>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
The lawsuit outlines several allegations against Pfizer:
- Misleading the public about having a “safe and effective” COVID-19 vaccine.
- Concealing the connection between its vaccine and severe adverse events, including myocarditis, pericarditis, failed pregnancies, and deaths.
- Falsely asserting the vaccine’s effectiveness over time and against COVID-19 variants.
- Claiming the vaccine prevented transmission without evidence.
- Attempting to suppress public discourse that questioned the vaccine’s efficacy and safety on social media platforms.
The State of Kansas contends that Pfizer’s misleading claims led to an unprecedented profit margin, with the company earning approximately $75 billion from its COVID-19 vaccine sales in two years. The lawsuit argues that Pfizer’s actions breached previous consent judgments with the state and violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act.
Pfizer now faces the task of responding to these serious allegations, which claim the company prioritized profits over transparency and public health.
In related legal news, The Gateway Pundit highlighted a case where the 9th Circuit Court acknowledged a plaintiff’s claim that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines do not fulfill the traditional definition of a vaccine. Instead of preventing virus transmission, they merely mitigate symptoms. This acknowledgment came during a lawsuit involving the Health Freedom Defense Fund against the Los Angeles Unified School District, challenging the district’s vaccination mandate. The 9th Circuit noted that if the plaintiffs’ allegations are true, the COVID-19 vaccines do not “prevent the spread” of the virus as claimed, warranting further examination of these claims.
Carry 46 rounds concealed? (comfortably)
This lawsuit in Kansas represents a critical examination of corporate accountability and the truthfulness of public health information disseminated by major pharmaceutical companies.
