Pfizer has moved to dismiss a lawsuit from a whistleblower who revealed problems at testing sites
A whistleblower launched a suit against Pfizer after revealing problems from their testing sites for the COVID-19 vaccine.
Brook Jackson, the whistleblower alleged that Pfizer violated clinical trial regulations and federal laws which include the False Claims Act. Pfizer has responded with a motion to dismiss.
From the Epoch Times:
In its motion to dismiss, Pfizer says the regulations don’t apply to its vaccine contract with the U.S. Department of Defense because the agreement was executed under the department’s Other Transaction Authority (OTA), which gives contract holders the ability to skirt many rules and laws that typically apply to contracts.
That means that Jackson’s claim that Pfizer must still comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulations “is simply wrong,” Pfizer said.
Trending: Hollywood Actor Whose Loudmouth Brother Has Been Charged In Fatal Shooting of Unarmed Woman, Warns Trump Supporters Who Plan to Protest The Former President’s Impending Arrest Could End In “2 Ashli Babbitt’s”
In response to the accusation that they did not follow federal procurement laws, Pfizer claimed that they “didn’t have to—this was just for a prototype.”
Pfizer’s contract offers all kinds of dreadful protections and ways of bypassing normal stipulations and regulations.
Paying $.19 billion for 100 million doses, the government granted a contract under the “prototype” provision which falls under the OTA. This was manageable through Pfizer falling under a “nontraditional defense contractor.”
Federal law defines nontraditional defense contractors as “an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed” a contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense for at least one year preceding the solicitation of the OTA agreement. Pfizer has dozens of contracts with the military.
That means the government certified “an absurd fiction” to use an OTA to grant the contract, Kathryn Ardizzone, counsel with Knowledge Ecology International, told The Epoch Times in an email.
So while Pfizer’s contract does potentially shield them from the FAR regulations which they failed to follow, it is clear that they never should have legally been able to receive such a contract in the first place.
It is not, however, set in stone that they are free and clear of the FAR. Their actual contract is silent on regulations appearing under FAR, and therefore the judge in the case will have to examine details of the contract and the law extra carefully before granting the motion to dismiss.