Skip to content

FDA Tells the Courts: Sure, Americans Can See Full Data Used to Justify Vaccine Mandates… in 55 YEARS

    The U.S. government has made one excuse after another for why it no longer has to provide transparency to the American people — even when it comes to federal vaccine mandates that infringe on human rights and violate citizens’ most personal decisions over their own bodies.

    This week, the Food and Drug Administration was being called to account for the data used to justify its authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech’s mRNA prophylactic therapeutic being falsely advertised as a ‘vaccine.’ The plaintiffs, Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, told a district court that the FDA does not intend to release the data used to authorize its authorization and used to justify federal vaccine mandates for over half a century.

    “The FDA has proposed to produce 500 pages per month which, based on its calculated number of pages, would mean it would complete its production in nearly 55 years – the year 2076,” the court filing said. “Until the entire body of documents provided by Pfizer to the FDA are made available, an appropriate analysis by the independent scientists that are members of Plaintiff is not possible.”

    “Would the FDA agree to review and license this product without all the documents? Of course not. These independent, world-renowned scientists should be provided the same forthwith,” the filing states.

    “The entire purpose of the FOIA is to assure government transparency,” the plaintiffs argue. “It is difficult to imagine a greater need for transparency than immediate disclosure of the documents relied upon by the FDA to license a product that is now being mandated to over 100 million Americans under penalty of losing their careers, their income, their military service status, and far worse.”

    “It took the FDA precisely 108 days from when Pfizer started producing the records for licensure on May 7, 2021,14 to when the product was licensed on August 23, 2021,” the court document goes on. “We assume, as the FDA has stated, that it conducted an intense, robust, thorough and complete review and analysis of those documents in order to assure that the Pfizer vaccine was safe and effective for licensure.”

    “The FDA now has an equally important task of making those documents available to the Plaintiff in this case and the public at large in at least the same timeframe,” the filing adds. “The FDA’s own regulations envision and reflect upon the importance of making this information public as soon as a vaccine is licensed. Its regulations provide that it is to make ‘immediately available’ all documents underlying licensure of a vaccine.”

    “The FDA knew the intense public interest in that data and information,” the document added. “It should have been preparing to release it simultaneously with the licensure. Instead, it has done the opposite.”

    The scope of the documents sought by Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency includes “more than 329,000 pages potentially responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request.”

    The public transparency is critically important as news has surfaced that Pfizer buried the reporting of deaths in the placebo group prior to the “vaccine” authorization. Alex Berenson, who has been indefinitely suspended from Twitter, made this information available in a public Substack post.

    “In their initial safety report to the FDA, which contained data through November 2020, the researchers had said four placebo recipients and two vaccine recipients died, one after the first dose and one after the second,” Berenson reports. “The July update reversed that trend. Between November 2020 and March 2021, 13 vaccine recipients died, compared to only 10 placebo subjects.”

    “Further, nine vaccine recipients had died from cardiovascular events such as heart attacks or strokes, compared to six placebo recipients who died of those causes,” the report continued. “The imbalance was small but notable, considering that regulators worldwide had found that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines were linked to heart inflammation in young men.”

    The former NY Times journalist and best-selling author also pointed to a November 8 update that showed how the FDA and Pfizer misled the public.

    “On November 8, the agency released its ‘Summary Basis for Regulatory Action,’ a 30-page note explaining why on August 23 it granted full approval to Pfizer’s vaccine, replacing the emergency authorization from December 2020,” he goes on.

    And buried on page 23 of the report is this stunning sentence: “From Dose 1 through the March 13, 2021 data cutoff date, there were a total of 38 deaths, 21 in the COMIRNATY [vaccine] group and 17 in the placebo group.”

    “Pfizer said publicly in July it had found 15 deaths among vaccine recipients by mid-March,” Berenson noted. “But it told the FDA there were 21 – at the same data cutoff end date, March 13.”

    “21. Not 15,” he added. “The placebo figure in the trial was also wrong. Pfizer had 17 deaths among placebo recipients, not 14. Nine extra deaths overall, six among vaccine recipients.”

    The journalist then proffered some explanations that vary from incompetence to outright deception.

    “Could the discrepancy result from some odd data lag? Maybe, but the FDA briefing book also contains the number of Covid cases that Pfizer found in vaccine recipients in the trial,” he said. “Those figures are EXACTLY the same as those Pfizer posted publicly in July.”

    “Yet the death counts were different,” he said. “Pfizer somehow miscounted – or publicly misreported, or both – the number of deaths in one of the most important clinical trials in the history of medicine.”

    The abysmal track record of the FDA and Pfizer throughout the Covid-19 pandemic should call for greater demands for transparency. The court filing makes such a case.

    “The acute need for transparency regarding this product is heightened by the fact that the secretary of Health and Human Services (‘HHS’), the FDA’s parent department, has granted Pfizer complete immunity from financial liability for any injury caused by its product. If injured — including suffering one of the injuries even federal health authorities admit occur from Pfizer’s product — the injured individual effectively has no recourse,” the court pointed out. “Pursuant to the declaration from the secretary of HHS, Pfizer cannot be sued by anyone receiving this product for any injury. Pfizer also cannot be sued for willful misconduct regarding this product unless HHS, which has been promoting this product, agrees to bring such a claim.”

    “It should not be that the public is deprived accessing the documents and data submitted by Pfizer to license this product when at the same time the public are being mandated to receive this product with no ability to sue Pfizer for compensation if they suffer any adverse reaction,” the lawsuit added.

    The FDA claims it needs more time to release the documents, because it has to redact it all. This is not serious and it is not the way the scientific process is supposed to work.

    Americans are now witnessing one of the gravest miscarriages of justice in the history of their country. The nation’s courts have been largely silent and have stood idly by and watched the federal government ravage the U.S.’ constitutional order and infringe on millions of Americans’ rights.

    It is high time that the federal courts force the U.S. government to obey the laws and to provide the transparency that a functional democratic republic requires. The American people cannot wait over half a century to learn the full truth about what the government is forcing them to inject into their bodies.


    FDA is on the Hot Seat for Misreported Deaths Linked to Pfizer Vaccine Prior to Authorization

    "*" indicates required fields

    Who's your favorite former President?*
    This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
    This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

    OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.