Kansas AG sues Pfizer for misrepresenting COVID shot as ‘safe and effective’

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.

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.

Up Next

EXCLUSIVE: Chinese ‘Cyber Police’ Agent Runs Online Network Helping Illegal Immigrants Flood Into US

Don't Miss

More officials issue ‘imminent terrorist attack’ warnings

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

First American pontiff says ‘build bridges’ to peace

COVID-19 / 3 hours ago

Canada’s top doctor signed oath to withhold COVID info that could ‘embarrass’ Trudeau’s cabinet: records

Energy / 12 hours ago

Ontario Leads the G7 by Building First Small Modular Reactor

COVID-19

Canada’s top doctor signed oath to withhold COVID info that could ‘embarrass’ Trudeau’s cabinet: records

Published on May 9, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Dr. Theresa Tam and dozens of managers with the Public Health Agency and Departments of Foreign Affairs, Health, Industry and National Defence signed an oath that prevented them from divulging information related to the COVID crisis

Dozens of Canada’s top health managers and the nation’s top doctor were required to sign a secret oath that prevented them from divulging information relating to the COVID crisis to not “embarrass” the federal government at the time.

Access to Information records show that Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, and “quite a few” other COVID pandemic managers had to sign the pledge, as noted by Blacklock’s Reporter.

An internal staff email sent in 2020 from Alan Thom, vaccine supply manager with the Public Health Agency, showed he complained that so many managers had to take an oath of secrecy “at a certain point the Department of Public Works determined individual non-disclosure agreements were no longer needed for federal employees as we are all covered through our responsibilities as public servants.”

In total, 29 managers signed the oath with the Public Health Agency and Departments of Foreign Affairs, Health, Industry and National Defence.

The oath came right after the federal government, under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, signed a deal to buy mRNA COVID jabs with pharmaceutical companies.

The oath noted, in part, that “Unauthorized disclosure of any confidential information, including but not limited to disclosures or communications to supplier competitors or to the media may result in embarrassment, criticism or claims against Canada and may jeopardize Canada’s supplier relations and procurement processes.”

It continued, stating, “As an employee of the Government of Canada I acknowledge I have read and understood the Values And Ethics Code For The Public Sector,” the pledge stated. “I remain bound by my oath.”

Tam is a strong proponent of the COVID shots. At the peak of the COVID crisis in Canada, the Trudeau government signed about $8 billion in contracts with multiple companies, including, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Medicago, Moderna, Novavax, Pfizer and Sanofi.

The first COVID jab to be approved for use in Canada was Pfizer’s BioNTech mRNA injection, which became available on December 9, 2020. Moderna’s mRNA jab followed a couple of weeks later. Of note is the launch of the jabs came after the Trudeau government gave vaccine makers a shield from liability regarding jab-related injuries.

Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) was launched in December 2020 after the government gave vaccine makers a shield from liability regarding COVID-19 jab-related injuries.

Recently, VISP injury payments are expected to go over budget, according to a Canadian Department of Health memo.

As reported by LifeSiteNews last week, a government-funded inhaled version of the COVID mRNA vaccines developed with abortion-tainted fetal cell lines is now entering Phase 2 clinical trials.

The federal government continues to purchase the COVID shots despite the fact its own data shows that most Canadians are flat-out refusing a COVID booster injection. It also comes as the government has had to increase spending on VISP, as reported by LifeSiteNews last week.

Canadians’ decision to refuse the shots also comes as a Statistic Canada report revealed that deaths from COVID-19 and “unspecified causes” rose after the release of the so-called “safe and effective” jabs.

LifeSiteNews has published an extensive amount of research on the dangers of the experimental COVID mRNA jabs that include heart damage and blood clots.

The mRNA shots have also been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children, and all have connections to cell lines derived from aborted babies.

COVID-19

Study finds nearly half of ‘COVID deaths’ had no link to virus

Published on May 7, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

A groundbreaking new study has delivered a searing indictment of the global health and media establishment’s COVID death narrative. According to Ian Miller’s analysis on OutKick, a thorough investigation into hospital deaths in Greece reveals that nearly half of the cases officially labeled as “COVID deaths” had nothing to do with the virus. The findings undermine years of data used to justify lockdowns, school closures, and vaccine mandates. Miller argues that the so-called scientific consensus pushed by Dr. Anthony Fauci and the media is collapsing under the weight of real evidence.

Key Details:

A Greek study found that 45.3% of registered COVID deaths were not caused by COVID at all.
Just 25.1% of deaths were directly caused by the virus, with 29.6% contributing indirectly.
Only 54.9% of death certificate-listed COVID deaths matched reality after rigorous review.

Diving Deeper:

For years, COVID death tallies dominated media coverage and shaped public policy. Networks like CNN broadcast running totals, while bureaucrats and politicians used them to enforce sweeping restrictions. But according to OutKick’s Ian Miller, a new peer-reviewed Greek study discredits much of that narrative by proving that the way deaths were defined was deeply flawed—and in many cases, outright misleading.

“In Greece, a more concise and simple definition was used, defining as COVID-19-associated death, any death occurring in a person with positive testing for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of death,” the researchers stated. That definition, however, failed to discern whether the virus actually caused the death.

The study, which covered seven major hospitals in Athens over an eight-month period in 2022, went beyond death certificates. Researchers analyzed medical charts, lab results, imaging data, and conducted interviews with treating physicians. As Miller notes, they did “the work that the ‘expert’ community should have been doing” all along.

The findings were stunning. Just 133 of the 530 recorded deaths (25.1%) were directly due to COVID. Another 157 (29.6%) were cases in which COVID contributed to a chain of events. But a full 240 deaths—45.3%—had no connection to the virus, despite being officially registered as COVID deaths.

What’s worse, Miller reports that death certificate data was wildly unreliable. COVID was listed as the primary or contributing cause in 528 out of 530 cases. After the study’s thorough review, that number dropped to 290. “Just 54.9% of the deaths labeled as primary or contributing COVID, per death certificates, actually met that criteria,” Miller writes.

The data also crushed another major narrative: that the unvaccinated were overwhelmingly the ones dying. Of the 290 deaths partially or fully attributed to COVID, 53.8% were fully vaccinated or boosted. In the group labeled “with” COVID, that figure jumped to 63.3%. “Remember the ‘95% of deaths are among the unvaccinated!!!1!!’ hysteria?” Miller quipped. “There was no statistical significance to vaccination when it came to predicting outcomes.”

And perhaps most damning, 42.5% of COVID-positive patients had contracted the virus inside the hospital—despite mandatory masking and PPE policies. “Because masking does not stop COVID transmission,” Miller points out bluntly.

Miller didn’t mince words in his conclusion: “This study quite frankly obliterates almost every single facet of ‘expert’ and scientific consensus. Masking doesn’t work. A significant portion of COVID deaths were not directly caused by the virus… and death certificate data is not reliable.”

As policymakers and media figures continue to sidestep accountability, this study provides hard proof of what many Americans already suspected: the public was misled. And those who raised questions were dismissed as “deniers” or “conspiracy theorists.” In Miller’s view, this was not just a public health failure, but a failure of integrity and truth. And the consequences, from economic devastation to lost trust in institutions, are still being felt.