Dr Eddy Betterman

Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas is setting the tone for the potential eventual downfall of Pfizer, one of the world’s most evil pharmaceutical companies.

As you may have heard, Paxton recently filed a lawsuit against Pfizer for “defrauding (the) public” with its mRNA Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “vaccines,” which have already injured and killed millions.

Pfizer has been making false claims from the very beginning, the suit alleges, and Paxton wants the drug giant to pay for its crimes against humanity.

Texas’ top prosecutor also claims that Pfizer has been waging an internet censorship war to try to shut up people who question the safety and effectiveness claims of the company’s COVID injections.

In Texas under the Texas Deceptive Trade Activities Act, Pfizer is guilty of deceptively marketing its COVID jabs based on lies. There is zero evidence, and plenty to the contrary, to show that Pfizer’s COVID shots do not have “95 percent efficacy” as widely claimed.

“While Pfizer’s 95% figure made its vaccines seem highly effective, the truth was quite different,” a report about the matter explains. “When it began making those claims, Pfizer possessed on average only two months of clinical trial data from which to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated persons.”

“Of 17,000 placebo recipients, only 162 acquired COVID-19 during this two-month period. Based on those numbers, vaccination status had a negligible impact on whether a trial participant contracted COVID-19.”

(Related: Did you know that Pfizer never conducted a single valid drug trial for its COVID injections?)

Pfizer’s COVID jabs 0.85% effective at best

What makes Paxton’s case against Pfizer groundbreaking is the precedent it stands to set for the entire rest of the country to lodge the same type of complaint. Pfizer lied to the world and millions have died or become injured as a result.

The way Pfizer conducted its “clinical trials,” if you can even call them that, was so shady and deceptive that the company, quite frankly, should probably be shut down entirely. This can potentially happen if enough entities sue the drug giant and effectively bankrupt it, perhaps.

The true efficacy rate for Pfizer’s COVID jabs is not 95 percent, but rather 0.85 percent. This is basically a zero percent efficacy, which is the opposite of Pfizer’s near-100 percent efficacy claim.

Because Pfizer lied, people died. And because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was complicit, it, too, is in big part responsible for the genocidal outcome of the company’s jab release through Operation Warp Speed.

“… in early 2021, Pfizer deliberately created the false impression that its vaccine had durable and sustained protection, going so far as to withhold highly relevant data and information from the consuming public showing that efficacy waned rapidly,” reads the Plaintiff’s Original Petition in the case, which is officially known as State of Texas v. Pfizer.

Further, the FDA warned Pfizer at the time that it “needed” additional information concerning whether or not the jab protects against “transmission” of COVID. Instead of complying, the suit reveals, Pfizer engaged in a fear-mongering campaign that exploited public fears about the so-called “pandemic.”

Finally, Pfizer lied again when it made false and unsubstantiated claims about its “booster” shots for the many “variants” that were invented to keep the jab ruse going for as long as possible.

“Paxton is seeking that Pfizer refrain from making any future promises regarding the efficacy of its Covid vaccine,” En-Volve.com explains. “The Republican prosecutor also wants Pfizer to be barred from partnering with social media platforms in order to discourage open debate over the vaccine.”

[…]

Via https://dreddymd.com/2023/12/16/texas-lawsuit-pfizer-covid-pandemic-criminal-conspiracy/

Hasan Illaik

The Israeli occupation state may have received Washington’s infinite blessings and arms for its genocidal war, but deep disagreements over the after-plan for Gaza and the political fate of the Palestinians have risen to the surface.

Amid the backdrop of the occupation state receiving blessings and arms from Washington for its genocidal war, both domestic political hurdles in the US and on-the-ground military dynamics have created a rift, influencing both strategic considerations and the course of the war in Gaza.

Israel’s ongoing war on the Gaza Strip is best understood to be a US-backed one, given that the occupation state has the political, economic, and military support of Washington as it commits genocidal acts of state terrorism on the Palestinians.

On multiple occasions, these actions have received approval from the Biden administration. However, recent statements indicate a growing unease within the US, suggesting that Israel’s actions may be crossing a line that is becoming increasingly challenging to justify and defend.

However, it is noteworthy that President Joe Biden warned Israel relatively early on, back in October, not to make the same “mistakes” as the US did following the events of 11 September 2001, which led to the occupation of Afghanistan and the longest war in US history.

Divergent approaches to shared goals

Biden has urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to alter the composition of his extremist government to facilitate acceptance of the US proposal for the post-war phase in Gaza. This proposal involves handing over the administration of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and initiating a political process culminating in a theoretical “two-state solution.”

The specific ministers Biden seeks to see removed – Treasury Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, along with their associates – are rightly considered by the US as extremists and as obstacles to a revival of the notion of a two-state solution, widely considered to be dead.

Despite Biden’s latest statements urging Israel to “be more careful” in protecting civilians in Gaza while supposedly targeting the resistance, there is no indication of a major dispute between the US and Israel over the ongoing war.

Washington remains actively involved in the conflict, having deployed military assets in the West Asia region to protect Israel during its war crimes in Gaza.

The US continues to supply the Israeli occupation forces with the necessary weapons and ammunition, showcasing a shared goal with Israel but an ever so slight divergence in the approach to achieving that goal.

Yesterday, The Intercept revealed that the Biden administration had deployed a so-called Tiger Team of experts to speed up the supply of weapons to Israel.

Biden’s diplomacy and arms sales

The underlying issues between the US and Israel primarily revolve around four factors. First, with the US presidential primaries approaching, a significant portion of the Democratic Party’s base opposes the administration’s support for the Israeli war on Gaza.

Consequently, the Biden administration is undertaking a “public diplomacy” campaign to distance itself from the perceived destructive effects of the war while maintaining support for arms sales to Israel.

In short, Biden wants to say that he does not approve of the killing of so many civilians in the war on Gaza, while he approves of the sale of 14,000 tank shells to the Israeli army.

Second, the United States wants to ensure that Israel achieves its military goals in Gaza, but the two disagree over the political future of the Strip. The US seeks to ensure that Israel’s post-war objectives align with its interests. While Netanyahu aims to occupy the entire Gaza Strip and establish an alternative civilian authority with regional funding, the US advocates for a two-state solution and opposes the exclusion of the PA from administering the territory.

Third, what is happening in the region, spanning from Yemen to Lebanon and Iraq, has contributed to US fears of a larger war, or at least, “comprehensive regional chaos.” The increasing tensions in West Asia threaten to escalate at any moment. US threats have not prevented Israel’s enemies from increasing the level of attacks used in their military operations.
Washington believes that decreasing the intensity of the air and ground campaigns on Gaza will prevent Israel’s regional enemies from escalating their attacks.

Thus, changing the form of the war and reducing its intensity would allow Israel to complete its mission amid regional calm, supported by the ‘normalizer’ Arab countries and the majority of world governments.

Fourth, the United States does not trust Israel’s ability to achieve complete victory through a military operation, which is why it is seeking a political path in order to accomplish goals that cannot be fulfilled on the battlefield.

Netanyahu does not hide his intentions for a complete occupation of the Gaza Strip. His aim is to starve its people to pressure the resistance into surrendering, then to establish a “civil authority” to manage the Strip in coordination with the occupying army.

Allies of Israel, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are expected to finance this authority and contribute to reconstruction. Netanyahu has repeatedly emphasized his refusal to let the Palestinian Authority manage the Gaza Strip.

As for the United States, it wants the end of the war on Gaza to pave the way for a political negotiation process in accordance with the ‘two-state solution.’

The two-state smokescreen 

The ideal scenario for Washington involves the war transitioning to a new phase by the time primary elections roll around, with major military operations winding down. This would pave the way for a regional and international consensus on the two-state solution, leading to the handover of Gaza to the West Bank-based PA with security guarantees for Israel.

In this context, pressure on Hamas and other resistance factions to comply with ceasefire conditions would intensify with an emphasis on their perceived obstruction to the peace process.

Adjustments to the current Israeli government are therefore necessary to advance towards this goal. This involves the removal of the religious, right-wing extremists who vocally and openly oppose Palestinian statehood, and the inclusion of individuals endorsed by Washington for their outward commitment to this path.

Differentiation between the appearance of a “path to the two-state solution” and the “two-state solution” itself is crucial. The US aims for a return to negotiations rather than the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state.

The challenge lies in Netanyahu’s historic opposition to a two-state solution, making it unlikely for him to fully comply with US demands.

Netanyahu’s political career is marked by the rejection of the Oslo Accords and his incitement to kill Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the accords in 1993.

Moreover, Netanyahu affirmed a few months ago in a closed parliamentary session that he would do everything necessary to uproot the idea of a Palestinian state from reality.

It is therefore unlikely that the Israeli Prime Minister would agree to all these US demands. His political actions since the signing of the Iranian nuclear agreement in 2005 until today, show us that he is capable of continuing to rule, despite deep disagreements with the US administration.

At a pivotal moment in his career, it is not unlikely that Netanyahu will find an opportunity in this divergence of goals with the US to strengthen the Israeli right-wing on the basis of confronting the pressures aimed at establishing a Palestinian state “on the land of Israel.”

Naturally, populist, far-right Israeli political figures reject any talk of a two-state solution, or even a handover of the Gaza Strip to the PA.

The US, however, remains determined in its vision for the post-war phase, providing support to Israel militarily and diplomatically, as evidenced by the recent tank shell supplies and a UN Security Council veto against an immediate ceasefire.

Despite the apparent support from the Israeli public for the continuation of the war, the duration and outcome remain uncertain, with mounting costs on the economy and soldiers’ lives.

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant anticipates that the war against Hamas “will take more than a few months” due to the challenges posed by the resistance’s infrastructure in Gaza – despite differing perspectives between the US and Israel on the duration and nature of the war.

Contrary to what the Americans declare, all indicators suggest that the war is prolonged, regardless of its form. It is not unlikely that Washington will be able to impose a change in the form of the war in the coming weeks.

Once again, what will change the reality and push Israel and the United States towards ending the war and attempting to defeat Hamas through blockade, starvation, and prevention of reconstruction are:

First, the resilience of the resistance and the losses that can be inflicted on the occupying army in the form of dozens of soldiers killed and thousands of wounded soldiers who are taken out of service. In this case, the occupying army may press its political leadership to retract from its high goals for the war. Even if the number of soldiers killed is relatively low, the number of soldiers leaving service due to injuries has an insurmountable limit.

And second, the continuation of operations by the Axis of Resistance forces in Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq will also force the United States to reduce its war goals, push for a ceasefire, and lift the siege on Gaza. The last point, lifting the blockade, has been placed by Ansarallah in Yemen as a top demand to stop the operations against Israeli ships heading to Israeli ports from East Asia or vice versa.

[…]

Via https://uprootedpalestinians.wordpress.com/2023/12/16/diverging-paths-the-us-israel-divide-over-post-war-gaza/

Episode 16 Bronze, Terra Cotta and Portraiture

The Mysterious Etruscans

Dr Steven L Tuck (2016)

Film Review

The best-known Etruscan art available to archeologists are tomb paintings, bronze free-standing statues, relief plaques, gold jewelry and bronze and terra cotta vessels.

Etruria had the richest metal resources (copper, iron, zinc, arsenic, mercury and tin) in northern Italy. The federation was also endowed with vast forests (for fuel) and clay beds

The Etruscans were clear innovators in Mediterranean portraiture and the first European artists to realistically portray hands and noses (with distinctive nasolabial folds). Although they clearly valued Greek art and invited Greek artists to work in their communities, they also developed their own bronze and terra cotta industries. Bronze Etruscan statues were in high demand in elite Greek homes. After Rome conquered Erutria, they looted 2,000 bronzed statues from Overtia.

The main techniques the Etruscans used to mass produce bronze statues were casting and lost wax casting.* Bronze armor and breast plates were hammered out of bronze sheets. Razing (pounding a bronze sheet around a rounded rod) was used for helmets. Annealing** (alternately heating and slowly cooling) was used to keep bronze from hardening as it was hammered. Rivets or solder was used to connect feet and handles to bronze dishes.

The Etruscans had highly advanced decorative and finishing techniques. They mainly used flat chasing,*** hammer punching and stamping (where, unlike engraving, no metal is removed) to create complex designs. They also used inlays and overlays with precious metals into preformed indentations and niello, which employed an alloy of copper, silver and lead to make fine black lines – and gold leaf gelding, which fused gold to the bronze with a mercury/gold solution.

Most Etruscan statuettes were terracotta votives, left at various sanctuaries to thank the appropriate gods for services rendered. In fact it was common for Eturscan sanctuaries to house their own ceramic and metal workshops to produce religious items to sell to pilgrims.

Etruscan gold and silver jewelry is the most advanced in the ancient Mediterranean. Their granulized filagree (fine gold) technology used in intricate jewelry designs still can’t be reproduced today. Etruscan potters are responsible for inventing Bucchero, in which tera cotta is decorated (with fake rivet heads and fluting used to strengthen metal vessels) to look like metal.

*With lost wax casting, the statue or item of jewelry is chiseled out of wax which is covered with clay which hardens to form a mold. After the wax is melted to remove it from the mold, it’s replaced by molten bronze.

**A technique still used in producing small bronze objects today.

***Flat chasing involves hammering bronze with small, blunt tools to produce low-relief ornamentation.

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/239710/239641

Seb Solomon

Unlimited Hangout

The Palestinian population is intimately familiar with how new technological innovations are first weaponized against them–ranging from electric fences and unmanned drones to trap people in Gaza—to the facial recognition software monitoring Palestinians in the West Bank. Groups like Amnesty International have called Israel an Automated Apartheid and repeatedly highlight stories, testimonies, and reports about cyber-intelligence firms, including the infamous NSO Group (the Israeli surveillance company behind the Pegasus software) conducting field tests and experiments on Palestinians.

When discussing Gaza or the West Bank, it’s critical to understand that Israel’s achievements in AI and overall technological edge is perpetuated by the use of drones or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and other warfare technologies that are first tested in Palestine and the occupied territories before being exported abroad. Reports have highlighted:

“testing and deployment of AI surveillance and predictive policing systems in Palestinian territories. In the occupied West Bank, Israel increasingly utilizes facial recognition technology to monitor and regulate the movement of Palestinians…Israeli military leaders described AI as a significant force multiplier, allowing the IDF to use autonomous robotic drone swarms to gather surveillance data, identify targets, and streamline wartime logistics.”

The Palestinian towns and villages near Israeli settlements have been described as laboratories for security solutions companies to experiment their technologies on Palestinians before marketing them to places like Colombia, India, and Mexico. Since at least 2012, NSO Group’s controversial surveillance products–which allow users to penetrate any cell phone without the target’s awareness–have been public knowledge. The debates around “privacy” and “owning your data” seem rather asinine considering all of the open-source information pertaining to the Intel Management Engine’s backdoor capabilities or its Memory Sinkhole vulnerabilities. It’s also worth noting that Intel, a California-based tech juggernaut, considers itself “an Israeli company as much as a US company.”

A recent article in The Intercept asserts that since NSO Group was blacklisted by the U.S. Department of Commerce in 2021, their recent effort to aid the Israeli government in finding Israeli citizens in Gaza, seems like an attempt “to rehabilitate its image in this crisis.” While it’s positive that The Intercept is highlighting NSO Group’s attempt to rebuild its public image, the nature of the alleged “blunder” itself is worth questioning considering Hamas was able to charge into Tel Aviv by slashing through the barricades at a border that’s, supposedly, embedded with a myriad of sophisticated surveillance software and devices (including NSO’s Pegasus spyware). Israel is assumed to have one of, if not the most, advanced border surveillance system with cameras and ground motion sensors. Additionally, Pegasus is presumed to be one of the Israeli tech sector’s most highly sought-after products that’s been sold to intelligence and law enforcement agencies around the world.

[…]

Via https://unlimitedhangout.com/2023/12/investigative-reports/palestine-peace-to-prosperity-through-technocracy/

The Blogging Hounds

BIOHAZARD ALERT – The United States plan to build another biological laboratory
in Kazakhstan in 2025

The laboratory will be of the same level as in Wuhan – BSL-4. Today, in Almaty there is a center for the study of pathogens of the third level (Biosafety Level, BSL-3), which has already accidentally or deliberately released anthrax “for a walk” in the Zhambyl region of Kazakhstan.

37 people became infected with the terrible disease, and livestock deaths were recorded in some regions.

Considering that “mere mortals” do not have access to such laboratories, and the project itself may be too ambitious and costly, the Pentagon could well use the facility for intelligence on deadly diseases, including in Russia.

[…]

Via https://theblogginghounds.com/2023/12/14/the-united-states-plan-to-build-another-biological-laboratory-in-kazakhstan-in-2025/

>

Dave Decamp

Packed into the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act that’s been approved by both the House and Senate is an amendment designed to prevent any future president from withdrawing the US from NATO.

The legislation was a bipartisan effort led by Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Tim Kaine (D-VA) and would prohibit the president from leaving NATO without Senate approval or an Act of Congress.

According to The Hill, Kaine said the legislation “reaffirms US support for this crucial alliance that is foundational for our national security. It also sends a strong message to authoritarians around the world that the free world remains united.”

Kaine, Rubio, and other hawks in Congress would not have to worry about President Biden trying to leave NATO, as he is a staunch supporter of the alliance and has repeatedly stated the US obligation to NATO is “sacred.”

The legislation was likely designed with former President Trump in mind, although he has not said he would exit NATO. Trump has been critical of the alliance and asked other members to spend more on their military to lower the burden on the US, but NATO expanded into Montenegro and North Macedonia during his presidency.

[…]

Via https://news.antiwar.com/2023/12/14/congress-approves-bill-to-prevent-any-president-from-leaving-nato/

JB Shurk

Why should states have to obey the federal government and be prohibited from making better arrangements for themselves?

States should dissolve the federal government and form new unions.  Is that such an awful thing to say?  The colonies came together voluntarily, and the states should be permitted to just as voluntarily exit when the preservation of their citizens’ lives and liberties demands that they do so.  An appreciation for the individual states’ sovereign powers and a guarantee that the imposition of federal authority would be limited in scope were key assurances for persuading skeptical colonial representatives to bind their discrete political bodies together.

This understanding of each state’s enduring right to secede from a Union that no longer represented its interests was common right up until the death and devastation of the Civil War.  Then the states looked around at the carnage and realized that the federal government was playing for keeps.  Violent coercion, in other words, altered a well-established belief that deference to the federal government was based upon continued consent from each state’s citizens.  Isn’t it time for “consent of the governed” to actually mean something again?

The Union has been lovely, but it shouldn’t be a suicide pact.  States should not suffer the deadly consequences of the federal government’s decision to aid and abet illegal immigration.  Individual states’ citizens should not have their wealth and savings confiscated by a profligate federal government that debases the Union’s common currency by printing money and spending well beyond its means.  Individual states’ citizens should not be forced to embrace the federal government’s “woke” religion or to labor under the federal government’s “politically correct” delusions.  The states should not have to follow the U.S. government’s march into the new world order’s insane asylum.

[…]

Via https://straightlinelogic.com/2023/12/14/should-the-states-form-new-unions-by-j-b-shurk/

Zero Hedge

The FDA released the final batch of documents it relied upon in licensing Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine for ages 16 and up—more than 800 days after the agency approved the shot.

The documents are “finally in the hands of the public, where they belong,” the Informed Consent Action Network said in a press release. “Now, independent scientists and researchers can see everything FDA saw when it made its decision that this vaccine was ‘safe and effective.’”

The recent documents disclosed as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) show the agency knew its safety monitoring system was “not sufficient” for assessing the risk of heart conditions associated with Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine when it licensed the company’s “Comirnaty” vaccine.

Advertisement – Story continues below

Documents also reveal numerous manufacturing problems in Pfizer batches released to the public and show the FDA knew about a phenomenon known as vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) in those vaccinated who experience breakthrough COVID-19.

FDA Knew Safety Monitoring System Was ‘Not Sufficient’

Federal health agencies claim COVID-19 vaccines are part of the “most intensive vaccine safety monitoring effort in U.S. history,” with “continuous” and “robust” safety monitoring that helps ensure that the vaccine’s benefits outweigh any risks. Yet the final documents released from Pfizer’s biologic product file reveal the agency knew its safety monitoring program was not sufficient to assess the serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

An FDA memo in the 51,893 pages of disclosures specifically addressed the agency’s CBER Sentinel Initiative and its ability to evaluate the risk for myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination. The Sentinel program is the FDA’s national electronic system used to monitor the “safety of its regulated products” and is a “major part” of the agency’s mission to “protect public health.”

The memo states:

“The CBER Sentinel Program is NOT sufficient to assess the serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, and subclinical myocarditis associated with COMIRNATY (BNT162b2) in lieu of PMR safety studies under FDAAA [Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act].

“At the time of BLA [Biologics License Application] approval, the data sources in the CBER Sentinel Program are not sufficient to identify the outcomes due to lack of sufficient power to assess the magnitude of risk in patients 12-30 years of age. In addition, CBER Sentinel Program is not sufficient to follow up cases for recovery status and long-term sequelae, or for identification and characterization of subclinical myocarditis cases.”

Cardiac Disorders Higher in Vaccine Trial Group

According to an Aug. 23, 2021, BLA Clinical Review Memorandum, there were more cardiac disorders in trial participants who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine compared to the placebo group and more instances of tachycardia in the younger vaccinated age group.

Cardiac conditions were reported as the cause of death in nine participants 25 to 128 days after having received at least one dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, including seven cases of cardiac arrest, one case of cardiovascular disease, and one case of congestive heart failure.

Five cardiac-related deaths in the placebo group occurred 15 to 81 days after having received a placebo, including two cases of myocardial infarction, one aortic rupture, and two cardiac arrests.

“Because COVID-19 mRNA and its Spike protein are found in the human heart at autopsy causing inflammation and heart damage, it is incontrovertible that the COVID-19 vaccines are cardiotoxic,” cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough told The Epoch Times in an email.

“Younger individuals with healthy hearts take up more of the damaging vaccine into the cardiac tissue resulting in symptoms of chest pain, palpitations, fluctuations in blood pressure, dizziness, and sadly, some, end up with cardiac arrest either during exercise or in the early morning waking hours. At both time periods, an internal surge of adrenalin appears to be the trigger for the fatal arrhythmia in those with COVID-19 vaccine myocarditis,” he added.

Despite nearly double the number of reported cardiac events in vaccine recipients versus placebo recipients, the FDA concluded the deaths were “unlikely to be related to vaccination.”

“As a cardiologist, these serious adverse events are unacceptable,” Dr. McCullough said. “I have called for all COVID-19 vaccines to be removed from the market with an urgent push for research strategies to prevent cardiac death after injection.”

Vaccines Released Despite Manufacturing Issues

According to the Pfizer Andover Response to Form FDA 483 included in the released documents, numerous manufacturing issues and inadequacies in quality oversight were also identified. Several batches of COVID-19 vaccines were flagged for deviating from product quality standards, yet the affected batches were released to the public in various lots, the numbers of which were redacted.

In November 2021, whistleblower Brook Jackson, who worked as a regional director at testing sites by Pfizer contractor Ventavia, told the British Medical Journal that Pfizer’s trial was riddled with issues. Ms. Jackson said the company “falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial.”

Ms. Jackson, a trained clinical trial auditor with more than 15 years of experience in clinical research coordination and management, emailed a complaint to the FDA and was fired later that day. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against Ventavia and Pfizer, alleging Pfizer had defrauded the government while developing its COVID-19 vaccine.

FDA Acknowledges Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease

In its Pharmacovigilance Plan Review Memorandum, the FDA referenced a condition called “vaccine-associated enhanced disease.” According to the journal Vaccine, VAED is the modified presentation of a clinical infection affecting individuals exposed to the wild-type pathogen after having received a vaccine for the same pathogen.

In its memo, the FDA stated there are reported deaths in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in patients reported to be fully vaccinated. Although the agency said that passive surveillance and spontaneous adverse event reporting generally cannot be used to conclude vaccine effectiveness because of the lack of a control group, reporter bias, and underreporting, “severe manifestations and death from COVID-19” increase the possibility of developing VAED, which has “overlapping clinical manifestations with natural SARS-CoV-2 infection, making it difficult to differentiate VAED from severe COVID-19 disease in individual VAERS reports.”

The FDA said Pfizer was assessing the condition in its continuation of Phase 3 clinical studies and active surveillance studies. VAED has been observed in other vaccine trials involving the dengue virus, respiratory syncytial virus, and measles.

FDA Took Over 800 Days to Release Data

The Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, a nonprofit consisting of public health and medical professionals, scientists, and journalists, filed a FOIA lawsuit against the FDA in September 2021 to force the release of hundreds of thousands of documents relied upon by the agency in licensing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for individuals age 16 and older.

Even though the FDA said in a news release it was committed to “ensuring full transparency, dialogue and efficiency” regarding COVID-19 vaccines and reiterated its commitment to full transparency when it licensed Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine, they wanted 75 years to produce an estimated 451,000 documents at a rate of 500 pages per month. It previously estimated it had 329,000 pages of responsive records and wanted 55 years to release them to the public.

Attorney Aaron Siri, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the group, said the federal government was shielding Pfizer from liability, gave it billions of dollars, and forced Americans to get vaccinated while preventing the safety and efficacy data supporting the licensure of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine from being released until the year 2076. Yet it only took 108 days from when Pfizer started producing records to the agency for the FDA to license its vaccine.

[…]

Via https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/final-batch-pfizer-documents-released-fda