The Zoom FDA Meeting That Changed Everything

The Zoom FDA Meeting That Changed Everything
What They Knew Before the COVID-19 Vaccine Rollout
Article 1 of the Covid Deception Series

Credit to Dr Bryan Ardis for his fantastic research, courage and boldness

In October 2020, while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was approving remdesivir for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, another meeting was taking place — one that would later raise profound questions about transparency, accountability, and public trust.

On October 22, 2020, the FDA held a public leadership meeting via Zoom, hosted by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Among the speakers was Dr. Steve Anderson, Director of the Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology. His presentation, titled “CBER Plans for Monitoring COVID-19 Vaccine Safety and Effectiveness”, was intended to outline how the FDA would track vaccine safety once the rollout began in December.

For several hours, top officials discussed data systems, monitoring processes, and a technique called “rapid cycle analysis” — suggesting that safety reports would be reviewed quickly and repeatedly, and that findings might even be made public.

But one slide changed everything!

Slide 16: The Draft Working List
Partway through the presentation, Dr. Anderson displayed Slide 16, titled “FDA Safety Surveillance of COVID-19 Vaccines – Draft Working List of Possible Adverse Event Outcomes (Subject to Change).”

The slide contained 22 potential adverse outcomes associated with the upcoming mRNA vaccines — including myocarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, thrombocytopenia, venous thromboembolism, transverse myelitis, multiple inflammatory syndromes in children, and even death.

Observers noted that Slide 16 was quickly removed from the screen, leaving

only participants visible. But not before some attendees captured it. The full presentation was later downloadable from the FDA’s own website.

That single slide — briefly visible, then hidden — revealed that the FDA already had a working list of possible severe side effects before granting Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines.

From “Rapid Cycle Analysis” to Silence
The FDA had promised to monitor and release ongoing data through “rapid cycle analysis.” Yet, in the years since, no such reports have been made public.

Meanwhile, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) began to show thousands of entries related to the very conditions mentioned on that list — myocarditis, clotting events, neurological disorders, and others.

Despite the data, mainstream media coverage remained silent, and government agencies continued to describe these vaccines as “safe and effective.” VAERS was also promoted as unreliable as anyone could enter anything. But that wasn’t the case. Each entry was scrutinized and followed up on.

The Ethical Question
If federal regulators were aware — months in advance — that such adverse reactions were possible, why wasn’t the public given the full picture?

Should not every doctor, parent, and patient have been shown Slide 16 before consenting to receive the shots?

What does it mean for informed consent if that information was discussed internally but never shared broadly?

The Broader Implications
The FDA’s own PowerPoint, made in October 2020, predates the first vaccinations by nearly two months. Yet by December 14, 2020, Americans began receiving the mRNA shots — and reports of injury began to accumulate globally.

The VAERS database quickly filled with entries matching the list from Slide 16: cardiac inflammation, clotting disorders, autoimmune flare-ups, and neurological complications. Health professionals, independent researchers, and citizen journalists began documenting the trend.

Still, the official narrative did not change.

The Slide That Won’t Go Away
Slide 16 remains a pivotal document — a moment when transparency briefly broke through the polished surface of official communications.

It showed that regulators anticipated severe outcomes, and it raised enduring questions about how public health policy is shaped when risks are known but not disclosed in plain language.

The FDA’s stated mission is to protect public health. Whether this moment represents oversight, bureaucracy, or something deeper, one fact remains undeniable:
They knew.

And the world deserves to know, too.