FDA officially approves Pfizer “vaccine”…despite incomplete trials

FDA backtracks on “independent review” in a clear political decision designed to encourage people to get vaccinated.

Kit Knightly

FDA building, Washington DC. Licensed through Adobe Stock.

The US Food and Drug Administration has officially approved Pfizer mRNA-based “Covid vaccine” for use on members of the public.

The vaccine, previously only released under an “Emergency Use Authorisation”, is the first of the many so-called vaccines to be fully approved in the US. It will now be sold under its rather ungainly brand name “Comirnaty”.

The move comes much sooner than expected, considering the “vaccine’s” medical trials are nowhere near completion.

The mRNA vaccine, based on technology never used on humans before, has only been available for use since last winter, and the trials aren’t set to end until 2023 (and those that are completed are deeply suspicious).

In the supply contracts that Pfizer has signed with national governments all over the world, the pharmaceutical giant goes out of their way to stipulate that the vaccine may have unknown long term side effects. Stating:

the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known.

Nevertheless, the FDA has seen fit to fast-track the approval. Going so far as to forego the planned independent review panel, a decision which has been criticised in some quarters.

A letter to the British Medical Journal (BMJ) points out that, early last year, the FDA actually committed to having an “advisory committee composed of independent experts”. This panel would “ensure deliberations about authorization or licensure are transparent for the public” before any full approval was granted.

But then this week the FDA U-turned on that commitment, arguing that “The Pfizer BioNTech covid-19 vaccine was discussed at the VRBPAC meeting on 10 December 2020. If the agency had any questions or concerns that required input from the advisory committee members we would have scheduled a meeting to discuss.”

Claiming that “we discussed the vaccine 9 months ago, nothing has changed since then” is obviously absurd. Especially given the product’s rapid roll-out.

In December 2020 barely anybody on the planet had been injected with Pfizer jab. As of today, millions of people have. And over 325,000 adverse affects have been reported to the VAERS database.

It’s hard not to see the decision as politically motivated. A barely-concealed attempt to boost the (increasingly desperate) vaccination drive propaganda.

They practically admit it themselves, when they say in their press release:

the FDA approval of a vaccine may now instill additional confidence to get vaccinated.”

What does this mean, going forward?

Well, on a technical level, full approval does change things for doctors, and how they can distribute the “vaccine”. Medicines approved under EUAs are (supposedly) under strict controls on how they are used. Fully approved medications can, however, be prescribed “off-label”, meaning doctors can be more creative in their use.

For example, they can now give “booster shots” to patients they feel need them, such as the immunocompromised or the elderly, without having to wait for FDA clearance.

It’s hard to see it having much impact, propaganda wise. The mainstream talking point will change, but not much else. Certainly, not much has changed for the unvaccinated hold-outs. We’ve done our research, and a rushed full approval is unlikely to have much more of an effect than a rushed emergency approval.

However, the pushing through of full approval may be a bad sign as far as potential mandatory vaccines go. Members of Congress, or other officials, may have been slightly nervous about forcing people to take a medication that only has an emergency authorisation. A full approval, however suspiciously fast, removes that particular hurdle.

Oh, but I nearly forgot the good news!

Pfizer’s stock jumped 2.5% overnight after the announcement, continuuing its record run.

I can’t believe any elected officials own Pfizer stock, that would be a sign of massive corruption and a huge conflict of interest, but if they do…they’re making a lot of money.

There’s a very good and detailed report on this on The Defender, and we suggest reading the BMJ letter in full too.


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.