"Lie" is the wrong term. "Mislead" or "misrepresent" would be the more appropriate way to phrase it. On a topic as politicized as this with as little scientific

"Lie" is the wrong term. "Mislead" or "misrepresent" would be the more appropriate way to phrase it. On a topic as politicized as this with as little scientific literacy as the general public has you don't think they'd have anything to gain by fudging things a bit in their favor (ignoring a confounding variable here, drawing a misleading conclusion there) to distribute more shots? And you think it would just be clear cut that the general public would be able to discern such mistakes over the long term and hold them accountable? And you don't think companies often take measures just to boost their short term earnings/stock price even if it has obvious long-term deleterious effects? I'd say these viewpoints would be naive in the extreme. Not to say they did commit any such errors here. Perhaps all such studies conducted by Pfizer are truly earnest and valid/replicable, I certainly hope they are. But it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of an organization publishing new science when that organization stands to profit greatly from the results. You may call that libertarian (though I'm frankly not sure how), I'd call it just due diligence.