The wisdom of refusing a vaccine (2).

.........contd.

While Pfizers's intellectual property (IP) rights are impregnable, if Pfizer itself is sued for infringement of someone else's IP rights, it is Brazil which has to bear all costs of legal defence and damages. And Pfizer in no way guarantees that its product does not violate third-party IP or that it needs additional licences.

It is significant that these terms are not part of Pfizer's contracts with the EC and the US. In fact, the US flatly rejected many of the indemnity clauses.

If, in spite of all these watertight conditions, a dispute arises, it will be resolved not in a public court but by a panel of three private arbitrators. Brazil has to keep even the existence of this tribunal - and of course all proceedings, decisions and awards - secret. Pfizer, it would seem, is above the laws of Brazil. Brazil is prohibited from making "public announcement concerning the existence, subject matter or terms of (the) agreement" or commenting on its relationship with Pfizer without written permission from the company.

Thus, Pfizer has silenced a national government. But, for the EC and the US, this non-disclosure provision applies to both parties - the government needs Pfizer's consent to speak and Pfizer, the government's.

India has been down this road before, in the 1990s, when it signed a contract with Enron to build a power plant at Dabhol, Maharashtra. It was because of a vigilant media and citizen activism - and finally Enron's spectacular meltdown in 2001 - that we escaped relatively unhurt. But it remains a dark chapter in India's foreign investment story.

This time round, the government has been remarkably astute. Pfizer seems to have carried out a big campaign that millions of Indians would be affected if the vaccines were not imported on Pfizer's terms. As a very senior corporate executive, who is a friend, put it : "This is the narrative.....There is a shortage of vaccines. Pfizer's is the best. So India must at once accept Pfizer's conditions and pricing. By not agreeing, the administration is proving that it is heartless". But the government held firm.

And, cleverly, it never said a clear "no" to the company. It did not leave the negotiating table and the official stance was that it was in discussions with Pfizer. Because it knew that by the beginning of August, domestic vaccine supply should increase dramatically and the delivery mechanism of the states should also be ramped up. 

That is exactly what happened. Production and procurement shot up. Vaccination numbers consistently beat targets that the government had set for itself. Data from countries administering the Pfizer vaccine also showed that it was not the magic bullet it was hyped to be, much superior to Covishield or Covaxin. Today, the experts who had batted for Pfizer do not even mention the name. They have shifted to petulantly complaining that the billion vaccine mark could have been achieved faster.

India stood its ground against the greed of Big Pharma and refused to be held to ransom. Its stand has been fully vindicated.

........concluded.  

- Sandipan Deb

Tailpiece.

Got up a trifle late, the chores and had breakfast before bath. Went about my work that had to be done.

The day was dull with an overcast sky and frequent drizzles.

Another quiet day, otherwise.