It’s no exaggeration to say that one of Big Pharma’s biggest players, Pfizer, has had an excellent pandemic – with sales of more than $100 billion in 2022 alone.
The speed at which this growth has slowed since Covid apparently vanished and the number of people wanting to be vaccinated against it has fallen dramatically is a clear indication of how important the jab it produced in record time has been for Pfizer.
It logically follows that the giant would plausibly have done a lot of marketing ‘cackling’ to protect this ‘golden goose’. And that’s what a lawsuit filed by Texas authorities pretty much alleges — that Pfizer went so far as to use false and deceptive marketing to sell its vaccine and push for online censorship of criticism.
The lawsuit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxtonand now Pfizer is maneuvering to deal with the allegations — apparently hoping it has a better chance in federal court than in the 99th Judicial District Court for Lubbock County.
Just days before the end of 2023, Pfizer’s lawyers claimed the Lubbock court lacked jurisdiction in the caseand asked that it be moved to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
And while they’re at it, of course they want the entire lawsuit dismissed, citing things like shielded liability thanks to the PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) Act — but also invoking speech protections that should be guaranteed by the First Amendment.
This latest curious bit of legal gymnastics has to do with Pfizer acting on behalf of the federal government to produce the vaccine, adding that the company is therefore seeking “immunity” — i.e., lack of liability — from the allegations contained in the filing stated.
“Pfizer is not liable because Pfizer did not make any statement or take any action that had the ability or tendency to deceive consumers,” is specifically how the American multinational put it in the motion to take action and dismiss the case. ways.
Pfizer responded quite quickly to the lawsuit filed by Texas AG on the last day of November, alleging that the company had made false, misleading or deceptive claims about its Covid vaccine.
The goal according to AG Paxton? An attempt to “intimidate and censor critics of the vaccine,” which “violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act in marketing claims the company made about the efficacy, duration of protection, and ability of its Covid-19 vaccine to prevent transmission’.
Regarding censorship, the lawsuit states:
“One of the individuals Pfizer tried to intimidate and silence was journalist Alex Berenson. In early 2021, Berenson maintained a very active Twitter page with hundreds of thousands of followers, where he explained his findings and views on COVID-19, Pfizer’s vaccine, and other related issues. Many of Berenson’s claims were true at the time he made them and have been corroborated by subsequent data and analysis. In fact, it has recently been revealed that Pfizer had reason to know about the veracity of Berenson’s claims when he made them, and that the company nevertheless plotted to silence Berenson and remove his speech from public debate .
The lawsuit states how Pfizer is a board member Scott Gottlieb flagged journalist and Covid vaccine critic Alex Berenson’s tweet on Twitter.