After being ordered by a U.S. District Court in Texas to begin delivering 55,000 pages per month of all of the documents and data it relied upon to authorize the Pfizer COVID-19 "vaccine," the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is once again asking for more time. Shockingly, the agency initially declared it needed 75 years to produce all of the documents it received from Pfizer. However, on Jan 6, 2022, a federal judge ordered the FDA to furnish the data at a rate of 55,000 pages per month beginning Mar 1. Now, the government is asking the court to give them until May to begin delivering 55,000 pages per month. Even then, the agency argues it may not be able to comply.
The lawsuit at hand, which originally asked the FDA to produce the documents immediately, came to life after attorney Aaron Siri asked the FDA directly for the Pfizer data on behalf of his clients and was ignored. Siri represents over 200 concerned medical and health professionals (Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, or PHMPT) who the federal government has mandated to get a COVID-19 vaccine to keep their jobs.
As previously reported by UncoverDC, Pfizer was well aware in Feb. 2021 that 1,223 deaths and more than 42,000 adverse reports totaling 158,893 adverse reactions had been voluntarily reported in numerous countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, France, and other nations.
The Critical Need For FDA Transparency With Pfizer's Data
The well-spoken and articulate Siri was a guest on Wednesday's Dark to Light Podcast with Frank and Beanz, where he talked at length about his momentous case. He pointed out that since the federal government has given Pfizer over $17 billion in taxpayer dollars, at the very least, it can be transparent about the COVID-19 jab it has mandated. Chatting with UncoverDC's editor-in-chief Tracy Beanz, Siri remarked:
"If you've got to get the shot to keep your job and you can't sue for injuries, at least let the public see the underlying data that was used to license the product."
The Plaintiffs in the claim—who are all medical experts—have attested in court that until every single data set is released, there is no way to know if the research is correct. If even one dataset is missing, a proper analysis is impossible. Furthermore, instead of being transparent about potential risks, the government has relentlessly told every American, "you've got to take this product [vaccine]." As Siri noted on the show, government agencies have aggressively promoted the jab, making matters worse. Remarkably, the CDC came out before the FDA and insisted to all Americans that the COVID-19 jab is safe and effective. Elaborating further, Siri challenged:
"Was the FDA really ever going to say the vaccine is not safe and effective after Peter Marks and Janet Woodcock—the acting commissioner and the head of the vaccine division at the CDC—came out and widely promoted the product? Unlikely. Because not only is that going to damage their personal reputation, it can damage the reputation of the organization that their legacy, as it were, is tied to. So this creates a very dangerous conflict, and it's a conflict that didn't just start with COVID-19—it has existed ever since the 1986 act was passed."
COVID-19 Jabs and the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
For those not familiar, Siri (who has litigated cases involving vaccine injuries for years) explained that in 1986, under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, Congress gave vaccine manufacturers financial immunity for any liability related to injuries from vaccines. Instead, those injured from vaccines must bring a claim against federal health authorities, essentially suing the very same agencies that insist the vaccine is safe. Speaking of this illogical structural conflict that shouldn't exist, Siri expressed:
"It allows the very same federal health agencies responsible for safety also to be responsible for promoting the product and then defending any claim that a consumer has with a product that injured them. That creates an incredible conflict. You don't need a conspiracy theory—it's just a fact. And 30 years of that conflict has run amuck to create a system in which, with all the monied interests, pharmaceutical companies have no interest in ensuring safety because it's tied to their bottom line. And the regulatory agency, which is the far weaker form of assuring that products are safe, is [also] completely conflicted."
According to Siri, these agencies are represented by the Department of Justice (DoJ) and a program in Washington, D.C. that is "pretty much all under seal," making them "statutorily obligated to fight you—to say, no, the vaccine did not cause the harm." And unlike traditional litigation, those suffering from vaccine injury cannot depose the pharmaceutical company or get their documents. No matter the extent of the vaccine injury, pain and suffering damages are capped at $250,000.
Importantly, Siri highlighted that Americans must realize the current experimental COVID-19 jabs have been dropped into the precise vaccine injury system implemented in 1986. This urgent situation is directly challenging our freedom and must be changed. Putting it another way, Siri contemplated, "Can you name one product where the government defends the company against claims that the product harms consumers? There is none, except for vaccines." Indeed, Siri added:
"When you're injured by this [vaccine], the government doesn't go and defend you, it defends Pfizer's products. If I had to come up with something nefarious—a conspiracy theory—I wouldn't have thought of that because it sounds so ridiculous. But there it is, you pay the government trillions of dollars in taxes, and they don't defend you from harms from this product. They defend the company against you. Why? Is it because Pfizer doesn't make enough money? Is it because the billions of dollars the company makes is not enough to pay for the injuries, so they have to give them immunity and defend them?"
Pfizer Joins Lawsuit Amid the FDA's Latest Attempt to Delay
With the current draconian COVID-19 vaccine narrative, the FDA's attempt to delay clarity of the Pfizer data to the American people is unacceptable. According to Siri, the FDA claims "that the 11 document reviewers it has already assigned and the 17 additional reviewers being onboarded are only capable of reading at the speed of pre-schoolers." Frustrated, Siri asserts the FDA should be held to what it attests.
Following the FDA's attempt to delay releasing the Pfizer data, suspiciously, Pfizer suddenly joined the lawsuit as a third party, claiming they're "here to help expedite production of the documents." Siri reports that Pfizer is "represented by a global chair and a team from a law firm with thousands of lawyers." He added:
"Pfizer's legal bill will likely be multiple times what it would cost the FDA to simply hire a private document review company to review, redact, and produce the documents at issue. Within weeks, if not days. Where was Pfizer before the Court ordered the 55,000 pages per month? Right, doing what it normally does: letting the government work on its behalf—like the way the government mandates, promotes and defends Pfizer's product."
Taxpayer Dollars Supply FDA Ample Staff to Expedite Transparency
In response to Defendants' request for more time, Siri reminded the Court that the FDA is equipped with over 18,000 employees and an over $3 billion discretionary budget. Additionally, the agency constantly assures the Court that it is taking steps to "marshal every possible resource available to it," "acting with maximal urgency to assemble every possible resource available to it," and "putting every available resource at its disposal into its efforts to achieve compliance."
Furthermore, the FDA stated it would have 28.5 full-time document reviewers in the coming weeks. Using calculations based on their reported working hours provided by the FDA (with most pages only needing review for personally identifying information, or "PII"), Siri asserts the reviewers can produce nearly 213,750 pages per month. Noting the inevitability of the timely completion of the task, Siri explained, "Plaintiffs ask that the FDA be held to its representations and be directed to produce at the rate of 180,000 pages per month starting in April."
Besides Congress, the Court is the Sole Check on FDA
Holding the Court to task, Siri underscores that "in a free country, transparency is paramount, and the FDA has chosen to thwart transparency and the requirements of FOIA by anemically understaffing the office it maintains to respond to FOIA requests." For Defendants to decry that the Court is now making it comply with the law by actually producing documents on time is absurd, according to Siri.
Without hesitation, Siri asked the Court to refuse to reduce the rate of production in February and March and increase the rate of production for April and after that to 180,000 pages per month. Undoubtedly, the request is consistent with the FDA employing 28.5 full-time reviewers in the coming weeks to conduct the review and the fact that most of the pages need only be reviewed for PII.
Siri maintains it is inconceivable for the FDA to claim that compliance would harm its health policy objectives. Additionally, significant "issues with Pfizer's vaccine—including waning immunity, variants evading immunity, the failure to prevent transmission, myocarditis, and pericarditis—show that the FDA's priority should be to address this product before rushing off to engage in other activities."
Indeed, in a straightforward statement on Wednesday's Dark to Light podcast, Siri reiterated how the present lack of transparency from Pfizer, the FDA, and other government agencies implores acute awareness from the American people. In a candid summary of recent events, Siri outlined the reckless and egregious government behavior threatening our freedom, which is happening right before our eyes and couldn't be any clearer. He explained:
"Everybody should have the right to choose what they want to do. And the decisions they make should not be dictated to them by the government, and certainly not 'public health officials'. We've seen their track record in open view for the last two years. One of the incredible things about the last year and a half is that—for the first time—the public has had an insight into how public health really works.
They've still only seen the tip of the iceberg, but they're getting to see some of it. They're seeing clinical trials, they understand what placebo control group means, they can see how policy rolls out. They can see how quickly it seems to change. So if your rights are contingent on what public health authorities say, then your rights are at risk of being eradicated on any agenda-driven study, any conclusion, any opinion they might happen to reach.
You've basically got six people who sit on this coronavirus steering committee, for lack of a better term, over at the White House. They shouldn't be dictating how or what the rest of us have to do regarding our medical decisions. We should all be free to make those decisions on our own."