Pfizer Admits It Will Not Gain Regulatory Approval - Wants To Keep Using EUA

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Already fully approved here, some time ago in fact.

Do you know what 'provisionally approved' means?
'Provisionally approved' is not the same as 'fully approved'.

Do you have a link to where it says that where you are it's 'fully approved'?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: chr0naut

As you clearly have so much invested in this can you re-write your last post as it reads like a load of gibberish.

75 years they wanted to hide the data, stop pretending otherwise.

They didn't want to hide the data for 75 years (although something similar was alleged in court). The issue was that there were already more than 430,000 documents submitted by Pfizer to the FDA, and that the FDA thought that it would take more than 75 years for them to process all the documents into the public domain.

FDA Says It'll Take 75 Years to Fully Release Pfizer Vaccine Data

Wait what? FDA wants 55 years to process FOIA request over vaccine data

Does FDA Want Until 2076 To Release Vaccine Data?

Disclosing Pfizer vaccine data ‘may take until 2096’

in non clown world, if it takes 75 years to validate the data, then it should take 75 or more years to approve the drug. Of should we just ASSume it's all good news and go with it like we have been?

In those hundreds of thousands of documents, the FDA needs to ensure there are no patent infringements, or legal issues as to ownership of products, or data accuracy, with background checks of all contributors, and the correct attribution of related published scientific papers and studies, and if a fully rigorous peer review and scientific process was followed in all cross-linked or referenced sources as well as assuring that the conclusions drawn in the papers are valid and relevant to the observational data.

As these documents have to stand in perpetuity and have full scientific accuracy, it is bigger than just a culmination of clinical trial data.

Otherwise, it would be a clown world of dubious misinformation and snake-oil.

a reply to: chr0naut

Isn’t the above something that should have been done to determine if the vaccine is safe and effective?

Verifying that the documents are legitimate.

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff
a reply to: chr0naut

Isn’t the above something that should have been done to determine if the vaccine is safe and effective?

Verifying that the documents are legitimate.

It only takes 2 days for the FDA to review them, and of course the pay off to approve them.

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff
a reply to: chr0naut

Isn’t the above something that should have been done to determine if the vaccine is safe and effective?

Verifying that the documents are legitimate.

It is being done, and will continue to be done for all documents and data validated by the FDA.

However, the weight of existing validated documentation, is that the vaccines are safe and effective. Someone there seems to have decided that this is sufficient to allow approvals.

It would seem rather silly to never approve a medicine with already established safety and efficacy, just because the documentation validation process happens to be ongoing.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff
a reply to: chr0naut

Isn’t the above something that should have been done to determine if the vaccine is safe and effective?

Verifying that the documents are legitimate.

It is being done, and will continue to be done for all documents and data validated by the FDA.


It would seem rather silly to never approve a medicine with already established safety and efficacy, just because the documentation validation process happens to be ongoing.

25% of the drugs the FDA approves end up getting recalled for safety reasons. They do get paid off to approve them though. Pfizer has achieved a corporate capture of the FDA and CDC.

However, the weight of existing validated documentation, is that the vaccines are safe and effective. Someone there seems to have decided that this is sufficient to allow approvals.

"Someone"? That sounds reassuring. I'm sure some random person who is incorruptible will make the right decision that affects the entire planet. I know they would never put profit ahead of people like they are legally bound to do. Good thing they've never done this sort of thing in the past and had to pay the largest criminal lawsuit in history for doing so.

originally posted by: Tekner

Anti-vaxxers misrepresent Pfizer report to say 1200 died in the first months of rollout

Misrepresent? Pfizer even redacted the total number of vaccine recipients so if anyone is "misrepresenting" it would be them. Were there 10,000 total patients? 20,000? 5,000? The 1200 number is definitely worrying when they don't want to give you the total number that received the vaccine. I wonder why? Do you have stock in Pfizer? Or do you just defend big pharma for free? Seems like a waste of time.

There are only three redactions in the document.

- The first relates to additional staff taken on (unrelated to clinical data).

- The second relates to total staff numbers (unrelated to clinical data).

- The third relates to product delivery volumes. This is only partially relevant because some delivered doses are unused, or expired, or stockpiled for future use. And ultimately, those doses are actually administered by other parties, not by the supplier. And, as per the documents title, these were post authorization and not part of the pre release trials (again, unrelated to clinical data)

Here's the actual document, so you can read it for yourself and verify the truth of the matter:

5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021 (note, PDF file).

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff
a reply to: chr0naut

Isn’t the above something that should have been done to determine if the vaccine is safe and effective?

Verifying that the documents are legitimate.

It is being done, and will continue to be done for all documents and data validated by the FDA.


It would seem rather silly to never approve a medicine with already established safety and efficacy, just because the documentation validation process happens to be ongoing.

25% of the drugs the FDA approves end up getting recalled for safety reasons.

And you think that is a bad thing? Surely, the recall of drugs that are found to be unsafe is the very purpose of the FDA?

And do the pharma companies make money off drugs that are pulled off the market? Nope, so what is the profit motive behind pulling unsafe drugs?

They do get paid off to approve them though. Pfizer has achieved a corporate capture of the FDA and CDC.

Pfizer has had about 75 drugs recalled. Some companies have hundreds, some companies have very few. There is no reason to think that Pfizer has any special hold over the FDA, on the basis of the statistics.

FDA Drug Recall Statistics

Drug Recalls - FDA

You can see the fines applied by the FDA against Pfizer here: Pfizer | Violation Tracker Parent Company Summary.

However, the weight of existing validated documentation, is that the vaccines are safe and effective. Someone there seems to have decided that this is sufficient to allow approvals.

"Someone"? That sounds reassuring. I'm sure some random person who is incorruptible will make the right decision that affects the entire planet.

Firstly, the USA isn't the whole planet. It isn't even all of America. The FDA only serves, and has authority, in the USA. Most other countries have drug, chemical, and foodstuff regulatory agencies, entirely separate and foreign to the FDA. If there is corruption within the FDA, then it does not apply to other agencies, in other countries.

And I don't know the relatively anonymous committee meeting members who work at the FDA and make the decisions. There is probably a very good reason for keeping those staff members anonymous, because the drug companies don't know either, so the drug companies would have to be bribing off almost all of the something like 36,124 people employed directly by the FDA, to be sure they had them all 'in their pocket'.

I know they would never put profit ahead of people like they are legally bound to do. Good thing they've never done this sort of thing in the past and had to pay the largest criminal lawsuit in history for doing so.

Sure, we both know there have been allegations, prosecutions, and even some evidence of suspect dealings by the FDA. But that doesn't mean that everything is always that way. For the most part, the FDA has been a highly protective regulator with a fair record of actions contrary to big pharma's financial interests.

But that is really an off-topic red-herring, because several of the claims in the OP's video, and that you have claimed in your posts are provably false as evidenced by credible, official, and publicly available documentation.

Each time direct evidence of those points is tendered, you don't respond at all to the specific point, but instead, change the subject to some other aspect that seems to inform your opinions.

When asked a direct question, you need to reply to that point, and you should have hard evidence to support your argument. Argument by vague inferences, and fuzzy unsupported numbers, is weak.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: chr0naut

As you clearly have so much invested in this can you re-write your last post as it reads like a load of gibberish.

75 years they wanted to hide the data, stop pretending otherwise.

They didn't want to hide the data for 75 years (although something similar was alleged in court). The issue was that there were already more than 430,000 documents submitted by Pfizer to the FDA, and that the FDA thought that it would take more than 75 years for them to process all the documents into the public domain.

FDA Says It'll Take 75 Years to Fully Release Pfizer Vaccine Data

Wait what? FDA wants 55 years to process FOIA request over vaccine data

Does FDA Want Until 2076 To Release Vaccine Data?

Disclosing Pfizer vaccine data ‘may take until 2096’

So they put this vaccine together in under a year but need 75 years to release the data for said vaccine? Have they been working on it for 75 years and recording said data?10 years? 20 years? What is it?

Are we saying they can collate the data but need 75years release it?

Gtfoh, 75 years was a smokescreen, there's zero justification for such a number and if it truly takes 75years then they haven't truly studied the data and released a untested, unstudied drug into the population. (Which we already knew of course) these drug companies are evil corporate profit monkeys.

originally posted by: canuckster

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: chr0naut

As you clearly have so much invested in this can you re-write your last post as it reads like a load of gibberish.

75 years they wanted to hide the data, stop pretending otherwise.

They didn't want to hide the data for 75 years (although something similar was alleged in court). The issue was that there were already more than 430,000 documents submitted by Pfizer to the FDA, and that the FDA thought that it would take more than 75 years for them to process all the documents into the public domain.

FDA Says It'll Take 75 Years to Fully Release Pfizer Vaccine Data

Wait what? FDA wants 55 years to process FOIA request over vaccine data

Does FDA Want Until 2076 To Release Vaccine Data?

Disclosing Pfizer vaccine data ‘may take until 2096’

So they put this vaccine together in under a year but need 75 years to release the data for said vaccine? Have they been working on it for 75 years and recording said data?10 years? 20 years? What is it?

Are we saying they can collate the data but need 75years release it?

Gtfoh, 75 years was a smokescreen, there's zero justification for such a number and if it truly takes 75years then they haven't truly studied the data and released a untested, unstudied drug into the population. (Which we already knew of course) these drug companies are evil corporate profit monkeys.

They had the idea for mRNA vaccines back in 1975. The first successful 'proof of concept' in-vitro experiment was in 1989. The first successful in-vivo lipid encapsulated mRNA experiment was done in 1993.

At that time, most research began on possible vaccines against a number of cancers. The first human clinical trials of mRNA vaccines (not against COVID-19, of course) began in 2001.

BioNTech was founded in 2008 specifically to research mRNA biotechnologies.

Moderna was founded in 2010 specifically to research mRNA biotechnologies.

Human clinical trials of an mRNA vaccine against rabies began in 2013.

The advantage of mRNA vaccine technology is that changing out the mRNA payload of a vaccine only takes a maximum of about 48 hours (in fact, it has to happen quickly, or the mRNA strand would degrade, as it is chemically quite fragile).

The longest duration process of development of a new mRNA vaccine, is that of testing it.

mRNA vaccine From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The clinical and safety testing of of a vaccine can be done without a full biochemic description of the science. In fact, most vaccines, historically, were developed, tested, and approved, prior to anything being known of their specific biochemistry - that level of science just didn't exist at the time.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0


There is no approved Pfizer mRNA drug available in the US. We've been over this before. They "approved" corminaty but it's not available nor will it ever be most likely since by using an EUA they can never be sued.

This may be anecdotal, but my sister is a nurse at the clinic in town and I just texted her about this. She confirmed they have vials of Comirnaty sitting in the freezer as we speak right now. She offered to take a picture when she goes to work on Monday. She said they started coming in late last year branded as the new "Comirnaty".