Tick Tock: Inside Pfizer’s Bid to Vaccinate Against Lyme
Updated
Pfizer is adding a new vaccine to its repertoire. The Big Pharma behemoth is preparing to bring a Lyme disease vaccine to market with its French partner, Valneva. The company recently announced the news, which comes at a time when public trust in pharmaceutical giants remains shaky, particularly following the contentious rollout of mRNA COVID vaccines. For anyone who’s watched Pfizer’s recent history with a critical eye, this new vaccine deserves a closer look.
First things first: this isn’t mRNA technology. The vaccine, designated PF-07307405, uses traditional protein-based methods that have been around for decades. It targets something called OspA—an outer surface protein found on the Borrelia burgdorferi bacteria that causes Lyme disease. While Moderna is indeed working on an mRNA version of a Lyme vaccine, Pfizer’s approach here is conventional. Six different variants of this protein are included in the formulation, aiming to cover roughly 97 percent of Lyme-causing bacterial strains found across North America and Europe.
The vaccine uses aluminum as an adjuvant. Importantly, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long argued that aluminum salts used as adjuvants in many vaccines are unsafe at the levels and in the forms administered to infants and children. He views them as a major contributor to the rise in chronic childhood conditions, including neurodevelopmental disorders (such as autism), allergies, asthma, and autoimmune diseases. Nonetheless, despite the steady decline in Americans’ health, aluminum has been a standard additive in vaccines for decades. Beyond that, detailed ingredient lists for PF-07307405 won’t be made public until regulatory approval is granted, which Pfizer aims to achieve in 2026.
This new vaccine didn’t originate with Pfizer. In 2020, Pfizer licensed the candidate from Valneva, a French biotech company based in Saint-Herblain, paying around $130 million upfront. Two years later, Pfizer boosted its stake by investing another $95 million to acquire 8 percent of Valneva, thereby reducing Pfizer’s share of ongoing development costs. The deal appears to be a standard arrangement in the pharmaceutical world: Valneva provides the scientific innovation, Pfizer brings the manufacturing power and global distribution network. If the vaccine is approved, Pfizer will handle commercialization worldwide, while Valneva remains a development partner.
Valneva is a publicly traded company. Its ownership is spread across various institutional investors—asset management firms like Vanguard and BlackRock, pension funds, and other financial players, including Groupe Grimaud, which in 2024 completed its strategic refocusing by reaffirming its position as a leader in fine food genetics alongside its bioproducts activities. Pfizer Inc. itself owns 5.49 percent. Valneva has raised funding through public offerings, pulling in €107 million in 2021 and €102 million in 2022. It also generates revenue from existing travel vaccines—Chikungunya, Cholera, and Japanese Encephalitis—which helps fund their pipeline.
The Phase 3 trial for PF-07307405, called VALOR (Vaccine Against Lyme for Outdoor Recreationists), specifically targeted people at the highest risk of Lyme disease, including hikers, campers, and others who spend significant time in tick-prone areas. The results of the trial haven’t been fully disclosed yet, but Pfizer is confident enough in them to move toward regulatory filing.
The dosing schedule for its new Lyme disease jab is more complex than that of a typical flu shot. There are four doses total: one initial shot, another at two months, a third between five and nine months, and a fourth dose roughly a year later, conveniently timed just before Lyme season kicks in. Whether annual boosters will be required after that remains unclear since the vaccine has not yet been approved.
Significantly, the vaccine targets the bacteria that cause Lyme disease, not ticks themselves. Meaning, ticks can still bite vaccinated subjects, and it is still possible to contract other tick-borne illnesses, such as Rocky Mountain spotted fever, anaplasmosis, or babesiosis. Pfizer’s Lyme vaccine is strictly about attempting to prevent Lyme disease, which is caused by Borrelia burgdorferi spirochetes transmitted through infected Ixodes ticks.
Lyme disease—the most common vector-borne illness in the United States, with an estimated 476,000 people diagnosed and treated annually—was first formally identified in Lyme, Connecticut, during the 1970s following a cluster of unexplained arthritis cases. The bacterial cause was pinpointed, and the tick transmission route was confirmed through substantial epidemiological work. At least that’s the official story.
But skepticism persists, and not without reason. Conspiracy theories about military or CIA involvement in creating Lyme disease have circulated for years, fueled partly by the proximity of Lyme research facilities to places like Plum Island, a former government animal disease research center. The distrust in the origin of Lyme disease isn’t irrational, given documented cases of unethical government experiments—Tuskegee being the most glaring example.
The scientific consensus holds that Lyme is a naturally occurring infection that’s been around for centuries, only recently recognized and named. It cites evidence from archaeological samples and historical medical records that support this. Still, the credibility of our nation’s institutions has taken enough valid hits that healthy skepticism about official narratives isn’t unreasonable.
Additionally, Pfizer’s profit-driven business model is no secret. The company isn’t a charity, and its track record includes aggressive pricing, intentional deception, marketing controversies, and significant legal settlements. The dangerous mRNA COVID vaccine rollout demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt how pharmaceutical companies dominate public health narratives while reaping historic profits.
So when Pfizer announces a new vaccine, particularly one targeting a disease whose origins some question, scrutiny is warranted. As noted, the technology with this vaccine is traditional, not experimental mRNA gene-damaging therapy. Perhaps Pfizer is intentionally skipping mRNA on this one due to recent fallout. Likewise, the partnership with Valneva suggests the science behind this new vaccine originated outside Pfizer’s labs. And, for those who contract it, Lyme disease, whatever its murky historical origins, is unquestionably real and debilitating. Nonetheless, will a public weary of big pharma profits be keen on a new vaccine to battle Lyme disease?
Time will tell whether Pfizer’s new vaccine represents real public health progress or is just another profit opportunity at the expense of those suffering from Lyme disease. Deemed 70 percent effective by Pfizer after reviewing its phase 3 trial data, the final outcome depends in part on how the vaccine is priced, marketed, and deployed once approved. And of course, the full ingredient list, long-term efficacy data, and post-market surveillance will all matter. For now, we know that it’s protein-based, requires four doses, covers most Lyme strains in North America and Europe, and is slated for regulatory review in 2026. Trust, once broken, takes time to rebuild, if that is even possible.
