How about you learn to read instead? My statement didn't espouse a conspiracy to withhold the vaccine, nor do I believe in one. I'll repeat the argument, this time using smaller words, and in smaller steps.
1. Throughout the first few months of the pandemic, the media narrative was that a vaccine would take 18 months to 2 years to develop, and more time to distribute.
2. When the Trump Administration stated a vaccine would be available before the end of the year, the media -- and many major Democratic figures -- began the narrative that any such early vaccine was "rushed", and quite likely unsafe.
It was Trump's job to get out in front of that, and explain what he was proposing. That he was reducing red-tape, and there was nothing essentially different about his path than the path that existed except for a reduction in red tape. That he failed to get out in front if it is purely on him.
3. Any pharmaceutical CEO faced with that knowledge ineluctably realizes that making a vaccine announcement prior to the election would play into that narrative. The media bombardment would then include them and their product specifically, and result in PR damage. Delaying any announcements by a few weeks saves them that pain.
Points 1 and 2 are irrefutable fact. Point 3 is a conclusion that anyone with even a room temperature IQ could reach. None of them involve a "conspiracy". These very forums from a few months ago include a dozen people -- including at least one posting to this thread -- buying into the "rushed vaccine" silliness. I predicted then that any vaccine announcement would be delayed until after the election. No responsible CEO wants to place themselves squarely in the middle of a political maelstrom.
It is a irrefutable fact that Trump failed to explain to the American people what his Operation "Warp Speed" program meant. No one else but Trump is responsible for not explaining that.
And you were not the only right to far-right leaning individual to predict that a vaccine announcement would be made after the election. Pat yourself on the back. Good Call!
Besides, I forget what movie or philosophy this comes from, "To Take No Action is an Action" Whether a CEO or other in charge of a company looking to profit, yes, with $1.95B at stake for the company, I would say that profit was the prime motive for developing a vaccine, made an announcement before or after the election, it would undoubtedly be considered a political move whatever side of the fence you are on. Even though you are not saying it, it is, to me, anyway, implied by context that it was a political move for the CEO to announce it after the election. Perhaps, the independent review that was conducted was not done yet, perhaps it was.
Regardless of if this announcement had come before the election or not, there was no way in hell that I was going to change my vote. Nancy Reagan consulted a psychic. For all the lack of truth espoused by and finger pointing that Trump has done in the past four years, too, his proclamation that a vaccine would be developed before the end of the year could also have come from a psychic, or more likely, was inspired by the influence that Norman Vincent Peal had on him. To me, and I would imagine to a large part of the electorate, Trump has no credibility. He only has himself to blame for the way it looks like the election is going - prior to resolution of his lawsuits.
So did you hear about Epstein committing suicide? Because everyone is conspiracies, conspiracies, conspiracies everywhere, and not a drop of irrefutable proof to drink.
What's your point? Did you hear that the postal worker that accused the Erie, PA postmaster of holding back and improperly dating mail in ballots recanted his story after he was questioned by the postal inspector?