Feds probe tip that Pfizer delayed announcing COVID vaccine’s success until after 2020 election: report

New York Post - Mar 26th, 2025

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating claims by GSK that Pfizer delayed announcing the success of its COVID-19 vaccine until after the 2020 U.S. presidential election. This inquiry stems from allegations made by GSK's former head of vaccine development, Philip Dormitzer, who reportedly informed his colleagues about the alleged delay. Dormitzer, who previously worked at Pfizer, disputes these claims stating that his team worked diligently to secure FDA's Emergency Use Authorization as soon as possible. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York is examining what GSK has communicated, having already interviewed a GSK executive and planning to speak with a third individual soon. Pfizer officials have not been interviewed, and both Pfizer and the U.S. Attorney's Office have not commented on the matter.

This investigation holds significant implications as it touches upon the integrity and transparency of major pharmaceutical companies during a critical public health crisis. The timing of vaccine announcements was a contentious issue during the 2020 election, with former President Trump alleging that Pfizer withheld positive trial data. Although there has been no evidence supporting these claims, the ongoing probe could uncover critical information about corporate and regulatory practices during the pandemic. The outcome of this investigation may influence public trust in pharmaceutical companies and government agencies involved in vaccine approval processes.

Pfizer Public Health 2020 Election Gsk Covid 19 Vaccine Philip Dormitzer Fda Emergency Use Authorization Us Attorney's Office Vaccine Development

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant report on an investigation into claims about Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine announcement timing. It presents multiple perspectives, including denials from key individuals, but lacks input from significant stakeholders like Pfizer and the U.S. Attorney's Office. The reliance on anonymous sources and the absence of direct evidence limit the story's accuracy and transparency. Despite these limitations, the article addresses issues of public interest and has the potential to influence public opinion and policy discussions. Improved source quality and transparency would enhance the article's credibility and impact.

Accuracy

The story reports on an investigation by federal prosecutors in Manhattan into claims by GSK that Pfizer delayed announcing its COVID-19 vaccine success until after the 2020 election. This claim is attributed to Philip Dormitzer, who has denied making such statements, asserting that Pfizer sought FDA approval as quickly as possible. The story accurately reflects Dormitzer's denial and the lack of evidence supporting claims of intentional delay by Pfizer. However, the story's reliance on unnamed sources ('people familiar with the matter') raises questions about the verifiability of some claims, such as the details of the investigation and Dormitzer's alleged comments. The lack of direct evidence or official statements from Pfizer or the U.S. Attorney's Office also limits the factual precision of the report.

Balance

The article presents multiple perspectives, including the claims made by GSK and Dormitzer's denial, as well as a historical claim by President Trump. However, it lacks input from Pfizer and the U.S. Attorney's Office, which could provide a more balanced view. The article could benefit from additional perspectives, such as independent experts or legal analysts, to contextualize the implications of the investigation.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, presenting the main claims and counterclaims in a straightforward manner. However, the use of phrases like 'citing people familiar with the matter' can introduce ambiguity, as it is unclear who these sources are or how reliable their information might be. The story maintains a neutral tone, which aids in comprehension, but the lack of detailed context or background information on the investigation could confuse readers unfamiliar with the subject.

Source quality

The primary sources cited in the article are unnamed individuals familiar with the matter, which can undermine the credibility and reliability of the information presented. The report does reference statements from Dormitzer and mentions the Wall Street Journal as a source, but the absence of direct quotes or responses from Pfizer or the U.S. Attorney's Office limits the authority of the sources used. The reliance on anonymous sources may affect the impartiality of the reporting.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of the methodology used to gather information, especially given the reliance on anonymous sources. There is no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest or how the claims were verified. The lack of detailed context about the investigation's scope and the absence of comments from key stakeholders like Pfizer and the U.S. Attorney's Office also hinder transparency.