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

 

Houston Methodist Hospital Case

Houston Methodist Hospital Case

Houston Methodist Hospital Case

Re: Legality of Employer Vaccine Mandates

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: June 12 2021
  • Location: Houston Texas
  • Court: US District Court
  • Case #: Civil Action H-21-1774
  • Plaintiff: Jennifer Bridges & Hospital Emloyees
  • Defendant: Houston Methodist Hospital
  • Trial Type: Class Action
  • Judge: Lynn Hughes
  • Status: Completed
  • Verdict: for the Defendant

 

Background

117 employees of Houston Methodist Hospital challenged their employer’s demand that all staff should be vaccinated or be terminated by June 7 2021.

 

Significance

The Hospital is the first Business in the US to make this demand. As of the time of this trial the 3 vaccines currently in use from Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, have only emergency approval and have not yet been approved by the FDA.

According the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System the Data released Friday (June 11 2021) showed 262,521 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 4,406 deaths and 21,537 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and May 21, 2021. -3

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

  • Jennifer Bridges the main plaintiff argued that the vaccine was still experimental, that more testing was needed and that therefore she did not feel comfortable taking it. She further said that she did not want to be a “guinea pig”

  • Jared Woodfill, the Attorney for the plaintiffs said the Hospital mandate “is a severe and blatant violation of the Nuremberg Code and the public policy of the state of Texas.” -3 The Nuremberg Code was created in 1947 in response to the forced medical experimentation of the Nazi regime against concentration camp prisoners” -3

  • Dr Peter McCullough in an interview with the Corona-Ausschuss stated that he will be a scientific witness for the doctors and staff who oppose the forced vaccinations -4

 

Defendant’s Argument

Dr. Marc Boom, the hospital’s CEO said that the flu vaccine has been a requirement for employees since 2009, making their covid vaccination demand legal. Further more the Hospital deemed the vaccine proven safe.

“The COVID-19 vaccines have proven through rigorous trials to be very safe and very effective and are not experimental. More than 165 million people in the U.S. alone have received vaccines against COVID-19, and this has resulted in the lowest numbers of infections in our country and in the Houston region in more than a year,” he said. “As health care workers, it is our sacred obligation to do whatever we can to protect our patients, who are the most vulnerable in our community. It is our duty and our privilege.”-1

 

Other

Recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) also altered their rules to allow for mandated covid vaccinations by employers. this was not the case previously for emergency use drugs which the vaccine still is (at the time of this case).

“The new rules suggest employers could require their staffers physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID so long as they make accommodations for an employee’s disability and religious beliefs. However, those employees who don’t get vaccinated must wear a mask, socially distance or change their schedules.” -3

 

Decision

  • Judge Hughes, a Reagan appointee, ruled in favor of the hospital, rejecting the comparison to Nazi Germany as well as the notion that the vaccine was still “experimental”

    “Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” … “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death. -2

 

Aftermath

  • The Plaintiff’s attorney Jared Woodfill, speaking to the The Washington Times said that he will appeal the ruling and “that the lawsuit is one battle in a larger war to protect employees’ rights”. -1

“Employment should not be conditioned upon whether you will agree to serve as a human guinea pig. We will be appealing this case to the U.S. Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court if necessary,” Mr. Woodfill said.-1

“All of my clients continue to be committed to fighting this unjust policy,”…“If this ruling is allowed to stand, employers across the country will be able to force their employees to participate in a vaccine trial as a condition for employment. This legal battle has only just begun.”-1

  • Dr Peter McCullough in an interview with the Corona-Ausscuss stated that this will go to the Texas Supreme Court -4

 

Further Research

  • Read the original court ruling here:
  • Children’s Health Defense has prepared this document for employees, students and others who may face unwanted vaccine mandates. The document, which outlines the legal arguments for why the EUA vaccines can’t be mandated, can be shared with employers and universities : https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/chd-notice-for-eua-vaccines.pdf
  • https://abcnews.go.com/US/117-employees-sue-houston-methodist-hospital-requiring-covid/story?id=77977011
  • https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/13/us/houston-methodist-covid-vaccine-lawsuit/index.html
  • https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9689079/Workers-Houston-Methodist-Hospital-plan-bring-case-Supreme-Court.html
  • https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/29/texas-hospital-vaccine-lawsuit/

 

References

  • 1 https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jun/13/judge-tosses-houston-methodist-hospital-workers-va/
  • 2 https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/558173-judge-dismisses-staff-lawsuit-against-houston-methodist-vaccine-mandate
  • 3 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/employees-sue-texas-hospital-covid-vaccine-mandate/
  • 4 https://open.lbry.com/@LongXXvids:c/Dr.-McCullough-on-CA–56—June-11-2021:6

Keywords

Texas, Houston, Hospital, Mandate, Vaccine, Emergency Use, Nuremberg, Cases in the United States


Back to All Cases