@WalterF The link concerns the [i]claims[/i] of some attorney acting for an unspecified and vague organisation and completely fails to specify the nature of the data about which it talks.
All smoke and mirrors... complete with the mandatory use of the term ‘experimental’ vaccine (it isn’t experimental)
More misinformation from the misanthropes who actively harm people simply to satisfy a need to stroke their own egos
@newjaninev2 What astounds me is this old refrain, that you have happily subscribed to, that this kind of post "harms people". Are you in your right mind? Do you think that "people" are so gormless and vulnerable that they will be "harmed"? This is beyond belief.
@WalterF You sow doubt. Baseless doubt. When in doubt, people hesitate to take actions that might otherwise benefit them.
When they suffer consequential harm, you simply walk away as if you bear no responsibility whatsoever for the suffering you have caused.
So yes, keep on coughing up fur-ball posts like this... and keep on pretending to yourself that their purpose isn’t merely ego-stroking pretence and misanthropic schadenfreude
@newjaninev2 Nothing baseless about wanting to know about any experimental (clinical trial stage) product before getting injected with it. It's what any self-respecting person would do. That means listening to different sides of the debate. It means seeking out the other opinions, from experts, which are being mercilessly CENSORED by the controllers. It means questioning the media message and the political coercion. And if you think that such an activity is "ego-stroking", then I hope you never present your own views in such a way as to stroke your ego. And as for schadenfreude, where do you see that in these posts? Is an attempt to wake people up to reality, schadenfreude? And is the realisation that it's all a big lie, misanthropy? A lot of dazzling words from you, but not much substance
@OldBrit The facts are there. The trouble is, the fact-checkers bury them. The article link is given above. Research all you want. And don't forget to preface any research you do with an "untrue" label
@OldBrit Here is an extract from the Second Joint Report in this case. (p 10 of 14)
[b]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. Until the entire body of documents provided by Pfizer to the FDA are made available, an[/b]
(footnotes on page) 11 https://www.americaspromise.org/us-military-demographics#:~:text=Military%20Service%20Member%20Data ,were%202.1%20active%20duty%20members (last visited November 12, 2021). 12 See 21 CFR § 601.51(e). 13 [c=BF0000]Reports have recently surfaced that the FDA was aware of concerns about unsound practices in connection with clinical trials for the Pfizer Vaccine, but that FDA failed to properly investigate these claims. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635[/c](last visited November 12, 2021)
The reasoning for the delay seems not unreasonable huge amount of documents to review only 10 people in the department and 400 other requests.
Having filed drug applications with the FDA and say in review meetings one issue is the three fda always insists on all the data, all the forms etc. Essentially they then rerun the analysis rather than most other regulatory bodies who only require summary tables and final analysis and simply review that for inconsistencies. This request would be quicker expidited via the EU medicines agency or mhra in UK
