Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT), as its name suggests, is a medical transparency group that filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the FDA for documents tied to its approval of Pfizer’s BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The FDA went to court and informed the judge that it was totally willing to comply with the request—except that it will take almost 55 years to do so.
The Epoch Times reports that the FDA claims to possess 329,000 pages of documents responsive to PHMPT’s request. Further, the FDA posits that reviewing the documents and redacting exempt material will allow it to produce, at most, around 500 pages per month. At that rate, it will take 658 months—or 54 and 3/4 years to complete the requested production.
PHMPT’s attorney, Aaron Siri, instantly spotted the problem with the FDA’s claim that the volume of documents makes it impossible to produce them in a more timely manner:
It took the FDA precisely 108 days from when Pfizer started producing the records for licensure (on May 7, 2021) to when the FDA licensed the Pfizer vaccine (on August 23, 2021). Taking the FDA at its word, 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. While it can conduct that intense review of Pfizer’s documents in 108 days, it now asks for over 20,000 days to make these documents available to the public.
So, let’s get this straight. The federal government shields Pfizer from liability. Gives it billions of dollars. Makes Americans take its product. But won’t let you see the data supporting its product’s safety and efficacy. Who does the government work for?
Put another way, if the FDA is correct that it has 329,000 pages that it cannot possibly review in fewer than 54 years, then the approval it gave after only 108 days is a fraud. Alternatively, if that 108-day approval period was accurate, the FDA is currently engaged in a massive cover-up.
Siri draws the logical conclusion from the facts he’s set out:
The lesson yet again is that civil and individual rights should never be contingent upon a medical procedure. Everyone who wants to get vaccinated and boosted should be free to do so. But nobody should be coerced by the government to partake in any medical procedure. Certainly not one where the government wants to hide the full information relied upon for its licensure until the year 2076!
I’ve worked on sizable document productions in my time. Back in the beginning, in the 1980s and 1990s, that meant hand-reviewing hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of pages of material. Nowadays, though, with everything computerized, it means loading the material into a computer program specifically created for document discovery. That program sorts documents by date, creator, recipients, type of data, keywords, “exempt” words, etc. A team working on this kind of production can complete even enormous reviews in four to six months.
While I’m not clear about what the FDA’s game is with its promise to complete production by 2076, the one thing I know for certain is that it is, in fact, playing a game and one that has already identified the American public as the loser.
A recent research paper in the prestigious Circulation journal has found a direct correlation between the mRNA vaccines and the increased risk of developing a sudden heart ailment. The Cardiologist who wrote the paper noted that he has followed his patients using an accepted clinical scoring system routinely employed to predict a patients risk of developing several heart related diseases using a measurement of certain well described biomarkers. This collection of heart related diseases is called Acute Cardiac Syndrome and the Mayo Clinic describes them as:
The scoring system employed looks for increased bio-markers and Dr. Gundry has followed these markers for his patients over many years of practice. He found a recent change in the ‘normal’ scoring for patients who have recently been vaccinated. The changes in the biomarkers following vaccination raised the risk of Acute Cardiac Syndrome from 11% to 25%, which is an enormous jump.
They looked at 566 patients and used patients aged 28-97yrs, equal male and female patients. The post-jab scoring was compared to previous test scoring for the same subjects prior to their vaccination and the increases listed are more than doubled.
The author concludes:
.
These findings are consistent with Dr. McCullough’s recent statements about the vaccine invading the heart muscle as well as Dr. Schirmacher, the renowned German pathologists, who fould obvious evidence of vaccine generated myocarditis and deaths related to heart arteries completely clogged with dead edothelial cells(dead cells from the lining of the blood vessels).
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712
The doctor is a cardiologist himself and his patients are also all cardio patients, just FYI.
UK Data Shows No All-Cause Mortality Benefit for COVID-19 Vaccines
Please read this article above – the monumental punchline is in the second half of the article.
There has been a number of cases recently throughout the world where raw data shows a preponderance of deaths in the vaccinated which has been interpreted to mean that the vaccinated are dying at higher frequencies, potentially caused by the vaccines, which could help suggest the immune system being hijacked in Antibody Dependent Enhancement(ADE) or Vaccine Associated Disease(VAC). I saw Alex Berenson’s article on the English data where he concluded the vaccinated were dying at exaggerated rates. I saw that the death rates were somewhat similar to the vaccination rates and intuitively deduced there was not much to be gained in pursuing this further, as many are likely to have done. But ignoring data is always a mistake, even dodgy data.
Based on Berenson’s conclusions on the English data, a biostatistician, Matthew Crawford, has parsed thru the data, limited by the constraints of the English data collection and accepting the flaws and inherent biases which significantly advantage the vaccines due to the biased manner of both testing and in death counting, such as they are. In his analysis he has demonstrated that there is in fact no such support of the vaccinated being killed in higher and higher numbers to support the conclusion of ADE or VAC at this time, per the definitions of testing and death counting defined by the English system. He goes on to explain the issue of Simpsons’ paradox and this is well discussed by him. Though, I think many have covered this matter intuitively, Crawford affords examples to demonstrate the matter more carefully.
But there is more to be gained in his analysis and it is not good news. Crawford demonstrated that both groups have higher than expected rates of all cause deaths. Crawford could not tell which group had a greater increase in all cause mortality, so he compared these differences over time, and, in graphing the results, he found a shocking reality. He shows that from the beginning of the data collected by the English data for their vaccine program, the vaccines have not improved the all-cause mortality rate, ie the vaccines did not provide any significant benefit in reducing deaths of all causes.
His evidence shows that the vaccinated and unvaccinated have actually fluctuated slightly, and showing either one with an advantage over the past many months at different times. Ignoring the possibility that this is simply ‘noise’, he found there would be an advantage of vaccination to the extent of deaths per million doses. I have to emphasize again this is with all the built-in presumptions of the English data advantaging the vaccinated, as Crawford intended to “play by their rules”. Hence, everyone who has had a reaction to the first shot and died following this first shot are all counted as unvaccinated and Crawford notes that the all cause mortality for the 1 shot cohort is higher than either the ‘vaccinated’ or unvaccinated without the 1 shot cohort included. The question of whether the deaths included with the vaccinated would include those who died immediately after the second shot, or if they are only counted two weeks later, is not clear and a FOIA has been submitted for clarity on this point by Joel Smalley and you can follow this FOIA at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/england_deaths_with_exact_covid . Either way, the vaccinated have an enormous survivor bias built in to pervert their numbers higher, even though they are not significantly higher. Very grim news. You will likely hear more on this in the coming weeks….maybe sooner…