Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach sues Pfizer for falsely claiming COVID shot is ‘safe and effective’

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Kansas’s approach of attempting to penalize Pfizer for misrepresenting the shots’ risks, rather than the risks themselves, could help get around the PREP Act, and if successful would establish a model for other states to follow.

Kansas Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach announced on Monday that he is suing pharmaceutical giant Pfizer over “multiple misleading statements” about the health risks and ineffectiveness of its mRNA-based COVID-19 shot, in a case that if successful could mark a turning point in the ongoing battle against the controversial injections.

“Pfizer misled Kansans about the vaccines’ risks, including to pregnant women and for myocarditis,” the complaint states, according to a press release from the attorney general’s office. “Additionally, Pfizer claimed its vaccine protected against COVID variants, despite data showing otherwise. The pharmaceutical giant also suggested its vaccine prevented COVID transmission, but later admitted it had never studied whether its vaccine stopped transmission.”

“The complaint also alleges that Pfizer coordinated with social media officials to censor speech critical of COVID-19 vaccines and declined to participate in the federal government’s vaccine development program, Operation Warp Speed, to avoid government oversight,” Kobach’s office further says.

READ: The Telegraph admits COVID shots may have helped cause over 3 million excess deaths

Among its attempts to deceive the public, Pfizer maintained its own adverse event database, which included cases not reported to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), but “did not publicly release adverse events data from its database.” It also “did not disclose that its trial included only healthy individuals and excluded unhealthy individuals” and therefore “did not possess a reasonable basis to represent that it was safe for individuals who had been diagnosed with COVID-19, who were immunocompromised, or who were pregnant or breastfeeding,” according to the lawsuit.

The complaint maintains that Pfizer’s misrepresentations, which helped the company earn $75 billion in two years, constitute violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, “regardless of whether any individual consumer ultimately received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.”

In a statement to Fox Business, Pfizer responded that its claims “have been accurate and science-based. The Company believes that the state’s case has no merit and will respond to the suit in due course.”

READ: Pfizer reportedly withheld presence of cancer-linked DNA in COVID jabs from FDA, Health Canada

A significant body of evidence links significant risks to the COVID shots, which were developed and reviewed in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take under former President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed initiative. Among it, VAERS reports 37,647 deaths, 216,757 hospitalizations, 21,741 heart attacks, and 28,445 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of May 31, among other ailments. U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.

An analysis of 99 million people across eight countries published February in the journal Vaccine – the largest analysis to date – “observed significantly higher risks of myocarditis following the first, second and third doses” of mRNA-based COVID jabs, as well as signs of increased risk of “pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,” and other “potential safety signals that require further investigation.” In April, the CDC was forced to release by court order 780,000 previously undisclosed reports of serious adverse reactions, and a study out of Japan found “statistically significant increases” in cancer deaths after third doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 shots and offered several theories for a causal link.

READ: Canadian father files $35 million lawsuit against Pfizer over son’s jab-related death

In Florida, a grand jury impaneled by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is currently investigating the manufacture and rollout of the COVID shots. In February, it released its first interim report on the underlying justification for Operation Warp Speed, which determined that lockdowns did more harm than good, that masks were ineffective at stopping COVID transmission, that COVID was “statistically almost harmless” to children and most adults, and that it is “highly likely” that COVID hospitalization numbers were inflated. The grand jury’s report on the jabs themselves is highly anticipated.

One long-standing impediment to holding Big Pharma accountable for the above issues has been the federal Public Readiness & Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005, which, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), empowers the federal government to “limit legal liability for losses relating to the administration of medical countermeasures such as diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines.” Near the beginning of the COVID outbreak, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) invoked the act in declaring the virus a “public health emergency.”

READ: 33-year-old father dies of immune disorder linked to Pfizer COVID vaccine, doctors say

Under this “sweeping” immunity, CRS explains, the federal government, state governments, “manufacturers and distributors of covered countermeasures,” and licensed or otherwise-authorized health professionals distributing those countermeasures are shielded from “all claims of loss” stemming from those countermeasures, with the exception of “death or serious physical injury” brought about through “willful misconduct,” a standard that, among other hurdles, requires the offender to have acted “intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose.”

Kansas’s approach of attempting to penalize Pfizer for misrepresenting the shots’ risks, rather than the risks themselves, could help get around the PREP Act, and if successful would establish a model for other states to follow.