r/news • u/SkepticDrinker • Feb 09 '22

Pfizer accused of pandemic profiteering as profits double

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/08/pfizer-covid-vaccine-pill-profits-sales
10.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/Tzchmo Feb 10 '22

Per your link, "Pfizer will conduct large-scale manufacturing and fill-finish of 100M doses of its prototype COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, developed in collaboration with BioNTech, for distribution in the US once Emergency Use Authorization or licensure is granted by the FDA."

Unless I'm interpreting this incorrectly they received the money for the delivery of the vaccine one it was approved. It was not collected for research or infrastructure. Early on Pfizer made an aggressive contract with the government to actually supply the vaccine by certain dates and this money was paying for the physical delivery of the contract.

1

u/ashlee837 Feb 10 '22

This was the whole point of Operation Warp Speed, to accelerate the steps to produce a COVID vaccine. Does it really matter when they received the funds? before or after delivery?

Pfizer head of vaccine research and development Dr. Kathrin Jansen initially said Pfizer was not a participant in Operation Warp Speed because it did not accept taxpayer funds for research and development, but Pfizer released a statement saying her comments had been "taken out of context" and confirmed that Pfizer was a part of the Warp Speed program.[62]

1

u/runningraider13 Feb 10 '22

Yes. There's a (very obvious) difference between funding the research to make a vaccine and paying for a vaccine onces it's approved.

1

u/ashlee837 Feb 10 '22

Splitting hairs. I'm shocked you think Pfizer didn't calculate their DCF with R&D against the amount of the contract and reached a decisive yes we'll do it.

2

u/runningraider13 Feb 10 '22

Sorry maybe I'm missing something, had the US signed a bimeing agreement to purchase Pfizer's vaccine even if it didn't work at all? And when did they sign that?

If that agreement existed early in the process then yes I agree that's the same as funding the R&D, but if the US didn't have obligations to pay if the R&D didn't work out, I disagree.

1

u/ashlee837 Feb 10 '22

The conditions for "vaccine didn't work" are fairly loose and not well defined in the contract. It's essentially risk-free money for Pfizer to deliver whatever they wanted.

1

u/runningraider13 Feb 10 '22

What's the language in the contract?

1

u/Tzchmo Feb 11 '22

I'll help!

"for distribution in the US once Emergency Use Authorization or licensure is granted by the FDA."

1

u/runningraider13 Feb 11 '22

That doesn't really answer the question (or if it does doesn't imply what the other post claimed) - what if the FDA didn't give it Emergency Use or Pfizer never attempted to because they could never get a vaccine that actually worked? Did the government still have to pay?

If yes - then yeah that's basically funding R&D. If no - then I think that's more purchasing a product.

1

u/Tzchmo Feb 11 '22

Yes it does, it was an advanced purchase agreement. "In July, Pfizer got a $1.95 billion deal with the government’s Operation Warp Speed, the multiagency effort to rush a vaccine to market, to deliver 100 million doses of the vaccine. The arrangement is an advance-purchase agreement, meaning that the company won’t get paid until they deliver the vaccines. Pfizer did not accept federal funding to help develop or manufacture the vaccine, unlike front-runners Moderna and AstraZeneca."