2023-12-05. Emphasis added.
Would 92% of American adults have gotten a COVID shot had they known the “vaccines” only offered a 0.85% reduction in risk? Would young men have taken the jab if they had known it did not prevent transmission?
Americans came to understand that the media campaigns supporting the shots were fraudulent. The touted benefits – preventing infection and transmission – were lies. In response, fewer than one in five Americans elected to receive “boosters” despite multi-billion dollar propaganda campaigns.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has now brought a suit to bring accountability for the fraud that resulted in record profits for the pharmaceutical industry. Last week, he filed a complaint alleging that Pfizer misrepresented Covid vaccine efficacy and “conspired to censor public discourse” in violation of Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA).
While Big Pharma enjoys immense government-provided insulation from legal liability for vaccine injuries, it cannot lie to promote those products.
... Paxton’s case argues that Pfizer deceived the public on three issues: (1) the efficacy of the vaccine; (2) whether the shots reduced the risk of transmission; and (3) the company’s efforts to “censor persons who threatened to disseminate the truth.”
...Pfizer’s own data showed that the vaccine was merely 0.85% effective in reducing the likelihood that an individual would contract Covid (known as absolute risk reduction). Put differently, Pfizer’s clinical data showed that “preventing one COVID-19 case required vaccinating 119.”. Despite this unconvincing data, Bourla claimed there was “initial evidence of our vaccine’s ability to prevent Covid-19.” Bourla later said that the shots had “100%” efficacy rates against mutations of the virus, including the Delta variant...
Pfizer’s marketing relied on convincing healthy young adults and teenagers to get shots despite the negligible risk... Under oath, company officials later admitted that they had never tested whether the vaccines reduced transmission...
As Pfizer committed to deceiving the public, it had to ensure that journalists would not uncover its corporate misdeeds. Paxton’s suit outlines how the company “sought to intimidate and silence…journalist Alex Berenson.”
As Berenson reported on the efficacy, or lack thereof, of mRNA “vaccines,” Pfizer Board Member Dr. Scott Gottlieb colluded with Twitter to silence his reporting...
WIND: it was (and is) essentially zero benefit, meaning it’s all risk and no benefit, a simple easy risk assessment for the vast majority of the population, which means it was and still is a point lost on far too many doctors, particularly the slimy officials and “experts” infecting San Francisco Bay Area health facilities like Stanford Medical.
It’s about time that profiteering Pfizer and its ilk got sued for their fraud. Which is exactly what Texas is doing. This case should be easy to prove. Personally, I favor a 200% windfall profts tax on Pfizer/Moderna/etc.
I got a lot of pushback from children and idiots (eg, many doctors) about the not-so-popular 700 or so posts I wrote on COVID. The Jab was a big point of contention for those people in informing me what an idiot I was. Trust your doctor! Fortunately, I have a very good and still independent doctor who never pushed it and clearly sees how many patients of his the Jab damaged.
BTW, the CDC is not only a major laundering operation for disinformation, its statements could be deemed medical malpractice: CDC Admits No Data Support Advice to Take Mpox, Influenza, and COVID Shots Together