Sunday, June 16, 2024
HomeCOVID-19Pfizer faces legal action over 'vaccine' lies

Pfizer faces legal action over ‘vaccine’ lies


WOULD 92 per cent of American adults have had a Covid shot had they known the ‘vaccines’ offered only a 0.85 per cent 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. He has 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 may not lie to promote those products.

Paxton alleges that the $75billion Pfizer has raked in through sales of Covid vaccines were the ‘direct and proximate result’ of the company’s deceit. 

The DTPA requires Paxton to 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 and concluded that the answers to both questions were in the affirmative. Now, Paxton’s lawsuit threatens Pfizer with fines of $10million 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 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. 


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 per cent 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 per cent’ efficacy rates against mutations of the virus, including the Delta variant. Not only was this a lie; Pfizer never tested the shots against the variants. Still, in May 2021 Bourla baselessly claimed that ‘no variant identified so far . . . escapes the protection of our vaccine’.

Three months later, the company issued a press release saying that boosters would ‘preserve and even exceed the high levels of protection against . . . relevant variants’. Shortly thereafter, the United States exercised its option to purchase 500million more doses of Pfizer’s Covid vaccines. 

These lies clearly and directly induced Americans to take products with illusory benefits. The claims were fabricated, and they led to billions of dollars in windfalls for Bourla and Pfizer. 


Pfizer’s marketing relied on convincing healthy young adults and teenagers to get shots despite the negligible risk that Covid posed to them. Bourla used transmission to launch a moral blackmail campaign. He told teenagers that they should get the shots to ‘protect . . . their loved ones’. He later tweeted that ‘widespread vaccination is a critical tool to help stop transmission’.

Under oath, company officials later admitted that they had never tested whether the vaccines reduced transmission. 

In October 2022, Pfizer spokeswoman Janine Small appeared at a European Parliament hearing. ‘Was the Pfizer Covid vaccine tested on stopping transmission of the virus before it entered the market?’ asked Dutch MEP Rob Roos. ‘No!’ Small responded emphatically. ‘We had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market; and from that point of view, we had to do everything at risk.’

Under the DTPA, Paxton must prove that the company misrepresented information regarding the vaccine in an effort to promote sales of its products. With the vast majority of Americans under 70 facing zero substantial risk from Covid infection, the lies regarding transmission were critical to expand the customer base. 

This deception underpinned the mandates in 2021 as government and corporate officials insisted that vaccination was necessary to keep healthy adults’ coworkers and neighbors safe. By December 2021, Pfizer’s stock price had doubled from the onset of the pandemic in February 2020. 


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. In August 2021, Berenson tweeted that Pfizer’s vaccine ‘doesn’t stop infection . . . or transmission’, and had a ‘limited window of efficacy’. Despite the veracity of these statements, Gottlieb wrote to Twitter officials encouraging them to ban Berenson’s heresy. 

Hours later, Berenson received a permanent ban (he was reinstated following a lawsuit). Now, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla is a defendant in Berenson’s case against the Biden Administration, which accuses White House officials of colluding with private actors in Big Tech and Big Pharma to usurp Berenson’s First Amendment rights. 

Paxton’s case also outlines how Pfizer worked to silence scientists who discussed the benefits of natural immunity, calling the rhetoric ‘corrosive’ to the public’s confidence in their products. The aim was simple: shield Americans from the truth so that they would continue to get the product. 

A Rare Opportunity to Strike Back

To this point, ‘victories’ against the hegemon that emerged in 2020 have been defensive in nature. Groups have fended off vaccine mandates, states have resisted calls for renewed lockdowns, and journalists have begun to expose the corruption that shattered Western civilization. 

These efforts, though important, have failed to bring accountability against those who usurped our civil liberties and pillaged the national treasury. Paxton’s suit strikes at the heart of the corruption behind the Covid regime: how their success required mass deception and their profits depended on lies. 

Though $10million in fines is little compared to the $75billion in revenue that Pfizer raked in from vaccines alone, the suit signifies that the resistance is at last on the offensive. 

Big Pharma sees this is a grave threat, and its lobbying forces led a failed impeachment effort against Paxton this fall. They threw him out of his office, and disabled his ability to do his job that the voters sent him to do. Turning up nothing, the legislature rejected the entire drama. Now he is back and working and this is the result: accountability at last. 

The steep drop in demand for Covid shots reveals how Pfizer depended upon fraud to promote their most lucrative product. Once Americans knew the truth, demand dropped by over 75 per cent. 

Now, Paxton’s suit brings that fraud to trial. 

This article appeared in Brownstone Institute on December 5, 2023, and is republished by kind permission.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.