No coincidence when a drug is being administered to billions of people

3xynxj.gif (click to show) Makes me wonder

They sure did!

Yessir

It's not a coincidence. It's jurisdiction. The FDA funded research for the vaccine because they're the FDA. The US Food and Drug Administration has a job to fund pharmaceutical research, especially during a public health crisis. It's also their job to test these drugs for safety and efficacy. So yes, the same people who gave it the "OK" funded its research. That means the FDA was doing its job.

It used to be funded by the people, now it is almost fully funded and overseen by the same people that made the vaccine.
Meaning,

they say: "Its safe and effective!"

Us: "says who?"

them: "the FDA!"

Us: "who funded the FDA?"

them: "no one, just Pfizer"

Us: "so wait, the same people that made the vaccine (you), are the ones who paid for the result of it being safe?"

them: "Yes."

Us: that's reassuring.

You must see, there is a conflict of interest here.

(Replying to: "Online. You haven't been able to read them?")
I'm seeing, primarily, increased rates of reported heart attack, stroke, and appendicitis which were consistently higher vs a placebo group. The rest still need to be judged report by report, otherwise people are at liberty to outright lie about symptoms. But as mentioned before, those three do appear to have higher rates.

Yeah, cancer is up 1000% in the military, so is other crazy diseases, but only since the vaccine was made mandatory. . .

And it makes sense, when you have a vaccine inside you that stops incredible amounts of cellular repair, you are bound to have stuff like cows disease.

I think there's some lack of context here. The FDA is still publicly funded. But about 45% of that funding comes from fees that pharmaceutical companies pay to get their medications tested, so that the FDA has the capacity to test said medications. It's a legal requirement, not a donation. So, yes, Pfizer did fund the FDA, but in the capacity that they were required to pay fees for all of their testing. They *could* test it for free, but that's another, like, 0.1 cents on your tax dollar, and less money pharmaceutical companies have to pay for testing, meaning they can send in things for testing that were even less scrutinized beforehand, because it would be cheaper for them to do so.

Thats why it took only took under a year, when the gold standard is at least 10.

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/vaccines/timeline

Yep. They did a bunch of things at once, as opposed to one at a time, and there was heavy investment in research by both private and public entities, and preemptive manufacturing to make sure it got rolled out quickly, along with a tiered simultaneous testing phase that overlapped tests. It wasn't the safest, but it also wasn't approved until the final phase of testing was completed. Then, because it had already been mass-manufactured, they could immediately release it, and monitor the effects on early adopters for safety purposes.

Yeah, so not the gold standard. It was rushed illegally, and then a few months later the FDA gave the thumbs up, but way after. So no, this is not normal, and no, they are not trustworthy.

Not normal, no. What they released the vaccine for was emergency use, before more the longitudinal, rigorous tests were completed. They were within their authorization.

So you see my point? They paid for the trials to be done, and conveniently, they were only less than 1 year long?

And now we see the from the FDA documents, that are highly redacted, that there are some serious side-effects and deaths.

Oh? I've been looking for those. Where'd ya find them?

Online. You haven't been able to read them?

There are a lot of news sites that have excerpts. . .

technically, anything consumable is a drug

That's not true, nor is that the standard of any medical administration.