Ken Paxton – Pandemic Timeline https://pandemictimeline.com Chronological Sequence of Events Sun, 17 Dec 2023 06:21:43 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7 https://pandemictimeline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Covid-150x150.ico Ken Paxton – Pandemic Timeline https://pandemictimeline.com 32 32 Texas AG sues Pfizer for ‘deceptive’ COVID jab con https://pandemictimeline.com/2023/11/texas-ag-sues-pfizer-for-deceptive-covid-jab-con/ Thu, 30 Nov 2023 00:00:02 +0000 https://pandemictimeline.com/?p=15660 The lawsuit out of Texas … alleges that [Pfizer] “engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading acts and practices by making unsupported claims” about its Covid jab that violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. “Pfizer created the false impression that its vaccine provided a substantially greater amount of protection against COVID-19 infection than what it…

Read more →

]]>

The lawsuit out of Texas … alleges that [Pfizer] “engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading acts and practices by making unsupported claims” about its Covid jab that violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

“Pfizer created the false impression that its vaccine provided a substantially greater amount of protection against COVID-19 infection than what it afforded in reality. Pfizer undertook a continuous and widespread campaign comprised of the deceptive concerning [sic] alleged above for the purpose of misleading the public about the efficacy of its vaccine,” the lawsuit states. “This course deceptive conduct was reinforced and extended by Pfizer’s efforts to censor persons who sought to disseminate truthful information that would undermine its ongoing deception.”

Paxton specifically found that the data Pfizer used to conclude the Covid shot was nearly 100 percent effective relied on a “relative risk reduction” assessment, a measurement that the Food and Drug Administration warns leaves patients “unduly influenced” and vulnerable to “suboptimal decisions.”

— Jordan Boyd

If fraud is proven, Pfizer (and potentially other vaccine manufacturers) could lose their immunity against prosecution.  “Fraud vitiates everything.”

Absolute risk, relative risk, and number needed to treat (NNT). When explaining risks associated with treatment, three approaches exist to describe how the treatment changes risk. For example, when explaining the benefits of taking chemoprevention to prevent breast cancer, risk reduction could be described as (1) a 50% risk reduction (relative risk reduction), (2) a reduction from a 6% risk of breast cancer to 3% (absolute risk reduction) or (3) the number of women needed to take chemoprevention to prevent cancer in one of them (NNT).

Comprehension of information and risk perceptions differ across these three formats. Sheridan and colleagues found that NNT was the most difficult format for patients to understand and recommended that it never be the sole way that information is presented.32 Additionally, when information is presented in a relative risk format, the risk reduction seems larger and treatments are viewed more favorably than when the same information is presented using an absolute risk format. This is as true for the lay public as it is for medical students.

— FDA

Sources:

Related:

See also, on this site:

]]>