Dr. Byram W. Bridle, 02/10/26
When I read the article, I found two details in the story to be particularly disconcerting.
First, I learned a new term. Apparently there are “potentially influential government officials (PIGOs)” that pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer target monetarily. This term bothers me and the purpose of the payouts seems to be at odds with conflict of interest policies that are supposed to be enforced in countries like Canada.
Second, alongside China, Pfizer targeted Canada’s PIGOs through a disproportionately large budget. The story focused on the fact that Pfizer may have committed fraud by targeting potentially influential government officials in China with a disproportionately large sum of money (“over ten times the amount of money”) compared to what was paid out to government officials in the United States. However, as a Canadian, I found the following facts to be of concern:
The $11 million paid by Pfizer to Canadian PIGOs is concerning because it almost equals that allocated to influencing the U.S.A., but our economic footprint is about 12-times smaller and our pharmaceutical market is approximately 18-time smaller. This means that Pfizer’s budget devoted to targeting government officials in Canada was, like the one targeting Chinese officials, disproportionately large after adjusting for the size of the pharmaceutical market within each country.
“Specifically, Pfizer spent $168 million on PIGOs in China between the second quarter of 2019 and the third quarter of 2021, Han’s work found. That compared to $12 million in the U.S., $11 million in Canada, $7.5 million in Russia and $7.1 million in the U.K.”
It is troubling to learn that Pfizer invested so much money into government influencers in China at the time leading up to both the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic and the rollout of their shots. But why was Canada so disproportionately targeted? Historically, our public health institutions often followed the lead of the U.S.A. So, why invest an almost equal amount of money into the much smaller market that Canada represents when influence was already being exerted on our ‘big sibling’? Could this also constitute a breach of foreign corrupt practices laws?
In my opinion, this information deserves serious discussions and investigations. Importantly, every government official that receives PIGO money should have to disclose it to the public and indicate what it was used for. As a Canadian, I would like to know which government officials in Canada accepted PIGO money so I can take that into consideration alongside their public health messaging, especially as it applied to interventions related to COVID-19.
The problem is, I cannot find any information in online public databases to explain what happened to Pfizer’s $11 million paid out to potentially influential government officials in Canada. I don’t like the idea that this much money can be distributed to government officials without the public being able to readily find out who received it.
Perhaps Access to Information and Privacy Act (ATIP)/Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests would be required to get this information.
If any readers have evidence showing any Canadian government officials receiving portions of Pfizer’s $11 million, please share them in the comments.
Likewise, please comment if you have ideas as to why Canada’s government (alongside China) was disproportionately (based on market size) targeted by Pfizer.
After all, and like many others, I would like the healthcare policies that are imposed on me to be free from financial influences of pharmaceutical companies.