More than 30 companies to start making Pfizer's COVID pill

Very positive development that will help bring down the risk from the pandemic, hopefully to a level low enough so measures against COVID can be reduced or even discarded.

None of the companies that make COVID-19 vaccines have so far agreed to work with the group to allow other manufacturers to make their shots.

This is unfortunate but also not as necessary, older technologies can be used to make shots that are "good enough" to prevent complications and deaths even if not as much as the best available. Taking into account the difficulties to put in order a large scale production of mRNA vaccines with the minimum required quality to ensure safety and effcicacy it may be better for developing countries to shift their efforts to recombinant protein based vaccines for example.

There was a failed attempt to suppress the release of Pfizer's drug trials. Surely this information should be freely available to the public?

Hardly inspires confidence in anything this company has to offer.

https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/data-is-power-experts-weigh-in-on-court-ordered-release-of-pfizer-vaccine-documents-1.5816089

There was a failed attempt to suppress the release of Pfizer's drug trials. Surely this information should be freely available to the public?

Saying that a couple of people need decades in order to review according to the law the literally hundreds of thousands of pages requested in a blind request for "anything and everything" related to the vaccine no matter if it is useful or not do not constitute any "attempt to suppress" anything. It is simple logic.

Specially important is that Pfizer already showed all the information to the people in charge of approving the vaccines, not only in the US but on every other country of the world, and that all those groups of professionals agreed in the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.

For the FDA a ruling that says it needs to speed up the release is not a defeat, on the contrary because it can be used to request funds for the necessary personnel to comply with it, it also gives the FDA a basis to ignore all the other thousands of requests that were filed before this one because now this request have higher priority.

The only ones misrepresenting this as some kind of victory against the vaccine are antivaxxer groups that like to pretend there is some kind of conspiracy including all the goverments of the world, and that in the documents to be released somehow the information about thousands of participants on the trials is going to contradict the completely open information on millions of people already vaccinated, which of course makes no sense.

A pill would be very convenient but you’d still have hesitancy. They would seem more credible if they weren’t pumping billions into media and the politicians and if they would take responsibility for harm caused to persons from the vaccine. It’s not like the major pharmaceuticals can’t afford it. Just stop pumping millions into the media and politicians and you’d be fine. These days treat a patient and you have repeat customers, cure a patient and they don’t come back. As usual follow the money and the truth comes out. Also, releasing info on trials and studies voluntarily and not being forced by the courts. Im wondering if your animal got rabies after three shots. I think you’d start asking questions. I’d bet there would be even more hesitancy because pet owners often care more for their pets than they would for humans.

They would seem more credible if they weren’t pumping billions into media and the politicians and if they would take responsibility for harm caused to persons from the vaccine. 

What are you taling about, in countries like Japan or the US the government takes care of compensating for any possible negative effect from the vaccines, so people do not need to fight anybody. As long as a claim is possible the compensation is almost automatically given. This is something governments do routinely for things they consider so beneficial for public health that compensating like that is still cheaper than letting irrational groups mislead people into distrusting vaccines after some inevitably lose their lawsuits for problems that can't be proved were caused by something specific.

These days treat a patient and you have repeat customers, cure a patient and they don’t come back

This makes absolutely no sense, people don't get sick once in their lives and then die suddenly later, a patient cured is a patient that eventually will get something else (or even the same problem) and the longer you keep that patient alive the more problems is going to get. Curing a patient is excellent business.

Also, releasing info on trials and studies voluntarily and not being forced by the courts

Companies gave all the info to the goverments of every country they got approval, that is part of the requisites, and once you have literally billions of people vaccinated to get the data (because no company controls it) what do you imagine you will get by adding the extra thousands of the trials?

Im wondering if your animal got rabies after three shots. 

Well, if a dog gets exposed to an infected animal and too much time has passed since the last shot it will get rabies, why do you think it has to be boosted every single year? routine?

The problem is not asking questions, the problem is choosing false answers to believe.

videnrex

after the law was passed many more ‘vaccines’ were hitting the market faster. How many times have pharmas been caught releasing drugs that they knew weren’t safe or had known about side effects but still released them anyway. They have a bad track record and look at how much money they pump into politicians pockets. It’s a dirty and corrupt to the bone.

WASHINGTON – In 1986 Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), creating a no-fault compensation program to stabilize a vaccine market adversely affected by an increase in vaccine-related lawsuits and to facilitate compensation to claimants who found pursuing legitimate vaccine-inflicted injuries too difficult and cost prohibitive.

Section (c) Direct warnings, states, “No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, solely due to the manufacturer’s failure to provide direct warnings to the injured party (or the injured party’s legal representative) of the potential dangers resulting from the administration of the vaccine manufactured by the manufacturer.”

Section (e) prohibits states from establishing or enforcing a law that would bar an individual from bringing civil action against a vaccine manufacturer for damages for a vaccine-related injury or death if such civil action is not barred by the NCVIA.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted review in the case of Bruesewitz et al v. Wyeth LLC with Justice Antonin Scalia delivering the opinion of the court on Feb. 22, 2011.

The court held, “The NCVIA preempts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs seeking compensation for injury or death caused by the vaccine’s side effects.”

*people are getting covid even with a booster, so some might think, hey this isn’t working too well.

*well you know the saying, ‘ there will never be a cure for cancer because there is way too much money involved in treatment’ ‘ a patient cured is a patient lost’

*The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has lost a court battle, to protect the documents they used to approve the company’s COVID-19 vaccine. On Sept. 16, 2021, a complaint was filed in a Texas court, by a group called Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT).

they wanted to hold the info for 50+ years

How many times have pharmas been caught releasing drugs that they knew weren’t safe or had known about side effects but still released them anyway. 

With data from literally billions of people vaccinated supporting the safety and efficacy from the trials? never. Is that easy. You have no argument in this aspect.

And do you know what is hugely more profitable than vaccinating people? letting them get the infection, even a house treatment bought over the counter gives more profit than a vaccine, and even a short stay in the ICU is enough to give more profits than thousands of vaccines.

Your whole argument completely depends on a global conspiracy where literally thousands and thousands of people that have access and capacity to analize the effects of the vaccines in many different populations actively choose to hide that the vaccines are dangerous, even when they will be used on their friends and family, and everything so somebody else will get rich.

That is just nonsense.

And you failed completley to understand the NCVIA, the end result is that the goverment itself takes care of compensating people even if they can&t prove the vaccines caused any problem, they only have to prove this is a possibility. Nowhere in the NCVIA the public is left without compensation, that is a completely false misrepresentation.

they wanted to hold the info for 50+ years

"they" who? not the companies, that already released that information to every single goverment that approved the vaccines (yeah, there is a world outside of the US). Once again, this is a win for the FDA, that now have a perfectly valid reason to get the funding necessary to release the information as requested. Not (as the antivaxxers misrepresent) some kind of defeat because they are supposedly trying to hide something.

And again, what information do you think thousands of vaccinated people is going to prove against the information of Billions of people vaccinated?

Just give those countries more vaccines.

There was a failed attempt to suppress the release of Pfizer's drug trials. Surely this information should be freely available to the public?

Hardly inspires confidence in anything this company has to offer.

Indeed, if their meds were so safe and effective, we would expect them to gladly share their data.

When the FDA vote on approving new Covid treatments or "vaccines", they generally have an online expert panel discussion that can be viewed by the public. They did this for Merck's new Covid drug, and many serious concerns were raised by those experts. For some reason, such discussion is not available for Pfizer's new drug! I would have liked to hear what the experts really think about that product...

Indeed, if their meds were so safe and effective, we would expect them to gladly share their data.

Nonsequitur, the data pertinent has been shared already to the people in charge of judging if it is reliable or not, and in the cases of things already released and used by the public nothing in the clinical trials could ever contradict the available data orders of magnitude bigger, more reliable and complete obtained from the public.

Misrepresenting a discussion that ended up concluding something to be approved as if it did not is a very transparent attempt of disinformation. Every single thing used in humans have reasons for concern, those concerns can be disregarded with information, or be less important than the concerns of NOT using it, this is also normal. The problem is only when those concerns end up being true like happens with the ivermectin that you so readily recommend and that resulted not to produce benefits and only risks for the patients.