However, aside from this relatively mundane information — whether typically released to the public or not — the latest batch of documents may contain additional revelatory information.

An initial review by The Defender of the information included in this vast set of newly released documents includes:

The sheer volume of information that must be analyzed and processed necessitates careful examination, which will be performed by the editorial staff of The Defender, with further information and any significant revelations to be published in the coming days.

A circuitous legal process and a victory for transparency

The FDA had previously argued it didn’t have enough staff to review, redact and release hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, claiming it could process only 500 pages per month.

This would have meant the cache of documents would not be fully released to the public for approximately 75 years.

In his Jan. 6 order, Pittmann rejected the FDA’s claim and instead required the agency to release 12,000 pages of documents by Jan. 31 and an additional 55,000 pages per month thereafter.

This decision was then amended by Pittman’s subsequent Feb. 2 order, truncating the release schedule to a matter of months instead of decades.

The Feb. 2 order also granted the FDA the ability to “bank” excess pages as part of this release schedule — meaning that if the agency exceeds its monthly quota in any given month it can apply those extra pages to a subsequent month.

Previously, Pfizer responded to the Jan. 6 order by filing a memorandum with the court requesting to intervene in the case to assist the FDA with the documents’ release,  specifically for the “limited purpose of ensuring that information exempt from disclosure under FOIA is adequately protected as FDA complies with this Court’s order.”

Pfizer claimed to support the disclosure of the documents, but asked to intervene in the case to ensure that information legally exempt from disclosure will not be “disclosed inappropriately.”

Pittman rejected Pfizer’s bid in his Feb. 2 order.

In a related matter, Judge Michael Truncale of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on Feb. 10 unsealed 400 pages of documents pertaining to a lawsuit filed by a whistleblower, Brook Jackson.

Jackson formerly worked for Ventavia, a contractor hired by Pfizer to conduct Phase 3 clinical trials of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine.

Jackson’s lawsuit alleges multiple improprieties in the clinical trial process during the time that she was employed with Ventavia. The FDA declined to intervene in this case.

Some of the documents pertaining to the approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine that were released on March 1 appear to directly relate to the clinical trials conducted by Ventavia, and thus may shed light on Jackson’s allegations.