Not a Biden fan here, but they’ve been saying this for a while.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/h...ne-pfizer.html

Quoting the last paragraph of your linked article -
In a video he posted from the White House a day later, Mr. Trump said that a vaccine should be available before the election, “but frankly, the politics gets involved.”

“They want to play their games,” he said. “It’s going to be right after the election.”

“They” as in Pfizer, not Trump.

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

"You're a detective now. You don't believe in coincidence"

Pfizer or no Pfizer, people had their minds made up by last week.

So following this logic, is your argument that if Trump had won reelection Pfizer would have just sat on the vaccine results till...??? What? Just trying to understand what the stakes have to be for a company to sit on what is probably going to be the most sought after product in any of our lifetimes.

Agreed. They could have announced a vaccine two months ago or two months from now, still wouldn't have changed the way I voted.

To the OP: I like your optimism and your sentiment. Let's table it for now and revisit this in a year.

#240sucks

I think either way they would have announced it after the election. If their Goal was to influence the election and try to present the current administration as failing on the vaccine front, releasing the news after the election would have helped achieve this goal. If Biden won they got their desired result, if trump won it would not have mattered if they sat on that news for a couple weeks. All this assuming the information was purposely withheld

the important thing is that we need no evidence to support the conspiracy theory that it was withheld. Some just believe things without evidence and nothing will change their minds. Sad, really