September 2, 2025 • 12 mins
DID TRUMP JUST TURN ON BIG PHARMA? I saw the post President Trump sent out this past weekend that seemed in my view to be challenging Pfizer on what information they showed HIM when he was President and what they did NOT show anyone about the vaccines.
My pal David Strom writes about this here, and does so well. What does this mean for Pfizer? I hope a lot, because I idiotically trusted that they would release COMPLETE information about the vaccines I went on to recommend (but now will not get or recommend) and it would be nice to hold them accountable. I'm talking to David about this at 1pm.
My pal David Strom writes about this here, and does so well. What does this mean for Pfizer? I hope a lot, because I idiotically trusted that they would release COMPLETE information about the vaccines I went on to recommend (but now will not get or recommend) and it would be nice to hold them accountable. I'm talking to David about this at 1pm.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm going to talk to my friend David Strom from
hot air dot com first, because this popped up over
the weekend and I saw it, but I didn't I
was busy when I read it, and I was like, oh, okay,
I don't even not even sure what Donald Trump is
saying in this post on truth Social. But David Strom
paid attention and he wrote a whole column about it
because in the post that President Trump put on truth Social,
(00:21):
it seemed to me, after I went back and read
it again, a bit of a shot across the bow
at both Pfizer and RFK Junior. So there was like
shots fired in all directions. But then I thought I
would let David come on and talk about it because
he did such a great job in his column.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Good to see you again, my friends, Hey, how are you?
I am fantastic.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
So what did that post on truth Social seem to
address in your view, David, Well.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Donald Trout for the past five years has been bragging
about Operation warp speed in the development of the COVID vaccines,
and he's been very consistent about that until this weekend.
And what he did was open up the question about
whether or not he's been lied to basically by the
(01:16):
big pharma companies. He says that you know, Pfizer in particular,
showed him a bunch of numbers about how many millions
of lives they saved, not just with the COVID vaccine actually,
but also with drugs like paxelvid, which a lot of
doctors say is a very dangerous drug because of liver toxicity,
(01:41):
and there are accusations at least that it is.
Speaker 4 (01:47):
Just far more dangerous than it's worth.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
And basically Trump's challenged them to dump.
Speaker 4 (01:55):
Out all the data.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
And show just vacation for all the claims that they
made to him. And you will notice that these companies
have not been nearly as vocal in recent months and
years about how great these vaccines are. And Trump seems
to be opening up the question of whether fraud was committed.
(02:23):
And this has a major major impact because it's not
just a public relations problem.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
If that's the case.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
These vaccines were put out under an emergency authorization, and
you know, they made representations and that's how they got immunity,
and if fraud was committed, that immunity could in fact
(02:55):
be taken away.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Well, David, for me personally, one of my great regrets
as a talk show host. Was I read the studies
that were released by Pfizer. I read all of the
stuff that they put out, and I said to my audience,
I'm going to take this vaccine. I think you should,
and I encourage people to get the vaccine because I
was using the information that Pizer made available. Pfizer apparently
kept all kinds of information behind the scenes, And I
(03:20):
know that I should have been more doubting by the
fact that they had to be given you know, liability
immunity going forward. That should have been the big clanging
you know, warning.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Sign read flag for me.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
But apparently I, just as sometimes I did with men previously,
I just blew right through those warning signs. But this
to me feels significant because he also says, look, you know,
I want them to show now to the CDC and
the public and clear up this mess one way or
the other.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Right.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
So is he also calling Bobby Kennedy Junior onto the
carpet tour, you know, not producing clearer documentation or does
he say that documentation doesn't necessarily exist within the CDC
because the drug companies are not giving it.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
Well, I mean, it all depends upon how the data
turns out. I mean, he certainly leaves open the question about,
you know, who's right and who's wrong, which is a
very new thing. And you know what his position on
Kennedy Throughout all this time, I think he's been very,
(04:29):
very supportive on the preventative medicine stuff, particularly nutrition and
other things make America healthy again. He has been more ambiguous,
I think on the question of vaccines, and one of
the things that we have to keep in mind. I mean,
(04:51):
you know, Kennedy is the guy who as the Secretary
of Health and Human Services, people have the most familiarity,
but the people underneath him, you know, doctor Vna Pisad
and Jay Badakaria. These are medical professionals with decades of experience.
(05:14):
Badakari is one of the best public health and virologists
out there, and Prisad has very nuanced positions on vaccines.
And of course you've got Martin mccurey as well at
the FDA, and these are all really top notch, exceptional people,
(05:37):
and I think that they're going to be the ultimate
judges of this.
Speaker 4 (05:42):
The people who give advice to drump on it.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Well, I mean, I just I thought this was extremely interesting.
I'm interested to see what happens next, because it's going
to be hard to argue that if a drug company
was given protection from liability based on incomplete information, I'd
like to know more about that process.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
How was the.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
Decision made to give them immunity from liability from these vaccines?
Was that decision made with all of the information available?
Speaker 2 (06:10):
I doubt it was.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
So those are the kind of things implications. Yeah, I
mean this could have incredibly far reaching ramifications. And I
think you said it best in your column today at
hot air dot com. I'm not anti big pharma across
the board, but what I am anti big pharma about
is the notion that drugs somehow need to be underpatent
(06:35):
indefinitely so generics can never be made, and the way
they gain the system to their advantage.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Over and over and over again. I am very.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
Frustrated with the industry as a whole and would like
to see them perhaps brought to heal. I don't necessarily
want to see them destroyed, but I would like to
see them brought to heel just a bit, and this
may be a starting way to do that.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
Well. Yeah, and one of the things that we have
to understand, I thought about this quite a bit, because
I'm actually a major consumer of pharmaceuticals.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
I have heart issues.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
And you know, even if, for instance, liability the liability
shield is taken away from Pfizer, that would not actually
mean that and Pfeiser went down that which would be
the result of that, There's no question about it. I mean,
(07:28):
even if the evidence is ambiguous, put any of these
cases in front of a jury, and I guarantee you
they're going to pick the injured person over the pharmaceutical company,
even if the evidence is ambiguous.
Speaker 4 (07:43):
That's just the way that the jury system works.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
So what would happen, Well, first of all, you know,
Peiser as a company might go down, it might get stripped,
but all the intellectual property would exist, all the people,
you know, it's basically the executives who would be out
on the researchers would still be there. They would be
(08:07):
picked up by other people. It would not actually be
a death blow to the kinds of research that are
going on, but it would be an enormous impact on
the way in which pharmaceutical companies operate, which is clearly ropped.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
Well, I'd love to believe that that's true. But perdue
Pharma in twenty twenty five, agreed to a seven point
four billion dollar settlement on oxy cotton alone. Right now,
the Sackler family has now backed out of Purdue Pharma, like, oh,
we're just going we're going to wash.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Our hands of this. Nobody went to jail.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Nobody in that family is ever going to pay the
price for what they did in unleashing the opioid epidemic
in this country by lying to doctors, by misrepresenting information.
So I don't think there's any reason to think that
if Iiser ended up having to pay significant settlements. I
think seven four billion dollars would probably cover a lot
of people who have a vaccine injury or may have
(09:04):
lost a loved one. But the reality is is that
these are just little speed bumps for these companies. They're
just little price of doing business type things.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
And i'd like to see to your point.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
I'd like to see someone go to jail like you're
lying to the president, which seems to be what the
President is implying.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Here, go to jail. That's what I want to see.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
And I think that would be far more compelling than
thousands and millions and billions of dollars in fines or
judgments or whatever send somebody to jail, and every other
pharmaceutical company has to pay attention.
Speaker 4 (09:38):
Well, I think that's right.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
I'm skeptical as you are that it would actually happen.
I think ultimately the place where the real pressure point
is going to be is in reforming the FDA, reforming
the CDC. And you can see because ultimately they're the
(10:01):
people who push this over the hump. I mean, we
should not expect a pharmaceutical company to voluntarily, you know,
go out of their way to tell people that, well,
here's this product that's going to make us hundreds of
billions of dollars, you know, and that's what we're talking about,
(10:22):
hundreds of billions of dollars. They're not going to go
out of their way to volunteer bid information about that.
It is the responsibility of our regulators to ensure that
they've got.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
All the data.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
And our regulators failed absolutely miserably. They were bound and
determined to get a vaccine out and they were at
least as complicit in lying about it. And there were
I mean, there was not a lot of coverage of this.
You know, we're now hearing about this, This satanist who
(11:05):
quit theff at the FDA or I'm sorry, the CDC,
and everybody is crying about it, but actually the top
two vaccine regulators during COVID actually did not want to
have the COVID boosters approved. They said, there's we don't
(11:25):
have enough data about this, we're making representations, there's no
safety data on this, and the media, so they resigned.
I mean, the top two FDA regulators resigned during that.
And I guarantee you that ninety nine nine percent of
Americans don't know about that, whereas they know about the
(11:48):
guy with the you know, the leather pentagram as a hero.
Speaker 4 (11:52):
I mean, it's just bizarre.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Amen to that.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
David Thram is my guest today. You can read his
work at hot air dot com. Appreciate you making time
for me today. David always all right, man, I'll talk
to you soon. I have a link to that article
today as well on the blog at mandy'sblog dot com.
I'm going to talk to my friend David Strom from
hot air dot com first, because this popped up over
the weekend and I saw it, but I didn't I
was busy when I read it, and I was like, oh, okay,
I don't even not even sure what Donald Trump is
saying in this post on truth Social. But David Strom
paid attention and he wrote a whole column about it
because in the post that President Trump put on truth Social,
(00:21):
it seemed to me, after I went back and read
it again, a bit of a shot across the bow
at both Pfizer and RFK Junior. So there was like
shots fired in all directions. But then I thought I
would let David come on and talk about it because
he did such a great job in his column.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Good to see you again, my friends, Hey, how are you?
I am fantastic.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
So what did that post on truth Social seem to
address in your view, David, Well.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Donald Trout for the past five years has been bragging
about Operation warp speed in the development of the COVID vaccines,
and he's been very consistent about that until this weekend.
And what he did was open up the question about
whether or not he's been lied to basically by the
(01:16):
big pharma companies. He says that you know, Pfizer in particular,
showed him a bunch of numbers about how many millions
of lives they saved, not just with the COVID vaccine actually,
but also with drugs like paxelvid, which a lot of
doctors say is a very dangerous drug because of liver toxicity,
(01:41):
and there are accusations at least that it is.
Speaker 4 (01:47):
Just far more dangerous than it's worth.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
And basically Trump's challenged them to dump.
Speaker 4 (01:55):
Out all the data.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
And show just vacation for all the claims that they
made to him. And you will notice that these companies
have not been nearly as vocal in recent months and
years about how great these vaccines are. And Trump seems
to be opening up the question of whether fraud was committed.
(02:23):
And this has a major major impact because it's not
just a public relations problem.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
If that's the case.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
These vaccines were put out under an emergency authorization, and
you know, they made representations and that's how they got immunity,
and if fraud was committed, that immunity could in fact
(02:55):
be taken away.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Well, David, for me personally, one of my great regrets
as a talk show host. Was I read the studies
that were released by Pfizer. I read all of the
stuff that they put out, and I said to my audience,
I'm going to take this vaccine. I think you should,
and I encourage people to get the vaccine because I
was using the information that Pizer made available. Pfizer apparently
kept all kinds of information behind the scenes, And I
(03:20):
know that I should have been more doubting by the
fact that they had to be given you know, liability
immunity going forward. That should have been the big clanging
you know, warning.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Sign read flag for me.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
But apparently I, just as sometimes I did with men previously,
I just blew right through those warning signs. But this
to me feels significant because he also says, look, you know,
I want them to show now to the CDC and
the public and clear up this mess one way or
the other.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Right.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
So is he also calling Bobby Kennedy Junior onto the
carpet tour, you know, not producing clearer documentation or does
he say that documentation doesn't necessarily exist within the CDC
because the drug companies are not giving it.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
Well, I mean, it all depends upon how the data
turns out. I mean, he certainly leaves open the question about,
you know, who's right and who's wrong, which is a
very new thing. And you know what his position on
Kennedy Throughout all this time, I think he's been very,
(04:29):
very supportive on the preventative medicine stuff, particularly nutrition and
other things make America healthy again. He has been more ambiguous,
I think on the question of vaccines, and one of
the things that we have to keep in mind. I mean,
(04:51):
you know, Kennedy is the guy who as the Secretary
of Health and Human Services, people have the most familiarity,
but the people underneath him, you know, doctor Vna Pisad
and Jay Badakaria. These are medical professionals with decades of experience.
(05:14):
Badakari is one of the best public health and virologists
out there, and Prisad has very nuanced positions on vaccines.
And of course you've got Martin mccurey as well at
the FDA, and these are all really top notch, exceptional people,
(05:37):
and I think that they're going to be the ultimate
judges of this.
Speaker 4 (05:42):
The people who give advice to drump on it.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Well, I mean, I just I thought this was extremely interesting.
I'm interested to see what happens next, because it's going
to be hard to argue that if a drug company
was given protection from liability based on incomplete information, I'd
like to know more about that process.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
How was the.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
Decision made to give them immunity from liability from these vaccines?
Was that decision made with all of the information available?
Speaker 2 (06:10):
I doubt it was.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
So those are the kind of things implications. Yeah, I
mean this could have incredibly far reaching ramifications. And I
think you said it best in your column today at
hot air dot com. I'm not anti big pharma across
the board, but what I am anti big pharma about
is the notion that drugs somehow need to be underpatent
(06:35):
indefinitely so generics can never be made, and the way
they gain the system to their advantage.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Over and over and over again. I am very.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
Frustrated with the industry as a whole and would like
to see them perhaps brought to heal. I don't necessarily
want to see them destroyed, but I would like to
see them brought to heel just a bit, and this
may be a starting way to do that.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
Well. Yeah, and one of the things that we have
to understand, I thought about this quite a bit, because
I'm actually a major consumer of pharmaceuticals.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
I have heart issues.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
And you know, even if, for instance, liability the liability
shield is taken away from Pfizer, that would not actually
mean that and Pfeiser went down that which would be
the result of that, There's no question about it. I mean,
(07:28):
even if the evidence is ambiguous, put any of these
cases in front of a jury, and I guarantee you
they're going to pick the injured person over the pharmaceutical company,
even if the evidence is ambiguous.
Speaker 4 (07:43):
That's just the way that the jury system works.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
So what would happen, Well, first of all, you know,
Peiser as a company might go down, it might get stripped,
but all the intellectual property would exist, all the people,
you know, it's basically the executives who would be out
on the researchers would still be there. They would be
(08:07):
picked up by other people. It would not actually be
a death blow to the kinds of research that are
going on, but it would be an enormous impact on
the way in which pharmaceutical companies operate, which is clearly ropped.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
Well, I'd love to believe that that's true. But perdue
Pharma in twenty twenty five, agreed to a seven point
four billion dollar settlement on oxy cotton alone. Right now,
the Sackler family has now backed out of Purdue Pharma, like, oh,
we're just going we're going to wash.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Our hands of this. Nobody went to jail.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Nobody in that family is ever going to pay the
price for what they did in unleashing the opioid epidemic
in this country by lying to doctors, by misrepresenting information.
So I don't think there's any reason to think that
if Iiser ended up having to pay significant settlements. I
think seven four billion dollars would probably cover a lot
of people who have a vaccine injury or may have
(09:04):
lost a loved one. But the reality is is that
these are just little speed bumps for these companies. They're
just little price of doing business type things.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
And i'd like to see to your point.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
I'd like to see someone go to jail like you're
lying to the president, which seems to be what the
President is implying.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Here, go to jail. That's what I want to see.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
And I think that would be far more compelling than
thousands and millions and billions of dollars in fines or
judgments or whatever send somebody to jail, and every other
pharmaceutical company has to pay attention.
Speaker 4 (09:38):
Well, I think that's right.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
I'm skeptical as you are that it would actually happen.
I think ultimately the place where the real pressure point
is going to be is in reforming the FDA, reforming
the CDC. And you can see because ultimately they're the
(10:01):
people who push this over the hump. I mean, we
should not expect a pharmaceutical company to voluntarily, you know,
go out of their way to tell people that, well,
here's this product that's going to make us hundreds of
billions of dollars, you know, and that's what we're talking about,
(10:22):
hundreds of billions of dollars. They're not going to go
out of their way to volunteer bid information about that.
It is the responsibility of our regulators to ensure that
they've got.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
All the data.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
And our regulators failed absolutely miserably. They were bound and
determined to get a vaccine out and they were at
least as complicit in lying about it. And there were
I mean, there was not a lot of coverage of this.
You know, we're now hearing about this, This satanist who
(11:05):
quit theff at the FDA or I'm sorry, the CDC,
and everybody is crying about it, but actually the top
two vaccine regulators during COVID actually did not want to
have the COVID boosters approved. They said, there's we don't
(11:25):
have enough data about this, we're making representations, there's no
safety data on this, and the media, so they resigned.
I mean, the top two FDA regulators resigned during that.
And I guarantee you that ninety nine nine percent of
Americans don't know about that, whereas they know about the
(11:48):
guy with the you know, the leather pentagram as a hero.
Speaker 4 (11:52):
I mean, it's just bizarre.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Amen to that.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
David Thram is my guest today. You can read his
work at hot air dot com. Appreciate you making time
for me today. David always all right, man, I'll talk
to you soon. I have a link to that article
today as well on the blog at mandy'sblog dot com.
The Mandy Connell Podcast News
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com