Judge Hands Down Devastating Order Against FDA, Pfizer, Regarding the Release of COVID Vaccine Data – Opinion

Transparency in government is one of the founding principles of the United States.  Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests are common when people want to learn more about government operations.  As a former political consultant, and more recently as an independent journalist, I’ve filed many FOIA requests.  To date, there are many FOIA requests that I am still waiting for regarding information on COVID. Some of the delays have to do with my job as a journalist. RedState as “not real journalism.”  Unfortunately, I do not have the financial resources to mount a legal challenge to their statements, so now I just have to get in line and wait for my requested information to return.

Fortunately for us, some organizations have the resources to take on these lying sacks of crap in government, and the organization called “Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency” filed suit against the FDA and Pfizer regarding their plan to take decades to release the data regarding the vaccines.  On Thursday, a US District Judge released a decision that ordered the FDA and Pfizer to release the vaccine data – data they had initially proposed to release at a rate of 500 pages per month – at an astounding rate of 55,000 pages per month.  The release will be complete in just a few decades thanks to this.

Pfizer and FDA attempted to convince the judge that the FDA information was confidential. They argued it needed to be reviewed before release and thus required a longer time period.  The Judge didn’t buy that:

Here, the Court recognizes the “unduly burdensome” challenges that this FOIA request may present to the FDA. See also ECF Nos. 23, 30, 34. But, as expressed at the scheduling conference, there may not be a “more important issue at the Food and Drug Administration . . . In order to prevent the spread of the pandemic, every American was vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccination. [and]Insuring that Americans are aware that this is not the case []Rush[ed]On behalf of the United States . . .” Therefore, the Court concludes this FOIA request to be of public paramount importance. [emphasis added]

A very similar argument was recognized by the court regarding FOIA requests I made to the NIH/CDC. They unilaterally rejected my request.  The argument goes that sometimes delaying information and data release is just as dangerous as refusing it.

And “Congress has long recognized that ‘information is often useful only if it is timely’ and that, therefore ‘excessive delay by the agency in its response is often tantamount to denial.’” Open Soc’y Just. Initiative v. CIA, 399 F. Supp. 3d 161, 165 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting H.R. REP. NO. 93-876, at 6271 (1974)).

It is obvious to me that this statement is ironic. Congress also denied another request I made for information, specifically about the January 6th riots and video coverage.  Congress’s response?  FOIA is only applicable to Executive Agencies. 

“[S]tale information is of little value.” Payne Enters., Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486, 494 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The Court, agreeing with this truism, therefore concludes that the expeditious completion of Plaintiff’s request is not only practicable, but necessary. Bloomberg, L.P. in FDA v. 500 F. Supp. 2d 371, 378 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2007) (“[I]t is the compelling need for such public understanding that drives the urgency of the request.”). To that end, the Court further concludes that the production rate, as detailed below, appropriately balances the need for unprecedented urgency in processing this request with the FDA’s concerns regarding the burdens of production. See Halpern v. FBI, 181 F.3d 279, 284–85 (2nd Cir. 1991) (“[FOIA]It is important to emphasize the importance of ensuring that all information about an agency can be disclosed. This will allow for a balanced assessment of competing interests. . . .”).

The court found that what I had been told by the NIH – that I was just going to have to accept the delay of the data I had requested – amounted to the same as a denial.  After all temporary measures concerning COVID, future viral threats, and other issues will have been taken to make them permanent over the years, it is unlikely that anyone would care. It is now that this information can be made public.  It is crucial to release information about funding at Wuhan Institute of Virology. This funding continues without any investigation into whether there has been any potential laboratory leakage.  It is important to find out if there have been any long-term side effects from vaccines. This should not be done after the potential havoc that could occur on populations.

One could expect this decision to be appealed, so the story isn’t over yet, but buckle up.  The order will be stayed until the case is heard by the higher court.