Release the data

[akvanden]

7 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

^^^^^^^^  Here we see what doubling down on the ignorance looks like.  

Continue Bambi.

Here we see what not even addressing the issue is. You think they should just break the law and open themselves up to lawsuits? 

[ArcticCrusher]

From the PV video and the governments own admission.

Why is PV doing the work fake news won't?

 

 

 

[ArcticCrusher]

Just now, akvanden said:

Here we see what not even addressing the issue is. You think they should just break the law and open themselves up to lawsuits? 

Jesus dude, can you put down the stupid pipe?

Check out the IVM and HCL admission from PV.  Your gonna be having nightmares soon.

[ArcticCrusher]

3 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Without a doubt.  Like many other documents that we can’t see, there’s only one reason for it.

Hey, did you pay a lot of those Wonder Women deflector bracelets?  My god!  How much was training?  

 

 

 

[akvanden]

4 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Hey, did you pay a lot of those Wonder Women deflector bracelets?  My god!  How much was training?  

Says the guy talking about Wonder Woman.

 

I’m just going to turn on my ‘digital scrubbing device’ back on here, should only take about 30 seconds to read all messages and reply.

[Doomxz600]

1 minute ago, ArcticCrusher said:

 

 

please tell me that not a string in the gap, childhood ruined 

[Zambroski]

3 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Says the guy talking about Wonder Woman.

 

I’m just going to turn on my ‘digital scrubbing device’ back on here, should only take about 30 seconds to read all messages and reply.

I’m glad you can communicate from the 1950’s.  Hey, how much is gas there?

[akvanden]

8 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

From the PV video and the governments own admission.

Why is PV doing the work fake news won't?

 

 

 

I’m really interested to see how that plays out. It’s written so ridiculously that something seems off. It was only in a lab in April 2020, so to say it was indentified as curative… makes you wonder.

[akvanden]

9 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

 

 

I’d bang me.

[Mag6240]

Basic statistics.  That’s all we are asking for.  They’ve been giving them to us for almost 2 fucking years now, with a bias that was blatantly obvious to some, yet still gets pushed as the whole truth, which CLEARLY is not.

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, Mag6240 said:

Basic statistics.  That’s all we are asking for.  They’ve been giving them to us for almost 2 fucking years now, with a bias that was blatantly obvious to some, yet still gets pushed as the whole truth, which CLEARLY is not.

I mean, I wonder what the problem is?

 

[ArcticCrusher]

5 minutes ago, Mag6240 said:

Basic statistics.  That’s all we are asking for.  They’ve been giving them to us for almost 2 fucking years now, with a bias that was blatantly obvious to some, yet still gets pushed as the whole truth, which CLEARLY is not.

Your not supposed to question the science.

 

 

[Doomxz600]

11 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Your not supposed to question the science.

 

 

For two years all I have heard is they did the research and followed the science but it was without this data so how was that possible ?

[ArcticCrusher]

21 minutes ago, Doomxz600 said:

For two years all I have heard is they did the research and followed the science but it was without this data so how was that possible ?

We said early on they turned the flu into a pandemic, they shut out concerns from real scientists who were discredited, fired, deplatformed, and called conspiracy theorists.

 

Now the truth is coming out, but don't worry the Mass Formation Psychosis still has a hold on the most gullable sheep.

[Ez ryder]

59 minutes ago, Doomxz600 said:

Most likely never included to begin with, just a number.

Yep names and number assigned completely diff file than results and process used 

[Highmark]

11 hours ago, akvanden said:

I'm in agreement, but the page count was based on precedence and manpower. This will just force them to appropriate more people/budget to go through all these pages redacting, etc. A good thing.

Did you type that with a straight face?    They aren't collecting boxes of paper, making copies and sending them by mail.

[Doomxz600]

3 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Did you type that with a straight face?    They aren't collecting boxes of paper, making copies and sending them by mail.

SASE to Pueblo Colorado for your copy of the results

[akvanden]

8 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Did you type that with a straight face?    They aren't collecting boxes of paper, making copies and sending them by mail.

Yeah that's the issue, the mail.

Do you understand what going line by line means for 400,000 pages. Everyone is just oblivious. "It's on a thumbnail drive, just send it. I don't care about legality issues." 

[Highmark]

4 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Yeah that's the issue, the mail.

Do you understand what going line by line means for 400,000 pages. Everyone is just oblivious. "It's on a thumbnail drive, just send it. I don't care about legality issues." 

Do explain the legal issues of releasing all test result data?  Lets be real this should be done BEFORE FDA approval of ANY drug.    You don't think the test data is tracked by them separately?    

Edited January 11, 2022 by Highmark

[irv]

Nothing speaks of trust the science by not releasing the info for 55 yrs then asking that to be extended to 75 yrs.  

[Rigid1]

6 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Yeah that's the issue, the mail.

Do you understand what going line by line means for 400,000 pages. Everyone is just oblivious. "It's on a thumbnail drive, just send it. I don't care about legality issues." 

Aren't they exempt from legality issues/law suits since it's a "vaccine"??

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22

[Mag6240]

11 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Yeah that's the issue, the mail.

Do you understand what going line by line means for 400,000 pages. Everyone is just oblivious. "It's on a thumbnail drive, just send it. I don't care about legality issues." 

What would be illegal about releasing STATISTICS of who was dying, and what their comorbidities were BEFORE dying with Covid?  The CDC knows this data, the director spouted off about it on national morning news the other day!!  Nothing about that should be a legality issue.  It wasn't for the last 20+ months telling us how many people were getting sick and or dying.....

[akvanden]

16 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Do explain the legal issues of releasing all test result data?  Lets be real this should be done BEFORE FDA approval of ANY drug.    You don't think the test data is tracked by them separately?    

I'll let the court documents explain (though we've already been down this road, a few months ago, but read it again.)

https://www.sirillp.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/020-Second-Joint-Status-Report-8989f1fed17e2d919391d8df1978006e.pdf

"A processing schedule is necessary because many different types of information are exempt from the FOIA, such that the government must redact that information before providing responsive records to the plaintiff. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)–(b)(9). Reviewing and redacting records for exempt information is a time-consuming process that often requires government information specialists to review each page line-by-line. When a party requests a large amount of records, like Plaintiff did here, courts typically set a schedule whereby the processing and production of the non-exempt portions of records is made on a rolling basis."

And then if you go on to read 552(b)(1)–(b)(9) from the Freedom of Information Act

https://www.justice.gov/oip/freedom-information-act-5-usc-552

(b) This section does not apply to matters that are—

(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;

(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;

(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), if that statute--

(A)(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or

(ii) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; and

(B) if enacted after the date of enactment of the OPEN FOIA Act of 2009, specifically cites to this paragraph.

(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency, provided that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or more before the date on which the records were requested;

(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;

(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or

(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.

Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subsection. The amount of information deleted, and the exemption under which the deletion is made, shall be indicated on the released portion of the record, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption in this subsection under which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the amount of the information deleted, and the exemption under which the deletion is made, shall be indicated at the place in the record where such deletion is made.



 

 

 

"BUT, BUT..... - it's on a thumbdrive, just send it."

Edited January 11, 2022 by akvanden

[akvanden]

11 minutes ago, Rigid1 said:

Aren't they exempt from legality issues/law suits since it's a "vaccine"??

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22

We're not talking about the manufacturers. 

[akvanden]

9 minutes ago, Mag6240 said:

What would be illegal about releasing STATISTICS of who was dying, and what their comorbidities were BEFORE dying with Covid?  The CDC knows this data, the director spouted off about it on national morning news the other day!!  Nothing about that should be a legality issue.  It wasn't for the last 20+ months telling us how many people were getting sick and or dying.....

We're talking about the clinical trials here, not statistics from the last 20+ months.

Edited January 11, 2022 by akvanden