Reading the fine print on the FDA’s recent “approval” of the Pfizer vaccine reveals a convoluted state of affairs that’s deliberately being used to get people to take the shot. From
The FDA. the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, announced on Monday that it gave full approval to a vaccine. But it didn’t. Or rather, it did, but the approval is for a vaccine that doesn’t exist. Or rather, it exists, but it’s not being produced. Or rather, it’s being produced, but under different names and with different legal statuses.
The FDA is playing a game with Americans, in order to get them to submit to being vaccinated. And this has to stop. No more. The role of the FDA is to protect people, not cajole them into politically desired but illegal actions. Below are 3 -bullet points of- articles about the (non-) approval. One from Peter Doshi, senior editor at The BMJ, and a powerful foe to the FDA, one from Robert Kennedy jr, and one from Jill Malone, wife of Dr. Robert Malone.
But first, yet another lie -BIG, not noble- from Anthony Fauci, as told to Anderson Cooper. There is no approval for “the Pfizer product”, and Fauci knows that very well. Or rather, there is approval for a Pfizer product that is not available to anyone. And that should never have been approved the way it was in the first place, but that’s another story. Still, Fauci said it.
In theory, if he were called on it (but of course he won’t be by any reporter he talks to), he could say that the products are the same anyway. But he won’t say that, because he realizes full well that they have different legal statuses; they are “legally distinct” in the words of the FDA. So Fauci can’t say they are the same. Even if it’s just a matter of a different label on a vial.
The FDA has never approved a drug or vaccine with as short a testing period, plethora of documented adverse side effects (including death), and incomplete testing as it just did with Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine. From Peter Doshi at blogs.bmj.com:
The FDA should demand adequate, controlled studies with long term follow up, and make data publicly available, before granting full approval to covid-19 vaccines, says Peter Doshi
On 28 July 2021, Pfizer and BioNTech posted updated results for their ongoing phase 3 covid-19 vaccine trial. The preprint came almost a year to the day after the historical trial commenced, and nearly four months since the companies announced vaccine efficacy estimates “up to six months.”
But you won’t find 10 month follow-up data here. While the preprint is new, the results it contains aren’t particularly up to date. In fact, the paper is based on the same data cut-off date (13 March 2021) as the 1 April press release, and its topline efficacy result is identical: 91.3% (95% CI 89.0 to 93.2) vaccine efficacy against symptomatic covid-19 through “up to six months of follow-up.”
The 20 page preprint matters because it represents the most detailed public account of the pivotal trial data Pfizer submitted in pursuit of the world’s first “full approval” of a coronavirus vaccine from the Food and Drug Administration. It deserves careful scrutiny.
The elephant named “waning immunity”
Since late last year, we’ve heard that Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines are “95% effective” with even greater efficacy against severe disease (“100% effective,” Moderna said).
Whatever one thinks about the “95% effective” claims (my thoughts are here), even the most enthusiastic commentators have acknowledged that measuring vaccine efficacy two months after dosing says little about just how long vaccine-induced immunity will last. “We’re going to be looking very intently at the durability of protection,” Pfizer senior vice president William Gruber, an author on the recent preprint, told the FDA’s advisory committee last December.
Those who refuse the vaccines will no longer be able to cite that none of them have been FDA approved. There is no way the FDA should approve any of them, based on their safety and efficacy records, but now they’ve okayed Pfizer’s. Which means if you really believe that governments and their various corporate henchpeople have no right to violate your individual right to control your own body and cannot make you take a demonstrably dangerous vaccine, you’re undoubtedly going to bear significant personal costs, like quitting your job when your employer demands the shot. By Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:
Update (1100ET): The Pentagon’s press secretary has just confirmed that – as expected – the DoD will now require all troops across the armed services to get the vaccine.
Troops who refuse the vaccine could face “disciplinary” measures, including being dragged in front of a military tribunal that would mete out punishment. Commanders have several options for dealing with troops who refuse mandatory COVID-19 vaccines including issuing them a letter of reprimand or taking other administrative action; using nonjudicial punishment to push them to get vaccinated; referring troops to an administrative separation board for failure to obey an order, or even referring service members to courts-martial, which has already happened in the past when some troops refused to get vaccinated for Anthrax.
“We have every expectation that once the vaccines are made mandatory the troops are going to do the right thing,” Kirby told reporters at a Pentagon news conference a few weeks ago. “But, without speaking to the future, it’s treated, certainly, like any lawful order, and there could be administrative and disciplinary repercussions for failing to obey that order.”
The DoD also make sure that service members who have reservations about getting a COVID-19 vaccine are “properly counseled” about the risks to their personal health and their unit’s readiness that could arise from them refusing the jab, and that commanders have a “range of tools” to pressure troops to comply.
“Commanders have a range of tools, short of using the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice] available to them to try to help individuals make the right decisions,” Kirby added.
Similar mandates are expected in the private sector as well, with companies like Wal-Mart, along with thousands of smaller businesses, expected to require proof of vaccination for all workers.