• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FDA Misled the Judiciary about Pfizer’s Vaccine Documents

VySky

VySky

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
48,883
Reaction score
19,437
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Drip....drip....drip....

I told you so!

Thank God I had the wisdom to reject the relentless bullying from the machine to "get vaccinated". In my 64 years I have never seen our Government act the way they did so it gave me pause.

The way we were bullied and publicly shamed for making an "our body, our choice" decision was very Orwellian indeed.

I'm not anti-vax. I've had the shingles vaccines. Just took the RSV vaccine 2 days ago. Covid?

NOT A CHANCE!

Based on the data presented at the time the Covid vaccine was an unacceptable risk

And with the data we have now its a slam dunk case that this vaccine should be completely rejected.

Below is a key quote from the article


“The FDA here is clearly concerned about the truth and lacks confidence in the review that it conducted to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine because it is doing everything possible to prevent independent scientists from conducting an independent review,” he added.

------------------------------

However, in January 2022, District Judge Mark Pittman of Texas rejected the FDA’s proposal, ordering the agency to expedite its release to 55,000 pages per month, aiming to complete the disclosure of all 450,000 pages by August 2022.

As the documents trickled out, researchers began uncovering glaring gaps that prevented a systematic review of the data. These gaps fueled suspicions about what else the FDA might be withholding.

It became evident that the FDA had withheld records directly tied to its emergency use authorisation of Pfizer’s vaccine, estimated to be over one million pages.

These documents, which the FDA had full knowledge of, were excluded from earlier disclosures, effectively misleading the judiciary and undermining public trust.
Click to expand...

brownstone.org

FDA Misled the Judiciary about Pfizer's Vaccine Documents ⋆ Brownstone Institute

Judge ordered the FDA to release documents related to the emergency use authorisation of Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine.
brownstone.org brownstone.org

 
Makes me sick to go back and see how these low life sob's used a pandemic politically.....true scumbags. "It's the pandemic of the unvaccinated", my ass, you lying sob.

"A million pages", had to do a double take, a million pages.....Jeesh, yeah there's no waste in our government.....wholly corrupt.
 
redbeer said:
Makes me sick to go back and see how these low life sob's used a pandemic politically.....true scumbags. "It's the pandemic of the unvaccinated", my ass, you lying sob.

"A million pages", had to do a double take, a million pages.....Jeesh, yeah there's no waste in our government.....wholly corrupt.
Click to expand...
They didn't just constantly move the goal post. They did away with it all together.

What a complete mind cluck experiment that showed just how easily people are manipulated by fearmongering.
 
VySky said:
Then it should be super easy for you to go into the article and point out issues.

Your post is really nothing of credible substance.

Show us your work.
Click to expand...
The "studies" cited in the claim are draft papers that have not been peer-reviewed by experts on the scientific and medical subject matter.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention evaluated over 90 peer-reviewed studies and preprint publications to determine that vaccination boosts the immune system and reduces the risk of repeat infection for those who have had coronavirus before and in those who have not.

Brownstone Institute is not a credible source of information.
 
lwf said:
The "studies" cited in the claim are draft papers that have not been peer-reviewed by experts on the scientific and medical subject matter.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention evaluated over 90 peer-reviewed studies and preprint publications to determine that vaccination boosts the immune system and reduces the risk of repeat infection for those who have had coronavirus before and in those who have not.

Brownstone Institute is not a credible source of information.
Click to expand...
Am I correct in saying you believe the FDA did not withhold information?
 
VySky said:
Am I correct in saying you believe the FDA did not withhold information?
Click to expand...
Yes. You have presented no credible evidence of this.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/11/19/fda-2076-vaccine-data/

Agencies typically process requests in the order of receipt. The time it takes to respond to a request will vary depending on the complexity of the request and any backlog of requests already pending at the agency. A simple request can be processed faster by the agency than one that is complex. Simple requests are typically more targeted and seek fewer pages of records. Complex requests typically seek a high volume of material or require additional steps to process such as the need to search for records in multiple locations. The agency’s FOIA Requester Service Center is available to assist you with any question about the status of your request and any steps you can take to receive a quicker response.


By all means, provide more funding to the FDA and I'm sure they will be able to process the requests faster. You need people to process requests, and they don't work for free.
 
lwf said:
Yes. You have presented no credible evidence of this.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/11/19/fda-2076-vaccine-data/

Agencies typically process requests in the order of receipt. The time it takes to respond to a request will vary depending on the complexity of the request and any backlog of requests already pending at the agency. A simple request can be processed faster by the agency than one that is complex. Simple requests are typically more targeted and seek fewer pages of records. Complex requests typically seek a high volume of material or require additional steps to process such as the need to search for records in multiple locations. The agency’s FOIA Requester Service Center is available to assist you with any question about the status of your request and any steps you can take to receive a quicker response.


By all means, provide more funding to the FDA and I'm sure they will be able to process the requests faster. You need people to process requests, and they don't work for free.
Click to expand...
From the link in #1 has this that contradicts your position. Emphasis mine.

Initially, the FDA proposed a slow release schedule. In November 2021, the agency stated it would release just 500 pages per month—a pace that would have stretched the full disclosure process to 75 years.

However, in January 2022, District Judge Mark Pittman of Texas rejected the FDA’s proposal, ordering the agency to expedite its release to 55,000 pages per month, aiming to complete the disclosure of all 450,000 pages by August 2022.

As the documents trickled out, researchers began uncovering glaring gaps that prevented a systematic review of the data. These gaps fueled suspicions about what else the FDA might be withholding.

It became evident that the FDA had withheld records directly tied to its emergency use authorisation of Pfizer’s vaccine, estimated to be over one million pages.
Click to expand...
 
VySky said:
From the link in #1 has this that contradicts your position. Emphasis mine.
Click to expand...
What link? I’m not seeing this in the Snopes article.
 
And another one. That's two so far today.
 
VySky said:
Drip....drip....drip....

I told you so!

Thank God I had the wisdom to reject the relentless bullying from the machine to "get vaccinated". In my 64 years I have never seen our Government act the way they did so it gave me pause.

The way we were bullied and publicly shamed for making an "our body, our choice" decision was very Orwellian indeed.

I'm not anti-vax. I've had the shingles vaccines. Just took the RSV vaccine 2 days ago. Covid?

NOT A CHANCE!

Based on the data presented at the time the Covid vaccine was an unacceptable risk

And with the data we have now its a slam dunk case that this vaccine should be completely rejected.

Below is a key quote from the article


“The FDA here is clearly concerned about the truth and lacks confidence in the review that it conducted to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine because it is doing everything possible to prevent independent scientists from conducting an independent review,” he added.

------------------------------



brownstone.org

FDA Misled the Judiciary about Pfizer's Vaccine Documents ⋆ Brownstone Institute

Judge ordered the FDA to release documents related to the emergency use authorisation of Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine.
brownstone.org brownstone.org

Click to expand...


OP, you going to thank President Trump for his Operation Warp Speed?
 
americanwoman said:
It's funny how most of us have moved on yet the one that was throwing tantrums about masks and vaccines is still the one most hung up on it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is a bit funny, isn't it.
 
NOLA Dude said:
Who cares which websites Dave Van Zandt thinks are biased or not. Do you think because he created his own website that now he's the authority on bias?

The lefties here think Mediabiasfactcheck is some magic silver bullet that automatically discredits an article you don't like without you ever showing if anything is inaccurate.
Click to expand...
The site shows its work. It rates based on failed fact checks, propagation of unproven conspiracy theories, and transparency of ownership. And it treats left-leaning sources no differently:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/occupy-democrats/

1740159980359.webp

1740160017107.webp

1740160079345.webp
 
lwf said:
The site shows its work. It rates based on failed fact checks, propagation of unproven conspiracy theories, and transparency of ownership. And it treats left-leaning sources no differently:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/occupy-democrats/

View attachment 67557287

View attachment 67557288

View attachment 67557289
Click to expand...
Who cares if it shows its work? What makes Dave Van Zandt the authority on determining bias?

What you should do is point out something specifically that's inaccurate from an article or source instead of hiding behind mediabiasfactcheck.com.

Can you point out anything that was inaccurate in the OP? I'm guessing you will have some excuse not to.
 
NOLA Dude said:
Who cares if it shows its work? What makes Dave Van Zandt the authority on determining bias?

What you should do is point out something specifically that's inaccurate from an article or source instead of hiding behind mediabiasfactcheck.com.

Can you point out anything that was inaccurate in the OP? I'm guessing you will have some excuse not to.
Click to expand...
I didn't look at the article, because it came from a garbage source.
 
lwf said:
I didn't look at the article, because it came from a garbage source.
Click to expand...
Translation: I can't point out anything that's inaccurate in the article and my complaining was strictly partisan babble because I didn't like what the article said.
 
NOLA Dude said:
Translation: I can't point out anything that's inaccurate in the article and my complaining was strictly partisan babble because I didn't like what the article said.
Click to expand...
I don't waste my time with garbage sources. Right and left-wing lunatics have cried wolf too many times only for me to discover after doing my own due diligence that their information was based on debunked bullshit, so now before I evaluate any information, I consider the source of the information. If the source is not credible, I don't bother looking at the information. If you want me to evaluate a given piece of information, get it from a credible source first. Don't just pull it out of your ass and expect others to prove it wrong. The onus is on you to support your claims with facts, not propaganda and bullshit.

I recommend everyone do the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom