Skip to content
Breaking News Alert Flint, Mich. Clerk Resigns After Elections Group Calls Out Lopsided Number Of Democrat Poll Watchers

Why Did Pfizer Delay Good Vaccine News Until After The 2020 Election?

Share

As Pfizer positions itself to make billions from the pandemic misery of people around the world, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has recently branded those who question the Joe Biden universal vaccination doctrine as “criminals.” In this adapted excerpt from my new book “In Trump Time,” a strong case can be made that Bourla may be the real criminal. He and Pfizer played a key role in delaying positive news about Pfizer’s vaccine until after Election Day, preventing Donald Trump from being able to claim a major vaccine win.

My own role in the Curious Case of the Delayed Vaccine began with a Feb. 9, 2020, memo to the White House Coronavirus Task Force predicting a “workable vaccine” by October “if we act now.” When I made that prediction, the last thing I had on my mind was a politically potent “October Vaccine Surprise” – an announcement of a successful vaccine ready to deploy before Election Day.

Of course, such an announcement would have significantly boosted President Trump’s chances of winning on Nov. 3. Yet that kind of political calculus was just not on my radar at the time — and in all of my discussions with the president, he never once raised that issue. President Trump’s only concern was for the American people: the faster we got a vaccine, the more lives we would save.

With the benefit of both hindsight and a significant investigation undertaken by my own White House team, I can make this “blood on their hands” accusation without equivocation: If not for the dilatory actions taken by Pfizer, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Anthony Fauci, the anti-Trump media, and the Biden-Harris campaign, my prediction for a vaccine by October deliverable to the American people would have been exactly right, thousands of American lives would have been saved, and, yes, Trump would have gotten an electoral boost.

Big Pharma’s Motive

That Bourla and Pfizer strongly preferred Joe Biden to Trump should not be in dispute. For every $1,000 that Pfizer employees donated to the Trump campaign, they sent more than three times that to Biden.

That Pfizer may have played slow with a vaccine to beat Trump is likewise supported by this observation: the CEO of PhRMA, of which Pfizer is a part, slammed several Trump executive orders intended to bring drug prices down as a “reckless” move that would cause “enormous destruction” to the industry months before Election Day. Around the same time, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association ran an ad campaign against the president.

There’s no question Big Pharma’s campaign got the Boss’s attention. I was there more than once in the small dining room just off the Oval where he liked to watch the news and do his paperwork. When those ads came on, you could just see his blood boil.

The broader point: Pfizer not only had the means and the opportunity to criminally delay the vaccine past Election Day. Pfizer also appeared to have a significant motive.

The Announcement That Might Have Been

Of course, if we are to convict Pfizer of politically delaying the vaccine with something other than circumstantial evidence, it would be nice to have the proverbial “smoking gun.” This smoking gun revolves around the somewhat arcane phase of clinical trials known as “interim analyses.”

An interim analysis is conducted when a certain threshold of “confirmed cases” is reached in the tested population, in which a “confirmed case” is someone vaccinated who nonetheless comes down with the virus. So, if you have 10,000 confirmed cases in a trial with 20,000 subjects taking the vaccine, the vaccine is only 50 percent effective. But if confirmed cases are only 1,000 out of 20,000, the vaccine is 95 percent effective.

Now here’s the plot point in our murder mystery: When you hit the number of confirmed cases in an interim analysis, the data goes to an independent “Data Monitoring Committee,” and shortly thereafter the findings are publicly released. This critical information not only enables a company to determine whether to continue with its vaccine candidate, it also provides important new information to the American public as to whether the vaccine is likely to be viable.

Pfizer Plays Three-Card Monte with Its Interim Analysis

With that as our background, let’s cut to the Pfizer smoking-gun chase. On Oct. 27, 2020, Pfizer announced that it did not yet have the requisite 32 confirmed cases to complete its first interim analysis. Ergo, there would be no possible good news about the vaccine before Election Day.

In fact, Pfizer and Bourla were playing a sleight of hand. As reported in Science magazine: To avoid hitting the 32 confirmed case threshold, Bourla’s team stored, rather than immediately tested, the nasal swabs taken from participants they suspected were infected. If they didn’t test these swabs, they couldn’t confirm cases.

With this sleight of hand, Pfizer thereby avoided announcing they had a highly effective Trump vaccine before Election Day. This sleight of hand is worth repeating: Pfizer unilaterally decided to store rather than test swabs that would have certainly pushed it past the 32 confirmed case mark. If, instead, Pfizer had immediately tested those stored swabs, we would presumably have learned before Election Day that Pfizer had a safe and highly effective vaccine — delivering an October Vaccine Surprise that would have boosted President Trump.

If that is not at least a smoking gun, I don’t know what is. Based on the evidence presented, the Occam’s Razor conclusion one might certainly draw from Pfizer’s means, motive, and opportunity in this Curious Case of the Delayed Vaccine is Pfizer may have decided to risk American lives to politically damage Trump. If you believe the Pfizer-Fauci hype about their vaccine, the resulting estimated body count may well add up to the loss of tens of thousands of American lives.

For an estimate, let’s look at one of the quickest ways to calculate the likely death toll from such a vaccine delay. This is by using the so-called excess deaths measure, a staple of academia popularized during the pandemic.

Using the data from the “excess deaths” tracker published by The Economist, you can easily get to more than a 50,000 excess death count because of what turned into a more than a two-month-long delay in introducing the Pfizer vaccine. Of course, a good part of that delay can be laid right at the doorstep of Pfizer along with Fauci and the FDA.

Pfizer did not respond to the author’s request for comment.