Former FDA Chief Gottlieb Trashed COVID-19 Seroprevalence Studies, Memo Reveals
By morganverity // 2026-09-11
Copy
 
A newly released Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) memo reveals that Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a Pfizer board member and former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner, dismissed two California studies on Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) seroprevalence during a May 2020 briefing. The memo indicates that Gottlieb rejected the findings of these studies, which suggested that the actual number of COVID-19 infections in the state was significantly higher than confirmed case counts. The disclosure raises questions about the nature of the advice given to intelligence officials during the early months of the pandemic. Gottlieb acknowledged that the briefing took place but stated that CIA officials knew of his position with Pfizer. The CIA, the FDA and Pfizer did not respond to requests for comment on the matter. The memo serves as a summary of the briefing rather than a verbatim transcript, which may limit the precision of the statements attributed to Gottlieb. According to the memo, Gottlieb agreed that infections were undercounted but rejected the magnitude suggested by the California studies, estimating national seroprevalence at 20% to 25%.

Contested Data and Seroprevalence Estimates

The seroprevalence studies in question were conducted in California and were part of a broader effort to measure the true scope of the pandemic. One study examined antibody prevalence in Santa Clara County, while another focused on Los Angeles County. Both studies reported infection rates far higher than the number of confirmed cases at the time, indicating that a large portion of the population had already been exposed to the virus. These findings were consistent with other seroprevalence research conducted across the U.S. during the same period [1]. Gottlieb's estimate of 20% to 25% national seroprevalence aligned with some national modeling efforts. A study published in May 2020, which used influenza surveillance networks to estimate state-specific prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, reported findings that supported the notion that the virus was far more widespread than confirmed case counts indicated [2]. However, the memo states that Gottlieb argued this level of exposure was insufficient for herd immunity, a claim that would later influence discussions about the necessity of mass vaccination campaigns.

Gottlieb's Pfizer Ties and Ethical Scrutiny

Investigative journalist Sonia Elijah said the briefing "fit the pattern" of treating confirmed cases as the measure of risk and keeping the public susceptible, making vaccines appear necessary. Her comments highlight a recurring criticism of public health messaging during the pandemic: that officials and corporate executives with financial stakes in pharmaceutical products may have shaped policy in ways that prioritized vaccine sales over accurate risk communication. Gottlieb's dual roles as a Pfizer board member and a former FDA commissioner created a potential conflict of interest that was not disclosed in the briefing memo. However, the memo is an agency summary, not a verbatim transcript, meaning it may not precisely capture Gottlieb’s words. This limitation is significant because the exact phrasing of his dismissal of the California studies could have been influenced by the note-taker's interpretation. Nonetheless, the existence of the memo provides a rare glimpse into the private deliberations of public health officials during the pandemic.

Implications for Pandemic Policy and Public Trust

The memo does not prove that Gottlieb's advice led directly to the decision to pursue mass vaccination, but it reveals an executive with financial ties to Pfizer advising the CIA during the early pandemic. This relationship raises concerns about the influence of pharmaceutical companies on government decision-making. Critics have pointed to the rapid development and approval of COVID-19 vaccines as evidence that public health agencies prioritized corporate interests over independent scientific scrutiny [3]. The dismissal of seroprevalence data also has implications for public trust. If officials knowingly minimized the true infection rate, they may have intentionally or unintentionally contributed to policies that did not reflect the actual risk to the public. Research published during the pandemic highlighted the challenges of standardizing seroprevalence assays, which complicated efforts to compare results across studies [4]. Nevertheless, the consistent findings across multiple studies suggested that the virus was more widespread than official counts indicated [5].

Conclusion

The CIA memo adds a new dimension to the historical record of the COVID-19 pandemic, showing how senior figures with ties to the pharmaceutical industry interacted with intelligence agencies. While the memo does not establish a direct causal link between Gottlieb's statements and subsequent policy decisions, it underscores the need for transparency in public health decision-making. The American public deserves full disclosure of the factors that shaped pandemic response, including any potential conflicts of interest among advisors. The episode also serves as a reminder that early pandemic data was subject to interpretation and that the choices made by officials had far-reaching consequences. As more documents become available, a clearer picture may emerge of how the interplay between corporate interests and government policy influenced the course of the pandemic. For now, the memo stands as a document that warrants continued scrutiny from journalists, researchers and the public.

References

  1. ANH International. Covid Weekly Update Week 22. May 27, 2020.
  2. Silverman, Justin. Using Influenza Surveillance Networks to Estimate State-Specific Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States. 2020.
  3. The People's Voice. FDA Approves Pfizer’s LNP-Based COVID-19 Vaccine Without New Safety and Efficacy Data for the New XFG Formula.
  4. Havers, Fiona P. Seroprevalence of Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in 10 Sites in the United States, March 23–May 12, 2020. JAMA Internal Medicine, 2020.
  5. Mercola, Joseph. 88 of COVID 19 Patients Have This in Common. Mercola.com, May 4, 2020.

Explainer Infographic

Copy