A newly released CIA meeting summary says former FDA Commissioner and Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb privately estimated in May 2020 that roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of Americans had already been exposed to COVID-19, months before he publicly cited a much lower nationwide exposure estimate.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A newly unclassified CIA document is drawing fresh scrutiny to what senior officials and influential health-policy figures were privately saying about the spread of COVID-19 during the opening months of the pandemic.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., released records detailing a May 7, 2020, CIA briefing involving Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration who had joined Pfizer’s board of directors in 2019.
Paul announced the release on X, arguing that the documents show a substantial gap between private discussions about population exposure and what Americans were being told publicly.
“I released documents showing Pfizer and the CIA privately acknowledged high population immunity as early as May 2020, while the public heard a different story. Americans deserve the truth,” Paul wrote.
The records were also examined by the Brownstone Institute, which highlighted a CIA meeting summary included among documents Paul entered into the congressional record.
The meeting took place May 7, 2020, during the early phase of the pandemic, when much of the United States remained under sweeping emergency restrictions and scientists were still attempting to determine how widely the virus had already circulated.
The CIA summary states that agency Chief Operating Officer Andy Makridis met with Gottlieb, who at the time occupied several influential positions across government, industry and national security circles.
Gottlieb had previously led the FDA, had become a Pfizer board member in June 2019 and was also serving on the CIA’s External Advisory Board.
The newly released record centers in part on seroprevalence — the proportion of a population whose blood contains antibodies against a particular infectious agent, generally indicating prior exposure. A definition of seroprevalence describes it as the percentage or proportion of a specified population with antibodies against a particular disease or infectious agent in blood serum.
According to the CIA’s written summary, Gottlieb believed national COVID-19 seroprevalence had already reached approximately 20% to 25% by early May 2020.
The memo states:
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.
The passage indicates that Gottlieb did not believe the estimated level was sufficient to produce herd immunity, given the reproduction rate being discussed at the time.
It nevertheless suggests that he privately estimated a considerably larger share of the population had already been exposed than figures he would later cite publicly.
That discrepancy has become the central issue raised by the document.
On Aug. 16, 2020 — more than three months after the CIA meeting — Gottlieb appeared on CBS’s Face the Nation and said approximately 8% of the United States had been exposed to the virus.
During that appearance, he also said the country was “probably a long way” from herd immunity.
The 8% public estimate was substantially below the 20% to 25% national seroprevalence estimate attributed to Gottlieb in the CIA’s May meeting summary.
The newly released document does not establish why the estimates differed.
Possible explanations could include changes in underlying data, evolving interpretations of antibody studies or differences between the CIA summary and Gottlieb’s later assessment. The material provided does not identify an explanation from Gottlieb for the disparity.
Paul and others highlighting the document are instead asking whether policymakers and influential private-sector figures privately believed population exposure was considerably more widespread than public messaging suggested.
The timing has intensified those questions.
The CIA meeting occurred less than two months after widespread shutdown measures began across the United States, when schools, businesses and houses of worship had been closed or severely restricted in many parts of the country.
Public-health officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx, remained prominent advocates of emergency measures while scientists and pharmaceutical companies worked toward vaccines and other interventions.
The newly disclosed memo shows that population-level antibody prevalence was already being discussed at senior levels inside the intelligence community during that period.
Jeffrey Tucker, founder of the Brownstone Institute, drew particular attention to Gottlieb’s overlapping institutional roles.
At the time of the briefing, Gottlieb was a former federal regulator, a Pfizer board member and a member of the CIA’s External Advisory Board.
Pfizer had formally elected him to its board in June 2019, less than a year before the May 2020 CIA discussion.
Those connections have prompted questions from critics about the flow of information among pharmaceutical companies, former regulators and government agencies during the pandemic.
The document itself does not show that Pfizer directed Gottlieb’s assessment, nor does it establish that the CIA or Pfizer concealed information from the public.
It does, however, preserve an internal government account attributing a 20% to 25% national seroprevalence estimate to Gottlieb months before his public statement that approximately 8% of Americans had been exposed.
The distinction between seroprevalence and immunity is also important.
Antibody evidence can indicate previous infection or exposure, but the presence of antibodies alone does not necessarily establish complete or lasting protection from reinfection. Gottlieb’s reported May comments specifically addressed whether the estimated population exposure was sufficient for herd immunity and concluded that it was not.
Paul characterized the records more broadly as evidence that high levels of population immunity were being privately acknowledged early in the pandemic.
Tucker similarly argued that the newly unclassified material warrants closer examination of whether officials understood that infection had spread more widely than Americans were being led to believe.
The records add another layer to continuing disputes over early-pandemic decision-making, including how officials interpreted antibody data, how estimates changed and what information was shared publicly versus within government agencies.
At minimum, the May 7 CIA summary documents a striking numerical difference: an internal estimate attributing 20% to 25% national seroprevalence to Gottlieb, followed little more than three months later by his public estimate of approximately 8%.
The document does not resolve why those figures diverged.
Its release is now fueling calls for additional disclosure about what government officials, pharmaceutical executives and outside advisers knew about the extent of COVID-19 exposure during the earliest months of the pandemic — and when they knew it.
Original article
Comments