FDA rejects pfizer booster shot for 16-65

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   16 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 16 total)
  • Fri, Sep 17, 2021 - 10:47pm

    #1
    Friedrichs_teeth

    Friedrichs_teeth

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2019

    Posts: 561

    count placeholder3

    FDA rejects pfizer booster shot for 16-65

Just In: FDA Panel Rejects Pfizer Booster Shot for Ages 16-65 Over Increased Risk of Heart Inflammation

More craziness in this video.

There might be even more too it. I copied this text from another board and I am going to watch it right now

Someone at the FDA did a full presentation on the adverse effects of the vaccines including VAERS data. They straight up admit that they kill more people than they save. It was something like 5 to 1.

I also learnt that, according to the Israel ministry of health, in the last 4 months or so, in the 90+ year old range something like 50% of the vaccinated have died while unvaccinated was at 0%.

Here’s a link. There’s a whole lot of info to go over. Correct me if I am wrong.





  • Fri, Sep 17, 2021 - 11:03pm

    #2
    David Cunha

    David Cunha

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2021

    Posts: 32

    count placeholder2

    FDA rejects pfizer booster shot for 16-65

Thank You!
I will definitely be watching this tomorrow 🙂

  • Fri, Sep 17, 2021 - 11:27pm

    #3
    Friedrichs_teeth

    Friedrichs_teeth

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2019

    Posts: 561

    count placeholder3

    FDA rejects pfizer booster shot for 16-65

I think it was Steve Kirsch who made the point that at least 2 deaths from side effects happen in order to save 1 person from dying of covid.

So the format of the conference at the time in the link, is that every speaker gets a short amount of time to make their case. It is a wide variety of opinions. The thing that is interesting to me is the pro-pfizer crowd is making the claim that it should be rejected so that other poorer nations can enjoy the “benefits” of the vaccine.

I bet msm picks that up tomorrow. We don’t want the vax here in the US because it isn’t fair to deprive other nations (not because it is killing a lot of people).

  • Sat, Sep 18, 2021 - 03:35am

    #4
    Disco Bear

    Disco Bear

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 16 2020

    Posts: 186

    count placeholder1

    BioNTech, not Pfizer, made the application for approval

BioNTech is the name of the applicant, not Pfizer.  It is an application for the Comirnaty jab, which supposedly isn’t available in the U.S. currently.  I wonder why the press is so sloppy in their reporting.

https://www.scribd.com/document/525872777/Agenda#from_embed

Note to self:  inspect all rubber stamps and throw out those that rebel and don’t stamp properly.  lol.

Does anybody know if this FDA advisory committee met before granting the Comirnaty approval a few weeks ago?

  • Sat, Sep 18, 2021 - 06:33am

    #5
    TailHedge

    TailHedge

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2021

    Posts: 5

    count placeholder1

    FDA rejects pfizer booster shot for 16-65

In the Video, some time points of interest:

@2:34:48 Even the Pfizer-BNT guy says effectiveness goes down to 84% after 6 months

@4:01:00 Beginning of public comments

@4:58:00 Potentially the first invocation of “Nicki Minaj” in a FDA Advisory Panel hearing

  • Sat, Sep 18, 2021 - 07:17am

    #6
    Bonesaw93

    Bonesaw93

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 14 2021

    Posts: 18

    count placeholder2

    FDA rejects pfizer booster shot for 16-65

There seems to be some confusion on this process.  The couple of minute presentations are the public comment session not the Pfizer or FDA presentations.  Furthermore, the committee recommendations are non binding so FDA could still approve it against the recommendation as they recently did with Aduhelm.  Look for a complete response letter to Pfizer (notification of rejection) in the coming days.

  • Sat, Sep 18, 2021 - 07:33am

    #7
    TailHedge

    TailHedge

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2021

    Posts: 5

    count placeholder1

    FDA rejects pfizer booster shot for 16-65

@7:07:10, they are trying to prevent serious disease, not transmission reduction. The goal is not a sterilizing vaccine. It would seem that this has profound legal consequences for them to have the ability to mandate it.

  • Sat, Sep 18, 2021 - 07:49am

    #8
    TailHedge

    TailHedge

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2021

    Posts: 5

    count placeholder1

    Reply To: FDA rejects pfizer booster shot for 16-65

@7:12:25, the committee chair cuts off the discussion on the future of the vaccination campaign (i.e. the need for annual boosting indefinitely). The charitable interpretation is that he wants to stay on topic and not speculate. The uncharitable interpretation is that they don’t want the public to think this is going to turn into a booster treadmill whilst their mandate is under heavy public scrutiny.

  • Sat, Sep 18, 2021 - 08:33am

    #9
    Kat43

    Kat43

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 10 2020

    Posts: 675

    count placeholder1

    FDA rejects pfizer booster shot for 16-65

As I understand it, there was at least a second vote which unanimously approved the booster for people over 65 and at high risk (undefined), and someone has estimated there may be about 70% overlap with the original group that was voted against.

This was an advisory panel.  Anyone know if either vote is binding to FDA, given that FDA went against the unanimous recommendation (1 abstension) against the Alzheimer’s drug?

  • Sat, Sep 18, 2021 - 08:38am

    #10
    Bonesaw93

    Bonesaw93

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 14 2021

    Posts: 18

    count placeholder3

    FDA rejects pfizer booster shot for 16-65

Hi Kat43,

No the vote is non binding so FDA can still approve it.  The discussion around the 65+ and at risk groups was for an additional EUA indication not a full approval.  They were defining at risk groups vaguely but they intended (at least from the discussion) for it to include immunocompromised, obese, diabetic individuals as well as health care workers.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 16 total)

Login or Register to post comments