Maverick Citizen


Analysis finds SA was bullied into one-sided, imperial and immoral Covid-19 vaccine contracts

Analysis finds SA was bullied into one-sided, imperial and immoral Covid-19 vaccine contracts
(Photo by Gallo Images / Sharon Seretlo)

We found that in all four vaccine contracts, the pernicious nature of pharmaceutical bullying and Gavi’s heavy-handedness were plain: the terms and conditions are overwhelmingly one-sided and favour multinational corporations and preserving their intellectual property (IP) empires.

This article is an extract from “Multi-stakeholder analysis: South African Covid-19 vaccine procurement contracts” and was written by the Multidisciplinary Stakeholder Analysis Group, led by Health Justice Initiative (HJI). The group is made up of the following organisations:

  • Health Justice Initiative (HJI) – South Africa; Fatima Hassan and Marlise Richter;
  • Health Law Institute, Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University – Canada; Matthew Herder;
  • O’Neill Institute at Georgetown University – USA; Matthew Kavanagh and Luis Gil Abinader;
  • Public Service Accountability Monitor at Rhodes University – South Africa; Jay Kruuse;
  • Global Justice Now – UK; Nick Dearden;
  • Health GAP – USA; Professor Brook Baker;
  • Expert IP Lawyers – India; Roshan Joseph and Leena Menghaney;
  • Initiative for Medicines, Access & Knowledge – USA; Tahir Amin; and
  • Public Citizen – USA; Peter Maybarduk.

Globally, at least 14 million people lost their lives in two years (2020-2021); these are excess deaths associated with the Covid-19 pandemic. Many of these deaths were preventable.

The uneven and unfair allocation of vaccines to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic globally, has been correctly described as a “moral failure” including by the World Health Organization (WHO). In that time, the majority of black and brown people in the Global South struggled to access life-saving vaccine supplies. Many parts of the Global South especially, saw declining public health outcomes, premature death and suffering, and terrible socioeconomic devastation.

By early February 2023, within three years, according to Our World in Data, 69.7% of the world population had received at least one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, 32 billion doses have already been administered globally, and 28% of people in low-income countries have received at least one dose.

During the Covid pandemic, and given this global context on access inequity, HJI tracked vaccine equity, supplies, and access for South Africa (SA). For the better part of 2021, the HJI found that SA either had negligible or staggered access (also referred to as a “drip-drip” supply system) for several reasons.

Thus, for months, while people were getting vaccinated in the Global North and elsewhere, with even two shots of vaccine doses, people in SA were waiting for vaccine supplies and for the national vaccine programme to properly kick off (save for a few hundred clinical trial participants, a few hundred thousand healthcare workers via a J&J donation/“study programme” called Sisonke, (and oddly and unfairly, if not unethically, through that programme, a handful of sports people and celebrities too).

While SA scientists and researchers led global efforts on genomic surveillance, detecting variants first, well ahead of other countries in the Global North, the SA Government led a bold proposal on a waiver of IP rules at the World Trade Organization, with others. SA also supported and took part in at least four clinical trials, contributing to the global generation of knowledge for vaccine approval and use too. People in SA volunteered for trials for Pfizer, J&J, AstraZeneca and Novavax.

But for access to scarce supplies, SA was placed in the back queue, the “African queue’’, like apartheid, this time by powerful companies, where access to the very same vaccines tested on people in SA was delayed or denied.

Subtle threats invoked to block the IP waiver proposal led by SA

Per media reports, the same companies also lobbied and, in some cases, invoked subtle threats to block the IP waiver proposal led by SA. For example: Politico previously reported that government officials in Belgium were lobbied by J&J representatives who “asked” them not to support the waiver proposal, in return for retaining their investments and plants in Belgium:

“Is that a direct threat? I don’t know.” The adviser to the Belgian prime minister spoke calmly as they recounted a lobbying phone call from 2021, but the contents of the conversation are extraordinary. The call was from a spokesperson for Janssen, the Belgian-founded pharmaceutical arm of J&J that developed the company’s single-shot Covid-19 vaccine. According to the adviser, the spokesperson warned them that if Belgium supported a radical proposal made by India and South Africa at the World Trade Organization, then Janssen might rethink its vast billion-dollar research and development investments in Belgium.” [Politico, emphasis added]

The complex issue of vaccine apartheid and nationalism has been extensively set out in the main set of legal papers for the HJI in the case at hand, and by several leading CSOs in multiple other reports, academic journals, health publications, opinion pieces, and media articles and stories and by the WHO, since late 2020. The same issue has been emphasized on multiple occasions on global platforms by SA’s President, Cyril Ramaphosa as well, most recently at the World Leaders’ Summit for a New Global Financing Pact, where he referred to Africa being akin to “beggars” (for vaccine supplies).

Why are the contracts important?

As of 4 June 2023, more than 38 million Covid-19 vaccines doses had been administered in SA. Since late 2021, SA has received several millions of vaccine doses by directly buying from pharmaceutical companies, or through the Covax facility administered by Gavi or by receiving donations. These vaccines have been procured at great cost.

The public has, until now, not known the content of the contracts, nor the complete details of the contracting parties, nor the details of unsuccessful or paused negotiations with other entities too. In other parts of the world, civic groups, NGOs, public interest lawyers, and journalists have also attempted to obtain copies of contracts entered there, and using a variety of means, successfully secured a combination of unredacted/redacted versions through leaked copies or information access requests and legal filings. We therefore hope that the precedent set by the judgment of Millar J – involving the HJI and Minister of Health – in the Gauteng High Court will ensure that in future pandemics, this information is automatically placed in the public domain and transparency is prioritised.

Paragraph 2 of Millar J’s judgment is clear and unambiguous – about the role vaccines play in mitigating a health crisis and in managing a global pandemic (emphasis added):

In this application, it is not in issue between the parties that Vaccines play a pivotal role in mitigating the consequences of Covid-19, by preventing death and controlling the spread of the virus. They are a central element of the global – and the South African – response to Covid-19, prompting a worldwide effort to immunize billions of people. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has emphasised the importance, to trust in the vaccination programme, of governments demonstrating their ability to procure vaccines and to develop effective and inclusive roll-out plans. It recommends that such plans should be open to public scrutiny and require proactive disclosure of information.

Because of this judgment, and the decision by the minister not to appeal it, by 31 August 2023, four contracts were handed over to the HJI’s legal representatives. On 5 September 2023, it was available to download from the HJI website, accompanied by a multistakeholder analysis.

A bit of history…

In mid-2021, the HJI requested and then filed access to information requests (using the “Promotion of Access to Information Act” – PAIA – a freedom of information law, in SA) to obtain copies of the Agreements, among other documents, which request, and internal appeal were refused or rejected by the department.

HJI also tried to get the contracting parties’ details and complete identities, but these requests were also “rebuffed” [per Millar J]. As a result, in 2022, the HJI filed legal papers against the SA Minister of Health and the National Department of Health’s Information Officer. It was argued on 24 July 2023 in the Pretoria High Court in Gauteng before Millar J. Shortly thereafter, on Thursday, 17 August 2023, the High Court ruled in HJI’s favour in its bid to compel the department to provide access to the Covid vaccine procurement contracts and other documents.

The Court [Millar J], in a groundbreaking judgment, ordered the disclosure of: a) Copies of all Covid-19 vaccine procurement contracts, and memoranda of understanding, and agreements (we refer to this as “part 1”); and b) Copies of all Covid-19 vaccine negotiation meeting outcomes and/or minutes, and correspondence (we refer to this as “part 2”); within 10 court days of the judgment (31 August 2023).

The minister did not pursue an application for leave to appeal the judgment: But the department’s legal representatives requested an extension until 29 September 2023 for the handover of the “part 1” and “part 2” documents.

HJI granted the extension for the “part 2” documents (negotiation meeting outcomes, minutes, and correspondence) but did not grant it for the “part 1” documents (Contracts, MOUs, and Agreements).

A few days ago, on Thursday, 31 August 2023 there was a handover of documents to HJI’s legal representatives purporting to be the “Contracts, MOUs, and Agreements” (part 1) with three companies (Janssen/ J&J, Pfizer, the Serum Institute of India (SII), and with one not for profit initiative – Gavi, for COVAX).

The documents were not redacted. The HJI now awaits the “part 2” documents, due by 29 September 2023, which date constitutes the extension period to which HJI has agreed.

On receiving the “part 1” documents, the HJI, with a diverse range of academics, lawyers, and researchers from different organisations and universities, immediately worked on verifying what was handed over, and since the evening of 31 August 2023, studied and reviewed the documents, to provide the following joint analysis (preliminary):

  1. a) The HJI chose this approach because this case is of grave importance, both locally in SA, and globally, for transparency norms in the domain of vaccines and pharmaceuticals. As such, HJI drew on its partners to assist with the review;
  2. b) At a time of social media and other forms of disinformation and anti-science messaging, which is anti-evidence, and where anti-vaccine groups are becoming more vocal on social media, we have chosen this path to share proper and accurate information with the public; and
  3. c) Our starting point is that approved vaccines are safe and effective, can save lives, and that if Covid vaccines were more speedily available at the RIGHT time in the Global South, in 2021 especially, and with a greater focus on broad universal and unencumbered technology sharing, immediate suspension of IP rules, and proper attention to public health equity needs, then the devastation on our societies and health sectors in particular during that time, in SA, everywhere in the Global South, and beyond, could have been mitigated better.

At the outset it is important to note that this analysis is based on four sets of agreements provided by the state to HJI in terms of the court order and that the outstanding documents are due to be delivered by the end of September 2023.

There are four contracts

This being the four entities that SA procured and/or received vaccines from during the Covid-19 pandemic, where payment was made from the national fiscus. Agreements related to the donation from the US Government of Pfizer supplies are not included here.

The four Contracts are thus for: J&J/Janssen, Pfizer, SII (licensee of AstraZeneca), and COVAX (Gavi).

Within the four contracts, while the following documents are referenced for COVAX/Gavi (“Terms and Conditions”; “Allocation Framework”) and for Pfizer (“Indemnification Agreement”), they were not attached and/or included in the handover of 31 August 2023. If separate non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) were signed for any or all the parties, those NDAs have not been provided either. HJI’s legal representatives have accordingly requested confirmation of, or copies of same. All four contracts were legally obtained as part of a court-ordered process. These contracts were thus not “leaked” to the HJI. The contracts, per the court order, are not redacted, and HJI has since 5 September 2023, shared them on its website for public viewing.

After reviewing and studying the documents making up the four contracts, we found that in all four contracts, the pernicious nature of pharmaceutical bullying and Gavi’s heavy-handedness were plain: the terms and conditions are overwhelmingly one-sided and favour multinational corporations and preserving their intellectual property (IP) empires.

Extractionist terms and conditions undermine SA’s sovereignty

This placed governments in the Global South, and in turn, the people living in these countries, in the unenviable position of having to negotiate scarce supplies in a global emergency (2020-2023) with unusually onerous demands and conditions, very little leverage against late or no delivery of supplies, and inflated prices – all under conditions of strict secrecy. SA’s sovereignty was, in short, completely undermined. This should never happen again. We have argued that it is unconscionable, imperial, and unethical.

The most egregious example of this, in our review, has been a multinational pharmaceutical company (Johnson & Johnson/J&J) trading scarce or very delayed supplies for extractionist terms and conditions that undermine national sovereignty – precluding SA from imposing any export restrictions or bans. This was mainly to benefit their bottom line or patients in Northern countries first: in Europe, not Africa. This requires further investigation.

Equally problematic is another very profitable multinational company, Pfizer, which extracted over-the-top concessions from SA, shirking its own liability, and worse, demanded that it retains 50% of the ‘’first payment”, even upon its own default to register or deliver the vaccines to SA. Pfizer also included a one-side disclaimer of non-infringement of other right holders’ IP, in effect, demanding the very kind of IP waiver that it vehemently opposed be granted to vaccine developers in the Global South.

By all reasonable accounts and based on what was agreed to with SA, COVAX overpromised and under delivered for SA (and elsewhere), supplying even fewer vaccines than what the US Government donated to SA in 2021, when it mattered the most. Further, South Africa received no price guarantee under the COVAX Agreement: while the all-inclusive weighted average estimated cost per dose was $10.55, South Africa had the right to reject doses costing more than $21.10.

J&J contracted to charge SA $10 per vaccine dose, while the EU reportedly paid $8.50 – and the “non-profit price’’ was in the range of $7.50. It is not clear from the contracts if, and when, and for what period, SA was not charged the price contained in the contract/refunded the balance in price difference, as J&J has since claimed that it only charged SA the “not-for-profit price’’.

For the SII, it is also likely that SA overpaid compared to European countries by at least more than two-and-a-half times! In the UK and EU, AstraZeneca charged £2.17 and £2.15, respectively, whereas SA’s contract included $5.35 per dose.

The contracts also required SA to seek “permission’’ to divert or donate or sell doses which have already been paid for by the South African public, despite the benefit to other poorer countries or buyers. Frankly, in a global pandemic, this is paternalistic and imperialist, harms public health programmatic planning, and deliberately reduces the autonomy of African states.

In particular, J&J, Pfizer and COVAX did not commit to supply volumes and delivery dates, making it increasingly difficult to plan and run a timely and proper vaccination programme.

A dangerous precedent for future pandemic readiness measures

Our analysis has set out extensively out why this type of “take it or leave it” contracting signals a dangerous precedent for future pandemic readiness measures and systems, and why this level of bullying and lack of transparency has no place in any democracy. It requires systemic redesign.

The point of an advance purchase agreement is to have a minimum level of certainty for South Africa to order and purchase vaccines or medicines and receive them timeously. These contracts belie that purpose and attempt to shroud that failure in secrecy.

And regrettably, this is not a once-off Covid-related modus of operating: at present, even more pharmaceutical corporations are insisting on NDAs – with broad confidential information clauses, and including them more aggressively in supply agreements to suppress the disclosure of pricing and supply terms, particularly in negotiations covering monopoly products such as HIV medicines.

It is also unfortunate that the South African Government spent almost two years resisting disclosure, for the main benefit of big pharmaceutical corporations and Gavi – COVAX. Lack of timely public access to these contracts created mistrust and limited public accountability action towards these corporations during a global pandemic. It also created opportunities for price variations and enabled these multinationals to impose coercive terms on the SA Government.

This deference to and fear of pharmaceutical power, in the middle of a crisis, in a constitutional democracy, should be of deep concern to the global public health community. It shows how much power was put into the hands of private sector actors and how few options governments had, when acting alone, in the middle of a pandemic.

This is not a problem that can be solved by a single government but requires a regional and global solution and the exercise of state sovereignty.

Unless acted upon with clear, legally binding international agreements, not whimsical pledges, we will arrive at the next pandemic with little more to enforce fair terms than platitudes and scathing press statements from the minister and president in SA and other world leaders in the Global South.

Transparency and fair terms on quantities, price, and delivery must be deliberated upon in Pandemic Accord negotiations and revisions of the international health regulations currently under way, and at the upcoming United Nations General Assembly.

Thankfully, the courts in SA have mitigated and addressed some of the uglier sides to contracting in the Covid pandemic, with this groundbreaking judgment.

While the HJI case and Millar J’s judgment have opened up the secret Covid-19 vaccine procurement contracts to foster transparency and accountability in public procurement of health goods, hopefully this will have far-reaching implications, not just for the next set of pandemic procurement negotiations and contracts/agreements here and elsewhere, but also for the substantial amount of procurement due to take place under SA’s future National Health Insurance system.

Finally, we therefore call on governments in the Global South, the boards of these and other pharmaceutical corporations, as well as their wealthy shareholders, and the Geneva-based not-for-profit initiatives, to take the necessary steps to ensure that this type of bullying and extremes of non-disclosure, and secrecy are not repeated in the next pandemic. We need open procurement processes, not secretive ransom negotiations. DM


Comments - Please in order to comment.

  • jacki watts says:

    While this information is needed in the public domain, it is a poorly written piece by DM standards…

  • Hidden Name says:

    I am a little confused…Is this an article about western abuse of Africa (why bring race into it at all? Africa was last on the list because we are poorest) or an expose on the aggressive profiteering pharmaceuticals (and the majority of health providers too, in all honesty) engage in? Seems a bit naive to think they would not push an advantage when they can.

  • Jennifer D says:

    It seems the author makes every effort to “inflame” the audience with insubstantial information. Using words like “apartheid” and comparing £s with $s which is not accurately comparable is not acceptable.
    COVID was badly managed by our government and if they agreed to high prices, our own clear understanding of how our ministers negotiate is that they pay exorbitant prices for a big back hander. I am personally aware that many big pharma companies have teams of people actively working to assist Africa and that they spend many millions trying to do so. That said, it is time for Africa to start being responsible for its own. Fighting against the West is not the way to go about this and won’t result in a positive outcome for this continent. Aggravating dissension between Southern Africa and the west is not to our benefit and this article attempts to do just that.

    • Oom Dugk says:

      “ Many parts of the Global South especially, saw (still see) declining public health outcomes, premature death and suffering, and terrible socioeconomic devastation.”

      The above issues and incompetent governance predate the covid crisis and are still endemic today.
      I’m unsure of the motivations of the authors but their is unmistakably an agenda and it is seems to be to blame the market for governance failures.

  • I’m awfully sorry but the DM have reported on nothing but the same scripted malarkey that got us into this mess in the first place. Nothing about the efficacy or long term effects being completely contradictory to all the information being forced down the world’s throat that they were 100% safe and effective. Nothing about the startling revelation that nothing must be serialised. Maybe it’s just me but am I missing something here?

    • Louise Louise says:

      Exactly! Where is the analysis of excess deaths and the massive numbers of serious injuries from this experimental product? In the contract it emphatically states (see section 5) that the long term effects and efficacy are UNKNOWN. In other words, this product was not sufficiently researched and studied before being given emergency authorisation.

      Has the Daily Maverick actually challenged the safety of this product? People are “dying suddenly” in massive numbers (see book “Cause Unknown” by Edward Dowd, ex Blackrock investor executive). I personally know at least 6 people who have been injured and 4 who have died after taking this experimental product.

      • Alan Salmon says:

        Really Louise I cannot understand where you get this garbage from ! Immunisation/vaccination is not “experimental” and has saved millions of lives since first implemented – the best example being small pox which was eradicated from the world completely by vaccination. The rare reactions to vaccines cannot be compared to the millions saved.

        • Lucius Casca says:

          Actually the Covid vaccine was “experimental” to an extent… if it wasn’t there would have been no reason for the pharmaceutical companies to seek and obtain emergency use authorisation from the FDA/WHO for unapproved products. coupled with the fact that employers were forcing the employees to take the vaccine knowing full well that if something went wrong they won’t be able to have recourse to pharma companies or their employers, this is a dangerous precedent.
          And by the way, the small pox comparison is ridiculous, the mortality rate on small pox was 30% pre-vaccine compared to covid’s mortality rate of less than 1%, hardly a scenario to impose the kind of utilitarian, the end justifies the means approach you seem to be fine with.

          • Ben Harper says:

            No it wasn’t, it was an adaptation of the flu vaccine which pharma companies do every year for every new strain of the flu

          • Lucius Casca says:

            Uhm no, it was nothing similar to the flu shot. Covid-19 vaccine was an mRNA vaccine and not a “traditional” vaccine. Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine was the first ever mRNA vaccine fully approved and commercially deployed.

          • Louise Louise says:

            Thanks Lucius, yes, and in response to Ben Harper below, this type of “vaccine” had never been used on human beings before and was absolutely and definitely NOT any adaptation of a normal ‘flu vaccine. This experimental injection used mRNA technology and did not use the traditional antigen-based technology that is used in normal vaccines. In other words, the ‘covid’ injection did not have a killed virus particle from the alleged SARS COV-2 virus. Instead, this injection, using the mRNA wrapped in a lipid case, was supposed to provoke the body into producing the toxic spike protein which was said to be the part of the alleged virus that caused ‘covid19’. After the spike protein was produced in the body, the idea was that the body would produce an immune response to the spike protein, thereby priming the body to detect future spike proteins and stopping infection and transmission. Sadly the injection did nothing of the sort – it neither stopped infection nor transmission. You can read about and confirm this technology on the CDC web site – just search “moderna mrna vaccines how they work” and you’ll see the link. DM doesn’t allow URLs in these posts.

        • A Z says:

          Dear Alan, ignorance is bliss. The man who is the 2nd largest donor to the World Health Organisation (after the US) and singularly the biggest funder of GAVI, Mr Bill Gates himself stated at the Lowy Institute on 23 January 2023: ‘The current vaccines are not infection blocking, they are not broad, so, when new variants come up you lose protection, and they have very short duration particularly in the people that matter – which are old people’. An online search will reveal Mr Gates in his own words. As for the vaccine manufacturers – if you search the legal case by the words ‘Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc.’ which is all on the record and in the public domain, you will satisfy for yourself how the company behind our most widely used vaccine behaved when they trialled a meningitis antibiotic in Nigeria. Against an existing gold standard of treatment which Doctors without Borders were already using. Just the first 2 paragraphs will be most instructive in describing the actions they took to make their own drug appear effective relative to an existing treatment. But before this post gets flagged, I will leave any readers here to read further for themselves under those search words and make up their own minds on the matter and its direct relevance to this discussion.

    • Robert Gornal says:

      Apart from not being safe and effective as no proven by data anda comment from the CDC this panedmic was all about money and in many ways the shortage of gene therapy injections (there never were or will ever be vaccines) may well have spared many people in Africa from the adverse reaction to these injections not to mention the unexplained increase in death rates across the countries which had their cotozens injected. Belately the FDA have conceded that doctors may prescribe the “horse” medication which millions of people in the tropics have safely used to counter two viruses and which would have done the same for this virus.

      • Elson Junqueira says:

        Also, if a person does a bit of digging on the internet, you will find that the clinical trial testing for the Pfizer vaccine only finished this year so all in all while being forced onto the general public it was still being tested while illegally being classified as safe, tested and effective, yet so horribly ineffective that people ended up needing boosters and multiple shots. Pretty useless in my opinion.

  • Sydney Kaye says:

    Is the motive for the so called abuse profit or racism. It can’t be both.

    • Rod H MacLeod says:

      Well if we study who’s who in the zoo @ Multidisciplinary Stakeholder Analysis Group, we will immediately understand the perspective that will be portrayed as the theme of the dissertation. For example, the headline “pernicious nature of pharmaceutical bullying” is broad, unsubstantiated and based on a skewed interpretation of a hastily assembled pseudo-analysis of the disclosed Part 1 documents.
      The article is laced with poisonous references to “apartheid” (the use of this phrase is so out of context it raises questions around wether the authors understand what apartheid was or not), “paternalistic and imperialist”, “empires” and so on.
      A token flick at the huge R&D costs involved in the pharma industry and who bears responsibility for the risks in the industry would have at least demonstrated a modicum of intellectual balance. But like all intractable socialists, the Multidisciplinary Stakeholder Analysis Group (who knows why they think they’re stakeholders in this matter) will gleefully spend other people’s money in the quest to achieve their vision of justice.

      • Andrew P says:

        “The Reds are coming for your meds!” It’s not like the pharmaceutical industry relies on mounds of even-riskier, publicly-funded medical research, the results of which they get for free. Talk about other people’s money…

  • Eileen Drysdale says:

    Your comment – This deference to and fear of pharmaceutical power, in the middle of a crisis, in a constitutional democracy, should be of deep concern to the global public health community – should not refer only to the way that vaccine distribution was handled, but also to the way that the pharmaceutical industry giants (Big Pharma) used what was not a huge global risk to their own gain by causing mass hysteria and forcing governments to put ridiculous measures, culminating in forced vaccination, into place. They should not be allowed to ever wield that kind of power over the world’s population. What other business can do that? Big Pharma’s time needs to be brought to an end.

  • Sonja06 says:

    We can just be happy the performance of our government is so poor, otherwise more people would have been vaccinated! It’s a blessing!

  • Alan Salmon says:

    Disgraceful behaviour by big multinationals as usual. To constantly favour wealthy countries over poorer countries is immoral, especially with respect to health issues, but sadly this is unlikely to ever change.

  • Nick Miller says:

    Were the terms imposed on SA materially worse than those imposed upon Western governments, for instance the U.K. and, if so, to what extent is this based upon financial contribution to research made by Western governments?

  • Martin Smith says:

    And most South Africans didn’t take the vaccine… so overcharged for a product that the people didn’t want.

  • Dominic Rooney says:

    In other words (and much more succinctly) the SA negotiators were useless.

  • Spienaar591 says:

    Much more worth investigating is why South Africans had to pay hundreds of Rands during the Pandemic to get tested, should they need to know whether they had Covid or not. Our local testing station was a temporary structure in a field behind a shopping centre. Who cornered this market and how? Methinks a pile of cash was made behind the scenes. In the UK, I can buy a box of ten tests from the pharmacy for a few pounds and test myself.

  • Winston Bigsby says:

    The DM has pulled it’s cop-out “we’ve disabled Covid-19 commentary due to C-19 State of Emergency” drivel??
    DM trotted out the government/WHO/CDC/WEF/Pfauci horseshit narrative throughout Scam 19 and they’re now allowing commentary?
    Well WTF turned over a new forest?
    Dr. Robert Malone (co-invented the mRNA sequence & was suppressed & de-platformed), one of the many vilified expert medics, along with Drs. Peter McCullough, Pierre Corry, Ryan Cole have produced an avalanche of evidence to prove that the Covid-19 Scamdemic was the greatest medical malfeasance in history!
    PANDA – Nick Hudson’s outfit destroyed all the fear porn & ridiculous data projections thru C19 & are still doing sterling work on the future implications of what the media, WHO, CDC, BMG Foundation got away with.(see – Public Health mismanagement, misinformation on vaccines, lockdowns, masks and Propaganda and Censorship – it’s all there check it out?
    Oh and Google Event 201, the C-19 practice run from October 19 sponsored Bill G & John Hopkins?
    The screeching from the captured elite media, the fear & manipulation – all following the WEF agenda, vax passport to travel, cashless society, social credit score, carbon credits, the WEF mantra in the mouths of every political leader, remember build back better, the Great Reset, the New World Order even dribbled out of Biden. This was centralist surveillance & techno healthcare for control & compliance. Wake up! Stop masking & getting boosted?

  • Winston Bigsby says:

    The DM lifted the Comments on C-19 ban?
    WTF turned over a new forest?

  • Glenn Varrie says:

    DM blocked comments throughout the pandemic effectively becoming the biggest shills for pharma corruption . We know now that this was day light robbery on a grand scale . Safe and effective these therapies were not and many South Africans refused to drink the cool aid . We were lucky our excess deaths are way less than the over injected and boosted countries of the West. People’s eyes are open now , fool me once ……

  • The average cost of drug development is $2bn per compound, and it takes 12 years from the pre-clinical phase to FDA approval. Safety and tox studies are onerous, and unacceptable toxicity is the reason for most drugs never coming to market. The FDA grants accelerated approval or fast track status to an investigational drug for expedited review to facilitate development of drugs that treat a serious or life-threatening condition and fill an unmet medical need. However, the drug manufacturer is then required to submit all cases of adverse events or serious adverse events to the FDA, who then will and should recall the drug if that evidence is compelling. In light of data now proliferating, which unequivocally illustrates devastating long term health issues, all these vaccines should have been recalled or have black box warnings at the very least, but the FDA is funded by those very same vaccine producers, and politicians lobbied relentlessly. Hindsight is an exact science, but this is not imperialism, racism or apartheid – its simply corporate greed aided and abetted by corrupt politicians. The South African government is similarly proficient in that arena. Perhaps this illustrious group of stakeholders could expand their investigation into who in SA benefitted financially from the increased price.

  • roger.arendse says:

    ☝️🏾☝️🏾From the start the DM (vaunted as “progressive”) was beholden to & propaganized the mainstream Covid narratives, and came to push the jabs & mandates in lockstep with Globalist demands. Now they try to cover up their anti-human, anti-goodscience, profiteering agenda with supposed “morality” that wants to “serve” the Global South (incl SA) against the west. The fact is the DM has always been batting for the Globalist agenda.

    While initially fooled by the DM, I soon came to see in the early months of Covid how corrupted and collusive it has been, and how hostile it has been to all thinking and evidential-based research coming out, such as those from PANDA.

    I wrote a substack which called out the DM for its captured journalism…then…and ongoing. I’m not allowed by DM to post my article, but you can track the substack via my name. The DM collusion and capture is described in the substack if you care to track via rogerarendse.

    Boycott the DM. I do!

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted


This article is free to read.

Sign up for free or sign in to continue reading.

Unlike our competitors, we don’t force you to pay to read the news but we do need your email address to make your experience better.

Nearly there! Create a password to finish signing up with us:

Please enter your password or get a sign in link if you’ve forgotten

Open Sesame! Thanks for signing up.

We would like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick...

…but we are not going to force you to. Over 10 million users come to us each month for the news. We have not put it behind a paywall because the truth should not be a luxury.

Instead we ask our readers who can afford to contribute, even a small amount each month, to do so.

If you appreciate it and want to see us keep going then please consider contributing whatever you can.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

MavericKids vol 3

How can a child learn to read if they don't have a book?

As the school year starts again, thousands of children will not have the basics (like books) to learn from.

81% of children aged 10 cannot read for meaning in South Africa.

For every copy of MavericKids sold from the Daily Maverick shop, we will donate a copy to Gift of the Givers for learners in need. If you don't have a child in your life, you can donate both copies.

Small effort, big impact.