The Kansas Law Suit Against Pfizer, By Chris Knight (Florida)
Dr Joseph Sansone has given a concise summary of the State of Kansas lawsuit against Pfizer over the Covid mRNA vax. This is important as it immediately calls into question the "safe and effective" narrative that is still pushed by medical/health authorities in jurisdictions such as Australia. The Kansas v. Pfizer case lists the 9 counts that form the nature of the action as follows:
"1. Pfizer misled the public that it had a "safe and effective" COVID-19 vaccine.
2. 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.
3. Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine was effective even though it knew its COVID-19 vaccine waned over time and did not protect against COVID-19 variants. Pfizer concealed this critical effectiveness information from the public.
4. Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine would prevent transmission of COVID-19 even though it knew it never studied the effect of its vaccine on transmission of COVID-19.
5. To keep the public from learning the truth, Pfizer worked to censor speech on social media that questioned Pfizer's claims about its COVID-19 vaccine.
6. Pfizer's misrepresentations of a "safe and effective" vaccine resulted in record company revenue of approximately $75 billion from COVID-19 vaccine sales in just two years.
7. Pfizer's actions and statements relating to its COVID-19 vaccine violated previous consent judgments with the State of Kansas.
8. Pfizer's actions and statements relating to its COVID-19 vaccine violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. 50-623 et seq., regardless of whether any individual consumer ultimately received Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine.
9. Pfizer must be held accountable for falsely representing the benefits of its COVID-19 vaccine while concealing and suppressing the truth about its vaccine's safety risks, waning effectiveness, and inability to prevent transmission."
Dr. Sansone's own case will go much further, based upon argument that the Covid vax is a biological weapon, something which is highly plausible given that the lab leak hypothesis is now the leading explanation of the origin of Covid. It is taking some years for all of this to unravel, but unlike say 9/11, which is still kept under wraps, the Covid plandemic was too big and too messy for the elites to cover up for long. Truth slowly seeps out.
https://josephsansone.substack.com/p/kansas-versus-pfizer-good-but-not
"The State of Kansas has filed a potent lawsuit against Pfizer. Kansas Attorney General Kris W. Kobach, by way of the Assistant Attorney General, Kaley Schrader filed a case against Pfizer on June 15th. Texas is already suing Pfizer and there will likely be more states filing similar actions as this man-made catastrophe continues. This is great news, but is it enough?
The case is great, but the Kansas Attorney General's office falls short in two areas. There are no indictments, and the mRNA nanoparticle injections are not being removed from the market. Before diving deeper into the Kansas case. I'd like to mention my case because it is relevant.
On Memorial Day, May 27th, 2024, I filed an appellate brief in my case involving an Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus that was originally filed on March 3rd, 2024. My case seeks to compel Governor Ron DeSantis to prohibit the distribution of COVID-19 injections and all mRNA nanoparticle injections in the state of Florida, and for the Attorney General Ashley Moody to confiscate the vials.
In this case, I cite a host of state and federal laws being violated, ranging from murder, terrorism, treason, biological weapons, and so on.
When I filed my appeal, I also provided affidavits in a Notice of Supplemental Authorities. I published one of these affidavits on June 6th, 2024. Dr. Francis Boyle, the Harvard educated law professor that drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act, which passed both houses of Congress unanimously, provided an affidavit stating that Covid 19 injections and mRNA nanoparticle injections violate the law he wrote. Dr. Boyle asserted that 'COVID 19 injections', 'COVID 19 nanoparticle injections', and 'mRNA nanoparticle injections' are biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction and violate Biological Weapons 18 USC § 175; Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023). asserting that COVID 19 injections and all mRNA nanoparticle injections are biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction according to State and Federal law.
Let that sink in for a moment. The law professor that wrote the biological weapons law is saying under oath that the mRNA nanoparticle injections violate the law he wrote….
Dr. Boyle stated in interviews back in 2021 that Fauci, the pharmaceutical executives, and all those involved with the Covid 19 injections should be indicted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder due to malice aforethought, which is a callous disregard for human life.
I also filed affidavits from Dr. Ana Mihalcea and Karen Kingston, both of whom have also been stating that the mRNA nanoparticle injections are biological and technological weapons of mass destruction.
It may be that in the Kansas case they are looking to uncover more evidence during discovery that could lead to criminal convictions. Still, the indictments of those at the top should occur now. This needs to happen now. It is important that it happens now to preempt future mass murder via mRNA nanoparticle injections.
The Kansas v. Pfizer case lists the 9 counts that follow:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Pfizer misled the public that it had a "safe and effective" COVID-19 vaccine.
2. 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.
3. Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine was effective even though it knew its COVID-19 vaccine waned over time and did not protect against COVID-19 variants. Pfizer concealed this critical effectiveness information from the public.
4. Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine would prevent transmission of COVID-19 even though it knew it never studied the effect of its vaccine on transmission of COVID-19.
5. To keep the public from learning the truth, Pfizer worked to censor speech on social media that questioned Pfizer's claims about its COVID-19 vaccine.
6. Pfizer's misrepresentations of a "safe and effective" vaccine resulted in record company revenue of approximately $75 billion from COVID-19 vaccine sales in just two years.
7. Pfizer's actions and statements relating to its COVID-19 vaccine violated previous consent judgments with the State of Kansas.
8. Pfizer's actions and statements relating to its COVID-19 vaccine violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. 50-623 et seq., regardless of whether any individual consumer ultimately received Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine.
9. Pfizer must be held accountable for falsely representing the benefits of its COVID-19 vaccine while concealing and suppressing the truth about its vaccine's safety risks, waning effectiveness, and inability to prevent transmission.
As you dig deeper into the complaint, and it is a detailed and comprehensive complaint, Kansas is also asserting that Pfizer conspired not just with social media to censor information that would have saved lives, but Kansas also asserts that, "Pfizer used confidentiality agreements to conceal critical data relating to the safety and effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine". The case discusses Pfizer's actions to censor people and label them misinformation spreaders.
Paragraph 271, page 51, of the case, states:
"Upon information and belief, at or around this December 11, 2020 meeting, Pfizer, the Department of Health and Human Services, and Stanford University agreed to work together to conceal and suppress material facts about Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine, including concealing and suppressing posts about the safety and efficacy of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine."
Paragraphs 361 and 362 page 66 of the case states,
"Upon information and belief, Pfizer conspired with two or more persons from the federal government and third-party businesses and organizations to willfully conceal, suppress, or omit material facts relating to Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine.
Pfizer and its co-conspirators took actions to willfully conceal, suppress, or omit material facts relating to Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine in violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, including K.S.A. 50-626(b)(3).
Kansans have been damaged as a proximate result of Pfizer's conspiracy"
This document is definitely worth the time to read.
This complaint makes it clear that the State of Kansas is asserting that Pfizer conspired with the Federal government and committed crimes leading to disease, disability, and death. I expect we will see more such cases popping up in other states. This is a very positive action, and it is refreshing to see that the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General of Kansas are actually doing their jobs. I am going to push for more, however.
Again, I am left with two questions. Why are the shots still allowed in the State of Kansas and why are there no indictments? This may be a case where the corporate veil can be pierced. Pfizer's top shareholders, especially institutional investors, some potentially involved in the censorship, may have been involved in this apparent criminal conspiracy. Pfizer's assets and their larger shareholders during this time period, should have their assets seized. Warrants to obtain these top shareholders communications should be sought.
If wealthy Russians can have their assets seized simply for being Russian, why exactly are pharmaceutical companies getting a free ride? Oh, and if I forgot to ask, why are the shots still on the market and why aren't there any criminal indictments?
While I do applaud Kansas, pretending that this is a civil issue and not a criminal issue, does not serve the interest of justice. We do realize that states not only have the ability to remove weapons of mass destruction off the market, and indict the perpetrators, they also have the duty to do so….
All mRNA nanoparticle injections are biological and technological weapons of mass destruction."
Comments