A new statement obtained by The Federalist reveals that the Biden administration pressured national health departments to ignore and bypass various vaccine safety standards in order to quickly comply with Covid shot demands.
The interim staff report, which was released by the House Administrative State Subcommittee and is led by Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., exposes how the Biden administration intimidated FDA ( FDA ) officials by “going beyond their legal authority” while “ignoring risks that were initially exposed in the]Emergency Use Authorization ] EUA vaccine” and demanded that the vaccine be administered to the military and federal employees. The administration also required that huge, privately held firms employees get shots, but the U.S. Supreme Court found that this requirement to be unlawful.
According to the report, FDA guidelines for companies and the government regarding the effects of a product being released under a lower, “emergency-response standard” were” to be followed and communicated.” The Biden management allegedly “pivoted apart from this crucial necessity and sought to ensure the EUA vaccine received full licensing in order to support vaccine demands” in defiance of those methods.
The Biden Administration, through Acting]FDA] Commissioner Janet Woodcock, pressed the FDA to overlook its regulations in the approval process, and the report states that the acceptance process can be long and powerful. The Administration “understood or suppressed voices during this period who questioned the benefits of common vaccination and downplayed the serious injuries brought on by the EUA immunization.”
According to reports, committee interviews with FDA authorities responsible for vaccination approval revealed that the company “rushed the vaccine licensing and later recommendations for immunization boosters.” Despite being required to constantly collect, produce, and review comments on the safety and efficacy of the EUA vaccine, Massie and council members discovered that federal bureaucrats “mishandled reports of vaccine harm.”
Despite mounting evidence that the EUA shot could harm patients, FDA documents and interviews reveal that the Biden administration intended to “fully approve” Pfizer’s Covid jab through the Biologics Licensing Application ( BLA ) process. These choices, according to the report, are the responsibility of Woodcock and Dr. Peter Marks, the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
According to Woodcock and Marks, the FDA” cut corners in its typically demanding BLA approach” to designate the Pfizer EUA vaccine as the only COVID-19 vaccination that had been issued with a fully licensed” safe and effective” status at the time. The FDA’s authorities in vaccine development objected, saying” the risk of myocarditis was raised by the BLA endorsement.”
According to the examination, Pfizer’s decision to review its shot” comported with pressure to sanction the vaccine”. Signs attributed his determination to “appease newcomers who wanted to have an authorized vaccine that gave them “more trust” in a vaccine, even though it was the precise same vaccine that was already on the market under the EUA,” in a testimony before the committee. The Biden administration could not require the Covid shots without the agency’s approval, according to the FDA official.
As described in the subcommittee’s analysis, the primary factor” standing in the way” of Pfizer’s Covid shot receiving BLA approval “were indications of EUA vaccine injuries in some patients”. Woodcock and Marks reportedly consented to the decision, which would have required the FDA to lower its approval standards because the Biden administration had requested that the Pfizer shot be approved by the deadline.
” To ensure a quicker approval, Acting Commissioner Woodcock and Dr. Marks removed the experts who voiced concerns during the BLA process”, the report reads. Despite the concerns, Woodcock and Marks proceeded and completed the approval in time for the Biden White House’s stated deadline.
The CDC’s actions were also used by the subcommittee to “undermine efforts by members of Congress to clarify the vaccine’s efficacy” and to collaborate with Big Tech to censor speech that questioned the effectiveness of Covid shots. Missouri and Louisiana filed a lawsuit in 2022 against the federal government alleging that the Biden administration’s alleged collusion with social media companies to silence online speech against their will violate the First Amendment.
The U. S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a final verdict on the case ( Murthy v. Missouri ) in the coming weeks.
” During the pandemic, politics overruled science at the government institutions entrusted with protecting public health”, Massie said in a statement. A necessary step toward restoring integrity and trust in our regulatory bodies is to publicly acknowledge and correct errors made.
2024- 06- 24 Politics, Privat… by The Federalist
The Federalist staff writer Shawn Fleetwood graduated from the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClear Health, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
