April 8, 2022 - Epoch Times
23:00
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| This is your Daily Facts Matter Update, and I'm your host, Roman, from the Epoch Times. | |
| And now, let's begin today's discussion by talking about the latest trove of Pfizer documents that were just released by the FDA. Now, this was actually the second batch of documents that were released by the agency after a federal judge said that they could not take several decades to release them, and instead, he ordered that all of them must be released by the end of the year. | |
| Specifically, we're talking about the approximately 330,000 pages of data which Pfizer submitted to the FDA in order to get both emergency authorization and then later approval of their COVID vaccine. | |
| Now, if you take a look at the release schedule, you'll see that on March 1st, the FDA released about 10,000 pages of documents, which we already discussed in a previous episode. | |
| And then, six days ago, on April 1st, the FDA released their second trove of documents spanning another 10,000 pages. | |
| And within this second trove, I believe that there are three things that are truly worth highlighting. | |
| The first is the bombshell development that was revealed in these documents that not only does natural immunity work well against COVID-19, but that both Pfizer as well as the FDA, they were well aware of this fact for a very long time. | |
| Specifically, the clinical trial data within these documents, it showed that those who had a previous COVID infection, meaning people who had natural antibodies within their system, they had no difference in outcome compared to those who were vaccinated in Pfizer's limited trial. | |
| meaning that neither anyone who was vaccinated nor anyone who had a previous infection wound up developing severe disease as defined by either the FDA or the CDC. | |
| And just to make a quick note here, within the context of these documents, the CDC and the FDA define severe disease a little bit differently. | |
| The CDC defines it as anyone needing hospitalization, while the FDA defines it as anyone who winds up needing supplemental oxygen. | |
| However, the key takeaway here is that regardless of how you actually define the term, there were zero cases of severe COVID infection among the naturally immune group, regardless of whether they were vaccinated or not. | |
| And then furthermore, the data also showed that natural immunity was statistically identical to the vaccine in terms of preventing infection. | |
| And so you see, what this means in practice is that if the FDA, as well as the CDC, did truly go through this data with a fine-tooth comb like they said they did prior to granting authorization to the Pfizer vaccine, well then they should have really been well aware of the fact that natural immunity to COVID was effective. | |
| However, take a moment to look back on the messaging that America has received over the past two years. | |
| Government officials, as well as the media, they have essentially relegated natural immunity to the fringes of polite conversation. | |
| Talking about it, in fact, has become a borderline conspiracy theory to the point that social media platforms like Instagram have outright banned the use of the hashtag natural immunity. | |
| When you try to tag some kind of a picture or post with it, it doesn't even let you. | |
| And then furthermore, despite the data showing that natural immunity in and of itself is extremely effective at defending against both infection as well as severe case and hospitalizations, well, here's the conclusion that Pfizer actually released. | |
| Quote, final efficacy results show that the BNT162b2, which is the name of the Pfizer vaccine, provided protection against COVID-19 in participants with or without evidence of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2. | |
| Meaning that according to Pfizer, their vaccine works for people who both already have natural immunity and who don't have natural immunity. | |
| Which is ironically both technically true, but it's also misleading because it does not give you the full picture. | |
| Thankfully though, we now have these documents in hand today rather than 70 years from now, so we can actually understand what took place behind the scenes. | |
| Also, just as a short aside, here's a short video of Dr. | |
| Fauci from a few years ago discussing what he believed was the most potent vaccine for the flu. | |
| But she's had the flu for 14 days. | |
| Should she get a flu shot? | |
| Well, no. | |
| If she got the flu for 14 days, she's as protected as anybody can be because the best vaccination is to get infected yourself. | |
| If she really has the flu, she definitely doesn't need a flu vaccine. | |
| If she really has the flu. | |
| She should not get it again. | |
| She doesn't need it because it's the most potent vaccination is getting infected yourself. | |
| Now the second big takeaway from this new trove of documents is the revelation that adverse reactions to the vaccine were both more frequent as well as more severe in younger individuals, which is something of course that eventually was brought to light. | |
| However, these documents reveal the fact that researchers knew about this phenomenon long before the vaccine approval was granted. | |
| Specifically, in one of these documents, under a heading called Phase 1 Safety, it says this, And just for your reference, When they say older group, that is technically defined, at least in this data set, as people above the age of 55, whereas the entire study was looking at everyone above the age of 16, meaning two things, actually. | |
| One is that this data does not actually include the effects of the vaccine for those under the age of 16, and that secondly, the researchers found that adverse reactions to the vaccine were more common, they occurred more frequently, and they were more severe in people under the age of 55. | |
| However, the study did not actually stratify the data more granularly, and so we don't know at which point it is most severe. | |
| Although data collected after the vaccine was approved shows a higher incidence of myocarditis for those below the age of 20. | |
| And then furthermore, these 10,000 pages of documents, they are a little bit scattered and out of order. | |
| And so one of these documents, among the 10,000 pages, is actually from a consent form for a children's clinical trial of the Pfizer vaccine. | |
| And this form is actually from December 15th of 2021, meaning this is just from three months ago. | |
| And on this form, there are several interesting points regarding adverse reactions. | |
| For instance, it lists several possible side effects that the child might experience during the trial, including myocarditis. | |
| Now that is of course not in and of itself news. | |
| However, the document also states that the rate of occurrence for myocarditis is 10 out of 100,000 people. | |
| And in that document, they actually don't specify the age or gender of that rate of occurrence. | |
| And so the reason that's so significant is because previously the reported rate of myocarditis was 1 in 50,000 people, with a large chunk of that being cases among young males. | |
| However, in this legal consent form that Pfizer is having people sign before they actually enter the clinical trial, the number is significantly higher, being 10 in 10,000. | |
| Furthermore, this consent form also lists several other possible side effects, and here's what it says on this front. | |
| Quote, the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine on sperm, a pregnancy, a fetus, or a nursing child are not known. | |
| Which is, again, at least to me, just fascinating. | |
| Because when you compare what is actually written in this form, which is, again, just from three months ago, and you compare that to the media's narrative about how the vaccine is totally safe in regards to reproductive health, well, obviously there is a bit of a disconnect. | |
| Now, of course, I'm not saying that there's definitely a negative effect on fertility, however, Pfizer believed that, at least legally speaking, there was enough of a risk that they needed to write what they did in order to cover their bases. | |
| And the fact that they did, the fact that they wrote what they did, well, it shows that we just really do not know the long-term effects of the vaccine in regards to fertility, pregnancy, fetal health, as well as nursing a child, and so on. | |
| And that is, of course, despite the fact that you would be branded a conspiracy theorist if you ever dare to say that out loud on some of the legacy news outlets. | |
| The last point that I believe is really worth highlighting that came out of this 10,000 pages of documents, well, it has to do with a concept called ADE, which stands for Antibody Dependent Enhancement Response. | |
| This is specifically when an individual takes a vaccine and ends up developing a worse illness than they would have otherwise normally experienced without the vaccine. | |
| Now, just like everything else that we've covered in these documents, this was also once branded and demonized as a conspiracy theory. | |
| However, within the consent form of one of the clinical trials, well, here's what Pfizer wrote. | |
| So again, that does not mean that this is necessarily the case. | |
| But at the very least, legally speaking, Pfizer believed that in order to cover all their liabilities, they had to make mention of it on their consent form, which is not something that they would have done if the chance of an ADE response was zero. | |
| And now, since we're discussing documents which had to be fought over in court for several months in order to be finally released so that you and I can get access to them, I thought it would be a great opportunity to sit down and speak with Mr. Tom Fitton, who is the president of a government watchdog group called Judicial Watch, and they regularly file Freedom of Information Act requests, and they sue the federal government and they regularly file Freedom of Information Act requests, and they sue the federal government in order to obtain documents just like the ones we discussed so that we can actually know what is happening | |
| In fact, just earlier today, due to their work, the NIH finally released a brief showing what exactly Dr. Fauci's job description is. | |
| However, within that brief, they actually withheld all of their related contracts. | |
| Furthermore, they're actually in the process of suing a little-known organization I've actually never heard of it before. | |
| It's called BARDA. It stands for the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. | |
| It's actually underneath the NIH, and they're suing them in order to get all the data regarding the COVID-19 boosters. | |
| So they are doing a lot of heavy lifting, and here's the interview. | |
| All right, Tom Fitton, thank you so much for joining us. | |
| You're welcome to be with you. | |
| There's a couple of topics I wanted to discuss. | |
| Let's start over in California. | |
| Can you set the stage for the viewers on what exactly the law was that you're suing against, and what were the implications of that particular law? | |
| Well, the California legislature and the governor there, they're all leftists, and they passed a law initially to require quotas for certain corporate board of director positions, focused on gender initially. | |
| They weren't satisfied with that. | |
| Then they passed another law Requiring quotas based on individuals who identify as certain minorities, ethnicities, or LGBTQ. And, you know, both sets of laws violate the California Constitution, so we represent taxpayers challenging those laws. | |
| We had one go to trial against a gender quota. | |
| We're still waiting for a decision there. | |
| But the court in the other case, in our challenge against the discriminatory requirements Related to race and LGBT status, the court found in a summary fashion that we were right and he ruled the program unconstitutional. | |
| I mean, to describe it is to condemn it. | |
| You're saying to corporations, there are certain board slots on your board of directors that only someone of a specific race, ethnicity, or identified LGBT status can apply for. | |
| It's un-American. | |
| Yeah, and so what you're referring to is AB 979, so that was what was struck down. | |
| But the case SB 826, which was regarding the female board members, that's still working its way through the court, is that correct? | |
| Yes, we had a trial that lasted several weeks, and the judge is going to presumably issue a verdict, hopefully soon, but we don't know. | |
| But in the meantime, this other court has thrown out as unconstitutional The idea that you treat people anything other than as individuals, as opposed to members of a group in a discriminatory fashion. | |
| Yeah, I remember when I first read about this particular law, I was rather surprised because just on its face, it seemed like it was unconstitutional. | |
| And, well, I made the joke, you know, you have somebody sitting there in front of you for an open job position, you have to ask them, like, hey, are you gay? | |
| And if they answer no, you actually can't hire them. | |
| It seems ridiculous. | |
| But I wanted to ask you, Because it seems so ridiculous and so unconstitutional, why do you think it was passed and then signed into law? | |
| Was it something that they had to do in order to placate the populace there in California? | |
| Or did they actually not recognize that it was unconstitutional? | |
| Legislatively, they recognized it was unconstitutional. | |
| You had a Senate analysis in the California state legislature highlighting the constitutional affirmities. | |
| But the extremists are controlling this debate now. | |
| I mean, we used to have debates about affirmative action, about whether it was really quotas or just increased outreach to ensure that every one of all races and backgrounds are covered. | |
| Here, they just went straight to, you've got to pick people based on race. | |
| And it's this extremist, frankly, critical theory, CRT approach. | |
| And when you've got this radicalism and revolutionary approach, The rule of law and the Constitution, what might give pause to ordinary folks in politics, to the extreme left, they don't care. | |
| They'll see what happens. | |
| Maybe we can get away with it. | |
| Maybe we can dismantle The legal infrastructure that's been put in place over the last 60 years to protect Americans against discrimination and require it and start categorizing people by race in grand ways and ways that I think could destroy the country. | |
| So what's the next step in this case? | |
| Are they going to appeal it at either the appellate or the Supreme Court level? | |
| I don't know if they're going to appeal it. | |
| It's in a state court process, so they'd have to appeal it within the state court system of California. | |
| They have, you know, practically speaking, some time to figure out what they want to do. | |
| In the meantime, we expect the judge is going to permanently enjoy the law. | |
| So, you know, ironically, it was a taxpayer lawsuit where taxpayers have a right in California that they don't necessarily have in other jurisdictions to sue state entities that engage in wrongdoing. | |
| Tax dollars can't go to promote illegal activities. | |
| So one of California's defenses, they were so proud of this law, they said they aren't enforcing it. | |
| That was their defense to try to protect themselves from being held accountable in this court process, and the court wasn't buying any of it. | |
| That seems to be a growing trend here in New York City. | |
| The previous administration, the de Blasio administration, they passed a vaccine mandate for all businesses operating in New York City, but they likewise said, well, you know, we passed it, but we're not going to enforce it. | |
| It's just something on the books. | |
| It just seems to be a growing trend. | |
| But actually, I wanted to change gears a little bit because the midterm elections are coming up so soon, so this is becoming more and more pertinent. | |
| So recently, the DOJ set up a task force. | |
| Specifically, it's called the Election Threats Task Force. | |
| Can you give a little bit of an idea to the viewership about what this task force is and why you are suing them right now for documents? | |
| Well, allegedly, there's this major problem that I didn't know was existing, that election officials are being threatened. | |
| Now, I'm not aware of that taking place. | |
| I'm sure it happened somewhere, but did it require a federal task force? | |
| Of course not. | |
| And it echoes Garland's memo Which resulted from a letter calling parents objecting to CRT and demanding accountability about school curricula as terrorists. | |
| Sure enough, they've got a variation of that theme where they're suggesting that those who are questioning elections and demanding accountability from election officials should be treated as threats to the Republic. | |
| Not only do you have the DOJ involved, you've got the FBI, you've got their national security operation involved as well, and the Department of Homeland Security. | |
| I read it as Don't you dare ask questions about the way elections are being conducted, otherwise you'll be on our government radar. | |
| And so we want answers about it. | |
| And of course, when you don't give us answers, and you don't comply with the law that requires that records be turned over, it suggests to me that you got something to hide. | |
| So what are they nervous about that they don't want to give to us? | |
| You know, I think we had asked for this material last year initially, and we still don't have anything. | |
| So is it the case that they had these meetings describing all the different threats that these election officials face, but nobody outside of this task force knows what those threats are, and so we're just assuming, like, Yes, there are these supposed threats. | |
| Nobody knows what they are, but they're going to just move forward as if that's the case. | |
| And you want to actually get all the audio recordings, transcripts, and summaries of the meetings to describe what is actually happening. | |
| Is that the case? | |
| Yeah. | |
| I mean, they had a big meeting announcing it or discussing the issue. | |
| I think they had over 1,000 people involved, maybe 1,400. | |
| And where are the records of that? | |
| How many records could there be of such a meeting? | |
| But this, to me, you can't separate it from the attack on parents, categorizing them as terrorists out of the same agency. | |
| So what they do is they pretend that their political opponents are to be treated as national security threats, potential terrorists, lawbreakers, and then follow up with an intimidation effort that suggests law enforcement will be watching you if you talk on these specific topics. | |
| Let me ask you, I feel like more and more people are getting really disenfranchised from all these different institutions, such as the DOJ, because they're seeing that they're becoming so politicized, right? | |
| Like the two examples you gave are phenomenal examples, the parents and with these election officials. | |
| Besides your work, which is uncovering what is actually happening behind the scenes, do you foresee any way for the general public to regain trust in America's institutions? | |
| Well, I mean, specifically, those federal agencies, and frankly, most federal agencies are irredeemably corrupt, and they need to be really reformed in dramatic ways, if not dismantled, depending on the agency entirely. | |
| I mean, the Justice Department is, when it comes to bad public policy and misconduct, they're the center of the storm. | |
| They defend the indefensible. | |
| They're the kind of the lawyers for all the other federal government agencies. | |
| They interpret the law. | |
| If the federal government's breaking the law and you think that's going on and there's abuse, usually there's a Justice Department attorney or agency that's more than willing to defend that and is pushing it or protecting them from accountability by pretending that records about government misconduct are secret and can't be turned over. | |
| So, I mean, if you want to address these issues, you have to claw back the power from these agencies because they're too big, they have too much money, and practically speaking, no one tracks what they do. | |
| And so, I mean, you got this basic waste, fraud, and abuse issue in addition to the politicization because no one's watching the store. | |
| We need to watch the watchers. | |
| Another agency you're working to keep accountable is HHS. And right now you have It looks like two separate lawsuits for documents. | |
| One is for COVID side effect related documents and another is for the booster shots. | |
| Although the booster shots are a specific side agency, right? | |
| Can you describe what's going on there? | |
| Yeah, there's a, the acronym is BARDA. I don't know the full name of it, but it's an agency I hadn't heard of till we started asking questions of it. | |
| But it's a powerful agency within HHS that's charged with funneling money to investigate and propagate We wanted to know what was going on there because, as you know, there was a big debate about the value of pushing boosters among certain populations here in the United States. | |
| It was a battle within the federal government and the federal agencies. | |
| So what was going on there? | |
| And then, of course, there's a big debate about the adverse events related to the COVID vaccinations. | |
| So we want to know what the back and forth was about that debate in the agencies and they don't want to give us any information. | |
| One of the things that we don't do is we say, give us these documents tomorrow, otherwise we're going to sue. | |
| No, we ask for the documents, we wait for the statutory timeline to pass, and then oftentimes we still give them extra time, and they still don't want to give us the records. | |
| So we're in this position of having to sue for basic information about the safety and efficacy of one of the most significant medications and treatments in the history of humankind. | |
| And they're treating it like a state secret. | |
| What does that have to say about what they're hiding about the safety or efficacy of these medications? | |
| Have you noticed the difference with the change in administrations when Trump left office and Biden entered office? | |
| Was it easier to get documents or was it kind of equally the same? | |
| It got slightly worse under Trump because his appointees didn't care about FOIA that much. | |
| We got some extra documents we might not have gotten from another administration on specific issues, but generally speaking, things got less transparent and Biden is just more of the same. | |
| Last topic I wanted to discuss with you, which kind of ties into the last question. | |
| So now Hunter Biden's emails are suddenly open for him. | |
| Everybody's talking about them. | |
| The Washington Post even published a story about them. | |
| The New York Times did as well. | |
| So a couple of things. | |
| One is, why do you believe suddenly the floodgates opened? | |
| Because, I mean, even we here at the Epoch Times, we don't have the resources of some of the other publications, but even we were able to verify that these emails were legitimate all the way back like a year and a half ago. | |
| What do you think changed? | |
| Well, a lot of the stories aren't news in the sense that they're reporting material that's already out there. | |
| Much of the news is the detail of the Justice Department investigation, the Justice Department sniffing around these issues. | |
| I call it the modified limited hangout, which is in the sense that they put out information that is seen as negative, And potentially damaging to certain friends while getting it out there in order to protect other friends. | |
| And the big friend, the big guy they're trying to protect, they use the phrase from the scandal, is Joe Biden. | |
| So when you look at the stories carefully, it's pretty clear Hunter Biden's got significant criminal liability. | |
| But the stories go out of their way to suggest, well, there's no evidence Their definition of evidence is meaningless in that case, that Joe Biden's implicated in any of this. | |
| Well, of course there is, and they're hiding it, and they're trying to downplay it. | |
| So in my view, they're worried that Hunter Biden and people around him, or maybe even the president's brother, may be subject to a criminal prosecution, and they're trying to protect Joe from the blowback, by just getting it out there in a way that makes it old news when it happens. | |
| What do you make of Bill Barr who came out recently and he had an interview on Fox News and he kind of said that, you know, it was unacceptable that the FBI didn't investigate it. | |
| But he was, you know, in charge of the DOJ during that time period. | |
| From your understanding of how the DOJ works, I'm sure you have a much deeper understanding than most people with all the lawsuits you filed. | |
| Why is it the case that nothing happened with a laptop for so long even though it was in their possession? | |
| Well, DOJ and FBI corruption, they were protecting Joe Biden while targeting Trump. | |
| And Barr knew that was happening and he didn't do anything about it. | |
| He didn't. | |
| And in fact, based on reports at the time, he stopped investigations of Biden from proceeding in the regular way so as not to interfere with the election. | |
| So, you know, and at one point he acknowledged that he knew Biden was lying about the laptop and What was on it and its origins. | |
| All right, well, Tom Fitton, thank you so much for the update, and best of luck to all the cases that you're pursuing. | |
| Thank you very much. | |
| We'll keep on it. | |
| And then, until next time, I'm your host, Roman, from The Epoch Times. |
Export Selection