Unsafe and ineffective: Landmark case filed demanding urgent cessation and review of Pfizer mRNA COVID shots

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

landmark-case(NaturalHealth365)  It is estimated that nearly 41 million lawsuits are filed annually in the United States.  Of course, mainstream media outlets will tend to highlight a select few of those cases, typically focusing on those that involve celebrities.

Therefore, no doubt, the talking heads on your TV will overlook the landmark case recently filed against Big Pharma’s Pfizer.  The legal action urges an abrupt halt to the use of Pfizer’s mRNA COVID injections.

Latest lawsuit against Pfizer will make a worldwide impact

Big Pharma powerhouses such as Pfizer are no strangers to litigation.  The likes of Pfizer have entire teams of corporate attorneys chomping at the bit to defend the big business against justice-seekers.  However, the latest lawsuit against Pfizer is causing great concern among Big Pharma’s legal brass.  The suit was filed in a South African high court, yet it might have a ripple effect worldwide.

The purpose of the suit is to trigger an immediate judicial review of the company’s mRNA shots that are described as “ineffective and unsafe” in the legal complaint.  In addition, a revered Indian physician is throwing his support behind the legal analysis of Pfizer’s shots, giving the case much more merit.  The cardiologist, Aseem Malhotra, is part of a group of global experts who have made no secret that Pfizer’s jabs might be harmful.

Landmark case demanding halt to mRNA COVID shots causes alarm among Pfizer’s attorneys

Attorneys litigating on behalf of Freedom Alliance of South Africa, a human rights group, state the show cause notice was formally submitted with accurate data analysis that claims there is a causal link between the jabs and the spike in deaths.  The human rights group has requested that the court analyze the supposed safety of the jabs and delay authorizing the continued use of the shots simply because their continued use would cause prolonged and ongoing harm that constitutes legal negligence.

Negligence is a word often used by judges and attorneys to refer to the failure to provide due care.

Dr. Herman Edeling, a neurosurgeon with more than four decades of experience, is quoted in the founding affidavit that accompanies the lawsuit.  The physician’s sworn statement details how the administration of the mRNA jab is anything but effective and safe.  Furthermore, the suit calls for Pfizer executives to explain their actions in regard to the swift development of the jab for public use.

The lawsuit could have extensive legal ramifications

If the lawsuit proves successful, it will change Big Pharma’s response to the pandemic, potentially removing Pfizer’s COVID mRNA jabs from South Africa.  There is also the potential to remove the jabs from the world at large.

According to Malhotra, there is the potential for plaintiff victory as the supporting literature has been “critically appraised,” and the Pfizer trial data seems to indicate the shot really does cause harm.  Malhotra noted that the Pfizer jab causes more harm than good for the vast majority of its recipients.  It is worth noting that Malhotra took the Big Pharma bait, rolling up his sleeve for a double dose of Pfizer’s jab.  He has since emerged as one of the corporation’s most outspoken critics.

At the very least, a legal victory for the human rights group might prevent Pfizer from jabbing young children who are especially vulnerable to the lifelong impact of experimental injections.  Even if the suit results in the cessation of the jab program, it would represent a victory in the context of public relations and the overarching court of public opinion.

Ultimately, a legal victory would force the mainstream media to shed light on the many flaws of the jab, even if only on one nightly newscast.  Stay tuned, to NaturalHealth365, as we continue to monitor these issues.

Sources for this article include:


Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments