EU General Court Ruled Commission did not Provide Public Enough COVID-19 vaccine deal Info

[Social Media]

 

The European Commission has been criticized for its lack of transparency regarding COVID-19 vaccine purchase agreements. On Wednesday, the EU general court ruled that the Commission did not provide the public with sufficient access to these agreements made with pharmaceutical companies during the pandemic. This decision comes at a critical juncture as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen seeks reelection in a vote at the European Parliament.

 

A group of EU lawmakers took legal action after the Commission refused to grant them complete access to the COVID-19 vaccine contracts. The pandemic shed light on the issue of transparency in negotiations for vaccines between the EU and large pharmaceutical companies. The European Commission was tasked with organizing the joint procurement of vaccines for the 27 member states and led the negotiations with manufacturers.

 

This centralized approach enabled the EU to rapidly amass 2.7 billion euros ($2.95 billion) to order over a billion vaccine doses. In 2021, some members of the European Parliament requested full details of the vaccine agreements, but the Commission only provided partial access to certain contracts and documents, which were made available online in redacted form. The Commission also withheld information on the costs of the billions of doses, citing confidentiality clauses in the contracts.

 

The court criticized the Commission's approach, stating that it "did not take sufficient account of all the relevant circumstances in order to weigh up correctly the interests at issue." This lack of transparency has been a recurring issue. Two years ago, the EU's ombudsman accused the Commission of "maladministration" in a separate case involving access to text messages between President von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla.

 

These messages were related to the vaccine procurements for EU countries, a fact revealed by a New York Times story. Following the report, a journalist requested access to these messages and other related documents, but the Commission claimed no records of the text messages were kept. Commission officials argued that text messages are ephemeral and do not contain significant information warranting their inclusion in the document management system.

 

Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly recommended that the Commission conduct a more thorough search for the relevant messages. However, the executive branch maintained its stance, further fueling concerns about its commitment to transparency. The ongoing scrutiny and legal challenges suggest that the European Commission may need to revise its policies and practices regarding access to information, especially in matters of significant public interest such as health and safety.

 

The court's decision underscores the need for greater openness in how the European Commission conducts its negotiations and manages information. As the pandemic highlighted the crucial role of vaccines, ensuring transparency in the procurement process is vital for maintaining public trust and accountability. The Commission's reluctance to provide full access to the vaccine agreements has raised questions about its handling of public health issues and its commitment to transparency. The legal challenge by the EU lawmakers and the court's ruling reflect growing concerns about the need for greater openness and accountability in the Commission's operations. 

 

The European Commission's handling of the COVID-19 vaccine agreements has brought to light the importance of transparency in public health matters. As the EU continues to navigate the challenges of the pandemic, it is essential for the Commission to ensure that its actions are transparent and accountable to the public.

 

The court's ruling serves as a reminder of the need for greater openness in the Commission's operations and the importance of maintaining public trust in its decisions. The European Commission must address these concerns and take steps to improve its transparency and accountability in order to effectively serve the public and protect public health.

 

Credit: ABC News 2024-07-18

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

[owl sees all]

"Transparency??!!" What a load of nonsense.

 

What about some truth and honesty?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

17 hours ago, Social Media said:

Two years ago, the EU's ombudsman accused the Commission of "maladministration" in a separate case involving access to text messages between President von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla.

 

 

Interesting result... Notwithstanding her role in the above, von der Leyen just got elected to a second five-year term as European Commission president, and the COVID vaccines issue got only a one paragraph mention at the bottom of a very long CNN report that mostly focused on defense and economic issues.

 

Ursula von der Leyen elected to second term as European Commission president

July 18, 2024

 

(CNN)  —  Ursula von der Leyen has been reelected to a second five-year term as president of the European Commission after a vote by EU lawmakers, as the continent’s mainstream seeks to reassert itself in the face of a resurgent far right.

 

In an earlier pitch to the European parliament in Strasbourg, France, von der Leyen on Thursday pledged to invest in infrastructure and industry, create a new “European Defense Union” and stay the course on the continent’s green transition.

 

After a secret ballot, von der Leyen was reelected with 401 votes in favor and 284 against. She needed more than 360 ballots to secure a majority in the 720-seat parliament.

 

(more)

 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/18/europe/eu-parliament-von-der-leyen-second-term-commission-intl/index.html

 

 

[Robert Paulson]

I’m actually surprised how pathetic some of these countries were. I do sympathize with their blight, don’t get me wrong, but 1) indemnity required 2) lack of safety data / history relative to other vaccines 3) obviously nobody laid their eyes on transmission efficacy results because even after the fact they’ve admitted “no, we didn’t test transmission, we were working at the speed of science”. 
 

I put much of the blame on countries for being so stupid

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Another tired old rehashed anti-vaxer claim re vaccines and transmission.

 

COVID vaccines were approved in Europe and the U.S. on the basis of their ability to reduce and prevent COVID infection and illness in the people who received the vaccines, which they did.

 

Preventing transmission was never a requirement for approval of the COVID vaccines either in Europe or the U.S. so they were not initially tested for that, even though once out in the real world, studies showed they did in fact help reduce transmission.

Fact Check: Preventing transmission never required for COVID vaccines’ initial approval; Pfizer vax did reduce transmission of early variants

Reuters Fact Check

February 13, 2024

 

"Social media users are circulating video clips of testimony by a Pfizer executive, who is said to “admit” that the company and its partner BioNTech did not test whether their mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine reduced virus transmission prior to rolling it out – which is something the companies were not required to do for initial regulatory approval, nor did they claim to have done.

 

To get emergency approval, companies needed to show that the vaccines were safe and prevented vaccinated people from getting ill. They did not have to show that the vaccine would also prevent people from spreading the virus to others. Once the vaccines were on the market, independent researchers in multiple countries studied people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and did show that vaccination reduced transmission of variants circulating at the time.

 

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/preventing-transmission-never-required-covid-vaccines-initial-approval-pfizer-2024-02-12/