Image Source: UnsplashThe Texas attorney general is suing pharmaceutical giant Pfizer (PFE) for misrepresenting the effectiveness of the company’s Covid-19 “vaccine” and for conspiring to censor those who questioned its claims. The suit, filed Thursday, alleges that Pfizer violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by engaging in false, deceptive, and misleading acts as it promoted the drug.
“The facts are clear. Pfizer did not tell the truth about their COVID-19 vaccines,” said Attorney General Kenneth Paxton in a statement revealing the suit.
“We are pursuing justice for the people of Texas, many of whom were coerced by tyrannical vaccine mandates to take a defective product sold by lies.“
The suit comes about eight months after Paxton announced an investigation of Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson for potential misrepresentations about Covid-19 vaccine efficacy and “potential manipulation of vaccine trial data.”Pfizer CEO Albert BourlaHe has accused the company of “unlawfully misrepresenting the effectiveness of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine and attempting to censor public discussion of the product,” according to a press release.
“Pfizer engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading acts and practices by making unsupported claims regarding the company’s COVID-19 vaccine in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act,” the release continues
Much of Paxton’s 54-page-complaint focuses on Pfizer’s December 20, 2020 claim that its vaccine was “95% effective.”However, according to the complaint, “more Americans died in 2021, with Pfizer’s vaccine available, than in 2020, the first year of the pandemic.” He also cites government reports concluding that in some places, deaths among vaccinated people outpaced those among the unvaccinated, even on a percentage basis. Pfizer’s claim of 95% efficacy rested on deceptive framing of clinical trial observations, says the complaint:
That number was only ever legitimate in a solitary, highly- technical, and artificial way—it represented a calculation of the so-called “relative risk reduction” for vaccinated individuals in Pfizer’s then-unfinished pivotal clinical trial.
But FDA publications indicate “relative risk reduction” is a misleading statistic that “unduly influence[s]” consumer choice.
Indeed, per FDA: “when information is presented in a relative risk format, the risk reduction seems large and treatments are viewed more favorably than when the same information is presented” using more accurate metrics.
The critical 95% claim came at a point when Pfizer only had an average of two months data on participants, says Paxton.Specifically, the Texas AG says that of the 17,000 who received a placebo, only 162 contracted the illness, which makes for a poor baseline from which to judge the efficacy of the so-called vaccine. Had Pfizer used the FDA’s preferred metric — absolute risk reduction — it would have instead informed the public that “the vaccine was merely 0.85% effective,” writes Paxton.“Moreover, according to Pfizer’s own data, preventing one COVID-19 case required vaccinating 119.”Kenneth Paxton recently survived an impeachment trial in the Texas Senate centered on bribery and other allegations (Nick Wagner/Austin American-Statesman)Paxton also accuses Pfizer of creating a false impression about the vaccine’s duration of protection without having any basis. Worse, the complaint accuses Pfizer of “withhold[ing] highly relevant data and information from the consuming public showing that efficacy waned.” Pfizer is also alleged to have made baseless claims and insinuations about the vaccine’s supposed ability to thwart transmission and to be helpful against variants. The complaint also says Pfizer “took overt action to intimidate and silence persons who spread factual information about vaccine efficacy,” a censorship drive that allowed the company to “secure commitments to purchase at least 415 million and 2.7 billion doses from the U.S. and foreign governments respectively.” Pfizer’s actions included pressuring social media platforms to silence influential doubters. It’s with no small amount of hesitation that we’ve referred to Pfizer’s shot as a “vaccine.” After all, in practice, it behaved nothing like how that term was understood before the pandemic. For example, prior to Covid-19, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defined “vaccination” as “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”After the so-called Covid-19 vaccines proved to produce something far short of reliable immunity, the CDC moved the goalposts to benefit pharmaceutical companies and their fellow travelers in the public health bureaucracy. As Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie highlighted, in September 2021, CDC posted new language defining vaccination as “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease”:
Check out @CDCgov’s evolving definition of “vaccination.” They’ve been busy at the Ministry of Truth: pic.twitter.com/4k2xf8rvsL
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) September 8, 2021
More By This Author:“Double-Barrel Of Optimism”: Insider Buying And Buyback Activity Surges US Pending Home Sales Index Slumps To Record LowFed’s Favorite Inflation Indicator Slides To 30 Month Lows, Savings Rate Ticks Higher