November, 11 2021, 09:03am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7413 5566
After hours: +44 7778 472 126
Email: press@amnesty.org
Covid-19: New research reveals Pfizer is making misleading claims about fair distribution of vaccines
LONDON
Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer is making misleading statements about its commitment to vaccine fairness, as it continues to supply the majority of its life saving Covid-19 doses to wealthy nations, said Amnesty International today.
In a new briefing, the organization found that Pfizer, which recently said it expects to earn 36 billion dollars in vaccine sales this year alone, has distorted reality to benefit its corporate image. The company is claiming to prioritize fair distribution of its vaccine and purporting to commit to sharing its scientific tools and insights - when the truth is very different.
"We're still in the middle of an unprecedented global health and human rights crisis and it is essential that all countries of the world have access to vaccines as soon as possible. Pfizer says it is committed to supplying doses to low and middle-income countries, but the numbers just don't bear this out. The fact is that this company is still putting profits first," said Patrick Wilcken, Amnesty International's Head of Business and Human Rights.
Pfizer's executives have repeatedly claimed that by the end of the year the US-based multinational will have supplied at least one billion doses to "low and middle-income nations".
But the language is misleading. The World Bank classifies economies for analytical purposes into four income groups: low, lower-middle, upper-middle, and high income. However, in these statements, Pfizer has amalgamated low, lower-middle, and upper-middle countries - over 84% of the global population - into one group and referred to them as "low and middle-income". Within this very broad category, the bulk of Pfizer's doses have in fact been going to "upper-middle" income countries such as Malaysia, Mexico and Thailand.
Pfizer said it had shipped a total of two billion doses by the end of September. In a letter to Amnesty International in November, the company admitted that of these only 154 million doses - less than 8 percent of its total - had reached 42 low- and lower-middle-income countries. Pfizer said it had distributed less than 10 percent of these (i.e. 15.4 million) to low- income countries.
"As much as these companies might want to massage the facts, the numbers are crystal clear - they are still supplying the majority of their doses to richer parts of the world," said Patrick Wilcken.
As much as these companies might want to massage the facts, the numbers are crystal clear - they are still supplying the majority of their doses to richer parts of the world"
Patrick Wilcken
Pfizer's claims to have "committed to sharing our scientific tools and insights", starkly contrasts with the fact that the company has failed to join the Covid-19 Technology Access Pool (CTAP), which was established to pool data and knowledge, and is not participating in the WHO's mRNA vaccine Technology Transfer hub in South Africa, greatly delaying the development of production sites in Africa.
According to the WHO, only 4.4% of the continent's population have been fully vaccinated and its population is in grave need of access to life-saving vaccines. Pfizer has also actively lobbied against the World Trade Organization's TRIPS Waiver which would temporarily lift intellectual property rights, allowing for expansion of the world's manufacturing capacity of Covid-19 vaccines.
Furthermore, despite claims that Pfizer's development and manufacturing costs relating to the Covid-19 vaccine are entirely self-funded, the company has benefited from pre-orders from some of the world's richest countries, as well as the large government support received by its German partner BioNTech.
Pfizer is not alone in these failures. The other European and US-based Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers, BioNTech, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca have all similarly blocked technology sharing and lobbied against the proposed TRIPS waiver.
According to data provided by Airfinity, a science and analytics company, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson also have an especially poor record on fair vaccine distribution. Approximately 96% of Moderna's vaccines are still going to upper-middle and high-income countries.
Over the last 50 days, only 100,000 out of 52 million doses delivered went to low-income countries. Johnson & Johnson's breakdown is also inadequate. According to Airfinity, Johnson & Johnson, has delivered just 11% of its vaccines to low-income countries, and a further 5% to lower-middle income countries, with the remaining 84% going to upper-middle and high-income countries.
"With 50 days left until the end of the year, it's not too late for these pharma giants to redeem themselves, do the right thing and fulfil their human rights responsibilities. To achieve this, they need to ramp up fair distribution and ensure half the doses they produce before the end of 2021 goes to these countries," Patrick Wilcken said.
"By taking action now, they could help to vaccinate an extra 1.2 billion people in low and lower-middle income countries by the end of the year - and save at least 2 million* lives."
Amnesty International is supporting the World Health Organization's target of vaccinating 40% of those in low and lower-middle-income countries by the end of 2021 with its 100 Day Countdown campaign. The 100 Day Countdown: 2 billion vaccines now! campaign is calling on states and pharmaceutical companies to take urgent action to meet that lifesaving target.
According to Amnesty International this can be achieved if pharmaceutical companies deliver 50% of vaccines they produce between 21 September 2021 and 31 December 2021 to low and lower-middle income countries; states redistribute the hundreds of millions of surplus vaccines currently in their stocks; and if states and pharmaceutical companies urgently increase global supply of Covid-19 vaccines by sharing knowledge and technology.
Amnesty will be holding demonstrations outside the offices of pharmaceutical companies around the world, including Pfizer, during November, calling on the company to stop blocking access to vaccines, start sharing and save lives.
Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all. Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity. We have more than 2.2 million members and subscribers in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
LATEST NEWS
'Insane This Is Legal': Bettors Make Huge Profits From Suspiciously Timed Wagers on Iran War
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year."
Mar 01, 2026
Bettors on the prediction platform Polymarket made a killing with suspiciously timed wagers that the United States would attack Iran by February 28, the day President Donald Trump announced a bombing campaign against the Middle East nation.
Bloomberg reported that six accounts on Polymarket, all newly created this month, "made around $1 million in profit" by betting on the timing of the US attack on Iran. The accounts, according to Bloomberg, "had only ever placed bets on when US strikes might occur," and "some of their shares were purchased, in some cases at roughly a dime apiece, hours before the first explosions were reported in Tehran."
One account with the name Magamyman raked in over $515,000 by betting roughly $87,000 that the "US strikes Iran by February 28, 2026."
The lucrative bets quickly drew scrutiny from lawmakers. US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media that "it’s insane this is legal."
"People around Trump are profiting off war and death," Murphy alleged. "I’m introducing legislation ASAP to ban this."
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) wrote that "prediction markets cannot be a vehicle for profiting off advance knowledge of military action" and demanded "answers, transparency, and oversight."
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year," Levin wrote, referring to the president's eldest son. "The [Justice Department] and [Commodity Futures Trading Commission] both had active investigations into Polymarket that were dropped after Trump took office."
There's no concrete evidence that Trump administration officials or staffers were behind the hugely profitable bets, but the wagers heightened concerns about the possibility of insider trading using increasingly popular prediction market platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi. Last month, bettors used Polymarket to make big profits on suspiciously timed wagers on when the US would oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Polymarket currently allows users to bet on when Iran will have a new supreme leader, when the US and Iran will reach a ceasefire agreement, and when the US will invade Iran.
The celebrity news tabloid TMZ reported Saturday that "a group at a Washington, DC restaurant was talking openly in the bar area Friday afternoon about a national secret that was about to literally explode hours later—the bombing of Iran."
As journalist David Bernstein noted, that—if true—leaves open the possibility that "these 'insider' bets have been placed by any rich person with good ears in DC."
"Not to mention that for all we know these administration clowns were probably gossiping about it on a text chain with half a dozen people they accidentally invited," Bernstein added. "This is hardly the locked lips brigade we’re dealing with."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Pillory Trump Case for War on Iran: 'Flimsiest Excuse for Initiating a Major Attack' in Decades
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said one analyst.
Mar 01, 2026
Senior Trump administration officials attempted during a briefing with reporters on Saturday to make their case for the joint US-Israeli military assault on Iran that has so far killed hundreds and plunged the Middle East into chaos.
According to experts who listened to the briefing, which was conducted on background, the justification for war was incredibly weak. Daryl Kimball, president of the Arms Control Association, told Laura Rozen of the Diplomatic newsletter that the administration's argument was "the flimsiest excuse for initiating a major attack on another country without congressional authorization, in violation of the UN Charter, in many decades."
During his early Saturday remarks announcing the attacks, President Donald Trump claimed that "imminent threats from the Iranian regime" against "the American people" drove him to act. But Kimball said that administration officials "provided absolutely no evidence" to back that assertion during the briefing.
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said Kimball.
Following the start of Saturday's assault, which Trump explicitly characterized as a war aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, unnamed administration officials began leaking the claim that Trump feared an Iranian attack on the massive US military buildup in the Middle East, prompting him to greenlight the bombing campaign in coordination with Israel and with a nudge from Saudi Arabia.
Kimball, in a social media post, took members of the US media to task for echoing the administration's narrative. "Reporters need to do more than stenography," he wrote in response to Punchbowl's Jake Sherman.
"The American people were lied to about Iraq. The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Trump and top administration officials also repeated the longstanding claim from US warhawks that Iran is bent on developing a nuclear weapon, something Iranian leaders have publicly denied—including during recent diplomatic talks. Neither US intelligence assessments nor international nuclear watchdogs have produced evidence indicating that Iran is moving rapidly in the direction of nukes, as claimed by the administration.
Rozen noted that some remarks from administration officials during Saturday's briefing "suggested Trump’s negotiators"—a team that included Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff—"may not have had the expertise or experience to understand the Iranian proposal to curb its nuclear program." Rozen reported that one administration official kept misstating the acronym for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog.
Trump administration officials, according to Rozen, seemed astonished that Iranian negotiators would not accept the US offer to provide free nuclear fuel "forever" for Iran's peaceful energy development, viewing the rejection as a suspicious indication that Iran was opposed to a diplomatic resolution—even though, according to Oman's foreign minister, Iran had already made concessions that went well beyond the terms of the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump abandoned during his first stint in the White House.
Experts said it should be obvious—particularly given Trump's decision to ditch the previous nuclear accord—why Iran would not trust the US to stick by such a commitment.
The administration's inability to provide a coherent justification for war tracks with the rapidly shifting narrative preceding Saturday's strikes—an indication, according to some observers, that Trump had made the decision to attack Iran even in the face of diplomatic progress and left officials to try to cobble together a rationale after the fact.
In a lengthy social media post, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted war was necessary because Iran "refused to make a deal" and because the Iranian government "has targeted and killed Americans," hardly the claim of an imminent threat push by the president and other administration officials.
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, noted in response that the Trump administration has "sidelined anyone who could articulate... a coherent argument, partly because expertise is deep state and woke and partly because they just don't care."
The result is another potentially catastrophic war that runs roughshod over US and international law, puts countless civilians at risk, and threatens to spark a region-wide conflict.
"President Trump, along with his right-wing extremist Israeli ally Benjamin Netanyahu, has begun an illegal, premeditated, and unconstitutional war," US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Saturday. "Tragically, Trump is gambling with American lives and treasure to fulfill Netanyahu's decades-long ambition of dragging the United States into armed conflict with Iran."
"The American people were lied to about Vietnam. The American people were lied to about Iraq," Sanders added. "The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democratic Leaders Face Backlash Over 'Cowardly' Responses to Trump War on Iran
"As we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
Mar 01, 2026
The top Democrats in the US Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, faced backlash on Saturday over what critics described as tepid, equivocal responses to President Donald Trump's illegal assault on Iran—and for slowwalking efforts to prevent the war before the bombing began.
While both Democratic leaders chided Trump for failing to seek congressional authorization and not adequately briefing lawmakers on the details of Saturday's attacks, neither offered a full-throated condemnation of a military assault that has killed hundreds so far, including dozens of children, and hurled the Middle East into chaos.
Schumer (D-NY)—who infamously worked to defeat the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump later abandoned during his first White House term, setting the stage for the current crisis—said he "implored" US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to "be straight with Congress and the American people about the objectives of these strikes and what comes next."
"Iran must never be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon," he added, "but the American people do not want another endless and costly war in the Middle East when there are so many problems at home."
Jeffries (D-NY), a beneficiary of AIPAC campaign cash, said in his response to the massive US-Israeli assault that "Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism, and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region."
"The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective, and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East," said Jeffries.
The Democratic leaders' responses bolstered the view that their objections to Trump's attack on Iran are based on procedure, not opposition to war.
This is a disgusting and cowardly statement handwringing about process and the need for a briefing.
No you idiot. This war is a horror and a disaster and must be directly opposed. Any Democrat who can’t say that needs to resign and ESPECIALLY the ones in leadership. https://t.co/CdZoEyNkOy
— Krystal Ball (@krystalball) February 28, 2026
Claire Valdez, a New York state assemblymember who is running for Congress, said that "as we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
"Democrats should speak clearly and with one voice: no war," Valdez added.
Schumer and Jeffries both committed to swiftly forcing votes on War Powers resolutions in their respective chambers. But reporting last week by Aída Chávez of Capital & Empire indicated that top Democrats worked behind the scenes to slow momentum behind the resolutions, helping ensure they did not come to a vote before Trump launched the war.
"The preferred outcome of many AIPAC-aligned Senate Democrats, according to a senior foreign policy aide to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, is that Trump acts unilaterally, weakening Iran while absorbing the domestic backlash ahead of the midterms," Chávez wrote.
Neither Schumer nor Jeffries backed legislation last year aimed at forestalling US military intervention in Iran.
The top Democrats' responses to Saturday's US-Israeli attacks on Iran, which Trump said would continue "uninterrupted" even after the killing of the nation's supreme leader, contrasted sharply with statements of rank-and-file congressional Democrats—and even some members of leadership—who condemned the president for shredding the Constitution and driving the US into another deadly war that the American public opposes.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has been floated as a possible 2028 challenger to Schumer, said Saturday that "the American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions."
"This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic," said Ocasio-Cortez. "This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people. Violence begets violence. We learned this lesson in Iraq. We learned this lesson in Afghanistan. And we are about to learn it again in Iran. Bombs have yet to create enduring democracies in the region, and this will be no different."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was more blunt.
"Congress must stop the bloodshed by immediately reconvening to exert its war powers and stop this deranged president," she said. "But let’s be clear: Warmongering politicians from both parties support this illegal war, and it will take a mass anti-war movement to stop it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


