FDA Says It Now Needs 75 Years to Fully Release Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Data

[jg121783 3,908]

https://m.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/fda-says-it-now-needs-75-years-to-fully-release-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-data_4145410.html

 

It was 55 years now its 75 years. Most of us will be dead and buried before the data comes out at this rate. They approved it in record time yet this is probably a record for the longest period of time to release the data. Nothing to see here. Just take your shot and don't question anything.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

3 hours ago, jg121783 said:

https://m.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/fda-says-it-now-needs-75-years-to-fully-release-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-data_4145410.html

 

It was 55 years now its 75 years. Most of us will be dead and buried before the data comes out at this rate. They approved it in record time yet this is probably a record for the longest period of time to release the data. Nothing to see here. Just take your shot and don't question anything.

Behind a paywall.

[jg121783 3,908]

1 hour ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

Behind a paywall.

https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2021/12/09/fda-says-it-needs-75-years-to-release-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-data-to-the-public/

 

Here is another source for the same article. I forgot I have an account on the original website (it's free to view a limited number of articles by the way). 

[Ban Hammer 13,083]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2021/12/09/fda-says-it-needs-75-years-to-release-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-data-to-the-public/

 

Here is another source for the same article. I forgot I have an account on the original website (it's free to view a limited number of articles by the way). 

good find.  this from the above article sums up everything:
 

Quote

 

Last month, South Carolina Republican Rep. Ralph Norman introduced legislation that could eventually force the FDA to release all documents relating to the coronavirus vaccine within the next 100 days – although this might not come to fruition now that a new request has been made.

At the time of the FDA requesting 55 years to release the data, Norman told Fox News: “How does a vaccine that receives approval in 108 days now require 55 years just to release information?

 

 

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

I wonder why Pfizer would want to hide the data for 75 years?  WHAT do they have to hide?

And while we are on the topic of their co-sponsored with BioNTech experimental EUA drug.... if the drugs are as effective as some here in CEHST claim, then why have more people died this year than last year?  Even if the drugs don't prevent covid (obviously), I thought they were supposed to reduce the seriousness of the disease (obviously not)?  Especially when you consider that the weakest people were probably killed last year, SOMETHING is causing the death toll to rise even higher this year.  

[TBoneTX 44,439]

We should also not wait 55 years to audit the investment portfolios of St. Fauci and every member of the FDA approval panel.

[milimelo 4,410]

I'm waiting for December 14 when the courts should be ruling on this issue - I hope they tell FDA to kick their behinds into high gear - if they could reasonably go over all that paperwork in 108 days to EUA the therapy, they should have the same 108 days to hand it over under FOIA. US public was promised transparency by all involved (FDA, CDC, White House, manufacturers) - let's actually see that transparency at work. 

[jg121783 3,908]

21 hours ago, milimelo said:

I'm waiting for December 14 when the courts should be ruling on this issue - I hope they tell FDA to kick their behinds into high gear - if they could reasonably go over all that paperwork in 108 days to EUA the therapy, they should have the same 108 days to hand it over under FOIA. US public was promised transparency by all involved (FDA, CDC, White House, manufacturers) - let's actually see that transparency at work. 

If they were truly interested in making the raw data available to the public rather than editing and covering up portions of it it should take far less time to release the data than it did to compile it.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Have any of you spent time much time redacting legal documents? No? Okay. This isn't rote work. It requires a judicious hand and a knowledge of what must be removed from view. Suppose for one moment you were a participant in a vaccine trial. Your personal medical information is contained in the trial data. Would you prefer that a data dump be performed that does not take sufficient care of your highly personal medical information? No?

 

One can take exception to whether or not 500 pages per month is the appropriate rate at which redacted documents should be produced, though from what I understand (and from my one elective in Administrative Law) that sounds pretty normal where highly sensitive information is involved. I get it -- perhaps it could be done more quickly. I would support a quicker timescale myself.

 

I stress that such information shall be produced on a rolling basis, not a "we're not producing anything until we can produce it all!" basis. Absolutely absurd to believe that, sorry. That's not how these things work. However, there have been and could be other situations where documents responsive to a FOIA request have been produced at a greater speed. Perhaps that's applicable here but bear in mind -- that costs more money. People do the redactions, not computers. More redacting more quickly means more money. Do you want to pay for it? How much do you want to pay?

 

The judge will decide what is a reasonable rate of production on a rolling basis (I say it again since it seems to evade some) in the circumstances. It is quite simply irrelevant how quickly a review was performed of the data prior to an EUA. That's a red herring. Redacting is its own process separate from review. One is a legal procedure, the other medico-legal (and primarily medical). 

 

Don't be distracted by what people are saying should be possible. That 108 days thing made me laugh when I first read about it on another site yesterday -- it's not tethered to reality. Imagine it's your data, your mom's data, your spouse's data. Your child's data. We need to protect our privacy, no? Make it right the first time in the least amount of time that also ensures security and privacy. Like most of the law, it's a balancing act.

[Dashinka 24,019]

8 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Have any of you spent time much time redacting legal documents? No? Okay. This isn't rote work. It requires a judicious hand and a knowledge of what must be removed from view. Suppose for one moment you were a participant in a vaccine trial. Your personal medical information is contained in the trial data. Would you prefer that a data dump be performed that does not take sufficient care of your highly personal medical information? No?

 

One can take exception to whether or not 500 pages per month is the appropriate rate at which redacted documents should be produced, though from what I understand (and from my one elective in Administrative Law) that sounds pretty normal where highly sensitive information is involved. I get it -- perhaps it could be done more quickly. I would support a quicker timescale myself.

 

I stress that such information shall be produced on a rolling basis, not a "we're not producing anything until we can produce it all!" basis. Absolutely absurd to believe that, sorry. That's not how these things work. However, there have been and could be other situations where documents responsive to a FOIA request have been produced at a greater speed. Perhaps that's applicable here but bear in mind -- that costs more money. People do the redactions, not computers. More redacting more quickly means more money. Do you want to pay for it? How much do you want to pay?

 

The judge will decide what is a reasonable rate of production on a rolling basis (I say it again since it seems to evade some) in the circumstances. It is quite simply irrelevant how quickly a review was performed of the data prior to an EUA. That's a red herring. Redacting is its own process separate from review. One is a legal procedure, the other medico-legal (and primarily medical). 

 

Don't be distracted by what people are saying should be possible. That 108 days thing made me laugh when I first read about it on another site yesterday -- it's not tethered to reality. Imagine it's your data, your mom's data, your spouse's data. Your child's data. We need to protect our privacy, no? Make it right the first time in the least amount of time that also ensures security and privacy. Like most of the law, it's a balancing act.

Haven't these companies made a boatload of money from these vaccines in the last 1-2 years?  Isn't there a massive over abundance of lawyers here in the US looking for work?  Time to start using their profits.  Regardless, these companies and the authorizing bureaucratic organizations have a duty to share even the most basic information for us, the public, to actually make an informed decision on whether or not to use an experimental drug.

[jg121783 3,908]

Even if there is a legitimate reason (which I am highly skeptical of) to withhold the data for 75 years is it unreasonable for people to want to see the data before they can make an informed decision on whether or not to take the shot? Or are we supposed to just blindly trust what we are told and accept a mandated medical procedure that we can't even see the data for?

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 minute ago, jg121783 said:

Even if there is a legitimate reason (which I am highly skeptical of) to withhold the data for 75 years is it unreasonable for people to want to see the data before they can make an informed decision on whether or not to take the shot? Or are we supposed to just blindly trust what we are told and accept a mandated medical procedure that we can't even see the data for?

What data are you looking for? Specifically?

[Dashinka 24,019]

9 minutes ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

What data are you looking for? Specifically?

Maybe long-term effects of this medicine.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

Maybe long-term effects of this medicine.

So you are sure the long-term effects are hidden in these reams of data and that the FDA has hidden the known long term effects.  This is just more political hay to make.

[Dashinka 24,019]

2 hours ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

So you are sure the long-term effects are hidden in these reams of data and that the FDA has hidden the known long term effects.  This is just more political hay to make.

Who knows what is hidden in the reams of data.  Has the FDA even reviewed all the data?  Do you have proof of that?  Now I do not have young children, but I would want to understand the possible long-term effects of an experimental (no Covid vaccine has been fully FDA approved for children under 16, even the Pfizer version) drug before injecting it in my child for something where the alternative is not as dire as the political Left would like to make us think it is.