I ask that in the interest of openness and fairness this video from a DOCTOR be allowed to stay. This is HIGHLY relevant to this sub forum and is a story that MANY will be following in the coming months.  

There is a link somewhere to the official judges order.  I’m suspecting that forum rules will require you to have that link in your post.  That being said, I think that the report will look like 400,000 pages of this…

17 minutes ago, Airalee said:

There is a link somewhere to the official judges order.  I’m suspecting that forum rules will require you to have that link in your post.  That being said, I think that the report will look like 400,000 pages of this…

U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman called the group’s FOIA request “of paramount public importance” and demanded that the FDA release 55,000 pages per month. This means that all of the data will be available within 8 months. 

FDA-Judge rejects FDA 75 year vaccine data delay .pdf

It is a legitimate news story. But why did you choose  a you tube video? And why from this doctor? There are doctors out there who report all kinds of nonsense. What makes this one authoritative? There were news reports about this which actually came in the form of something called written words.  Ya know, like the kind we often use here in this forum. It may come as a surprise to you to learn that not only does reading take less time, at least for most of us, but it's far easier to analyze and critique a written one than it is to do so for a video. It just seems so odd to me that the same people who go on about the importance of examining evidence for themselves, consistently choose a format that makes doing that far more difficult.

These are people that are against mandating vaccines.

 

Extreme far right nut cases.

 

"Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth, who was appointed to the bench by former President Donald Trump in 2019."

 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/

 

 

The video references today's Reuter's story, here:

 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/

 

7 minutes ago, rabas said:

The video references today's Reuter's story, here:

 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/

 

Which piece is, in fact, an editorial  by Jenna Creen

"Jenna Greene writes about legal business and culture, taking a broad look at trends in the profession, faces behind the cases, and quirky courtroom dramas. A longtime chronicler of the legal industry and high-profile litigation, she lives in Northern California."

So, not even a science writer, (much less an epidemiologist or virologist). And not one who is qualified to judge the dubious scientific underpinnings of the case brought by these  plaintiffs. 

15 hours ago, MrJ2U said:

These are people that are against mandating vaccines.

 

Extreme far right nut cases.

 

"Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth, who was appointed to the bench by former President Donald Trump in 2019."

 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/

 

 

Oh god....TRUMP!!! This is NOT  about Trump...HE IS GONE. This is about openness and transparency from a very large multinational pharmaceutical company....Nothing to hide, nothing to worry about right? Lets see......I am interested in what comes from this.  

19 minutes ago, 248900_1469958220 said:

Oh god....TRUMP!!! This is NOT  about Trump...HE IS GONE. This is about openness and transparency from a very large multinational pharmaceutical company....Nothing to hide, nothing to worry about right? Lets see......I am interested in what comes from this.  

Are we aiming the gun at Pfizer or FDA?

 

As far as i know Pfizer delivered more than 329,000 pages of data to FDA.

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10222035/amp/FDA-says-need-55-YEARS-make-vaccine-related-information-available-public.html

 

21 minutes ago, Virt said:

Are we aiming the gun at Pfizer or FDA?

Complaint regarding a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request against Defendant -FDA

https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/091621-Complaint.pdf

26 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

Complaint regarding a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request against Defendant -FDA

https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/091621-Complaint.pdf

Thx.

Important to point out that it's not Pfizer that are trying to hide something,

but FDA that apparently lacks the manpower to go though the FOIA requests.

 

Which is not the same thing as saying the Pfizer data were not studied enough before approving the vaccines.

It's two completely different processes.

 

https://www.justice.gov/archives/open/responding-requests

 

Apparently the law says 20 business days, but i think we all can agree it's unusual circumstances if you have received more than 329,000 pages of data. 

55 years however sounds crazy and FDA should be able to do it within a more reasonable amount of time.

However look at the 9 exemptions, which makes it an extremely time consuming job to go through 329,000 pages of data,

when you have to cross check all the data on each page and see if it conflicts with the below exemptions.

 

The FOIA's nine exemptions authorize federal agencies to withhold information covering:

1. classified national defense and foreign relations information;
2. internal agency personnel rules and practices;
3. information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law;
4. trade secrets and privileged or confidential commercial or financial information;
5. inter-agency or intra-agency communications that are protected by legal privileges;
6. information that would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
7. records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the extent that the release of those records:
   (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings,
   (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication,
   (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,
   (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of and/or information provided by a confidential source,
   (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or
   (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;
8. information relating to the supervision of financial institutions; and
9. geological information on wells.

 

Here is the "DEFENDANT’S BRIEF IN ADVANCE OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE" for your review and comment. It contains lots more detail about the issue.

FDA-Brief-and-Appendix-e3999de9aee38921cd4fbb035c33e304.pdf

Cheers all. Lets keep this topic open. The fact they wanted to keep it all quiet for so long, raises many questions....hopefully they are answered....in a just world they will be....in this world??? 

1 hour ago, Virt said:

Are we aiming the gun at Pfizer or FDA?

 

As far as i know Pfizer delivered more than 329,000 pages of data to FDA.

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10222035/amp/FDA-says-need-55-YEARS-make-vaccine-related-information-available-public.html

 

Ok, fair point. I will look into it further. 

59 minutes ago, Banana7 said:

Here is the "DEFENDANT’S BRIEF IN ADVANCE OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE" for your review and comment. It contains lots more detail about the issue.

FDA-Brief-and-Appendix-e3999de9aee38921cd4fbb035c33e304.pdfUnavailable

Your file is not accessible, at least to me. Here is another reference via an external link:
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/022-FDA-Brief-in-Advance-of-Scheduling-Conference.pdf

 

Whoa, this link is also not accessible from here. If you copy the link to your home browser it should work.

 

3 hours ago, 248900_1469958220 said:

Oh god....TRUMP!!! This is NOT  about Trump...HE IS GONE. This is about openness and transparency from a very large multinational pharmaceutical company....Nothing to hide, nothing to worry about right? Lets see......I am interested in what comes from this.  

Blah,.Blah.

 

Calm down.

 

I'm sure you'll sit down and read the 55,000 page document.

 

Right.

3 hours ago, 248900_1469958220 said:

what comes from this

Nothing.

The Pfizer docs are starting to make the rounds now.

 

"Until very recently, the document was being withheld by Pfizer who maintained it should be kept confidential."

543857539-CUMULATIVE-ANALYSIS-OF-POST-AUTHORIZATION-ADVERSE-EVENT-REPORTS-OF-PF-07302048-BNT162B2-RECEIVED-THROUGH-28-FEB-2021.pdf

.

18 minutes ago, rabas said:

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE"

"It’s also worth noting that the FDA did not send an agency representative to the scheduling conference."

https://sarahwestall.com/breaking-court-orders-fda-to-produce-55000-pages-per-month-of-pfizer-covid-19-data/

12 minutes ago, MrJ2U said:

Nothing.

Lots of docs with a lot of redactions.

3 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

24 minutes ago, rabas said:

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE"

"It’s also worth noting that the FDA did not send an agency representative to the scheduling conference."

https://sarahwestall.com/breaking-court-orders-fda-to-produce-55000-pages-per-month-of-pfizer-covid-19-data/

FYI. I did not type or use the words scheduling conference, I think that was another poster.

10 minutes ago, rabas said:

FYI. I did not type or use the words scheduling conference, I think that was another poster.

Yeah, i know that.

Data or no data. surely the question is:

Is the vaccine protecting the vast majority of people who have received from contracting/being hospitalised by/dying from, Covid?

That's the data that is now relevant !

12 minutes ago, Negita43 said:

Data or no data. surely the question is:

Is the vaccine protecting the vast majority of people who have received from contracting/being hospitalised by/dying from, Covid?

That's the data that is now relevant !

Ok, so lets hide some data then shall we?

 

Well the data isn't being hidden now is it - but are you capable of interpreting what it means or will you just rely on the interpretation of who knows who?

1 hour ago, 248900_1469958220 said:

Ok, so lets hide some data then shall we?

 

Yeah, there is a website showing the court documents and the pfizer documents being released now.

1 hour ago, fjb 24 said:

The Pfizer docs are starting to make the rounds now.

 

"Until very recently, the document was being withheld by Pfizer who maintained it should be kept confidential."

543857539-CUMULATIVE-ANALYSIS-OF-POST-AUTHORIZATION-ADVERSE-EVENT-REPORTS-OF-PF-07302048-BNT162B2-RECEIVED-THROUGH-28-FEB-2021.pdfUnavailable

Once again, another attempt to report characterize adverse events as adverse effects. Contrary to what Robert Kennedy and others would have the gullible believe, these are not reports about side effects. Before the covid vaccinations, people came down with illnesses. The vaccines don't render you invulnerable. Just less likely to die or suffer severe illness. What the dupes who believe this stuff don't understand is that there is no reference made to the actual number of people this numbers are drawn from and how this would compare to a pool of the unvaccinated. More alarmist drivel

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Once again, another attempt to report characterize adverse events as adverse effects. Contrary to what Robert Kennedy and others would have the gullible believe, these are not reports about side effects. Before the covid vaccinations, people came down with illnesses. The vaccines don't render you invulnerable. Just less likely to die or suffer severe illness. What the dupes who believe this stuff don't understand is that there is no reference made to the actual number of people this numbers are drawn from and how this would compare to a pool of the unvaccinated. More alarmist drivel

Happy you like them. There's MUCH more in the pipeline, enough to keep you mired in ecstasy.

3 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

Happy you like them. There's MUCH more in the pipeline, enough to keep you mired in ecstasy.

All you've got is empty taunts. No relevant replies to actual points raised. You've got nothing.