach
    to any member of the Authority in respect of anything done or suffered in
    good faith and without negligence under the provisions of this or any other
    Act.

They are negligent therefore responsible

Proceedings on failure of Authority to perform its duties.
20. (1) If at any time it appears to the Government that the Authority has
failed to comply with any of the provisions of this or any other Act, he may by notice in writing require the Authority to make good the default within
such time as may be specified in the notice.
(2) If the Authority fails to comply with the requirements of a notice
issued under the provisions of subsection (1), the Minister may apply to the
Supreme Court for an order requiring the Authority to remedy the default
specified and the Supreme Court may make such order on the application as
it thinks fit. Every member of the Authority shall be personally liable for
compliance with any such order to the best of his ability.

Powers of the Authority.
(g) to provide a comprehensive medical service and a health
advisory service to the Government of Gibraltar;
(1), it shall be the duty of the Authority–
(f) to ensure that all complaints made against the Authority or any
employee or contractor of the Authority are properly
investigated without delay;

In their own legalese terminology every individual is considered a corporation.
Corporations can be held liable and responsible for damages personally, (liquidated ).
Therefore maybe its time to go after these individuals personal assets, (houses, bank accounts etc.)

They may give the corporation as an entirety immunity, but the individual cannot escape.

3 Likes

This reply is a combined effort from @GibMessenger, a private attorney, the work of Vicky Bula and @DOTS

UPDATE – What’s the Deal with Gibraltar’s Vaccine Supply?

The Government of Gibraltar signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the UKGOV Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), which represented the UKGOV in its contract with Pfizer.

Here are PDFs of the two documents:

  1. Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Gibraltar and the UK Government’s BEIS. HMGoG UKGOV-BEIS Document.pdf (1.2 MB)

  2. Terms and conditions for the supply of centrally procured vaccines between Pfizer and the UK Government’s BEIS. (Open with Preview or Download at https://tinyurl.com/ym4pk3tw)

The MOU between GoG and BEIS was obtained through a Freedom of Information Request by Vicky Bula, Administrator of Vaccine Awareness Gibraltar. She posted the document on 1 October 2021. Vicky deserves a great many thanks for what she is doing for Gibraltarians, in keeping them informed.

Here is an image of what most of the pages look like:

TAKEAWAYS:

A private attorney kindly looked over the documents to help with these takeaways and explanations:

1) The Memorandum of Understanding cannot be understood because literally everything has been redacted. The redaction in itself is beyond suspect. It is unethical and is the exact opposite of transparent.

This begs the question, “why is The Government of Gibraltar and the UK Government interested in protecting Pfizer over their own people?”

2) In the document everything clearly states the vaccine is experimental.

This begs the question, “How can any Government mandating an experimental drug not be in clear breach of Nuremberg Code and The Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights?”

3) It appears The Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy [hereafter the “Authority [BEIS]”] is in privity of contract with Pfizer [hereafter the “Supplier [Pfizer]” and then the Authority [BEIS] is in privity of contract with the Government of Gibraltar.

This begs the question, “Why isn't the Supplier/Pfizer in direct privity of contract with the Government of Gibraltar rather than having the Authority/BEIS act as an intermediary between the Supplier/Pfizer and the Government of Gibraltar?”

Possible answer: The relationship has been set up to create an "arms length transaction" to provide an additional shield against liability, or, more importantly, damages and costs for the Supplier/Pfizer. The Authority first takes ownership of the product and then distributes the product to the Government of Gibraltar.

In a products’ liability lawsuit, one would sue the entire chain so the more “links” in the chain, the more the risk of liability, and more importantly damages and costs can be shared amongst multiple defendants. Therefore one would sue the Government of Gibraltar, The Authority [BEIS], and the Supplier [Pfizer].

However, even if one were to prove the Supplier/Pfizer is liable [despite all of its fancy agreements]... the Supplier/Pfizer is still most likely indemnified by the Authority/[BEIS], and by extension, the Government of Gibraltar via indemnity agreements.

It appears The Authority [BEIS] has agreed to step in and [indemnify], aka pay for any and all damages, against the Supplier/Pfizer in the event there is proven liability all the way back to the Supplier/Pfizer.

But essentially the taxpayers will end up paying for any and all damages a court might award.

Unfortunately, the specifics of any shared indemnity agreement between the Authority [BEIS] and Government of Gibraltar would most likely be covered in the entirely redacted MOU.

Chief Minister Fabian Picardo’s response to questions about liability seem to be in line with BEIS taking full responsibility as long as Gibraltar follows the contract exactly.

Picardo is asked in the interview: "What happens should a member of the community have a severe adverse reaction or in the event of vaccines offered in Gibraltar resulting in disability or death? What compensation scheme is the government going to implement?"

Picardo: "That's a very good question, because it's actually something that is outside the norm of the position here. And one of the things you may recall happened in 2020 umm, when, when Boris Johnson appointed Kate Bingham to be the head of the Task Force in the UK to produce the vaccines, one of the things th.. that Ms Bingham did was give the vaccine companies the UK government was pre-buying from - they hadn't even developed the vaccine - but they were prepaying based on the basis that they would be developing a vaccine and immunity. In other words, the UK government would absorb the liability from any claims that arose against those vaccine companies as a result of the vaccine causing..."

He is interrupted by the interviewer: "She mentions the Vaccine Damage Act, which doesn't apply to Gibraltar."

Picardo: "That's right. That's an UK Act, but what has happened is under the relationship between the United Kingdom Government Department of Health and the Overseas Territories in the supply of that vaccine, the UK government has extended the immunity to the Overseas Territories so long as the Overseas Territories handle the vaccine in the way that is provided for.

And so there was a contract signed by our administrator for health that provides explicitly for the handling of the vaccine; and in how, in handling that vaccine, we stay within the United Kingdom's Immunity in this respect.”

And we know Gibraltar took great care to receive the vaccines, aided by the RAF, which helped to distribute them to other Overseas Territories.

"Immunity" is a special legal protection irrespective of any responsibility/"liability" for harm.

Example: If we played ball. I may be liable for breaking your foot, but you granted me immunity before we agreed to play sports together. Naturally, there is always an exception. Whether I acted in bad faith, was reckless and indifferent with knowledge and intent to harm you, etc.; in that case, you may be able to pierce my "immunity". Yes, you knew there might be a risk of injury playing sports with me, but you never would have granted me immunity had you known I was going to intentionally break your foot during the game. Of course, it is sports, so you are going to have a difficult time convincing an unsympathetic jury it wasn't just an innocent accident on my part. Proving malicious intent is rarely easy.

In Pfizer's case, it will argue it was acting in good faith to save the world from a pandemic and the product was granted emergency use authorization under exceptional circumstances, etc. As it stands, the courts already grant broad immunities to big pharma because they do not want to discourage the industry from, "Doing their best to help the general welfare and public health interests". Too many successful lawsuits would create zero incentive for industry innovation in helping find cures for diseases, etc., particularly in a pandemic. That said, even if one were to pierce this immunity, there is then indemnity.

“Indemnity” is when one individual takes on the obligation to pay for any loss or damage that has been [or might be] incurred by another individual.

Like in the sports example, an addition to you granting me immunity [prior to playing sports] “someone else” (i.e. a gym owner) has promised to indemnify me against any damages [I may be liable to you for]. So even if you can somehow prove I acted with malice and intent to harm while playing sports with me, so that the court pierces my “immunity” and awards you damages for all your hospital bills, pain and suffering, etc. I simply hand the bill to “someone else”.

Where it gets interesting is what did this “someone” agree to indemnify me from? Perhaps the indemnification agreement between the gym owner and me was put in place specifically because this gym owner knows I enjoy breaking people's feet from time to time, but I also bring so many paying customers to his gymnasium that it is worth it for him to cover the cost of the occasional broken foot.

It appears that governments, including the UK, have indemnified Pfizer against any future liability.

A look at the BEIS’s contract with Pfizer:

Dated 12 October, 2020. Entitled TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE SUPPLY OF CENTRALLY PROCURED VACCINES.

See Schedule 2 [General Terms and Conditions] under "Contents"
Section 6. is "Passing of risk and ownership"
Section 13. is "Indemnity"
Section 14. is "Limitation of Liability"
Section 15. is "Insurance"

Section 6 states: 6.1 Risk in and ownership of the Goods shall pass to the Authority when the Goods are delivered by the Supplier, to the delivery point at the Authority Facility. For the avoidance of doubt, and subject to the provisions of Clause 7 of this Schedule 2, the Authority shall be responsible for all post-delivery expenses in relation to the Goods, including, without limitation, post-delivery storage and distribution costs.

Clause 7 basically gives the Authority the right to reject the supply before taking receipt otherwise the Authority takes "ownership" and becomes responsible.

The other sections [13, 14, and 15] however, have been entirely redacted.

IN CONCLUSION:

All of the important bits that might help the general populace understand “The what and why” of how their government entered into a shady deal with the Supplier of an experimental drug have been entirely redacted.

The fact the taxpayers are most likely on the hook for any and all future damages that may be awarded against Pfizer for its experimental drug [without any informed consent] is beyond rational thought [@GibMessenger i.e. insane].

[@GibMessenger – Please take special note and be, and always remain, aware that the government that has offered Pfizer indemnity does NOT have ANY money, other than what it steals from the population through various means of taxation and fines . So, they are stealing the taxpayers’ money to pay to indemnify Pfizer against claims by the taxpayer for compensation for damage caused by their products. So, the taxpayer is paying for his own compensation.

You really couldn’t make this insanity and confidence-trick up, unless you’re a politician or solicitor, which most politicians are.”]

And in her post, Vicky concluded with her own assessment,

“This is a recorded agreement that clarifies certain respective roles, processes, procedures and agreements between participants that include regard to the Introduction, overview, title, risk, quality and compliance, cooperation, governance, variation reviews and confidentiality for the supply of these vaccines to Gibraltar and most of the information has been withheld which I believe to be wrong on so many levels ....

The simple fact that this contract has not even been mentioned raises even more concerns and questions into this vaccination program and the liability .....as more and more vaccines are rolled out...... and the longer these areas of importance are blacked out the longer this vaccination program lacks the transparency needed that should already be transparent to the public of Gibraltar.“

Background on UK Departments Involved:

Department of Health and Social Care – with Sajid Javid as Secretary of State – currently lists its first priority to include protecting the public’s health through the health and social care system’s response to COVID-19.

Responsibilities include:

• accountability: we make sure the department and our arm’s length bodies deliver on our agreed plans and commitments

• acting as guardians of the health and care framework: we make sure the legislative, financial, administrative and policy frameworks are fit for purpose and work together

Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy

Boasts of building a stronger, greener future by fighting coronavirus, tackling climate change, unleashing innovation and making the UK a great place to work and do business.

Responsibilities include:

• fight coronavirus by helping businesses to bounce back from the impacts of COVID-19, supporting a safe return to the workplace and accelerating the development and manufacture of a vaccine

• tackle climate change: reduce UK greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050

• unleash innovation and accelerate science and technology throughout the country to increase productivity and UK global influence

Interesting Developments:

But it can never be an 100% guarantee if fraud is discovered – Former Blackrock executive says Big Pharma’s liability shields could be at risk if fraud is discovered

Looks like Italy may be getting prepared for lawsuits. Italy: Compensation Fund for Corona Vaccination Side Effects - Archyde

4 Likes

Vicky Bula posted the contract (BEIS - England/Wales) on Vaccine Awareness Gibraltar. Thanks Vicky.

Note: This is the same one featured above – Terms and conditions for the supply of centrally procured vaccines between Pfizer and the UK Government’s BEIS. (Open with Preview or Download at https://tinyurl.com/ym4pk3tw )

Victoria Bula Vaccine Awareness Gibraltar • 17 hrs ·

TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE SUPPLY OF CENTRALLY PROCURED VACCINES

THIS CONTRACT is made on 12 October 2020 (“Effective Date”) BETWEEN:

(1) The Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, contracting for and on behalf of the Crown, and whose principal office is at 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET (the “Authority”) on the one hand; and

(2) Pfizer Limited incorporated in England and Wales under registered number 526209, whose registered office is at Ramsgate Road, Sandwich, Kent CT13 9NJ, (the “Supplier”).

2 Likes

How would Gibraltar politicians respond to the same question?

Listen carefully to Australia Prime Minister's answer about the government being responsible for individuals who died from the jab (2min) – it's your fault.

Interestingly, in Australia's case, the government set up an indemnity agreement in July 2021 for GPs – COVID-19 indemnity scheme to protect health professionals and patients

Greg Hunt said -

"On indemnity, I want to make something very, very clear,"

"Australia already has vaccine indemnity agreements in place. I am saying this on behalf of the Government but also on behalf of our legal advice, no doctor need worry,"

Indemnity for GPs administering COVID-19 vaccines | Australian Medical Association

2 Likes

Indemnity for UK GPs

Just a quick note: It's ironic that Australia Prime Minister saying their vaccines weren't mandatory and everyone who took them gave informed consent. Australia was turned into alcatralia – from concentration camps being built, severe restrictions of movement, forced facial recognition apps etc. Coercing is not consent – Australia is a Full Scale Pilot Test For The New World Order

:gibraltar: Gibraltar politicians haven't gotten away with the same, but it's not like they didn't try or plan on it - from the unvaxxed not being able to visit the elderly to the talk about covid passports to enter restaurants. Coercion tactics have been used on The Rock. And "informed consent" is rarely brought up if at all. Instead they incessingly go on about how jabs are safe.

A general rule of thumb for suing for injury or damages is SUE EVERYONE, because the more sued the more chances of the charges sticking somewhere.

Greg Hunt told Aussie GPs that they don't need to worry about being sued for giving the jabs because of indemnity agreements in place.

Is there a similar agreement to protect GPs in the UK? Yes.

COVID-19: toolkit for GPs and GP practices

Indemnity for all NHS clinical negligence liabilities relating to the coronavirus pandemic are being provided for by the four UK Governments.

This will either occur through existing state-backed NHS indemnity schemes or through new arrangements established by the relevant health department. This will ensure that you are legally protected for the work you undertake as part of the COVID-19 response.

Depending on the circumstances, it may be reasonable for you to be asked to work outside your normal scope of practice. However, you should work within your competence. If you are asked to perform tasks you do not feel competent to carry out, you should explain your concerns immediately to those in charge of the practice, and ask that other arrangements are made.

In an emergency, where there are no alternatives available, you should provide the safest care that you are able to provide in the circumstances, with the aim of providing overall benefit for the patient.

NHS clinical negligence indemnity schemes will cover any GP working outside their normal field of practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

If your clinical duties within the NHS have changed as a result of the need to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic you may need to inform your medical defence organisation to ensure you maintain your personal/professional indemnity cover.

We're assuming the GPs in Gibraltar :gibraltar: are covered as well, because of the NHS and UK Gov involvement.

Did you know they expected the challenges?

NHS told to expect ‘huge number’ of legal challenges after pandemic

April 2020 – The NHS should expect a “huge number” of legal challenges relating to decisions made during the coronavirus pandemic, healthcare lawyers have warned.

The specialists said legal challenges against clinical commissioning groups and NHS providers would be inevitable, around issues such as breaches of human rights and clinical negligence claims.

Francesca Burfield, a barrister specialising in children’s health and social care, told HSJ’s Healthcheck podcast: “I think there is going to be huge number of challenges. If and when we move through this there will not only be a public enquiry, [but] I anticipate judicial reviews, civil actions in relation to negligence claims and breach[es] of human rights….”

She said criminal proceedings by the Care Quality Commission or Crown Prosecution Service would also be a possibility, around issues such as deprivation of liberty, neglect, safeguarding, and potential gross negligence manslaughter.

Both lawyers urged CCGs, social care workers and NHS providers to ensure they are maintaining accurate records and to keep a clear audit trail that shows why and how decisions are being made.

Mr Duddles added: “If you act in accordance of what the law is now, you are able to defend your decision. You can chuck something at your lawyer and they have something to get their teeth into and put a defence together, but you have to keep those records and consult with the people you must consult with.”

Are these kind of meticulous records being kept in Gibraltar :gibraltar:? Are GPs leaving themselves wide open for liability claims to stick?

And we have this NHS directive that puts liability in their hands:

GPs must individually approve patients for Covid vaccine before delivery Dec 20

December 2020 – GPs are required to ‘individually assess’ each patient before they receive a Covid jab under the initial delivery mechanism, NHS England has said.

And they will take full clinical responsibility for all vaccinations delivered by non-prescribers until a national protocol is agreed, it added.

Each vaccination will take three minutes longer than previously planned under this mechanism, according to new calculations.

Oh, how rules change to fit the narrative.

There are even Truth-groups giving even school administrators notices of liability for their own participation.

When all this is said and done, who will the blame fall on or "stick" to?

2 Likes