FDA rejects pfizer booster shot for 16-65
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.
I will definitely be watching this tomorrow 🙂
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).
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.
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?
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
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.
@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.
@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.
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?
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.