Brownstone Insights
Pfizer and the CIA Privately Cited High Population Immunity in May 2020, Unclassified Document Reveals
The latest Fauci-focused document tranche released by Senator Rand Paul contains a surprising nugget buried as part of a CIA report.
BY JEFFREY TUCKER
View original article at Brownstone.org.
The latest Fauci-focused document tranche released by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) contains a surprising nugget buried as part of a CIA report. On May 7, 2020, CIA Chief Operating Officer Andy Makridis led a briefing with Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the former FDA commissioner then a board member of Pfizer. He also served on the CIA’s External Advisory Board. The agency produced its own summary of the meeting.
Deep in the report we find the following:
In text:
On “herd immunity” Dr. Gottlieb discounts the 2 major studies from Los Angeles and Santa Clara counties showing high seroprevalence. He believes nationally, the seroprevalence is about 20-25% which is insufficient for herd immunity at the R₀ (BRR) value of 3.
Let us review the implications.
The Santa Clara study from April 2020 by Jay Bhattacharya found a 2.8% seroprevalence level. It was far higher than the existing estimates. He was denounced and hounded for daring to say what we know now: the infection fatality rate was very low and prevalence was very high. The implication: we would get through this with no great disruption necessary.
The attacks on the study were brutal but he was just doing science at a time when few others were making sense. Even BuzzFeed, a reliable venue for deep-state actors, slammed Jay and insinuated corruption.
Now, in this new release, we find Gottlieb telling the CIA that the virus spread is far higher than most anyone believed at the time. If the R-naught is 3, that means every one person would infect three more, which, according to the math, would mean a herd immunity level of 67 percent. At that rate of spread and resulting immunity, pandemic conditions would turn endemic in a matter of weeks, certainly by the end of summer if not sooner, all else equal.
But that is not what Gottlieb was saying in public. On April 17, 2020, he tweeted that the rate nationally was 5% while positing that Santa Clara was an outlying “hot spot.”
Then three and a half months later, on CBS News, Gottlieb opined that the seroprevalence rate was only 8% nationally.
Why the massive difference between what he was telling the CIA privately so early in the pandemic versus what he was saying publicly at the same time and continued to say even after the summer months?
There are three possible answers:
Scott Gottlieb was woefully misinformed, misspoke, or had no idea what he was talking about.
The CIA copied down his words incorrectly.
He lied to prolong suffering from lockdowns as long as possible in hopes of profitably testing a new vaccine platform.
Let us now theorize.
The Fauci diaries strongly suggest that an entire class of scientists, pundits, and officials were united in a grand scheme to delay seroprevalence for as long as possible to 1) create a need for the injections by preserving immunological naiveté of the population, and 2) slow down mutations that would inevitably make the shots inefficacious to whatever new mutation would appear by the time of release.
This was likely the whole point of “Flatten the curve” and “Slow the spread.” It was to delay the solution and prolong the pain. It certainly wasn’t for the health of the population. Just the opposite.
That’s a dark conclusion from reading them but it remains the best explanation for why officials enacted brutal lockdowns that wrecked businesses, closed schools, isolated vast swaths of the population, violated religious liberty, and ended freedom of association. Labor participation rates have never fully recovered and continue to fall. Disability rates keep hitting new highs.
This new piece of evidence darkens the picture even more. It suggests that Gottlieb and the CIA believed from the first week of May 2020 that the virus spread was very high, the fatality rate quite low, and the march toward herd immunity was happening far faster than anyone knew.
This is what they said privately, not what they said publicly. In private, they could have been receiving reports from South Dakota that population antibody levels were reaching 20-25% in May following a large outbreak in April. They may have had other reports that said the same and hence Gottlieb’s blunt statement to the CIA.
This report had been held as a classified document for more than six years until Senator Paul released it on August 29, 2026. Before then, it had remained a speculation that the CIA had withheld information in order to prolong the pandemic and prepare the population for an experimental injection while keeping everyone locked.
Recall that it was Gottlieb who first counseled the Trump administration to lock down as hard as possible, presumably on March 14, 2020, when Jared Kushner first called him on the phone.
When we called Gottlieb, he was grateful that we were preparing guidelines. “They should go a little bit further than you are comfortable with,” he said. “When you feel like you are doing more than you should, that is a sign that you are doing them right.”
Seven weeks later, the same man reported to the CIA in private that we were well on the way toward herd immunity with 20-25% seroprevalence level despite hard lockdowns. The experiment in slowing the spread had already failed. They could not say that publicly because there was money to be made, many institutions and states were experiencing a windfall from stimulus, and a new platform technology needed to be tested on the population.
Among the vast evidence that has come out, and despite its seeming technicalities, this surely ranks among the top data points revealing the fullness of the sadistic state. Many more actors were involved other than pharma and public health – big business liked shutting down small ones, online retailers liked receiving stimulus payments, digital companies appreciated developing new censorship tools, politicians liked spending money, and big banks appreciated the infusion of funds.
What this reveals about the ruling class generally speaking is difficult to contemplate.
No comments:
Post a Comment