View this post on the web at [link removed]
The COVID-19 vaccine was the “miracle that wasn’t,” the “little engine that couldn’t,” and a “job too big for a jab too small.”
After years of waiting for Pfizer to be held accountable in a court of law, justice may be on the horizon for millions who took a shot they thought would keep them from getting COVID-19 and spreading it to others. Just two doses of a 95% effective vaccine with no serious side effects whatsoever, and we were told the COVID-19 pandemic would find its rightful place in our rearview mirror.
In reality, Pfizer’s vaccine is about 0% effective at actually preventing COVID-19 and comes with a wide array of potential side effects that are far worse than COVID-19 itself—such as blood clots, heart damage, and death. But with its clever marketing, an uncanny ability to hide clinical trial data, and federal regulatory agencies in its back pocket, you would never know it.
We all know now—or should know at this point—that Pfizer sold the world a lemon and probably felt that it could because of the expansive amount of immunity it enjoys courtesy of our federal government.
Enter the great state of Texas.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Nov. 30 filed a lawsuit against Pfizer, Inc., for “unlawfully misrepresenting the effectiveness of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine and attempting to censor [ [link removed] ] public discussion of the product.”
“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,” said Attorney General Paxton in a press release [ [link removed] ].
The lawsuit, filed in Lubbock County state court, accuses Pfizer of engaging in false, deceptive, and misleading acts and practices by making unsupported claims about its COVID-19 vaccine in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The allegations stem from an investigation [ [link removed] ] announced by Paxton’s office on May 1 of this year into pharmaceutical companies Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson concerning whether the companies misrepresented the efficacy of their COVID-19 vaccines and the likelihood of transmitting the infection after getting vaccinated in violation of the Act.
The investigation looked into whether the companies manipulated their clinical trial data, any potentially fraudulent activity that falls outside the scope of legal immunity granted to manufacturers, and reviewed the companies’ controversial practice of reporting their metrics using “relative risk reduction” instead of “absolute risk reduction” when publicly discussing the efficacy of their vaccines.
How Pfizer Inflated the Efficacy of Its Vaccine
According to the lawsuit [ [link removed] ], filed in Lubbock County state court, Pfizer claimed its vaccine was 95% effective for vaccinated individuals based on its two-month clinical trial results and a concept called “relative risk reduction.”
Relative risk reduction [ [link removed] ] tells you how much the treatment reduced the risk of bad outcomes relative to the control group who did not have the treatment. According to the FDA, using relative risk reduction “unduly influence[s]” consumer choice.
When information is presented using a relative risk format, the “risk reduction" seems more significant, and the treatments are viewed more favorably than when the same data is reported with more accurate metrics, such as absolute risk reduction.
Absolute risk reduction represents the likelihood a person experiences a particular treatment outcome. For example, does taking a drug designed to lower one’s risk of getting heart disease actually reduce the risk?
Pfizer claimed its vaccine was almost 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 using relative risk reduction and based on only two months of clinical trial data when it knew using better metrics would make its billion-dollar product look like garbage. Using absolute risk reduction, Pfizer’s vaccine was a whopping 0.85% effective.
“Of 17,000 placebo recipients, only 162 acquired COVID-19 during this two-month period. Based on those numbers, vaccination status had a negligible impact on whether a trial participant contracted COVID-19. The risk of acquiring COVID-19 was so small in the first instance during this short window that Pfizer’s vaccine only fractionally improved a person’s risk of infection.
According to Pfizer’s own data, 119 people would have to get vaccinated to prevent one case of COVID-19. This is important because it would mean 119 people are potentially subjected to severe adverse events that could leave them disabled or dead to prevent one case of what is essentially the equivalent of the common cold—and asymptomatic for many.
Pfizer was also notified that vaccine protection could not accurately be predicted beyond two months. Yet Pfizer gave the misleading impression that its vaccine was durable and withheld information showing otherwise from the public.
Finally, Pfizer claimed its vaccine prevented transmission [ [link removed] ] when its clinical trial never assessed whether its product stopped transmission and then “embarked on a campaign to intimidate the public into getting the vaccine as a necessary measure to protect their loved ones.”
Pfizer Bullied and Silenced Those Who Questioned the Efficacy of Its Vaccine
Aside from using questionable metrics and only two months of clinical trial data to make its vaccine look effective, Pfizer engaged in a “deception campaign” to censor anything negative—even if it was factual. This was pivotal in Pfizer securing 415 million and 2.7 billion doses from U.S. and foreign governments.
For example, Pfizer had journalist Alex Berenson censored and branded a conspiracy theorist for posting truthful information about its COVID-19 vaccine. Former FDA commissioner and current Pfizer board member, Dr. Scott Gottlieb complained directly to Twitter and blamed Berenson for Dr. Anthony Fauci’s need for security detail.
Gottlieb also attempted to silence former FDA Director Brett Giroir, who tweeted, “#COVID19 natural immunity is superior to #vaccine immunity, by A LOT,” and stated “no science justification” exists to demand proof of vaccination from an already infected person.
Further demonstrating Pfizer understood to protect its multi-billion-dollar vaccine platform from information spreading that would undermine its product, Gottlieb went to great efforts to emphasize the risk that Giroir’s comments would “driv[e] news coverage,” the lawsuit states.
Gottlieb even admitted that Giroir’s tweet would be “corrosive” to the public’s confidence in Pfizer’s vaccine.”
“The facts are clear. Pfizer did not tell the truth about their COVID-19 vaccines. Whereas the Biden Administration weaponized the pandemic to force illegal public health decrees on the public and enrich pharmaceutical companies, I will use every tool I have to protect our citizens who were misled and harmed by Pfizer’s actions,” Paxton said.
Megan Redshaw is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Unsubscribe [link removed]?
