[ad_1]
The Commission’s lead official on vaccine contracts hit back Monday at suggestions that drugmakers aren’t under legal obligations to deliver the doses specified in their vaccine contracts.
The flexibility inserted in the Commission’s contract with AstraZeneca applied to a scenario where clinical trials might not succeed, but crucially did not apply to the timeline for vaccine deliveries, said the head of the Commission’s health division DG SANTE, Sandra Gallina.
Gallina specifically referred to the contract’s wording over “best endeavors,” referencing the controversy sparked by AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot last week. He insisted that the commitments his company had signed obliged it only to meet delivery timetables according to its “best effort.”
Gallina dismissed his claim in an appearance before the European Parliament’s budget committee, arguing that the “best endeavors” wording was used in contracts because companies couldn’t know whether their vaccine candidates would clear clinical trials at the time. The language didn’t absolve them of the responsibility to “deliver within a certain schedule” once that bar was cleared, she said.
Gallina also pushed back against the argument that the EU let precious vaccine doses slip out of its hands because it was pinching pennies, allowing less stingy countries to snap them up.
“We definitely would not have obtained more doses with more money,”said Gallina. “Because the problem … is manufacturing.”
Any reports that the Commission could have bought more doses misses the point, because doses “delivered in time” were key, she said.
“If we could put more money to buy earlier doses, we would have done so,” she said. She quipped that she expects drugmakers to argue otherwise, but she has “all the proof in my papers.”
“Absolutely, no doubt, this was the money that we needed,” she said.
Gallina also defended the Commission’s insistence that vaccine-makers shoulder liability — reportedly a major speed bump during talks with pharmaceutical companies.
“Safe vaccines and the possibility to have indemnification, if there are problems, were really very important,” she explained.
The liability issue did require longer discussions, she admitted, but contended this step was necessary.
“We have kept within the limits of what a citizen needs,” she said. “A citizen needs a judge; a citizen needs an indemnification if the product creates issues.”
A redacted version of the contract was published Friday, but failed to resolve some core disputes.
[ad_2]
Source link
