Kansas AG Kris Kobach Accuses Pfizer of Concealing Covid-19 Non-Vaccine's Risk of Miscarriage

Pfizer was given immunity (by Trump, alas) from lawsuits due to injuries from the vaccine.

Kobach is filing a lawsuit not for damages for injuries, but for violating the state's consumer protection law with its false and misleading claims.

Attorney General Kris Kobach filed a civil lawsuit Monday against pharmaceutical company Pfizer, alleging that "Pfizer misled the public that it had a 'safe and effective' COVID-19 vaccine," violating the state's Consumer Protection Act.

The state seeks "civil monetary penalties, damages, and injunctive relief from misleading and deceptive statements made in marketing its COVID-19 vaccine," Kobach said.

In the complaint, Kobach alleges that Pfizer willfully concealed, suppressed and omitted material facts relating to the COVID-19 vaccine, the "most egregious" ones regarding safety of the vaccine for pregnant people, in regard to heart conditions, its effectiveness against variants and its ability to stop transmission.

"Pfizer marketed its vaccine as safe for pregnant women," Kobach said. "However, in February of 2021 (they) possessed reports of 458 pregnant women who received Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. More than half of the pregnant women reported an adverse event, and more than 10% reported a miscarriage."

Wow, is that true? If it is true, how is not the biggest news in the world?

The percentage of "adverse events" -- which is a term that means any negative reaction -- was higher in pregnant women than the general population by roughly 17 percent, according to a study published in the journal Medicine in February 2022.

An earlier study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 2021 offered preliminary findings that did not show any significant safety concerns among pregnant individuals who received the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, indicating that observed miscarriages were not unusual and likely not a direct result of the vaccine.

"Likely" not a "direct" result.

Lot of hedging there.

Why wouldn't they just admit that there were some signs it might be unsafe for pregnant women?

Russell Brand points out that pregnant women are not a huge demographic, so it wouldn't have cost Pfizer much to offer a warning to pregnant women.

So why didn't they? Brand's theory is that they didn't want to admit a risk to anyone -- if there were widespread vaccine skepticism, that would cost them some money -- so all risks had to be covered up.

And of course there's the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis.

Kobach says that Pfizer marketed the vaccine as safe in terms of heart conditions such as myocarditis and pericarditis. He referenced a question Albert Bourla, Pfizer CEO was asked in January 2023 of if the vaccine caused severe myocarditis, to which Bourla responded "we have not seen a single signal, although we have distributed billions of doses."

I don't know if the grant of immunity covers a lawsuit alleging false claims. If it doesn't, this lawsuit could be interesting.

Below: Kobach's press conference. He points out that Pfizer never tested whether the vaccine stopped transmission, but they claimed that it did.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 04:54 PM

| Access Comments