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

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.

55 Years.
So, I guess that means that we're still waiting for the final data on any vaccine produced after 1967?

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

MY MY how attitudes have changed since 1 month ago.

Where was this laissez faire attitude 2 and a half years ago?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Well first the FDA did not ask US District Judge Mark Pittman for 75 years to release the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine data.

That is merely the “interpretation” of Aaron Siri, the lawyer working for PHMPT (Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency) he was pulling this number out of the air he could have easily said 100 years he was just trying to point out it would take a long time.

The FOIA request by PHMPT is being handled by the Access Litigation and Freedom of Information Branch at the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER).

This is a small department with just ten employees, including the director and two trainees. So they really have just seven people who are trained well enough to process FOIA requests.

This is why they asked them to prioritize and choose relative documents. The FDA asked PHMPT to narrow their request by specifying records they don’t require, so they can focus on processing the important documents they need.The FDA processes FOIA requests in 500-page blocks, which allow them to provide documents to more requesters, and avoid a few large requests monopolizing their “finite processing resources”. There are currently over 1000 requests being handled

Even if they all sat down and read for 8 hours a day, it would take them over 7 months just to read through the 329,000 pages ONCE. This doesn't include researching them to make sure they don't violate any laws and of course, editing them.

All said and done this department could finish in about 11 and a half years this is why they were trying to get them to e more specific on what they needed in the first place.

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.

Oversimplifying the process because you want it to be a conspiracy doesn't change that.

Strange nobody defending "the science" seemed concerned with oversimplification when demographics were lumped together and "total excess deaths" was used to push the severity of COVID mortality.

Funny, innit?

a reply to: vonclod

Absolutely. The average person receiving the vaccine now will be dead or darn near it when the data finally gets released. There will be no victims left alive to file suit that way.

a reply to: dragonridr

The FDA doesn't ask for time to do their job at all. It is what it is and they don't need to ask permission. It was pfizer who said they would release the data 75 years from now. And if we are to believe the bs, that was due to the FDA saying that is how long it would take them to review it. Which is a bunch of crap. There is nothing stopping a bigger workforce from being tasked with that job, except the idea that the information will be released while victims are still alive.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: vonclod

Absolutely. The average person receiving the vaccine now will be dead or darn near it when the data finally gets released. There will be no victims left alive to file suit that way.

Yes, there are two ways to look at it.
#1..no data provided till recipients expired.

#2..it would take a lifetime, to understand/study the very long term effects.

My thought was just a random guess, I'm sure there is nuance to it..but 75 years???

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: dragonridr

The FDA doesn't ask for time to do their job at all. It is what it is and they don't need to ask permission. It was pfizer who said they would release the data 75 years from now. And if we are to believe the bs, that was due to the FDA saying that is how long it would take them to review it. Which is a bunch of crap. There is nothing stopping a bigger workforce from being tasked with that job, except the idea that the information will be released while victims are still alive.

Actually, there is that department that has to work within a vault and is one of the few individuals with a clearance to see everything. Even the president cant make that claim. You cant just hire people to do this takes training and a lot of vetting

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I don’t imagine that the IRS is very understanding when someone tells them that it will take 55 years to get receipts and other paperwork together. Try asking for one year and see how that goes.

The government owes the citizens this information and 55 years is unacceptable.
Governments all over the planet have peed away a ridiculous amount of money on this pandemic and all of a sudden we are told “can’t do it. Not enough staff, not enough time, not enough money.

The typical BS. LOL

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Narvasis

Or you could just look it up

www.techarp.com...

He asked why you thought . Not why you belief everything you hear . Not what someone is telling you to think . He asked what you thought .

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: dragonridr

The FDA doesn't ask for time to do their job at all. It is what it is and they don't need to ask permission. It was pfizer who said they would release the data 75 years from now. And if we are to believe the bs, that was due to the FDA saying that is how long it would take them to review it. Which is a bunch of crap. There is nothing stopping a bigger workforce from being tasked with that job, except the idea that the information will be released while victims are still alive.

Actually, there is that department that has to work within a vault and is one of the few individuals with a clearance to see everything. Even the president cant make that claim. You cant just hire people to do this takes training and a lot of vetting

I wonder how they managed to review all of these pages in the first place.

Isn’t most of the documentation required to be reviewed to determine if the product is safe and effective? Then wouldn’t individuals reviewing it have to consult each other to compare and record findings?

Smells kinda fishy.

originally posted by: strongfp
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.

It’s the data buddy . The data is the data . Are you that ignorant that you think we should never have the answers to anything g because someone might try to spin it ???????? Are you really that naive ???? Do you really want your info spoonfed to you straight from the global elites mouth ????? Have you ever tried to think for yourself ???? Have you ever thought the Democrats are fascists who are shutting down free speech ??????? Have you ever thought the republicans are complicit ?????????? Have you ever thought the rest of the world operates just the exact same ?????????? Seriously the msm has always done your thinking for you . Thank you for answering honestly . I think for you , it’s time to evolve . Look around and you can see what goes on . You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

a reply to: vonclod

Google average lifespans.. Google what average means.. so I suppose unless you are insanely unlucky.. you could have the majority of people with "shorter lifespans" in your trial.. but then anything outside of that should not exist.

Google probabilities, the chances of having 14,000 people die during a non-deadly/"easy solution"(as one member put it..) trial would be astronomical.

originally posted by: BlackArrow
a reply to: vonclod

Google average lifespans.. Google what average means.. so I suppose unless you are insanely unlucky.. you could have the majority of people with "shorter lifespans" in your trial.. but then anything outside of that should not exist.

Google probabilities, the chances of having 14,000 people die during a non-deadly/"easy solution"(as one member put it..) trial would be astronomical.

It was just my random thought, the kind of legalese that might be used as an excuse/reason.

a reply to: Narvasis

That's easy.

Because the crap has massive side effects that they do not want the general public to know about. It doesn't get much easier than that.

Also, if you have not noticed, the US isn't allowing any other vaccines like NovaVax and they have demonized EVERYTHING except the Pfizer and Moderna MRNA.

There isn't any profit motivation there at all?

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Narvasis

That's easy.

Because the crap has massive side effects that they do not want the general public to know about. It doesn't get much easier than that.

Also, if you have not noticed, the US isn't allowing any other vaccines like NovaVax and they have demonized EVERYTHING except the Pfizer and Moderna MRNA.

There isn't any profit motivation there at all?

They're also still not allowing ivermectin while they quickly approved pfizermectin aka paxlovid.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

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.

Oversimplifying the process because you want it to be a conspiracy doesn't change that.

Strange nobody defending "the science" seemed concerned with oversimplification when demographics were lumped together and "total excess deaths" was used to push the severity of COVID mortality.

Funny, innit?

Possibly not concerned because that's a stupid comparison.

originally posted by: Bringittothelight

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Narvasis

Or you could just look it up

www.techarp.com...

He asked why you thought . Not why you belief everything you hear . Not what someone is telling you to think . He asked what you thought .

The link shows why it takes time to release the documents.

Stop using baseless conspiracy theories as replacement for thinking.

Pfizer didn't request 75 years to release their clinical trial data. That was the FDA's response of releasing 500 pages per month to fulfill an FOIA request.
That had nothing to do with Pfizer requesting a slow timeline, rather it was due to the FDA's FOIA department having 10 employees, there being ~400 requests ahead of that one, and the legal requirement to redact sensitive patient info (personal data) and Pfizer/BioNTech trade secrets or confidential business information. So, yeah, big ol nothingburger here...
reply to: Narvasis

originally posted by: underpass61

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.

55 Years.
So, I guess that means that we're still waiting for the final data on any vaccine produced after 1967?

Can you show a similar scale FOI request from the 1960s?