Featured Image

BOGOTA, Colombia (LifeSiteNews) – Officials in Colombia accidentally published contracts from both Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca, detailing the multimillion-dollar deals and indemnification agreements struck between the South American nation and the pharmaceutical giants to import around 25 million combined doses of their COVID-19 vaccines.

While attempting to transfer the confidential information to a regional court following a tutelage filing, Colombia’s Council of State, the supreme judicial authority in the country, mistakenly disclosed contracts signed between the Colombian government and the drug manufacturers on its publicly accessible judicial information system, an RT news report revealed.

Though the mistake was quickly discovered by the government and the documents removed from public access, the Colombia-based non-profit Anticorruption Institute was able to access and copy the information, and later published the leaked documents on its own website “to defend transparency and in a bid to safeguard the fundamental right of access to public information,” they argued.

The 132-page file details the contractual agreement established between the Colombian government and the two pharmaceutical companies, with AstraZeneca’s contract being signed on December 16, 2020, and Pfizer’s on February 2, 2021.

Colombian officials agreed to pay AstraZeneca $6 per dose, ordering a total of 9,984,000 shots from the Oxford-based operation and costing $59,904,000. Pfizer negotiated $12 per dose of their mRNA jab, selling the Colombians 15,000,570 shots totalling $180,006,840. All told, the Colombian government shelled out a hefty $239,910,840 for 24,984,570 doses of COVID-19 vaccines, corresponding to 12,492,285 citizens (around 25 percent of the population) being able to become “fully vaccinated” against the virus.

Meanwhile, vaccine injury firm Children’s Health Defense revealed that the U.S. paid $19.50 per dose of Pfizer’s mRNA jab for COVID-19.

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus
  Show Petition Text
1082041 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1100000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

People of goodwill can disagree about the safety, efficacy and religious implications of a new vaccine for the coronavirus.

But, everyone should agree on this point:

No government can force anyone who has reached legal adulthood to be vaccinated for the coronavirus. Equally, no government can vaccinate minors for the coronavirus against the will of their parents or guardians.

Please SIGN this urgent petition which urges policymakers at every level of government to reject calls for mandatory coronavirus vaccination.

Fear of a disease - which we know very little about, relative to other similar diseases - must not lead to knee-jerk reactions regarding public health, nor can it justify supporting the hidden agenda of governmental as well as non-governmental bodies that have apparent conflicts of interest in plans to restrict personal freedoms. 

The so-called "public health experts" have gotten it wrong many times during the current crisis. We should not, therefore, allow their opinions to rush decision-makers into policies regarding vaccination.

And, while some people, like Bill Gates, may have a lot of money, his opinion and that of his NGO (the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) - namely, that life will not return to normal till people are widely vaccinated - should not be permitted to influence policy decisions on a coronavirus vaccination program.

Finally, we must also not allow the rush by pharmaceutical companies to produce a new coronavirus vaccine to, itself, become an imperative for vaccination.

Unwitting citizens must not be used as guinea pigs for New World Order ideologues, or Big Pharma, in pursuit of a vaccine (and, profits) which may not even protect against future mutated strains of the coronavirus.

And it goes without saying that the production of vaccines using aborted babies for cell replication is a total non-starter, as the technique is gravely immoral.

However, if after sufficient study of the issue, a person who has reached the age of majority wishes to be vaccinated with a morally produced vaccine, along with his children, that is his business.

But we cannot and will not permit the government to make that decision for us.

Thank you for SIGNING and SHARING this petition, urging policymakers at all levels of government to reject mandatory coronavirus vaccination.


Bill Gates: Life won’t go back to ‘normal’ until population 'widely vaccinated' -

COVID-19 scare leads to more digital surveillance, talk of mandatory vaccine 'tattoos' for kids' -

Trudeau says no return to ‘normal’ without vaccine: 'Could take 12 to 18 months' -

Trudeau mulls making coronavirus vaccine mandatory for Canadians -

US bishop vows to ‘refuse’ COVID-19 vaccine if made from ‘aborted fetal tissue' -

** While LifeSite opposes immorally-produced vaccines using aborted fetal cell lines, we do not have a position on any particular coronavirus vaccines produced without such moral problems. We realize many have general concerns about vaccines, but also recognize that millions of lives have been saved due to vaccines.

*** Photo Credit:

  Hide Petition Text

But besides the eye-watering costs associated with importing the experimental jabs, the nation agreed to indemnify the manufacturers from any legal responsibility for adverse events arising from the use of their products.

Pfizer’s contract admitted that “Pfizer’s and BioNTech’s efforts to develop and manufacture the Vaccine are aspirational in nature and subject to significant risks and uncertainties,” and that, accordingly, “the Republic of Colombia will fully assume the risks derived from the acquisition, use and application of the vaccine.”

In fact, Pfizer explicitly stated 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.” The Colombians were forced to acknowledge that the jab has unknown effects since it is “being rapidly developed due to the emergency circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

On account of the possibility of unknown adverse effects, the drug distributer demanded as part of the contract that Colombia “hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer, BioNTech, each of their Affiliates … based on the research, development, manufacture, distribution, commercialization or use of the Vaccine … from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses … 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.”

Additionally, the government were originally tied into a strict non-disclosure agreement, asserting that they cannot release any information about the details of the costs incurred or indemnities afforded by the contract:

Purchaser may not disclose any of the financial or indemnification provisions contained in this Agreement, including without limitation the price per dose of Product or refundability of the Advance Payment or any information that could reasonably ascertain the price per dose of Product, without the prior written consent of Pfizer.

Pfizer also tied the Colombians into a clause that guarantees the drug company will not be affected negatively by any changes in Colombian law. Pfizer also ensured that the Colombian government pay for each shipment ten days in advance of receiving the goods, and that late payments were subject to interest.

The AstraZeneca contract made similar demands on the Colombian authorities, adding an express indemnification requirement “for death, physical, mental, or emotional injury, illness, disability, or condition … arising from the use or administration of the Vaccine.”

The Colombian supreme court blunder leading to the revelation of the vaccine contracts, is not the first time that pharmaceutical companies have had the details of their international agreements made public against their wishes.

In fact, Pfizer has already had contracts with Albania, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and the European Commission revealed. The formula used for all of these agreements remained consistent, except for the necessary changes according to the purchaser and the costs associated with their order.

An information expert, Ehden Biber explained in a Twitter thread that “[b]ecause the cost of developing contracts is very high and time consuming (legal review cycles), Pfizer, like all corporations, develop a standardized agreement template and use these agreements with relatively minor adjustments in different countries.”

As the manufacturers continue to be afforded indemnity from legal reprisal, the adverse events associated with their formulas steadily rises. The latest data from the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System now shows 571,831 reports of injury following COVID-19 jabs, 55 percent of which followed the Pfizer/BioNTech’s mRNA shot. Overall, 12,791 deaths have been recorded following the use of a COVID vaccine between December 2020 and August 6, 2021.

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here. 


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.