Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

55 years - Pfizer

59 replies

SencosRshit · 19/11/2021 20:47

I’ve only just discovered this:

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

How many of you knew about this?

OP posts:
PlanDeRaccordement · 19/11/2021 22:48

now you will say that I've got a tin foil hat on or something trite like that

OP, I really feel that you have not started this thread with any intention of learning about FOIA requests or processes, but rather to push an Anti-Vaxxer/Conspiracy theory narrative. So I am reporting this thread to MNHQ.

ollyollyoxenfree · 19/11/2021 22:50

@PlanDeRaccordement

Thanks for the detailed explanation on FOIAs, it's something I feel I should know more about but often goes over my head Grin

PlanDeRaccordement · 19/11/2021 22:52

@ollyollyoxenfree
You’re welcome.

SencosRshit · 19/11/2021 22:52

@PlanDeRaccordement

now you will say that I've got a tin foil hat on or something trite like that

OP, I really feel that you have not started this thread with any intention of learning about FOIA requests or processes, but rather to push an Anti-Vaxxer/Conspiracy theory narrative. So I am reporting this thread to MNHQ.

This is why I will not accept the 'facts' we are presented with anymore. Too much conversation is being silenced or hidden.

This is just an example of that. Why report it? You can disagree with me @PlanDeRaccordement - but reporting reeks of something else entirely.

OP posts:
PlanDeRaccordement · 19/11/2021 22:56

Why report it?

Because you’re making up false statements and parading them as if they were facts. You’re lying and your misinformation is dangerous,

SencosRshit · 19/11/2021 23:06

How do I know you're not lying @PlanDeRaccordement?

You have posted no proof that you worked for the FOIA of for any of the other stuff you post as fact.

You could be making all that up.

Who is to say anyone here is making stuff up - or not? We all think we're right.

OP posts:
theworldsgonefeckingmad · 19/11/2021 23:07

@PlanDeRaccordement ah yes that makes sense that they would need to write to each participant then as some side effects for example could be identifying. Still seems a crazy long time though I didn't realise there were that many volunteers

theworldsgonefeckingmad · 19/11/2021 23:18

I've just had a quick google and this popped up:

www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

Doesn't look like it's an anti vaccine thing more that they believe FDA maybe didn't follow procedures they should have when they licensed the vaccine

PlanDeRaccordement · 19/11/2021 23:22

@SencosRshit
Sigh. No one “works for the FOIA”.
FOIA is an acronym for Freedom of Information Act. Which are fairly similar in the US, U.K. and EU.

The fact you think I’m lying only tells me you are completely ignorant of FOIA laws, regulations and processes. And I did post the FDA page listing the FOIA exemptions under which data is redacted. It is also common sense that if you redact data, then you are by definition not able to fully release all the data.

If you suspect everyone and every source of information and facts, then why are you trusting Twitter? Doesn’t seem very discerning.

SencosRshit · 19/11/2021 23:24

@theworldsgonefeckingmad

I've just had a quick google and this popped up:

www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

Doesn't look like it's an anti vaccine thing more that they believe FDA maybe didn't follow procedures they should have when they licensed the vaccine

Yes - I've seen this before. Didn't put the two together. Someone suggested it up thread, but I'd forgotten this.

It's not OK. Not OK at all.

If they didn't follow procedures properly the vaccine may very well not be safe. It cannot be said for certain that it is safe.

OP posts:
PlanDeRaccordement · 19/11/2021 23:44

It cannot be said for certain that it is safe.

This is ridiculous. Over a billion people have had this vaccine and the safety data is there showing it is a safe and effective vaccine.

theworldsgonefeckingmad · 20/11/2021 00:00

@SencosRshit I think it is safe, I think the problem is probably that the FDA didn't do their job properly at some point so they didn't know it was safe which is why they likely don't want all the data releasing in March 2022

SencosRshit · 20/11/2021 00:03

If the FDA didn't do their job properly ...

OP posts:
theworldsgonefeckingmad · 20/11/2021 00:17

@SencosRshit

If the FDA didn't do their job properly ...
I only skimmed that BMJ article but it spoke of a whistle blower reporting on procedures not being followed so I'm purely speculating that someone/people at the FDA didn't do something they should have and the problem isn't with Pfizer but with the FDA, who knows though 55 years is a long time to find out il probably not be here by then Grin
OutwiththeOutCrowd · 20/11/2021 00:21

The FDA seems to be underfunded and reliant, in part, on funding from the companies it regulates. An independent source of funding - it used to be paid for completely by taxpayers - would surely be preferable but perhaps not practical these days?

LoveFall · 20/11/2021 00:24

I have had the great misfortune of having to respond to freedom of information requests and privacy breaches for a very large public sector organization.

Not in the UK but very similar legislation.

Some issues are simple, many are not. Many FOI requests came from people who were dissatisfied with decisions affecting them. Sadly, many held beliefs that the agency was lying, was in cahoots even with Her Majesty the Queen. Etc etc.

It takes a lot of work to review and redact the required info, to index it, and then disclose. Hours and hours of work which takes away from other work. I can understand the need for extra time.

I remember one instance that took weeks of work, and resulted in two large boxes of documents being sent to the requestor, who then became even more demanding because he was sent too much.

In this case there will be endless documents, including emails and the like that will need to be reviewed and redacted.

I do think the extra time requested is excessive. It defeats the purpose of FOI provisions. But protecting the privacy of the participants in the trials is important.

Surely there is a medium ground.

SencosRshit · 20/11/2021 00:26

I'm purely speculating that someone/people at the FDA didn't do something they should have and the problem isn't with Pfizer but with the FDA, who knows though 55 years is a long time to find out il probably not be here by then

And in the meantime we're expected to put our 100% trust in this vaccine. And not ask any questions.

I'm not a scientist. I used to trust everyone. I was then too too naive. Nowadays I question everything.

Please read and watch this stuff twitter.com/AllysonPollock if you have time.

What Allyson Pollock posts on Twitter is fascinating and overwhelming. Unnerving. Too much for me to take in and I'll have to watch in small portions again and again to understand fully.

But it tells me that what we are fed through the government and MSM - what posters write on here - none of it is fact. The fact, of course, is hidden away with the real experts. She gives only a bit of insight into this. What's really going on behind the scenes. And that's what I find interesting.

OP posts:
PlanDeRaccordement · 20/11/2021 00:31

@OutwiththeOutCrowd

The FDA seems to be underfunded and reliant, in part, on funding from the companies it regulates. An independent source of funding - it used to be paid for completely by taxpayers - would surely be preferable but perhaps not practical these days?
That’s a bit misleading. The US FDA is funded by the US Gov and by charging user fees set by the US Gov. It’s no different from paying DVLA your road tax. The road tax is a user fee set by the U.K. Gov. But paying it doesn’t get you special treatment or any say on laws about driving your car and so on.

By calling it “funding from companies it regulates” you make it sound like a conflict of interest. They’re user fees.
crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44576

Dishhh · 20/11/2021 00:39

@SencosRshit

I find it concerning that you are so desperate to defend them Jassy.

I find it odd and it makes me question who you are affiliated with. Or maybe you're just desperate not to believe that you could ever have been so easily conned.

Jassy has a long history on MN, unlike you, who has either name-changed or joined for this purpose. I know who inspires more confidence - and that's Jassy. Jassy has always been a sensible, thoughtful poster on this topic.

JassyRadlett · 20/11/2021 00:49

Aw, shucks. Thanks @Dishhh.

PastMyBestBeforeDate · 20/11/2021 00:54

@Dishhh the OPhas had a very specific couple of days, haven't they?

Dishhh · 20/11/2021 01:09

[quote PastMyBestBeforeDate]@Dishhh the OPhas had a very specific couple of days, haven't they?[/quote]

Indeed they have!

Courtier · 20/11/2021 02:36

Idk I'm 26 and was given AZ which is apparently very dangerous for under 30. Now I have to get another bc I'm vulnerable. I'll still get it

PAFMO · 20/11/2021 06:51

OP, You've been told on the other threads what it is and why there is no vaccine cover up.
There are also a fair few threads about it in this topic from weeks ago.

SencosRshit · 20/11/2021 09:47

@PAFMO

OP, You've been told on the other threads what it is and why there is no vaccine cover up. There are also a fair few threads about it in this topic from weeks ago.
Oh sorry I missed those threads

Are you officially banning further questions and discussions on this topic PAFMO?

What does PAFMO stand for?

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread