Florida AG SUES Pfizer and Albert Bourla for Hiding Covid Vax Injuries
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has filed a sweeping lawsuit against Pfizer and its CEO, Albert Bourla (pictured), accusing them of deceiving the public about the safety and transmission-prevention capabilities of Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA injection
The 49-page complaint was filed on October 1, 2026, in St. Lucie County, Florida, and targets Pfizer and Bourla personally under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The complaint opens with a striking line:
“Those people are criminals.”
That is how Bourla described people who publicly raised safety concerns about Pfizer’s COVID-19 injection.
At the center of the case is an explosive allegation: Pfizer publicly assured Americans that its COVID shot was safe while the company possessed internal and external safety information involving myocarditis, miscarriages, strokes, adverse events, and deaths.
158,893 adverse events in just 10 weeks
According to the complaint, Pfizer’s own adverse-event database contained 158,893 adverse events from 42,086 case reports by February 28, 2021—only about 10 weeks after the vaccine received emergency authorization.
Yet in January 2023, Bourla publicly stated that Pfizer had seen “not a single [safety] signal” despite billions of doses having been administered.
Florida argues that statement was fundamentally incompatible with information already known about myocarditis and pericarditis.
1,223 reported deaths
The complaint also states that Pfizer’s database contained 1,223 reported fatalities following vaccination as of February 28, 2021.
Florida argues that the existence of this volume of serious adverse-event information undermined Pfizer’s sweeping public safety messaging.
The volume of reports became so large, according to the filing, that Pfizer hired 600 additional full-time employees and expected to hire another 1,800 workers to process adverse-event reports.
Pregnancy and miscarriages
Another major section of the lawsuit concerns pregnancy.
The complaint states that by February 28, 2021, Pfizer had reports involving 458 pregnant women exposed to its COVID vaccine. Of those reports, 248 involved an adverse event and 52 involved miscarriage, according to the filing.
Nearly all of the reported miscarriages occurred during the first trimester. The lawsuit also points to Pfizer’s planned clinical trial involving pregnant women.
Pfizer initially sought approximately 4,000 participants, but the complaint states that only 348 mothers and 335 infants were ultimately enrolled and that the study was terminated early.
The women vaccinated in that study were 24–34 weeks pregnant, meaning the trial did not directly provide first-trimester vaccination data.
The complaint further cites the Comirnaty package insert as stating that there are no available data on use before 24 weeks sufficient to inform risks for major birth defects and miscarriage.
Pfizer pushed transmission claims without testing transmission
The second enormous pillar of Florida’s case concerns transmission. Pfizer and Bourla repeatedly told the public that vaccination would protect other people.
In December 2021, for example, Pfizer said that getting as many people vaccinated and boosted as possible remained the best course of action to “prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
But according to the complaint, Pfizer’s pivotal clinical trial did not test whether vaccination prevented person-to-person transmission.
The FDA itself stated in December 2020 that there was no evidence at that time that the vaccine prevented SARS-CoV-2 transmission from one person to another, and transmission was not an objective of Pfizer’s trial protocol.
A Pfizer executive later publicly acknowledged that the vaccine had not been tested for stopping transmission before entering the market.
Florida alleges that Pfizer nevertheless used the idea of protecting loved ones as a powerful marketing tool to increase vaccine uptake.
More than $80 BILLION in COVID vaccine revenue
The financial stakes were enormous. The complaint states that Pfizer turned approximately $1.5 billion in research and development spending into more than $80 billion in COVID vaccine revenue.
Pfizer’s vaccine captured nearly 70 percent of the U.S. and European COVID vaccine markets, according to figures cited in the complaint. Meanwhile, Bourla received approximately $101.8 million in compensation from Pfizer between 2020 and 2023.
Florida’s complaint goes beyond safety claims and accuses Pfizer of engaging in broader unfair business practices to dominate the COVID vaccine market.
Florida wants the money back
Florida is seeking far more than a symbolic judgment. The Attorney General is asking the court for civil penalties, a permanent injunction against deceptive or unfair representations concerning Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, attorneys’ fees and other relief.
Most significantly, Florida is also seeking disgorgement—legal language meaning Pfizer could be forced to hand back profits connected to conduct the court ultimately determines violated Florida law.
Finally, a government is attempting to hold Pfizer and Albert Bourla accountable by at least some degree for their gross deception.
For years, the company’s false safety and transmission claims helped drive mass vaccine uptake.
Now those fraudulent claims are headed to court.
See more here thefocalpoints.com
Some bold emphasis added
Header image: Mint
Saeed Qureshi
| #
The Pfizer Lawsuit: But Who Is Accountable for the “Science”?
From a recent note I posted on my Substack on this topic. You may find it relevant and helpful here as well: Read the Substack note (https://substack.com/@saeedqureshi/note/c-352173604).
This lawsuit may address Pfizer’s marketing claims, but I am not convinced that it addresses the more fundamental problem.
Pfizer was the manufacturer, and it should certainly be accountable for representations it independently made about its product. But Pfizer did not operate in isolation. The vaccine was evaluated and authorized by the FDA and subsequently recommended through the CDC/ACIP process.
Physicians, public-health authorities, regulators, and expert committees became central voices in evaluating the product and communicating the underlying scientific claims to the public.
Importantly, I raised my concerns proactively. In December 2020, at the time of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine review, I publicly presented my assessment in an article titled “The FDA Committee’s Review of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine: Unscientific, False and Deceitful.” In that article, I challenged the scientific basis of the evaluation and how the evidence was interpreted and presented. (https://bioanalyticx.com/the-fda-committees-review-of…/)
That contemporaneous critique remains relevant to my argument today: responsibility for scientific claims surrounding a pharmaceutical product should be examined not only at the level of the manufacturer, but also at the level of the institutions and experts that independently evaluate, endorse, and communicate those claims to the public.
So the larger question should not be avoided: Who established the scientific foundation on which these claims rested, and by what experimental standards?
If the argument is simply that Pfizer manufactured and marketed a defective or inadequately characterized product, followed by financial penalties and compensation, we may address one part of the story while leaving the scientific framework essentially untouched.
My concern goes further upstream. Before debating vaccine effectiveness, transmission, adverse events or compensation, I would ask about the scientific foundations of the entire chain: the physical entity claimed to be the virus, how that entity was independently established and characterized, how diagnostic tests were validated against appropriate reference materials, and ultimately what experimentally established target the vaccine was designed and tested against.
These are scientific questions, not merely legal or corporate ones.
Holding a manufacturer responsible, where legally justified, does not answer them. Nor should litigation become a substitute for examining the scientific standards used by medicine, regulatory agencies and their expert committees.
Otherwise, there is a risk that one company pays a settlement, another research program receives funding, and everyone moves on—while the underlying question remains unanswered:
Was the foundational science itself adequately established before the medical claims, tests and interventions were built upon it?
Reply
Aaron
| #
NEVER forget mr warp speed
Reply
Ty
| #
Mr. Sullivan,
Please educate why my comments were deleted?
Thank you kindly.
If it’s the intuition of prophesy…you must know by now that remote viewing is a real thing. Its been scientifically explored & experimented with..then applied to this world.
There’s also a theory that all times are happening simultaneously…which might explain why information in a so called future is obtainable now.
Remote viewing is taught a number of places today. Their progenitor is working teaching still at the Monroe Institute…
CW3(R) Joseph McMoneagle. He was Remote Viewer 001, in the USArmy security efforts exploring then using this technology to protect our Republic… Later falsely debunked by the now infamous Sea Aye a, in 1995. They asserted the closure of their Stargate Program. More BS…obfuscation.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Best regards,
Ty
Reply