Straight to the point

I, and others, have reported on the exaggerated claims made by vaccine manufacturers about the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines.

In November 2020 for example, Pfizer published results in a press release claiming its mRNA vaccine was “95% effective against COVID-19.” The statistic was widely cited by politicians, academics, and the media.

Several weeks later, when details of the trial were published, it became evident the ‘relative risk reduction’ of 95% corresponded with an ‘absolute risk reduction’ of only 0.84% – a far more conservative number which was never publicly promoted.

The way in which the statistic was communicated to the public was likely to have distorted people’s perception of the vaccine’s benefit and increased their willingness to be vaccinated.

I also wrote about how Pfizer hid its data on waning immunity. Regulatory filings showed Pfizer had evidence, early into the vaccination campaign, that its vaccine’s efficacy waned, but the company waited months before alerting the public.

Pfizer would not explain why it delayed the publication of its data, but if the public was told about the vaccine’s fading efficacy at the time, it would have hampered the uptake of the vaccine.

These deceptive practises are now part of a lawsuit against Pfizer.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced this week that he’s suing Pfizer, saying the company “intentionally misrepresented the efficacy” of its vaccine and censored people “who threatened to disseminate the truth” about the vaccine in public discussions.

In a statement, Paxton wrote, “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 facts are clear. Pfizer did not tell the truth about their COVID-19 vaccines.”

Paxton is seeking more than $US 10 million in civil fines and a court order barring Pfizer from speaking publicly about the efficacy of its vaccine.

The Lawsuit

According to the 54-page lawsuit, Pfizer engaged in a “deception campaign across several fronts” and consequently, the company became “grossly and unfairly enriched by its deceptive acts,” namely;

·      First, duration of protection: FDA recognized when it first authorized Pfizer’s vaccine that it was “not possible” to know how effective the vaccine would remain beyond two months. But in early 2021, Pfizer deliberately created the false impression that its vaccine had durable and sustained protection, going so far as to withhold highly relevant data and information from the consuming public showing that efficacy waned rapidly.

·       Second, transmission: FDA warned Pfizer that it “needed” additional information to determine whether the vaccine protected against “transmission” of COVID-19 between persons. But Pfizer instead engaged in a fear-mongering campaign, exploiting intense public fears over the year-long pandemic by insinuating that vaccination was necessary for Americans to protect their loved ones from contracting COVID-19.

·       Third, variant protection: Pfizer knowingly made false and unsupported claims about vaccine performance against variants, including specifically the so-called Delta variant. The vaccine performed remarkably poorly against the Delta variant, and Pfizer’s own data confirmed this fact. Nonetheless, Pfizer told the public that its vaccine was “very, very, very effective against Delta.”

The lawsuit goes on to say that Pfizer also took overt action to intimidate and silence people who posted factual information about the COVID-19 vaccines, in order to “prolong the effectiveness of the company’s deception campaign.”

Paxton said, “When the failure of its product became apparent, Pfizer then pivoted to silencing truth-tellers.”

In the lawsuit, journalist Alex Berenson is named as one of the people censored. It states Berenson posted information that was critical of the mRNA vaccines to his hundreds of thousands of followers, so Pfizer “plotted to silence Berenson and eliminate his speech from public discourse.”

In addition to coercing social media platforms to censor truthful information, the lawsuit states that Pfizer intimidated vaccine skeptics. In November 2021 for example, CEO Albert Bourla labelled them “criminals” who have “literally cost millions of lives.”

In summary, the lawsuit states:

Pfizer knowingly and recklessly engaged in a multi-faceted scheme to mislead the American public about the efficacy of its COVID-19 vaccine, including making affirmative misrepresentations, withholding material information, and taking steps to censor and suppress individuals who disseminated truthful information adverse Pfizer’s deceptive scheme to increase sales and consumption of its vaccine.

Many have welcomed the move, saying it could have political ramifications or encourage other States to launch similar lawsuits.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Source: Brownstone Institute Read the original article here: https://brownstone.org/