Question for written answer to the Commission
Rule 138
Marcel de Graaff (NI), Joachim Kuhs (ID), Bernhard Zimniok (ID)
Subject: EMA was pressured by the Commission to approve Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccines.
Publications suggest that leaked emails reveal that the EMA was pressured by the European
Commission to approve Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccines, despite EMA’s concerns about the safety and (in)effectivity of the vaccines.[1]
In an email dated 19-11-2020 the former Deputy Executive Director of the EMA, Noël Wathion, openly discussed a tense atmosphere. He mentioned that the European Commission deemed it politically disadvantageous to wait thorough investigations into the vaccines.
A day later, on 20-11-2020, the Commission signed a contract with Pfizer explicitly stating that the vaccine was developed quickly and that its side effects and effectivity are unknown.
- Does the Commission agree that these leaked emails demonstrate that the in the Covid-19 vaccines process speed has been prioritized over safety and thus the protection of the health of our citizens?
- Does the Commission acknowledge that it pressured the EMA to approve vaccines without thorough investigations, despite concerns of their ineffectiveness, side effects and lethality?
- Can the Commission explain why it not only signed a contract with Pfizer a day after receiving the warnings and objections of the EMA concerning the safety of the vaccines but also gave them a full waiver of liability claims?
[1] https://www.nius.de/Corona/jetzt-ermittelt-sogar-der-us-bundesstaat-texas-die-chronik-der-pfizerskandale/2029fe4b-e598-46d8-b82d-0cbce2b8f979
