COVID-19
Is FDA ‘covering for Pfizer’? Court orders agency to release a million more pages of COVID vaccines documents

From LifeSiteNews
By Dr. Michael Nevradakis for The Defender
“The reluctance to release these data proves to me that there is fear that the public will become even more aware that the FDA has failed and continues to fail in its duty to protect us.”
A federal court last week ordered the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to release one million pages of documents related to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, despite the agency’s efforts to block their release. The FDA has approximately six months to provide the documents.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) filed against the FDA in 2021. PHMPT sued the agency after it rejected a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for expedited processing of documents relating to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials.
In January 2022, a federal court sided with PHMPT, ordering the agency to release internal documents. According to PHMPT, the FDA didn’t provide all the clinical trial documents, prompting the organization to file a motion for their release.
In an opposing motion, the FDA claimed PHMPT’s initial request sought only those documents pertaining to its licensing of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, not the emergency use authorization (EUA) that preceded licensure. The FDA asked the court to release the agency from any obligation to provide additional documents.
The Dec. 6 ruling by U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman rejected the FDA’s claim, ordering the FDA to “produce the responsive EUA file on or before June 30, 2025.”
Pittman’s ruling quoted Patrick Henry, a key figure in the American Revolution: “The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”
“The Covid-19 pandemic is long passed and so has any legitimate reason for concealing from the American people the information relied upon by the government in approving the Pfizer Vaccine,” Pittman added.
Medical, legal experts welcome the ruling
Aaron Siri, an attorney representing PHMPT, called the ruling “Another giant win for transparency.”
“FDA clearly lacks confidence in the review it conducted to license Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine because it is doing everything possible to prevent independent scientists from conducting an independent review,” Siri posted on X.
Naomi Wolf, CEO of Daily Clout and author of “The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity,” analyzed the initial batch of FDA documents. She told The Defender the ruling is “another important victory in securing the immediate release of a million new documents from Pfizer.”
Writing on Substack, Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, said, “It turned out FDA was hanging on to … the entire EUA file. The juiciest materials had not been released. The EUA file contained FDA’s evaluation (and probably all other materials) of the Pfizer clinical trial, which we now know bent a lot of rules.”
Noting that the initial tranche of documents the FDA released contained many duplicate documents and suggesting the FDA was trying to “pull a fast one,” Nass asked, “Why would it need an official release from further production … unless there was further production that it was withholding?”
FDA ‘obviously covering for Pfizer’
According to Pittman’s ruling, “Vaccines are approved for marketing through applications known as Biologics License Applications (‘BLA’).” It stated:
BLAs include various information and data, including: (1) nonclinical and clinical data; (2) information about manufacturing methods and locations; (3) data establishing stability of the product through the dating period; (4) summaries of results from tests performed on the lots of representative samples of the product; and (5) mockups of the labels, enclosures, medication guide if proposed, and containers as applicable. …
If the FDA determines that the BLA meets the statutory and regulatory requirements, the FDA will issue a biologics license for the product, authorizing the sponsor of that particular BLA to market that new product.
The BLA process is distinct from the process of granting an EUA, the ruling noted. This process is governed under the Project BioShield Act of 2004 and gives the FDA authority to grant emergency approval to “certain medical products – such as vaccines – during public health emergencies, according to the ruling.
“The level of scrutiny afforded to a vaccine seeking EUA approval varies significantly from what is considered normal for FDA approval,” Pittman said in his ruling. “Generally, EUA applications require data supporting – not proving – safety and effectiveness, with lower standards and faster reviews than normal FDA approval.”
In its motion opposing the release of the documents, the FDA claimed, “the EUA file does not fall within Plaintiff’s FOIA request because the BLA and EUA are separate applications that are subject to different standards and, thus, a FOIA request for one does not necessitate production of the other.”
Pittman rejected this argument. Conceding that the FDA is correct that the two applications are distinct, he wrote it is nevertheless evident that the documents PHMPT requested included “‘all data and information submitted with or incorporated by reference in any [BLA],’ as well as ‘other related submissions.’”
According to the court, the BLA the FDA granted to Pfizer-BioNTech “incorporated and relied heavily on the EUA.” As such, the ruling stated that the BLA and EUA documents are “related.”
Ray Flores, senior outside counsel to Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender that after the declaration of a public health emergency, “safety and efficacy shortcuts for medical countermeasures are permitted via EUA.”
“By withholding and redacting, the FDA is obviously covering for Pfizer while trying to cover itself, since FDA maintains sole power to revoke the Pfizer-BioNTech EUA,” Flores said. “The reluctance to release these data proves to me that there is fear that the public will become even more aware that the FDA has failed and continues to fail in its duty to protect us.”
Documents may bring us ‘a step closer to learning who rules America’
In late 2021, the FDA argued that it needed 75 years to redact and produce the documents PHMPT requested. A federal court rejected this argument, approving their expedited release and giving Pfizer eight months to furnish the documents. A total of 1,200,874 pages of records have since been released, according to the ruling.
PHMPT, a group of more than 60 medical and public health professionals and scientists from institutions such as Harvard, Yale and UCLA, has published those documents on its website.
“FDA wanted 75+ years to produce these documents and … has worked very hard to get there, this time by hiding a million pages from the Court and the plaintiff,” Siri tweeted.
Nass told The Defender the FDA “attempted a fraud on the court” by “failing to produce documents it knew it was required to make public, based on the original court ruling and FDA law” and “tried to trick the court into acquiescing with its partial production.”
Nass accused the FDA of being “desperate” to conceal documents that indicated it expedited the licensure of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine to facilitate the Biden administration’s desire, in August 2021, to impose vaccine mandates.
“Immediately after the Comirnaty” – the fully licensed version of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot – “license was issued (within days) mandates were issued,” Nass said.
“The only scientific – and ethical – justification to impose a vaccine mandate is to stop transmission,” Nass said. Yet, the FDA “knew the vaccine did not stop transmission when the vaccine was licensed and when it was mandated” – and is now attempting to cover up this information, Nass added.
According to Nass, the FDA might also have been trying to conceal information about the problematic clinical trials of the COVID-19 shots, its inaction on serious adverse events and DNA contamination in the shots.
“As Judge Pittman noted, the language in the original ruling was crystal clear,” Nass wrote on Substack. “And I would point out that the law is also clear regarding the requirement to put the entire package of documents used in a licensing decision in the public domain, once a product is licensed.”
Wolf, whose book, “The Pfizer Papers,” contains an analysis of the previously released FDA documents, previously told The Defender that Pfizer and the FDA were aware of the inadequacies of the COVID-19 vaccine trials and the prevalence of serious side effects, but the FDA tried to hide the data.
In an interview last month on “The Defender In-Depth,” Wolf said the documents revealed evidence of “catastrophic” vaccine injuries, including turbo cancers, and serious side effects that many pregnant women experienced, including miscarriages.
Wolf assembled a team of scientists who volunteered to analyze the previously released documents. She told The Defender that, for the new documents, “We will of course be able in principle to review these documents and issue the historic, politically significant reports as in the past.”
However, to accomplish this, Wolf said “We must solicit resources from the administration or from the public or from our potential partners, or all three,” as analyzing these documents is “extremely labor-intensive.”
Nass questioned whether the FDA will “fully release all its records in response to this second court order.” She said if the documents are fully released, this will bring us “a step closer to learning who rules America.”
This article was originally published by The Defender – Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
COVID-19
Former Australian state premier accused of lying about justification for COVID lockdowns

Daniel Andrews, Premier of Victoria
From LifeSiteNews
By David James
Monica Smit said she is launching a private criminal prosecution against Daniel Andrews based on ‘new evidence proving they enforced lockdowns without medical advice or evidence.’
The fiercest opponent of the former Victorian premier Daniel Andrews during the COVID crisis was activist Monica Smit. The government responded to her advocacy by arresting her for participating in anti-lockdown protests. When she refused to sign her bail conditions she was made, in effect, a political prisoner for 22 days.
Smit subsequently won a case against the Victoria Police for illegal imprisonment, setting an important precedent. But in a vicious legal maneuver, the judge ensured that Smit would be punished again. She awarded Smit $4,000 in damages which was less than the amount offered in pre-trial mediation. It meant that, despite her victory, Smit was liable for Victoria Police’s legal costs of $250,000. It was not a good day for Australian justice.
There is a chance that the tables will be reversed. Smit has announced she is launching a private criminal prosecution against Andrews and his cabinet based on “new evidence proving they enforced lockdowns without medical advice or evidence.”
The revelation that the savage lockdown policies made little sense from a health perspective is hardly a surprise. Very little of what happened made medical sense. For one thing, according to the Worldometer, about four-fifths of the people who tested positive for COVID-19 had no symptoms. Yet for the first time in medical history healthy people were treated as sick.
The culpability of the Victorian government is nevertheless progressively becoming clearer. It has emerged that the Andrews government did not seek medical advice for its curfew policies, the longest in the Western world. Andrews repeatedly lied when he said at press conferences that he was following heath advice.
David Davis, leader of the right wing opposition Liberal Party, has made public a document recording an exchange between two senior health officials. It shows that the ban on people leaving their homes after dark was implemented without any formal input from health authorities.
Davis acquired the email exchange, between Victorian chief health officer Brett Sutton and his deputy Finn Romanes, under a Freedom of Information request. It occurred two-and-a-half hours after the curfew was announced.
Romanes explained he had been off work for two days and was not aware of any “key conversations and considerations” about the curfew and had not “seen any specific written assessment of the requirement” for one.
He added: “The idea of a curfew has not arisen from public health advice in the first instance. In this way, the action of issuing a curfew is a mirror to the State of Disaster and is not occurring on public health advice but is a decision taken by Cabinet.” Sutton responded with: “Your assessment is correct as I understand it.”
The scale of the deceptions is becoming harder for most Australians to avoid if they are paying attention. The mainstream media, for example, is now running stories that the virus originated in a laboratory. Those who have memories will recall that in 2020 anyone suggesting that the virus was artificially made were accused of anti-China racism, especially the state broadcasters SBS and the ABC. Likewise, most politicians and academics dismissed the lab leak theory. To say the least, no one is holding up their hand to take responsibility for their errors.
The email exchange, compelling evidence of the malfeasance of the Andrews government, raises further questions. If Smit’s lawyers can get Andrews to respond under oath, one ought to be: “If you were lying about following medical advice, then why were you in such a hurry to impose such severe measures and attack dissenters?”
It remains a puzzle. Why did otherwise inconsequential politicians suddenly turn into dictatorial monsters with no concern for what their constituents thought?
The most likely explanation is that they were told it was a biowarfare attack and were terrified, ditching health advice and applying military protocols. The mechanism for this was documented in a speech by Queensland senator Malcolm Roberts.
If so, was an egregious error of judgement. As the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed, 2020 and 2021 had the lowest level of respiratory diseases since records have been kept. There was never a pandemic.
There needs to be an explanation to the Australian people of why they lost their liberty and basic rights. A private prosecution might achieve this. Smit writes: “Those responsible should face jail time, nothing less. The latest revelation of ‘document 34‘ is just the beginning. A public criminal trial will expose truths beyond our imagination.”
2025 Federal Election
Conservatives promise to ban firing of Canadian federal workers based on COVID jab status

From LifeSiteNews
The Conservative platform also vows that the party will oppose mandatory digital ID systems and a central bank digital currency if elected.
Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative Party’s 2025 election platform includes a promise to “ban” the firing of any federal worker based “solely” on whether or not they chose to get the COVID shots.
On page 23 of the “Canada First – For A Change” plan, which was released on Tuesday, the promise to protect un-jabbed federal workers is mentioned under “Protect Personal Autonomy, Privacy, and Data Security.”
It promises that a Conservative government will “Ban the dismissal of federal workers based solely on COVID vaccine status.”
The Conservative Party also promises to “Oppose any move toward mandatory digital ID systems” as well as “Prohibit the Bank of Canada from developing or implementing a central bank digital currency.”
In October 2021, the Liberal government of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced unprecedented COVID-19 jab mandates for all federal workers and those in the transportation sector. The government also announced that the unjabbed would no longer be able to travel by air, boat, or train, both domestically and internationally.
This policy resulted in thousands losing their jobs or being placed on leave for non-compliance. It also trapped “unvaccinated” Canadians in the country.
COVID jab mandates, which also came from provincial governments with the support of the federal government, split Canadian society. The shots have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects, such as death, including in children.
Many recent rulings have gone in favor of those who chose not to get the shots and were fired as a result, such as an arbitrator ruling that one of the nation’s leading hospitals in Ontario must compensate 82 healthcare workers terminated after refusing to get the jabs.
Beyond health concerns, many Canadians, especially Catholics, opposed the injections on moral grounds because of their link to fetal cell lines derived from the tissue of aborted babies.
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Canada is squandering the greatest oil opportunity on Earth
-
International2 days ago
U.S. Army names new long-range hypersonic weapon ‘Dark Eagle’
-
Alberta6 hours ago
Premier Danielle Smith responds to election of Liberal government
-
Autism1 day ago
UK plans to test children with gender confusion for autism
-
COVID-191 day ago
Former Australian state premier accused of lying about justification for COVID lockdowns
-
Automotive22 hours ago
Major automakers push congress to block California’s 2035 EV mandate
-
Business1 day ago
Net Zero by 2050: There is no realistic path to affordable and reliable electricity
-
Addictions1 day ago
Four new studies show link between heavy cannabis use, serious health risks