Paxton said it was misleading for Pfizer to claim its vaccine was 95% effective because it offered a "relative risk reduction" for people to who took it.
Paxton said the claim was based on only two months of clinical trial data, and vaccine recipients' "absolute risk reduction" showed that the vaccine was just 0.85% effective.
He also said the pandemic got worse even after people started taking the vaccine, developed by Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech (22UAy.DE). — https://www.reuters.com/legal/pfizer-is-sued-by-texas-over-covid-19-vaccine-claims-2023-11-30/
Texas lawsuit claims Pfizer exaggerated effectiveness of Covid vaccine
State attorney general Ken Paxton files suit despite medical consensus that vaccine prevents severe infection and death.
The attorney general of Texas is suing the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, alleging that it exaggerated the effectiveness of its Covid-19 vaccine and deceived the public.
Ken Paxton announced the lawsuit on Thursday after filing it in Lubbock state district court in north-west Texas, the Texas Tribune reported.
Greg Abbott, who was previously vaccinated and also later tested positive for Covid-19, said in his order that ‘vaccines are strongly encouraged for those eligible to receive one, but must always be voluntary for Texans’.
Paxton’s suit comes as a consensus of health experts and scientists have said that the vaccine prevents severe infection and death from Covid-19.
Paxton accused Pfizer of “[engaging] 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”, according to a press release shared to X, formerly known as Twitter.
Paxton argued that Pfizer’s claims about effectiveness implied that it would effectively end the Covid-19 pandemic, and that it failed to do so within a year of being introduced.
The lawsuit also added that claims the vaccine was 95% effective were not accurate, and that Covid-19 infection as well as death rates worsened as the vaccine became increasingly available.
Pfizer released results on the effectiveness of Covid in November 2020, finding that the shot was 95% effective in the first 28 days after receiving the vaccine.
The suit also claims that Pfizer “[conspired]” to silence those who were critical of the shot, common arguments made amid other anti-vaccine figures.
Paxton’s suit asks that Pfizer be prohibited from “making representations about the efficacy of its Covid-19 vaccine”, the Hill reported.
The attorney general is also requesting $10,000 for every alleged violation by Pfizer, in addition to other financial restitution. The total civil penalties against Pfizer total up to more than $10m, according to Reuters.
In a statement, Pfizer said the “state’s case has no merit”, adding that the vaccine has been administered to 1.5 billion people “and helped protect against severe Covid-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death”.
“The representations made by the company about its Covid-19 vaccine have been accurate and science-based,” it read.
The lawsuit is Paxton’s second against Pfizer in November. The attorney general previously sued the pharmaceutical company and an additional supplier for allegedly altering quality-control tests on ADHD medication for children.
You are indeed correct to point out that COVID-19 vaccines have not been authorised for preventing transmission frome one person to another. The indications are for protecting the vaccinated individual only. — European Medicines Agency
This is merely a claim, not established fact. — Janus
:roll: — Janus
I'm not defending Pfizer. — Janus
Have you seen this letter from the European Medicines Agency to members of the European Parliament in response to an inquiry? — Tzeentch
Big pharma and national governments clearly engaged in some sort of unholy pact that made the industry non-liable in case of damages due to off label use, in exchange for rapidly developed vaccines. Rampant off label use is what governments all over the world (including my own) engaged in. — Tzeentch
From the letter: — Tzeentch
You are indeed correct to point out that COVID-19 vaccines have not been authorised for preventing transmission frome one person to another. The indications are for protecting the vaccinated individual only.
— European Medicines Agency
getting vaccinated to "protect grandma" was nothing but emotional blackmail on a national scale.
The immunity generated from an infection was found to be “at least as high, if not higher” than that provided by two doses of an mRNA vaccine, the authors wrote.
Immunity acquired from a Covid infection provides strong, lasting protection against the most severe outcomes of the illness, according to research published Thursday in The Lancet — protection, experts say, that’s on par with what’s provided through two doses of an mRNA vaccine. — Immunity acquired from a Covid infection is as protective as vaccination against severe illness and death, study finds
And now there are cases of people claiming vaccine injuries all over the world who face an industry that has been protected by law in case of damages due to off label use. It is sickening how corrupt it all is. — Merkwurdichliebe
Authority is a powerful thing and people are simple creatures: the government says it, the institutions say it, the news says it, everybody seems to believe it - it must be true.
Not to mention, all the common information sources I named have teams of experts that advise them on exactly what their messaging should look like to manipulate people into exhibiting the desired behavior. People who aren't aware of how this type of manipulation works are basically chanceless against it.
Even if you have a natural distrust for the first three, being confronted with an apparent majority of people who speak and act as though what's being presented is truth will seriously test one's trust in their own observations and intuition. — Tzeentch
I would like mass lawsuits to provide justice, but I doubt it.
The industry has covered itself, and will not take responsibility for off label use. To whatever degree states will take responsibility - guess with whose tax money they will be paying the damages?
Ideally, the politicians who for whatever reason chose to completely ignore medical guidelines in both a narrow sense (the vaccines) and broad sense (our general knowledge of epidemics and immunity) should be tried seperately. But I guess the chances of that happening are almost zero. — Tzeentch
The scariest thing (as you so aptly bring up in the third ¶) is how the majority tends to behave like the blob once it becomes mobilized - assimilating anybody it can get a hold of into its mindless mass. — Merkwurdichliebe
None of the vaccine makers have made any claims with respect to transmission, only the reduction in severity — Benkei
Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine was found to contain a Simian Virus 40 (SV40) DNA sequence, not disclosed to the public. — Lawyer: Pfizer COVID-Related Lawsuits Allege ‘Willful Misconduct’
Persuasive evidence now indicates that SV40 is causing infections in humans today and represents an emerging pathogen.
Mounting evidence indicates that SV40 is a human pathogen, and current molecular biology, pathology, and clinical data, taken together, show that SV40 is significantly associated with and may be functionally important in the development of some human malignancies. — Emergent Human Pathogen Simian Virus 40 and Its Role in Cancer
No evidence has been found to suggest DNA fragments used in the development of the coronavirus vaccine -- such as a portion of SV40’s DNA sequence -- are causing health problems in people who have received the COVID-19 vaccine. — No evidence that DNA sequence used in Pfizer shot leads to cancer and other health issues
Actually the fact that there is some governmental oversight (the FDA) actually separates Big Pharma from most other industries, in a good way. — LuckyR
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.