Delta variant and all future global variant surges (all are free post)

[Stoic]

Just release the data already. What are they hiding?

Apparently, the data has to be reviewed so that no confidential details or trade secrets are revealed.

I suppose we could have Pfizer do that, as the author suggests, but it seems like there might be a conflict of interest.

[Mountain Man]

Just release the data already. What are they hiding?

FDA Asks the Court to Delay First 55,000 Page Production Until May and Pfizer Moves to Intervene in the Lawsuit

Surely it's obvious: they don't want to let everybody know how wonderful the vaccine really is because it would create a demand they can't meet.

[oxmixmudd]

Sure, you could try to spin it that way. The nice thing about graphs is that they're open to interpretation.

Not any interpretation MM. And that wasn't spin, that was the science of it.

[seanD]

Apparently, the data has to be reviewed so that no confidential details or trade secrets are revealed.

I suppose we could have Pfizer do that, as the author suggests, but it seems like there might be a conflict of interest.

The author of the article argues the delay is just a bogus excuse to keep the data hidden as long as possible.

It is understandable that the FDA does not want independent scientists to review the documents it relied upon to license Pfizer’s vaccine given that it is not as effective as the FDA originally claimed, does not prevent transmission, does not prevent against certain emerging variants, can cause serious heart inflammation in younger individuals, and has numerous other undisputed safety issues.[1] However, the FDA’s potential embarrassment over its decision to license this product must take a back seat to the transparency demanded by FOIA and the urgent need and interests of the American people to review that licensure data. The Court already recognized this unprecedented urgent need in its January 6th order directing the FDA to produce 55,000 pages per month.

The FDA now insists it must delay its first 55,000-page production until May 1, 2022 – four months after the Court entered its order. However, the FDA’s own papers seeking this delay make plain it can produce at a rate of 55,000 pages per month in February and March. The FDA affirms it has already “allocated the equivalent of nearly 11 full-time staff to this project” and that “a review speed of 50 documents per hour was within the normal range for document review in a complex matter” in private practice; and here the 50 document per hour rate would be faster since there is only a need to review for personally identifying information (“PII”) for most pages. Hence, if the FDA’s 11 full-time reviewers work only 7.5 hours per day and review 50 pages (not documents) per hour, the FDA could review over 88,000 pages per month in February and March. That is more than sufficient to produce the 55,000 pages per month currently ordered for these two months.

[Mountain Man]

Not any interpretation MM. And that wasn't spin, that was the science of it.

Right.

[Stoic]

The author of the article argues the delay is just a bogus excuse to keep the data hidden as long as possible.

The author of the article may argue that, but I don't get the impression he is exactly free of bias.

What the judge said was, "Here, the Court recognizes the “unduly burdensome” challenges that this FOIA request may present to the FDA," but he decided that it was necessary anyway.

[seanD]

The author of the article may argue that, but I don't get the impression he is exactly free of bias.

What the judge said was, "Here, the Court recognizes the “unduly burdensome” challenges that this FOIA request may present to the FDA," but he decided that it was necessary anyway.

Being that the author offered a plausible mathematical equation why the two month time period for release of the data is reasonable, and being that the initial delay was absurdly longer (75 years I believe!), it seems the author is perfectly reasonable and logical in his argument, and it's actually you with the bias because you're in the covid cult.

[Stoic]

Being that the author offered a plausible mathematical equation why the two month time period for release of the data is reasonable, and being that the initial delay was absurdly longer (75 years I believe!), it seems the author is perfectly reasonable and logical in his argument, and it's actually you with the bias because you're in the covid cult.

The 75 years was not a delay, but the total time to complete, and it was that long because of the amount of data requested and the fact that the FDA has a bunch of other FOIAs to deal with. And that was also before the 11 people put on this case because of the judge's order.

As for the requested 2 month delay, I haven't seen the FDA's explanation. I'm sure the judge will be able to sort it out.

[seanD]

The 75 years was not a delay, but the total time to complete, and it was that long because of the amount of data requested and the fact that the FDA has a bunch of other FOIAs to deal with. And that was also before the 11 people put on this case because of the judge's order.

Okay.

[Sparko]

Well it is more than just reading the documents. They also have to decide what parts need to be redacted and then redact them and then have their work checked. That does slow things down considerably. Especially on documents that are technical in nature. What I am more worried about is that they will redact anything incriminating too.

[Roy]

I have seen examples of people exaggerating the other side - that the vaccine isn't just useless, but detrimental and even lethal.

That would be me, as when I cite Alex Berenson

It wouldn't be you. I was reminded of the idiot who claimed that athletes were dying after being vaccinated, citing a pack of lies. Your cite is bad, but theirs was far worse.

[seanD]

Kudos to all the anti-mask parents fighting against school mandates.

Speech Therapist: 364% Surge in Baby and Toddler Referrals Thanks to Mask Wearing

A speech therapist says that mask wearing during the pandemic has caused a 364% increase in patient referrals of babies and toddlers.

Jaclyn Theek told WPBF News that before the pandemic, only 5 per cent of patients were babies and toddlers, but this has soared to 20 per cent. Parents are describing their children’s speech problems as “COVID delayed,” with face coverings the primary cause of their speaking skills being seriously impaired.

As young as 8 months old, babies start learning how to speak by reading lips, a thankless task if parents and carers smother themselves with masks to comply with mandates. “It’s very important kids do see your face to learn, so they’re watching your mouth,” said Theek.

The news report featured one such mother, Briana Gay, who is raising five children but having speech problems with her youngest. “It definitely makes a difference when the world you’re growing up in you can’t interact with people and their face, that’s super important to babies,” said Gay.

According to Theek, since the pandemic, autism symptoms are also skyrocketing. “They’re not making any word attempts and not communicating at all with their family,” she said. As we previously highlighted, Forbes deleted an article written by an education expert who asserted that forcing schoolchildren to wear face masks was causing psychological trauma.

A study by researchers at Brown University found that mean IQ scores of young children born during the pandemic have tumbled by as much as 22 points while verbal, motor and cognitive performance have all suffered as a result of lockdown.

Michael Curzon noted that two of the primary causes for this are face masks and children being atomized as a result of being kept away from other children.

“Children born over the past year of lockdowns – at a time when the Government has prevented babies from seeing elderly relatives and other extended family members, from socialising at parks or with the children of their parent’s friends, and from studying the expressions on the faces behind the masks of locals in indoor public spaces – have significantly reduced verbal, motor and overall cognitive performance compared to children born before, according to a new U.S. study. Tests on early learning, verbal development and non-verbal development all produced results that were far behind those from the years preceding the lockdowns,” he wrote.

Perhaps all the virtue signalers who think of themselves as such morally upstanding people for wearing masks will change their behavior given they are literally contributing to causing major cognitive problems in children.

Or maybe they simply won’t care, given that the mask is now a political status symbol above anything else.

[Stoic]

Well it is more than just reading the documents. They also have to decide what parts need to be redacted and then redact them and then have their work checked. That does slow things down considerably. Especially on documents that are technical in nature. What I am more worried about is that they will redact anything incriminating too.

Are you suggesting that there may be something in the Pfizer documents that would incriminate someone at the FDA, or that reviewers at the FDA would cover up something in the documents that incriminates Pfizer employees?

It seems to me that if there was something incriminating there, it would have been easier to just leave it out than to include it and then conspire to keep it secret.

[Starlight]

It wouldn't be you. I was reminded of the idiot who claimed that athletes were dying after being vaccinated, citing a pack of lies. Your cite is bad, but theirs was far worse.

Was skim reading the posts and misread that as "atheists" dying, rather than "athletes"... pulled me up short!

Thinking about it, I'm kinda surprised the crazies haven't latched onto that sort of idea... Maybe the vaccine is secretly a satanic conspiracy plot by atheists to kill Christians?

[Starlight]

Are you suggesting that there may be something in the Pfizer documents that would incriminate someone at the FDA, or that reviewers at the FDA would cover up something in the documents that incriminates Pfizer employees?

It seems to me that if there was something incriminating there, it would have been easier to just leave it out than to include it and then conspire to keep it secret.

Didn't you know there are hundreds of pages of documents hidden in there saying "OMG, this vaccine kills half the people who take it!!! You'll have to bribe us extra extra extra much to approve something that bad!... No, more than that please.... Yes, okay, that much money. Thanks. Vaccine approved."?

Given that the vaccines have now been used on hundreds of millions of people and severe side-effects have been found to be extremely rare, it is kinda baffling what the crazies think they'll actually find in the FDA approval documents.