Kansas sues Pfizer for misleading the public about the risks of its mRNA COVID-19 vaccines
Kansas sues Pfizer for misleading the public about the risks of its mRNA COVID-19 vaccines
The state of Kansas has filed a consumer protection lawsuit against the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, accusing it of misleading the public when it comes to both the safety and efficacy of its highly controversial mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
According to the suit, Pfizer knew that its vaccine came with significant adverse effects and manipulated its safety trials in order to deceive the public, violating Kansas’s consumer protection laws as well as previous consent judgments.
The suit cites a slew of supporting evidence, including scientific and government research, press releases, interviews, and news reports demonstrating Pfizer’s misdeeds.
For example, they cited a paper from the New England Journal of Medicine and an FDA memo to support the allegation that Pfizer purposely destroyed the control group of a COVID vaccine trial by providing participants with access to the jab. This made it impossible to fairly evaluate the safety of the vaccine by comparing a vaccinated group to one that was not vaccinated, the lawsuit alleges.
In addition, they cited two articles from the British Medical Journal indicating that Pfizer delayed the release of vaccine trial data intentionally and only tested healthy patients in its vaccine trials in a marked departure from what is considered protocol.
To support their allegation that the company purposefully misrepresented the vaccine’s safety, they included press releases from Pfizer and interviews with CEO Albert Bourla in which the vaccine is presented as safe and effective.
The lawsuit also refers to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the watchdog group Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency in America with the FDA, through which they obtained information about the vaccine.
From this FOIA suit, the group acquired an internal Pfizer database listing adverse events that was never shared with the public and contained far more incidents than those listed in the public-facing Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. In total, the internal database showed nearly 160,000 adverse events, along with more than 1,200 fatalities among the millions of people who received the vaccine as of February 2021.
Heart problems and pregnancy complications weren’t disclosed to public
The lawsuit also focused on specific health issues that have been coming to light since the vaccine rollout, such as heart problems. Not long after the vaccine started being administered to young people, it became apparent that it was having an adverse effect on their hearts, particularly young men. Myocarditis, which occurs when the middle layer of the heart’s wall becomes inflamed, can weaken the organ and has the potential to cause heart failure.
The lawsuit alleges: “Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine was safe even though it knew its COVID-19 vaccine was connected to serious adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis, failed pregnancies, and deaths. Pfizer concealed this critical safety information from the public.”
Another point of concern cited by the lawsuit is the dangers of the vaccine in pregnant women. It maintains that the company knew from a study that rat fetuses had trouble getting pregnant and implanting embryos and that their fetuses suffered malformations yet insisted to the public that the jab did not present any risk to pregnant women. The rat study was another revelation from the FOIA lawsuit, but the Kansas lawsuit also notes that Pfizer’s own data showed that tens of thousands of women experienced menstrual irregularities after getting the jab as of spring 2022.
Kansas attorney general Kris Kobach told the National Review in an interview that the state’s Consumer Protection Act is designed to prevent consumers from being deceived by companies like Pfizer.
“They had extraordinary success marketing their vaccine in the state of Kansas and more generally across the globe, and I think that had consumers had this information, many of them might have made a different choice,” he asserted.
Sources for this article include:
