Thank you, Pfizer, for taking the challenge to end SARS-CoV-2 seriously.

Full speed ahead. 

This is from Pfizer and not the FDA.

...The Phase 3 clinical trial of BNT162b2 (click here) began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,661 participants to date, 41,135 of whom have received a second dose of the vaccine candidate as of November 13, 2020. Approximately 42% of global participants and 30% of U.S. participants have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds, and 41% of global and 45% of U.S. participants are 56-85 years of age. A breakdown of the diversity of clinical trial participants can be found here from approximately 150 clinical trials sites in United States, Germany, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina. The trial will continue to collect efficacy and safety data in participants for an additional two years....

There is no placebo group for the Third trials. The small number of actual participants in the previous trials yielded skewed percentages and will record observed side effects from people not injected. The small sample size of the early trials is not reliable to a larger picture of the vaccine. The fact the third trial did not have a placebo group is more indicative of the actual injection. Including higher participation in placebo allowed legitimacy to move forward when discussing the number of participants.

I would rather read the entire report myself.

An emergency status can be approved based on the 3rd trial above, but, there is no placebo statistics. It can be said that placebo in in this case is actually unethical considering the lethality of the virus. If the figures above accurately reflect immunity among those vaccinated an emergency status can be tried, however, the side effects and adverse effects are probably wanting.

I am not impressed with the stats from Pfizer.

The COVID-19 cases vs Placebos is 1 to 20. In one group 1 out of 9 contracted the disease 

Percentages do not tell the story. Not as far as I am concerned. It is why there are allergic reactions among the early recipients in the UK. It is not widely tested and average people are now exposed to basically an untested vaccine.

I don’t know the number of people that will be expected to receive this vaccine on an emergency basis.

No one more than I wanted this to be over. In all honesty the Pfizer trials are wanting.

end

I think Loeffler mimicked the style of Coney-Barrett.

Bland, singularly spoken to issues, and basically a blank slate. I think this phenomenon with Loeffler can be seen in Coney Barrett at 42:39 time mark after Graham speaks. They may even have had the same coach. But, I find Loeffler very much using the style of debate as Coney-Barrett did.

By providing a "blank slate" the public is then allowed to make her image as it pleases them. Coney-Barrett's public ratings went up a few points putting her over 51 percent in public opinion polls. It was after those polls that Senator Murkowski changed her vote.

...Amy Coney Barrett: (click here)
The same process would work. In that case, there would be parties would have to sue the state arguing that, that law was unconstitutional. It would wind its way up, and if it got to the Supreme Court and if the Supreme Court decided to take it, a whole decision making process begins. You hear arguments from litigants on both sides. They write briefs. You talk to clerks as a judge. You talk to your colleagues. Then you write an opinion. Opinions circulate, and you get feedback from your colleagues. So it’s an entire process. It’s not something that a judge or justice would wake up and say, “Oh, we’re hearing this case. I know what my vote is going to be.”...

These exact words were repeated over and over in Coney-Barrett answers to Senate questions just like Loeffler's repeated mantra.