Court Denies FDA's Bid to Delay Release of Pfizer Vaccine Docs: Judge Slams 'Curtains of Secrecy'

FDA's Request for Indefinite Stay on Pfizer Vaccine Documents Denied by Northern District of Texas

FDA's Request for Indefinite Stay on Pfizer Vaccine Documents Denied by Northern District of Texas

In a significant ruling, U.S. District Judge Pittman of the Northern District of Texas has denied the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) motion to indefinitely stay the release of documents related to the emergency approval of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. This decision marks a pivotal moment in a case that has been ongoing since September 2021, brought by Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) against the FDA.

Background and Court's Stance:

The case centers on PHMPT's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from 2021, seeking documents related to the emergency use authorization (EUA) of the Pfizer vaccine. Initially, the FDA complied with court orders to produce documents at a specified pace but later argued for an indefinite delay in releasing further documents, particularly a newly discovered EUA file.

Judge Pittman, in his order, emphasized the importance of transparency, citing former President Lyndon B. Johnson's remarks upon signing the FOIA into law: "A democracy works best when the people have all the information that the security of the Nation permits. No one should be able to pull curtains of secrecy around decisions which can be revealed without injury to the public interest."

A democracy works best when the people have all the information that the security of the Nation permits. No one should be able to pull curtains of secrecy around decisions which can be revealed without injury to the public interest."
Judge Pittman

Key Points from the Ruling:

• Exhaustion with Delays: Judge Pittman expressed frustration with the FDA's tactics, noting that the agency had ample time and opportunity to disclose and produce the EUA file but chose not to, leading to a significant delay in production.

• Rejection of FDA's Arguments: The FDA argued for the stay citing logistical challenges like insufficient staff and training times, which the court found unconvincing. The judge highlighted the incongruity of the FDA's claim, stating, "To say that the Court was astounded by the length of time new-ALFOI employees must be trained before they are allowed to do their jobs is an understatement."

• Public Interest in Timely Information: The court underscored that "information is the currency of democracy" and criticized the FDA's initial proposal to release documents over 75 years, humorously noting that by then, most who took the vaccine would be "long passed."

• Historical Context: The judge drew parallels with monumental American efforts like defeating the British Empire or the Berlin Airlift, suggesting that the FDA, like the nation in crises, should rise to the challenge, not delay it.

• Final Ruling: The court's order explicitly denies the FDA's motion, setting a firm deadline for the production of the EUA file by June 30, 2025, and encourages the FDA to appeal if it disagrees with the court's orders.

Conclusion:

This ruling not only reaffirms the judiciary's role in upholding transparency but also highlights the ongoing tension between government agencies and public demand for information, especially in matters as critical as public health during a global pandemic. Judge Pittman's decision sends a clear message about the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that "truth will ultimately prevail where pains [are] taken to bring it to light," quoting George Washington in his closing remarks.

Watch our film about the FDA’s actions now at EpidemicofFraud.com.