Dr. Fauci 'wrong' so many times: Was personal gain behind his COVID-19 response?

"Patron Saint of TERRIBLE COVID policies"

Justin Hart wrote in his Rational Ground substack that we need answers for why our experts “screwed up” so badly regarding COVID-19, listing 19 major failures, each containing five or more specific examples. He also labeled Dr. Fauci “the patron saint of TERRIBLE COVID policies,” and listed 20 things he was wrong about. 

The Gold Report, in its article “The CDC and Pharma: Did their decades-long partnership shape the COVID-19 response?,” suggested these may not be failures at all but a modus operandi, given their scale and severity. The article reviews the CDC's decades-long involvement with Big Pharma, arguing that systemic corruption and entanglements with the pharmaceutical industry plague federal agencies, making meaningful reform unlikely. This systemic corruption extends to Dr. Fauci’s NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), where he served as director for 38 years before his recent resignation. Fauci’s financial entanglements and conflicts of interest with Big Pharma exemplify how deeply compromised these agencies are.

We began by examining the CDC’s role in COVID-19 “failures,” focusing on its far-reaching influence over public health guidance, vaccine distribution, and data reporting. Now, we shift our focus to Dr. Fauci, the face of COVID countermeasures, examining how his conflicts of interest were key factors in his "failures" during the pandemic.

Fauci’s conflicted history

To understand why Dr. Fauci “was wrong” regarding the 20 COVID-19-related issues Justin Hart listed, we need to examine Fauci's performance during his long tenure at the NIAID. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in his book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, provides a detailed critique of Fauci’s career. Kennedy explores how Fauci sabotaged research into the actual cause of AIDS symptoms and inexpensive AIDS treatments in favor of an ineffective, costly cancer drug, his alliance with Bill Gates to dominate the vaccine industry, and his involvement in controlling the messaging around COVID-19 to stoke fear and suppress dissent. The following is excerpted from the book’s inside jacket cover: 

“America’s Doctor” launched his career during the early AIDS crisis by partnering with pharmaceutical companies to sabotage safe and effective off-patent therapeutic treatments for AIDS. Fauci orchestrated fraudulent studies, and then pressured US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulators into approving a deadly chemotherapy treatment he had good reason to know was worthless against AIDS. . . . 

Personal gain and politics

Dr. Fauci's actions reveal a troubling pattern of decisions driven by financial interests and political maneuvering, which help to explain Fauci’s role in the COVID “failures.”

‍In early 2000, Fauci shook hands with Bill Gates in the library of the Gates' $147 million Seattle mansion, cementing a partnership that would aim to control an increasingly profitable $60 billion global vaccine enterprise with unlimited growth potential. Through funding leverage and carefully cultivated personal relationships with the heads of state and leading media and social media institutions, the Fauci-Pharma-Gates alliance exercises dominion over global health policy. 

‍. . .  Fauci, Gates, and their cohorts use their control of media outlets, scientific journals, key government and quasi-governmental agencies, global intelligence agencies, and influential scientists and physicians to flood the public with fearful propaganda about COVID-19 virulence and parthenogenesis, and to muzzle debate and ruthlessly censored dissent.

Good drug/bad drug      

When Dr. Fauci announced the supposedly positive results of a government-funded trial of Remdesivir as a therapy for COVID-19, he took the unusual route of announcing it in the Oval Office before it went through a peer review and before the data was released to researchers, as is the normal procedure. Fauci claimed it was for entirely ethical reasons—the drug was too effective to withhold from the placebo-group patients. He claimed the results were being leaked[1] and wanted to avoid confusion, as reported by the CBC, citing Reuters.

[Fauci] expressed concern that leaks of partial information would lead to confusion. Since the White House was not planning a daily virus briefing, Fauci said he was invited to release the news at a media conference with Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards.

"It was purely driven by ethical concerns," Fauci told Reuters in a telephone interview.

"I would love to wait to present it at a scientific meeting, but it's just not in the cards when you have a situation where the ethical concern about getting the drug to people on placebo dominates the conversation."

Also included in the CBC article was a caveat about accepting preliminary information which may be wrong, as was the case with hydroxychloroquine, which then-President Trump touted.

As a cautionary example of inflating the potential value of a therapy, some pointed to President Donald Trump's repeated endorsements of malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as a treatment, with no evidence that it works.

With his announcement in the Oval Office, he repeated his actions from the AIDS crisis. He dismissed hydroxychloroquine as a non-proven remedy even though the NIH had found it effective against SARS years earlier. Meanwhile, the expensive Remdesivir that he pushed instead (which received EUA (emergency use authorization) and not FDA approval as a COVID-19 remedy) had been trialed by his agency for Ebola in 2018 but was discontinued early due to having a higher mortality rate than the Ebola virus it was meant to combat.

What the NIH knew about hydroxychloroquine in 2005

When SARS was first detected in 2002, researchers attempting to find a cure for that respiratory ailment tested chloroquine (hydroxychloroquine is a safer form of the drug) in monkey cells and found that it was effective both as a prophylactic and a therapeutic. 

The study, “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread,” was published in 2005 in Virology Journal. Five of the study’s eight authors worked at the CDC and three at the Clinical Research Institute of Montreal. They found that it had possible preventive and therapeutic benefits, concluding that in cell culture it proved to be effective for SARS. It was known to be safe since it is used to treat other diseases.

Chloroquine, a relatively safe, effective, and cheap drug used for treating many human diseases including malaria, amoebiosis, and human immunodeficiency virus, is effective in inhibiting the infection and spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. The fact that the drug had a significant inhibitory antiviral effect when the susceptible cells were treated either prior to or after infection suggests a possible prophylactic and therapeutic use.“

Dr. Simone Gold, founder of America’s Front Line Doctors, tweeted Dr. Richard Urso’s explanation for the war against hydroxychloroquine.

Hydroxychloroquine kills the [pharmaceutical] industry [even] better than it kills a virus.

In the video below, Fox News host Laura Ingraham hears from Yale School of Public Health epidemiology professor Dr. Harvey Risch about how "doctors are being targeted by their state's medical licensing boards" for prescribing hydroxychloroquine. (Dr. Gold was one of those doctors.)

Dr. Risch:

All the evidence is actually good for it when it's used in outpatient settings. Nevertheless, the only people who actually see that are a whole pile of doctors who are on the front lines treating those patients across the country. They are the ones who are at risk of being forced not to do it.

Questioning Fauci's ignorance

In 2020 Bekah Lyons reviewed the chloroquine study for Right Wire Report, noting that it was published in the NIH's Virology Journal. The NIH is an umbrella agency with Fauci’s NIAID being one of the agencies under it. Since his comments regarding hydroxychloroquine following the COVID-19 outbreak seemed to imply that this was a new hypothesis that had to be researched she asked the question, Why is Dr. Fauci acting as if he knows nothing about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine? and wondered, “Is it possible he would not have read the NIH specific research?”[2]  

Dr. Fauci’s statements made it appear that this was new information related to this outbreak only, and we would be at the beginning of exploring this clinical hypothesis. 

What the NIH knew about Remdesivir in 2018

Lori Weintz included a chapter about Remdesivir from her book, “Mechanisms of Harm: Medicine in the Time of Covid-19," including the drug's death rate as seen during the Ebola trial, and Fauci’s role, in an article for The Brownstone Institute. 

In the interview with Zuckerberg, in addition to mentioning HCQ, Fauci said, “There’s a drug called remdesivir, which is…developed by Gilead as an antiviral. We tried it in Ebola. It didn’t work as well as some of the other drugs, but it’s there.” It was really, really there; remdesivir manufacturer Gilead spent $2.45 million lobbying Congress in the first quarter of 2020, which was also when Congress drafted and passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act that included funding for vaccines and treatments in response to the pandemic.

“Didn’t work as well” was a gross understatement. During the 2018 Ebola drug trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), remdesivir (brand name Veklury) was one of four different drugs used to treat Ebola. Those in the remdesivir group had the highest overall deaths, with a mortality rate of over 50 percent in the first 28 days. Trial participants who received remdesivir also had significantly elevated markers for liver and kidney damage, leading the safety board to terminate its use mid-trial. (Emphasis added.)

Chief Nerd tweeted Dr. Paul Marik’s testimony about the government promoting the use of Remdesivir in hospitals, despite its known toxicity. 

“The federal government is incentivizing hospitals to prescribe a medication which is toxic”

‍

Windfall for Fauci

Weintz informs that in addition to political motivation, which she quoted Fauci as categorically denying, government employees are permitted to put their names on patents for products they helped develop, another reason Fauci pushed Remdesivir.

Dr. Fauci states that decisions involving American’s health and safety are made “outside of the realm of politics,” but nothing could be further from the truth. The other reason RFK, Jr. gives for Fauci’s interest in remdesivir is money. National Institutes of Health (NIH) employees are allowed to put their name on patents, and thereby profit from product approval. For example, NIH is listed on the patent for Moderna. Tellingly, Anthony Fauci’s household net worth increased during the pandemic from $7.5 million to $12.6 million. 

Dr. Fauci refused requests from Congress to disclose his royalty payments, leading to questions about his interests.[3] Weintz concluded her article with a quote from RFK, Jr’s intro to “The Real Anthony Fauci” to that effect.

Lamentably, Dr. Fauci’s failure to achieve public health goals during the Covid pandemic are not anomalous errors, but consistent with a recurrent pattern of sacrificing public health and safety on the altar of pharmaceutical profits and self-interest.

All for the vaccine

Was the purpose of supporting pharma, as Dr. Urso stated, the only reason Fauci worked so hard to discredit hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin knowing that Remdesivir was dangerous? One of his main goals was to get COVID-19 vaccines approved and rolled out to the public. If the FDA approved hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, or other already approved drugs as therapy for COVID-19, it would be illegal to approve a vaccine under an emergency use authorization for the virus. RFK, Jr. explained this to Megyn Kelly, as covered by Revolver News.

“Tony Fauci’s problem is this: there’s a little known federal law that says, ‘You cannot give an emergency use authorization to a vaccine if there is any medication approved for any purpose that is shown effective against the target disease.’ So if Tony Fauci or anybody had admitted that hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin are effective against COVID, it would have been illegal for them to give the emergency use authorization to the vaccines and they could have never gotten them approved, and a 200 billion dollar enterprise would have collapsed.”

Revolver News reposted Vigilant Fox’s tweet of RFK, Jr’s interview with Megyn Kelly.

Not so incidentally, Remdesivir also costs about $3,000 per course. While the government doesn’t hold patents on the drug, it helped fund the trial. Gilead Science, the drug’s developer, subsequently contributed handsomely to the NIH. Gilead funded the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines panel, with several members of the panel also serving as Gilead consultants.‍

Time to start over, rebuild from scratch

Revolver News’s concludes that meaningful reform is unlikely, arguing that we need to dismantle the agencies and start fresh.

Sadly, thanks to hysterical political bias, greed, and total corruption, our “experts,” government, and media have lost all credibility, and the trust of the American people. Maybe it’s time to start over and rebuild everything from the ground up?

Heart to Hart

Justin Hart called for accountability from the "experts" who failed during the pandemic, but the evidence suggests they may not have failed at all. Fauci and his colleagues may instead have acted consistently with their long-standing patterns—serving Big Pharma and personal financial interests rather than the American public. This could explain the obsessive focus on masking, lockdowns, and other harmful measures that contradicted basic health principles like the benefits of fresh air, exercise, and sunlight.

Yet, the bigger questions remain: how did this corruption persist for decades without challenge? Why did the public accept rules that defied logic and science? Addressing these systemic issues requires more than accountability—it demands a fundamental rethinking of our institutions and the way we place trust in authority.

How much did the CDC know about [hydroxy]chloroquine in 2003?

‍
The video clip, below, is from the TV series Dead Zone's episode titled "Plague," aired in 2003. The clip had garnered much attention at the time, provoking curiosity about how the "Dead Zone" script writers could have known this. Bill Sardi wrote about possible CDC assistance in the making of this episode for Global Research in 2020.

This is a clip summarizing a 2003 episode of a TV show called Dead Zone, the episode name is plague. During the episode, someone takes a flight in from China into the US and they come down with an unknown virus. After identifying the virus as a SARS related Coronavirus, one doctor figures out that they can stop the Coronavirus dead in its tracks using a malaria drug called Chloroquine. The writers have claimed that the information and research used to make this episode came directly from the CDC in 2003. Did the CDC know something in 2003 that they are not telling us now?

‍

The information contained in this article is for educational and information purposes only and is not intended as health, medical, financial or legal advice. Always consult a physician, lawyer or other qualified professional regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition, health objectives or legal or financial issues.

‍

Related articles:

• The CDC and Pharma: Did their decades-long partnership shape the COVID-19 response?
• Cheap drugs, cheap nutrients treat disease say Fauci, Baric, FDA
• Pence and Dr. Birx helped Fauci betray Trump
• Why is Emergency Use Authorization being used to increase big pharma coffers with no regard for patient safety?
• ‍Partisan politics to make Fauci testimony irrelevant?
• Anthony Fauci 'bothered’ by America’s Frontline Doctors
• NIH’s coordinated coverup of HIV scandal
• Why Fauci resurrects failed drugs
  
• Global vaccine messianists - saviors or murderers? Part 2
• All you need to know about facemasks, but didn’t know to ask‍‍