Texas v Big Pharma Case

Texas v Big Pharma Case

Texas v Big Pharma Case

Re: the Legality of Marketing Vaccines based on Misleading Claims to Users

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: May 1, 2023
  • Location: Texas
  • Court: ?
  • Case #: ?
  • Plaintiff: Texas State Attorney General Paxton
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Texas State Attorney General
  • Defendant: Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson
  • Trial Type: Civil Investigative Demand
  • Judge: TBD
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD


*updated May 9, 2023

 

Background

In Texas on May 1st 2023 Attorney General Paxton launched an investigation into the pharmaceutical companies Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson concerning whether they engaged in gain-of-function research and misled the public about doing so.(1 & 5)

Paxton is also investigating whether the companies misrepresented the efficacy of their Covid-19 vaccines and the likelihood of transmitting Covid-19 after taking the vaccines in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The investigation will also look into the potential manipulation of vaccine trial data. This investigation concerns potentially fraudulent activity that falls outside the scope of legal immunity granted to manufacturers of the Covid-19 vaccine. It will also review the companies’ controversial practice of reporting the metric of “relative risk reduction” instead of “absolute risk reduction” when publicly discussing the efficacy of their vaccines. (1)

Paxton has demanded that the manufacturers Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson answer a series of wide ranging questions concerning the development, testing, and marketing transactions / communications concerning their Covid vaccines. Each manufacturer has been sent a ten page document of questions and given until the end of May to respond. (2,3,4)

Texas’s investigation will force these companies to turn over documents the public otherwise could not access. Attorney General Paxton is committed to discovering the full scope of decision-making behind pandemic interventions forced on the public, especially when a profit motive or political pressure may have compromised Americans’ health and safety. Efforts by the federal government to coerce compliance with unjust and illegal pandemic interventions, even at the cost of citizens’ employment, means this investigation into the scientific and ethical basis on which public health decisions were made is of major significance.(1)

 

Significance

First State in USA to initiate a wide ranging investigation into the scientific and ethical basis behind public health measures during the ‘pandemic’.

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…

 

Decision

 

Media


Texas State Investigation of Pfizer, Moderna & J&J -May 3 2023

source: Odysee / shortXXvids


AG Paxton Investigates Pharma -May 2 2023

source: Odysee / shortXXvids


Researcher Whistleblows on Data Integrity Issues in Pfizer’s C19 Jab Trial

source: The BMJ


FDA Claims Licensed Vaccines Do Not Need to Prevent Infections or Transmission -May 2, 2023

source: TrialSite News


Vaccine Injured Class Action Australian Government Agencies -May 3, 2023

source: TrialSite News


 

Keyword

Attorney General, Big Pharma, Case, Clinical Trials, Consumer Protection Act, Data Manipulation, Deceptive Trade Practices, Development, DTPA, Fraud, Johnson & Johnson, Marketing, Moderna, Pfizer, Testing, Texas, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Trials, USA


Back to All Cases

 

Exemption Certificates Case

Exemption Certificates Case

Exemption Certificates Case

Re: the Legality of a Medical Doctor Issuing Vaccination Exemption Certificates

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Feb 9, 2023
  • Location: Salzburg, Austria
  • Court: Regional Court Salzburg
  • Case #: ?
  • Plaintiff:  Public Prosecutor
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer:
  • Defendant: Dr Andreas Sönnichsen
  • Trial Type: Criminal Complaint
  • Judge: ?
  • Status: Decided
  • Verdict: for the Defendant


*updated Feb 13, 2023

Background

Dr Andreas Sönnichsen, a German national, was employed as a teaching and research professor at the university hospital in Vienna from 2018 up to end of 2021 when he was fired from his position because of his fierce criticism of Corona vaccination policy. [1]

He was accused of having issued digital certificates for provisional vaccination incapacity against payment of 20 euros, although he was not authorized to do so. [1]

The Medical Association had seen the general practitioner’s actions as a violation of the Medical Act and reported this to the public prosecutor’s office. In the court hearing, he was accused of his opinions being issued via the internet without having conscientiously examined the patients in advance. [1]

He was also accused by defenders of the government and Corona policy Corona policy of being a “Schwurbler” (indiscriminate conspiracy theorist, lateral thinker etc). [1]

 

Significance

First legal case in Austria of a medical doctor found innocent of issuing vaccine exemption certificates.

 

Plaintiff’s (State Prosecutor’s) Argument

Dr Sönnlichen was further accused of issuing his expert opinions via the Internet without having conscientiously examined the patients beforehand. [1]

 

Defendant’s Argument

Sönnichsen protested his innocence in the trial. The judge could not recognize any subjective facts and no intent to enrich. [1]

Via his lawyer, Dr Sönnichsen argued [2] that he:

“…never committed fraud or abused his powers.” further stating that: It is legal, that if people are afraid of having an allergic reaction to an untested vaccine, to issue them with a certificate [of vaccination exemption] up until the time that the ingredients and effects of this vaccine are clarified.”

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

A similar case was held in Germany where entrepreneur Markus Bönig was on trial for brokering “vaccination certificates” for a fee. [3]

in the view of the Lüneburg Regional Court, the vaccination certificate is not a health certificate at all, because it does not certify an individual state of health. “The ‘certificate’ is also not incorrect, since the statement made in it that no examination had taken place corresponds to the truth,” the court said. The extent to which the certificate is then useful in practice – for example, in the case of a workplace-based vaccination requirement – was not before the court.[3]

According to Bönig, the certificates are in any case simply expert opinions “which merely reflect what the user himself has stated, namely that he does not know at all whether he could react allergically or not.” This determination does not require personal contact with a doctor.[3]

 

Decision

The trial against the physician, university lecturer and well-known CoV vaccination critic Andreas Sönnichsen ended in Salzburg with an acquittal. [1]

 

Aftermath

After the acquittal, Sönnichsen strongly criticized the CoV policy. Those who had not been vaccinated had been severely defamed and discriminated against. [1]

He told ORF after the verdict was handed down that there was now a great deal of work to be done in society. [1]

He criticizes the fact that there is now a great silence – after many months of expensive media campaigns against the unvaccinated:

“I am very glad that Corona is now coming to an end. On the other hand, we now have to come to terms with the past. We now know that many political measures were completely inappropriate. It is now openly admitted that the kindergarten and school closures were unnecessary. Now two studies have come out that the mandatory masking was also unnecessary. The lockdowns certainly did more harm than good.” [1]

Of course, a lot was learned in this crisis, Sönnichsen said,

“But the people who predicted this, and I count myself among them, they were massively defamed and called right-wing radicals. I have never had any radical right-wing thoughts in my head. [1]

 


Further Research

Court Documents:
  • Read the Court Ruling
In the news:

 

Media


Interview -Jan 2023

source: ….


Interview -Sept 2022

source: ….


Sönnichsen describes his hearing in the Salzburg court -Feb 10 2023

source: shortXXvids

 

References

  1. Freispruch für Impfkritiker, heftige Kritik an CoV-Politik .>>> Click here for English translation
  2. short video of Sönnichsen describing his hearing in the Salzburg court on Feb 9th
  3. Hörtest gegen die Maskenpflicht

 

Keyword

Exemption, Exemption Certificates, Fraud, Hospital, Medical Act, professor, Salzburg, Schwurbler, Sönnichsen, University, Vienna


Back to All Cases