[LorenPechtel]

No. The trial was intended to conclude when they had sufficient data to get an acceptable confidence interval. It was to be periodically reviewed to see how it was faring against that yardstick.

They ended up tossing one of the intermediate reviews because it was overtaken by events--the objective was met, spend the time on analyzing that data rather than the now-irrelevant intermediate review.

The test did nothing towards establishing how long the protection lasted--they can't have rushed it through based on that being short because they had no measurement of it then.

You simply can't measure time effects in medicine other than by observing them. If you want to know what protection is like after a year you have to wait a year and then measure it. (This is also why we saw repeated changes to the shelf life of the vaccine--the vaccine makers simply didn't have the time to establish what the true shelf life was and thus could only claim what they had measured. Note that this is pervasive in medicine--stored properly most drugs are effective far beyond the stated shelf life. It's just the manufacturers have no reason to spend the money to certify this.)

And in blaming Pfizer you show your bias--why did every vaccine maker do the same thing at the same time??

If anything I'll blame Pfizer for making a weak vaccine. Moderna chose to go with a higher dose that appears to provide slightly more protection at the cost of more side effects at the time.