FDA approved does NOT EQUAL SAFE: Some parallels between Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine and Rezulin

This is a short video and well worth the watch. She does a much better job than I could addressing the similarities between Pfizer's present cocktail and the diabetic drug Rezulin in the mid 90's.

It finally happened, the FDA approved the covid-19 Pfizer vaccine. But before you start jumping for joy, let’s take a look at the story of another FDA approved drug, Rezulin. The tale of Rezulin’s rise and fall and its uncanny similarities to Pfizer’s covid-19 vaccine.

Quotes in the video concerning Rezulin come from The Rise and Fall of the Killer Drug Rezulin

Concerning the amount of funding the FDA receives from the same folks they are supposed to be regulating, estimates vary from 45%+ to 75%. Whatever the exact amount is, collecting "fees" from the same folks manufacturing the product you are scrutinizing opens a wide door for conflict of interest. Quotes in the video come from The Biopharmaceutical Industry Provides 75% Of The FDA's Drug Review Budget. Is This A Problem?

As with Rezulin, I don't doubt that adverse effects from the current crop of covid vaccines may very well be at least 10 times higher than reported and probably more.

As one of our esteemed members is prone to say..."Shutup and watch it!"

Hmmm...'75% of FDA funding comes from Big Pharma'.

That's an interesting tidbit.

a reply to: Klassified

I am getting a real Karen and essential oils vibe from this lady.

I have trouble accepting anything she says when the first thing she claims, 75% of FDA funding comes from outside the government, is blatantly wrong.

Here is the FDA disclosure;

The request includes $3.6 billion in budget authority – including $343 million in increases – and $2.9 billion in user fees – an increase of $155 million.

FDA Link

Total budget is approximately $6.5 billion, 55% of the budget comes from government budget authority...

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Hmmm...'75% of FDA funding comes from Big Pharma'.

That's an interesting tidbit.

It is also an inaccuracy.

a reply to: [post=26063929]Klassified[/p

Love the video and that is one attractive woman; looks, intelligence, personality, well spoken.

originally posted by: Zitterbewegung
a reply to: [post=26063929]Klassified[/p

Love the video and that is one attractive woman; looks, intelligence, personality, well spoken.

lol, are you being facetious again?

a reply to: MDDoxs

Lol. No that was serious haha

originally posted by: MDDoxs

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Hmmm...'75% of FDA funding comes from Big Pharma'.

That's an interesting tidbit.

It is also an inaccuracy.

So, what's an accurate number?

a reply to: MDDoxs
So you found the same links I did when searching and picked one that most closely matched your bias and completely ignored what was written in the OP addressing this very point. Whether the amount of funding/"fees" is 45 or 75, that's a lot of money going into our FDA from manufacturers providing an excellent opportunity for conflict of interest, but lets ignore that completely and say the funding is kosher and AOK.

What about the rest of the video and accompanying article? Got any insight into that we should aware of, or are you just interested in discrediting the source?

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: MDDoxs

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Hmmm...'75% of FDA funding comes from Big Pharma'.

That's an interesting tidbit.

It is also an inaccuracy.

So, what's an accurate number?

My above post provides the information and link.

55% of their budget is government funds.

a reply to: Klassified

What's her face?
I love her videos,she has some amusing ones from last year.I liked one where she had been demonitised for mentioning the 12 year old called Maddie who had a really bad reaction to the Pitzer vaccine and ended up in a wheelchair amongst other things.She was asked to make a video about it by a family member of Maddie yet Billy big boots,Youtube called it disinformation and demonitised her channel.The video she made pretendeing to tow the line was very amusing.
There is a lot of good info in her videos,intelligent woman,the fact that she is a hottie is an added bonus.

a reply to: Klassified

You make no sense. I was stating my opinion of the quality of the information being presented in the video. Based on the fact that her first claim is a lie, I have trouble trusting anything else she said.

What bias? I am stating fact...it is from the FDA themselves. Published, public documents.

There is a big difference between 45 and 75%. We are talking about shifting from a majority to a minority. Is this math and its implications difficult for you?

Try Vioxx.
It was FDA approved.
It was on the market for 5 years before the maker pulled it from the market.
It caused over 88,000 heart attacks, of which 38,000 of the victims died.
NPR: Vioxx

a reply to: MDDoxs

What bias? I am stating fact...it is from the FDA themselves. Published, public documents.

The OP is about a corrupt FDA. So I question their "facts". I addressed this in the OP. We don't know and likely cannot prove what the percentage actually is, the point is the same. Manufacturers are still funding a large portion of the FDA's budget with so-called user fees. If you're good with that, then for you there's nothing to see here. Everything is fine.

Go get your booster shot.

a reply to: Klassified

LOL, thank you for accepting defeat.

The FDA is a federal agency and therefore all budgets and funding are publicly managed and audited. All funding disclosed. They have to be more transparent than Trump's tax returns haha.

Ask yourself, how can you investigate whether or not the FDA is corrupt, when the main source of information from the OP is obviously misleading...? I guess you dont want to deny ignorance, enjoy that reality shot.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Hmmm...'75% of FDA funding comes from Big Pharma'.

That's an interesting tidbit.

As I pointed out in my OP, and MDDoxs has pointed out, the number may be lower. Who knows? Getting accurate percentages is likely not possible. Certainly not from the FDA themselves.

a reply to: Klassified

It's cute that all you anti vax people search YouTube for a video that fits your narrative then present it almost as fact this furthering and confirming your bias.
You should look up those that have a stake in that drug and you will see why and how it is even relevant.

a reply to: Klassified

Thank you for this acknowledgement. To comprise and find a mutual ground to discuss from, I will agree that regardless of the funding disclosures, there may be nefarious funding and/or lobbying going on at the FDA. You cant ignore people/companies with a 45% stake in the organization.

a reply to: Klassified
That seems to be a real problem in general. The whole being able to find supporting evidence to whatever your side is. It makes any rational reasonable conversation difficult.
What's that joke/meme about scientists always finding what the research funders want?

FDA approval = safe.
Pardon me while I laugh.


The number of deaths caused by the FDA approved drug Vioxx is unknown. It could be as high as 500,000, although 140,000 - 150,000 is the figure often used. Probably because it's less scary.
FDA approved the use of Vioxx in children as young as 2 years old.



From the FDA website:
When Vioxx was known to be dangerous, Merck made the decision to pull Vioxx from the market. The FDA didn't even order them to stop selling it!

When asked if their 'expedited review process' is putting riskier drugs on the market, the FDA just said "No". You can't make this stuff up. Source

FDA is incapable of protecting US “against another Vioxx”