Had You Known, Would You Have Taken the Jab?
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 alleges that the $75 billion Pfizer has raked in through sales of Covid vaccines were the “direct and proximate result” of the company’s deceit.
The DTPA requires Paxton prove two questions to succeed in his case. First, he must establish that the company lied or failed to disclose known information concerning its Covid vaccine. Second, he must prove that the company’s fraud was designed to promote sales of the shots.
Brownstone previously analyzed the applicability of the DTPA against Moderna. Now, Paxton’s lawsuit threatens Pfizer with fines of $10 million as well as awards of “restitution, damages, or civil penalties.”
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.”
In each instance, the company skewed the public debate in order to induce Americans to take its shots. The efforts stripped us of the right to informed consent, deceiving us on purported benefits while hiding established risks.
Efficacy
First, Paxton targets the now-familiar falsehoods that the company, led by CEO Albert Bourla, touted, including that the shots had “95% efficacy” and worked against mutations of the virus.
Paxton’s critiques do not require the benefit of hindsight. 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...(READ THIS FULL ARTICLE, FREE, HERE).
