https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/students-world-suffered-huge-learning-setbacks-pandemic-study-105380696

This dovetails with what I've seen with my own students.

More fuckery surfacing over vaccine trials.

"Pfizer intentionally misrepresented the efficacy of its COVID-19 vaccine and censored persons who threatened to disseminate the truth in order to facilitate fast adoption of the product and expand its commercial opportunity"

Paxton said it was misleading for Pfizer to claim its vaccine was 95% effective because it offered a "relative risk reduction" for people to who took it.

Paxton said the claim was based on only two months of clinical trial data, and vaccine recipients' "absolute risk reduction" showed that the vaccine was just 0.85% effective.

He also said the pandemic got worse even after people started taking the vaccine, developed by Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech (22UAy.DE). — https://www.reuters.com/legal/pfizer-is-sued-by-texas-over-covid-19-vaccine-claims-2023-11-30/

It just keeps coming.

:rofl: Your egregious confirmation bias is hilarious! This is merely a claim, not established fact.

Texas lawsuit claims Pfizer exaggerated effectiveness of Covid vaccine
State attorney general Ken Paxton files suit despite medical consensus that vaccine prevents severe infection and death.

The attorney general of Texas is suing the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, alleging that it exaggerated the effectiveness of its Covid-19 vaccine and deceived the public.

Ken Paxton announced the lawsuit on Thursday after filing it in Lubbock state district court in north-west Texas, the Texas Tribune reported.

Greg Abbott, who was previously vaccinated and also later tested positive for Covid-19, said in his order that ‘vaccines are strongly encouraged for those eligible to receive one, but must always be voluntary for Texans’.

Paxton’s suit comes as a consensus of health experts and scientists have said that the vaccine prevents severe infection and death from Covid-19.

Paxton accused Pfizer of “[engaging] in false, deceptive, and misleading acts and practices by making unsupported claims regarding the company’s Covid-19 vaccine in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act”, according to a press release shared to X, formerly known as Twitter.

Paxton argued that Pfizer’s claims about effectiveness implied that it would effectively end the Covid-19 pandemic, and that it failed to do so within a year of being introduced.

The lawsuit also added that claims the vaccine was 95% effective were not accurate, and that Covid-19 infection as well as death rates worsened as the vaccine became increasingly available.

Pfizer released results on the effectiveness of Covid in November 2020, finding that the shot was 95% effective in the first 28 days after receiving the vaccine.

The suit also claims that Pfizer “[conspired]” to silence those who were critical of the shot, common arguments made amid other anti-vaccine figures.

Paxton’s suit asks that Pfizer be prohibited from “making representations about the efficacy of its Covid-19 vaccine”, the Hill reported.

The attorney general is also requesting $10,000 for every alleged violation by Pfizer, in addition to other financial restitution. The total civil penalties against Pfizer total up to more than $10m, according to Reuters.

In a statement, Pfizer said the “state’s case has no merit”, adding that the vaccine has been administered to 1.5 billion people “and helped protect against severe Covid-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death”.

“The representations made by the company about its Covid-19 vaccine have been accurate and science-based,” it read.

The lawsuit is Paxton’s second against Pfizer in November. The attorney general previously sued the pharmaceutical company and an additional supplier for allegedly altering quality-control tests on ADHD medication for children.

From here

Have you seen this letter from the European Medicines Agency to members of the European Parliament in response to an inquiry?

As all these institutions are scrambling to cover themselves, they're starting to spill the beans.

I foresee more lawsuits in our future, but chances of success are low.

Big pharma and national governments clearly engaged in some sort of unholy pact that made the industry non-liable in case of damages due to off label use, in exchange for rapidly developed vaccines. Rampant off label use is what governments all over the world (including my own) engaged in.

From the letter:

You are indeed correct to point out that COVID-19 vaccines have not been authorised for preventing transmission frome one person to another. The indications are for protecting the vaccinated individual only. — European Medicines Agency

This is diametrically opposed to the story which many governments told their populations, and which they used to justify their actions.

It was not authorized for use to prevent the spread of the virus, and it was not authorized to protect anyone besides the vaccinated individual. In other words, getting vaccinated to "protect grandma" was nothing but emotional blackmail on a national scale.

This is merely a claim, not established fact. — Janus

Oh really, you don't say. how in the world were you able to come to such a conclusion

Not by reading your post. :roll:

:roll: — Janus

Hey, I was going to use the eye roll on you in my previous post, but it seemed lame

why are you so quick to defend Pfizer? Do they pay your grandmother's pension or something?

I'm not defending Pfizer.

I'm not defending Pfizer. — Janus

Sorry, it sounded like you were. I was taking a pot shot at Pfizer.

Have you seen this letter from the European Medicines Agency to members of the European Parliament in response to an inquiry? — Tzeentch

I have not. Thank you for sharing.

Big pharma and national governments clearly engaged in some sort of unholy pact that made the industry non-liable in case of damages due to off label use, in exchange for rapidly developed vaccines. Rampant off label use is what governments all over the world (including my own) engaged in. — Tzeentch

I'm amazed at the lack of skepticism from the average person towards both big pharma and government. It's not like they do not have clear record of nefarious and outright deceptive behavior. Why do people so easily keep trusting them with so much shit? Where is a speck of suspended judgment to be found? It is insane.

Authority is a powerful thing and people are simple creatures: the government says it, the institutions say it, the news says it, everybody seems to believe it - it must be true.

Not to mention, all the common information sources I named have teams of experts that advise them on exactly what their messaging should look like to manipulate people into exhibiting the desired behavior or copying the desired beliefs. People who aren't aware of how this type of manipulation works are basically chanceless against it.

Even if you have a natural distrust for the first three, being confronted with an apparent majority of people who speak and act as though what's being presented is truth will seriously test one's trust in their own observations and intuition.

From the letter: — Tzeentch

You are indeed correct to point out that COVID-19 vaccines have not been authorised for preventing transmission frome one person to another. The indications are for protecting the vaccinated individual only.
— European Medicines Agency

getting vaccinated to "protect grandma" was nothing but emotional blackmail on a national scale.

Blackmail is still as despicable as the experimental vaccine mandates which turned out to be quite ineffective... and detrimental to the livelihoods of those who did not want to risk their health or dignity with a relatively untested experimental drug. And now there are cases of people claiming vaccine injuries all over the world who face an industry that has been protected by law in case of damages due to off label use. It is sickening how corrupt it all is.

The immunity generated from an infection was found to be “at least as high, if not higher” than that provided by two doses of an mRNA vaccine, the authors wrote.

Immunity acquired from a Covid infection provides strong, lasting protection against the most severe outcomes of the illness, according to research published Thursday in The Lancet — protection, experts say, that’s on par with what’s provided through two doses of an mRNA vaccine. — Immunity acquired from a Covid infection is as protective as vaccination against severe illness and death, study finds

And now there are cases of people claiming vaccine injuries all over the world who face an industry that has been protected by law in case of damages due to off label use. It is sickening how corrupt it all is. — Merkwurdichliebe

I would like mass lawsuits to provide justice, but I doubt it.

The industry has covered itself, and will not take responsibility for off label use. To whatever degree states will take responsibility - guess with whose tax money they will be paying the damages?

Ideally, the politicians who for whatever reason chose to completely ignore medical guidelines in both a narrow sense (the vaccines) and broad sense (our general knowledge of epidemics and immunity) should be tried seperately. But I guess the chances of that happening are almost zero.

Authority is a powerful thing and people are simple creatures: the government says it, the institutions say it, the news says it, everybody seems to believe it - it must be true.

Not to mention, all the common information sources I named have teams of experts that advise them on exactly what their messaging should look like to manipulate people into exhibiting the desired behavior. People who aren't aware of how this type of manipulation works are basically chanceless against it.

Even if you have a natural distrust for the first three, being confronted with an apparent majority of people who speak and act as though what's being presented is truth will seriously test one's trust in their own observations and intuition. — Tzeentch

Well said. That pretty much breaks it down. The funny thing is that everybody (particularly those in liberal societies) already have authority over the most important aspects of their lives. And still the majority seems to have no problem relinquishing it all to entities whose existences are entirely based on power and control. The scariest thing (as you so aptly bring up in the third ¶) is how the majority tends to behave like the blob once it becomes mobilized - assimilating anybody it can get a hold of into its mindless mass.

I would like mass lawsuits to provide justice, but I doubt it.

The industry has covered itself, and will not take responsibility for off label use. To whatever degree states will take responsibility - guess with whose tax money they will be paying the damages?

Ideally, the politicians who for whatever reason chose to completely ignore medical guidelines in both a narrow sense (the vaccines) and broad sense (our general knowledge of epidemics and immunity) should be tried seperately. But I guess the chances of that happening are almost zero. — Tzeentch

Unfortunately, you are most likely correct. When have we ever seen accountability for anything. It is always a bunch of cover-ups, persecution of undesirable voices, and covering-up the cover-ups.

I would like to see one, tiny, isolated lawsuit. Don't know if that is possible though

The scariest thing (as you so aptly bring up in the third ¶) is how the majority tends to behave like the blob once it becomes mobilized - assimilating anybody it can get a hold of into its mindless mass. — Merkwurdichliebe

Flemish psychology professor Mattias Desmet has written a book about this in 2022, called 'The Psychology of Totalitarianism'. It discusses this exact subject in relation to the pandemic. He was subsequently invited to a lot of podcasts, and you can find plenty of interviews of him on YouTube.

In addition to providing a very lucid take of the whole ordeal, I also thought he was an inspiring human being. It's worth checking out.

Funny that in America at least, the politicians who are the most 'anti-vax', are also the ones most totalitarian leaning.


Or maybe it's not funny.

Well the Antivax bit is just another arrow in the quiver for people like Bannon. What exactly one believes about any particular issue is not so important. What's important is that one accepts the fundamental creed: Something evil is going on, outsiders cannot be trusted and the people "in the know" have to act.

Interestingly these people use the language of anti-authoritarianism to further their own authoritarian control of the narrative. But this is of course not a new phenomenon.

FYI, here are some grim trackers:

• HermanCainAward (w)
• sorryantivaxxer
• CovidiotDeaths

Somewhat akin to the Darwin Awards (w). Similar lists have appeared here and there in newspapers/publications.

Conspiracy theorists (and some others) tend to not get it. Can/should anything be done?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/573763

None of the vaccine makers have made any claims with respect to transmission, only the reduction in severity as I already pointed out 2 years ago when this first became a thing. Many people assumed it would because most vaccines also reduce transmission (and it did).

None of the vaccine makers have made any claims with respect to transmission, only the reduction in severity — Benkei

Vaccine makers may not have, but the government and media certainly did. Slowing transmission was certainly the excuse wherever we saw vaccine mandates.

going to be looking it up. Thanks for the reference.

Apparently more fuckery being exposed that is pretty relevant to this thread. Turns out SV40 is a key ingredient in the covid vaccine.

Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine was found to contain a Simian Virus 40 (SV40) DNA sequence, not disclosed to the public. — Lawyer: Pfizer COVID-Related Lawsuits Allege ‘Willful Misconduct’

Combined with an isolated study from Clinical Microbiology Reviews:

Persuasive evidence now indicates that SV40 is causing infections in humans today and represents an emerging pathogen.

Mounting evidence indicates that SV40 is a human pathogen, and current molecular biology, pathology, and clinical data, taken together, show that SV40 is significantly associated with and may be functionally important in the development of some human malignancies.  — Emergent Human Pathogen Simian Virus 40 and Its Role in Cancer

But they ensure us that it's completely harmless. Everything is totally fine. We can all rest easy.

No evidence has been found to suggest DNA fragments used in the development of the coronavirus vaccine -- such as a portion of SV40’s DNA sequence -- are causing health problems in people who have received the COVID-19 vaccine. — No evidence that DNA sequence used in Pfizer shot leads to cancer and other health issues

I'm reminded of a documentary I watched a little while ago. It's worth a watch - if I am not mistaken SV40 played a key role in the search for polio vaccines in the '50s and '60s and the link of those vaccines to the emergence of HIV.

Here's another blast from the past: a 2015 documentary about the pharmaceutical industry and its rotten business practices. Rather uncanny parallels can be drawn.





The bottomline is, politics, pharmaceutical companies, the science, even the doctors themselves - it's all compromised by lobbyists who are bought and paid for, and has been for years. Not a word from these people can be trusted.

There was a time when institutions had integrity and could be trusted to act in favor of public health. We are no longer living in such times. I wonder when people will wake up to that fact.

Perhaps interesting for you as well. It's from Zembla.

Watching it now but without watching it I already now pharma is not to be trusted.

Eh, not really news.

Don't get me wrong, the pharmaceutical industry is NOT inherently trustworthy, I agree. But then again no industry is inherently trustworthy... because they're industries, ie they are driven by profit. So Big Pharma is no more or less trustworthy than Big Oil, the Military Industrial complex etc.

Actually the fact that there is some governmental oversight (the FDA) actually separates Big Pharma from most other industries, in a good way.

Actually the fact that there is some governmental oversight (the FDA) actually separates Big Pharma from most other industries, in a good way. — LuckyR

The FDA has a questionable history of its own. It would be foolish to think it is a reliable source of protection against possible malfeasance by big pharma. After all, there is no question that the big pharma lobby is capable of influencing the presidential appointment of FDA officials. Don't be so certain that the FDA doesn't have greater interests that far outweigh the health concerns of American citizens.

awesome video. Must watch for anyone who has posted to this thread.

But aren't you alive because of antibiotics? I am.