Can Pro "Vaccine" People Answer A Simple Question???

This is an extremely easy and simple exorcise. I would like pro "vaccine" people to answer one question.

In your own words, why do you believe that Pfizer requested 75 years to release their information on the covid shots? Also, if you think this is appropriate for them to do, please explain why.

That's it. Without changing the subject, without using whataboutisms, please answer the question honestly. If you believe that the shots are safe and effective, Pfizer should just release all their data that they have, at once, so people may have informed consent about what they are injecting into their bodies.

The rest of us know you have your blinders on, so try taking them off for a second. The bigger picture that a lot of people seem to be missing is that ALL OF THESE SIDE EFFECTS ADD UP!! It’s like some people look at one side effect at a time and that’s all there is. How many more do we need to pop up before people wake tf up?? I’m sorry but did we all just through logic out the window? First we have heart problems, sudden deaths, nervous system disorders, VAIDS, ect. And now this, simply open your eyes. Pfizer just recalled blood pressure medications because of cancer concerns. HBP medication, which has been on the market for decades! Taken back, even though it’s been around a long time. What makes you think that there’s nothing wrong with these shots that THE SAME COMPANY IS DISTRIBUTING. Mind you that these shots haven’t been around nearly as long as HBP medication increasing the likelihood of other things being wrong with them and affecting people in a malignant way. It’s also EXTREMELY CONVENIENT for MSM and Big Pharma that all of a sudden when people start getting diagnosed with myocarditis, among other things from this experimental shot, that the mainstream scientific community comes out with studies saying “no, no, no, it’s actually covid-19 that is causing all of these things, not the experimental gene therapy we are giving anyone.” Right? Nothing to see here folks! Paaallleeeaaaassseeee, like I said take your blinders off.

HBP Medication Recall by Pfizer - From everyones favorite news outlet!

a reply to: Narvasis

Or you could just look it up

www.techarp.com...

Seems that drugmarker had quite a few issues this year.

Removed a quote of an actioned post.

Well done your link provides the same information mine does

They can't answer it because no one would want to hide data if it showed a positive outcome. Why would you want to bury it? I realize that fake checkers and pharma reps have had months to come up with "reasons that sound good." But in the end, there's no legitimate way to answer the question.

Oh and the first 55k pages are abysmal. They had to be sued multiple times and FOIA'd to even release it.

Sorry, if you can't find out yourself, why make us do the work

And you seem to have an agenda. Am I wrong?

a reply to: Narvasis

Well, according to Pfizer, and the FDA, it needs to be over looked and such, and they need... 75 years to do that.
I'm not sure any pro vaccine person is going to defend their reasoning based on that statement alone. It's just anti science to keep data from doctors and whoever can understand what the documents and sciency language.

Although, apparently some of the adverse effects found on the report don't make any sense to even have on there, there was one instance of a kid swallowing a penny within the two week period of getting the vaccine. So who knows what else is on there that can be redacted.
I still think releasing the whole report is a better course of action, but at the same time a lot of people are going to run with it and spin all sorts of stories and conspiracy theories and maybe even lawsuits from it.

So far, Pfizer and the FDA are losing the battle to keep it under wraps.

What a clown show.

I have not and will not take the shot.

If the contents and effects of the shot were all good and they had real evidence to prove that, they would have not been hesitant to publish their data. Had that been the case, I would have admitted my error in judgment and stuck out my arm for the injection.

If you invite me to a meal and I ask what you've prepared and you say that you'd rather not tell me, I will think twice about putting what you offer in my mouth.

To take that analogy a little further and into the real world, I have a friend whose wife will not eat out because she wants to see her food prepared, she wants to know what is in it. She will not eat food if she is not 100% certain of its ingredients. Yet this woman stuck her arm out and took these injections with no knowledge of what they contained. This is baffling to me.

a reply to: incoserv

Same boat.

My intention was to hold out for more proof that it was safe and effective with minimal side effects.

I’m seeing more evidence of the side effects than I am that it is safe and effective.

It’s also very suspicious how badly they want us to take it and how coercion is used.

I will not be getting this jab.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Narvasis

Or you could just look it up

www.techarp.com...

"In its proposal for a 55-year timeline, the FDA noted that the branch that would handle the request has only 10 employees, and is currently processing around 400 other FOIA requests.".....


I looked it up, and YES - essentially they were asking for that amount of time. So...as stated in the OP...


55 years

Fake News, OP. You're the one who needs to explain why you believe that crap. So yeah, extremely easy to explain--not that you will listen.

originally posted by: TruthJava

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Narvasis

Or you could just look it up

www.techarp.com...

"In its proposal for a 55-year timeline, the FDA noted that the branch that would handle the request has only 10 employees, and is currently processing around 400 other FOIA requests.".....


I looked it up, and YES - essentially they were asking for that amount of time. So...as stated in the OP...


55 years

Did you receive your own link?

It explains why it isn't an instantaneous process and how much has already been released.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Your link contains some of the same information with a very pro-narrative spin on it. It even tries to make the claim that more time would have to be spent redacting the information within the documents than it took for the initial approval process, and that there are valid reasons for this. In my opinion, that's ridiculous. The only information that should be redacted are names and trade secrets related to manufacture, unless something nefarious is going on. So, what your article is saying is that it should and is reasonable for it to take longer for them to sharpie out some names and a few processes than it did for them to approve it for use? There is an ABSURD level of mental gymnastics required to have that make any logical sense. Think about it. One action has the lives of millions at stake and if done properly would have included a board of people pouring over the data and weighing circumstances once it had been thoroughly dissected, the other is mindless drudgery with a permanent marker.

I have an idea... if you don't have the people or time required to redact the files, how about have an AI do it... they use them for all sorts of stuff these days. Seems like something right up their alley.

originally posted by: andr3w68
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your link contains some of the same information with a very pro-narrative spin on it. It even tries to make the claim that more time would have to be spent redacting the information within the documents than it took for the initial approval process, and that there are valid reasons for this. In my opinion, that's ridiculous. The only information that should be redacted are names and trade secrets related to manufacture, unless something nefarious is going on. So, what your article is saying is that it should and is reasonable for it to take longer for them to sharpie out some names and a few processes than it did for them to approve it for use? There is an ABSURD level of mental gymnastics required to have that make any logical sense. Think about it. One action has the lives of millions at stake and if done properly would have included a board of people pouring over the data and weighing circumstances once it had been thoroughly dissected, the other is mindless drudgery with a permanent marker.

I have an idea... if you don't have the people or time required to redact the files, how about have an AI do it... they use them for all sorts of stuff these days. Seems like something right up their alley.

The article explains why it can take time. Oversimplifying the process because you want it to be a conspiracy doesn't change that.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Sorry, if you can't find out yourself, why make us do the work

And you seem to have an agenda. Am I wrong?

Agenda aside.

You care to even attempt to answer the question in the op in your "own" words why you think they wanted to keep the information private till just about everyone who took it was dead.

I mean it doesn't take much critical thinking to realize some clarification on this would be nice.

Better yet do you think it was odd a federal judge had to use an injunction to fill a freedom of information request from a private company?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Pfizer whipped up a vaccine in less than a year. Why can't they whip up a team to analyse and go over all the data just as easily?

Boggles my mind sometimes how humans go from one extreme to the other, we either achieve great things in such a small amount of time with no care in the world but to just get it done, but then other times it takes us years and years and mountains of bureaucratic paperwork to get something as simple as going over data and documents.

a reply to: JAY1980

Stop throwing logic around man!!!

a reply to: ScepticScot

lol

I don't WANT anything to be a conspiracy. I would prefer if everything were black and white and if people didn't lie and try to cover things up. Unfortunately that is not the world that we live in. I read everything your article had to say and obviously if they released 55,000 pages already either the time they requested was not actually required, or there was an ulterior motive behind the request for a delayed release.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ScepticScot

Pfizer whipped up a vaccine in less than a year. Why can't they whip up a team to analyse and go over all the data just as easily?

Boggles my mind sometimes how humans go from one extreme to the other, we either achieve great things in such a small amount of time with no care in the world but to just get it done, but then other times it takes us years and years and mountains of bureaucratic paperwork to get something as simple as going over data and documents.

Pfizer spent millions on researching the vaccine.

The data is being checked by small team at the FDA.

If you want to argue the FDA should be better funded then not sure I would disagree.