Pfizer Document Released Under FOI Shows 1 in 34 Adverse Events Were Deaths

[Sheepy]

Something I have noticed those Psychologists at Sage now starting to put distance between themselves and the government, funny old world isn't it Boris is running out of friends fast.

[Nick]

Did you ignore this one?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants-55-years-process-foia-request-over-vaccine-data-2021-11-18/

So, tell me more about this conspiracy that you have, where Reuters quote an organization who have this fake document on their website.  I predict, Nick, the egg shall soon need cleaning off your face.  😉

They've requested 1/3 of a million papers, if you read about it, it is a lot of work even for 55 years. 

That doesn't vindicate you posting fake documents. 

[Sheepy]

So many schoolboy mistakes.

Don't take it so hard, public schoolboys and their cohorts are known for being as thick as a brick. Just because they lied and got themselves in this mess in the first place, I don't see it being so easy lying their way out of it. The science is really closing in. 

[Scott777]

From Reuters:

"Defendant respectfully requests a scheduling conference with the Court for the Court to set
a schedule for the processing of documents. Defendant proposed a processing schedule in the
Joint Report and resubmits it here for ease of reference. FDA proposes to process and produce the
non-exempt portions of the following records by the following dates:
• November 17:
o From Section 5.2 of the Biologics License Application ("BLA") file:
▪ The Tabular Listing
▪ The Listing of Clinical Sites
o The Reports of Postmarketing Experience from Section 5.3.6 of the BLA"


The plaintiff being "Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency", who have published the document.

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/egvbkaeggpq/vaccine%20foia%20status%20report.pdf

[Scott777]

So no link to this officially issued document? I also notice you have totally disregarded the fact that the document was changed 7 months after it was created, any thought on that?

The truth is that you know it's fake, I know it's fake, but you're that far down the conspiracy theory road you can't admit it without like looking stupid.

Did you ignore this one?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants-55-years-process-foia-request-over-vaccine-data-2021-11-18/

So, tell me more about this conspiracy that you have, where Reuters quote an organization who have this fake document on their website.  I predict, Nick, the egg shall soon need cleaning off your face.  😉

[Nick]

I can't say I am exactly impressed by the brains of the outfit.

So many schoolboy mistakes. 

[Sheepy]

It's the last paragraph before the graph, where they have subtly left out words.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00258-1/fulltext?s=08

I can't say I am exactly impressed by the brains of the outfit.

[Sheepy]

Viewspot on Twitter: ""Unfortunately, misinformation tends to spread through networks the Government doesn't have access to...these aren't people who are plugged into the 6 o'clock news every night...they're getting their information from sources we don't have any real ability to influence" https://t.co/GeCmspCekW" / Twitter

[papasmurf]

It's the last paragraph before the graph, where they have subtly left out words.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00258-1/fulltext?s=08

What words? I agree with these words? 


Many decisionmakers assume that the vaccinated can be excluded as a source of transmission. It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures.

[Sheepy]

Have you  a link to that article please. (I have looked at the Lancet website and can't find it.)

Maybe after they quickly reworded it, they thought it better to bury it Smurphy. I am sure Nick can find the new one if he tries.

[Nick]

Have you  a link to that article please. (I have looked at the Lancet website and can't find it.)

It's the last paragraph before the graph, where they have subtly left out words. 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00258-1/fulltext?s=08

[papasmurf]

You can Pappy cause they have changed the headline, look for the article on the Lancet website and you'll see the wording has been changed.

Have you  a link to that article please. (I have looked at the Lancet website and can't find it.)

[Nick]

I can't argue with that which is why events I am going to have a requirement for a negative Covid test within 36 hours of arrival.

You can Pappy cause they have changed the headline, look for the article on the Lancet website and you'll see the wording has been changed.

[Nick]

New Lancet Study: It Is Grossly Negligent To Ignore The Vaccinated Population As A Source of Transmission – The Expose (dailyexpose.uk)

For a start, the website you linked to has a trust score of 21.6 out of 100 so is totally unreliable.
Secondly, the headline has been changed, that is not what the Lancet said.


Yet again,

[Nick]

"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released the first batch of documents related to Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine after a federal judge ordered that they must comply with a massive Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that was filed by a government accountability group called Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency."

Oh, but you can ignore this, Nick and Smurf, because you are the arbiters of which media is important and official, and which is not.  😉

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/court-orders-fda-comply-foia-release-information-pfizer-eua-first-batch-documents-shows-1200-vaccine-deaths-within-first-90-days/

What a shocker!!!

A link to another dodgy website that scores pretty high in the NOT TELLING THE TRUTH department. It even has a link to your other dodgy site hosting the fake document .

I'm sure these trust websites are only reporting the facts to make you look bad Scott!! Job done me thinks.