Discover more from CovidLawCast.Com
The Comirnaty Ad
and our response to Pfizer
As far as I know this shot is only available in a few places. It is a Defense contract with Pfizer. The product is owned by the Government until it enters a person’s body.
Pfizer’s own incomplete warnings:
Seek medical attention right away if you have any of the following symptoms:
difficulty breathing, swelling of the face and throat, a fast heartbeat, a bad rash all over the body, dizziness, and weakness
Myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart) have occurred in some people who have received the vaccine, particularly 7 days following the second dose. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age than among females and older males. The observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age. Report side effects to VAERS.
Children have virtually zero risk from Covid and Pfizer wants them to play Russian Roulette.
Here is the introduction to our argument against Pfizer’s attempt to get Brook Jackson’s case dismissed:
A national emergency birthed The False Claims Act, known as the “Lincoln Law,” after contractors used the exigent circumstances of the Civil War to defraud the people, at the expense of the suffering and death of American soldiers because defense contractors sold the Army lame horses and mules, faulty rifles and ammunition, and rancid rations and provisions. Once again, we face a national emergency, where our military entrusted another defense contractor, to the tune of billions of dollars and millions of American lives. The Defense Department incorporated Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) rules and regulations into its contract by conditioning the contract on FDA compliance and authorization. Respondents ignore this critical fact when trying to claim they contracted away the False Claims Act. Don’t the American people deserve to know if Pfizer lied?
Respondents seek dismissal without discovery, amendment, or trial. Their fundamental premise: even if honestly reported data showed their product caused more illness than it cured, inflicted more injury than it prevented, and took more lives than it saved, America’s military would still have given them billions of dollars and mandated it be injected into America’s military. Respondents claim fraudulent certifications, false statements, doctored data, contaminated clinical trials, and firing of whistleblowers can be ignored based on the theory that they contracted their way around the fraud. This ignores two legal aspects: first, fraud in the inducement is a well-recognized basis for False Claims Act qui tam actions; and second, the military wisely incorporated the FDA regulations into the contract as a precondition of any payment under the contract by conditioning payment upon FDA authorization of the product, an authorization itself dependent upon complete compliance with FDA rules and regulations governing such authorizations and approvals. In the end, the law does not belie common sense: a drug company cannot induce the taxpayers to pay billions of dollars for a product that honest data would show poses more risks than benefits to most Americans and that ignores the actual contract and the law itself. Put differently, the alleged fraud goes “to the very essence of the bargain.” United Health Serv., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989, 2003 n. 5. The law compels denial of Respondents’ motions to dismiss.
The entire Brief is here.