WATCH: World Bank President David Malpass States Pfizer Hesitant to Go Into Countries Where They Have No Liability Shield

What’s the most important thing for Pfizer with their experimental COVID-19 injections?

Their philanthropic duty to provide the world with “safe and effective” mRNA gene therapies?

No, it’s all about the money.

And Pfizer doesn’t want to risk losing its fortunes by allowing victims of adverse reactions to sue them.

Why else does Pfizer viciously seek liability shields in their criminal contracts for the COVID-19 injections?

 Their #1 goal is to gain protection from lawsuits in every country, like the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA) in the United States. 

If Pfizer’s product is safe and effective, indemnification wouldn’t be an issue. 

A recent interview with World Bank Group President David Malpass revealed Pfizer’s confidence in their product. 

Watch below:

https://twitter.com/kr3at/status/1466882668017197057

https://twitter.com/Aroucho/status/1467194733512560649

I’ve heard …Pfizer Will Not Give mRNA Shots To Countries Where They Face Legal Liabilities For Side Effects

"Pfizer has been hesitant to go into some of the countries because of the liability problems, they don’t have a liability shield." – World Bank President David Malpass.

— Lady Bluebell (@LornaMa36402231) December 4, 2021

Pfizer is afraid to push their COVID-19 injections in countries where they have no liability shield.

That doesn’t show a lot of confidence in the safety or efficacy of their shots.

Maybe that’s because Pfizer knows from their own COVID-19 jab data that the shots come with significant risks.

And they’re desperate to avoid massive lawsuits from their criminal medical experiments.

Lawsuits like the one from Nigerian families reported by The New York Times:

Thirty Nigerian families sued Pfizer in federal court yesterday, saying the company conducted an unethical clinical trial of an antibiotic on their children in 1996. It is the first suit in the United States seeking damages from an American pharmaceutical company for what the plaintiffs say was medical experimentation on foreign citizens without their consent.

During a meningitis epidemic in 1996, Pfizer treated 100 Nigerian children with the antibiotic Trovan as part of its effort to determine whether the drug, which had never been tested in children, would be an effective treatment for the disease. Pfizer treated 100 other children with ceftriaxone, the gold standard for meningitis treatment, but, the suit says, at a lower-than-recommended dose. Eleven children in the trial died, and others suffered brain damage, were partly paralyzed or became deaf.

Vanessa McGowan, a spokeswoman for Pfizer, said yesterday that the company had not yet seen the suit, which was filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, and could not comment on the allegations. In the past, Pfizer has said that the number of deaths in the Nigerian Trovan trial was lower than the overall fatality rate for the meningitis epidemic and that the trial had been a philanthropic effort that benefited most of the sick children, not a self-serving effort to obtain quick clinical data, as the suit contends.