Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part V

[dann]

I wonder if the shift in vaccine scepticism from roughly even D/R to strongly R would have happened had not Pfizer decided, in Oct 2020, to change it's long established protocols for unsealing C19 infection events (with specified success criteria). Had they not changed their protocols, the high efficacy of the C19 vaccine would have been known a few weeks before the presidential election. Trump would have crowed endlessly about it in the election runup. How would history differ had Pfizer kept to its original, published protocol?

Would it have changed the result of the election?
Wouldn't it just have made the anti-vaxxers stay home instead of voting for Trump?

 

[dann]

Why Hasn’t Moderna Posted the New mRNA Flu Vaccine Clinical Trial Data? (StopAntiVaxPropaganda Substack, Aug 19, 2026)
Why do some people think that Moderna is hiding the clinical trial data for its new mRNA flu vaccine?
Propaganda that was initially created by Retsef Levi.
Apparently, he was upset that he couldn’t find the results of the last mRNA flu vaccine’s clinical trial, even though:

• the results of the other mRNA flu vaccine clinical trials have already been posted on the clinicaltrials.gov site
• the results of all of the clinical trials are available in the BLA Clinical Review Memorandum
• the results of the clinical trial Retsef Levi is specifically asking about were published in the study, Efficacy and Safety of an mRNA Seasonal Influenza Vaccine in Adults, in the New England Journal of Medicine in May

More on Anti-Vaccine Propaganda

• Did the FDA Botch the Review of Moderna’s mRNA Flu Vaccine
• The Many Theories Behind Vaccine Injuries
• QAnon Vaccine Conspiracy Theories
• What to Know About the mRNA Flu Vaccine, Newly Approved by the FDA
• Frequently Asked Questions
• There’s a New mRNA Flu Shot Coming This Fall

 

[marting]

Would it have changed the result of the election?
Wouldn't it just have made the anti-vaxxers stay home instead of voting for Trump?

The current state of affairs where R's were vaccine skeptics was not the case in 2020.

It's quite possible Trump would have won the 2020 election had not Pfizer altered the reporting protocol just before the election. Trump had been regularly touting Operation Warp Speed at every rally and saying that vaccines could be available before the election.

There was considerable pushback in the medical community with fear that Trump might get a vaccine out that wasn't trusted because he was touting it so often. Then, the FDA, in Oct., made a specific requirement that a median of two months elapse to allow room for adverse effects to be seen before emergency approval. This meant that emergency approval could not occur until after the election no matter how efficacious the early results. Subsequently, Pfizer halted testing on swabs so as not to trigger their published protocols. Near the end of Oct., Pfizer altered the protocols and dropped the minimum infection events then restarted the delayed swab testing. One week after the election the initial results came out with about 5x more infections than the prior protocol and showed a 94% efficacy! At that point Trump lost interest and shifted to voter fraud saying he actually won. Ramped that up and Jan. 6 resulted.

So, knowing how Trump operates, had results come out prior to the election which would have happened without the above delays/protocol changes, Trump, with his control over R's in congress and his maga base would have been non-stop touting the vaccine and success of Warp Speed.

As the election was quite close in swing states, I think it highly likely Trump would have won the 2020 election.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Well, perhaps we actually would have been better off if he had won.

He would have screwed up the economy and recovery because, well... Trump.

But... no Jan 6 as you say, plus he wouldn't have been on his current Revenge Tour so no tariffs and likely no Vought and his Project 2025.
Epstein files would then have still been under litigation so probably no Iran war.

Two and done and we'd likely (?) be now under a Dem POTUS.

Damn... let's blame Pfizer!

 

[marting]

Two and done and we'd likely (?) be now under a Dem POTUS.

Damn... let's blame Pfizer!

Eric Topol, one of the guys I followed closely, was perhaps the major proponent of delaying Pfizer. Here's an article in MIT Tech Review

One doctor’s campaign to stop a covid-19 vaccine being rushed through before Election Day

How heart doctor Eric Topol used his social-media account to kill off Trump’s October surprise.

www.technologyreview.com

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Well, perhaps we actually would have been better off if he had won.

He would have screwed up the economy and recovery because, well... Trump.

But... no Jan 6 as you say, plus he wouldn't have been on his current Revenge Tour so no tariffs and likely no Vought and his Project 2025.
Epstein files would then have still been under litigation so probably no Iran war.

Two and done and we'd likely (?) be now under a Dem POTUS.

Dead right. This why I told the Dems to throw the 2020 election. Whoever was in charge after Covid would cop it for the inevitable economic fallout. Better that be Republicans that Democrats. Another advantage is that after two terms Trump would be spent, and couldn't try again. Since Repubs didn't have any other candidate with his strength it would make a Dem win in 2024 even more certain.

Sadly they didn't listen to me. They also didn't listen when I told them to immediately start looking for a young progressive male to replace Biden.