Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

U.S. Court Orders Release of Pfizer COVID-19 Jab Data; Over 1,200 Recorded Deaths in the First 90 Days


The FDA shamelessly attempted to stop a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to release Pfizer’s data on their experimental COVID-19 jab.

The FOIA request was made by a government accountability group called Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency.

According to their website, the group of public health professionals, medical professionals, scientists, and journalists exists for the sole purpose of analyzing the data the FDA used to issue an emergency use authorization (EUA) of the Pfizer COVID-19 jabs.

The organization wants the data made publicly available to allow independent experts to conduct their own review and analyses.

The group asked the U.S. federal government to release 329,000 pages of documents used by the FDA to make their rushed decision.

After the courts ordered the FDA to release the information, the federal agency made a sleazy attempt to delay the release.

Justice Department lawyers representing the FDA asked a federal judge to let them process 500 pages per month.

That’s the equivalent of 55 years to process the 329,000 pages of Pfizer data.

While the group filed a motion to expedite the processing of the documents, the FDA released the first batch of documents.

Upon review of this first document dump, it’s clear why the FDA is desperate to delay the processing of these documents as long as possible.

Let’s review the findings:

I was going to show a Twitter thread that brilliantly analyzed the official Pfizer data used by the FDA.

Unfortunately, Twitter’s thought police suspended the account for misinformation.

The account shared official data used by the U.S. federal government to grant EUA to Pfizer’s COVID-19 jab.

That exemplifies how diabolical online censorship is right now.

I’ve added a link to the released documents for you to review.

The documents represent recorded data from December 1, 2020 through February 28, 2021.

There was a total of 42,086 case reports containing 158,893 events.

25,957 of the events were listed as “nervous system disorders” and 17,283 of the events were listed as “musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders.”

As noted, Pfizer recorded 1,223 fatalities in the first three months of their COVID-19 jab rollout.


Daniel Horowitz from The Blaze explained the seriousness of Pfizer’s official data:

So for those who think that somehow VAERS is not accurate or is overreporting deaths, these are numbers straight from the horse’s mouth just through February. Remember, it is extremely hard to trace many serious events back to the vaccine, including death, especially if there is a few weeks’ lag time, and most especially with people already in advanced age. So these are just the ones that were “submitted voluntarily, and the magnitude of underreporting is unknown.”

Full stop right there. Under any other circumstance, such a vaccine would have been removed from the market right away, certainly not fully endorsed, marketed, funded, and mandated by government. It was so bad that Pfizer reveals, “Due to the large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports received for the product, the MAH has prioritized the processing of serious cases” and also had to hire more full-time employees to handle the reporting. How was it ethical for the FDA to withhold this information from the public, and how can it ever be ethical to mandate such a shot, even if one believes that, in general, a government could wield such authority? This is especially true now that we know its efficacy is minimal at best and downright enhances the virus at worst.

And to perfectly summarize the collusive behavior of Pfizer and the FDA, this is Pfizer’s analysis of their data inside the documents:

Review of the available data for this cumulative PM experience, confirms a favorable benefit: risk balance for BNT162b2.

Pfizer will continue routine pharmacovigilance activities on behalf of BioNTech according to the Pharmacovigilance Agreement in place, in order to assure patient safety and will inform the Agency if an evaluation of the safety data yields significant new information for BNT162b2.


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Hey, Noah here!

Wondering where we went?

Read this and bookmark our new site!

See you over there!

Thanks for sharing!