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

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

If you're going to force people to take an experimental gene therapy then you better show your work immediately instead of hiding it. Your "FDA small team" excuse doesn't cut it. Pfizer paid the FDA a 2.8 million dollar use fee alone to sign off on it.

We all know the real story, and you're not fooling anyone.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Narvasis

Or you could just look it up

www.techarp.com...

Interesting choice of sources there. Who is Dr. Adrian Wong?

Tech ARP (pronounced as Tech Up), is a Malaysian technology news and information website created by Adrian Wong in 1997. It publishes news, reviews and guides on issues such as computer hardware and software, science, technology policy, and video games.[citation needed]

en.wikipedia.org...

It gets better...

Tech ARP aims to focus on subjects that are rarely or never touched by other sites. It believes that it's better to provide some information on a little-known subject than add more to the mountain of information on well-researched subjects.

Uh, huh. Sure. That sounds like a trusted source of information.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

Uh-huh. Congress spent how many billions in COVID relief? In their wisdom they couldn't allocate a tiny miniscule fraction to this cause? Sure they could have. Would be common sense. But they didn't. Why?

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

Uh-huh. Congress spent how many billions in COVID relief? In their wisdom they couldn't allocate a tiny miniscule fraction to this cause? Sure they could have. Would be common sense. But they didn't. Why?

That sure does seem to be a very weak excuse, with all the $$$ thrown around..you can't hire a bigger team?..that defies belief, and shame on anyone for believing it.

a reply to: vonclod

It’s like

Me-“Hey boss, I completed that project in record time for you”

Boss-“Great work! Please can you submit the engineering documents, hazard assessment, and your project notes?”

Me-“Sure, I’ll have that to you in 55 years, I rushed so I’m a bit disorganized”

Boss-“No problem, do you mind if we pay you then? Just in case it needs to be re-engineered due to safety issues?”

What a joke.

a reply to: NorthOfStuff
It defies belief, if that's the stated reason.

I have to say, the number of genuine responses to this thread is amazing. Amazing its at zero and staying there apparently. Not one single person answered the question in their own words and explained why 'they' think it should take 55 or 75 years to get answers on what exactly is in these injections and what it does to the body. Not one.

I do not believe the excuse "We only have 10 people to do this" for a minute. Not even a second. This is democrat-land right now. Big government, no bill is too high to pay with taxpayer money, we can always go bigger if we have to... If a democrat thought this mattered they would have thrown thousands of people at it. All of them making big bucks working for Uncle Sam. And they wouldn't let it end. They would just sidestep to another project when this one is finished. Why let go of a perfectly good money drain if you don't have to? That is a whole lot of corrupt democrat children, nieces, and nephews, to take off the payroll for watching a handful of real employees do the actual work.

Does anyone believe not enough people is the answer? Anyone? Really?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

I don't think anyone wants this to be a conspiracy but it is because of the way it was pushed on people with massive advertising budgets, pushed as "safe and effective" long before enough time went by for that assessment, huge censorship of opposing opinions, huge propaganda in the media, coercion to the level of threats of job loss, shaming and shunning those who don't get on board.

My question to the pro-vax people would be... Why are you surprised that some people are suspicious of the way the shots were promoted?

We all want this over, not to continue as a conspiracy but the conspiracy exists because what the governments did to it's population was unethical. To some of us anyhow.

I have to say, the number of genuine responses to this thread is amazing. Amazing its at zero and staying there apparently. Not one single person answered the question in their own words and explained why 'they' think it should take 55 or 75 years to get answers on what exactly is in these injections and what it does to the body.

That conclusion is indicative that tptb already conducted research
and profiled a % of the populace most susceptible to following
science without resistance.

a reply to: MiddleInsite

Lol, what work? I posed a very simple question to you. You are deflecting because you can not answer the way you want to, a way that would fit your narrative that you are so attached to. Answer the question or simply do not post in this thread again.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Or you could just answer the question posed directly to you, instead of deflecting and trying to let someone else answer it for you. Buck up fella, you talk a big game, back it up. Answer a simple question.

a reply to: schuyler

Not fake at all. Takes two seconds to look up. However it doesn’t fit your narrative so you probably won’t bother to do some actual individual research. I’m sure multiple other people here will provide you with links, which looking through the comments they already have. Please post your sources for this being false.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The better question is.

If the FDA didn't have the staff to go over these results the first time why the hell did they approve it? (Obviously it would take 55years to go through everything.. hahaha)

"If" they went over research AT ALL during the approval process they could of easily redacted names and "trade secrets" as they went.

IMO, the *current* members of the FDA did not review any data that arrived from these companies. When the a handful FDA members said "I will not approve the vaccines until I go through the data with a fine tooth comb" before they "stepped down" (magically replaced the same day by people who approved the vaccines without question - aka bought and paid for).

FDA members step down

I believe that if the FDA actually went through these papers that were more "recently" given to them(proof they approved a drug without data). Then that handful of FDA members that was holding up approval, would of stayed on the current team.

Chances are they were threatened, feared their lives and couldn't in good conciousness approve the vaccines without data. Which those who stepped in their place had zero issues to do. Which only proves they did NOT go through any data regarding the safety of said vaccines and simply approved the vaccine based on what politicians(NOT DRs, or researchers) told them.

don't listen to the FDA, Biden admin pushes booster program without approval

2 months later after senior staff at the FDA steps down, the booster was approved.

Pay attention to how close the times are. That tells you all you need to know. 2 months to go over 55,000 pages of data submitted to the FDA.. that they couldn't be bothered to release without a court order.

The FDA passed drugs on the whims of pharmacy and politicians only. Science was never reviewed, or even considered.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I have to say, the number of genuine responses to this thread is amazing. Amazing its at zero and staying there apparently. Not one single person answered the question in their own words and explained why 'they' think it should take 55 or 75 years to get answers on what exactly is in these injections and what it does to the body. Not one.

I do not believe the excuse "We only have 10 people to do this" for a minute. Not even a second. This is democrat-land right now. Big government, no bill is too high to pay with taxpayer money, we can always go bigger if we have to... If a democrat thought this mattered they would have thrown thousands of people at it. All of them making big bucks working for Uncle Sam. And they wouldn't let it end. They would just sidestep to another project when this one is finished. Why let go of a perfectly good money drain if you don't have to? That is a whole lot of corrupt democrat children, nieces, and nephews, to take off the payroll for watching a handful of real employees do the actual work.

Does anyone believe not enough people is the answer? Anyone? Really?

This is really the smoking gun. They tried to hide the horrible trial results. And even after they released it, they still redacted it, like the denominator for a particular trial size of a subset of people. So when you see 1200 deaths in the first few months, you can't tell out of how many people, it's redacted. But there were 40k people in one trial subset originally. There's no way to tell what that number is now.

With any other drug, once you reach 50 deaths, it gets pulled from the market. When a bag of lettuce contains some ecoli, it's a nationwide emergency recall for god sakes.

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

Nope.

Because they can't bullshizz their way out of this one.

a reply to: Narvasis

ATS should have an “unanswerable question trophy”

You are the current title holder.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I have to say, the number of genuine responses to this thread is amazing. Amazing its at zero and staying there apparently. Not one single person answered the question in their own words and explained why 'they' think it should take 55 or 75 years to get answers on what exactly is in these injections and what it does to the body. Not one.

I do not believe the excuse "We only have 10 people to do this" for a minute. Not even a second. This is democrat-land right now. Big government, no bill is too high to pay with taxpayer money, we can always go bigger if we have to... If a democrat thought this mattered they would have thrown thousands of people at it. All of them making big bucks working for Uncle Sam. And they wouldn't let it end. They would just sidestep to another project when this one is finished. Why let go of a perfectly good money drain if you don't have to? That is a whole lot of corrupt democrat children, nieces, and nephews, to take off the payroll for watching a handful of real employees do the actual work.

Does anyone believe not enough people is the answer? Anyone? Really?

Upon reflection, I would like to add this: Why did pfizer ASK for 75 years in the first place? IF the estimate is correct, the fact that they asked for that many years implies that pfizer knew how many people at the FDA would be working on it, what their work load is, what their expected work load will be for the next 75 years, and how long it would take them, page by page, to review the data. Without that knowledge it would be nearly impossible to just blindly pull that number out of their arse and have it magically match the eventual estimate by the FDA itself.

Does anyone really believe this crap?

a reply to: Vroomfondel
Could it be, the lifespan +/- of a person being in a control group?


Just a wild guess.

a reply to: Narvasis

Came from a lawyer so probably securing any legal means to buy as much time as possible to redact and hide things. As for good reasons meh.

Wonder why they would treat it like some JFK files or something it a bit queasy.

a reply to: TruthJava

That is a easy problem to solve that doesnt take that long and they can afford it. Best explanation yet though even if justification of delay not a lifetime delay.