Pfizer Transparency Rarer Than a Santa Sighting
Transcribed by Anne Dachel. Update: The video has been removed. Anne is suspended from Facebook for running it.
December 16, 2021 (Australia) Kalkine Media Explosive revelations about FDA and Pfizer’s COVID vaccine [PART 1]
The highly confidential Pfizer documents, which for the past 20 months have been synonymous with the extreme lack of transparency exposed by the actions of key government agencies, prompted critics of the official narrative to demand “show us the data.” finally revealed – well, the first few hundred edited pages from a pool of 451,000.
What led to the disclosure?
The rift at Pfizer and the iron data security of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) came in the form of a publication of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) with the request submitted on August 27, 2021 for access to all Pfizer documentation that relates to the FDA to approve the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine for emergency approval. An agency that has received a FOIA request must “decide within 20 business days of receiving such a request whether to comply with such a request,” as set out in the 1967 FOIA Act. It took three months for the FDA to publish the first 91 edited pages on November 20.
Kalkine Media-Anker, James Preston: With billions of COVID-19 vaccinations ordered by various governments, the desire for more information about the process of creating and approving them by governing bodies has peaked.
The FDA, or Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for regulating the vaccine in the United States, was recently presented with a Freedom of Information request by a group of 30 scientists and academics from around the world who were given a glimpse into the vaccine’s approval process wanted Pfizer vaccine.
The first 500 pages were approved by the drug manufacturer, and to talk us through the documentation, an investigative journalist is from TrialSite News, https://trialsitenews.com/ Sonja Elija.
… Let’s talk about the insane response from the FDA and how long they actually want to publish this information.
Can you walk us through the timeframe?
Sonia Elijah: Around August 23rd, the FDA has licensed the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine for people aged 16 and over. Then, a few days later, a large group of about 30 scientists and academics filed a Freedom of Information Act filing to review all of the records the FDA relied on to actually approve the vaccine in an emergency.
Under FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act, the 1967 law, an agency has 20 business days to 20 days to decide whether to comply.
It took the FDA, I think it was around November 20th when they released the first batch of documents and what they released with less than one percent of the actual documentation they have. You have up to 471,000 pages. They only released a few hundred.
They replied that they would publish a rate of 500 pages per month. That would take them until 2076 to release all of the documentation.
Then they came back and said we actually have extra pages it will take until 2096 for all information to be made public. So it’s really shocking.
Preston: Given that this has been implemented on such a large scale, we should get this information as soon as possible and, for me, 70 years is nowhere near the timeframe.
What is the usual processing time for an inquiry under the Freedom of Information Act?
Elijah: It takes about 20 working days for an agency to decide whether to comply with the request, 20 working days.
Preston: But in terms of delivering the actual documentation, is that something we can normally see for this amount of information?
It is probably not something we have looked at too often in the past in terms of the amount of pages and documentation.
When we see things like a hundred thousand pages, what is usually the turnaround time? Is that maybe a month after this application was made?
Elijah: Well I know they can do a lot better than 500 pages a month. So you are literally at a snail’s pace. You pull with your feet. They are doing everything to increase the time for it.
It’s really shocking. People, you know, the public deserves to know, and the FDA has to work a lot harder to get the FOIA request off the ground.
Preston: Let’s take a look at the first 500 pages for ourselves. What is generally covered in this first version and what time frame does it focus on in relation to the approval process?
Elijah: So the analysis that I conducted was aimed at a specific document called The Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of the Pfizer Vaccine, which covers the period 1st, 2021. That is a period of 3 months, that we’re talking about.
There is a lot that you can learn from this document, although there are many unknowns. Unfortunately, it is an edited document.
Although we do not know the number of total doses given, we cannot calculate the incidence rate. But what we do know is that there were approximately 1,228 deaths in that three month period.
[This] is very alarming as Pfizer’s former chief medical officer spoke to the Washington Journal in April this year, who said there were no deaths directly from the vaccine and that no trade-offs have been made.
It’s pretty shocking to know that this document has been drawn up – well, the cut-off date was February 28th of this year.
Then we have the astonishing number of adverse events. We’re talking about 40,000 adverse events that have been recorded.
Not only that, so these are individual, actually – I’m making a mistake – 40,000 individual cases, i.e. for the people who report, and then 150,000 events, i.e. a type of symptom.
In one case, you can have different symptoms, three or four symptoms associated with one person.
Preston: How closely are these actual side effects linked to Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, according to the document?
According to this report, is there a direct link?
Elijah: Which is interesting because they give us some stats that they talk about, they give us the mean score. So, for many of these event results, the median is less than 24 hours.
This means that it takes less than 24 hours from the time a person took this vaccine to the time they actually had a side effect.
Then, for example, you have the anaphylaxis category, you have nine registered deaths, and of the nine deaths, four deaths occurred on the same day that the people took the vaccine. So that gives a very strong clue as to the cause of vaccine death.
Preston: That’s a very close connection based on, especially as you say, four on the same day.
Also from this report, which I saw with TrialSite News, it emerges that women are actually disproportionately affected by the drug.
What can you tell us about it?
Elijah: It is truly alarming to see that for literally all adverse event categories, women are three times more likely to be affected by these adverse events.
But what is particularly striking is the category of anaphylaxis. You are eight times more likely to have women affected by this adverse event. It is very alarming.
It shows that there is a gender-specific safety risk for vaccines here.
It is also very alarming that, according to Pfiser, no new security risks are listed in this document.
So there is nothing new to report here. So it’s all kind of brushed under the rug.
Preston: I know we certainly have hesitated a bit here in Australia from our general practitioners and other doctors who suggested that you want to have children soon, if you are pregnant then you shouldn’t take the vaccine.
What was the scenario like in the UK, for example? Is that a similar situation?
Elijah: I think pregnant women are advised to take the vaccine here to protect themselves, to protect their unborn child.
It is very worrying because there is a category in this document called Missing Information …
It was missing in the original box that was sent to the FDA.
What I’ve analyzed, what I’ve reported on, is kind of a modified version of what Pfizer put before the FDA. So they now contain the missing information related to pregnancy and breastfeeding.
You have adverse events there. They have spontaneous abortions and premature births and neonatal deaths.
Preston: Spontaneous abortions. Can you elaborate on that? What exactly does that mean? Are these pregnancies that were otherwise completely healthy up to this point in time?
Elijah: Yes, so it’s kind of a pregnant mother who has a miscarriage. It’s very alarming.
Preston: Is this in the same 24-hour period, so to speak? Which period do we consider for this data set?
Elijah: I actually only look at myself, for pregnant women – it’s a pretty long report I’ve written, so I basically don’t have any data for it, but I remember there have been about 270 unusual pregnancies and there have been about 25 spontaneous abortions as far as I can remember.
And we are talking about a 3 month period and as we know we are approaching a year of the vaccine.