Original title: EVIDENCE THAT THE CORONA WAS MADE TO TAKE DOWN TRUMP! A pharmaceutical company reported shocking results
On November 9th, the Free World portal published an article titled EVIDENCE THAT THE CORONA WAS MADE TO TAKE DOWN TRUMP! A pharmaceutical company reported shocking results. The text says that the corona virus was made as a biological weapon, the main purpose of which was to remove Donald Trump from the presidency. This claim was allegedly made in September by Richard Grenell, the US special envoy for Kosovo, and now it has proved to be completely justified. And as proof that the virus was created and used to remove Trump, is the announcement of the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, which lists the initial results of the third phase of research on the COVID-19 vaccine, according to which the vaccine is 90 percent effective. This confirms that the goal has been achieved, Trump has not been re-elected president. The powerful weapon against the COVID-19 comes at the very moment when Trump loses the election.
The portal does not state the author of the text, nor the source from where the content was transmitted, but it is very likely that it was re-published from the Serbian portal Republika.rs, which published the same text with an identical title.
The content of the text is disinformative with elements of conspiracy theory. The claim that the corona virus is a biological weapon to remove Trump from the presidency is completely untenable and unconfirmed. The fact that Pfizer announced its successful results just days after the election, in which Trump lost the race, is not enough to make such a speculative claim.
In the text, Deutsche Welle presents the two opposing sides in the specific case. So.
while outgoing US President Trump himself claims that the timing of news coverage of a potential COVID-19 vaccine was designed to hurt his election campaign, and that regulators are taking sides, Pfizer itself learned about the results on Sunday (November 8). At the same time, the US Food and Drug Administration was not involved in Pfizer’s decision to announce its first results. Every vaccine study, such as this one conducted on the Pfizer vaccine, is overseen by an independent data security monitoring committee, made up of scientists and statisticians who have nothing to do with vaccine manufacturers. Thus, Burkard, senior vice president for research and development of drug safety in Pfizer, responded that the timing of the announcement was not in any way related to the presidential election. Pfizer CEO Albert Burla also told CNN that the timing had nothing to do with politics.
Pfizer executives also responded to suggestions that the success was the result of a public-private partnership to develop the vaccine. Namely, the manufacturer did not accept state funds for development, testing or expansion of production capacity according to the initiative of the Trump administration (Operation Warp Speed) for faster finding of vaccines and treatments for the virus funded by their own funds, said Pfizer spokeswoman Jerica Pitts.
At the same time, Trump is not the only one who said that the vaccine may be available by the end of the year. Health experts also said the vaccine could potentially be available by the end of the year, although the results were uncertain.
And Dr. Anton Fauci, a top U.S. government infectious disease expert, has previously said he was “cautiously optimistic” that the vaccine would be ready by the end of 2020 or early 2021.
Theories that the virus is a biological weapon have been around since the beginning of the pandemic. Using the genetic sequence of the virus, scientists have the power to debunk the myth that the virus comes from a laboratory. The new conspiracy theory is related to the US presidential elections, and allegedly the purpose of that conspiracy is Donald Trump. This is a development of new conspiracy theories, which instead of dying out, are still present in the media space.
Vaccines are an achievement and success of science, and medicine and not politics.
This project was funded in part through a U.S. Embassy grant. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed herein are those of the implementers/authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Government.