by - L. Richardson
The Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, touted as a breakthrough in the fight against the pandemic, has been shrouded in secrecy and alleged misconduct. Despite claims of rigorous safety standards and 95% efficacy in clinical trials, the extent of Pfizer's regulatory violations and inadequate penalties remains largely unknown to the public. This startling lack of transparency surrounding the vaccine's promotion and the meager fines raised alarming questions about potential COVID-19 vaccine misrepresentation and the integrity of the approval process.
Amidst growing skepticism towards pharmaceutical practices, this exposé delves into Pfizer's critique of mRNA vaccine promotion, regulatory breaches, and the demand for stricter fines to hold the industry accountable. It scrutinizes the company's past deceptions, intentional misconduct, and ethical concerns stemming from the premature marketing of an experimental product with limited public oversight of the agreed-upon terms.
Regulatory Violation
A Tainted History of Deception
Pfizer's regulatory transgressions extend far beyond the COVID-19 vaccine controversy. In 2009, the pharmaceutical giant settled a staggering $2.3 billion lawsuit with the U.S. Department of Justice, involving allegations of bribing doctors, suppressing adverse trial results for the painkiller Bextra, and illegally promoting the sale of Bextra and other drugs for unapproved uses.
This was not an isolated incident. In a separate 2004 lawsuit, Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million to settle allegations that its subsidiary, Warner-Lambert, promoted Neurontin for unapproved uses and manipulated studies to misrepresent or suppress negative findings. Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, another Pfizer subsidiary, pleaded guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for misbranding Bextra intending to defraud or mislead.
- Pfizer's Rap Sheet of Regulatory Breaches:
- Agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve civil allegations of illegally promoting Bextra, Geodon, Zyvox, and Lyrica for unapproved uses.
- Accused of paying kickbacks to healthcare providers to induce them to prescribe these and other drugs.
- Entered into an expansive corporate integrity agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services to implement procedures to detect and prevent similar conduct in the future.
Various federal agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services, FBI, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and FDA, investigated Pfizer's misconduct, underscoring the severity of the company's regulatory violations.
Penalty Imposed
Despite Pfizer's extensive history of regulatory violations and fraudulent practices, the penalties imposed on the pharmaceutical giant for prematurely promoting its COVID-19 mRNA vaccine have been widely criticized as woefully inadequate. The company's rap sheet of misconduct spans over a decade. Since 2002, Pfizer has paid $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties, and jury awards for these illegal practices.
A Slap on the Wrist
In a move that has sparked outrage among advocates for transparency and accountability, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General fined Pfizer a mere $2.3 million for violating federal regulations by promoting its COVID-19 vaccine for unapproved uses. This paltry sum pales in comparison to the company's previous record-setting $2.3 billion settlement in 2009, which resolved allegations of illegally promoting the drug Bextra for unapproved uses and dosages that the FDA had not approved due to safety concerns.
- Pfizer's Meager Penalty for COVID-19 Vaccine Misconduct:
- Fined $2.3 million by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- Accused of promoting the vaccine for unapproved uses, violating federal regulations
- A mere fraction of the $2.3 billion settlement in 2009 for similar offenses
- Past Penalties for Fraudulent Marketing:
- $142 million jury award in 2010 for fraudulently marketing the drug gabapentin (Neurontin)
- $2.3 billion settlement in 2009 for illegally promoting Bextra and paying kickbacks to healthcare providers
Disturbingly, Pfizer did not admit wrongdoing as part of these settlements, further fueling concerns about the pharmaceutical industry's lack of accountability and transparency. The meager fine imposed for the COVID-19 vaccine promotion raises alarming questions about the integrity of the regulatory process and the prioritization of public health over corporate profits.
Past Deceptions
Unethical Marketing Practices: Pfizer's Tainted Legacy
Pfizer has a long and disturbing history of unethical and illegal marketing practices. These include illegally promoting drugs for 'off-label' uses not approved by the FDA, paying kickbacks to physicians to increase prescribing of Pfizer drugs, using misleading marketing materials to encourage drug prescribing, and failing to report accurate drug pricing information as required by law. This pattern of deception and disregard for regulatory oversight raises grave concerns about the company's integrity and commitment to public health.
- The Trovan Tragedy: Exploitation in Clinical Trials
- Pfizer is being sued by 30 families in Nigeria for unethical treatment of children in a 1996 clinical trial of their oral antibiotic drug trovafloxacin (Trovan).
- The lawsuit alleges that Pfizer did not obtain informed consent and that a failure to adhere to the study protocol resulted in brain damage, hearing loss, and the death of 11 out of the 2,000 children in the study.
- Pfizer is accused of hastily setting up the clinical trial to take advantage of a meningitis epidemic, denying families the option of seeking an 'effective and approved alternative' treatment.
- Denials and Deflections
- Pfizer maintains that the trial was 'designed and conducted by good medical practice and ethical norms.'
- The company denies that families were unaware their children were part of a study but admits to 'some protocol deviations and record-keeping errors.'
- Such denials and deflections cast doubt on Pfizer's commitment to transparency and accountability, further eroding public trust in the pharmaceutical industry.
Pfizer's track record of regulatory breaches, unethical marketing tactics, and alleged exploitation in clinical trials paints a disturbing picture of a company that prioritizes profits over ethical conduct and public well-being. This pattern of deception raises legitimate concerns about the integrity of the COVID-19 vaccine promotion and the potential for similar misconduct.
Intentional Deception
A Systematic Campaign of Misinformation
Despite the limitations acknowledged by the FDA, Pfizer embarked on a calculated campaign to systematically mislead the public about the effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine in four critical areas:
(1) the 95% efficacy claim.
(2) claims about preventing transmission.
(3) claims about the duration of protection.
(4) claims about efficacy against variants like Delta.
This deceptive marketing strategy was driven by the company's urgent need to establish its vaccine as the market leader and secure lucrative government contracts, prioritizing profits over transparency and public well-being.
- The 95% Efficacy Fallacy
- Pfizer made unsupported claims that its COVID-19 vaccine had a 95% efficacy rate, a misleading statistic representing the 'relative risk reduction' in its initial two-month clinical trial.
- The company failed to inform the public that vaccine protection could not be accurately predicted beyond two months, and the absolute risk reduction was only 0.85%.
- Transmission Deception
- Pfizer embarked on a campaign to intimidate the public into getting the vaccine to protect their loved ones even though the clinical trial did not measure whether it protects against transmission.
- Durability Disinformation
- The company made unsubstantiated claims about the duration of protection offered by the vaccine, despite the FDA's warning that long-term efficacy could not be assessed based on the limited clinical trial data.
- Variant Vagueness
- Pfizer made unsupported assertions about the vaccine's efficacy against emerging variants like Delta, even though the clinical trials did not evaluate this aspect.
As the failure of its product became apparent, Pfizer pivoted to silencing 'truth-tellers' by labeling them as 'criminals,' spreading 'misinformation' and coercing social media platforms to censor its critics. This blatant disregard for transparency and accountability has prompted legal action, with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton suing Pfizer for unlawfully misrepresenting the effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine and attempting to censor public discussion of the product.
Ethical Concerns
Prioritizing Profits Over Public Health
Despite Pfizer's extensive record of regulatory breaches and unethical conduct, the company's influence within the healthcare industry remains alarmingly pervasive. In a move that raises grave ethical concerns, a Pfizer vice president was appointed to the governing council of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) in 2009, casting doubt on the Canadian government's priorities and the CIHR president's judgment. This cozy relationship between a pharmaceutical giant with a tainted history and a prominent public health research institution is a stark reminder of the industry's insidious reach and the potential for conflicts of interest to undermine public trust.
Disregarding Safety Concerns
The ethical dilemma surrounding Pfizer's COVID-19 mRNA vaccine deepens further with mounting evidence of significant harm and limited ongoing benefits. Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a renowned cardiologist, published peer-reviewed research concluding that there should be a complete cessation of the administration of the COVID mRNA vaccines due to clear and robust data of significant harms. This call for action is bolstered by the unprecedented surge in adverse event reports following the rollout of the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in the U.K., with nearly 500,000 yellow card reports – more than all the yellow card reports of the past 40 years combined.
- Pharmaco-vigilance analysis suggests the serious adverse events reported by the public may represent only 10% of the actual rate of serious adverse events occurring within the population.
- The original Pfizer trial, which involved approximately 40,000 participants, did not show a statistically significant reduction in death due to vaccination.
- Real-world data from the U.K. during the three-month Omicron wave at the beginning of 2022 reveals that 7,300 people over 80 must be vaccinated to prevent one death.
- For younger age groups, the number needed to be vaccinated to prevent death was described as "absolutely enormous."
Given such alarming safety signals and questionable real-world efficacy, Pfizer's relentless promotion of its COVID-19 mRNA vaccine raises grave ethical concerns about the company's disregard for public well-being in pursuit of profits.
Conclusion
The Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine controversy has exposed the pharmaceutical giant's disturbing pattern of regulatory breaches
Conclusion
The Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine controversy has exposed the pharmaceutical giant's disturbing pattern of regulatory breaches, unethical practices, and prioritization of profits over public well-being. The meager fine imposed for prematurely promoting an experimental product with limited oversight raises severe concerns about the integrity of the approval process and the inadequacy of penalties to deter future misconduct. As the alarming safety signals and questionable real-world efficacy of the COVID-19 mRNA injection come to light, it becomes imperative to reevaluate the blind trust in pharmaceutical companies and demand stricter regulations and substantial fines to hold them accountable.
The public deserves transparency, ethical conduct, and a genuine commitment to safety from entities entrusted with safeguarding health. It is time to take a firm stand against Pfizer's deceptive practices, oppose the rushed promotion of the COVID-19 mRNA injection, and advocate for substantial fines that discourage future transgressions and protect the public interest. Join the call for accountability and reform.
FAQs
What was the controversy surrounding Pfizer's vaccine research?
The controversy involves Pfizer's claim that its vaccine was 95% effective against COVID-19 infection based on early clinical trial results. This figure, derived from "relative risk reduction," was criticized for potentially misleading as it only considered a short, two-month trial period.
What concerns have been raised about the Pfizer vaccine?
Safety concerns regarding the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine have been raised, particularly identifying 21 anaphylaxis cases out of approximately 1.89 million first doses administered in late December 2020. This corresponds to an estimated rate of 11.1 cases of anaphylaxis per million doses.
What are the potential negative impacts of mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations?
Research suggests that imposing mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations can lead to unintended adverse effects. These include not necessarily a decrease in the uptake of the mandated vaccine but rather a reduction in the adoption of other voluntary vaccines, potentially due to public pushback against government mandates.
How does Pfizer uphold ethical standards in its operations?
Pfizer asserts its commitment to the highest ethical standards in its interactions with healthcare professionals. The company emphasizes these relationships' integrity and importance to patient care, prohibiting improper payments to healthcare professionals.
References
[1] - https://www.usatoday.com/story..../news/factcheck/2021
[2] - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/0....1/28/world/europe/va
[3] - https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr..../justice-department-
[4] - https://www.texasattorneygener....al.gov/news/releases
[5] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p....mc/articles/PMC28758
[6] - https://www.nature.com/articles/nm1001-1077c
[7] - https://www.texasattorneygener....al.gov/sites/default
[8] - https://hansard.parliament.uk/....commons/2022-12-13/d
[9] - https://www.pfizer.com/about/r....esponsibility/misinf
[10] - https://www.supremecourt.gov/D....ocketPDF/21/21A244/2
[11] - https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/1....6/covid-vaccine-side
More References to Look at!
https://www.infowars.com/posts..../pfizer-slapped-with
https://www.naturalnews.com/20....24-04-17-pfizer-fine
https://www.naturalnews.com/20....23-10-30-pfizer-inte
Shazam actor dumps on Pfizer triggers the left! – The Right Scoop. https://therightscoop.com/shaz....am-actor-dumps-on-pf
PHARMA FLASHBACK: Pfizer shelled out $2.3B to settle civil and criminal charges 2009. https://bigpharmanews.com/2023....-01-12-pfizer-shelle
Pfizer's 'trust science' tweet gets ratioed, pharma giant 'hides' uncomfortable tweets: Read what happened. https://www.opindia.com/2021/1....1/pfizer-twitter-vac
COVID-19 vaccine maker Pfizer was involved in the largest healthcare fraud settlement in history in 2009. https://bigpharmanews.com/2021....-02-09-pfizer-involv
(2017). Medical supplier Pos-T-Vac reaches a $1M settlement. The Hutchinson News, (), n/a.
Minister Petitpas Taylor announces new appointments to the Governing Council of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research - Canada.ca. https://www.canada.ca/en/healt....h-canada/news/2017/1
U.K. Parliament: Potential Harms of Vaccines 2022. http://nothingbutthetruth.info..../html/vaccine-harm.h
"Bisphenol-A (BPA) and Breast Cancer: Utilizing Risk Assessment and Edu" by Ashley Catherine Babcock. https://repository.usfca.edu/dnp/210/
Benzoyl peroxide vs salicylic acid: What's the difference?. https://miiskin.com/acne/medic....ations/benzoyl-perox
Garcia, M. (2020). Is The Texas Disaster Act Of 1975 Unconstitutional? A Covid-era Review Of Constitutionally Mandated Separation Of Powers As They Relate To Chapter 418 Of The Texas Government Code. Texas Review of Law & Politics, 25(1), 7-60.