(A.K.A. Non-Original Rants)

–Co-opting good stuff from all over the ‘Net and maybe some original thoughts—ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

________________________________________________________________________________________________

55 Years

 The FDA has asked a judge for 55 years to review its data on the Pfizer jab before it releases it per a FOIA request.  It claims it has to go through all the information line by line so as not to release confidential information.

The Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency had filed the FOIA and then had to subsequently file a lawsuit in order to even get the FDA to respond to them.  The lawsuit requested that the information be provided within 108 days, which is how long the FDA presumably reviewed Pfizer’s data before granting its licensing approval.

The FDA also said:  “FDA’s regulations do not require or suggest that FDA will release all publicly releasable data immediately after a biologics license application is approved.”  

It’s pretty clear they are hiding something and are hiding behind regs, or lack thereof despite their multiple, in writing, assurances of transparency.

Could it be that a whistleblower has proof that the vaxx trials were a pile of crap?

Or that Pfizer lied about the number of people that died in a key trial–that more people died who took the shots than the placebo group?

It’ll be interesting to hear what the judge has to say.

Via Gateway Pundit and from Israel National News.



10 responses to “55 Years”

  1. 55 Years!? Well, by then they should have a better idea of the damage causede by the vaccines and none of the perps will be alive to worry about a statute of limitations. It is worrisome that the judge didn't just laugh in their faces.

    Like

  2. Wow… Yep, time for a judge to step in and require compliance, which they will ignore, just like Xiden tells them to.

    Like

  3. Mike-SMO–Yeah, the judge should have told 'em they have a week to do it considering how they stonewalled the original request.NFO–Unfortunately that's probably how it will shake out!

    Like

  4. A “vaccine” does not go from 97% effective to 70% effective in under a year.Somebody fudged the data. Delta or no Delta, this stinks.

    Like

  5. Gerry–The latest info I saw is that the effectiveness goes to nil in about two months.

    Like

  6. 55 Years!? Well, by then they should have a better idea of the damage causede by the vaccines and none of the perps will be alive to worry about a statute of limitations. It is worrisome that the judge didn't just laugh in their faces.

    Like

  7. Wow… Yep, time for a judge to step in and require compliance, which they will ignore, just like Xiden tells them to.

    Like

  8. Mike-SMO–Yeah, the judge should have told 'em they have a week to do it considering how they stonewalled the original request.NFO–Unfortunately that's probably how it will shake out!

    Like

  9. A “vaccine” does not go from 97% effective to 70% effective in under a year.Somebody fudged the data. Delta or no Delta, this stinks.

    Like

  10. Gerry–The latest info I saw is that the effectiveness goes to nil in about two months.

    Like

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *