The Pharma-harmers should all be brought to justice!
Most will already be familiar with the announcement on 30 November by the Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, that he has sued Pfizer for ‘Misrepresenting COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy and Conspiring to Censor Public Discourse’.
As we wrote in the last HART bulletin’s Pick of the Week, we are encouraged that legal cases are starting to appear, even if ‘victories’ have been few and far between. We should certainly be wary of getting our hopes up and being fooled by ‘dead cat’ distractions. After all, what are the perpetrators of this fiasco up to while we are fed the latest distraction?
Diversion or not, it is worth highlighting some of the background of this particular case. Each federal state has an elected attorney general (AG) – it is a political post in most states, and comes with certain clout, as the AG ‘holds the pen’ on the rulebook of how elections are run and laws are enforced. They are said to be a leading consumer protection force in the USA; occasionally they make waves: covid chroniclers will have come across the Nebraskan AG’s detailed opinion back in 2021 on the use of off-label Ivermectin.
Observing that litigation is a way of life on the other side of the Pond, you will not be surprised to hear that Ken Paxton (a Republican) has not just been in court for professional reasons: he is involved in various pending and ongoing cases. It almost goes without saying that these investigations seem frivolous and designed to frustrate (the process is the punishment); to add some colour to the story it also is instructive to note that various ‘woke’ activists think that Paxton is akin to the antiChrist.
A combination of all these matters has resulted in Paxton spending the whole of the summer of 2023 outside his office – not due to an extended holiday or gardening leave, but because he was actually impeached in May following a federal investigation, and was suspended until this could be cleared up. Curiously (or not, of course – lots of unfortunate events seem to befall those who challenge the purveyors of the injectable SNAPs (Synthetic Nucleic Acid Products)), this disruption happened to manifest itself just days after he launched an investigation into Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, the pharmaceutical giants behind the covid jabs used in the US:
“If any company illegally took advantage of consumers during this period or compromised people’s safety to increase their profits, they will be held responsible. If public health policy was developed on the basis of flawed or misleading research, the public must know. The catastrophic effects of the pandemic and subsequent interventions forced on our country and citizens deserve intense scrutiny, and we are pursuing any hint of wrongdoing to the fullest.“
HART would not argue with this investigation summary, except that we blame the ‘catastrophic effects’ almost exclusively on ‘subsequent interventions’ rather than giving them equal billing with ‘the pandemic’.
Paxton only returned to work in September after he was acquitted of 16 of the twenty articles of impeachment, the other four articles being dismissed. With his feet back under the desk – presumably his officials had been progressing the above investigation in his absence – it only took him a couple of months to decide that there was enough information to launch an investigation into Pfizer.
Exciting as this may all sound from those who share our point of view that the injectable SNAP programme has been a terrible misadventure and one of the greatest – and costliest – transfers of wealth from the poor to the rich, we are probably not witnessing a game-changing development:
- The injectable SNAP manufacturers have substantial protection from litigation via the PREP Act; moreover, it has been argued that Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) is “simply a category of product where by law NO pharmaceutical regulations are enforceable”;
- The Texas AG’s case may well have been constructed with political aims in mind, perhaps with a view to creating publicity (not necessarily a bad tactic per se) rather than a courtroom result – it is notable that his factual allegations make overt references to FDA approval… which of course the injectable SNAPs do not have, as they fall under the category of EUA.
The liability shields related to EUA are primarily based on issues to do with safety; the other angle of attack is related to efficacy (the other leg of the flawed ‘safe & effective’ mantra) – the approach is predicated on identifying the equivalent of trade description violations (e.g. “your elixir of life, sir, did not work – the patient is dead”). Somewhat shockingly, some US States also exempt pharmaceutical companies from sanction for such transgressions (a lawsuit in Florida failed back in 2021).
On a slightly more promising note, the Paxton complaint is filed under Texan law, which does not provide such an exemption from deceptive trade practice laws for pharmaceutical companies: as pointed out by Jeff Childers, who was involved in the Florida case mentioned above: “Texas is suing Pfizer over false advertising for all Texans. In Texas. Under Texas law”.
We wish him every success, while also reminding him not to forget about BioNTech. As pointed out by astute commentator Robert Kogon, the clinical trial to which this suit refers was BioNTech’s, it was and is BioNTech’s product and Pfizer carried out the trial on BioNTech’s behalf. BioNTech and Pfizer shared gross profits from this grand escapade in a 50/50 split, with BioNTech’s portion being a straightforward royalty, whereas (without offering any sympathy at all) Pfizer has the burden of the associated manufacturing and marketing costs.
It is not hard to be enthused that Pfizer is about to get plenty of ignominious publicity.
But is the Texas Attorney General chasing all the key suspects? We encourage him to follow the money.