“Reading the contract signed between the Israeli government and Pfizer shows clearly and unequivocally that this is a clinical study for all intents and purposes, and thus, it had to be approved by the Helsinki Committee,” a senior official told Calcalist.
“There is nothing wrong with clinical trials,” the official said, “but clinical trials (human trials) must get the committee’s approval, and of course, from the people on whom the trial is being conducted while giving them the right to refuse to be part of a trial. These are fundamental things.”
The Supreme Helsinki Commission is expected to submit its opinion to the Ministry of Health stating that the immunization process led by the Israeli government together with Pfizer is fundamentally clinical research – the code name for human trials – and thus, had to receive explicit and detailed approval of the committee, according to Calcalist.
The opinion is expected to be handed over to the director-general of the Ministry of Health, Hezi Levy – possibly even today.
Prof. Eitan Friedman, chairman of the Helsinki Committee, told Calcalist that the committee would convey its position to the government not through the media.
Since the committee is a statutory committee (established by virtue of the law), the practical meaning is that it will determine that the experiment on humans that Pfizer is currently conducting in Israel is illegal.
On January 6, the “Cooperation Agreement for the Collection of Epidemiological Information from the Real World” was signed, in which Pfizer promised the State of Israel vaccines that would vaccinate all residents except children and those who could not be vaccinated. In return for advancing Israel over other countries, the State of Israel will provide Pfizer with epidemiological information that will allow it to assess the effectiveness of the vaccine.
The question that arose in the Israeli public was: what medical information the State of Israel would be given to Pfizer? What exactly would it be used for?
Many allegations have been made about the risk of violating the privacy of the country’s residents, and the lack of transparency in not disclosing the contract. The Ministry of Health said that it would give Pfizer only general epidemiological information, but then why did Pfizer sign an agreement to obtain such information, which is exposed in any case. The Ministry of Health agreed to publish the full agreement. However, parts in the agreement are hidden under black marks. Why?