Pfizer attempts to dismiss Texas lawsuit that accuses it of working to censor vaccine criticism – NaturalNews.com

January 10, 2024 antivax, covid19

Pfizer attempts to dismiss Texas lawsuit that accuses it of working to censor vaccine criticism

If you’re tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

(Article republished from ReclaimTheNet.org)

It is no exaggeration to say that one of Big Pharma’s biggest players, Pfizer, has had an excellent pandemic – over $100 billion in revenue in 2022 alone.

The rate at which this growth has been declining since Covid apparently made a disappearing act and the number of people willing to be vaccinated against it decreased dramatically, speaks clearly to how important the jab it produced in record time has been to Pfizer.

It logically follows that the giant would plausibly have done a lot of marketing “cackling” to protect this “golden goose.” And that is what a lawsuit brought by Texan authorities pretty much alleges – that Pfizer went as far as to use false and deceptive marketing to sell its vaccine and pushed for online censorship of criticism.

The lawsuit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, and now Pfizer is engaging in maneuvering to deal with the accusations – evidently hoping it has a better chance before a federal court than it does before the 99th Judicial District Court for Lubbock County.

Just days before the end of 2023, Pfizer’s attorneys asserted that the Lubbock-based court had no jurisdiction in the case, and asked that it be moved to the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

And while at it, they naturally want the whole lawsuit dismissed, citing things like shielded liability thanks to the PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) Act – but also invoking speech protections that are supposed to be guaranteed by the First Amendment.

This last curious bit of legal gymnastics has to do with Pfizer acting on behalf of the federal government to produce the vaccine, adding that the corporation therefore seeks “immunity” – i.e., lack of liability – from the accusations listed in the filing.

“Pfizer is not liable because Pfizer did not make any statement nor take any action that had the capacity or tendency to deceive consumers,” is specifically how the US multinational phrased it in the motion to move, and dismiss the case.

Pfizer reacted fairly swiftly to the Texas AG lawsuit filed on the last day of November, which claims that false, misleading or deceptive claims had been made by the company concerning 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.”

On censorship, the lawsuit states:

“One of the persons Pfizer sought to intimidate and silence was journalist Alex Berenson. Throughout early 2021, Berenson maintained a highly active Twitter page with hundreds of thousands of followers where he explained his findings and views concerning 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 analyses. Indeed, it recently has been revealed that Pfizer had reason to know of the veracity of Berenson’s claims when he made them and that the company nonetheless plotted to silence Berenson and eliminate his speech from public discourse.”

The lawsuit states how Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb flagged journalist and Covid vaccine critic Alex Berenson’s tweet to Twitter.