On 30 November, Texas attorney-general Ken Paxon filed a lawsuit against Pfizer on behalf of the State of Texas. The plaintiff argues that the pharmaceutical company misrepresented the efficacy of its COVID-19 vaccine by relying on just two months of clinical trial data. Millions of people subsequently received the vaccine.
Filed on behalf of the State of Texas in Lubbock County, Texas, the petition states:
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 ... The facts are clear. Pfizer did not tell the truth about their COVID-19 vaccines.
The prospect for a successful lawsuit is rather substantial. There is now compelling evidence that the official narrative promoted by numerous governments and health bureaucracies is misleading and even neglectful in light of the demonstrable side effects of these vaccines.
We now know that these vaccines prevent neither infection nor transmission of the virus. For example, a study conducted by the Upper Midwest Regional Accelerator for Genomic Surveillance, which is founded by the Rockefeller Foundation, concluded that the vaccinated can still catch and transmit COVID-19 and, once infected, they are as likely to infect others as the unvaccinated.
In another study released in June 2023, Cleveland clinic researchers concluded that those who are vaccinated can still catch and transmit COVID-19 and that people who received two or more doses of the vaccine are more likely to get infected with the virus. They found that, among 48,344 working-aged clinic employees, those not "up-to-date" on vaccination had a lower risk of Covid-19 than those "up-to-date".
Arguably, if vaccination does not necessarily prevent COVID-19 infection and transmission, then there is no good reason to coerce anyone into getting vaccinated. "If a vaccine fails to stop disease transmission, then the idea that you need to vaccinate other people so that I'm protected is just false", says Dr Jayanta Bhattcharya, a professor of medicine and health research and policy at Stanford University.
To make it worse, there is now growing evidence that these vaccines might be responsible for the surge in death rates.
For example, a cost-benefit analysis by a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) concluded that "all age groups under 50 years old are at greater risk of fatality after receiving a COVID vaccination than an unvaccinated person is at risk of a COVID death". What is more, "all age groups under 80 years old have virtually not benefited from receiving a COVID vaccine, and the younger ages incur significant risks", says the report.
More recently, a comprehensive research analysis by Professor Denis Rancourt PhD et al. has just revealed that COVID-19 vaccines appear to be associated with the disturbing rise in the mortality rate among countries of the Southern Hemisphere. According to these researchers, "it is well-established that COVID-19 vaccine injections have caused and are likely to cause the deaths of individuals".
These concerns about the adverse side effects of vaccines are too serious to ignore. As stated by Dr Roland Salmon, a retired medical epidemiologist, and David Bell, a public health physician, in their joint article published in the British Medical Journal, "the argument that [mRNA vaccine] protects others is weak or contrary to evidence".
Just one known potential risk of these vaccines is that of myocarditis. Dr Peter McCullough, a renowned cardiologist, says that "under no circumstances" should anyone should receive a COVID-19 vaccine "because of the damage it can do to the heart".
We should at this point be quite satisfied that the scientific tests extensively demonstrate that these vaccines can cause death and that they did not save lives. Indeed, even the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now openly acknowledges that the evidence demonstrates that mRNA vaccines have caused many types of heart conditions, including myocarditis. Even Pfizer scientists themselves now acknowledge that there have been increased cases of myocarditis after vaccination.
The potential for severe injury by these vaccines is therefore a matter that deserves more serious reflection. Curiously, the lawsuit by the State of Texas explicitly accuses Pfizer of working to censor people who questioned the company's narrative about the vaccine.
So, the question is: Have governments and the mainstream media colluded in order to ensure an increase in Big Pharma's corporate profits, which, however, does not prioritise the protection of public health?
Be that as it may, the official narrative, which sought to placate people's concern about the safety of the vaccines, financially benefited Big Pharma, with the Pfizer stock price soaring. However, it now appears that Pfizer misled the general public because the evidence of the lack of efficacy of its vaccine is now rather convincing.
For the sake of those who lost their jobs for resisting tyrannical vaccine mandates, or were coercively forced to subject themselves to such a pharmaceutical experiment and got victimised in the process, let's hope that this lawsuit filed by the State of Texas accomplishes an entirely successful outcome.