Texas Sues Pfizer — and the Lawsuit’s Ripples Could Reach Australia

20 December 2023

4.3 MINS

The state of Texas is suing Pfizer for an allegedly defective Covid-19 product in a lawsuit that has grabbed the attention of The Australian.

The State of Texas has launched a major lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant Pfizer for engaging in “false, deceptive, and misleading acts and practices” in the marketing of its Covid-19 injectable.

Lodged by Texas Attorney-General Ken Paxton late last month after a thorough state investigation, the 54-page suit calls Pfizer’s product “the miracle that wasn’t” and takes particular aim at the company’s “95% effective” claim.

“Placing their trust in Pfizer, hundreds of millions of Americans lined up to receive the vaccine. Contrary to Pfizer’s public statements, however, the pandemic did not end; it got worse,” the petition reads.

“More Americans died in 2021, with Pfizer’s vaccine available, than in 2020, the first year of the pandemic. This, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of Americans received a COVID-19 vaccine, with most taking Pfizer’s.”

Pfizer’s Alleged False Advertising

The lawsuit’s significance was not lost on Australia’s national broadsheet, with Adam Creighton of The Australian warning Tuesday that events in the Lone Star State “could have wide-ranging political ramifications across the developed world”.

“Pfizer appears to have exaggerated the effectiveness of its vac­cines, making unfounded claims that routinely were parroted by governments, health officials and much of the mainstream media,” Creighton wrote.

He continued:

Remember “95 per cent effective”? According to Texas, “0.85 per cent effective” would have been a more accurate sales pitch. Pfizer ran one large clinical trial in 2020 to obtain emergency authorisation from the US Food and Drug Administration, which then green-lit the rollout. About 22,000 people were given a placebo and another 22,000 two shots of Pfizer’s Covid vaccine, and the results recorded two months later.

In the placebo group 162 people developed symptomatic Covid-19, but only eight in the vaccinated group, which is how the “95 per cent effective” was calculated. Yet according to the US Food and Drug Administration’s own guidelines this “relative risk reduction” measure is misleading and should at least be accompanied by the “absolute risk reduction”, which in this case was 0.85 per cent (0.9 per cent risk of contracting Covid-19 without vaccination, minus 0.04 per cent with).

Interestingly, the trial didn’t test the groups for asymptomatic Covid-19 using PCR tests, the kind we had to undergo repeatedly for the best part of two years, so who knows how many people in either group were infected. In terms of deaths from all causes across that two-month trial period, 21 people died in the vaccinated group and 17 in the placebo group — the opposite of what one might have expected.

“What’s on trial isn’t merely Pfizer but the institutions of governance in the developed world,” Creighton concluded.

“If Texas wins, it will have highlighted perhaps the greatest medical fraud in history, and the abject failure of medical regulators on a scale at least as large as banking and financial regulators in 2008.”

Covid-19 Injections and All-Cause Mortality

If the Texas lawsuit is successful, the implications in Australia could be monumental.

A recent study looking at deaths by all causes in 17 southern hemisphere countries, including Australia, uncovered a “definite causal link” between the rollout of Covid-19 injectables and peaks in all-cause mortality.

The Canadian team behind the study identified approximately 1 death for every 2,000 injections and concluded that “the Covid-19 vaccines did not save lives and appear to be lethal toxic agents”.

Data from various Australian states apparently corroborates this finding.

Most Queensland Covid-19 deaths were of people who were “fully vaccinated” when the state borders first opened in December 2021.

Likewise, Western Australians suffered exceptionally high rates of adverse events following Covid-19 injections — with a staggering 57% of them presenting at a hospital — at a time when most of the population was injected but no Covid-19 cases were recorded.

Indeed, excess deaths were already being detected in Australia in 2021 when the injection rollout was in full swing but many states still had no Covid-19 cases.

Injection Mandates and Censorship

Despite the Australian Immunisation Handbook explicitly stating that vaccines “must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”, Australian governments imposed heavy-handed injection mandates on the nation’s citizens.

Australians were deprived of their freedom to work, travel, use public and private amenities, and be with loved ones at important moments such as births, deaths and funerals, unless they received the Covid-19 products that are now the subject of the Texas lawsuit.

Rather than listening to community pushback, the Australian Government voted down two bills aimed at shielding citizens from vaccine discrimination and launched a campaign of censorship against those who raised concerns. 

Following an FOI request by Senator Alex Antic, it was revealed that the Department of Home Affairs — whose purview includes border security and counter-terrorism but not public health — wilfully violated the free speech of thousands of Australians.

As reported at the time by The Daily Declaration, 

In total, the Australian Government flagged 4,213 Covid-themed posts for suppression.

While some posts contained irrational or unverified statements, the Commonwealth also blacklisted many legitimate claims made by Australian citizens.

Among them were posts correctly stating that Covid-19 injections did not stop infection or transmission of the virus, that masks and lockdowns were ineffective, and that Covid-19 leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Content posted by Australian medical professionals was also censored, along with calls for peaceful protest against heavy-handed pandemic measures, and perhaps most cynically of all, testimonies of the vaccine-injured.

Australia’s Pfizer Contracts in the Spotlight

The most significant implications of the Texas lawsuit for Australia will likely be in regards to the agreements struck between the Federal Government and pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer.

When signing contracts with Covid-19 injection suppliers, the government granted companies total legal immunity if their products resulted in the maiming or killing of Australian citizens.

In the case of contracts with Pfizer, those agreements were based on the same trial data now being scrutinised in Texas.

It was on the basis of the same trial data that the Australian Government purchased vast quantities of Covid-19 injectables from various Big Pharma outfits, to the tune of almost ten doses per citizen.

To date, the Federal Government has spent at least $18 billion on Covid injectables and other treatments, approximately half of which have since been binned.

Of the first 255 million vaccine doses purchased, only 60 million were used, with more than half set to expire and be dumped, to the estimated value of $3 billion.

Approximately half of all Covid-19 injectables acquired by the Australian Government were purchased from Pfizer.

The lawsuit brought by Texas AG Ken Paxton alleges five violations of the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act and is seeking more than US$10 million in civil penalties against Pfizer.

It has been filed in Lubbock state district court in north-west Texas.

Image via Unsplash.

We need your help. The continued existence of the Daily Declaration depends on the generosity of readers like you. Donate now. The Daily Declaration is committed to keeping our site free of advertising so we can stay independent and continue to stand for the truth.

Fake news and censorship make the work of the Canberra Declaration and our Christian news site the Daily Declaration more important than ever. Take a stand for family, faith, freedom, life, and truth. Support us as we shine a light in the darkness. Donate now.


  1. Stephen Lewin 20 December 2023 at 8:41 am - Reply

    Thanks Kurt for this article on the Lawsuit against Pfiser….well written

  2. Kim Beazley 20 December 2023 at 9:10 am - Reply

    I’m sorry, but the “ripples” from this won’t get past the court house. What’s being reported here can be seen more clearly through what hasn’t been reported than what has. But it needs to be seen in the light of what has.

    “Remember “95 per cent effective”? According to Texas, “0.85 per cent effective” would have been a more accurate sales pitch. Pfizer ran one large clinical trial in 2020 to obtain emergency authorisation from the US Food and Drug Administration, which then green-lit the rollout. About 22,000 people were given a placebo and another 22,000 two shots of Pfizer’s Covid vaccine, and the results recorded two months later.”

    There’s two issues here.

    First, the reference to 95% effective and 0.85% effective as a direct comparison is utterly false and designed to mislead. It is comparing Absolute Risk Reduction to Relative Risk reduction. They are two opposite methods and they are not directly comparable. You simply cannot say that one refutes the other. But over the past three years there’s been a veritable conga line of bad faith actors, like this Texas Attorney-General, using it in such a fashion. Here are two links which explain the difference and why, in the case of communicable diseases like COVID-19, RRR is used primarily.

    Also, in passing, if you know how to read the data in the trial papers, you know that both are quoted anyway. That’s how mendacious this case is! And the most cursory web search will throw up numerous real world studies performed after the rollout which confirmed the effectiveness at 90%+.

    Second, by identifying Pfizer as the source of the data, he again is knowingly misleading, as all the data came from the peer reviewed clinical trials. He also makes passing reference to the 45,000 trial volunteers, but misses the most important point. That is, most clinical trials involve 2-3 thousand volunteers at best. It was only because of President Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed” that sufficient funds were available to make this by far the largest and most comprehensive clinical trial in history.

    The upshot of this is the fact that to make a case he would need to prove that the clinical trials were not conducted in the proper way, or that Pfizer, or those in authority, or both, somehow brought pressure to bear on the researchers AND the independent peer review panel to “cook the books”. But this is easily refuted by the fact I already mentioned: the real world data post approval.

    In short, I find it not beyond the realms of possibility that this is just another grandstanding by a US Attorney-General trying to make a name for himself for political reasons. And he’d hardly be the first to have done so.

    Beyond this, Kurt, you then extrapolate to consequences like excess mortality which, in spite of your cherry-picked study, do not show any link to the vaccines being the cause of deaths as claimed. In fact, I have examined the statistics from the Bureau of Statistics many times over the past two years, and both before the pandemic and presently they show a real consistency, that the major drivers of excess mortality are dementia and diabetes, both of which for the past decade have risen at much higher rates than the average. And this article spells out the facts even more (

    In short, there is too much here that is motivated by confirmation bias and not the pursuit of truth. And in my opinion there are far better arguments which could be brought to bear on the issue of lockdowns etc than one so easily refuted as this. And when we have a Federal Government which is determined to hold a sham inquiry, which will probably only serve to quarantine their own Labor premiers from proper scrutiny, those better arguments are needed more than ever.

    • Brett 23 December 2023 at 10:19 am - Reply

      A much-needed counterpoint. It is not easy for enquiring minds to arrive at an informed and balanced view in the current milieu.

  3. Countess Antonia Maria Violetta Scrivanich 20 December 2023 at 10:05 am - Reply

    Good ! My 4th + 5th were Pfitzer vaccines which made me seriously ill . I still have not fully recovered . I thought I would be dead before Christmas Day, but, thank God , I am still alive and each day (even in pain ) is a blessing ! I lost 2 years in which I was incapacitated and in awful pain. Unfortunately, the Australian Legal System works against justice for victims. It -needs an overhall .

  4. Annette 20 December 2023 at 5:00 pm - Reply

    Kim Beazley, Your comments have reminded me why I don’t waste time reading your articles.

    • Kim Beazley 20 December 2023 at 5:47 pm - Reply

      Then it’s obvious that you didn’t take any time to read my comment. After all, if you cannot engage with the facts I presented, then you are simply incapable of dealing with the truth of the matter. For that reason I lose nothing by you not reading my articles, but you’re the one who loses out on the opportunity to learn something. All you’ve told me is that you’re locked in a horrible cycle of confirmation bias. For your own good you need to open up and engage with issues.

  5. Stan Beattie 20 December 2023 at 10:57 pm - Reply

    Thanks Kurt for the article. I pray truth is exposed and justice served. I also pray for an Attorney General in Australia to take up the fight against this whole evil program in Australia, and again that justice would be done, and the many injured would be compensated

  6. Stan Beattie 20 December 2023 at 11:29 pm - Reply

    Data from Health New Zealand confirms that the COVID vaccines have killed over 10 million worldwide
    It’s finally here: record-level data showing vaccine timing and death date. There is no confusion any longer: the vaccines are unsafe and have killed, on average, around 1 person per 1,000 doses.


  7. Cheryl Manley 22 December 2023 at 9:19 am - Reply
    • Kim Beazley 26 December 2023 at 12:51 pm - Reply

      Your source is hardly excellent. That’s because it’s far from factual, as it’s reliant on one from September 2022, which has been thoroughly rubbished by REAL scientists, and is also a con job. And I don’t need to go too far down the page to show it.

      “Key phase III clinical trials for these products are yet to be fully completed, despite administration to billions of people.”

      How can they even make such a claim when the independent peer reviews for Pfizer and Moderna were published in December 2020, THREE YEARS before this “study” (which is really nothing but a glorified op-ed)! Unless they’re accusing both the New England Journal of Medicine and the FDA in America of fraud, which they don’t elsewhere, this is a blatant lie!

      “…failure to prevent infection or transmission of the COVID-19 variants eventually led the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to reinvent their definition for ‘vaccine’”

      More rubbish! There has never been a medication, let alone a vaccine, which has prevented infection or transmission 100%. Never in history. And the definition of “vaccine” they offer is simple: “A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.” ( Nothing to see there!

      Finally, their reliance on the study by Fraiman et al in “Vaccine”:

      “As originally published in NEJM, the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine interim phase III clinical trial reports suggested a favourable risk/benefit ratio. But based on exactly the same data, Fraiman and colleagues, publish in Vaccine that:

      mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95% CI −0.4 to 20.6 and −3.6 to 33., respectively.

      From which they conclude a need for formal risk-benefit analyses.”

      First, they were in no way “interim”. Second, that study has been ridiculed by others for its sloppy methodology and anti-vax presuppositions. Here’s a deep dive into the analysis which shows exactly how sloppy and prejudiced they were:

      So, your paper is nothing but anti-vax propaganda, reliant on other anti-vax propaganda.

  8. Stan Beattie 23 December 2023 at 10:52 pm - Reply

    Thanks Cheryl, a very detailed review which I appreciated. Unfortunately even with the cautionary note of this article, the probability of another round of the same is very high, because the number of people who appreciate the risk is still very low, and the prayer intercession to bind this evil by the blood of the lamb is also small, but praise God it is growing

  9. Stan Beattie 25 December 2023 at 1:58 pm - Reply

    Pray about what you can do.
    Listen to Scott and the lawyer talk about what they are doing and let the Holy Spirit inspire you.

  10. Kim Beazley 28 December 2023 at 6:44 am - Reply

    Here is an article, written by a PhD microbiologist, revealing just how abysmal this vexatious litigation is. It’s so bad that even I can predict that once the differences between Relative Risk Reduction and Absolute Risk Reduction are explained, this will be thrown out. It IS that bad.

Leave A Comment

Recent Articles:

Use your voice today to protect

Faith · Family · Freedom · Life



The Daily Declaration is an Australian Christian news site dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Our vision is to see the revitalisation of our Judeo-Christian values for the common good. We are non-profit, independent, crowdfunded, and provide Christian news for a growing audience across Australia, Asia, and the South Pacific. The opinions of our contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of The Daily Declaration. Read More.