National Geographic Channel teams up with Pfizer to attack Trump

 

The National Geographic channel (73% owned by the left-wing Walt Disney company) is not the wholesome science, history, and world culture content that your grandmother used to know the magazine as. Nat Geo has become yet another vector of left-wing propaganda.

 

Let's review just a few instances. Nat Geo once aired a one-sided anthropogenic global warming program. They have aired shows that humanize killers on death row. They aired a show about North Korea that characterized Trump’s peace negotiations with Kim Jong-un as a bad thing, thus reinforcing the DNC spin narrative that "Trump likes to coddle dictators”. Nat Geo recently aired a promotion for Women’s History Month in which they predictably honored -- you guess it -- leftists such as Greta Thunberg, race-monger Amanda Gorman, and Parkland anti-gun activist Emma Gonazalez.

 

nat

 

And so this time, Nat Geo aired a petty, politicized, one-sided “paid content created for and in collaboration with Pfizer” called "Mission Possible: The Race for a Vaccine". Pfizer also posted the program on their YouTube channel and disabled comments. This Nat Geo program was largely a publicity stunt by Pfizer to promote Pfizer, probably to do damage control after Pfizer was accused of withholding the announcement of their promising vaccine trial results until after the 2020 election, because the news would be a positive for Trump’s re-election bid. Trump had previously said that he was highly confident that a vaccine would become available before the end of the year. The media 'fact checked' and attacked Trump as spreading misinformation.

 

If this program was really just a documentary about developing the vaccine, they would have done just that. Instead, it didn’t take long before the paid content devolved into Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla taking jabs at Trump, while at the same time, laughably styling himself as detached from politics. The program omitted mentioning that Pfizer Inc affiliates donated more than 3 1/2 times more money to the Joe Biden campaign than to the Trump campaign.

 

I was disappointed that the vaccine was debated in political terms rather than scientific facts” -- Pfizer CEO, Albert Bourla on Trump, during the debate with Biden, taking credit for operation warp speed and the rapid development of vaccines.

 

al

 

“It looks like politicians are developing the vaccine” -- Pfizer CEO, Albert Bourla taking offense at Trump announcing that a vaccine is near and taking credit for it.

 

Bourla clearly was triggered by Trump. For what it’s worth, in July 2020, Pfizer did in fact sign an agreement with the U.S. government to sell $1.95 billion worth of vaccine doses if the vaccine were to be cleared by the FDA. Getting back-end money inspires investing front-end money. By putting up their own money upfront, Pfizer took more risk than the other companies, but in the context of a program about racing to get out a vaccine, who the hell cares? Why is this even part of the program?

 

The program then piled on against Trump with clips of David Muir from the left-wing ABC news, and a smear from the left-wing New York Times, suggesting that Trump was losing 'public trust' by somehow prematurely 'pushing for a vaccine'.

 

nat

 

The program presented these cherry picked media sources to bolster the argument that Pfizer did not delay releasing the trial results for any political reasons. No dissenting commentaries were presented other than to flash some accusatory articles across the screen from The Dispatch and MedPage Today for a few seconds while Albert Bourla was given free rein to attack the criticism.

 

As Trump’s tweets were flashed across the screen, Nat Geo decided to overshadowed them with Johnson & Johnson’s CEO, Alex Gorsky arguing that the drug industry puts “the science” ahead of politics. Never mind that J & J donated nearly 4 times more money to the Biden campaign than to the Trump campaign. Furthermore, and most importantly, Johnson & Johnson has nothing to do with whether or not Pfizer withheld trial data until after the election.

 

Johnson & Johnson was one of nine companies that signed a 'safety pledge' not to rush the vaccines. This safety pledge was largely a political stunt by partisan drug companies in order to change the outcome of the election. The drug companies are no friends of Trump...

 

Novavax - Donated 5.8 times more money to Biden campaign than Trump campaign

Merck - Donated 5.5 times more money to Biden campaign than Trump campaign

GlaxoSmithKline - Donated 4.7 times more money to Biden campaign than Trump campaign

Johnson & Johnson - Donated 3.97 times more money to Biden campaign than Trump campaign

Pfizer - Donated 3.5 times more money to Biden campaign than Trump campaign

Sanofi - Donated 3.2 times more money to Biden campaign than Trump campaign

Moderna - No data

AstraZeneca (UK company) - No data

BioNTech (German company) - No data

 

Nat Geo further piled on against Trump by having Jonathan Wosen of the San Diego Union Tribune cheer on the drug companies, thus reinforcing the false narrative that Trump was pressuring the companies to hastily rush out the vaccines.

 

“Seeing major drug companies come together to put out this unified message is unprecedented. These statements are basically a sanity check that we’re not going to rush this process just to declare victory” -- Jonathan Wosen

 

sd

 

Keep in mind that this notion of Trump politicizing the vaccine approval speed is a media invented 'issue'. The public wanted to be updated on when the vaccines might be coming. Trump was merely informing people to satisfy their intense interest. Trump said that he expected that a vaccine would come to market by the end of the year, but that he thought it could come even sooner, possibly during the month of October. The media became triggered by the great news. The major drug companies, in their collective response, were both reacting to the media's invented hysteria, as well as trying to influence the election (against Trump).

 

National Geographic, Pfizer and Jonathan Wosen (an alleged 'reporter') conveniently failed to mention that one of the nine signatory companies of this 'safety pleldge' was Merck. Merck's CEO Ken Frazier is a never-Trumper. Frazier quit President Donald Trump’s council of manufacturing, based on the Charlottesville lie, falsely accusing Trump of "intolerance and extremism". In response Trump Tweeted "Now that Ken Frazier of Merck Pharma has resigned from President’s Manufacturing Council, he will have more time to LOWER RIPOFF DRUG PRICES!" Is it any surprise that these drug companies 'came together' against Trump?

 

In the end, Trump was right. The first vaccine injection was indeed administered before the end of the year, on December 14th. Instead of giving Trump credit for giving rosy and accurate vaccine timeline information, the media spun it into a negative headline: "Trump tried to politicize the vaccine". The National Geographic channel has now participated in this Orangeman Bad political spin.

 

UPDATE: On Feb 19, 2020, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said in a video that he had the "great honor and pleasure of hosting President Biden at our manufacturing site".

 

UPDATE: Karma strikes back! Pfizer gets back-stabbed! The very candidate that Pfizer supported, Joe Biden is backing waiving International patent protections for vaccines. Pfizer stock immediately dropped 6.5%.

 

UPDATE: On June 7, 2021 an article came out, suggesting that Pfizer did in fact rush to get their vaccine authorized. This comes as Pfizer tried to distance themselves from Trump by claiming in their Nat Geo propaganda piece that they did not rush the process.

 

 

Back to news

 

GO BACK to our boycott list