“Dr. Joseph Goebbels wrote that ‘A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.’ Tragically for humanity, there are many, many untruths emanating from Fauci and his minions. RFK Jr. exposes the decades of lies.”

—Luc Montagnier, Nobel laureate

“Bobby Kennedy is one of the bravest and most uncompromisingly honest people I’ve ever met. Someday he’ll get credit for it. In the meantime, read this book.”

—Tucker Carlson

“Throughout history, fear has been used to manipulate and control populations. In a democracy, we have the privilege and responsibility to question the things we are encouraged to fear. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. provides something denied to most Americans in recent years: the opportunity to hear more than one perspective. You can accept or reject the new information in this book—but at least listen.”

—Gavin de Becker, bestselling author of The Gift of Fear

“As a trial lawyer, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has taken on the world’s most powerful corporations and held them accountable for harming people and the environment. Those companies denied any wrongdoing—but time and again, judges and juries were persuaded that Kennedy’s position was the right one. [His] information should always be considered, and agree or disagree, we all learn from listening.”

—Tony Robbins, bestselling author

“Bobby Kennedy and I famously disagree about many aspects of the current debates surrounding Covid and vaccines. We also disagree about Dr Fauci.

But I always learn when I read or hear Bobby’s take. So read this book and challenge its conclusions.”

—Alan Dershowitz

“Kennedy’s book proves beyond a shadow of doubt what many Americans have come to learn about Fauci: that he has stifled open debate to the point of utter stagnation of biomedical science.”

—James Lyons-Weiler, biomedical research scientist

“If you’ve ever wondered why so many good scientists and doctors have been silenced for discoveries that don’t fit the mainstream Big Pharma narrative, look no further than Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s tour de force exposé of Anthony Fauci.”

—Christiane Northrup, MD, former assistant clinical professor of Ob/Gyn, University of Vermont College of Medicine

“I thought I understood what was going on from an insider POV . . . But what this book clearly documents are the deeper forces and systemic, pervasive governmental corruption, that have led us to this point. . . .”

—Robert W. Malone, MD, virologist, immunologist, molecular biologist

“If you have any interest in doing a deep dive into the more than 100-year history of what led up to the COVID-19 pandemic, The Real Anthony Fauci is an absolute must-read. In addition to exposing Fauci, the book reveals the complex web of connections between Gates and Big Pharma and many of the most important players that were responsible for seeking to implement global tyranny and profit enormously from the propaganda behind the COVID injections, masks, and lockdowns.”

—Dr. Joseph Mercola, founder of


“[T]his book unveils the astonishing, twisted truth about a man (Fauci) and a corrupt institution (NIH) that have betrayed humanity at every turn in order to achieve profits and power. If the American people knew the truth that’s documented here, they would be marching by the millions, demanding criminal prosecutions of all those who are complicit.”

—Mike Adams, founder of

“It is impossible to read Kennedy’s book on Anthony Fauci without your jaw dropping to the floor. . . . It is a shocking tale of greed, corruption, and malpractice at the highest levels of government. Once Americans wake up from their hopefully brief infatuation with medical tyranny, this little Josef Stalin of medicine will go down in history as the country’s most corrupt government servant.”

—Rob Schneider

“RFK Jr.’s story of Fauci’s failure as the government’s AIDS coordinator is a highly disturbing prologue to his COVID mandate as head of NIAID. So, who is Dr. Fauci in the end? Has American medicine truly become a ‘racket,’ as corrupt as a mafia organization? . . . RFK Jr. has written a strong, strong book.”

—Oliver Stone, award-winning director, producer, and screenwriter

“As I read Kennedy’s book I thought a discreet and thorough criminal investigation into Fauci should occur. . . . It brought back memories of criminal bid-rigging schemes conducted by Organized Crime.”

—Mike Campi, former FBI agent and retired coordinator of the Organized Crime branch of the New York Division

“RFK Jr. is a tireless champion of Americans’ rights to be informed about their medical choices and has been way out front in warning us of the dangers of an out-of-control pharmaceutical industry.”


—Naomi Wolf, bestselling author The Beauty Myth, Give Me Liberty, and Outrages

“The revelations in this book are disturbing and shocking, exposing how our political system and government agencies can be compromised, and how the mainstream media are being used to manipulate and control our everyday existence. . . .”

—Randy Jackson, award-winning musician and producer



Copyright © 2021 by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without the express written consent of the publisher, except in the case of brief excerpts in critical reviews or articles. All inquiries should be addressed to Skyhorse Publishing, 307 West 36th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10018.

Skyhorse Publishing books may be purchased in bulk at special discounts for sales promotion, corporate gifts, fund-raising, or educational purposes. Special editions can also be created to specifications. For details, contact the Special Sales Department, Skyhorse Publishing, 307 West 36th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10018

Skyhorse® and Skyhorse Publishing® are registered trademarks of Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.®, a Delaware corporation.

Visit our website at

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available on file.

Print ISBN: 978-1-5107-6680-8 Ebook ISBN: 978-1-5107-6681-5

Cover design by Brian Peterson Printed in the United States of America

page8image66951552 page8image66951360


Dedication & Acknowledgments Publisher’s Note

Chapter 1: Mismanaging a Pandemic

I: Arbitrary Decrees: Science-Free Medicine II: Killing Hydroxychloroquine
III: Ivermectin
IV: Remdesivir

V: Final Solution: Vaccines or Bust

Chapter 2: Chapter 3: Chapter 4: Chapter 5: Chapter 6: Chapter 7:

Chapter 8:

Pharma Profits over Public Health

The HIV Pandemic Template for Pharma Profiteering

The Pandemic Template: AIDS and AZT

The HIV Heresies

Burning The HIV Heretics

Dr. Fauci, Mr. Hyde: NIAID’s Barbaric and Illegal Experiments on Children

White Mischief: Dr. Fauci’s African Atrocities

 page9image66957120 page9image66951168page9image66948288

Chapter 9: The White Man’s Burden
Chapter 10: More Harm Than Good
Chapter 11: Hyping Phony Epidemics: “Crying Wolf” Chapter 12: Germ Games

Afterword Author’s Note

page10image66957888 page10image66957696 page10image66946752 page10image66957504 page10image66957312page10image66958080


Dr. Anthony Fauci’s opinions and proclamations have been omnipresent in American media, and some people might assume his ideas and actions are universally supported by scientists or that he somehow represents science and medicine.

To the contrary, many leading scientists and scholars around the world oppose lockdowns and other aspects of Dr. Fauci’s pandemic management. They include Nobel laureates and other distinguished, accomplished, widely published, and internationally celebrated scientists.

I dedicate this book to that battle-hardened cadre of heroic scientists and physicians who have risked their careers, their livelihoods, and their reputations to champion evidence-based science and ethical medicine. By steadfastly prioritizing truth, the welfare of their patients, and the cause of public health above their own career ambitions, these brave men and women have succeeded, at great cost, in preserving their own integrity. They may one day restore from shame the shattered souls of the medical profession and the scientific establishment. Each of these individuals has emerged as a voice of sanity and a symbol of clarity and truth to those idealists across the globe who love democracy and resist the rising medical authoritarianism. Thanks to all of you for inspiring me with your character, your courage, your brilliant insights, and your passion for empiricism and critical thinking.

Dr. Harvey Risch, Yale University Professor of Epidemiology, Editor, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Board of Editors, American Journal of Epidemiology (2014–2020), biostatistician

Dr. Robert Malone, original inventor mRNA and DNA vaccination technologies, NIH Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions

and Vaccines (ACTIV) Clinical Working Group (2020), Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Immune Based Therapies and Vaccines (2007–2012), Salk Institute (1986–1989)

Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, Senior Ebola Program Manager, Global Alliance for Vaccines & Immunization (2015), Head of Vaccine Development for Germany’s Center for Infection Research (2017), vaccine developer at GSK (1995–2006), Novartis (2006), virologist

Dr. Michael Yeadon, Chief Scientist and vice-president of Pfizer’s allergy and respiratory research division (1995–2011), respiratory pharmacologist

Dr. Luc Montagnier, Virologist, 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, Chair of the Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe Heath Committee (1998–2010), member of German Parliament

(1994–2009), pulmonologist
Dr. Peter McCullough, clinical cardiologist, vice chief of internal

medicine at Baylor University Medical Center (2014–2021)
Peter Doshi, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy associate professor pharmaceutical health services, and Associate Editor at The

British Medical Journal
Dr. Paul E. Marik, Founder, Front-Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance,

Professor of Medicine, Chief of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine,

Eastern Virginia Medical School
Dr. Pierre Kory, President and Chief Medical Officer of the Front-Line

Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, Former Associate Professor, Chief of Critical Care Service, Medical Director of Trauma and Life Support Center at the University of Wisconsin (2015–2020)

Dr. Byram Bridle, University of Guelph associate professor of Viral Immunology

Dr. Tess Lawrie, World Health Organization consultant, physician

Dr. Didier Raoult, Director, Infectious and Tropical Emergent Diseases Research Unit (France), physician and microbiologist

Dr. Peter Breggin, National Institute of Mental Health (1966–1968), Harvard Medical School (1963–1964), doctor of psychiatry, author of more than 40 books

Dr. Meryl Nass, physician, vaccine-induced illnesses, toxicology, expert delegate to the US Director of National Intelligence bio-threat study program (2008)

Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, Medical Director Monsey Family Medical Center, physician

Dr. Charles Hoffe, physician
Dr. James Todaro, physician
Dr. Scott Jensen, University of Minnesota Medical School Clinical

Associate Professor, Minnesota State Senator (2016–2020), physician
Dr. Ryan Cole, pathologist
Dr. Jacob Puliyel, Director Department of Pediatrics and Neonatology, St.

Stephen’s Hospital (India), past member of India’s National Technical

Advisory Group on Immunization
Dr. Christiane Northrup, University of Vermont College of Medicine

Assistant Clinical Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology (1982–2001),

physician, three-time New York Times bestselling author
Dr. Richard Urso, MD Anderson Cancer Center assistant professor (1993–

2005), Chief of Orbital Oncology, scientist
Dr. Joseph Ladapo, Surgeon General of Florida, professor University of

Florida College of Medicine, associate professor at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, assistant professor of Population Health and Medicine at NYU School of Medicine

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Harvard University professor of medicine, biostatistician, epidemiologist, expert in vaccine safety evaluations and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks

Dr. Michael Levitt, Stanford University biophysicist and professor of structural biology, 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Dr. Satoshi Ōmura, biochemist, 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine Dr. Paul E. Alexander, US Department of Health & Human Services Senior Covid Pandemic Advisor (2020), WHO Pan American Health

Organization (2020)
Dr. Clare Craig, UK National Health Service (2000–2015), pathologist,

Oxford University and Cambridge University trained
Dr. Lee Merritt, US Navy physician and surgeon (1980–1989), past

president Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, Microbiologist, head of the Institute of Medical

Microbiology and Hygiene at University of Mainz (1991–2012)
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford University Medical School professor, physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy

expert focusing on infectious diseases
Dr. David Katz, Yale University, founder of Yale’s Prevention Research

Center, physician
John P.A. Ioannidis, Stanford University Professor of Medicine,

Epidemiology and Population Health, physician-scientist
Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Oxford University epidemiologist, immunology

expert, vaccine development, infectious disease mathematical modeling Dr. Catherine L. Lawson, Rutgers University research professor, Institute

for Quantitative Biomedicine
Dr. Salmaan Keshavjee, Harvard Medical School professor of Global

Health and Social Medicine
Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, Stanford University professor of biomedical data

science, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences
Dr. Cody Meissner, Tufts University professor of pediatrics, expert on

vaccine development, efficacy, and safety

Dr. Lisa White, Oxford University professor of epidemiology and modeling

Dr. Ariel Munitz, Tel Aviv University professor of clinical microbiology and immunology

Dr. Motti Gerlic, Tel Aviv University, clinical microbiology and immunology

Dr. Angus Dalgleish, University of London professor of infectious disease, Dr. Helen Colhoun, University of Edinburg professor of medical

informatics and epidemiology, public health physician
Dr. Simon Thornley, University of Auckland epidemiologist and

Dr. Stephanie Seneff, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Senior

research scientist

The Heroic Healers Honor Roll

There is a much larger retinue of thousands of lesser-known front-line medical professionals and PhD. researchers who have also chosen to wager everything on their commitment to their patients, to uncorrupted scientific inquiry, and to the opposition to authoritarian COVID policies. Many of them have battled unheralded in the trenches for decades. Each one of them has endured various intensities of vilification, excommunication, delicensing, and censorship by the Pharma cartel’s captive regulators, its corrupt medical associations, its media and social media allies and medical journals, and its government-sponsored fact checkers. They have weathered derision, gaslighting, scapegoating, retractions, career and reputational injuries, and financial ruin, to protect their patients, and nurture truth. My apologies to all of you whom I have necessarily omitted due to space restrictions but who belong on this Honor Roll. I regret that the only consolation for your sacrifices may be a clear conscience.

Dr. Robin Armstrong

Dr. Cristian Arvinte Dr. David Ayoub
Dr. Alan Bain
Dr. Richard Bartlett Dr. Cammy Benton Dr. Robert Berkowitz Dr. Andrew Berry Dr. Harvey Bialy

Dr. Thomas Borody Dr. Joseph Brewer Dr. Kelly Brogan
Dr. David Brownstein Dr. Adam Brufsky Dr. Zach Bush

Dr. Dolores Cahill Dr. Teryn Clarke
Dr. Tom Cowan
Dr. Andrew Cutler Dr. Roland Derwand Dr. Joyce Drayton Dr. Peter Duesberg Dr. Alieta Eck

Dr. John Eck
Dr. Richard Eisner
Dr. Christopher Exley Dr. George Fareed
Dr. Angelina Farella Dr. Richard Fleming Dr. Ted Fogarty
Dr. Silvia N. S. Fonseca Dr. C. Stephen Frost Dr. Michael Geier
Dr. Charles Geyer
Dr. Simone Gold
Dr. Gary Goldman
Dr. Russell Gonnering Dr. Karladine Graves

Dr. Kenneth Gross
Dr. Sabine Hazan
Dr. Kristin Held
Dr. H. Thomas Hight Dr. LeTrinh Hoang
Dr. Douglas Hulstedt Dr. Suzanne Humphries Dr. Stella Immanuel Dr. Michael Jacobs

Dr. Tina Kimmel
Dr. Lionel H. Lee
Dr. Sin Han Lee
Dr. John Littell
Dr. Ivette Lozano
Dr. Douglas Mackenzie Dr. Carrie Madej

Dr. Marty Makary
Dr. Harpal Mangat
Dr. Ben Marble
Dr. David E. Martin Dr. John E. McKinnon Dr. Shira Miller

Dr. Kari Mullis
Dr. Liz Mumper
Dr. Eileen Natuzzi
Dr. James Neuenschwander Dr. Hooman Noorchashm
Dr. Jane Orient
Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych
Dr. Ramin Oskoui
Dr. Larry Palevsky
Dr. Vicky Pebsworth
Dr. Don Pompan
Dr. Brian Procter
Dr. Chad Prodromos
Dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter
Dr. Juliana Cepelowicz Rajter

Dr. C. Venkata Ram Dr. David Rasnick Dr. Salete Rios
Dr. Michael Robb Dr. Rachel Ross

Dr. Moll Rutherford Dr. Ed Sarraf
Dr. Martin Scholz Dr. Bob Sears

Dr. Christopher Shaw Dr. Marilyn Singleton Dr. Kenneth Stoller Dr. Kelly Sutton

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny Dr. Paul Thomas Dr. James Tumlin Dr. Brian Tyson

Dr. Michelle Veneziano Dr. Kelly Victory
Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet Dr. Craig Wax

Dr. Rachel West
Dr. James Lyons-Weiler Dr. Alexandre Wolkoff Dr. Vicki Wooll
Dr. Bob Zajac
Dr. Andrew Zimmerman

And to truth-tellers everywhere who reject propaganda, defy censorship, and who live and die for freedom and human dignity.

In Memory of Katie Weisman and Dr. Valerie

Kennedy Chamberlain

Our ferocious fact checker, Katie Weisman, died while I wrote this book. During the day, Katie was a devoted wife and mom to three vaccine-injured

children. At night, even during the worst periods of her chemotherapy, Katie became the most fearsome (and intractable) fact checker. She helped lay the groundwork upon which we built our organization into a vessel for the reckless pursuit of existential truth. Her reckless integrity inspired our movement and ensured the accuracy of many of my projects. I am grateful also for her friendship.

Dr. Valerie Kennedy Chamberlain was a retired paleontologist and university professor who typed and fact-checked most of my handwritten drafts of Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak, and played a key role as a writer, editor, and typist at World Mercury Project from its inception, and later at Children’s Health Defense. She was a wonderful friend.


Judith Conley and Nancy Hokkanen deciphered my chicken-scratch scrawl, typed my handwritten manuscript, and helped me fact-check, spell-check, and edit with reliable insight, humor, and patience. Their advice was always invaluable.

Dr. Robert Malone, Celia Farber, Dr. Meryl Nass, GDB, Ken McCarthy, Charles Ortleb, and John Lauritsen read sections of this manuscript and provided criticism, citations, and insightful commentary. I am grateful to all for your corrections and recommendations, and for broadening my understanding of innumerable scientific and historic issues.

Laura Bono, Rita Shreffler, Brian Hooker, Ph.D., Lyn Redwood, R.N., Liz Mumper, M.D., Jackie Hines, and Cari Shagena were part of the Children’s Health Defense team of researchers and fact checkers who sourced, cited, and fact-checked this manuscript with energy, diligence, patience, idealism, and perseverance. I’m indebted to all of them for their devotion to children’s health, to democratic principles, to precision, and to the noble search for existential truth and accuracy.

Mary Holland, Esq., Rolf Hazlehurst, Esq., Heidi Kidd, Lynne Arnold, Kari Bundy, Angela Braden, Katrina Boudreau, Polly Tommey, Joyce Ghen, Karen McDonough, Cornelia Tucker Mazzan, Aimee Villella McBride, Stephanie Locricchio, Katherine Paul, Aerowenn Hunter, Janet McLean, John Stone, Divyanshi Dwivedi, Esq., Megan Redshaw, Brian Burrowes, Dr. Aaron Lewis, Curtis Cost, Wayne Rohde, Alix Mayer, Kristina Kristen and Karen Kuntz are the Children’s Health Defense warriors who give their lives selflessly to the battle for democracy, justice, and public health. All of them contributed directly and indirectly to this book.

Robyn Ross, Esq., Eileen Iorio, Dr. Kristine Severyn, Dr. James Lyons- Weiler, Joel Smalley, Dr. Jessica Rose and Sofia Karstens contributed to the work with their invaluable and resourceful support and talent in quick responses 24/7 on critical research questions.

To David Whiteside for his reliability, hard work and for never turning off his phone.

Thanks also go to Tony Lyons and his team at Skyhorse Publishing, including Hector Carosso, Mark Gompertz, Kirsten Dalley, and Louis Conte. Their vigilance and their congenial harassment ensured that this book came out on time.

Finally, I could not have written this book without the patience and wisdom of my wife, Cheryl Hines, whose reliable love fills all my empty spaces and makes me impervious to the furies of the world. I’m grateful for her generous humor, wisdom, support, and love, even when she disagrees with me. To my children, Bobby, Kick, Conor, Kyra, Finn, Aiden, and Cat, who bear the burdens I place upon them with laughter and stoicism, and whose love I always feel.


Complex scientific and moral problems are not resolved through censorship of dissenting opinions, deleting content from the Internet, or defaming scientists and authors who present information challenging to those in power. Censorship leads instead to greater distrust of both government institutions and large corporations.

There is no ideology or politics in pointing out the obvious: scientific errors and public policy errors do occur—and can have devastating consequences. Errors might result from flawed analysis, haste, arrogance, and sometimes, corruption. Whatever the cause, the solutions come from open-minded exploration, introspection, and constant review.

Ideally, science and public policy are never static. They are a process, a collaboration, a debate and a partnership. If powerful people challenged by this book claim it contains misinformation, our response is simply this: Tell us where you believe something is incorrect, make your best arguments, and offer the best available support for those arguments. We encourage and invite dialogue, criticism, engagement—and every suggestion will be heard and considered.

Since The Real Anthony Fauci is being published in the middle of rapidly unfolding events, and since censorship and suppression of information is underway, it’s best to approach this book as a living document. When new information emerges that can add to or improve the thousands of references and citations in this book, updates, additional notes, and new references will be provided via the QR code below, and the QR codes that appear throughout the book.

We’ve published authors with views on all sides of many controversies. That’s what we do, because at its best, publishing is a town square that lets everyone be heard—and lets everyone else listen, if they choose to. As Alan Dershowitz says, “I always learn when I read or hear Bobby’s take.” I can

go several steps further, knowing from my inside view how principled and careful Bobby is as an author—and how painstakingly this book was researched.

We look forward to taking this important journey with you.
Tony Lyons

Skyhorse Publishing

For updates, new citations and references, and new information:

page22image51131904 page22image51131712 page22image51611056

Editor’s note:
For ease of reference and reading, throughout this manuscript, both the virus SARS CoV-2 and the disease Covid-19 are referred to as COVID-19.


“The first step is to give up the illusion that the primary purpose of modern medical research is to improve Americans’ health most effectively and efficiently. In our opinion, the primary purpose of commercially funded clinical research is to maximize financial return on investment, not health.”

—John Abramson, M.D., Harvard Medical School

I wrote this book to help Americans—and citizens across the globe— understand the historical underpinnings of the bewildering cataclysm that began in 2020. In that single annus horribilis, liberal democracy effectively collapsed worldwide. The very governmental health regulators, social media eminences, and media companies that idealistic populations relied upon as champions of freedom, health, democracy, civil rights, and evidence-based public policy seemed to collectively pivot in a lockstep assault against free speech and personal freedoms.

Suddenly, those trusted institutions seemed to be acting in concert to generate fear, promote obedience, discourage critical thinking, and herd seven billion people to march to a single tune, culminating in mass public health experiments with a novel, shoddily tested and improperly licensed technology so risky that manufacturers refused to produce it unless every government on Earth shielded them from liability.

Across Western nations, shell-shocked citizens experienced all the well- worn tactics of rising totalitarianism—mass propaganda and censorship, the orchestrated promotion of terror, the manipulation of science, the suppression of debate, the vilification of dissent, and use of force to prevent protest. Conscientious objectors who resisted these unwanted, experimental, zero-liability medical interventions faced orchestrated gaslighting, marginalization, and scapegoating.

American lives and livelihoods were shattered by a bewildering array of draconian diktats imposed without legislative approval or judicial review,

risk assessment, or scientific citation. So-called Emergency Orders closed our businesses, schools and churches, made unprecedented intrusions into privacy, and disrupted our most treasured social and family relationships. Citizens the world over were ordered to stay in their homes.

Standing in the center of all the mayhem, with his confident hand on the helm, was one dominating figure. As the trusted public face of the United States government response to COVID, Dr. Anthony Fauci set this perilous course and sold the American public on a new destination for our democracy.

This book is a product of my own struggle to understand how the idealistic institutions our country built to safeguard both public health and democracy suddenly turned against our citizens and our values with such violence. I am a lifelong Democrat, whose family has had eighty years of deep engagement with America’s public health bureaucracy and long friendships with key federal regulators, including Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins, and Robert Gallo. Members of my family wrote many of the statutes under which these men govern, nurtured the growth of equitable and effective public health policies, and defended that regulatory bulwark against ferocious attacks funded by industry—and often executed by Republican-controlled congressional committees intent on defunding and defanging these agencies to make them more “industry friendly.” I built alliances with these individuals and their agencies during my years of environmental and public health advocacy. I watched them, often with admiration. But I also watched how the industry, supposedly being regulated, used its indentured servants on Capitol Hill to systematically hollow out those agencies beginning in 1980, disabling their regulatory functions and transforming them, finally, into sock-puppets for the very industry Congress charged them with regulating.

My 40-year career as an environmental and public health advocate gave me a unique understanding of the corrupting mechanisms of “regulatory

capture,” the process by which the regulator becomes beholden to the industry it’s meant to regulate. I spent four decades suing the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other environmental agencies to expose and remedy the corrupt sweetheart relationship that so often put regulators in bed with the polluting industries they regulated. Among the hundreds of lawsuits I filed, perhaps a quarter were against regulatory officials making illegal concessions to Big Oil, King Coal, and the chemical and agricultural polluters that had captured their loyalties. I thought I knew everything about regulatory capture and that I had armored myself with an appropriate shield of cynicism.

But I was wrong about that. From the moment of my reluctant entrance into the vaccine debate in 2005, I was astonished to realize that the pervasive web of deep financial entanglements between Pharma and the government health agencies had put regulatory capture on steroids. The CDC, for example, owns 57 vaccine patents1 and spends $4.9 of its $12.0 billion-dollar annual budget (as of 2019) buying and distributing vaccines.2,3 NIH owns hundreds of vaccine patents and often profits from the sale of products it supposedly regulates. High level officials, including Dr. Fauci, receive yearly emoluments of up to $150,000 in royalty payments on products that they help develop and then usher through the approval process.4 The FDA receives 45 percent of its budget from the pharmaceutical industry, through what are euphemistically called “user fees.”5 When I learned that extraordinary fact, the disastrous health of the American people was no longer a mystery; I wondered what the environment would look like if the EPA received 45 percent of its budget from the coal industry!

Today many of my liberal chums are still crouched in a knee jerk posture defending “our” agencies against Republican slanders and budget cuts, never quite realizing how thoroughly the decades of attacks succeeded in transforming those agencies into subsidiaries of Big Pharma.

In this book, I track the rise of Anthony Fauci from his start as a young public health researcher and physician through his metamorphosis into the powerful technocrat who helped orchestrate and execute 2020’s historic coup d’état against Western democracy. I explore the carefully planned militarization and monetization of medicine that has left American health ailing and its democracy shattered. I chronicle the troubling role of the dangerous concentrated mainstream media, Big Tech robber barons, the military and intelligence communities and their deep historical alliances with Big Pharma and public health agencies. The disturbing story that unfolds here has never been told, and many in power have worked hard to prevent the public from learning it. The main character is Anthony Fauci.

During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci, who turned 80 that year, occupied center stage in a global drama unprecedented in human history. At the contagion’s beginnings, the US still enjoyed its reputation as the universal standard-bearer in public health. As the world’s faith in American leadership dwindled during the Trump era, the singular US institutions that were seemingly immune from international disillusionment were our public health regulators; HHS—and its subsidiary agencies CDC, FDA, and NIH—persisted as role models for global health policies and gold standard scientific research. Other nations looked to Dr. Fauci, America’s most powerful and enduring public health bureaucrat, to competently direct US health policies, and rapidly develop countermeasures that would serve as state-of-the-art templates for the rest of the world.

Dr. Anthony Fauci spent half a century as America’s reigning health commissar, ever preparing for his final role as Commander of history’s biggest war against a global pandemic. Beginning in 1968, he occupied various posts at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), serving as that agency’s Director since November 1984.6 His $417,608 annual salary makes him the highest paid of all four million federal employees, including the President.7 His experiences surviving 50

years as the panjandrum of a key federal bureaucracy, having advised six Presidents, the Pentagon, intelligence agencies, foreign governments, and the WHO, seasoned him exquisitely for a crisis that would allow him to wield power enjoyed by few rulers and no doctor in history.

During the epidemic’s early months, Dr. Fauci’s calm, authoritative, and avuncular manner was Prozac for Americans besieged by two existential crises: the Trump Presidency, and COVID-19. Democrats and idealistic liberals around the globe, traumatized by President Trump’s chaotic governing style, took heart from Dr. Fauci’s serene, solid presence on the White House stage. He seemed to offer a rational, straight-talking, science- based counterweight to President Trump’s desultory, narcissistic bombast. Navigating the hazardous waters between an erratic President and a deadly contagion, Dr. Fauci initially cut a heroic figure, like Homer’s Ulysses steering his ship between Scylla and Charybdis. Turning their backs to the foreboding horizon, trusting Americans manned the oars and blindly obeyed his commands—little realizing they were propelling our country toward the desolate destination where democracy goes to die.

Throughout the first year of the crisis, Dr. Fauci’s personal charisma and authoritative voice inspired confidence in his prescriptions and won him substantial—though not universal—affection. Many Americans, dutifully locked in their homes in compliance with Dr. Fauci’s quarantine, took consolation in their capacity to join a Tony Fauci fan club, chillax on an “I heart Fauci” throw pillow, sip from an “In Fauci We Trust” coffee mug, warm cold feet in Fauci socks and booties, gorge on Fauci donuts, post a “Honk for Dr. Fauci” yard sign, or genuflect before a Dr. Fauci prayer candle. Fauci aficionados could choose from a variety of Fauci browser games and a squadron of Fauci action figures and bobbleheads, and could read his hagiography to their offspring from a worshipful children’s book. At the height of the lockdown, Brad Pitt performed a reverential homage to Dr. Fauci on Saturday Night Live,8 and Barbara Streisand

surprised him with a recorded message during a live Zoom birthday party in his honor.9 The New Yorker dubbed him “America’s Doctor.”10

Dr. Fauci encouraged his own canonization and the disturbing inquisition against his blasphemous critics. In a June 9, 2021 je suis l’état interview, he pronounced that Americans who questioned his statements were, per se, anti-science. “Attacks on me,” he explained, “quite frankly, are attacks on science.”11 The sentiment he expressed reminds us that blind faith in authority is a function of religion, not science. Science, like democracy, flourishes on skepticism toward official orthodoxies. Dr. Fauci’s schoolboy scorn for citation and his acknowledgement to the New York Times that he had twice lied to Americans to promote his agendas—on masks and herd immunity—raised the prospect that some of his other “scientific” assertions were, likewise, noble lies to a credulous public he believes is unworthy of self-determination.12,13

In August 2021, Dr. Fauci’s acolyte—CNN’s television doctor, Peter Hotez— published an article in a scientific journal calling for legislation to “expand federal hate crime protections” to make criticism of Dr. Fauci a felony.14 In declaring that he had no conflicts, Dr. Hotez, who says that vaccine skeptics should be snuffed out,15 evidently forgot the millions of dollars in grants he has taken from Dr. Fauci’s NIAID since 1993,16 and more than $15 million from Dr. Fauci’s partner, Bill Gates, for his Baylor University Tropical Medicine Institute.17,18 As we shall see, Dr. Fauci’s direct and indirect control—through NIH, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Wellcome Trust of some 57 percent of global biomedical research funding19—guarantees him this sort of obsequious homage from leading medical researchers, allows him to craft and perpetuate the reigning global medical narratives, and can fortify the canon that he, himself, is science incarnate.

High-visibility henchmen like Hotez—and Pharma’s financial control over the media through advertising dollars—have made Dr. Fauci’s

pronouncements impervious to debate and endowed the NIAID Director with personal virtues and medical gravitas supported by neither science nor his public health record. By the latter metric, his 50-year regime has been calamitous for public health and for democracy. His administration of the COVID pandemic was, likewise, a disaster.

As the world watched, Tony Fauci dictated a series of policies that resulted in by far the most deaths, and one of the highest percentage COVID-19 body counts of any nation on the planet. Only relentless propaganda and wall-to-wall censorship could conceal his disastrous mismanagement during COVID-19’s first year. The US, with 4 percent of the world’s population, suffered 14.5 percent of total COVID deaths. By September 30, 2021, mortality rates in the US had climbed to 2,107/1,000,000, compared to 139/1,000,000 in Japan.

Anthony Fauci’s Report Card

Death Rates from COVID per million population, as of September 30, 202120:

United States Sweden
Iran Germany Cuba Jamaica Denmark India

South Korea
Congo (Brazzaville) Hong Kong

China Tanzania

2,107 deaths/1,000,000 1,444 deaths/1,000,000 1,449 deaths/1,000,000 1,126 deaths/1,000,000 650 deaths/1,000,000 630 deaths/1,000,000 455 deaths/1,000,000 327 deaths/1,000,000 194 deaths/1,000,000 197 deaths/1,000,000 161 deaths/1,000,000 139 deaths/1,000,000 128 deaths/1,000,000 97 deaths/1,000,000 47 deaths/1,000,000 35 deaths/1,000,000

28 deaths/1,000,00021 3 deaths/1,000,000 0.86 deaths/1,000,000

After achieving these cataclysmicly awful results, “Teflon Tony’s” media savvy and his skills for deft maneuvering beguiled incoming President Joe Biden into appointing him as the new administration’s COVID Response Director.

Blinded by generously stoked fear of deadly disease against which Dr. Fauci seemed the only reliable bulwark, Americans failed to see the mounting evidence that Dr. Fauci’s strategies were consistently failing to achieve promised results, as he doggedly elevated Pharma profits and bureaucratic powers over waning public health.

As we shall see from this 50-year saga, Dr. Fauci’s remedies are often more lethal than the diseases they pretend to treat. His COVID prescriptions were no exception. With his narrow focus on the solution of mass vaccination, Dr. Fauci never mentioned any of the many other costs associated with his policy directives.

Anthony Fauci seems to have not considered that his unprecedented quarantine of the healthy would kill far more people than COVID, obliterate the global economy, plunge millions into poverty and bankruptcy, and grievously wound constitutional democracy globally. We have no way of knowing how many people died from isolation, unemployment, deferred medical care, depression, mental illness, obesity, stress, overdoses, suicide, addiction, alcoholism, and the accidents that so often accompany despair. We cannot dismiss the accusations that his lockdowns proved more deadly than the contagion. A June 24, 2021 BMJ study22 showed that US life expectancy decreased by 1.9 years during the quarantine. Since COVID mortalities were mainly among the elderly, and the average age of death from COVID in the UK was 82.4, which was above the average lifespan,23 the virus could not by itself cause the astonishing decline. As we shall see, Hispanic and Black Americans often shoulder the heaviest burden of Dr. Fauci’s public health adventures. In this respect, his COVID-19 countermeasures proved no exception. Between 2018 and 2020, the average

Hispanic American lost around 3.9 years in longevity, while the average lifespan of a Black American dropped by 3.25 years.24

This dramatic culling was unique to America. Between 2018 and 2020, the 1.9 year decrease in average life expectancy at birth in the US was roughly 8.5 times the average decrease in 16 comparable countries, all of which were measured in months, not years.25

“I naïvely thought the pandemic would not make a big difference in the gap because my thinking was that it’s a global pandemic, so every country is going to take a hit,” said Steven Woolf, Director Emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University. “What I didn’t anticipate was how badly the US would handle the pandemic. These are numbers we aren’t at all used to seeing in this research; 0.1 years is something that normally gets attention in the field, so 3.9 years and 3.25 years and even 1.4 years is just horrible,” Woolf continued. “We haven’t had a decrease of that magnitude since World War II.”26

Cost of Quarantines—Deaths

As Dr. Fauci’s policies took hold globally, 300 million humans fell into dire poverty, food insecurity, and starvation. “Globally, the impact of lockdowns on health programs, food production, and supply chains plunged millions of people into severe hunger and malnutrition,” said Alex Gutentag in Tablet Magazine.27 According to the Associated Press (AP), during 2020, 10,000 children died each month due to virus-linked hunger from global lockdowns. In addition, 500,000 children per month experienced wasting and stunting from malnutrition—up 6.7 million from last year’s total of 47 million—which can “permanently damage children physically and mentally, transforming individual tragedies into a generational catastrophe.”28 In 2020, disruptions to health and nutrition services killed 228,000 children in South Asia.29 Deferred medical treatments for cancers, kidney failure, and diabetes killed hundreds of thousands of people and

created epidemics of cardiovascular disease and undiagnosed cancer. Unemployment shock is expected to cause 890,000 additional deaths over the next 15 years.30,31

The lockdown disintegrated vital food chains, dramatically increased rates of child abuse, suicide, addiction, alcoholism, obesity, mental illness, as well as debilitating developmental delays, isolation, depression, and severe educational deficits in young children. One-third of teens and young adults reported worsening mental health during the pandemic. According to an Ohio State University study,32 suicide rates among children rose 50 percent.33 An August 11, 2021 study by Brown University found that infants born during the quarantine were short, on average, 22 IQ points as measured by Baylor scale tests.34 Some 93,000 Americans died of overdoses in 2020—a 30 percent rise over 2019.35 “Overdoses from synthetic opioids increased by 38.4 percent,36 and 11 percent of US adults considered suicide in June 2020.37 Three million children disappeared from public school systems, and ERs saw a 31 percent increase in adolescent mental health visits,”38,39 according to Gutentag. Record numbers of young children failed to reach crucial developmental milestones.40,41 Millions of hospital and nursing home patients died alone without comfort or a final goodbye from their families. Dr. Fauci admitted that he never assessed the costs of desolation, poverty, unhealthy isolation, and depression fostered by his countermeasures. “I don’t give advice about economic things,”42 Dr. Fauci explained. “I don’t give advice about anything other than public health,” he continued, even though he was so clearly among those responsible for the economic and social costs.

Economic Destruction and Shifting Wealth


During the COVID pandemic, Dr. Fauci served as ringmaster in the engineered demolition of America’s economy. His lockdown predictably

shattered the nation’s once-booming economic engine, putting 58 million Americans out of work,43 and permanently bankrupting small businesses, including 41 percent of Black-owned businesses, some of which took generations of investment to build.44 The business closures contributed to a run-up in the national deficit—the interest payments alone will cost almost $1 trillion annually.45 That ruinous debt will likely permanently bankrupt the New Deal programs—the social safety net that, since 1945, fortified, nurtured, and sustained America’s envied middle-class. Government officials have already begun liquidating the almost 100-year legacies of the New Deal, New Frontier, the Great Society, and Obamacare to pay the accumulated lockdown debts. Will we find ourselves saying goodbye to school lunches, healthcare, WIC, Medicaid, Medicare, university scholarships, and other long standing assistance programs?

Enriching the Wealthy

Dr. Fauci’s business closures pulverized America’s middle class and engineered the largest upward transfer of wealth in human history. In 2020, workers lost $3.7 trillion while billionaires gained $3.9 trillion.46 Some 493 individuals became new billionaires,47 and an additional 8 million Americans dropped below the poverty line.48 The biggest winners were the robber barons—the very companies that were cheerleading Dr. Fauci’s lockdown and censoring his critics: Big Technology, Big Data, Big Telecom, Big Finance, Big Media behemoths (Michael Bloomberg, Rupert Murdoch, Viacom, and Disney), and Silicon Valley Internet titans like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Larry Ellison, and Jack Dorsey.

The very Internet companies that snookered us all with the promise of democratizing communications made it impermissible for Americans to criticize their government or question the safety of pharmaceutical products; these companies propped up all official pronouncements while

scrubbing all dissent. The same Tech/Data and Telecom robber barons, gorging themselves on the corpses of our obliterated middle class, rapidly transformed America’s once-proud democracy into a censorship and surveillance police state from which they profit at every turn.

CEO Satya Nadella boasted that Microsoft, by working with the CDC and the Gates-funded Johns Hopkins Center for Biosecurity, had used the COVID pandemic to achieve “two years of digital transformation in two months.”49 Microsoft Teams users ballooned to 200 million meeting participants in a single day, averaged more than 75 million active users, compared to 20 million users in November 2019,50 and the company’s stock value skyrocketed. Larry Ellison’s company, Oracle, which partnered with the CIA to build new cloud services, won the contract to process all CDC vaccination data.51 Ellison’s wealth increased by $34 billion in 2020; Mark Zuckerberg’s wealth grew by $35 billion; Google’s Sergey Brin by $41 billion; Jeff Bezos by $86 billion; Bill Gates by $22 billion52 and Michael Bloomberg by nearly $7 billion.53

Ellison, Gates, and the other members of this government/industry collaboration used the lockdown to accelerate construction of their 5G network54 of satellites, antennae, biometric facial recognition, and “track and trace” infrastructure that they, and their government and intelligence agency partners, can use to mine and monetize our data, further suppress dissent, to compel obedience to arbitrary dictates, and to manage the rage that comes as Americans finally wake up to the fact that this outlaw gang has stolen our democracy, our civil rights, our country, and our way of life —while we huddled in orchestrated fear from a flu-like virus.

With fears of COVID generously stoked, the dramatic and steady erosion of constitutional rights and fomenting of a global coup d’état against democracy, the demolition of our economy, the obliteration of a million small businesses, the collapsing of the middle class, the evisceration of our Bill of Rights, the tidal wave of surveillance capitalism and the rising

bio-security state, and the stunning shifts in wealth and power going to a burgeoning oligarchy of high-tech Silicon Valley robber barons seemed, to a dazed and uncritical America, like it might be a reasonable price to pay for safety. And anyway, we were told, it’s just for 15 days, or maybe 15 months, or however long it takes for Dr. Fauci to “follow the data” to his answer.

Failing Upward

Dr. Fauci’s catastrophic failure to achieve beneficial health outcomes during the COVID-19 crisis is consistent with the disastrous declines in public health during his half-century running NIAID. For anyone who might have assumed that federal and public health bureaucrats survive and flourish by achieving improvements in public health, Dr. Fauci’s durability at NIAID is a disheartening wake-up call. By any measure, he has consistently failed upward.

The “J. Edgar Hoover of public health” has presided over cataclysmic declines in public health, including an exploding chronic disease epidemic that has made the “Fauci generation”—children born after his elevation to NIAID kingpin in 1984— the sickest generation in American history, and has made Americans among the least healthy citizens on the planet. His obsequious subservience to the Big Ag, Big Food, and pharmaceutical companies has left our children drowning in a toxic soup of pesticide residues, corn syrup, and processed foods, while also serving as pincushions for 69 mandated vaccine doses by age 18—none of them properly safety tested.55

When Dr. Fauci took office, America was still ranked among the world’s healthiest populations. An August 2021 study by the Commonwealth Fund ranked America’s health care system dead last among industrialized nations, with the highest infant mortality and the lowest life expectancy. “If health care were an Olympic sport, the US might not qualify

in a competition with other high-income nations,”56 laments the study’s lead author, Eric Schneider, who serves as Senior Vice President for Policy and Research at the Commonwealth Fund.

Following WWII, life expectancy in the US climbed for five decades, making Americans among the longest-lived people in the developed world. IQ also grew steadily by three points each decade since 1900. But as Tony Fauci spent the 1990s expanding the pharmaceutical and chemical paradigm —instead of public health— the pace of both longevity and intelligence slowed. The life expectancy decrease widened the gap between the US and its peers to nearly five years,57 and American children have lost seven IQ points since 2000.58

Under Dr. Fauci’s leadership, the allergic, autoimmune, and chronic illnesses which Congress specifically charged NIAID to investigate and prevent, have mushroomed to afflict 54 percent of children, up from 12.8 percent when he took over NIAID in 1984.59 Dr. Fauci has offered no explanation as to why allergic diseases like asthma, eczema, food allergies, allergic rhinitis, and anaphylaxis suddenly exploded beginning in 1989, five years after he came to power. On its website, NIAID boasts that autoimmune disease is one of the agency’s top priorities. Some 80 autoimmune diseases, including juvenile diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis, Graves’ disease, and Crohn’s disease, which were practically unknown prior to 1984, suddenly became epidemic under his watch.60,61,62 Autism, which many scientists now consider an autoimmune disease,63,64,65 exploded from between 2/10,000 and 4/10,000 Americans66 when Tony Fauci joined NIAID, to one in thirty-four today. Neurological diseases like ADD/ADHD, speech and sleep disorders, narcolepsy, facial tics, and Tourette’s syndrome have become commonplace in American children.67 The human, health, and economic costs of chronic disease dwarf the costs of all infectious diseases in the United States. By this decade’s end, obesity, diabetes, and pre-diabetes are on track to debilitate 85 percent of America’s

citizens.68 America is among the ten most over-weight countries on Earth. The health impacts of these epidemics—which fall mainly on the young— eclipse even the most exaggerated health impacts of COVID-19.

What is causing this cataclysm? Since genes don’t cause epidemics, it must be environmental toxins. Many of these illnesses became epidemic in the late 1980s, after vaccine manufacturers were granted government protection from liability, and consequently accelerated their introduction of new vaccines.69 The manufacturer’s inserts of the 69 vaccine doses list each of the now-common illnesses—some 170 in total—as vaccine side effects.70 So vaccines are a potential culprit, but not the only one. Other possible perpetrators—or accomplices—that fit the applicable criterion—a sudden epidemic across all demographics beginning in 1989—are corn syrup, PFOA flame retardants, processed foods, cell phones and EMF radiation, chlorpyrifos, ultrasound, and neonicotinoid pesticides.

The list is finite, and it would be a simple thing to design studies that give us these answers. Tracing the etiology of these diseases through epidemiological research, observational and bench studies, and animal research is exactly what Congress charged Dr. Fauci to perform. But Tony Fauci controls the public health bankbook and has shown little interest in funding basic science to answer those questions.

Is this because any serious investigation into the sources of the chronic disease epidemic would certainly implicate the powerful pharmaceutical companies and the chemical, agricultural, and processed food multinationals that Dr. Fauci and his twenty-year business partner, Bill Gates, have devoted their careers to promoting? As we shall see, his capacity to curry favor with these merchants of pills, powders, potions, poisons, pesticides, pollutants, and pricks has been the key to Dr. Fauci’s longevity at HHS.

Is it fair to blame Dr. Fauci for a crisis that, of course, has many authors? Due to his vast budgetary discretion, his unique political access,

his power over HHS and its various agencies, his moral authority, his moral flexibility, and his bully pulpit, Tony Fauci has more power than any other individual to direct public energies toward solutions. He has done the opposite. Instead of striving to identify the etiologies of the chronic disease pandemic, we shall see that Dr. Fauci has deliberately and systematically used his staggering power over Federal scientific research, medical schools, medical journals, and the careers of individual scientists, to derail inquiry and obstruct research that might provide the answers.

Dr. Phauci’s Pharmanation

While some Republicans bridled warily at Dr. Fauci’s accumulating power and seemingly arbitrary pronouncements, the alchemies of political tribalism and the relentlessly stoked terror of COVID-19 persuaded spellbound Democrats to close their eyes to the damning evidence that his COVID-19 policies were a catastrophic and dangerous failure.

As an advocate for public health, robust science, and independent regulatory agencies—free from corruption and financial entanglements with Pharma—I have battled Dr. Fauci for many years. I know him personally, and my impression of him is very different from my fellow Democrats, who first encountered him as the polished, humble, earnest, endearing, and long- suffering star of the televised White House COVID press conferences. Dr. Fauci played a historic role as the leading architect of “agency capture”— the corporate seizure of America’s public health agencies by the pharmaceutical industry.

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. He consistently priortized pharmaceutical industry profits over public health. Readers of these pages will learn how in exalting patented medicine Dr. Fauci has, throughout his long career, routinely

falsified science, deceived the public and physicians, and lied about safety and efficacy. Dr. Fauci’s malefactions detailed in this volume include his crimes against the hundreds of Black and Hispanic orphan and foster children whom he subjected to cruel and deadly medical experiments and his role, with Bill Gates, in transforming hundreds of thousands of Africans into lab rats for low-cost clinical trials of dangerous experimental drugs that, once approved, remain financially out of reach for most Africans. You will learn how Dr. Fauci and Mr. Gates have turned the African continent into a dumping ground for expired, dangerous, and ineffective drugs, many of them discontinued for safety reasons in the US and Europe.

You will read how Dr. Fauci’s strange fascination with, and generous investments in, so-called “gain of function” experiments to engineer pandemic superbugs, give rise to the ironic possibility that Dr. Fauci may have played a role in triggering the global contagion that two US presidents entrusted him to manage. You will also read about his two-decade strategy of promoting false pandemics as a scheme for promoting novel vaccines, drugs and Pharma profits. You will learn of his actions to conceal widespread contamination in blood and vaccines, his destructive vendettas against scientists who challenge the Pharma paradigm, his deliberate sabotaging of patent-expired remedies against infectious diseases, from HIV to COVID-19, to grease the skids for less effective, but more profitable, remedies. You will learn of the grotesque body counts that have accumulated in the wake of his cold-blooded focus on industry profits over public health. All his strategies during COVID—falsifying science to bring dangerous and ineffective drugs to market, suppressing and sabotaging competitive products that have lower profit margins even if the cost is prolonging pandemics and losing thousands of lives—all of these share a common purpose: the myopic devotion to Pharma. This book will show you that Tony Fauci does not do public health; he is a businessman, who has used his office to enrich his pharmaceutical partners and expand the reach

of influence that has made him the most powerful—and despotic—doctor in human history. For some readers, reaching that conclusion will require crossing some new bridges; many readers, however, intuitively know the real Anthony Fauci, and need only to see the facts illuminated and organized.

I wrote this book so that Americans—both Democrat and Republican— can understand Dr. Fauci’s pernicious role in allowing pharmaceutical companies to dominate our government and subvert our democracy, and to chronicle the key role Dr. Fauci has played in the current coup d’état against democracy.


  1. 1  Google Patents, Assignee: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www. ee:for+inassignee:disease+inassignee:control&tbs=,ptss:g&num=100
  2. 2  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, President’s Budget FY 2020, 2019 Enacted Column, 2020, il-table.pdf
  3. 3  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dept. of HHS FY 2020 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Justification of Estimates for Appropriation Committees- FY 2019 Enacted, 2020, p. 42-43, nts/fy2020/fy-2020-cdc-congressional-justification.pdf
  4. 4  Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute, 15 U.S. Code § 3710c— Distribution of royalties received by Federal agencies, scode/text/15/3710c
  5. 5  FDA, Fact Sheet: FDA at a Glance, FDA (Nov. 18, 2020), t-fda/fda-basics/fact-sheet-fda-glance
  6. 6  Anthony S. Fauci, MD, Biography, NIAID s-fauci-md-bio
  7. 7  Adam Andrezejewski, “Dr. Anthony Fauci: The Highest Paid Employee in the Entire U.S. Federal Government,” FORBES (Jan. 25, 2021), damandrzejewski/2021/01/25/dr-anthony-fauci-the-highest-paid-employee-in-the-ent ire-us-federal-government/?sh=5ed2512386f0

page40image51123072 page40image51122880page40image51122688 page40image51122496 page40image51122304page40image51122112 page40image51121920 page40image51121728 page40image51120960page40image51120768 page40image51120576 page40image51119616 page40image51119424 page40image51119232page40image51119040 page40image51118848

  1. 8  Saturday Night Live, “Dr. Anthony Fauci Cold Open—SNL, YOUTUBE” (Apr. 25, 2020),
  2. 9  Zack Budryk, “AIDS activists recruit Barbra Streisand for surprise Fauci birthday party on Zoom,” THE HILL (Dec. 24, 2020, 5:36 PM), lthcare/531636-aids-activists-recruit-barbra-streisand-for-surprise-zoom-birthday-par ty
  3. 10  Michael Specter, “How Anthony Fauci Became America’s Doctor,” The New Yorker (Apr. 10, 2020), ci-became-americas-doctor
  4. 11  Peter Sullivan, “Fauci: Attacks on me are really also ‘attacks on science,’” The Hill (Jun. 9, 2021), really-also-attacks-on-science
  5. 12  Donald G. McNeil Jr., “How Much Herd Immunity Is Enough?” New York Times (Dec. 24, 2020, updated Apr. 2, 2021), herd-immunity-covidcoronavirus.html
  6. 13  Tiana Lowe, “Fauci lies about lying about the efficacy of masks,” MSN (Jun. 21, 2021), fficacy-of-masks/ar-AALhCrp
  7. 14  Peter Hotez, “Mounting antiscience aggression in the United States,” PLOS BIOLOGY (Jul. 28, 2021), ournal.pbio.3001369
  8. 15  Peter Hotez, “Will an American-Led Anti-Vaccine Movement Subvert Global Health?” Scientific American (Mar. 3, 2017), est-blog/will-an-american-led-anti-vaccine-movement-subvert-global-health/
  9. 16  National Institutes of Health, National Institutes of Health Awards by Location and Organization, (2021), or-by-year-since-1993/
  10. 17  Philanthropy News Digest, “Sabin Institute Receives $12 Million From Gates Foundation to Develop Hookworm Vaccine” (Jul 1, 2011), https://philanthropynewsd -hookworm-vaccine
  11. 18  Vipul Naik, “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donations made to Baylor College of Medicine,” elinda+Gates+Foundation&donee=Baylor+College+of+Medicine
  12. 19  Rebecca G. Baker, “Bill Gates Asks NIH Scientists for Help in Saving Lives And Explains Why the Future Depends on Biomedical Innovation,” THE NIH CATALYST

page41image51118656 page41image51118464page41image51118272 page41image51118080page41image51129984 page41image51181440 page41image51182784page41image51177792 page41image51171264page41image51171840 page41image51177984page41image51178944 page41image51182400 page41image51182208page41image51182016 page41image51181824page41image51181248 page41image51181056 page41image51180864 page41image51171072page41image51170880 page41image51180672

(Jan-Feb, 2014),


  1. 20  Statista, Coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths worldwide per one million population asof September 30, 2021, by country (Oct. 6, 2021),
  2. 21  Reported Cases and Deaths by Country or Territory, WORLDOMETER (Oct. 4,2021),
  3. 22  S H Woolf, et al, “Effect of the covid-19 pandemic in 2020 on life expectancy acrosspopulations in the USA and other high income countries: simulations of provisional mortality data,” BMJ 2021;373:n1343 (June 24, 2021), t/373/bmj.n1343
  4. 23  Jemima Kelly, “Covid kills, but do we overestimate the risk?” Financial Times (Nov. 20, 2020),
  5. 24  S H Woolf et al, “Effect of the covid-19 pandemic in 2020 on life expectancy across populations in the USA and other high income countries: simulations of provisional mortality data,” BMJ 2021;373:n1343 (June 24, 2021) 373/bmj.n1343
  6. 25  Kaitlin Sullivan, “U.S. Life Expectancy Decreased by an ‘alarming’ amount during pandemic,” NBC NEWS (Jun. 23, 2021), ws/u-s-life-expectancy-decreased-alarming-amount-during-pandemic-n1272206
  7. 26  Ibid.
  8. 27  Alex Gutentag, “The War on Reality,” TABLET MAGAZINE (June 28, 2021),
  9. 28  Lori Hinnant and Sam Mednick, “Virus-linked hunger tied to 10,000 child deathseach month,” AP (Jul. 27, 2020), -top-news-understanding-the-outbreak-hunger-5cbee9693c52728a3808f4e7b4965cb d
  10. 29  BBC News, “Covid-19 disruptions killed 228,000 children in South Asia, says UN report, BBC (Mar. 17, 2021),
  11. 30  Megan Henney, “COVID’s economic fallout could elevate US mortality rate for years, study shows,” FOX BUSINESS (Jan. 5, 2021), economy/economic-fallout-from-coronavirus-pandemic-could-elevate-us-mortality-r ate-for-years
  12. 31  Francesco Bianchi, Giada Bianchi, and Dongho Song, “The Long-term Impact Of The Covid-19 Unemployment Shock On Life Expectancy And Mortality Rates,” National Bureau of Economic Research (Dec. 2020, rev. Sep. 2021), https://www.nb

page42image51179328 page42image51179136 page42image51171648page42image51171456 page42image51178560 page42image51178368 page42image51178176page42image51177600 page42image51177408 page42image51177216page42image51177024 page42image51176448 page42image51176256page42image51176064 page42image51175872page42image51174528 page42image51174720page42image51172032 page42image51175680 page42image51176640 page42image51176832page42image51175488

Ohio State University, “A third of teens, young adults reported worsening mental health during pandemic,” OSU Press Release (Jul 12, 2021), https://www.eurekalert. org/news-releases/545757

  1. 33  CDC, Emergency Department Visits for Suspected Suicide Attempts Among Persons Aged 12–25 Years Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic—United States, January 2019–May 2021, (Jun. 18, 2021), wr/mm7024e1.htm
  2. 34  Sean CL Deoni et al, Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Early Child Cognitive Development: Initial Findings in a Longitudinal Observational Study of Child Health, medRxiv 2021.08.10.21261846; doi: 61846
  3. 35  Bill Chappell, Drug Overdoses Killed A Record Number Of Americans In 2020, Jumping By Nearly 30%, NPR (Jul. 14, 2021), 029270/drug-overdoses-killed-a-record-number-of-americans-in-2020-jumping-by-n early-30
  4. 36  CDC Health Alert Network, Increase in Fatal Drug Overdoses Across the United States Driven by Synthetic Opioids Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic, CDC (Dec. 20, 2020),
  5. 37  Andrea Petersen, Amid Pandemic, More U.S. Adults Say They Considered Suicide, (Aug. 13, 2020 7:42 pm), ults-say-they-considered-suicide-11597362131
  6. 38  Rebecca T. Leeb et al, Mental Health–Related Emergency Department Visits Among Children Aged <18 Years During the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States, January 1–October 17, 2020, CDC (Nov. 13, 2020), umes/69/wr/mm6945a3.htm
  7. 39  Alex Gutentag, The War on Reality, TABLET MAGAZINE (June 28, 2021), https://
  8. 40  Id.
  9. 41  Amarica Rafanelli, Growing Up in a Pandemic: How Covid is Affecting Children’sDevelopment, DIRECT RELIEF (Jan. 19, 2021, 10:41 AM), https://www.directrelie ens-development/
  10. 42  James Freeman, The Limits of Anthony Fauci’s Expertise, WALL STREET JOURNAL (May 13, 2020 1:52 pm) ony-faucis-expertise-11589392347
  11. 43  Nigel Chiwaya & Jiachuan Wu, Unemployment claims by state: See how COVID-19 has destroyed the job market, NBC NEWS (Apr. 14, 2020, updated Aug.27, 2020), h


page43image51174336 page43image51174144 page43image51173952 page43image51173760 page43image51173568page43image51173376 page43image51173184 page43image51172992 page43image51172800page43image51172608 page43image51172416page43image51170688 page43image51169728 page43image51170304 page43image51169920page43image51170112 page43image51169344page43image51169536 page43image51168960 page43image51170496page43image51172224



  1. 44  Anne Sraders & Lance Lambert, Nearly 100,000 establishments that temporarilyshut down due to the pandemic are now out of business, FORTUNE (Sep. 28, 2020),
  2. 45  Deficit Tracker, BIPARTISAN POLICY (Sept. 20, 2021),
  3. 46  Viral Inequity: Billionaires Gained $3.9tn, Workers Lost $3.7tn in 2020, TRTWORLD (Jan. 28, 2021),
  4. 47  Chase Peterson-Withorn, Nearly 500 People Became Billionaires During ThePandemic Year, FORBES (Apr. 6, 2021), 2021/04/06/forbes-35th-annual-worlds-billionaires-list-facts-and-figures-2021/?sh=4 c7b81775e58
  5. 48  Heather Long, Nearly 8 million Americans have fallen into poverty since the summer, WASHINGTON POST (Dec. 16, 2020), business/2020/12/16/poverty-rising/
  6. 49  Jared Spataro, 2 Years of Digital Transformation in 2 Months, MICROSOFT (Apr. 30, 2020), digital-transformation-2-months/
  7. 50  Id.
  8. 51  Oracle Cloud Manages COVID-19 Vaccination Program in the United States,ORACLE PRESS RELEASE (Dec. 15, 2020),
  9. 52  Chase Petersen-Withorn, How Much Money America’s Billionaires Have MadeDuring The Covid-19 Pandemic, FORBES (Apr. 30, 2021), sites/chasewithorn/2021/04/30/american-billionaires-have-gotten-12-trillion-richer-d uring-the-pandemic/?sh=461b1067f557
  10. 53  Samuel Stebbins and Grant Suneson, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk among US billionaires getting richer during coronavirus pandemic, USA TODAY, (Dec 1, 2020). https://ww g-covid/43205617/
  11. 54  Sue Halpern, The Terrifying Potential of the 5G Network, THE NEW YORKER (Apr. 26, 2019), rifying-potential-of-the-5g-network
  12. 55  Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule for ages 18 years or younger, United States, 2021, CDC,

page44image66910464 page44image66910080page44image66910848 page44image66911040 page44image66911808page44image66907968 page44image66910272page44image66909312 page44image66908544 page44image66908928page44image66907776 page44image66908160 page44image66907008page44image66907200 page44image66907392 page44image66905088page44image66906816 page44image66902400 page44image66906240page44image66909696 page44image66909120 page44image66906048page44image66905856 page44image66905280 page44image66906432


  1. 56  Joseph Guzman, Stunning new report ranks US dead last in health care amongrichest countries-despite spending the most, THE HILL (Aug. 6, 2021), https://thehil dead-last-in-healthcare
  2. 57  Kaitlin Sullivan, U.S. Life Expectancy Decreased by an ‘alarming’ amount during pandemic, NBC NEWS (Jun. 23, 2021), ws/u-s-life-expectancy-decreased-alarming-amount-during-pandemic-n1272206
  3. 58  Dr. Robert Gorter, Dr. Joseph Mercola, et al., “Why are IQ scores declining over the previous 20 years?,” The Gorter Model, (Jul. 1, 2018), q-scores-declining-previous-20-years/
  4. 59  Could Goldman Sachs Report Be Exposing Pharma’s Real End Game of Drug Dependency vs. Curing Disease, CHD (Apr. 18, 2018), https://childrenshealthdefens g-dependency-vs-curing-disease/
  5. 60  Lana Andelane, Autism may be an autoimmune disorder – study, NEWSHUB,) Oct 20, 2019). oimmune-disorder-study.html
  6. 61  Children’s Health Defense, Campaign to Restore Child Health, CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE, (2018). hild-health/
  7. 62  Gianna Melillo, Study Highlights Prevalence of Comorbid Autoimmune Diseases, T1D in Pediatric Populations, AJMC, (Sep 9, 2020). dy-highlights-prevalence-of-comorbid-autoimmune-diseases-t1d-in-pediatric-populat ions
  8. 63  J.B. HANDLEY, HOW TO END THE AUTISM EPIDEMIC, (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2018).
  9. 64  Elizabeth Edmiston, et al, Autoimmunity, Autoantibodies, and Autism Spectrum Disorder, BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY, (Mar 1, 2017). https://www.biologicalpsyc
  10. 65  Heather K. Hughes et al, Immune Dysfunction and Autoimmunity as Pathological Mechanisms in Autism Spectrum Disorders, FRONTIERS IN CELLULAR NEUROSCIENCE, (Nov 13, 2018). el.2018.00405/full
  11. 66  THOMAS F. BOAT & JOE T. WU, ED., MENTAL DISORDERS AND DISABILITIES AMONG LOW-INCOME CHILDREN, 241 National Academies Press, (Oct. 28, 2015),

page45image66901440 page45image66897792 page45image66900864 page45image66911232page45image66902592 page45image66899712 page45image66900096page45image66898560 page45image66909888 page45image66907584page45image66908352 page45image66904320 page45image66899904page45image66901248 page45image66903360 page45image66897216page45image66900288 page45image66969856page45image66977536 page45image66976384 page45image66962368page45image66967360

Elizabeth Mumper, MD, Increasing Rates of Childhood Neurological Illness, THE INSTITUTE FOR FUNCTIONAL MEDICINE, (2017). nsights/increasing-rates-childhood-neurological-illness/

  1. 68  Adela Hruby and Frank B. Hu, The Epidemiology of Obesity: A Big Picture, PHARMACOECONOMICS, (Jul 1, 2016). es/PMC4859313/
  2. 69  Michael E. McDonald and John F. Paul, Timing of Increased Autistic Disorder Cumulative Incidence, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, (Feb 16, 2010).
  3. 70  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Table 1. Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule for ages 18 years or younger, United States, 2021, (2021), updates, new citations and references, and new information about topics in this chapter:


page46image66972544 page46image66963520 page46image66962752 page46image66977152page46image66969088 page46image66963904 page46image66962560page46image66967744 page46image66976768 page46image52115888



“My friend, have you ever been in a quarantined city? Then you cannot realize what you are asking me to do. To place such a curse on San Francisco would be worse than a hundred fires and earthquakes and I love this city too well to do her such a frightful hurt.”

—Rupert Blue, Public Health Service Officer in charge of dealing with the 1907 plague outbreak. Blue subsequently served as fourth Surgeon General of the US and President of the American Medical Association.


Dr. Fauci’s strategy for managing the COVID-19 pandemic was to suppress viral spread by mandatory masking, social distancing, quarantining the healthy (also known as lockdowns), while instructing COVID patients to return home and do nothing—receive no treatment whatsoever—until difficulties breathing sent them back to the hospital to submit to intravenous remdesivir and ventilation. This approach to ending an infectious disease contagion had no public health precedent and anemic scientific support. Predictably, it was grossly ineffective; America racked up the world’s highest body counts.

Medicines were available against COVID—inexpensive, safe medicines —that would have prevented hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations and saved as many lives if only we’d used them in this country. But Dr. Fauci and his Pharma collaborators deliberately suppressed those treatments in service to their single-minded objective—making America await salvation from their novel, multi-billion dollar vaccines. Americans’ native idealism will make them reluctant to believe that their government’s COVID policies were so grotesquely ill-conceived, so unfounded in science, so tethered to

financial interests, that they caused hundreds of thousands of wholly unnecessary deaths. But, as you will see below, the evidence speaks for itself.

Peer-reviewed science offered anemic if any support for masking, quarantines, and social distancing, and Dr. Fauci offered no citations or justifications to support his diktats. Both common sense and the weight of scientific evidence suggest that all these strategies, and unquestionably shutting down the global economy, caused far more injuries and deaths than they averted.

Dr. Fauci was clearly aware that his mask decrees were contrary to overwhelming science. In July 2020, after switching course to recommend national mask mandates, Dr. Fauci told Norah O’Donnell with InStyle magazine that his earlier dismissal of mask efficacy was correct “in the context of the time in which I said it,” and that he intended to prevent a consumer run on masks that might jeopardize their availability for front-line responders.1 But Dr. Fauci’s emails reveal that he was giving the same advice privately. Moreover, his detailed explanations to the public and to high-level health regulators indicate he genuinely believed that ordinary masks had little to no efficacy against viral infection. In a February 5, 2020 email, for example, he advised his putative former boss, President Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary, Sylvia Burwell, on the futility of masking the healthy.2 On February 17, he invoked the same rationale in an interview with USA Today:

A mask is much more appropriate for someone who is infected and you’re trying to prevent them from infecting other people than it is in protecting you against infection. If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn’t really do much to protect you. Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask.3

During a January 28 speech to HHS regulators, he explained the fruitlessness of masking asymptomatic people.

The one thing historically people need to realize, that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there’s a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.4

Consistent with Dr. Fauci’s earlier statements, the peer-reviewed scientific literature has steadfastly refused to support masking the healthy as an effective barrier to viral spread, and Dr. Fauci offered a citation to justify his change of heart. A December 2020 comprehensive study of 10 million Wuhan residents confirmed Fauci’s January 28, 2020 assertion that asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 is infinitesimally rare.5 Furthermore, some 52 studies—all available on NIH’s website—find that ordinary masking (using less than an N95 respirator) doesn’t reduce viral infection rates, even—surprisingly—in institutional settings like hospitals and surgical theaters.6,7 Moreover, some 25 additional studies attribute to masking a grim retinue of harms, including respiratory and immune system illnesses, as well as dermatological, dental, gastrointestinal, and psychological injuries.8 Fourteen of these studies are randomized, peer- reviewed placebo studies. There is no well-constructed study that persuasively suggests masks have convincing efficacy against COVID-19 that would justify accepting the harms associated with masks. Finally, retrospective studies on Dr. Fauci’s mask mandates confirm that they were bootless. “Regional analysis in the United States does not show that [mask] mandates had any effect on case rates, despite 93 percent compliance. Moreover, according to CDC data, 85 percent of people who contracted COVID-19 reported wearing a mask,”9 according to Gutentag.

Dr. Fauci observed in March 2020 that a mask’s only real efficacy may be in “making people feel a little better.”10 Perhaps he recognized that what masking lacked in efficacy against contagion, it compensated for with powerful psychological effects. These symbolic powers demonstrated

strategic benefits for the larger enterprise of encouraging public compliance with draconian medical mandates. Dr. Fauci’s switch to endorsing masks after first recommending against them came at a time of increasing political polarization, and masks quickly became important tribal badges—signals of rectitude for those who embraced Dr. Fauci, and the stigmata of blind obedience to undeserving authority among those who balked. Moreover, masking, by amplifying everyone’s fear, helped inoculate the public against critical thinking. By serving as persistent reminders that each of our fellow citizens was a potentially dangerous and germ-infected threat to us, masks increased social isolation and fostered divisions and fractionalization— thereby impeding organized political resistance. The impact of masking on the national psyche reminded me of the subtle contribution of the “duck and cover drills” of my youth, drills that sustained and cemented the militaristic ideology of the Cold War. Those futile exercises reinforced what my uncle John F. Kennedy’s Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara, called “National Mass Psychosis.” By suggesting to Americans that full-scale nuclear war was possible, but also survivable, ruinous investments in that project were justified. For the government and mandarins of the Military Industrial Complex, this absurd narrative yielded trillions in appropriations.

Social distancing mandates also rested on a dubious scientific footing. In September 2021, former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gotleib admitted that the six-foot distancing rule that Dr. Fauci and his HHS colleagues imposed upon Americans was “arbitrary,” and not, after all, science backed. The process for making that policy choice, Gotleib continued, “Is a perfect example of the lack of rigor around how CDC made recommendations.”11,12

Finally, the lockdowns of the healthy were so unprecedented that WHO’s official pandemic protocols recommended against them. Some WHO officials were passionate on the topic, among them Professor David Nabarro, Senior Envoy on COVID-19, a position reporting to the Director General. On October 8, 2020, he said:

We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as a primary means of controlling this virus. We may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We’ll have at least a doubling of child malnutrition because children are not getting meals at school and their parents in poor families are not able to afford it. This is a terrible, ghastly, global catastrophe, actually, and so we really do appeal to all world leaders: Stop using lockdown as your primary control method . . . lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle—and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.13

As discussed above, Dr. Fauci and other officials made no inquiry or claims as to whether lockdowns would cause more harm and death than they averted. Subsequent studies have strongly suggested that lockdowns had no impact in reducing infection rates. There is no convincing difference in COVID infections and deaths between laissez-faire jurisdictions and those that enforced rigid lockdowns and masks.14

Noble Lies and Bad Data

Dr. Fauci’s mask deceptions were among several “noble lies” that, his critics complained, revealed a manipulative and deceptive disposition undesirable in an evenhanded public health official. Dr. Fauci explained to the New York Times that he had upgraded his estimate of the vaccine coverage needed to insure “herd immunity” from 70 percent in March to 80–90 percent in September not based on science, but rather in response to polling that indicated rising rates of vaccine acceptance.15 He regularly expressed his belief that post-infection immunity was highly likely (with occasional waffling on this topic) although he took the public position that natural immunity did not contribute to protecting the population. He supported COVID jabs for previously infected Americans, defying overwhelming scientific evidence that post-COVID inoculations were both unnecessary and dangerous.16,17 Under questioning on September 9, 2021, Dr. Fauci conceded he could cite no scientific justification for this policy.18 In September 2021, in a statement justifying COVID vaccine mandates to

school children, Dr. Fauci dreamily recounted his own grade school measles and mumps vaccines—an unlikely memory, since those vaccines weren’t available until 1963 and 1967, and Dr. Fauci attended grade school in the 1940s.19 Dr. Fauci’s little perjuries about masks, measles, mumps, herd immunity, and natural immunity attest to his dismaying willingness to manipulate facts to serve a political agenda. If the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed anything, it is that public health officials have based their many calamitous directives for managing COVID-19 on vacillating and science- free beliefs about masks, lockdowns, infection and fatality rates, asymptomatic transmission, and vaccine safety and efficacy, which took every direction and sowed confusion, division, and polarization among the public and medical experts.

Dr. Fauci’s libertine approach to facts may have contributed to what, for me, was the most troubling and infuriating feature of all the public health responses to COVID. The blatant and relentless manipulation of data to serve the vaccine agenda became the apogee of a year of stunning regulatory malpractice. High-quality and transparent data, clearly documented, timely rendered, and publicly available are the sine qua non of competent public health management. During a pandemic, reliable and comprehensive data are critical for determining the behavior of the pathogen, identifying vulnerable populations, rapidly measuring the effectiveness of interventions, mobilizing the medical community around cutting-edge disease management, and inspiring cooperation from the public. The shockingly low quality of virtually all relevant data pertinent to COVID-19, and the quackery, the obfuscation, the cherrypicking and blatant perversion would have scandalized, offended, and humiliated every prior generation of American public health officials. Too often, Dr. Fauci was at the center of these systemic deceptions. The “mistakes” were always in the same direction— inflating the risks of coronavirus and the safety and efficacy of vaccines in order to stoke public fear of COVID and provoke mass compliance. The excuses for his mistakes range from blaming the public (now blaming the

unvaccinated), blaming politics, and explaining his gyrations by saying, “You’ve got to evolve with the science.”20

At the outset of the pandemic, Dr. Fauci used wildly inaccurate modeling that overestimated US deaths by 525 percent.21,22 Scammer and pandemic fabricator Neal Ferguson of Imperial College London was their author, with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) of $148.8 million.23 Dr. Fauci used this model as justification for his lockdowns.

Dr. Fauci acquiesced to CDC’s selective protocol changes for completing death certificates in a way that inflated the claimed deaths from COVID, and thus inflated its infection mortality rate. CDC later admitted that only 6 percent of COVID deaths occurred in entirely healthy individuals. The remaining 94 percent suffered from an average of 3.8 potentially fatal comorbidities.24

Regulators misused PCR tests that CDC belatedly admitted in August 2021 were incapable of distinguishing COVID from other viral illnesses. Dr. Fauci tolerated their use at inappropriately high amplitudes of 37 and up to 45, even though Fauci had told Vince Racaniello that tests employing cycle thresholds of 35 and above were very unlikely to indicate the presence of live virus that could replicate.25 In July 2020, Fauci remarked that at these levels, a positive result is “just dead nucleotides, period,”26 yet did nothing to modify testing so it might be more accurate. As America’s COVID czar, Dr. Fauci never complained about CDC’s decision to skip autopsies from deaths attributed to vaccines. This practice allowed CDC to persistently claim that all deaths following vaccination were “unrelated to vaccination.” CDC also refused to conduct follow-up medical inquiries among people claiming vaccine injuries. Inspired by rich incentives to classify every patient as a COVID-19 victim—Medicare paid hospitals $39,000 per ventilator27 when treating COVID-19 and only $13,000 for garden variety respiratory infections28—hospitals contributed to the deception. Once more, Dr. Fauci winked at the fraud.

Dr. Fauci’s refusal to fix the HHS’s notoriously dysfunctional vaccine injury surveillance system (VAERS) constituted inexcusable negligence. HHS’s own studies indicate that VAERS may be understating vaccine injuries by OVER 99 percent.29

The public never received facts about infection fatality rates or age- stratified risks for COVID with the kind of clarity that might have allowed them and their physicians to make evidence-based personal risk assessments. Instead, federal officials relied on vagueness and deception to recklessly overestimate the dangers from COVID in every age group. All of these deceptions riddled virtually every mainstream media report— particularly those by CNN and the New York Times—leaving the public with a vastly inflated and cataclysmically inaccurate impression of its lethality. Public surveys showed that, just as Fox News audiences were shockingly misinformed following the 9/11 bombings, CNN viewers and New York Times readers were catastrophically misinformed about the facts of COVID- 19 during 2020. Successive Gallup polling showed that the average Democrat believed that 50 percent of COVID infections resulted in hospitalizations. The real number was less than one percent.30

Trust the Experts

Instead of demanding blue-ribbon safety science and encouraging honest, open, and responsible debate on the science, badly compromised government health officials charged with managing the COVID-19 pandemic collaborated with mainstream and social media to shut down discussion on key public health questions. They silenced doctors who offered any early treatments that might compete with vaccines or who refused to pledge unquestioning faith in zero liability, shoddily tested, experimental vaccines.

The chaotic and confusing data collection and interpretation allowed regulators to justify their arbitrary diktats under the cloak of “scientific consensus.” Instead of citing scientific studies or clear data to justify

mandates for masks, lockdowns, and vaccines, our medical rulers cited Dr. Fauci or WHO, CDC, FDA, and NIH—captive agencies—to legitimize the medical technocracy’s assumption of dangerous new powers.

Dr. Fauci’s aficionados, including President Biden and the cable and network news anchors, counseled Americans to “trust the experts.” Such advice is both anti-democratic and anti-science. Science is dynamic. “Experts” frequently differ on scientific questions and their opinions can vary in accordance with and demands of politics, power, and financial self- interest. Nearly every lawsuit I have ever litigated pitted highly credentialed experts from opposite sides against each other, with all of them swearing under oath to diametrically antithetical positions based on the same set of facts. Telling people to “trust the experts” is either naive or manipulative— or both.

All of Dr. Fauci’s intrusive mandates and his deceptive use of data tended to stoke fear and amplify public desperation for the anticipated arrival of vaccines that would transfer billions of dollars from taxpayers to pharmaceutical executives and shareholders. Some of America’s most accomplished scientists, and the physicians leading the battle against COVID in the trenches, came to believe that Anthony Fauci’s do-or-die obsession with novel mRNA vaccines—and Gilead’s expensive patented antiviral, remdesivir—prompted him to ignore or even suppress effective early treatments, causing hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths while also prolonging the pandemic.

Fortifying Immune Systems

I was struck, during COVID-19’s early months, that America’s Doctor, apparently preoccupied with his single vaccine solution, did little in the way of telling Americans how to bolster their immune response. He never took time during his daily White House briefings from March to May 2020 to instruct Americans to avoid tobacco (smoking and e-cigarettes/vaping double death rates from COVID);31 to get plenty of sunlight and to maintain

adequate vitamin D levels (“Nearly 60 percent of patients with COVID-19 were vitamin D deficient upon hospitalization, with men in the advanced stages of COVID-19 pneumonia showing the greatest deficit”);32 or to diet, exercise, and lose weight (78 percent of Americans hospitalized for COVID- 19 were overweight or obese).33 Quite the contrary, Dr. Fauci’s lockdowns caused Americans to gain an average of two pounds per month and to reduce their daily steps by 27 percent.34 He didn’t recommend avoiding sugar and soft drinks, processed foods, and chemical residues, all of which amplify inflammation, compromise immune response, and disrupt the gut biome which governs the immune system. During the centuries that science has fruitlessly sought remedies against coronavirus (aka the common cold), only zinc has repeatedly proven its efficacy in peer-reviewed studies. Zinc impedes viral replication, prophylaxing against colds and abbreviating their duration.35 The groaning shelves that commercial pharmacies devote to zinc- based cold remedies attest to its extraordinary efficacy. Yet Anthony Fauci never advised Americans to increase zinc uptake following exposure to infection.

Dr. Fauci’s neglect of natural immune response was consistent with the pervasive hostility towards any non-vaccine intervention that characterized the federal regulatory gestalt. On April 30, 2021, Canadian Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons threatened to delicense any doctor who prescribed non-vaccine health strategies including Vitamin D.36 “They are trying to erase any notion of natural immunity,” says Canadian vaccine researcher Dr. Jessica Rose, Ph.D., MSc, BSc. “Pretty soon the incessant lies and propaganda will have successfully instilled in the masses that the only hope for staying alive is via injection, pill-popping, so in sum, no natural immunity.” In a podcast interview on October 1, 2021, Washington Post reporter Ashley Fetters Maloy pretended to expose “misinformation” about COVID-19 by broadcasting misinformation:

There’s a pervasive idea that your body and your immune system can be healthy enough to ward off COVID-19, which, of course, we know it’s a novel coronavirus. No one’s body can. No one’s body is healthy enough to recognize and just totally ward this off without a vaccine.37

Clearly, this is false information. Throughout 2020, before vaccines were available, some 99.9 percent of people’s natural immune systems protected their owners from severe illness and death. The CDC and World Health Organization, indeed all global health authorities, have recognized that healthy people, with healthy immune systems, bear minimal risk from COVID. Indeed, many people, according to our health authorities, have an immune response sufficient that they don’t even know they have COVID. Maloy’s pronouncement that humans cannot fight off COVID-19 without a vaccine is misinformation in its purest form.

Instead of urging calm and telling us, as FDR did during the depths of the Depression, that “we have nothing to fear but fear itself,” all of Dr. Fauci’s prescriptions and communications seemed intended to maximize stress and trauma: enforced isolation, mandated masking, business closures, evictions and bankruptcies, lockdowns, and separating children from parents and parents from grandparents.38,39 We now know that fear, stress, and trauma wreak havoc on our immune systems.

Early Treatment

His critics argue that Dr. Fauci’s “slow the spread, flatten the curve, wait for the jab” strategy—all in support of a long-term bet on unproven vaccines— represented a profound and unprecedented departure from accepted public health practice. But most troubling were Dr. Fauci’s policies of ignoring and outright suppressing the early treatment of infected patients who were often terrified. “The Best Practices for defeating an infectious disease epidemic,” says Yale epidemiologist Harvey Risch, “dictate that you quarantine and treat the sick, protect the most vulnerable, and aggressively develop

repurposed therapeutic drugs, and use early treatment protocols to avoid hospitalizations.”

Risch is one of the leading global authorities in clinical treatment protocols. He is the editor of two high-gravitas journals and the author of over 350 peer-reviewed publications. Other researchers have cited those studies over 44,000 times.40 Risch points out a hard truth that should have informed our COVID control strategy: “Unless you are an island nation prepared to shut out the world, you can’t stop a global viral pandemic, but you can make it less deadly. Our objective should have been to devise treatments that would reduce hospitalization and death. We could have easily defanged COVID-19 so that it was less lethal than a seasonal flu. We could have done this very quickly. We could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.”

Dr. Peter McCullough concurs: “Once a highly transmissible virus like COVID has a beachhead in a population, it is inevitable that it will spread to every individual who lacks immunity. You can slow the spread, but you cannot prevent it—any more than you can prevent the tide from rising.” McCullough was an internist and cardiologist on staff at the Baylor University Medical Center and the Baylor Heart and Vascular Hospital in Dallas, Texas. His 600 peer-reviewed articles in the National Library of Medicine make McCullough the most published physician in history in the field of kidney disease related to heart disease, a lethal sequela of COVID- 19. Before COVID-19, he was editor of two major journals. His recent publications include over 40 on COVID-19, including two landmark studies on critical care of the disease. His two breakthrough papers on the early treatment of COVID-19 in The American Journal of Medicine41 and Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine42 in 2020 are, by far, the most downloaded documents on the subject. “I’ve had COVID-19 myself with pulmonary involvement,” he told me. “My wife has had it. On my wife’s side of the family, we’ve had a fatality . . . I believe I have as much or more medical authority to give my opinion as anybody in the world.”

McCullough observes that, “We could have dramatically reduced COVID fatalities and hospitalizations using early treatment protocols and repurposed drugs including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and many, many others.” Dr. McCullough has treated some 2,000 COVID patients with these therapies. McCullough points out that hundreds of peer-reviewed studies now show that early treatment could have averted some 80 percent of deaths attributed to COVID. “The strategy from the outset should have been implementing protocols to stop hospitalizations through early treatment of Americans who tested positive for COVID but were still asymptomatic. If we had done that, we could have pushed case fatality rates below those we see with seasonal flu, and ended the bottlenecks in our hospitals. We should have rapidly deployed off-the-shelf medications with proven safety records and subjected them to rigorous risk/benefit decision-making,” McCullough continues. “Using repurposed drugs, we could have ended this pandemic by May 2020 and saved 500,000 American lives, but for Dr. Fauci’s hard- headed, tunnel vision on new vaccines and remdesivir.”

Pulmonary and critical care specialist Dr. Pierre Kory agrees with McCullough’s estimate. “The efficacy of some of these drugs as prophylaxis is almost miraculous, plus early intervention in the week after exposure stops viral replication and prevents development of cytokine storm and entrance into the pulmonary phase,” says Dr. Kory. “We could have stopped the pandemic in its tracks in the spring of 2020.”

Risch, McCullough, and Kory are among the large chorus of experts (including Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier) who argue that, by treating infected patients at home during the early stages of the illness, we could have averted cataclysmic lockdowns and found medicine resources for protecting vulnerable populations while encouraging the spread of the disease in age groups with extremely low-risk, in order to achieve permanent herd immunity. They point out that natural immunity, in all known cases, is superior to vaccine-induced immunity, being both more durable (it often lasts a lifetime) and broader spectrum—meaning it provides a shield against

subsequent variants. “Vaccinating citizens with natural immunity should never have been our public health policy,” says Dr. Kory.

Dr. Fauci’s strategy committed hundreds of billions of societal resources on a high-risk gambit to develop novel technology vaccines, and virtually nothing toward developing repurposed medications that are effective against COVID. “That strategy kept the medical treatment on hold globally for an entire year as a readily treatable respiratory virus ravaged populations,” says Kory. “It is absolutely shocking that he recommended no outpatient care, not even Vitamin D despite the fact he takes it himself and much of the country is Vitamin D deficient.”

Dr. Kory43 is president of Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a former associate professor, and Medical Director of the Trauma and Life Support Center at the University of Wisconsin Medical School Hospital, and the Critical Care Service Chief at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee. His milestone work on critical care ultrasonography won him the British Medical Association’s President’s Choice Award in 2015.

Risch, McCullough, and Kory are also among the hundreds of scientists and physicians who express shock that Dr. Fauci made no effort to identify repurposed medicines. Says Kory, “I find it appalling that there was no consultation process with treating physicians. Medicine is about consultation. You had Birx, Fauci, and Redfield doing press conferences every day and handing down these arbitrary diktats and not one of them ever treated a COVID patient or worked in an emergency room or ICU. They knew nothing.”

“As I watched the White House Task Force on T.V.,” recalls Dr. McCullough, “no one even said that hospitalizations and deaths were the bad outcome of COVID-19, and that they were going to put together a team of doctors to identify protocols and therapeutics to stop these hospitalizations and deaths.”

Dr. McCullough argues that, as COVID czar, Dr. Fauci should have created an international communications network linking the world’s 11

million front-line doctors to gather real-time tips, innovative safety protocols, and to develop the best prophylactic and early treatment practices. “He should have created hotlines and dedicated websites for medical professionals to call in with treatment questions and to consult, collect, catalogue, and propagate the latest innovations for prophylaxing vulnerable and exposed individuals, and treating early infections, so as to avert hospitalizations.” Dr. Kory agrees: “The outcome we should have been trying to prevent is hospitalizations. You don’t just sit around and wait for an infected patient to become ill. Dr. Fauci’s treatment strategies all began once all these under-medicated patients were hospitalized. By that time, it was too late for many of them. It was insane. It was perverse. It was unethical.”

Dr. McCullough says that Dr. Fauci should have created treatment centers for ambulatory patients and field clinics specializing in treating asymptomatic or early-stage COVID. “He should have been encouraging doctors to use satellite clinics to conduct small outpatient clinical trials to quickly identify the most effective protocols, drugs, and therapeutics.”

Professor Risch concurs: “We should have deployed teams of doctors all over the world doing short-term clinical trials and testing promising drugs and reporting successful protocols. The endpoints were obvious: preventing hospitalizations and deaths. In addition to rapidly developing and continuously updating protocols and remedies, McCullough and Kory say that the government failed to perform the essential duty of a public health regulator during modern pandemics—to publish the best early treatment protocols on NIH’s website and then establish communication lines call centers to foster consultation and information sharing and webpages to share, broadcast and update the latest remedies and continually escalate public knowledge about the most successful strategies.

Dr. McCullough adds, “We should have created information and communication centers where treating physicians and hospitals could get round-the-clock, up-to-date bulletins with data. Instead, doctors who wanted to provide their infected patients with early treatment were out of luck.”

Nursing Homes and Quarantine Facilities

Dr. Risch says that in addition to developing early treatment protocols, public health officials should have made sure that elderly patients remained in quarantine hospitals until no longer contagious. “It’s obvious that we should have had quarantine facilities so we wouldn’t be sending infected patients to crowded nursing homes. Instead, we should have housed them in safe facilities and protected them with cutting-edge care.” Risch points out that taxpayers spent $660 million building field hospitals across the country.44 Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo and other Democratic governors kept these facilities empty to maintain bed inventories in anticipation of the flood of patients inaccurately predicted by the fear- mongering models, ginned up by two Gates-funded organizations, IMHE and Royal College of London, and then anointed as gospel by Dr. Fauci— seemingly as part of the crusade to generate public panic. With those quarantine centers standing empty, those governors sent infected elderly back to crowded nursing homes, where they spread the disease to the most vulnerable population with lethal effect. Risch points out that, “Half the deaths, in New York, and one-third nationally,45 were among elder care facility residents.”

Dr. Fauci made another inexplicable policy choice of not supplying the nursing homes with monoclonal antibodies where they might have saved thousands of lives. “With Operation Warp Speed, we had monoclonal antibodies that were high tech and fully FDA-approved by November 2020 —long before the vaccines,” says Dr. McCullough.

“Monoclonal antibodies work great, but they’re not suitable for outpatients because they are administered IV It’s therefore perfect for nursing homes. About one-third of COVID deaths occurred in the nursing homes and ALFs across the US during the pandemic.46 Dr. Fauci should have equipped both nursing homes and quarantine hospitals with monoclonal antibodies,” said Risch. Instead, he obstructed these institutions from administering that medicine. “It was a kind of staggering savage act of

malpractice and negligence to deny this remedy to elder care facilities at a time when the elderly were dying at a rate of 10,000 per week.”

“You need, in short, to do the opposite of everything they did. It’s difficult to identify anything they did that was right,” says McCullough.

Independent Doctors into the Breach

Early in the pandemic, Kory and his mentor, Dr. Paul Marik, Professor of Medicine and Chief of Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, began assembling the world’s most highly published and accomplished critical care specialists to rapidly develop functional COVID treatments. Each of the core five founders of FLCCC is globally renowned for having made significant pre-COVID contributions to the science of critical care and pulmonary illnesses. Some 1,693 front-line physicians globally now belong to their alliance.47 Early in the pandemic, these doctors stepped into the breach left by the government agencies and pandemic centers and began coordinating the development of early treatments with repurposed drugs. They quickly proved that they could drastically reduce COVID’s lethality. Instead of winning applause as medical healers, their success at treating COVID made them enemies of the State.

Long before he heard of Pierre Kory or FLCCC, Dr. Peter McCullough reached the same conclusions about the futility and immorality of the federal effort, and felt the same indignation and determination to change things. “By April and May, I noticed a disturbing trend,” recalls McCullough. “The trend was, no effort to treat patients who are infected with COVID-19 at home or in nursing homes. And it almost seemed as if patients were intentionally not being treated, allowed to sit at home and get to the point where they couldn’t breathe and then be admitted to the hospital.”

Dr. Fauci adopted this unprecedented protocol of telling doctors to let patients diagnosed with a positive COVID test go home, untreated—leaving them in terror, and spreading the disease—until breathing difficulties forced

their return to hospitals. There they faced two deadly remedies: remdesivir and ventilators.

I experienced my own personal frustrations with this bewildering policy. When, in December 2020, I asked my 93-year-old mother’s physician to describe her treatment plan if she got a positive PCR, he told me, “There is really nothing we can do unless she starts having trouble breathing. Then we will send her up to Mass General for ventilation.” When I asked him about using ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, he shrugged his shoulders. He had never heard of their use in COVID patients. “There is no early treatment for COVID,” he assured me.

Dr. Fauci’s choice to deny infected Americans early treatment was not just a bad public health strategy; it was, McCullough avows, “Cruelty at a population level.” Says McCullough, “Never in history have doctors deliberately treated patients with this kind of barbarism.”

“I told myself, ‘I am not going to tolerate that—in my practice, or on a national level or worldwide,’” Dr. McCullough told me. Realizing that COVID had to be fought on multiple fronts, McCullough began contacting physicians in other nations who were reporting success against the disease, including doctors in Italy, Greece, Canada, across Europe, and in Bangladesh and South Africa.

McCullough continues, “If this had been any other form of pneumonia, a respiratory illness, or any other infectious illness in the human body, we know that if we start early, we can actually treat much more easily than wait until patients are very sick.” McCullough says that the rule holds true for COVID-19: “We learned quickly that it takes about two weeks for someone infected with COVID to get sick enough at home to require hospitalization.”

Front-line clinical doctors quickly recognized that the disease was operating through multiple pathways, each requiring their own treatment protocol. “There were three major parts of the illness,” says McCullough: “1) the virus was replicating for as long as two weeks, 2) there was incredible inflammation in the body, and 3) that was followed by blood

clotting.” He adds, “By April 2020, most doctors understood a single drug was not going to be enough to treat this illness. We had to use drugs in combination.”

“We quickly developed three principles,” says McCullough; his three- step protocol was as follows:

  • Use medications to slow down the virus;
  • Use medications to attenuate or reduce inflammation;
  • Address blood clotting.McCullough and his global partners quickly identified a pharmacopoeia of off-the-shelf treatments demonstrating extraordinary efficacy against each stage of COVID when administered early in the course of the disease.McCullough chronicles the rapid pace with which front-line doctors uncovered rich apothecaries of effective COVID remedies. HHS’s early studies supported hydroxychloroquine’s efficacy against coronavirus since 2005, and by March 2020, doctors from New York to Asia were using it against COVID with extraordinary effect. That month, McCullough and other physicians at his medical center organized, with the FDA, one of the first prophylactic protocols using hydroxychloroquine. “We had terrific data on ivermectin, from the medical teams in Bangladesh and elsewhere by early summer 2020. So now we had two cheap generics.” McCullough and his growing team of 50+ front-line doctors discovered that while HCQ and IVM work well against COVID, adding other medications boosts outcomes drastically. These included azithromycin or doxycycline, zinc, vitamin D, Celebrex, bromhexine, NAC, IV vitamin C, and quercetin. McCullough’s team realized that, like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, quercetin—that ubiquitous health store nutraceutical—is an ionophore—meaning that it facilitates zinc uptake in the cells, destroying the capacity of coronavirus to replicate. “The Canadians came on with Colchicine in a high-quality trial based on an initial Greek trial,” McCullough continued. “We learned more from experts at UCLA and elsewhere with respect to blood clotting and the

need for aspirin and blood thinners. We got early approval for monoclonal antibodies. It was later learned that both fluvoxamine and famotidine could play roles in multidrug treatment.” LSU Medical School professor Paul Harch discovered peer-reviewed papers from China where researchers there had been using hyperbaric chambers (HBOT) with stunning success.48 Between April and May, a group of NYU researchers reproduced that success by getting patients off ventilators and quickly recovering 18 of 20 ventilator cases using HBOT.49 (Yale is currently conducting Phase 3 with stellar early results.)

There were many other promising treatments. Asian nations were using saline nasal lavages to great effect to reduce viral loads and transmission.50 McCullough discovered he could prophylax patients and drop viral load and prevent transmission with a variety of other oral/nasal rinses and dilute virucidal agents, including povidone iodine, hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorite, and Listerine or mouthwash with cetylpyridinium chloride. Mass General’s infectious disease maven Dr. Michael Callahan had seen hundreds of patients in Wuhan in January 2020, and assessed the impressive efficacy of Pepcid, an over-the-counter indigestion medicine. The Japanese were already using Prednisone, Budesonide, and Famotidine with extraordinary results.

By July 1, McCullough and his team had developed the first protocol based on signals of benefit and acceptable safety. They submitted the protocol to the American Journal of Medicine. That study, titled “The Pathophysiologic Basis and Clinical Rationale for Early Ambulatory Treatment of COVID-19,”51 quickly became the world’s most-downloaded paper to help doctors treat COVID-19.

“It is extraordinary that Dr. Fauci never published a single treatment protocol before that,” says McCullough, “and that ‘America’s Doctor’ has never, to date, published anything on how to treat a COVID patient. It shocks the conscience that there is still no official protocol. Anyone who

tries to publish a new treatment protocol will find themselves airtight blocked by the journals that are all under Fauci’s control.”

The Chinese published their own early treatment protocol on March 3, 2020,52,53 using many of the same categories of prophylactic and early treatment drugs uncovered by McCullough—chloroquine (a cousin of hydroxychloroquine), antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, antihistamines, a variety of steroids, and probiotics to stabilize and fortify the immune system and apothecaries of traditional Chinese medicines, vitamins, and minerals, including a variety of compounds containing quercetin, zinc, and glutathione precursors.54 The Chinese made early treatment the central priority of their COVID strategy. They used intense—and intrusive—track-and-trace surveillance to identify and then immediately hospitalize and treat every COVID-infected Chinese. Early treatment helped the Chinese to end their pandemic by April 2020. “We could have done the same,” says McCullough.

Though now he is often censored, the AMA still lists Dr. McCullough’s study as the most frequently downloaded paper for 2020. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) downloaded and turned McCullough’s AMA article into its official treatment guide.55 AAPS Director Dr. Jeremy Snavely told me in August 2021 that the Guide had 122,000 downloads: “We figure it has been seen by over a million people. It’s the only trusted guide. Our phone never stops ringing. Mostly the calls are from physicians and patients desperate for the help they cannot get from any HHS website.”

By autumn, front-line physicians had assembled a pharmacopeia of repurposed drugs, all of which were effective against COVID.

By that time, more than 200 studies supported treatment with hydroxychloroquine, and 60 studies supported ivermectin. “We combined these medicines with doxycycline, azithromycin to suppress infection,” says McCullough. Another meta-analysis supported the use of prednisone and hydrocortisone and other widely available steroids to combat inflammation.56 Three studies supported the use of inhaled budesonide

against COVID; an Oxford University study published in February 2021 demonstrated that that treatment could reduce hospitalizations by 90 percent in low-risk patients,57 and a publication in April 2021 showed that recovery was faster for high-risk patients, too.58 Furthermore, a very large study supported colchicine as an anti-inflammatory.59 Finally, McCullough’s growing array of physicians had observational data from late-stage treatment of hospitalized patients with full-dose aspirin and antithrombotics, including Enoxaparin, Apixaban, Rivaroxaban, Dabigatran, Edoxaban, and full-dose anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin for blood clots.60

“We were able to show that doctors can work with four to six drugs in combination, supplemented by vitamins and nutraceuticals including zinc, vitamins D and C, and Quercetin. And they can guide patients at home, even the highest-risk seniors, and avoid a dreaded outcome of hospitalization and death,” said McCullough.

Working with a large practice in the Plano/Frisco area north of Dallas, McCullough and his team administered this protocol to some eight hundred patients and demonstrated an 85 percent reduction in hospitalization and death. Another practice led by the legendary Dr. Vladimir Zelenko in Monroe, New York showed similar astonishing results.61

Independent physicians unaffiliated with the government or the universities that are so dependent on Dr. Fauci’s good favor were discovering new COVID treatments by the day. Researchers treated 738 randomly selected Brazilian COVID-19 patients with another adjuvant, fluvoxamine, identified early in the pandemic for its potential to reduce cytokine storms.62 Another 733 received a placebo between Jan. 20 and Aug. 6 of 2021. The researchers tracked every patient receiving fluvoxamine during the trial for 28 days and found about a 30-percent reduction in events among those receiving fluvoxamine compared to those who did not. Like almost all the other remedies, it is cheap and proven safe by long use. Fluvoxamine costs about $4 per 10-day course. Fluvoxamine has been used since the 1990s, and its safety profile is well known.63

“Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are not necessary nor sufficient on their own—there are plenty of molecules that treat COVID,” says McCullough. “Even if hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin had become so politicized that no one wanted to allow these drugs to be used, we could use other drugs, anti-inflammatories, antihistamines, as well as anti-coagulants and actually stop the illness and again, treat it to reduce hospitalization and death.”

When the pandemic started, most of the other medical practices in the Detroit area shut down, Dr. David Brownstein told me. “I had a meeting with my staff and my six partners. I told them, ‘We are going to stay open and treat COVID.’ They wanted to know how. I said, ‘We’ve been treating viral diseases here for twenty-five years. COVID can’t be any different.’ In all that time, our office had never lost a single patient to flu or flu-like illness. We treated people in their cars with oral vitamins A, C, and D, and iodine. We administered IV solution outside all winter with IV hydrogen peroxide and vitamin C. We’d have them put their butts out the car window and shot them up with intramuscular ozone. We nebulized them with hydrogen peroxide and Lugol’s iodine. We only rarely used ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. We treated 715 patients and had ten hospitalizations and no deaths. Early treatment was the key. We weren’t allowed to talk about it. The whole medical establishment was trying to shut down early treatment and silence all the doctors who talked about successes. A whole generation of doctors just stopped practicing medicine. When we talked about it, the whole cartel came for us. I’ve been in litigation with the Medical Board for a year. When we posted videos from some of our recovered patients, they went viral. One of the videos had a million views. FTC filed a motion against us, and we had to take everything down.” In July 2020, Brownstein and his seven colleagues published a peer-reviewed article describing their stellar success with early treatment. FTC sent him a letter warning him to take it down. “No one wanted Americans to know that you didn’t have to die from

COVID. It’s 100 percent treatable,” says Dr. Brownstein. “We proved it. No one had to die.”

“Meanwhile,” adds Dr. Brownstein, “we’ve seen lots of really bad vaccine side effects in our patients. We’ve had seven strokes—some ending in severe paralysis. We had three cases of pulmonary embolism, two blood clots, two cases of Graves’ disease, and one death.”

Repurposed medicines, the record shows, could also have drastically reduced death among hospitalized patients. One of Dr. Kory’s cofounders of FLCCC, Houston Memorial Medical Center’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Joe Varon, worked 400 days in a row, seeing between 20–30 patients/day. Using ivermectin and a cocktail of anti-inflammatories, steroids, and anticoagulants since Spring 2020, Dr. Varon lowered hospital mortality among ICU COVID patients to about 4.1 percent, compared to well over 23 percent nationally. “Even in the ICUs where patients were coming in undertreated, we were able to dramatically reduce mortality,” says Dr. Kory.

“Almost anything you do in the nursing homes—basically, any combination of the various components of these protocols—reduces mortalities by at least 60 percent,” McCullough told me. A 2021 paper in Medical Hypotheses supports McCullough’s claim.64 That study by twelve physician co-authors shows that diverse combinations of many of these and similar medications dramatically lower death rates in a variety of nursing homes. The study concludes that even the most modest early medical therapy combinations were associated with 60 percent reductions in mortality. Says Dr. McCullough, “Therapeutic nihilism was the real killer of America’s seniors.”

McCullough’s findings may be conservative. Early in the pandemic, two Spanish nursing homes simultaneously experimented with early treatment with cheap, available repurposed drugs and achieved 100 percent survival among infected residents and staff. Between March and April 2020, COVID- 19 struck two elder care facilities in Yepes, Toledo, Spain. The mean age of residents in those locations was 85, and 48 percent were over 80 years old.

Within three months, 100 percent of the residents at both locations had caught the virus. By the end of June, 100 percent of residents and half the workers were seropositive for COVID, meaning they had endured infection and recovered. None of them went to the hospital and none died. None had adverse drug effects. Local doctors rapidly discovered early treatment with the same sort of remedies that McCullough was championing: antihistamines, steroids, antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, aspirin, nasal washes, bronchodilators, and blood thinners. In pooled data, 28 percent of the residents in similar nursing homes in the same region over the same time period died. That study supports the experience of front-line physicians that cheap available, repurposed drugs can easily prevent hospitalizations and deaths.65

Dr. McCullough and 57 colleagues published a second study in December of 2020 in a dedicated issue of Reviews In Cardiovascular Medicine. The article, “Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID- 19),” described a marvelous breadth of effective drugs that these physicians had, by then, developed.66

By collecting data from the vast network of doctors across the globe, they added dozens of new compounds to the arsenal—all proven effective against COVID-19. Dr. Kory told me that he was deeply troubled that the extremely successful efforts by scores of front-line doctors to develop repurposed medicines to treat COVID received no support from any government in the entire world—only hostility—much of it orchestrated by Dr. Fauci and the US health agencies. The large universities that rely on hundreds of millions in annual funding from NIH were also antagonistic. “We didn’t have a single academic institution come up with a single protocol,” said Dr. McCullough. “They didn’t even try. Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Duke, you name it. Not a single medical center set up even a tent to try to treat patients and prevent hospitalization and death. There wasn’t an ounce of original research coming out of America available to fight COVID

—other than vaccines.” All of these universities are deeply dependent on billions of dollars that they receive from NIH. As we shall see, these institutions live in terror of offending Anthony Fauci, and that fear paralyzed them in the midst of the pandemic.

“Dr. Fauci refused to promote any of these interventions,” says Kory. “It’s not just that he made no effort to find effective off-the-shelf cures—he aggressively suppressed them.”

Instead of supporting McCullough’s work, NIH and the other federal regulators began actively censoring information on this range of effective remedies. Doctors who attempted merely to open discussion about the potential benefits of early treatments for COVID found themselves heavily and inexplicably censored. Dr. Fauci worked with Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and other social media sites to muzzle discussion of any remedies. FDA sent a letter of warning that N-acetyle-L-cysteine (NAC) cannot be lawfully marketed as a dietary supplement, after decades of free access on health food shelves, and suppressed IV vitamin C, which the Chinese were using with extreme effectiveness.

In September, Dr. McCullough used his own money to create a YouTube video showing four slides from his peer-reviewed American Medical Association articles to teach doctors the miraculous benefits of early treatment with HCQ and other remedies. His video went viral, with hundreds of thousands of downloads; YouTube pulled it two days later.

Leading doctors and scientists, including some of the nation’s most highly published and experienced physicians and front-line COVID specialists like McCullough, Kory, Ryan Cole, David Brownstein, and Risch believe that Dr. Fauci’s suppression of early treatment and off-patent remedies was responsible for up to 80 percent of the deaths attributed to COVID. All five doctors independently told me the same thing. The relentless malpractice of deliberately withholding early effective COVID treatments, of forcing the use of toxic remdesivir, may have unnecessarily killed up to 500,000 Americans in hospitals.

Dr. Kory says so plainly: “Dr. Fauci’s suppression of early treatments will go down in history as having caused the death of a half a million Americans in the ICU.”

Ryan Cole is one of the doctors who adopted McCullough’s protocols early in the pandemic. Dr. Cole is a Mayo Clinic and Columbia University- trained Board Certified Anatomic/Clinical Pathologist and the CEO/Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics, the largest independent lab in Idaho. He has diagnosed more than 350,000 patients in his career. Dr. Cole discovered McCullough’s research during his own investigation of early treatment remedies when his overweight brother called Dr. Cole from a neighboring state on his way to the ER with a positive PCR test, labored breathing, blood oxygen at 86, and chest discomfort that he rated nine out of ten. “He has Type 1 diabetes,” explains Dr. Cole. Dr. Cole redirected his sibling to a local pharmacy and called in an ivermectin prescription. “Within six hours, my brother’s chest pain was down to two out of ten due to the interferon effect of ivermectin, and within 24 hours after taking ivermectin, his oxygen was 98, and he then fully recovered.” Cole told me, “A light bulb went off.”

Dr. Cole has overseen or helped perform over 125,000 COVID tests during the pandemic. Since rescuing his brother, he has encountered many patients in early stages of the disease. “Almost none of them could find doctors in the community to treat them,” he told me. “I intervened to provide early treatment to over 300 positive patients, half of whom were comorbid and high risk.” Of this cohort, none were hospitalized and none died. “Early treatment of COVID-19, plain and simple, saves lives. If the medical profession had been forward thinking and hands-on, and focused on this disease, with an early outpatient multi-drug approach, knowing that COVID- 19 is an inflammatory clotting disease, hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved in the US.”

“Never in the history of medicine,” says Dr. Cole, “has early treatment, of any patient with any disease, been so overtly neglected by the medical profession on such a massive scale.”

Cole adds, “To not treat, especially in the midst of a highly transmissible, deadly disease, is to do harm.”

Cole says that the only truly deadly pandemic is “the pandemic of under treatment.” He says, “The sacred doctor–patient relationship needs to be wrenched away from Anthony Fauci and the government/medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex. Doctors need to return to their oaths. Patients need to demand from medicine their right to be treated. This year has revealed the countless flaws of a medical system that has lost its direction and soul.”

Cole points out that, “If you are under 70 years of age and have no severe preexisting illness, you can hardly die [from SARS-CoV-2 infection]. So, there is no fatality rate that can be reduced. . . . And for people who are elderly and have preexisting illness,” he adds, “as we know from Dr. Peter McCullough and his colleagues’ work, there are miraculously effective medicines to treat this virus so that the fatality rates go down another 70 to 80 percent, which means there is no ground for emergency use whatsoever. That’s a huge threat to the vaccine cartel and to remdesivir.”

It was only the independent doctors like Ryan Cole, who were not reliant on Dr. Fauci’s largesse and who threw themselves into hand-to-hand combat against COVID-19, who discovered readily available treatment modes: “We had hero doctors that really had to break with the academic ivory tower,” says McCullough. Finally, a group of independent organizations, including the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Front-Line Critical Care Consortium, and America’s Front-line Doctors, galvanized to organize the country into four national telemedicine services, and three regional telemedicine services. Following Dr. Kory’s explosive Senate testimony, thousands of doctors and frightened COVID patients began calling the hotlines for treatment. “We took over health care,” says McCullough.

“In numerous countries and regions around the world, repeated, striking temporally associated reductions in both cases and deaths occurred very

soon after either ivermectin was distributed or health ministry ivermectin recommendations were announced.” said Dr. Kory. It could be argued that a similar association occurred in the US.

Dr. Fauci and the industry propagandists later attributed the January decline in COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths to their vaccines, which began their rollout in mid-December 2020.

However, even mainstream media doctors reluctantly acknowledged that the drop could not possibly be a vaccine effect. By February 1, only 25.2 million, or 7.6 percent of Americans, had received a single vaccine dose.67 The CDC acknowledges that there is no effect until many weeks after the second COVID jab.

Tony Fauci’s decision to deny early treatments undoubtedly prolonged and intensified the pandemic. McCullough points out that early treatment does not just prevent hospitalization; it quickly starves pandemics to death by stopping their spread. “Early treatment reduces the infectivity period from 14 days to about four days,” he explains. “It also allows someone to stay in the home so they don’t contaminate people outside the home. And then it has this remarkable effect in reducing the intensity and duration of symptoms so patients don’t get so short of breath, they don’t get into this panic where they feel they have to break containment and go to the hospital.” McCullough says that those hospital trips are tinder for pandemics, especially since, at that point, the patient is at the height of infectivity, with teeming viral loads. “Every hospitalization in America—and there’s been millions of them—has been a super-spreader event. Sick patients contaminate their loved ones, paramedics, Uber drivers, people in the clinic and offices. It becomes a total mess.” McCullough says that by treating COVID-19 at home, doctors actually can extinguish the pandemic.

“So this has been a story of American heroes. It’s been a story of worldwide success.” McCullough’s group is now part of a worldwide network of front-line physicians using repurposed drugs to save lives around the globe. These doctors have built networks and information banks outside

of the government agency and university hegemony allowing doctors to actually practice the art of healing. Their network includes the BIRD medical coalition in the UK and Treatment Domiciliare COVID-19 group in Italy, which conducts rallies to celebrate zero hospitalizations from this multidrug approach. “We have PANDA in South Africa, the Covid Medical Network in Australia. And so on,” says McCullough. “Despite the various government agencies and the ivory tower medical institutions literally not lifting a finger, COVID-19 independent doctors and hero organizations kicked in.”

“And to this day, we’re in the middle of the Delta outbreak. Guess who’s treating the Delta patients? It’s again not the academic medical centers or the government or even the large group practices. They’re not touching these patients. Once again, it is independent physicians.” It’s independent doctors who are actually compassionately reaching out and using what we call the precautionary principle. They are using their best medical judgment and scientific data to apply therapy now and to practice the art of healing. For any of our academic colleagues that have said, ‘Dr. McCullough, we need to wait for large, randomized trials,’ what I’ve always said is, ‘Listen, this is a mass casualty event.’ People are dying now. They’re being hospitalized now. We can’t wait for large, randomized trials. We need to be doctors. We need to start healing people.”


Most of my fellow Democrats understand that Dr. Fauci led an effort to deliberately derail America’s access to lifesaving drugs and medicines that might have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and dramatically shortened the pandemic. There is no other aspect of the COVID crisis that more clearly reveals the malicious intentions of a powerful vaccine cartel—led by Dr.

Fauci and Bill Gates—to prolong the pandemic and amplify its mortal effects in order to promote their mischievous inoculations.

From the outset, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and other therapeutics posed an existential threat to Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates’ $48 billion COVID vaccine project, and particularly to their vanity drug remdesivir, in which Gates has a large stake.1 Under federal law, new vaccines and medicines cannot quality for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) if any existing FDA-approved drug proves effective against the same malady:

For FDA to issue an EUA (emergency use authorization), there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. . . .2

Thus, if any FDA-approved drug like hydroxychloroquine (or ivermectin) proved effective against COVID, pharmaceutical companies would no longer be legally allowed to fast-track their billion-dollar vaccines to market under Emergency Use Authorization. Instead, vaccines would have to endure the years-long delays that have always accompanied methodical safety and efficacy testing, and that would mean less profits, more uncertainty, longer runways to market, and a disappointing end to the lucrative COVID-19 vaccine gold rush. Dr. Fauci has invested $6 billion in taxpayer lucre in the Moderna vaccine alone.3 His agency is co-owner4 of the patent and stands to collect a fortune in royalties. At least four of Fauci’s hand-picked deputies are in line to collect royalties of $150,000/year based on Moderna’s success, and that’s on top of the salaries already paid by the American public.5,6

So there was good reason that very powerful potentates of the medical cartel were already targeting HCQ long before President Trump began his infamous romance with the malaria remedy. President Trump’s endorsement of HCQ on March 19, 20207 hyper-politicized the debate and gave Dr. Fauci’s defamation campaign against HCQ a soft landing among Democrats and the media. Trump’s critics relegated any further claims of HCQ efficacy

to the same anti-science waste bin as Trump’s notorious recommendation for bleach to cure COVID and his denial of climate change. But HCQ had a long history of safe medical use that got lost in the politics and propaganda.

HCQ Before Dr. Fauci’s Smear Campaign

Dr. Fauci’s challenge—to prove that HCQ is dangerous—was daunting because hydroxychloroquine is a 65-year-old formula that regulators around the globe long ago approved as both safe and effective against a variety of illnesses. HCQ is an analog of the quinine found in the bark of the cinchona tree that George Washington used to protect his troops from malaria. For decades, WHO has listed HCQ as an “essential medicine,” proven effective against a long list of ailments.8 It is a generally benign prescription medicine, far safer—according to the manufacturer’s package inserts9—than many popular over-the-counter drugs.

Generations have used HCQ billions of times throughout the world, practically without restriction. During my many childhood trips to Africa, I took HCQ daily as a preventive against malaria, a ritual that millions of other African visitors and residents embrace. Long use has thoroughly established HCQ’s safety and efficacy such that most African countries authorize HCQ as an over-the-counter medication. Africans call the drug “Sunday-Sunday”10 because millions of them take it religiously, once a week, as a malaria prophylaxis. It’s probably not a coincidence that these nations enjoyed some of the world’s lowest mortality rates from COVID. HCQ is the #1 most used medication in India, the second-most populous nation on the planet, with 1.3 billion people. Prior to the COVID pandemic, HCQ and its progenitor, chloroquine (CQ), were freely available over the counter in most of the world, including France, Canada, Iran, Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, and many other countries.

In the United States, the FDA has approved HCQ without limitation for 65 years, meaning that physicians can prescribe it for any off-label use. CDC’s information sheet deems hydroxychloroquine safe for pregnant

women, breastfeeding women, children, infants, elderly and immune- compromised patients and healthy persons of all ages.11 The CDC sets no limits on the lengthy and indefinite use of hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of malaria. Many people in Africa and India take it for a lifetime. Since its recommended protocol as a remedy for COVID requires only one week’s use, Dr. Fauci’s sudden revelation that the drug is dangerous was specious at best.

According to Dr. Peter McCullough, “To date, there has not been a single credible report that the medication increases the risk of death in COVID-19 patients when prescribed by competent physicians who understand its safety profile.”12

Efficacy Against Coronavirus with Early

Intervention HCQ Protocol

Some 200 peer-reviewed studies ( by government and independent researchers deem HCQ safe and effective against Coronavirus, especially when taken prophylactically or when taken in the initial stages of illness along with zinc and Zithromax.

The chart below lists 32 studies of early outpatient treatment of COVID using hydroxychloroquine. Thirty-one of the studies showed benefit, and only one study showed harm. The study showing harm resulted from a single patient in the treatment group requiring hospitalization. When all the studies are collected together, despite having different outcome measures, the average benefit is 64 percent. This means that subjects who received hydroxychloroquine were only 36 percent as likely to reach the negative outcomes as subjects in the control groups.

The scientific literature first suggested that HCQ or CQ might be effective treatments for Coronavirus in 2004.13 In that era, following an outbreak, Chinese and Western governments were pouring millions of dollars into an effort to identify existing, a.k.a. “repurposed,” medicines that were effective against coronaviruses. With HCQ, they had stumbled across


the Holy Grail. In 2004, Belgian researchers found that chloroquine was effective at viral killing at doses equivalent to those used to treat malaria, i.e., doses that are safe.14 A CDC study published in 2005 in the Virology Journal, “Chloroquine is a Potent Inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus Infection and Spread” demonstrated that CQ quickly eliminated coronavirus in primate cell culture during the SARS outbreak. That study concludes: “We report . . . that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-Coronavirus infection of primate cells . . . [both] before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.”15

This conclusion was particularly threatening to vaccine makers since it implies that chloroquine functions both as a preventive “vaccine” as well as a cure for SARS coronavirus. Common sense would presume it to be effective against other coronavirus strains. Worse still for Dr. Fauci and his vaccine-making friends, a NIAID study16 and a Dutch paper,17 both in 2014, confirmed chloroquine was effective against MERS—still another coronavirus.

In response to their studies, physicians worldwide discovered early in the pandemic that they could successfully treat high-risk COVID-19 patients as outpatients, within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms, with a chloroquine drug alone or with a “cocktail” consisting of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin (or doxycycline). Multiple scholarly contributions to the literature quickly confirmed the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine-based combination treatment when administered within days of COVID symptoms. Studies confirming this occurred in China,18 France,19 Saudi Arabia,20 Iran,21 Italy,22 India,23 New York City,24 upstate New York,25 Michigan,26 and Brazil.27


HCQ’s first prominent champion was Dr. Didier Raoult, the iconic French infectious disease professor, who has published more than 2,700 papers and is famous for having discovered 100 microorganisms, including the pathogen that causes Whipple’s Disease. On March 17, 2020, Dr. Raoult provided a preliminary report on 36 patients treated successfully with hydroxychloroquine and sometimes azithromycin at his institution in Marseille.28

In April, Dr. Vladimir (Zev) Zelenko, M.D., an upstate New York physician and early HCQ adopter, reproduced Dr. Didier Raoult’s “startling

successes” by dramatically reducing expected mortalities among 800 patients Zelenko treated with the HCQ cocktail.29

By late April of 2020, US doctors were widely prescribing HCQ to patients and family members, reporting outstanding results, and taking it themselves prophylactically.

In May 2020, Dr. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D. published the most comprehensive study, to date, on HCQ’s efficacy against COVID. Risch is Yale University’s super-eminent Professor of Epidemiology, an illustrious world authority on the analysis of aggregate clinical data. Dr. Risch concluded that evidence is unequivocal for early and safe use of the HCQ cocktail. Dr. Risch published his work—a meta-analysis reviewing five outpatient studies—in affiliation with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the American Journal of Epidemiology, under the urgent title, “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to Pandemic Crisis.”30

He further demonstrated, with specificity, how HCQ’s critics—largely funded by Bill Gates and Dr. Tony Fauci31—had misinterpreted, misstated, and misreported negative results by employing faulty protocols, most of which showed HCQ efficacy administered without zinc and Zithromax which were known to be helpful. But their main trick for ensuring the protocols failed was to wait until late in the disease process before administering HCQ—when it is known to be ineffective. Dr. Risch noted that evidence against HCQ used late in the course of the disease is irrelevant. While acknowledging that Dr. Didier Raoult’s powerful French studies favoring HCQ efficacy were not randomized, Risch argued that the results were, nevertheless, so stunning as to far outweigh that deficit: “The first study of HCQ + AZ [ . . . ] showed a 50-fold benefit of HCQ + AZ vs. standard of care . . . This is such an enormous difference that it cannot be ignored despite lack of randomization.”32 Risch has pointed out that the supposed need for randomized placebo-controlled trials is a shibboleth. In

2014 the Cochrane Collaboration proved in a landmark meta-analysis of 10,000 studies, that observational studies of the kind produced by Didier Raoult are equal in predictive ability to randomized placebo-controlled trials.33 Furthermore, Risch observed that it is highly unethical to deny patients promising medications during a pandemic—particularly those which, like HCQ, have long-standing safety records.

So, against all that I’ve shared here, Dr. Fauci offered up one answer: hydroxychloroquine should not be used because we don’t understand the mechanism it uses to defeat COVID—another shibboleth transparently invoked to defeat common sense. Regulators do not understand the mechanism of action of many drugs, but they nonetheless license those that are effective and safe. The fact is that we know more about how HCQ beats COVID than we know about the actions of many other medicines, including —notably—Dr. Fauci’s darlings, mRNA vaccines and remdesivir.

Furthermore, an August 2020 paper from Baylor University by Dr. Peter McCullough et al. described mechanisms by which the components of the “HCQ cocktail” exert antiviral effects.34 McCullough shows that the efficacy of the HCQ cocktail is based on the pharmacology of the hydroxychloroquine ionophore acting as the “gun” and zinc as the “bullet,” while azithromycin potentiates the anti-viral effect.

An even more expansive September 30, 2020 meta-review summarizes more recent research, concluding that ALL the studies on early administration of HCQ within a week following infection demonstrate efficacy, while studies of HCQ administered later in the illness show mixed results.35

In March, 2020 Nature published a paper demonstrating the specific mechanisms in tissue culture by which chloroquine stops viral reproduction.36

In April, 2020, a team of Chinese scientists published a preprint of a 62- patient placebo-controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine, resulting in

demonstrably improved time to recovery and less progression to severe disease in the treated group.37

In May, 2020, a Chinese expert consensus group recommended doctors use chloroquine routinely for mild, moderate, and severe cases of COVID-19 pneumonia.38

A national study in Finland in May 2021 showed a 5x efficacy.39 And national studies in Canada and Saudi Arabia showed 3x efficacy.40

I’ll stop gilding the lily here and ask the reader: Was hydroxychloroquine some crazy baseless idea, or ought regulators to have honestly investigated it as a potential remedy during a raging pandemic?

Pharma’s War on HCQ

The prospect of an existing therapeutic drug (with an expired patent) that could outperform any vaccine in the war against COVID posed a momentous threat to the pharmaceutical cartel. Among the features pharma companies most detest is low cost, and HCQ is about $10 per course.41 Compare that to more than $3000 per course for Dr. Fauci’s beloved remdesivir.42

No surprise, pharmaceutical interests launched their multinational preemptive crusade to restrict and discredit HCQ starting way back in January 2020, months before the WHO declared a pandemic and even longer before President Trump’s controversial March 19 endorsement. On January 13, when rumors of Wuhan flu COVID-19 began to circulate, the French government took the bizarre, inexplicable, unprecedented, and highly suspicious step of reassigning HCQ from an over-the-counter to a prescription medicine.43 Without citing any studies, French health officials quietly changed the status of HCQ to “List II poisonous substance” and banned its over-the-counter sales.44 This absolutely remarkable coincidence repeated itself a few weeks later when Canadian health officials did the exact same thing, quietly removing the drug from pharmacy shelves.45

A physician from Zambia reported to Dr. Harvey Risch that in some villages and cities, organized groups of buyers emptied drugstores of HCQ and then burned the medication in bonfires outside the towns. South Africa destroyed two tons of life-saving hydroxychloroquine in late 2020, supposedly due to violation of an import regulation.46 The US government in 2021 ordered the destruction of more than a thousand pounds of HCQ, because it was improperly imported.47 “The Feds are insisting that all of it be destroyed, and not be used to save a single life anywhere in the world,” said a lawyer seeking to resist the senseless order.

By March, front-line doctors around the world were spontaneously reporting miraculous results following early treatment with HCQ, and this prompted growing anxiety for Pharma. On March 13, a Michigan doctor and trader, Dr. James Todaro, M.D., tweeted his review of HCQ as an effective COVID treatment, including a link to a public Google doc.48,49 Google quietly scrubbed Dr. Todaro’s memo. This was six days before the President endorsed HCQ. Google apparently didn’t want users to think Todaro’s message was missing; rather, the Big Tech platform wanted the public to believe that Todaro’s memo never even existed. Google has a long history of suppressing information that challenges vaccine industry profits. Google’s parent company Alphabet owns several vaccine companies, including Verily, as well as Vaccitech, a company banking on flu, prostate cancer, and COVID vaccines.50,51 Google has lucrative partnerships with all the large vaccine manufacturers, including a $715 million partnership with GlaxoSmithKline.52 Verily also owns a business that tests for COVID infection.53 Google was not the only social media platform to ban content that contradicts the official HCQ narrative. Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram, YouTube, MailChimp, and virtually every other Big Tech platform began scrubbing information demonstrating HCQ’s efficacy, replacing it with industry propaganda generated by one of the Dr. Fauci/Gates-controlled public health agencies: HHS, NIH and WHO. When President Trump later

suggested that Dr. Fauci was not being truthful about hydroxychloroquine, social media responded by removing his posts.

It was a March 2020 news conference where Dr. Fauci launched his concerted attack on HCQ. Asked whether HCQ might be used as a prophylaxis for COVID, he shouted back: “The answer is No, and the evidence that you’re talking about is anecdotal evidence.”54 His reliable allies at the New York Times then launched a campaign to defame Dr. Raoult.55

In the midst of a deadly pandemic, somebody very powerful wanted a medication that had been available over the counter for decades, and known to be effective against coronaviruses, to be suddenly but silently pulled from the shelves—from Canada to Zambia.

In March, at HHS’s request, several large pharmaceutical companies— Novartis, Bayer, Sanofi, and others—donated their inventory, a total of 63 million doses of hydroxychloroquine and 2 million of chloroquine, to the Strategic National Stockpile, managed by BARDA, an agency under the DHHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.56 BARDA’s Director, Dr. Rick Bright, later claimed the chloroquine drugs were deadly, and he needed to protect the American public from them.57 Bright colluded with FDA to restrict use of the donated pills to hospitalized patients. FDA publicized the authorization using language that led most physicians to believe that prescribing the drug for any purpose was off-limits.

But at the beginning of June, based on clinical trials that intentionally gave unreasonably high doses to hospitalized patients and failed to start the drug until too late, FDA took the unprecedented step of revoking HCQ’s emergency authorization,58 rendering that enormous stockpile of valuable pills off limits to Americans while conveniently indemnifying the pharmaceutical companies for their inventory losses by allowing them a tax break for the donations.

After widespread use of the drug for 65 years, without warning, FDA somehow felt the need to send out an alert on June 15, 2020 that HCQ is

dangerous, and that it required a level of monitoring only available at hospitals.59 In a bit of twisted logic, Federal officials continued to encourage doctors to use the suddenly-dangerous drug without restriction for lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Lyme and malaria. Just not for COVID. With the encouragement of Dr. Fauci and other HHS officials, many states simultaneously imposed restrictions on HCQ’s use.

The Fraudulent Industry Studies

Prior to COVID-19, not a single study had provided evidence against the use of HCQ based on safety concerns.

In response to the mounting tsunami that HCQ was safe and effective against COVID, Gates, Dr. Fauci and their Pharma allies deployed an army of industry-linked researchers to gin up contrived evidence of its dangers.

By 2020, we shall see, Bill Gates exercised firm control over WHO and deployed the agency in his effort to discredit HCQ.60

Dr. Fauci, Bill Gates, and WHO financed a cadre of research mercenaries to concoct a series of nearly twenty studies—all employing fraudulent protocols deliberately designed to discredit HCQ as unsafe. Instead of using the standard treatment dose of 400 mg/day, the 17 WHO studies administered a borderline lethal daily dose starting with 2,400 mg.61 on Day 1, and using 800 mg/day thereafter. In a cynical, sinister, and literally homicidal crusade against HCQ, a team of BMGF operatives played a key role in devising and pushing through the exceptionally high dosing. They made sure that UK government “Recovery” trials on 1,000 elderly patients in over a dozen British, Welsh, Irish and Scottish hospitals, and the U.N. “Solidarity” study of 3,500 patients in 400 hospitals in 35 countries, as well as additional sites in 13 countries (the “REMAP-COVID” trial), all used those unprecedented and dangerous doses.62 This was a brassy enterprise to “prove” chloroquine dangerous, and sure enough, it proved that elderly patients can die from deadly overdoses. “The purpose seemed, very clearly,

to poison the patients and blame the deaths on HCQ,” says Dr. Meryl Nass, a physician, medical historian, and biowarfare expert.

In each of these two trials, SOLIDARITY and RECOVERY, the hydroxychloroquine arm predictably had 10–20 percent more deaths than the control arm (the control arm being those patients lucky enough to receive standard supportive care).63

The UK government and Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) jointly financed the Recovery Trial.64 The principal investigator (PI), Peter Horby, is a member of SAGE and is the chairman of NERVTAG, the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group, both important committees that give the UK government advice on mitigating the pandemic.65,66 Horby’s willingness to risk death of patients given toxic doses of HCQ fueled his subsequent rise in the UK medical hierarchy. Horby received a parade of extraordinary promotions after he orchestrated the mass poisonings of senior citizens. Queen Elizabeth recently knighted him.67

Gates’s fingerprints are all over this sanguinary project. Despite suspiciously missing pages, the published minutes of WHO’s part-secret March and April meetings show these medical alchemists establishing the lethal dosing of chloroquines (CQ and HCQ) for WHO’s Solidarity clinical trial. Only four participants attended the second WHO meeting to determine the dose of HCQ and CQ for the Solidarity trial. One was Scott Miller, the BMGF’s Senior Program Officer. The report admits that the Solidarity trial was using the highest dose of any recent trial.68

The report acknowledges that, “The BMGF developed a model of chloroquine penetration into tissues for malaria.”69 BMGF’s unique dosing model for the studies deliberately overestimated the amount of HCQ that necessary to achieve adequate lung tissue concentrations. The WHO report confesses that, “This model is however not validated.” Gates’s deadly deception allowed FDA to wrongly declare that HCQ would be ineffective at safe levels.

The minutes of that March 13, 2020 meeting suggest that BMGF knew the proper drug dosing and the need for early administration. Yet their same researchers then participated in deliberately providing a potentially lethal dose, failing to dose by weight, missing the early window during which treatment was known to be effective, and giving the drug to subjects who were already critically ill with comorbidities that made it more likely they would not tolerate the high dose. The Solidarity trial design also departed from standard protocols by collecting no safety data: only whether the patient died, or how many days they were hospitalized. Researchers collected no information on in-hospital complications. This strategy shielded the WHO from gathering information that could pin adverse reactions on the dose.

The report of WHO’s HCQ trial notes that WHO researchers did not retain any consent forms from the elderly patients they were overdosing, as the law in most countries requires, and makes the bewildering claim that some patients signed consent forms “in retrospect”—a stunning procedure that is unethical on its face. The WHO’s researchers noted in their interim report on the trial, “Consent forms were signed and retained by the patients; [An extremely unorthodox and suspicious procedure that suggests that there may have been no formal consents] but noted for record that, consent was generally prospective, but could (where locally approved) be retrospective.” One wonders if researchers notified their families of the high dose they were giving to their elderly parents and grandparents in locked COVID wards to which they denied family members access.

The researchers evinced their guilty knowledge by concealing the research records of the doses they used in Solidarity when they filed their trial reports. They also omitted dosing numbers from the report of WHO’s meeting to determine the dose, and omitted details of dosing from the WHO’s Solidarity trial registration.

Another group of researchers using overdose concentrations of chloroquine published their study as a preprint in mid-April 2020 (and

quickly brought to print) in the preeminent journal, JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) In this murder-for-hire scheme, Brazilian researchers used a dose of 1,200 mg/day for up to ten days of CQ.70 According to a 2020 review of CQ and HCQ toxicity, “As little as 2–3 g of chloroquine may be fatal in adult patients, though the most commonly reported lethal dose in adults is 3–4 g.” Predictably, so many subjects died in the Brazilian high dose study (39 percent, 16 of 41 of the subjects who took this dose) that the researchers had to halt the study. The subjects’ mean age was only 55.71 Their medical records revealed EKG changes characteristic of CQ toxicity.

The WHO and UK trial coordinators must have known this information, but they made no efforts to stop their own overdose trials, nor to lower the doses.

Although Gates did not fund the JAMA study directly (it’s very possible he funded it indirectly through a nebulous list of funders), the senior and last author, Marcus Vinícius Guimarães Lacerda, has been a Gates-funded researcher on numerous projects. Further, the BMGF has funded multiple projects at the same medical foundation where he and the first, or “lead” author, Borba, work in Manaus, Brazil.72 (Traditionally, the first listed author is generally seen as the senior and accountable author.)

Gates and his cabal used an arsenal of other deceptive gimmickry to assure that HCQ would appear not just deadly, but ineffective. Each of the studies that Gates funded failed to incorporate Zithromax and zinc— important components of HCQ protocols. All of the Fauci, Gates, WHO, Solidarity, Recovery and Remap-COVID studies administered HCQ at late stages of COVID infection, in contravention of the prevailing recommendations that deem HCQ effective only when doctors administer it early.73,74 Viewing this orchestrated sabotage with frustration, critics accused the Gates grantees of purposefully designing these studies, at best, to fail and, at worst, to murder.75 Brazilian prosecutors have accused the authors of

the study of committing homicide by purposefully poisoning the elderly subjects in their study with high doses of chloroquine.76

All through 2020, Bill Gates and Fauci lashed out against HCQ every chance they got. During the early stages of the pandemic in March, Bill Gates penned an op-ed in The Washington Post.77 Besides calling for a complete lockdown in every state, along with accelerated testing and vaccine development, Gates warned that: “Leaders can help by not stoking rumors or panic buying. Long before the drug hydroxychloroquine was approved as an emergency treatment for COVID-19, people started hoarding it, making it hard for lupus patients who need it to survive.”78

This, of course, was a lie. The only ones hoarding HCQ were Dr. Fauci and Rick Bright, who had padlocked 63 million doses in the Strategic National Stockpile79—more than enough to supply virtually every gerontology-ward patient in America. Despite such efforts to create a shortage, none existed. HCQ is cheap, quick, and easy to manufacture, and since its patent is expired, dozens of manufacturers around the world can quickly ramp up production to meet escalating demand.

In July, Gates endorsed censorship of HCQ recommendations after a video touting its efficacy against coronavirus accumulated tens of millions of views.80 Gates called the video “outrageous,” and praised Facebook and YouTube for hastily removing it. He nevertheless complained “You can’t find it directly on those services, but everybody’s sending the link around because it’s still out there on the internet.”81 This, Gates told Yahoo News, revealed a persistent shortcoming of the platforms. “Their ability to stop things before they become widespread, they probably should have improved that,” Gates scolded.

Asked by Bloomberg News in mid-August about how the Trump White House had promoted HCQ “despite its repeatedly being shown to be ineffective and, in fact, to cause heart problems in some patients,” Gates happily responded: “This is an age of science, but sometimes it doesn’t feel that way. In the test tube, hydroxychloroquine looked good. On the other

hand, there are lots of good therapeutic drugs coming that are proven to work without the severe side effects.”82 Gates went on to promote Gilead’s remdesivir as the best alternative, despite its lackluster track record compared to HCQ. He didn’t mention having a large stake in Gilead,83which stood to make billions if Dr. Fauci was able to run remdesivir through the regulatory traps.

Obsequious reporters consistently encouraged Gates to portray himself as an objective expert, and Gates used that interview to discredit HCQ, and also me. His Bloomberg questioner opened the door with a typical softball: “For years, people have said if anti-vaxxers had lived through a pandemic, the way their grandparents did, they’d think differently.” Gates replied: “The two times I’ve been to the White House [since 2016], I was told I had to go listen to anti-vaxxers like Robert Kennedy, Jr. So, yes, it’s ironic that people are questioning vaccines and we’re actually having to say, ‘Oh, my God, how else can you get out of a tragic pandemic?’”84

If he had only asked me, I could have told him!

It remains an enduring mystery just which powerful figure(s) caused the world’s two most prestigious scientific journals, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), to publish overtly fraudulent studies from a nonexistent database owned by a previously unknown company. Anthony Fauci and the vaccine cartel celebrated the Lancet and NEJM papers on May 22, 2020 as the final nail in hydroxychloroquine’s coffin.85,86

Both studies in these respected publications relied on data from the Surgisphere Corporation, an obscure Illinois-based “medical education” company that claimed to somehow control an extraordinary global database boasting access to medical information from 96,000 patients in more than 600 hospitals.87 Founded in 2008, this sketchy enterprise had eleven employees, including a middling science fiction writer and a porn star/events hostess. Surgisphere claimed to have analyzed data from six continents and

hundreds of hospitals that had treated patients with HCQ or CQ in real time. Someone persuaded the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine to publish two Surgisphere studies in separate articles on May 1 and 22. Like the other Gates-supported studies, the Lancet article portrayed HCQ as ineffective and dangerous. The Lancet study said that the Surgisphere data proved that HCQ increased cardiac mortality in COVID-19 patients. Based on this study, the FDA withdrew its EUA recommendation on June 15, 2020,88 the WHO and UK suspended their hydroxychloroquine clinical trials on May 25.89 Each resumed briefly, then stopped for good in June declaring HCQ unhelpful.90 Three European nations immediately banned use of HCQ, and others followed within weeks.91

That would normally have been the end of it, if not for the 200 independent scientists who quickly exposed the Lancet and NEJM studies as shockingly clumsy con jobs.92 The Surgisphere datasets that formed the foundation of the studies were so ridiculously erroneous that they could only have been a rank invention. To cite only one of many discrepancies, the number of reported deaths among patients taking hydroxychloroquine in one Australian hospital exceeded the total number of deaths for the entire country. An international brouhaha quickly revealed that the Surgisphere database did not exist, and soon enough, Surgisphere itself vanished from the Internet. The University of Utah terminated the faculty appointment of one of the article’s authors, Amit Patel. Surgisphere’s founder, Sapan S. Desai, disappeared from his job at a Chicago hospital.

Even the New York Times reported that “More than 100 scientists and clinicians have questioned the authenticity” of the database, as well as the study’s integrity.93 Despite the barrage of astonished criticism, the Lancet held firm for two weeks before relenting to the remonstrances. Finally, three of the four Lancet coauthors requested the paper be retracted. Both The Lancet and NEJM finally withdrew their studies in shame. Somebody at the very pinnacle of the medical cartel had twisted arms, kicked groins, and stoved in kneecaps to force these periodicals to abandon their policies, shred

their ethics, and spend down their centuries of hard-won credibility in a desperate bid to torpedo HCQ. To date, neither the authors nor the journals have explained who induced them to coauthor and publish the most momentous fraud in the history of scientific publishing.

The headline of a comprehensive exposé in The Guardian expressed the global shock among the scientific community at the rank corruption by scientific publishing’s most formidable pillars: “The Lancet has made one of the biggest retractions in modern history. How could this happen?”94 The Guardian writers openly accused The Lancet of promoting fraud: “The sheer number and magnitude of the things that went wrong or missing are too enormous to attribute to mere incompetence.” The Guardian commented, “What’s incredible is that the editors of these esteemed journals still have a job—that is how utterly incredible the supposed data underlying the studies was.”

The capacity of their Pharma overlords to strong-arm the world’s top two medical journals, the NEJM and The Lancet, into condoning deadly research95,96 and to simultaneously publish blatantly fraudulent articles in the middle of a pandemic, attests to the cartel’s breathtaking power and ruthlessness. It is no longer controversial to acknowledge that drug makers rigorously control medical publishing and that The Lancet, NEJM, and JAMA are utterly corrupted instruments of Pharma. The Lancet editor, Richard Horton, confirms, “Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.”97 Dr. Marcia Angell, who served as an NEJM editor for 20 years, says journals are “primarily a marketing machine.”98 Pharma, she says, has co-opted “every institution that might stand in its way.”99,100

Cracking Down on HCQ to Keep Case Fatalities


Referring to the Lancet Surgisphere study during a May 27 CNN interview, Dr. Fauci stated on CNN about hydroxychloroquine, “The scientific data is

really quite evident now about the lack of efficacy.”101 And even after the scandal lay exposed and the journals retracted their articles, Dr. Fauci let his lie stand. Instead of launching an investigation of this momentous and enormously consequential fraud by the world’s two leading medical journals and publicly apologizing, Dr. Fauci and the medical establishment simply ignored the wrongful conduct and persevered in their plan to deny global populations access to lifesaving HCQ.

The historic journal retractions went practically unnoticed in the slavish, scientifically illiterate mainstream press, which persisted in fortifying the COVID propaganda. Headlines continued to blame HCQ for the deaths instead of the deliberately treacherous researchers who gave sick, elderly, and compromised patients toxic drug dosages. And most remarkable of all, the FDA made no effort to change the recommendation it made against HCQ. Other countries persisted in demonizing the life-saving drug.

Once the FDA approves a prescription medication, federal laws allow any US physician to prescribe the duly approved drug for any reason. Twenty-one percent of all prescriptions written by American doctors, exercising their medical judgment, are for off-label uses.102

Even after the FDA withdrew its Emergency Use Authorization and posted the fraudulent warning on its website,103 many front-line doctors across the country continued to prescribe and report strong benefits with appropriate doses of HCQ. In response, Dr. Fauci took even more unprecedented steps to derail doctors from prescribing HCQ.

In March, while people were dying at the rate of 10,000 patients a week, Dr. Fauci declared that hydroxychloroquine should only be used as part of a clinical trial.104 For the first time in American history, a government official was overruling the medical judgment of thousands of treating physicians, and ordering doctors to stop practicing medicine as they saw fit. Boldly and relentlessly, Dr. Fauci kept declaring that “The Overwhelming Evidence of Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical Trials Indicate No Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).”105 Dr. Fauci failed to disclose that

NONE of the trials he had used as the basis for that pronouncement involved medication given in the first five to seven days after onset of symptoms. Instead, all of those randomized controlled trials targeted patients who were already sick enough to be hospitalized.

People wanting to be treated in that first critical week of illness and avoid being hospitalized were basically out of luck as Dr. Fauci moved to foreclose patients from receiving the lifesaving remedy during the treatment window when science and previous experience showed it to be effective.

On July 2, following the humiliating journal retractions, Detroit’s Henry Ford Health System published a peer-reviewed study showing that hydroxychloroquine significantly cut death rates even in mid-to-late COVID cases, and without any heartrelated side effects.106 Fauci leapt to the barricades to rescue his vaccine enterprise. On July 30, he testified before Congress that the Michigan results were “flawed.”107

The FDA revocation of the EUA and Dr. Fauci’s withering response to the Michigan trial provided cover for 33 governors whose states moved to restrict prescribing or dispensing of HCQ.108

In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo drove up record death counts by ordering that physicians prescribe HCQ only for hospitalized patients.109 In Nevada, Governor Steven Sisolak prohibited both prescribing and dispensing chloroquine drugs for COVID-19.110 State medical licensing boards threatened to bring “unprofessional conduct” charges against non- complying doctors (a threat to their license) and to “sanction” doctors if they prescribed the drug.111 Most pharmacists were afraid to dispense HCQ, and on June 15, state pharmacy boards in Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island began refusing orders from physicians and retailers.112 Hospitals commanded doctors to cease treating their patients with HCQ beginning June 15, 2020.113 The NIAID halted a clinical trial of the drug in outpatients, in June 2020, only a month after it started, having enrolled only 20 of the planned 2,000 enrollees.114 The FDA blocked access to the millions of doses of HCQ

and CQ that Sanofi and other drug makers had donated to the Strategic National Stockpile (with appropriate tax benefits).115 Sanofi announced it would no longer supply the drug for use treating COVID. Dr. Fauci and his HHS cronies decreed that the medication rot in warehouses while Americans unnecessarily sickened and died from COVID-19.

On June 17, the WHO—for which Mr. Gates is the largest funder after the US, and over which Mr. Gates and Dr. Fauci exercise tight control— called for the halt of HCQ trials in hundreds of hospitals across the world.116 WHO Chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus ordered nations to stop using HCQ and CQ. Portugal, France, Italy, and Belgium banned HCQ for COVID-19 treatment.117

Foreign Experiences

In compliance with the WHO recommendation, Switzerland banned the use of HCQ; however, about 2 weeks into the ban, Switzerland’s death rates tripled, for about 15 days, until Switzerland reintroduced HCQ. COVID deaths then fell back to their baseline.118 Switzerland’s “natural experiment” had provided yet another potent argument for HCQ.

Similarly, Panamanian physician and government advisor Sanchez Cardenas notes that when Panama banned HCQ, deaths shot up, until the government relented, at which point deaths dropped back to baseline.119

Seven months into the pandemic, nations that widely used HCQ and made it readily available to their citizens demonstrated overwhelming evidence that HCQ was obliterating COVID-19.

A June 2, 2020 court filing supporting the use of HCQ for COVID included an Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS) comparison of national death rates among countries with varying policies governing access to HCQ. Many countries with underdeveloped health care systems were using HCQ early and achieving far lower mortalities than in the United States, where HHS and the FDA impede access to HCQ.120 AAPS General Counsel Andrew Schlafly observed that “Citizens of the

Philippines, Poland, Israel, and Turkey all have greater access to HCQ than American citizens do,” and they have superior morbidity outcomes. He added, “In Venezuela, HCQ is available over the counter without a prescription, while in the United States, pharmacists are prevented from filling prescriptions for HCQ.”121

Other foreign studies support strong claims for HCQ. A study by Nova demonstrated that nations using HCQ have death rates 80 percent lower than those that banned it.122

A meta-review of 58 peer-reviewed observational studies by physician researchers in Spain, Italy, France, and Saudi Arabia found that hydroxychloroquine dramatically reduced mortality from COVID, while additional articles by doctors in Turkey, Canada, and the US found that HCQ’s cardiac toxicity is negligible. (See for a compilation of 99 (58 peer-reviewed) studies of the chloroquine drugs in COVID-19.)123

Furthermore, mortality and morbidity data from over six dozen nations indicate a strong relationship between access to HCQ and COVID-19 death rates.124,125 While such a relationship does not prove cause/effect, it would be lunacy to simply ignore the reality and assume no relationship.

Country by country, data consistently links broader access to HCQ to lower mortality. The very poorest countries—if they used HCQ—had far lower case fatality rates than wealthy countries that did not. Even impoverished African nations, where “experts” like Bill Gates predicted the highest death rates, had drastically lower mortalities than in nations that banned HCQ. Senegal and Nigeria, for example, both use hydroxychloroquine and had COVID fatality rates that were significantly lower than those experienced in the United States.126

Similarly, despite the fact that hygiene in those countries is often far inferior, in Ethiopia,127 Mozambique,128 Niger,129 Congo,130 and Ivory Coast,131 there are far fewer per capita deaths than in the US. In those nations, death rates vary between 8 and 47.2 deaths per million inhabitants as of September 24, 2021. In contrast, western countries that denied access


to HCQ experienced numbers of coronavirus deaths per million inhabitants between 220 per million in Holland,132 2,000 per million in the US, and 850 deaths per million in Belgium.133 Dr. Meryl Nass observed, “If people in these malaria countries would boost their immune system with zinc, vitamin C and vitamin D, the coronavirus death toll would even further decrease.”

Similarly, Bangladesh CFR, Senegal, Pakistan, Serbia, Nigeria, Turkey, and Ukraine all allow unrestricted use of HCQ and all have miniscule case fatality rates compared to the countries that ban HCQ.134 Wealthier democracies or countries with especially restrictive HCQ protocols— Ireland, Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, UK, Belgium, and France—are comparatively deadly environments.

Andrew Schlafly observed that, “The mortality rate from COVID-19 in countries that allow access to HCQ is only one-tenth the mortality rate in countries where there is interference with this medication, such as the United States. . . . In some areas of Central America, officials are even going door to door to distribute HCQ. . . . These countries have been successful in limiting the mortality from COVID-19 to only a fraction of what it is in wealthier countries.”135

As the industry/government cartel ramped up its campaign to keep HCQ from the masses, many doctors fought back. On July 23, Yale virologist Dr. Harvey Risch persisted, this time with a Newsweek article titled “The key to defeating COVID-19 already exists. We need to start using it.”136 Dr. Risch beseeched the authorities: HCQ saves lives and its use could quickly end the pandemic. By then, Dr. Risch had updated his rigorous analysis of the early treatment of COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. He now cited twelve clinical studies suggesting that the early administration of HCQ could lower death rates by 50 percent. In that case, COVID-19 would have a lower case fatality rate than the seasonal influenza. “We would still have had a pandemic,” Harvey Risch told me, “but we wouldn’t have had the carnage.”

Noting more than fifty HCQ studies, Dr. Meryl Nass, in June 2020, supported Risch’s calculation: “If people were treated prophylactically with this drug (using only 2 tablets weekly) as is done in some areas and some occupational groups in India, there would probably be at least 50 percent fewer cases after exposure.”137 Stopping the pandemic in its tracks seemed to be the last thing Tony Fauci wanted. Thanks to Dr. Fauci, most US states had by then banned treatment with HCQ, including Dr. Nass’s home state of Maine, which banned it for prophylaxis, but did allow it for acute treatment. Dr. Nass suggested that the “acts to suppress the use of HCQ [were] carefully orchestrated” and that “these events [might] have been planned to keep the pandemic going to sell expensive drugs and vaccines to a captive population.”138

In the same article by Dr. Meryl Nass, published on June 27, 2020,139 Nass—who has extensively studied HCQ—pointed out that with prophylactic treatment with HCQ “at the onset of their illness, over 99 percent would quickly resolve the infection, avoiding progression to the late- stage disease characterized by cytokine storm, thrombophilia, and organ failure. Despite claims to the contrary, this treatment is very safe, yet outpatient treatment is banned in the United States.”

Beginning June 27, 2020, Dr. Nass began a list of deceptive strategies that the Fauci/Pharma/Gates cartel used to control the narrative on hydroxychloroquine and deny Americans access to this effective remedy. The list has grown to 58 separate strategies.140 “It is remarkable,” she observed, how “a large series of events taking place over the past months produced a unified message about hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and produced similar policies about the drug in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and western Europe. The message is that generic, inexpensive hydroxychloroquine (costing only $1.00 to produce a full course) is dangerous.”141

Dr. Fauci’s Hypocritical HCQ Games

In his early AIDS days, Dr. Fauci had thrashed FDA as inhumane for demanding randomized double-blind placebo studies at the height of the pandemic. Now, here he was doing what he had condemned by blocking an effective treatment simply because it would compete with his expensive patent-protected pharmaceutical, remdesivir, and vaccines.

** *

Dr. Fauci repeatedly insisted he would not allow HCQ for COVID-19 until its efficacy is proven in “randomized, double-blind placebo studies.”142 Dr. Risch calls this position a “transparent sham.” Dr. Fauci knew that neither industry nor its PI’s would ever sponsor trials for a product with expired patents. It’s noteworthy that while Dr. Fauci was bemoaning the lack of evidence of HCQ efficacy, he was refusing to commission his own trials to study early use of the hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax remedy. Dr. Fauci himself, while spending 48 billion dollars on zero-liability vaccines, at first refused to allocate anything for a randomized placebo study of HCQ. Even worse, he cancelled two NIAID-sponsored trials of outpatient HCQ before completion.143

Dr. Fauci’s hypocrisy about HCQ is evident to anyone who looks at his vacillating pronouncements throughout his long career. He has persistently insisted on double-blind randomized placebo trials for medicines he dislikes (those that compete with his patented remedies) and airily fixed the NIAID study of remdesivir by changing the endpoints midstream to favor the drug. Dr. Fauci did not sponsor or encourage randomized trials for masks, lockdowns, or social distancing. And in the decades since he took over NIAID, he has never demanded randomized studies to confirm safety of the combined 69 vaccine doses currently on the childhood schedule. Every one of these vaccines is regarded as so “unavoidably unsafe”—in the words of the 1986 Vaccine Act (NCVIA) and the Supreme Court—that their manufacturers have demanded—and received—immunity from liability.

During a 2013 USA Today interview, Dr. Fauci discussed remedies for another deadly coronavirus, MERS, which was causing an outbreak in Qatar and Saudi Arabia with over 30 percent mortality.144 Dr. Fauci then sang an entirely different tune than he is singing now about hydroxychloroquine. He suggested using a combination of the antiviral drugs ribavirin and interferon- alpha 2b to treat MERS, even though the treatment had never been tested for safety or effectiveness against MERS in humans. In that circumstance, Dr. Fauci’s NIAID had found that the treatment could stop MERS virus from reproducing in lab-grown cells. And, oh yes, NIAID had patented it.145

“We don’t have to start designing new drugs,” Dr. Fauci told journalists.146 “The next time someone comes into an emergency room in Qatar or Saudi Arabia, you would have drugs that are readily available. And at least you would have some data.”147 Even though the treatment hadn’t gone through any trials, Dr. Fauci urged its compassionate use: “If I were a physician in a hospital and someone were dying, rather than do nothing, you can see if these work.”148

He played by all-new rules when it came to COVID, forcing doctors to stand on the sidelines while patients died and prohibiting them from trying combinations of repurposed therapeutics to “see if these work.”149 Back in 2013, when Dr. Fauci endorsed Ribavirin/Interferon for use against MERS, the two-punch hepatitis C remedy was, according to NIH, horrendously dangerous, with harms occurring in literally every patient who took the concoction. It causes hemolytic anemia chronic fatigue syndrome, and a retinue of birth defects and/or death of unborn children. Ribavirin is genotoxic, mutagenic, and a potential carcinogen.150

Nevertheless, in 2013, Dr. Fauci advocated the therapy, despite the total lack of randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials, in fact, the lack of any human data on using the combination against MERS.

The COVID vaccines that qualified for Emergency Use Authorization include novel platforms like mRNA and DNA with no known safety profile. Others use toxic adjuvants like squalene and aluminum or novel adjuvants,

with proven risks and potentially high rates of serious injuries. The two- month randomized clinical trials that justified the EUAs for COVID vaccines were far too brief to detect injuries with longer incubation periods.151,152,153 The vaccines are so risky that the insurance industry has refused to underwrite them,154 and the manufacturers refuse to produce them without blanket immunity from liability.155 Bill Gates, who is the principal investor in many of these new COVID vaccines, stipulated that their risk is so great that he would not provide them to people unless every government shielded him from lawsuits.156

Why then should HCQ be the only remedy required to cross this artificially high hurdle? After all, HCQ is less in need of randomized placebo studies than any of these vaccines or remdesivir; the safety of HCQ has been established over more than six decades. While vaccines are given to healthy people who face small risk of catching the disease, HCQ is administered to people who are actually sick, with virtually no risk to the patient. If a drug is safe and might work, if people are dying and there are no other good options, must we not try it?

Dr. Fauci’s on-again-off-again interest in drug safety is situational and self-interested. He claimed on July 31 about HCQ that “If that randomized placebo-controlled trial shows efficacy, I would be the first to admit it and to promote it, but I have not… So I just have to go with the data. I don’t have any horse in the game one way or the other; I just look at the data.”157

In fact, Dr. Fauci always had a stable of horses in the game. One of them is remdesivir, even after the WHO’s randomized placebo trial showed remdesivir ineffective against COVID.158 Furthermore, remdesivir has a catastrophic safety profile.159

His second nag is the Moderna vaccine, in which he invested years and six billion taxpayer dollars. He was thrilled to sponsor a human trial of a Moderna COVID vaccine (partly owned by his agency), before there were any safety and efficacy data from animal studies, which goes against FDA regulations. He then pushed for hundreds of millions of people to get EUA

vaccines before the randomized placebo-controlled trials were complete. So much for Dr. Fauci’s requirement for having high-quality evidence before risking use of drugs and vaccines in humans.

Dr. Fauci’s ethical flip-flopping about the need for rigid safety testing is particularly troubling since he is championing a competitive product from which his agency and his employees expect a lucrative financial outcome.

In the midst of a pandemic, with hundreds of thousands of deaths attributed to COVID, and the economy in free fall, Dr. Fauci’s suggestion that we withhold promising treatments that have an established safety profile —from patients who have a potentially lethal disease—pending the completion of randomized controlled clinical trials, is highly manipulative and utterly unethical. It is not medically ethical to allow a COVID-19 patient to deteriorate in the early stages of the infection when there is an inexpensive, safe, and demonstrably effective HCQ treatment that CDC’s and NIAID’s own studies show blocks coronavirus replication. It would be equally unethical to enroll sick individuals in such studies—as Dr. Fauci proposes—in which half the infected patients would receive a placebo.

Dr. Fauci’s hypocrisy is particularly acute since the 21st Century Cures Act, which Congress passed in 2016, directs the FDA to accept precisely the type of “real world” evidence reported by treating physicians like Drs. Zelenko, Raoult, Risch, Kory, McCullough, Gold, and Chinese doctors, in lieu of controlled clinical trials, for licensing new products.160

The Cures Act161 recognizes that doctors and scientists can obtain very useful information when treating patients and observing the results outside of a formal trial setting.

For Big Pharma, no milestone was more important during the current pandemic than neutralizing HCQ to prevent its widespread beneficial use.

Dr. Fauci’s shocking inconsistency and ethical breaches are congruent with his long history of promoting Big Pharma’s more profitable patented products and using his power and influence to advance its agenda without regard to public health. Dr. Fauci’s leadership role in this deadly scandal is

consistent with his long history of discrediting therapies that compete with vaccines and other patented pharmaceutical products.

Thanks to Dr. Fauci’s strategic campaign, most Americans are still unable to obtain HCQ for early treatment of COVID-19, even fewer Americans are able to access it as preventive medicine, and fewer still are aware of its benefits.

His bizarre and inexplicable actions give credence to the suspicions held by many Americans that Dr. Fauci is working to prolong the epidemic in order to impose expensive patented drugs and vaccines on a captive population, during a pandemic that has crashed the world economy, caused famines, and destroyed lives. While Dr. Fauci held us hostage waiting for what turned out to be imperfect vaccines, his own agency attributed over half a million deaths in America to COVID.

Professor Risch believes that Dr. Fauci knowingly lied about the drug hydroxychloroquine and used his influence to get the FDA to suppress it because he and other bureaucrats are “in bed with other forces that are causing them to make decisions that are not based on the science [and are] killing Americans.”162

Moreover, Dr. Risch specifically claims that Fauci and the FDA have caused “the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans who could have been saved by” HCQ.163


By the summer of 2020, front-line physicians had discovered another COVID remedy that equalled HCQ in its staggering, life-saving efficacy.

Five years earlier, two Merck scientists won the Nobel Prize for developing ivermectin (IVM), a drug with unprecedented firepower against a wide range of human parasites, including roundworm, hookworm, river blindness, and lymphatic filariasis.1 That salute was the Nobel Committee’s only award to an infectious disease medication in 60 years. FDA approved IVM as safe and effective for human use in 1996. WHO includes IVM

(along with HCQ) on its inventory of “essential medicines”—its list of remedies so necessary, safe, efficacious, and affordable that WHO deems easy access to them as essential “to satisfy the priority health care needs of the population.”2 WHO has recommended administering ivermectin to entire populations to treat people who might have parasitic infections—meaning they consider it safe enough to give to people who haven’t even been diagnosed.3 Millions of people have consumed billions of IVM doses as an anti-parasitic, with minimal side effects. Ivermectin’s package insert suggests that it is at least as safe as the most popular over-the-counter medications, including Tylenol and aspirin.

Researchers at Japan’s Kitasato Institute published a 2011 paper describing IVM in terms almost never used for any other drug:

There are few drugs that can seriously lay claim to the title of “Wonder drug,” penicillin and aspirin being two that have perhaps had greatest beneficial impact on the health and wellbeing of Mankind. But ivermectin can also be considered alongside those worthy contenders, based on its versatility, safety, and the beneficial impact that it has had, and continues to have, worldwide—especially on hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people.4

Three statues—at the Carter Center, at the headquarters of the World Bank, and at the headquarters of the World Health Organization—honor the development of ivermectin.

Because since 2012, multiple in-vitro studies have demonstrated that IVM inhibits the replication of a wide range of viruses. Nature Magazine published a 2020 study reviewing 50 years of research finding IVM “highly effective against microorganisms including some viruses,” and reporting the results in animal studies demonstrating “antiviral effects of ivermectin in viruses such as Zika, dengue, yellow fever, West Nile . . .”5

An April 3, 2020 article entitled “Lab experiments show anti-parasitic drug, ivermectin, eliminates SARS-CoV-2 in cells in 48 hours,”6 by Australian researchers at Monash and Melbourne Universities and the Royal

Melbourne Hospital, first won IVM global attention as a potential treatment for COVID. The international press initially raved that this safe, inexpensive, well-known, and readily available drug had demolished SARS- CoV-2 in cell cultures. “We found that even a single dose could essentially remove all viral RNA by 48 hours and that even at 24 hours there was a really significant reduction in it,” said lead researcher Dr. Kylie Wagstaff.7 Based on this study, on May 8, 2020, Peru—then under siege by a crushing COVID endemic— adopted ivermectin in its national guidelines. “Peruvian doctors already knew the medicine, widely prescribed it for parasites, and health authorities knew it was safe and were comfortable with it,” recalls Dr. Pierre Kory. COVID deaths dropped precipitously—by 14-fold—in the regions where the Peruvian government effectively distributed ivermectin. Reductions in deaths correlated with the extent of IVM distributions in all 25 states. In December 2020, Peru’s new president, under pressure from WHO, severely restricted IVM availability and COVID cases rebounded with deaths increasing 13-fold.8

In prophylaxis studies, ivermectin repeatedly demonstrated far greater efficacy against COVID than vaccines at a fraction of the cost.

In Argentina, for example, in the summer of 2020, Dr. Hector Carvallo conducted a randomized placebo-controlled trial of ivermectin as a preventative, finding 100 percent efficacy against COVID. Carvallo’s team found no infections among the 788 workers who took weekly ivermectin prophylaxis, whereas 58 percent of the 407 controls had become ill with COVID-19.9

A later observational study10 from Bangladesh—also investigating ivermectin as a pre-exposure prophylaxis against COVID-19 among health care workers—found nearly as spectacular results: only four of the 58 volunteers who took a minimal dose of ivermectin (12 mg once per month for four months) developed mild COVID-19 symptoms, compared to 44 of the 60 health care workers who had declined the medication.

Furthermore, a 2021 study suggested that a key biological mechanism of IVM— competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—was not specific to any coronavirus variant and therefore, unlike vaccines, ivermectin would probably be effective against all future variants.11

As early as March 1, 2020, some front-line ICU and ER doctors began using ivermectin in combination with HCQ in early treatment protocols. Dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter,12 a Belgian physician working in Miami, began using the drug March 15 and immediately saw an uptick in recoveries. He published an excellent paper on June 9. Meanwhile, two Western physicians using ivermectin in Bangladesh also reported a very high rate of recoveries, even among patients in later states of illness.13

Since March 2020, when doctors first used IVM against COVID-19, more than 20 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have confirmed its miraculous efficacy against COVID for both inpatient and outpatient treatment. Six of seven meta-analyses of IVM treatment RCTs completed in 2021 found notable reductions in COVID-19 mortality. The relevant studies “all showed significant benefit for high-risk outpatients,” says the eminent Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch. The only studies where its performance was anything short of stellar were those that investigated its efficacy in patients in very late stages of COVID.

But even late-stage patients showed benefits in almost all studies, although somewhat less dramatic. According to a 2020 review by McCullough et al., “Numerous clinical studies—including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials—showed large magnitude benefits of ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment, and also in late-stage disease management. Taken together . . . dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy and infer a signal of benefit with acceptable safety.”14

Early in January 2021, Dr. David Chesler, a geriatric specialist who had treated 191 infected patients since the previous spring at seven Virginia nursing homes, wrote to Dr. Fauci claiming that he had achieved a mortality

rate of 8 percent using ivermectin—half (and 146,000 deaths less than) the US average in elder-care facilities. In his letter to Dr. Fauci, Chesler attached a peer-reviewed case study documenting reports of similar efficacy from other countries. Neither Dr. Fauci nor anyone else from NIAID replied to Dr. Chesler’s letter.15

The Annals of Dermatology and Venereology reported that in a French nursing home, all 69 residents—average age 90—and 52 staff survived a COVID-19 outbreak.16,17 As it turns out, they had all taken ivermectin for a scabies infestation. COVID decimated the surrounding community, but only seven elder home residents and four staff were affected, and all had mild illness. None required oxygen or hospitalization.

Research suggests that ivermectin may work through as many as 20 separate mechanisms. Among them, ivermectin functions as an “ionophore,” facilitating transfer of zinc into the cells, which inhibits viral replication. Ivermectin stops replication of COVID-19, seasonal flu, and many other viruses through this and other mechanisms. For example, a March 2021 study18 by Choudhury et al., found that “Ivermectin was found as a blocker of viral replicase, protease and human TMPRSS2, which could be the biophysical basis behind its antiviral efficiency.” The drug also reduces inflammation via multiple pathways, thereby protecting against organ damage. Ivermectin furthermore impairs the spike protein’s ability to attach to the ACE2 receptor on human cell membranes, preventing viral entry. Moreover, the drug prevents blood clots through binding to spike protein, and also deters the spike protein from binding to CD147 on red blood cells, which would otherwise trigger clumping. When patients take IVM before exposure, the drug prevents infection, which halts onward transmission, and helps protect the entire community.

In March, 2021, a published study by Peter McCullough and 57 other front-line physicians from multiple countries found that “Our early ambulatory treatment regimen was associated with estimated 87.6 percent and 74.9 percent reductions in hospitalization and death.”19

Many other studies echo Dr. McCullough’s results. The average reduction in mortality, based on 18 trials, is 75 percent,20according to a January 2021 meta-analysis presentation to the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel. A WHO-sponsored meta-review21 of 11 studies likewise suggests ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 mortality by as much as 83 percent. Below is a compilation of seven meta-analyses looking at ivermectin’s effect on mortality. Each one found a large benefit, ranging between 57 percent and 83 percent reduction in deaths:


Below is a compilation of the studies of ivermectin for COVID prevention. On average, used prophylactically, ivermectin prevented 86 percent of the adverse outcomes. Over all these studies, ivermectin protected 6 of every 7 people who used it to prevent COVID.

And of 29 studies of early treatment of COVID using ivermectin, listed on opposite page, the average benefit was 66 percent. The 3 tables presented here and their adjacent forest plots can be found on the website. They are part of a much larger website that has compiled all completed, validated studies for each of 27 different treatments for COVID-19, at

A January 2021 study in The Lancet found that ivermectin dramatically reduced the intensity and duration of symptoms and viral loading.22

In March 2020, Dr. Paul Marik, chief of intensive care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, began posting treatment guidelines for the


care of COVID patients. Dr. Marik, one of the best known and well- published professors of intensive care medicine, recruited a team of the most highly respected and most published leading ICU physicians from across the globe to systematically research all possible approaches to this new virus. Soon, his organization, Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), created a website and posted their first treatment protocols in mid- April 2020. By November 2020, the FLCCC doctors felt there was enough evidence to add ivermectin to their protocols.23 “The data show the ability of the drug ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.”24 Peer-reviewers green- lighted the clinical and scientific rationale for FLCCC’s hospital protocols, and the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine published them in mid- December 2020.25 FLCCC also published on its website a one-page summary (regularly updated) of the clinical trial evidence for ivermectin.26

In December 2020, FLCCC President and Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care specialist, testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.27 In riveting testimony, Kory described:

Six studies with a total of over 2,400 patients—all showing near-perfect prevention of transmission of this virus in people exposed to COVID-19 . . . Three RCT’s randomized controlled studies and multiple large case series— involving over 3,000 patients showing stunning recovery among hospitalized patients and four large randomized controlled trials involving 3,000 patients all showing large and statistically significant reductions in mortality when treated with ivermectin.

Two weeks later, on January 6, 2021, Dr. Kory spoke to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel.28 Along with Éminence grise Dr. Paul Marik, and other members of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance also presented positive data on ivermectin,

as did the WHO’s meta-analysis author, Dr. Andrew Hill who they had invited to present with them.

The Financial Times followed with an article citing Hill’s research for the WHO at the University of Liverpool. Hill’s meta-analysis of six ivermectin studies showed a cumulative 75 percent reduction of risk of death in a subset of moderate to severe COVID-19 patients, in whom the drug reduced inflammation and sped up elimination of the virus.29

Kory testified that “IVM could reduce hospitalizations by almost 90 percent and deaths by almost 75 percent.” Kory is one of a multitude of leading front-line physicians, including McCullough, Florida’s Surgeon General Joe Ladopo, Professor Paul Marik, Dr. Joseph Varone, and mRNA vaccine inventor, Dr. Robert Malone, and many, many others, who believe that early treatment with ivermectin would have avoided 75 percent-80 percent of deaths and saved our country a trillion dollars in treasure.

“COVID resulted in ~6 million hospitalizations and 700,000+ deaths in America,” says Dr. Kory. “If HCQ and IVM had been widely used instead of systematically suppressed, we could have prevented 75 percent, or at least 500,000 deaths, and 80 percent of hospitalizations, or 4.8 million. We could have spared the states hundreds of billions of dollars.”

Ten days after the FLCCC presentation, on January 14, the NIH’s COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel changed its previously negative recommendation to doctors regarding ivermectin to “neither for nor against,” cracking open the door just a little for physicians to use IVM as a therapeutic option. That is the same neutral recommendation the NIH committee members gave for monoclonal antibody and convalescent plasma treatments. Although the hopes were that both of these latter treatments would be effective when used early, convalescent plasma, “a favorite of nearly all academic medical centers in the country, failed miserably to show efficacy in numerous clinical trials” said Dr. Kory, while monoclonal antibodies did prove effective in preventing hospitalization.


NIH’s neutral January 14, 202130 “non-recommendation,”31 issued in the face of strong evidence of ivermectin’s safety and efficacy for COVID-19, was the first obvious signal of the agency’s determination to suppress IVM. NIH claimed that there was “Insufficient evidence . . . to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.”

NIH shrouded its process for reaching that non-recommendation in secrecy, refusing to disclose the panel members who took part in the ivermectin deliberations, and redacting their names from the documents that various Freedom of Information Act requests compelled the agency to produce. For a time, only Dr. Fauci, Francis Collins, and the panelists themselves knew their identities. NIH took extreme measures to keep the names secret, fighting all the way into federal court to shield the proceedings from transparency.32,33

As Collins and Dr. Fauci maneuvered to shade the process from sunlight, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in response to a separate FOIA request, disclosed the group’s nine members.34 Three members of the working group, Adaora Adimora, Roger Bedimo, and David V. Glidden, had disclosed financial relationships with Merck.

A fourth member of the NIH Guidelines Committee, Susanna Naggie, received a $155 million grant35 to conduct further studies of ivermectin following the NIH non-recommendation. NIAID’s windfall payoff to Naggie would have been unlikely to go forward if the committee voted to approve IVM.

Today, as Dr. Fauci moves the US to eliminate all use of ivermectin, other countries are using more of it.

In February 2021, the head of the Tokyo Metropolitan Medical Association held a press conference to call for adding ivermectin to its outpatient treatment protocol. Several Indian states had added ivermectin to their list of essential medicines to fight COVID-19.36 Indonesia’s government not only authorized the use of the drug but also created a website showing its real-time availability.37 After giving out 3rd booster doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, but still seeing high rates of COVID- 19 hospitalizations and deaths, Israel started using ivermectin officially in September 2021, with the health insurance companies distributing ivermectin to high-risk citizens. El Salvador distributes IVM for free to all of its citizens.38

Nations whose residents have easy access to ivermectin invariably see immediate and dramatic declines in COVID deaths. Hospitals in Indonesia started using ivermectin on July 22, 2021. By the first week of August, cases and deaths were plummeting.39

A December 2020 study showed that African and Asian countries that widely used ivermectin to treat and prevent various parasitic diseases enjoy some of the world’s lowest-reported COVID case and mortality rates.40 After controlling for confounding factors, including the Human Development Index (HDI), the eleven African nations with membership in the African Programme for Onchocerciasis (aka “river blindness,” for which ivermectin is standard of care) APOC show 28 percent lower mortality than non-APOC African countries, and an 8 percent lower rate of COVID-19 infection.

On April 20, 2021, India’s medical societies added ivermectin to the national protocol. According to Indian and international news, an aggressive campaign by the government of the Indian state of New Delhi, where COVID was raging, showed stunning success. The Desert Review reported that in April 2021, New Delhi was experiencing a COVID epidemic crisis.

The state government obliterated 97 percent of Delhi cases by distributing ivermectin.41 “IVM Crushed COVID in New Delhi,” wrote Dr. Justus R. Hope, M.D.42 Following IVM’s introduction, according to TrialSite News, cases dropped dramatically. “At the national level, the massive surge that overtook the country at the beginning of April slowed exponentially after the new COVID-19 protocol was introduced, which includes the use of ivermectin and budesonide.” 43 India showed that early combination therapy —budesonide, ivermectin, doxycycline, and zinc, costing between two and five dollars—made COVID symptoms disappear within three to five days. By January 2021, a country of more than 1.3 billion people and a vaccine uptake of almost 7.6 percent nationally44 had witnessed only 150,000 COVID deaths.45 By comparison, the US, with a population of 331 million, had recorded 357,000 deaths.46 Many Indian officials and doctors consider ivermectin a miracle drug for controlling the outbreak. A natural experiment involving two Indian states—Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu—with opposite COVID strategies helped cement that impression.

With 241 million people, Uttar Pradesh has the equivalent of two-thirds of the United States population. According to the Indian Express:47 “Uttar Pradesh was the first state in the country to introduce large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of ivermectin. In May-June 2020, a team at Agra [Uttar Pradesh’s fourth largest city], led by Dr. Anshul Pareek, administered ivermectin to all RRT team members in the district on an experimental basis. None of them developed Covid-19 despite being in daily contact with patients who had tested positive for the virus.48 Uttar Pradesh State Surveillance Officer Vikssendu Agrawal added that, based on the findings from Agra, the state government sanctioned the use of ivermectin as a prophylactic for all the contacts of COVID patients and began administering doses to infected persons.

By September, the Uttar Pradesh government announced that the state’s 33 districts are virtually devoid of active cases, despite having a vaccination rate of only 5.8 percent.49 The Hindustan Times reported, “Overall, the state

has a total of 199 active cases, while the positivity rate came down to less than 0.01 per cent. The recovery rate, meanwhile, has improved to 98.7 per cent.”50 When America’s vaccination rate was at 54 percent, cases were still rising and governments were still imposing draconian restrictions. As of August 10, 2021, the United States saw 161,990 new cases and 1,049 new deaths.51 Uttar Pradesh, in contrast, saw only 19 new cases and one death— more than 1,000 times lower than the US.52

Dr. Agrawal attributes the timely introduction of ivermectin to ending the first COVID wave: “Despite being the state with the largest population base and a high population density, we have maintained a relatively low positivity rate and cases per million of population.”53

According to TrialSite News, despite the Indian government’s success in using ivermectin and budesonide, “the media hasn’t shown interest in sharing this news. Instead, the comments continue to promote remdesivir as an effective drug, and the few media outlets that do refer to ivermectin call it an ‘unproven medicine’ or an ‘outdated treatment.’ It is as if there are two different treatment realities, one on the ground and one in the local health systems. Millions of patients are now receiving ivermectin, yet one would never know by the media topics.”54

Meanwhile, the Indian state of Tamil Nadu continued using Anthony Fauci’s protocol of administering remdesivir, outlawing ivermectin, and discouraging early treatment. According to the Indian Times, Tamil Nadu continues to experience cases and fatalities that perfectly match the US catastrophe.55

The massive and overwhelming evidence in favor of ivermectin includes scientist Dr. Tess Lawrie’s highly regarded, peer-reviewed meta-analysis.

Dr. Lawrie assessed 15 trials, finding a cumulative benefit of IVM in reducing deaths of 62 percent. Although the data quality of the ivermectin for prevention studies was less strong, they showed that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID infections by 86 percent.56

Dr. Lawrie, a world-renowned data researcher and scientific consultant, is an iconic eminence among global public health scientists and agencies. The Desert Review has deemed her “The Conscience of Medicine”57 because of her reputation for competence, precision, and integrity. Lawrie’s consulting group, the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy, Ltd. performs the scientific reviews that develop and support guidelines for global public health agencies, including the WHO and European governments, as well as international scientific and health consortia like the Cochrane Collaboration. Her clients have included a retinue of virtually all the larger government regulators now involved in the suppression of IVM and other repurposed drugs.

At the end of December 2000, Dr. Lawrie happened on a YouTube video of Pierre Kory’s Senate testimony on ivermectin. Her interest piqued, Dr. Lawrie conducted a “pragmatic rapid review” between Christmas and New Year’s to validate the 27 studies from the medical literature that Kory cited, assessing each of them for quality and power.

“After a week, I realized it was a go. IVM’s safety was well-established as a widely used dewormer,” she told me. “I was startled by the magnitude of its benefits. Its efficacy against COVID was consistently clear in multiple studies. I thought that all these people were dying and this was a moral obligation—this drug should have been rolled out.” Dr. Lawrie dispatched an urgent letter to British Health Minister Matt Hancock on January 4 with her Rapid Review attached. She never heard back from Hancock. But in a suspicious coincidence, someone leaked a meta-review by WHO researcher Andrew Hill to the Daily Mail.58 Three days later, Hill posted a preprint of his study. In the one month since he testified enthusiastically beside Dr. Kory in favor of ivermectin before the January 13 NIH panel, Hill had made a neck-wrenching volte face. Cumulatively, the seven studies in Hill’s original meta-review still showed a dramatic reduction in hospitalizations and deaths among patients receiving IVM. The leaked version of Hill’s meta-review included all the same papers that formerly supported his gung-ho promotion

of IVM as a miraculous cure for COVID. Hill had altered only his conclusions. Now he claimed that those studies comprised a low quality of evidence, and so although they yielded a highly positive result, Hill assigned the result a “low certainty.” He could then declare that WHO should not recommend IVM without first performing long-term, randomized placebo- controlled studies that would require many months if not longer. “Someone got to him,” suggests Kory. “Someone sent him the memo. Andrew Hill has been captured by some really dark forces.”


On January 7, Dr. Lawrie summarized the overwhelming evidence from her Rapid Review in a video directed at British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, urging him to break the logjam and roll out IVM immediately. Her video, says Dr. Kory, was “absolutely convincing.” She forwarded the video appeal to the British and South African Prime Ministers on January 7. She heard nothing from either.

On January 13, 2021, Dr. Lawrie used her convening power to assemble an invitation-only symposium of twenty of the world’s leading experts,

including researchers, physicians, patient advocates, and government consultancy advisers, to review her meta-analysis and make evidence-based recommendations on the use of ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19. She called the conference the British ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) study.

“Tess Lawrie did exactly what WHO should have done,” says Dr. Kory. “She made a thorough, open, and transparent review of all the scientific evidence.”

During the daylong conference, the conferees reviewed each study in Dr. Lawrie’s rapid meta-review, agreeing that the evidence supported an immediate rollout. Before adjourning, Dr. Lawrie and the scientific panel committed to conducting a full-scale Cochrane-style meta-review of all the scientific literature. Due to the mortal urgencies, they pledged to reconvene in a much larger group on January 14.

In the meantime, Dr. Lawrie managed to reach Andrew Hill by phone on January 6, two days after the Daily Mail leaked his meta-review. She informed him that some of the leading lights of science had agreed to collaborate on the Cochrane-style meta-review, and she proposed that Hill should join the effort as a collaborator. She offered to share her data with Hill and, after the call, she sent him her spreadsheets. Dr. Lawrie had coordinated many Cochrane Reviews for WHO and was indisputably among the world’s ranking experts in systematically reviewing study data. Dr. Lawrie invited Hill to co-author the Cochrane Review and to attend the next BIRD meeting on January 13.59 It was an exciting opportunity. Under normal circumstances, Hill should have pounced on this chance to serve as lead author with some of the world’s most prestigious researchers in creating a professional, bulletproof Evidence-to-Decision framework for the WHO. He was nevertheless noncommittal. He did agree to review Dr. Lawrie’s spreadsheet.

Dr. Lawrie and her colleagues launched a marathon effort to conduct a brand new review of all published studies in the medical literature from

scratch, assessing each for power and bias. She presented her draft to the exclusive BIRD group in mid-January. All agreed that the common-sense approach was to release ivermectin. She submitted the protocol to Cochrane for external scientific review.

British and Scandinavian scientists founded the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993 to address pharmaceutical industry corruption that had become pervasive in clinical trials for new drugs. Today, the Cochrane Collaboration is a coalition of 30,000 independent scientists and 53 large research institutions who volunteer to routinely review industry data using evidence- based science to advise regulatory agencies.60 Cochrane seeks to restore integrity and standardized scientific methodologies to the crooked realm of drug development trials. Cochrane uses standardized parameters and rigorous methodologies for evaluating evidence. Cochrane reviewers systematically assess the power of each individual study within the meta- review, interpreting data to identify and discount for bias, and to score each study as “high,” “moderate,” or “low” certainty evidence and to determine whether it’s acceptable to pool the data in a single meta-review.

Dr. Lawrie knew that to make its ivermectin determination, WHO would rely on Hill’s study and another study from McMaster University known as the “Together Trial.” McMaster was hopelessly and irredeemably conflicted. NIH gave McMaster $1,081,541 in 2020 and 2021.61 A separate group of McMaster University scientists was, at that time, engaged in developing their own COVID vaccine—an effort that would never pay dividends if WHO recommended ivermectin as Standard of Care. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was funding the massive “Together Trial” testing ivermectin, HCQ, and other potential drugs against COVID, in Brazil and other locations. Critics accused Gates and the McMaster researchers of designing that study to make ivermectin fail. Among other factors, the study targeted a population that was already heavily utilizing ivermectin, creating a confounding variable (placebo recipients could obtain over the counter ivermectin) that would clearly hide efficacy. McMaster University

researchers would certainly know that a positive recommendation for IVM would cost their university hundreds of millions. The Together Trial organizer was Gates’ trial designer, Ed Mills, a scientist with heavy conflicts with Pharma and a reputation as a notorious industry biostitute.

Dr. Lawrie knew that the only way to salvage the WHO Guidelines and produce a high-quality scientific study was to persuade Mills to do a full- scale Cochrane Collaboration meta-analysis. The following week, she spoke to Hill again, this time by Zoom.

The Zoom call was recorded.

During her first conversation with Hill, Dr. Lawrie had concluded that the techniques that Hill employed throughout his meta-review were “deeply flawed,” and that Hill lacked the experience to perform a systematic review or a meta-analysis: “I was surprised he had been given the job.”

In fact, the transcript of her January 13 conversation suggests that Hill was completely unfamiliar with the requirements of a systematic review, which requires researchers to evaluate and score each study using uniform criteria to assess power and the risk of bias, and to conduct a “sensitivity analysis” to exclude studies with high risk of bias. This kind of review necessarily judges the reliability of the authors of each participating study. The Cochrane reviewers must be prepared to make harsh judgments about the work quality, integrity, and potential prejudices of each listed co-author of all the studies included in their review, based in part on their individual competence, and the financial conflicts of interest potentially affecting each researcher. But Hill, bizarrely, had included the names of all the authors of all of his seven accumulated studies on the list of the co-authors of his meta- review. “That’s the equivalent of asking the catcher in a baseball team to also play the umpire,” says Dr. Kory. “No one with any familiarity with the game would make that mistake. Hill was supposed to be judging these authors. Instead, he treated them as his collaborators.”

Dr. Lawrie gently informed Hill that that was “irregular for a meta- analysis,” adding, “When you do a systematic review, you usually don’t

include the authors of the studies because that inherently biases your conclusions. It’s got to be independent.”

Dr. Lawrie explained that Hill’s paper, in addition to listing as co-authors the researchers whose work he was supposed to be evaluating, makes no pretense of systematically grading evidence according to standardized protocols. Those deficiencies make it utterly useless, she explained, for providing “clinical guidelines to the WHO.” Furthermore, Hill’s meta- review looked at only one outcome, the deaths of COVID patients, which was only a small subset of the criteria and endpoints in the studies he had analyzed. She told Hill: “You don’t just do a meta-analysis . . . when there’s all those other outcomes that you didn’t even meta-analyze. You just meta- analyzed the death outcome [using only a fraction of the available evidence], and then [said], ‘Oh, we need more studies.’”

Dr. Lawrie asked Hill to explain his U-turn on ivermectin, which his own analysis found overwhelmingly effective. “How can you do this?” she inquired politely. “You are causing irreparable harm.”

Hill explained that he was in a “tricky situation,” because his sponsors had put pressure on him. Hill is a University of Liverpool virologist who serves as an advisor to Bill Gates and the Clinton Foundation. “He told me his sponsor was Unitaid.” Unitaid is a quasi-governmental advocacy organization funded by the BMGF and several European countries—France, the United Kingdom, Norway, Brazil, Spain, the Republic of Korea, and Chile—to lobby governments to finance the purchase of medicines from pharmaceutical multinationals for distribution to the African poor. Its primary purpose seems to be protecting the patent and intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies—which, as we shall see, is the priority passion for Bill Gates—and to insure their prompt and full payment. About 63 percent of its funding comes from a surtax on airline tickets. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation holds a board seat and chairs Unitaid’s Executive Committee, and the BMGF has given Unitaid $150 million since 2005.62Various Gates-funded surrogate and front organizations, like Global Fund,

Gavi, and UNICEF also contribute, as does the pharmaceutical industry. The BMGF and Gates personally own large stakes in many of the pharmaceutical companies that profit from this boondoggle. Gates also uses Unitaid to fund corrupt science by tame and compromised researchers like Hill that legitimizes his policy directives to the WHO. Unitaid gave $40 million to Andrew Hill’s employer, the University of Liverpool, four days before the publication of Hill’s study.

Hill, a PhD, confessed that the sponsors were pressuring him to influence his conclusion. When Dr. Lawrie asked who was trying to influence him, Hill said, “I mean, I, I think I’m in a very sensitive position here. . . .”

Dr. Tess Lawrie, MD, PhD: “Lots of people are in sensitive positions; they’re in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine.”
Dr. Hill: “Well. . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “This is what I don’t get, you know, because you’re not a clinician. You’re not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine prevents deaths by 80 percent. So 80 percent of those people who are dying today don’t need to die because there’s ivermectin.”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “There are a lot, as I said, there are a lot of different opinions about this. As I say, some people simply. . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “We are looking at the data; it doesn’t matter what other people say. We are the ones who are tasked with . . . look[ing] at the data and reassur[ing] everybody that this cheap and effective treatment will save lives. It’s clear. You don’t have to say, well, so-and-so says this, and so-and- so says that. It’s absolutely crystal clear. We can save lives today. If we can get the government to buy ivermectin.”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I don’t think it’s as simple as that, because you’ve got trials. . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “It is as simple as that. We don’t have to wait for studies . . . we have enough evidence now that shows that ivermectin saves lives, it prevents hospitalization. It saves the clinical staff going to work every day,

[and] being exposed. And frankly, I’m shocked at how you are not taking responsibility for that decision. And you still haven’t told me who is [influencing you]? Who is giving you that opinion? Because you keep saying you’re in a sensitive position. I appreciate you are in a sensitive position, if you’re being paid for something and you’re being told [to support] a certain narrative . . . that is a sensitive position. So, then you kind of have to decide, well, do I take this payment? Because in actual fact, [you] can see [your false] conclusions . . . are going to harm people. So maybe you need to say, I’m not going to be paid for this. I can see the evidence, and I will join the Cochrane team as a volunteer, like everybody on the Cochrane team is a volunteer. Nobody’s being paid for this work.”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “I think fundamentally, we’re reaching the [same] conclusion about the survival benefit. We’re both finding a significant effect on survival.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “No, I’m grading my evidence. I’m saying I’m sure of this evidence. I’m saying I’m absolutely sure it prevents deaths. There is nothing as effective as this treatment. What is your reluctance? Whose conclusion is that?” Hill then complains again that outsiders are influencing him.

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “You keep referring to other people. It’s like you don’t trust yourself. If you were to trust yourself, you would know that you have made an error and you need to correct it because you know, in your heart, that this treatment prevents death.”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I know, I know for a fact that the data right now is not going to get the drug approved.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “But, Andy—know this will come out . . . It will come out that there were all these barriers to the truth being told to the public and to the evidence being presented. So please, this is your opportunity just to acknowledge [the truth] in your review, change your conclusions, and come on board with this Cochrane Review, which will be definitive. It will be the review that shows the evidence and gives the proof. This was the consensus

on Wednesday night’s meeting with 20 experts.” Hill protests that NIH will not agree to recommend IVM.
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby.” Dr. Andrew Hill: “That’s not something I know about.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Well, all I’m saying is this smacks of corruption and you are being played.”
Dr. Hill: “I don’t think so.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Well then, you have no excuse because your work in that review is flawed. It’s rushed. It is not properly put together.” Dr. Lawrie points out that Hill’s study ignores a host of clinical outcomes that affect patients.

She scolds Hill for ignoring the beneficial effects of IVM as prophylaxis, its effect on speed to PCR negativity, on the need for mechanical ventilation, on reduced admissions to ICUs, and other outcomes that are clinically meaningful.

She adds, “This is bad research . . . bad research. So, at this point, I don’t know . . . you seem like a nice guy, but I am really, really worried about you.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Okay. Yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s a difficult situation.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “No, you might be in a difficult situation. I’m not, because I have no paymaster. I can tell the truth . . . How can you deliberately try and mess it up . . . you know?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “It’s not messing it up. It’s saying that we need, we need a short time to look at some more studies.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “So, how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily—up to you? What is, what is the timeline that you’ve allowed for this, then?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I think . . . I think that it goes to WHO and the NIH and the FDA and the EMEA. And they’ve got to decide when they think enough’s enough.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “How do they decide? Because there’s nobody giving them good evidence synthesis, because yours is certainly not good.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, when yours comes out, which will be in the very near future . . . at the same time, there’ll be other trials producing results, which will nail it with a bit of luck. And we’ll be there.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “It’s already nailed.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “No, that’s, that’s not the view of the WHO and the FDA.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “You’d rather… risk loads of people’s lives. Do you know if you and I stood together on this, we could present a united front and we could get this thing. We could make it happen. We could save lives; we could prevent [British National Health Service doctors and nurses] people from getting infected. We could prevent the elderly from dying.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “These are studies conducted around the world in several different countries. And they’re all saying the same thing. Plus there’s all sorts of other evidence to show that it works. Randomized controlled trials do not need to be the be-all and end-all. But [even] based on the randomized controlled trials, it is clear that ivermectin works… It prevents deaths and it prevents harms and it improves outcomes for people . . . I can see we’re getting nowhere because you have an agenda, whether you like it or not, whether you admit to it or not, you have an agenda. And the agenda is to kick this down the road as far as you can. So . . . we are trying to save lives. That’s what we do. I’m a doctor and I’m going to save as many lives as I can. And I’m going to do that through getting the message [out] on ivermectin. . . . Okay. Unfortunately, your work is going to impair that, and you seem to be able to bear the burden of many, many deaths, which I cannot do.” Then she asks again.
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Would you tell me? I would like to know who pays you as a consultant through WHO.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “It’s Unitaid.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “All right. So who helped to . . . ? Whose conclusions are those on the review that you’ve done? Who is not listed as an author? Who’s actually contributed?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I mean, I don’t really want to get into, I mean, it . . . Unitaid . . . .”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “I think that . . . It needs to be clear. I would like to know who, who are these other voices that are in your paper that are not acknowledged. Does Unitaid have a say? Do they influence what you write?”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah.” Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Okay. So, who is it in Unitaid, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t . . . .”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “So they have a say in your conclusions.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Yeah.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Could you please give me a name of someone in Unitaid I could speak to, so that I can share my evidence and hope to try and persuade them to understand it?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Oh, I’ll have a think about who to, to offer you with a name…. But I mean, this is very difficult because I’m, you know, I’ve, I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance….”
Dr. Lawrie interjects: “Who are these people? Who are these people saying this?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Yeah . . . it’s a very strong lobby . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Okay. Look I think I can see [we’re] kind of [at] a dead end, because you seem to have a whole lot of excuses, but, um, you know, that to, to justify bad research practice. So I’m really, really sorry about this, Andy. I really, really wish, and you’ve explained quite clearly to me, in both what you’ve been saying and in your body language that you’re not entirely comfortable with your conclusions, and that you’re in a tricky position

because of whatever influence people are having on you, and including the people who have paid you and who have basically written that conclusion for you.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “You’ve just got to understand I’m in a difficult position. I’m trying to steer a middle ground and it’s extremely hard.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Yeah. Middle ground. The middle ground is not a middle ground… [Y]ou’ve taken a position right to the other extreme calling for further trials that are going to kill people. So this will come out, and you will be culpable. And I can’t understand why you don’t see that, because the evidence is there and you are not just denying it, but your work’s actually actively obfuscating the truth. And this will come out. So I’m really sorry . . . As I say, you seem like a nice guy, but I think you’ve just kind of been misled somehow.” Hill promised he would do everything in his power to get ivermectin approved if she would give him six weeks.

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, what I hope is that this, this stalemate that we’re in doesn’t last very long. It lasts a matter of weeks. And I guarantee I will push for this to last for as short amount of time as possible.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for? How long do you think you will be paid to [make] the stalemate… go on?” Dr. Andrew Hill: “From my side. Okay . . . I think end of February, we will be there six weeks.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “How many people die every day?”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Fifteen thousand people a day times six weeks . . . Because at this rate, all other countries are getting ivermectin except the UK and the USA, because the UK and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby.”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “My goal is to get the drug approved and to do everything I can to get it approved so that it reaches the maximum. . . .”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “You’re not doing everything you can, because everything you can would involve saying to those people who are paying you, ‘I can see

this prevents deaths. So I’m not going to support this conclusion anymore, and I’m going to tell the truth.’”
Dr. Andrew Hill: “What, I’ve got to do my responsibilities to get as much support as I can to get this drug approved as quickly as possible.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Well, you’re not going to get it approved the way you’ve written that conclusion. You’ve actually shot yourself in the foot, and you’ve shot us all in the foot. All of . . . everybody trying to do something good. You have actually completely destroyed it.”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Okay. Well, that’s where we’ll, I guess we’ll have to agree to differ.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Yeah. Well, I don’t know how you sleep at night, honestly.”

At the conclusion of the January 14 BIRD conference, Dr. Lawrie delivered a monumental closing address that should be recorded among the most important speeches in the annals of medical history. Dr. Lawrie spoke out at considerable personal risk, since her livelihood and career largely rely on the very agencies she targeted for criticism.

Dr. Lawrie began by endorsing the miraculous efficacy of IVM.

Had ivermectin been employed in 2020 when medical colleagues around the world first alerted the authorities to its efficacy, millions of lives could have been saved, and the pandemic with all its associated suffering and loss brought to a rapid and timely end.

Dr. Lawrie told the audience that the suppression of ivermectin was a signal that Pharma’s pervasive corruption had turned a medical cartel against patients and against humanity.

The story of ivermectin has highlighted that we are at a remarkable juncture in medical history. The tools that we use to heal and our connection with our patients are being systematically undermined by relentless disinformation stemming from corporate greed. The story of ivermectin shows that we as a public have misplaced our trust in the authorities and have underestimated the extent to which money and power corrupts.

Dr. Lawrie called for reform of the method used to analyze scientific evidence.

They who design the trials and control the data also control the outcome. So, this system of industry-led trials needs to be put to an end. Data from ongoing and future trials of novel COVID treatments must be independently controlled and analyzed. Anything less than total transparency cannot be trusted.

Dr. Lawrie called out the corruption of modern medicine by Big Pharma and other interests and attributed the barbaric suppression of IVM to the single- minded obsession with more profitable vaccines.

Since then, hundreds of millions of people have been involved in the largest medical experiment in human history. Mass vaccination was an unproven novel therapy. Hundreds of billions will be made by Big Pharma and paid for by the public. With politicians and other nonmedical individuals dictating to us what we are allowed to prescribe to the ill, we as doctors have been put in a position such that our ability to uphold the Hippocratic oath is under attack.

She hinted at Gates’ role in the suppression.

At this fateful juncture, we must therefore choose: will we continue to be held ransom by corrupt organizations, health authorities, Big Pharma, and billionaire sociopaths, or will we do our moral and professional duty to do no harm and always do the best for those in our care? The latter includes urgently reaching out to colleagues around the world to discuss which of our tried and tested safe older medicines can be used against COVID.

Never before has our role as doctors been so important, because never before have we become complicit in causing so much harm.

Finally, Dr. Lawrie suggested that physicians form a new World Health Organization that represents the interests of the people, not corporations and billionaires, a people-centered organization.

** *

On October 1, 2021, Hill resurfaced on Twitter touting his upcoming lecture, ironically titled, “Effects of Bias and Potential Medical Fraud in the Promotion of Ivermectin.” Says Pierre Kory in disgust, “Andrew is apparently making a living now accusing the doctors and scientists who support ivermectin of medical fraud.” Dr. Kory adds, “Hill and his backers are some of the worst people in human history. They are responsible for the deaths of millions.”

** *

Andrew Hill’s emergence is only one front in the war by NIH and the medical/media cartel to block doctors from using IVM. FDA issued its first warning about IVM on April 10, 2020, in reaction to ivermectin studies by Australia’s Monash University and American physician Dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter, claiming on its website “Additional testing is needed to determine whether ivermectin might be safe or effective to prevent or treat coronavirus or COVID-19.”

When Dr. Kory’s explosive December 8, 2020 Senate testimony63 describing the peer-reviewed science supporting ivermectin went viral, prescriptions for ivermectin from US doctors exploded. Americans were getting legitimate prescriptions filled at pharmacies, up to 88,000 scripts in a single week.

The truth of the drug’s benefits was going viral, and the last thing Dr. Fauci et al. could tolerate was an effective treatment for COVID. Something needed to be done.

The government moved aggressively to block its use. On December 24, in what seemed like a trial balloon, the South African government quietly banned the importation of ivermectin. YouTube soon scrubbed Kory’s video64 and Facebook blocked him. Then in March 2021 the US FDA, the European Medicines Association (EMA), and the WHO issued statements advising against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19. The EMA said it

should not be used at all. The WHO, echoing its strategy for tanking hydroxychloroquine, said ivermectin’s use should be limited to clinical trials (the high costs of running a clinical trial and their reliance on NIH, NIAID, Gates, or pharma funding means that their results may be easily controlled). FDA issued a much firmer directive: “You should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.”65

Here are the FDA guidelines:

The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.

Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials66 assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing.

Taking large doses of ivermectin is dangerous.

If your health care provider writes you an ivermectin prescription, fill it through a legitimate source such as a pharmacy, and take it exactly as prescribed.

On July 28, 2021, a front-page Wall Street Journal headline asked, “Why is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?”67

On August 16, 2021, two weeks after the Wall Street Journal article, CDC ordered doctors to stop prescribing IVM. On August 17, 2020, the NIAID recommended against ivermectin’s use to combat the novel coronavirus. On August 26, 2021, CDC sent out an emergency warning using its Health Alert Network.68

In early September 2021, following the FDA/CDC/NIAID’s lead, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Pharmacists Association (APhA), and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) called on doctors to immediately stop prescribing ivermectin for COVID outside of clinical trials.69 These influential organizations are largely dependent on pharmaceutical industry largesse.

On September 2, 2021 on MSNBC Tonight, Chris Hayes interviewed the president of the AMA, Dr. Gerald Harmon, who said that the AMA now advises doctors against prescribing ivermectin except in clinical trials. He explained that the AMA is taking this unprecedented step because ivermectin isn’t “approved” by the FDA for treatment of COVID-19. He failed to mention that up to 30 percent of prescriptions written by America’s doctors are for off-label uses not approved by the FDA. The AMA, meanwhile, ignored the cascading toll of injuries and deaths from Big Pharma’s injections, while endorsing the revolutionary notion that FDA should be the arbiter of what doctors can and cannot use to heal their patients. Physicians traditionally have had unlimited authority to prescribe FDA-approved medications for any purpose as long as they explain the risks and benefits to their patients. Suddenly, the AMA and its industry patrons and captive regulators moved to limit the doctor’s authority to treat patients. FDA has no authority to regulate the practice of medicine. As Stephen Hahn, FDA’s last Commissioner (no one has been appointed to the role since he left) pointed out in October 2020, off-label prescribing is between a doctor and his/her patient.

The sad episode, still ongoing, raises questions one expects doctors to be asking:

  • Is ivermectin a safe drug?
  • Will it do harm?
  • Are we in a situation in which authorities have not provided aproven therapeutic for COVID-19?
  • Do treating physicians have the freedom to try medicines they havereason to believe might be helpful, particularly when there is no reason to believe the medicine will be hurtful?Doctors who answered those questions for themselves and prescribed ivermectin after early September faced growing scrutiny and heavy-handed tactics including censorship, threats to their license and board certification,

and other repressive policies from governments and medical boards. Pharmacists, including the large chains like CVS and Walmart, refused to fill prescriptions. “For the first time in history, pharmacies were telling doctors what they can and cannot prescribe,” says Dr. McCullough. The directives shattered the traditional sacred relationship between doctors and patients that the profession had nurtured and protected since Hippocrates. The medical profession has long told doctors that their single obligation is to their patients. The AMA’s declaration helped march doctors into their new role as agents of state policy. The state policy is to prescribe treatments, not based upon the health interests of the individual patient but based upon the perceived best interests of the state.

“The suppression of HCQ and IVM is one of the greatest tragedies and crimes of the modern era,” Dr. Peter Breggin told me. Dr. Breggin, who has been called “The Conscience of Psychiatry,” by author Candace Pert, is the author of Talking Back to Prozac and COVID-19 and the Global Predators.70


Estimated number of outpatient ivermectin prescriptions dispensed from retail pharmacies—United States, March 16, 2019–August 13, 2021*

In Florida and South Carolina, Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) sent mass mailings to physicians notifying them that BCBS would no longer pay insurance claims for IVM, and threatened audits of any physician who wrote prescriptions for the drug.

In January 2021, Syracuse, New York attorney Ralph Lorigo filed for an injunction on behalf of a critically ill hospital patient—the mother of one of his clients— against a local hospital that was resisting family requests to treat her with ivermectin. A State Superior Court judge immediately granted Lorigo’s request. Within 12 hours of taking ivermectin, the dying woman miraculously began to recover. Two weeks later, Lorigo obtained a second injunction for a similarly situated client, who also made a preternatural recovery. When local news organizations reported Lorigo’s IVM victories, his law office telephone began ringing off the hook. Within a few weeks, he was working twenty-hour days struggling to keep up with a new cottage industry filing injunctions in New York and Ohio courts to help dying patients get access to ivermectin. To date, Lorigo has been in thirty courts. “The people who I’ve been able to get the ivermectin to on time have all lived; the others have died.” He has obtained dozens of injunctions for patients, precipitating a host of sudden recoveries. “The hospitals are so arrogant. They are letting the people die. They get $37,000 to put them on the vent, and they just let them die.”

Merck’s Steps to Kill Its Baby

During the early industry offensive against HCQ, one of the drug’s principal manufacturers, Sanofi, suddenly detected “safety concerns” with HCQ that it had never noticed during decades of profitable pre-pandemic production. In a remarkable coincidence, on February 4, 2021, Merck similarly discovered “a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies” regarding IVM.71 Merck was ivermectin’s original manufacturer and had formerly boasted of ivermectin as its “wonder drug.”

During the 40 years that it marketed the drug worldwide, Merck had never spoken of these worrisome safety signals. Since 1987, Merck has given billions of doses to the developing world for scabies, river blindness,72 lymphatic filariasis, elephantiasis, and assorted parasites without any safety alarms. In 2016, Merck distributed 900 million doses in Africa alone. “The drug is safe and has minor side effects,” a Merck spokesman said at the time.

Unlike previous treatments, which had serious—sometimes fatal—side effects, ivermectin is safe and can be used on a wide scale. It is also a very effective treatment, and has single-handedly transformed the lives of millions of people. . ..

What prompted Merck’s sudden safety concerns?
Merck’s exclusive ivermectin patent rights expired in 1996,73 and dozens

of generic drug companies now produce IVM, for about 40¢/dose, badly diminishing ivermectin’s profit profile for Merck. Furthermore, only ten days before Merck discovered its concerns about IVM, Merck signed a manufacturing partnership for the Novavax and Emergent BioSolutions COVID vaccine as it moved into final trials.

Furthermore, in December 2020, Merck had announced a $356 million supply deal by which NIAID agreed to purchase 60,000 to 100,000 doses of an experimental COVID pill called MK 7110. Merck paid $425 million to buy the Oncoimmune company which developed the drug as part of the deal. Bill Gates’s quasi-governmental organization, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), agreed to distribute the product in developing nations.

But most importantly, ivermectin is also a low-profit competitor for another new Merck product for COVID-19—a high-cost antiviral drug, molnupiravir, for which Merck had the highest financial ambitions. Ironically, molnupiravir, a copycat formula, utilized an identical mechanism of action as ivermectin.74 That drug will retail at around $700 per course75 but only if Merck can kill its cheap rival.

It’s worth a moment to consider molnupiravir’s pedigree, because the drug emerged from a shadowy black market of spies, pharmaceutical mountebanks, biosecurity profiteers, and Pentagon contractors who played key roles in militarizing and monetizing the COVID pandemic, and whom you will meet later in this book. The CIA officer and bioweapons developer, Michael Callahan, one of molnupiravir’s key patrons, has dubbed this group of shady bioweapons operators as his “Secret Handshake Club.” Molnupiravir is a protease inhibitor that mimics the antiviral properties of ivermectin. Unlike ivermectin, molnupiravir showed safety signals so alarming that some of its codevelopers at Emory University protested its introduction into human Phase I trials. Among other problems, they cite the possibility that it will cause birth defects.

Callahan’s boss, bioweapons enthusiast and former DHHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response Robert Kadlec, MD—an unabashed “gain-of-function” promoter with military and intelligence agency pedigrees, who built his career profiting from hyped pandemics— almost single-handedly created the $7 billion National Strategic Stockpile and runs it as a private fiefdom to enrich his friends and connections. Kadlec also runs the super-secretive P3CO Committee inside of NIH, which greenlights—and never denies—Tony Fauci’s gain-of-function bioweapons research projects. Gain-of-function refers to experiments that intentionally modify a pathogen to create the ability to cause or worsen disease, enhance transmissibility, and/or create novel strains with potential to cause global spread in humans.76 One of Kadlec’s many dodgy business partners is John Clerici,77 a Washington lawyer, lobbyist, and artful rogue who almost single- handedly created The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), a new agency formed after 9/11 under the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) of which Kadlec was director during the Trump administration. BARDA is a taxpayer-infused investment fund that purchases and develops technology for Kadlec’s Strategic Stockpile and postulated future threats. Clerici boasts

that, “If someone wants to get BARDA money, they’ve gotta go through me.” His LinkedIn profile crows that “John has assisted over three dozen companies in obtaining nearly $3 billion in funding and research for development and procurement of public health countermeasures for the federal government, including the majority of the awards made under Project BioShield, the US government’s initiative for preparing the nation against biological attacks.”

Clerici brandishes, also, his innovative authorship of the PREP Act, a corporate welfare boondoggle that bestows protection against liability upon manufacturers and providers of vaccines and all other pandemic countermeasures to shield them from lawsuits. Under the PREP Act, no matter how negligently or reprehensibly the company behaves and no matter how grievous the injuries to their victims, the companies cannot be held liable—unless the injured party can prove willful misconduct. Even then, a lawsuit can commence only with the approval of the Secretary of HHS.

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA),78 another Pentagon bioweapons agency and corporate welfare program for military contractors, provided $10 million in 2013 and 2015 to Emory University to develop molnupiravir as a veterinary drug for horses (against equine encephalitis). NIAID contributed $19 million79 then transferred the toxic drug in a golden handoff to Merck and another drug company, Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, along with a guaranteed market and rich returns. As we shall see in later chapters, DTRA was a major funder of EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak’s “charity” that sought out lethal animal viruses around the world, retrieving the most deadly for the Pentagon.

In June 2021, as FDA and NIAID were cranking up the medical cartel’s opposition against IVM, the HHS agreed to purchase 1.7 million 5-day treatment courses of molnupiravir from Merck for 1.2 billion dollars80— when the drug wins FDA approval, a contingency that can be virtually guaranteed while Anthony Fauci is Washington’s drug kingmaker.

On June 9, 2021 President Biden dutifully reiterated the US government’s commitment to procure approximately 1.7 million courses of the NIAID-funded drug from Merck.81 BARDA collaborated with a confederacy of other shady Defense Department operatives, including the DoD Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND) and the Army Contracting Command, on the $1.2 billion purchase. Not only was the drug developed with taxpayer money, but its $712 per dose price to the taxpayer is forty times more than Merck’s $17.64 cost of production. Merck, which expects to make $7 billion per year on the new blockbuster, saw its stock price spike on news of the government contract and after President Biden’s televised plug.

With so many powerful and important godfathers and the United States president fully committed, it would be unprecedented for FDA to deny authorization to molnupiravir, no matter how disastrous the clinical trial results may be. Merck is so certain of FDA’s approval that by September 2020, it was already scaling up manufacturing, even though its clinical trials are still underway.

Merck announced in October 2021 that molnupiravir had shown “game- changing” results against COVID in clinical trials, reducing hospitalizations and deaths by 50 percent against a placebo. “The news of the efficacy of this particular antiviral is obviously very good news,” trumpeted the White House’s Chief Medical Advisor and Pharma spokesperson, Anthony Fauci. “The FDA will look at the data and in the usual very efficient, very effective way, will evaluate the data as quickly as they possibly can, and then it will be taken from there.”

Horse Drugs

As Merck stood poised to release its new horse drug molnupiravir onto the market, the other US behemoth, Pfizer, was racing Merck neck and neck with its own anti-viral pill, PF-07321332,82 an ivermectin knockoff that is so similar to IVM (except, of course, in price point) that critics call it

“Pfizermectin.”83 Like IVM, it is also a protease-inhibiting anti-parasitic. With these two new drugs teed up for a simultaneous FDA approval, the entire medical/media cartel launched a final coordinated coup de grâce against IVM—branding it a dangerous horse drug. Mainstream media outlets across the US and overseas obediently ran stories promoting the horse medicine propaganda scam.

In late August 2021, NIH, FDA, and CDC launched an innovative new campaign to slander ivermectin as a “horse dewormer” that only deluded foolhardy nincompoops would consume. Picking up on those themes, The Independent asked, “Ivermectin: Why Are US Anti-Vaxxers Touting a Horse Dewormer as a Cure for COVID?”

Business Insider warned that people were “poisoning themselves trying to treat or prevent COVID-19 with a horse de-worming drug.”

Associated Press assures readers that, “No Evidence Ivermectin is a Miracle Drug Against COVID-19.”

On August 15, the FDA instructed, on its website: “You are not a horse.” In an August 21, 2021 Twitter post,84 the FDA expanded the theme: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” The White House and CNN also urged listeners that they should avoid veterinary products. CDC joined the chorus, warning Americans to not risk their health consuming a “horse de-wormer.” Elsewhere on its website, the CDC urged black and brown human immigrants to load up on ivermectin. “All Middle Eastern, Asian, North African, Latin American, and Caribbean refugees should receive presumptive therapy with: ivermectin, two doses 200 mcg/Kg orally once a day for two days before departure to the United States.85 Whether this was intended to deworm them or to prevent COVID transmission during travel to the US is unclear.

Only Green Med Info, a health news and information site, saw through the chicanery: “A Media Smear Campaign Timed to Clear Market for Pfizer’s Ivermectin Clone Drug, Which Will Be Hailed as a ‘Miracle.’”

Demonizing IVM as a “horse drug” was, of course, ironic, given that NIAID initially developed Merck’s replacement therapy, molnupiravir, as a horse drug. Furthermore, calling ivermectin a horse drug is like calling antibiotics a horse drug. Many long-established basic drugs are, of course, effective in all mammals because they work on our shared biology. But facts be damned, media companies called all hands on deck to push these stories. Ivermectin’s devastating effectiveness against infections from parasites and solid 40-year history of proven safety have made it, also, the world’s most prescribed veterinary medicine—but the Nobel Prize was for those billions of times it helped humans, and the government’s silly safety warnings were, of course, specious.

Compare ivermectin’s safety record to Dr. Fauci’s two chosen COVID remedies, remdesivir (which hospital nurses have dubbed “Run-death-is- near”), and the COVID vaccines. Over 30 years, ivermectin has been associated with only 379 reported deaths, an impressive death/dose reporting ratio of 1/10,584,408. In contrast, over the 18 months since remdesivir received an EUA, about 1.5 million patients have received remdesivir, with 1,499 deaths reported (a dire 1/1,000 D/D ratio). Meanwhile, among recipients of COVID jabs in the US during the ten months following their rollout, some 17,000 deaths have occurred following vaccination, a reported D/D ratio of 1/13,250. Ivermectin, therefore, is thousands of times safer than remdesivir and COVID vaccines. The science also indicates that it is far more effective than either.

Dr. Fauci himself took early charge of spreading the rumor that ivermectin was poisoning deluded Americans. “Don’t do it,” he told pharma propagandist Jake Tapper of CNN in an August 29, 2021 interview. “There’s no evidence whatsoever that that works, and it could potentially have toxicity . . . with people who have gone to poison control centers because they’ve taken the drug at a ridiculous dose and wind up getting sick. There’s no clinical evidence that indicates that this works.”

Jake Tapper, who has sounded progressively more like a pharma rep than a journalist as the lockdown dragged on, slavishly parroted Dr. Fauci’s new talking point:86 “Poison control centers are reporting that their calls are spiking in places like Mississippi and Oklahoma, because some Americans are trying to use an anti-parasite horse drug called ivermectin to treat coronavirus, to prevent contracting coronavirus.” It mattered not that both Mississippi and Oklahoma officials quickly denied that anyone in their state had been hospitalized for IVM poisoning.

An AP story claimed that 70 percent of calls to the Mississippi poison control center were for ivermectin overdoses; it turned out perhaps 2 percent of calls were. Barely anyone saw the grudging retractions.87

Additional news articles reported alleged rises in ivermectin-related overdoses in other states. These, too, were exaggerated. Kentucky poison control acknowledged a slight uptick in calls about veterinary ivermectin overdose—about six per year compared to an average of one per year. Despite claims of mass poisoning, the media could not find a single case of IVM leading to death or hospitalization. People were not dying from horse ivermectin overdoses. They were certainly not dying from appropriately dosed and prescribed oral ivermectin. But many were dying from untreated COVID-19.

Bill Gates’s surrogate group GAVI asked in a press release: “How did a drug many used to treat parasites in cows come to be of interest to doctors treating humans with COVID-19?” The characterization was especially insincere. Gates’ foundation and GAVI were, at that moment, distributing millions of doses of ivermectin annually to Indian children for filariasis, and to Africans for river blindness and filariasis.

It wasn’t just the safe drug and caring physicians that were under attack. When, in September 2021, the popular comedian and podcast host Joe Rogan announced he’d kicked COVID in just a few days using a cocktail of drugs, including ivermectin, the global press, government, and pharmaceutical interests coalesced to denounce, vilify, and gaslight him.

NPR, which has taken $3 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, jumped on the dogpile and deceptively insinuated that Rogan took horse- level doses:88

Joe Rogan has told his Instagram followers he has been taking ivermectin, a deworming veterinary drug formulated for use in cows and horses, to help fight the coronavirus. The Food and Drug Administration has warned against taking the medication, saying animal doses of the drug can cause nausea, vomiting and in some cases severe hepatitis.

But Rogan never took veterinary ivermectin paste. Rogan said he had talked with “multiple doctors” who advised him to take the drug. He followed their advice and he got well, remarkably quickly.

Rolling Stone, the onetime banner of the counterculture, had by 2021 devolved into a reliable mouthpiece for medical cartel orthodoxies.89 In October 2021, Rolling Stone announced that it had removed from its website a 2005 article linking mercury in vaccines to brain injuries in children. Rolling Stone also reported that Oklahomans overdosing on ivermectin horse dewormer were causing emergency rooms to be “so backed up that gunshot victims were having hard times getting” access to health facilities. An accompanying photo purported to depict a long line of ambulatory gunshot casualties seeking hospital admission to an Oklahoma emergency room already filled to capacity with dingbats poisoned by horse wormer.90

The Rolling Stone story91 spread like wildfire among the world’s reigning media outlets, including the Daily Mail, 92 Business Insider, Newsweek,93 Yahoo News, The Guardian,94 and The Independent,95 many of which rely on Gates Foundation largesse. MSNBC’s news host, Rachel Maddow, told her audience that “Patients are overdosing on ivermectin backing up rural Oklahoma hospitals, ambulances.”96

“Ivermectin is meant for a full-size horse,” she explained. She repeated that the victims first gullibly swallowed the false claims of antivaxxers before guzzling down horse dewormer. “The ERs are so backed up that

gunshot victims were having hard times getting to facilities where they can get definitive care and be treated.”

The story, of course, was fraud. Days later, Oklahoma’s Sequoyah Northeastern Health System posted a categorical denial on its website, dismissing the entire story as mere fabrication. That Rolling Stone picture of the long lines was an Associated Press stock photo from the previous January, a photo of people waiting in line to get vaccines. As it turns out, not a single patient has been treated in Oklahoma for ivermectin overdose.

Instead of retracting the article, Rolling Stone simply posted an attention- dodging “update” at the top of the article reporting the hospital’s denial.97 The Guardian similarly published a nondescript update at the bottom of its article.98

The FDA doubled down with the claim that IVM may cause “serious harm,” is “highly toxic” and may cause “seizures,” “coma and even death.”99

As we shall see, these kinds of warnings are far more applicable to COVID shots. The CDC issued an emergency memo on August 26, 2021 warning doctors and pharmacists not to prescribe ivermectin.100

As molnupiravir’s debut approached, the war against IVM escalated. On September 23, the Colorado Department of Law issued a cease-and-desist order and fined a Loveland medical clinic $40,000 for “marketing and overstating the effectiveness of ivermectin.” And pharmacists still willing to dispense ivermectin faced a new problem. The wholesalers began dribbling out a few pills at a time, but not enough for even one prescription per week. All their diabolical tricks seemed the work of winks and nods and a powerful hidden hand, with no corporation or federal agency taking clear responsibility for carrying out a deliberate policy to suppress a life-saving drug.

On September 28, the New York Times introduced a new tactic: reporting that the demand for ivermectin among the crackpots trying to treat COVID

had created a shortage for veterinary purposes, warning that—any day now —animals might begin to suffer.101

Peter McCullough laughs at the propaganda: “Ivermectin is a molecule that is miraculously effective against parasites and viral infections along multiple pathways and mechanisms of action. It’s a molecule. It doesn’t care if it’s used in a horse, or a cow, or a human. The rules of physics and chemistry are the same across species.”

Pierre Kory concurs. “Ivermectin has multiple properties. It operates against COVID along a multitude of separate pathways. In addition to being antiparasitic, it also has potent antiviral properties and even “protects against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein damage.”

The osteopath Dr. Joseph Mercola observed,102 “This idea that ivermectin is a horse dewormer that poses a lethal risk to humans is pure horse manure, shoveled at us in an effort to dissuade people from using a safe and effective drug against COVID-19. . . . The intent is clear. What our so-called health agencies and the media are trying to do is confuse people into thinking of ivermectin as a ‘veterinary drug,’ which simply isn’t true. Ultimately, what they’re trying to do is back up the Big Pharma narrative that the only thing at your disposal is the COVID shot.”


Anthony Fauci needed to use all his moxie and all his esoteric bureaucratic maneuvers—mastered during his half-century at NIH—to win FDA’s approval for his vanity drug, remdesivir. Remdesivir has no clinical efficacy against COVID, according to every legitimate study. Worse, it is deadly poisonous, and expensive poison at $3,000 for treatment.1 In fact, remdesivir’s wholesale cost is roughly 1,000x more costly than hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The challenge required Dr. Fauci to first sabotage HCQ and IVM. Under federal rules discussed earlier, FDA’s

recognition of HCQ and IVM efficacy would automatically kill remdesivir’s ambitions for EUA designation. And even if Dr. Fauci somehow finagled an FDA license for remdesivir, demand for the product, which doctors were administering late in the disease, as it had to be given through an IV in the hospital, would plummet if either HCQ or IVM stopped the COVID-19 infections early.

Why would Dr. Fauci care to undermine any medicine that might compete with remdesivir? Might it have something to with NIAID and CDC having just spent $79 million2 developing remdesivir for Gilead, a company in which the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation owns a $6.5 million stake?3,4 The BMGF is engaged in other large drug development deals with the company, including a cofunded $55 million investment in a malaria treatment being developed by Lyndra Therapeutics. Gates has also funded the promotion of Gilead’s Truvada in Kenya.5,6 Another Gilead partner, the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Ft. Detrick, Maryland (USAMRIID), where the drug was studied in monkeys, also contributed millions to remdesivir’s development.7 At the outset of the coronavirus plague, remdesivir was just another pharma-owned molecule that FDA had never approved as safe and efficacious for any purpose. In 2016, remdesivir demonstrated middling antiviral properties against Zika, but the disease disappeared before the expensive non-remedy got traction.8 After the Zika threat vanished, NIAID put some $6.9 million into identifying a new pandemic against which to deploy remdesivir. In 2018, Gilead entered remdesivir in a NIAID-funded clinical trial against Ebola in Africa.9

This is how we know that Anthony Fauci was well aware of remdesivir’s toxicity when he orchestrated its approval for COVID patients. NIAID sponsored that project. Dr. Fauci had another NIAID-incubated drug, ZMapp, in the same clinical trial, testing efficacy against Ebola alongside two experimental monoclonal antibody drugs. Researchers planned to administer all four drugs to Ebola patients across Africa over a period of four to eight months.10,11

However, six months into the Ebola study, the trial’s Safety Review Board suddenly pulled both remdesivir and ZMapp from the trial.12 Remdesivir, it turned out, was hideously dangerous. Within 28 days, subjects taking remdesivir had lethal side effects including multiple organ failure, acute kidney failure, septic shock, and hypotension, and 54 percent of the remdesivir group died—the highest mortality rate among the four experimental drugs.13 Anthony Fauci’s drug, ZMapp, ran up the second- highest body count at 44 percent. NIAID was the primary funder of this study, and its researchers published the bad news about remdesivir in the New England Journal of Medicine in December 2019.14 By then, COVID-19 was already circulating in Wuhan. But two months later, on February 25, 2020, Dr. Fauci announced, with great fanfare, that he was enrolling hospitalized COVID patients in a clinical trial to study remdesivir’s efficacy.15 For important context, this was a month before the WHO declared the new pandemic, a time that there were only fourteen confirmed COVID cases in the United States, most from the Diamond Princess cruise ship. These individuals were among the first wave of COVID-19 hospitalizations from whom NIAID recruited the 400 US volunteers for Dr. Fauci’s remdesivir trial.16 Dr. Fauci’s press release said only that remdesivir “has shown promise in animal models for treating Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).”17 It’s unclear, then, if NIAID informed these frightened souls that, less than a year earlier, a safety review board had deemed remdesivir unacceptably toxic.

Its deadly effect on patients aside, remdesivir was a perfect strategic option for Dr. Fauci. Optics required that NIH devote some resources to antiviral therapeutic drugs; critics would complain if he spent billions on vaccines and nothing on therapeutics. However, any licensed, repurposed antiviral that was effective against COVID for prevention or early treatment (like IVM or HCQ) could kill his entire vaccine program because FDA wouldn’t be able to grant his jabs Emergency Use Authorization. Remdesivir, however, was an IV remedy, appropriate only for use on

hospitalized patients in the late stages of illness. It would therefore not compete with vaccines, allowing Dr. Fauci to support it without compromising his core business. Furthermore, while HCQ and IVM were off-patent and available generically, remdesivir was in the sweet spot of still being on patent. The potential profit upside was impressive. Remdesivir cost Gilead $10 per dose to manufacture.18,19 But by granting Gilead an EUA, regulators could force private insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid to fork over around $3,120.00 per treatment—hundreds of times the cost of the drug.20,21 Gilead predicted remdesivir would bring in $3.5 billion in 2020 alone.22

Dr. Fauci did not suddenly get the idea that remdesivir might work against coronavirus in January 2020. In one of his many extraordinary feats of uncanny foresight, beginning in 2017, Dr. Fauci paid $6 million to his gain-of-function guru, Ralph Baric—a University of North Carolina microbiologist—to accelerate remdesivir as a coronavirus remedy at China’s biosecurity laboratory in Wuhan.23,24 Baric used coronavirus cultures obtained from bat caves by Chinese virologists working with Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, another recipient of Dr. Fauci’s funding.25,26 Dr. Fauci demonstrated his personal interest in those experiments by dispatching his most trusted deputies, Hugh Auchincloss in 2018 and then Cliff Lane in 2020, to negotiate with the Chinese government and to supervise Baric’s experiments at the Wuhan lab and elsewhere in China.27 Baric claimed that his mouse studies showed remdesivir impeded SARS replication, suggesting that it might inhibit other coronaviruses. Chinese researchers at the Wuhan Lab and China’s Military Medicine Institute of the People’s Liberation Army Academy of Military Science submitted their own patent application for remdesivir.28 China’s military brass said the joint patent application was “aimed at protecting China’s national interests.”29

Early in March 2020, the Gates Foundation bankrolled $125 million of tax-deductible grants to support drug makers to develop coronavirus treatments.30 Gates and/or his foundation had large equity stakes in many of the pharmaceutical companies that received these funds—including Gilead.

On April 24, 2020, Gilead’s volunteer spokesperson Bill Gates declared: “For the novel coronavirus, the leading drug candidate in this category is remdesivir from Gilead.”31

For HCQ, Dr. Fauci demanded well-designed randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials32,33 and he warned against the use of IVM for treatment.34 In contrast, Fauci green-lighted remdesivir following studies in which the control group did not receive a real placebo.35 Instead, Fauci’s researchers used no placebo in the more severely ailing patients and gave the remaining patients an “active comparator” containing the same treatment protocol agents as used in the remdesivir arm except for substituting sulfobutyl for remdesivir as the test agent.36 Utilization of so-called “toxic” or “spiked” placebos—also known as “fauxcebos”—is a fraudulent gimmick that Dr. Fauci and his drug researchers have pioneered over forty years to conceal adverse side effects of toxic drugs for which they seek approval. Dr. Fauci eventually recruited 400 US hospitalized volunteers for NIAID’s remdesivir trials, but despite this fauxcebo chicanery, Dr. Fauci’s researchers just couldn’t get remdesivir to show any improvement in COVID survival.37

Despite its disappointing performance, Dr. Fauci worked hand-in-hand with Gilead’s remdesivir team to guide the trial to a satisfactory outcome. According to Vera Sharav, the President and founder of the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP), “The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) had complete control over the trial and made all decisions regarding trial design and implementation. Gilead Sciences employees participated in discussions about protocol development and in weekly protocol team calls with NIAID.”

Sharav’s organization, Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP), monitors the quality and ethical performance of clinical trials. NIAID’s remdesivir trial’s original endpoint made sense: to win approval, the drug would need to demonstrate a “reduction in COVID mortality.” However, the drug didn’t show the hoped-for benefit. While fewer patients receiving remdesivir died, those receiving remdesivir were also a lot less sick than the

placebo subjects when they entered the trial. So Dr. Fauci’s team decided to move the goalposts. The researchers, in fact, had changed the trial “endpoints” twice in an effort to create a meager appearance of benefit. Dr. Fauci’s new endpoints allowed the drug to demonstrate a benefit, not by improving the chances of surviving COVID, but by achieving shorter hospital stays.38 Yet this too was a scam, because it turned out that almost twice as many remdesivir subjects as placebo subjects had to be readmitted to the hospital after discharge—suggesting that Fauci’s improved time to recovery was due, at least in part, to discharging remdesivir patients prematurely. Altering protocols in the middle of an ongoing study is an interference commonly known as “scientific fraud” or “falsification.” UCLA Epidemiology Professor Sander Greenland explains, “You’re not supposed to change your endpoint mid-course. That’s frowned upon.” Vera Sharav agrees: “Changing primary outcomes after a study has commenced is considered dubious and suspicious.”39

But Dr. Fauci had little reason to worry that insiders would complain about the corruption of the study, since his trusted deputy, Cliff Lane, chaired the NIH Treatment Guidelines panel.40 Lane was doubly conflicted, since he had personally overseen the remdesivir trials in China, and stood, potentially, to share in patent rewards and royalties for the drug.41 In addition to Lane, seven of the panel members had financial relationships with Gilead—and eight additional panel members had had financial relationships with Gilead prior to the past eleven months, for which they were required to declare a relationship.42 “Is it any wonder remdesivir is the only drug recommended for COVID?” asks Vera Sharav, a Holocaust survivor who has devoted her life to advocating for ethics in the notoriously corrupt clinical trial industry.43,44,45,46,47

Before his study was completed or peer-reviewed, much less published, Dr. Fauci learned that The Lancet had just published a placebo-controlled Chinese study that showed remdesivir utterly ineffective at keeping hospitalized patients alive OR reducing the duration of hospitalizations.48

Even more importantly, remdesivir did not reduce the presence of the virus in the blood. Worst of all, the Chinese study confirmed remdesivir’s deadly toxicity. The Chinese regulators and researchers shuttered that trial because of potentially lethal side effects. Remdesivir caused serious injuries in 12 percent of the patients, compared to 5 percent of patients in the placebo group.49 Unlike Dr. Fauci’s trial, the Chinese study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center, peer-reviewed study, published in the world’s premier scientific journal, The Lancet. All the underlying data was available to the incurious press and the uninformed public.

In contrast, Dr. Fauci’s NIAID-Gilead study was at that point, still unpublished, not peer-reviewed, its details undisclosed. It employed a phony placebo and had suffered a sketchy mid-course protocol change. In April, the Chinese cancelled two ongoing clinical trials with NIAID in China because the Chinese had succeeded in ending the COVID epidemic in the country, and researchers could no longer identify enough COVID patients to enroll in the study.50

In any event, the Chinese study spelled certain doom for remdesivir. It was now D.O.A. at FDA—a poem title? But Dr. Fauci never accepted this. The inimitable maestro of regulatory combat responded to the crisis with savvy and bold action that would miraculously salvage his sinking product: He appeared at one of his regular White House press conferences, this one in the Oval Office. Seated on the couch next to Deborah Birx and opposite President Trump, Dr. Fauci made a surprise announcement.

From that lofty platform, Dr. Fauci, with great fanfare, declared victory. The data from NIAID’s clinical trial for remdesivir shows “quite good news,” he said, glossing over the drug’s failure to demonstrate any mortality advantage.51 He boasted that the median time for hospitalization was eleven days for patients taking remdesivir, compared to fifteen days in the placebo group. He told the credulous press: “The data shows that remdesivir has a clear-cut, significant, positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery.” He

claimed that his study had therefore proven remdesivir so remarkably beneficial to COVID patients that he had decided that it would be unethical to deny Americans benefits of this wonder drug. He was, he declared, unblinding and ending the study and giving remdesivir to the placebo group. Remdesivir would be America’s new “standard of care”52 for COVID. It was, of course, all a lie.

On May 1, the FDA granted the pandemic’s first Emergency Use Authorization for a COVID drug, allowing remdesivir treatments for patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19.53,54

Based on Dr. Fauci’s representation, President Trump purchased the world’s entire stock of remdesivir for Americans.55 The European Union signed a “joint procurement agreement” with Gilead to queue up in the pipeline for 500,000 treatment courses.56 The day after Dr. Fauci’s announcement at the White House, the University of North Carolina issued a press release headlined: “Remdesivir, developed through a UNC-Chapel Hill partnership, proves effective against COVID-19 in NIAID human clinical trials.”57 Dr. Fauci’s gain-of-function wizard, Dr. Ralph Baric, called this “a game changer for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.”58

Vera Sharav points out that in a rational universe, a poison like remdesivir would have no hope of winning regulatory approval—unless, of course, the company could somehow distract attention from the overwhelmingly catastrophic scientific evidence by getting the world’s most powerful health official—the man who conducted the clinical trial—to pronounce the drug a “miracle cure” at a globally attended press conference while lounging on an Oval Office divan beside the president of the United States. Says Sharav, “What better free advertisement?”59

Sharav adds, “Dr. Fauci had a vested interest in remdesivir. He sponsored the clinical trial whose detailed results were not subject to the peer review he demanded for the drugs he regarded as rivals, like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Instead of showing transparent data and convincing results, he did ‘science’ by fiat. He simply declared the

disappointing results to be ‘highly significant,’ and pronounced remdesivir to be the new ‘standard of care.’ Fauci made the promotional pronouncement while sitting on a couch in the White House, without providing a detailed news release, without a briefing at a medical meeting, or peer review for publication in a scientific journal—as is the norm and practice, to allow scientists and researchers to review the data.”

“Standard of Care”

FDA’s recognition of remdesivir as the new “Standard of Care” for COVID meant that Medicaid and insurance companies could not legally deny it to patients and would have to fork over Gilead’s exorbitant price tag on a product US taxpayers had, by then, spent at least $85 million to develop.60 Improving Gilead’s business even more, doctors and hospitals that failed to use remdesivir could now be sued for malpractice, leading some medical experts to believe that coercing the use of this worthless and dangerous drug on COVID patients almost certainly cost tens of thousands of Americans their lives.

As we shall see, Dr. Fauci copied the choreographed script for winning remdesivir’s EUA from the worn rabbit-eared playbook that he developed during his early AIDS years, and then used repeatedly across his career to win approvals for deadly and ineffective drugs. Time and again, he has terminated clinical trials of his sweetheart drugs the moment they begin to reveal cataclysmic toxicity. He makes the absurd claim that his drug-du-jour had proven so miraculously effective that it would be unethical to deny it to the public, and then he strong-arms FDA to grant his approvals. This time only, the brazenness of the fraud earned Dr. Fauci some rare criticism even in mainstream science and press, and from academic institutions that customarily maintain silence about his shenanigans, given their addictions to whopping NIH and BMGF funding.

On October 24, 2020, Umair Irfan noted that “The FDA is once again promoting a Covid-19 therapy based on shaky evidence.”61

The British Medical Journal pointed out, “None of the randomized controlled trials published so far, however, have shown that remdesivir saves significantly more lives than standard medical care.”62

Eric Topol of Scripps Research Translational Institute scolded that, “This is a very, very bad look for the FDA, and the dealings between Gilead and EU make it another layer of badness.”63

Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, told a reporter: “I was really surprised when I saw that news.”64

Science Magazine said Dr. Fauci’s move had, “baffled scientists who have closely watched the clinical trials of remdesivir unfold over the past 6 months—and who have many questions about remdesivir’s worth.”65

University of Oxford Professor of Clinical Therapeutics Duncan Richard scathingly observed that, “Research based on this kind of use should be treated with extreme caution because there is no control group or randomization, which are some of the hallmarks of good practice in clinical trials.”66

Professor Stephen Evans in Pharmacoepidemiology, at the Gates-funded London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, offered a particularly scathing assess-ment—“The data from this paper are almost uninterpretable. It is very surprising, perhaps even unethical, that the New England Journal of Medicine has published it. It would be more appropriate to publish the data on the website of the pharmaceutical company that has sponsored and written up the study. At least Gilead has been clear that this has not been done in the way that a high-quality scientific paper would be written.”67

Even Bill Gates raised an eyebrow about the audacity of the caper. When Wired magazine in August 2020 asked Gates what therapeutic treatment he’d ask for if hospitalized with COVID-19, he did not hesitate. “Remdesivir,” Gates replied, adding a comment that put daylight between him and the embarrassing clinical trial fiasco. “Sadly the trials in the US have been so chaotic that the actual proven effect is kind of small. Potentially the effect is

much larger than that. It’s insane how confused the trials here in the US have been.”68

** *

Then, on October 19, 2020, three days before remdesivir’s FDA approval, the World Health Organization published a definitive study on remdesivir involving 11,266 COVID-19 patients in 405 hospitals and 30 countries.69,70 The power of this study dwarfed the Fauci/Gilead project, which had recruited 1,062 patients. In the WHO’s trial, remdesivir failed to reduce mortality, and failed to reduce the need for ventilators OR the length of hospital stays. WHO researchers found no detectable benefits from remdesivir and recommended against its use in COVID-19 patients.71 WHO published its devastating indictment of remdesivir one month after FDA issued the remdesivir EUA for children less than 12 years of age. Dr. Fauci and the FDA knew about the WHO study before the FDA issued the EUA for remdesivir, and almost certainly read the preprints and understood the findings. It appears, in fact, that Dr. Fauci once again hurried the approval through FDA so as to beat the publication of a negative study.

On July 15, 2021, a large Johns Hopkins Study in Original Investigation | Infectious Diseases once again confirmed that “Remdesivir treatment was not associated with improved survival but was associated with longer hospital stays.”72 (Emphasis added.)

On October 2, 2020, the European Union released its own safety review of remdesivir. The study reported serious side effects.73,74

“Every independent randomized controlled trial of remdesivir has shown either a lack of benefit or a clear trend to harm,” says Dr. Pierre Kory. “It’s only those two Pharma studies (with Dr. Fauci) that show any benefits and even then, the benefits are minor.”

“It makes no sense to give an antiviral in late stages of a viral infection,” Dr. Kory adds. “The viral replication mainly takes place prior to day seven.

If an antiviral works, that’s when you administer antivirals. Remdesivir might work early on, but we don’t know, because it’s IV administered and you can’t really do that to ambulatory patients.”

A Remedy Worse than the Malady

From early in May 2020, doctors and hospitals began using remdesivir on hospitalized patients who tested positive for COVID in PCR tests. By November 9, 2021, the publication date of this book, CDC’s website lists only two drugs approved for treating COVID-19, remdesivir and the corticosteroid dexamethasone.75,76,77 Doctors often use the two drugs in conjunction. Assessing remdesivir’s impact on hospitalized COVID-19 patients is difficult, in part, because—like COVID-19—remdesivir causes extreme toxicity to lungs and kidneys,78 and mimics several of the other lethal symptoms of COVID, including multi-organ failure.79 Many doctors believe our country’s record COVID-19 fatalities are at least in part due to widespread use of remdesivir in 2020. “We had the most deaths worldwide,” says Dr. Ryan Cole. “It’s a haunting question: How many of these Americans were remdesivir casualties?”

For several months, we were the only country treating people with a drug proven to be lethal. That year, 2020, we had almost double the number of deaths per month compared to most other countries. Brazil, one of the first nations to widely use remdesivir, had the second highest death toll.80,81

In May of 2020, New York doctors repeatedly marveled at the tendency for COVID-19 to cause kidney failure, something that no other respiratory virus does. Doctors began seeing acute kidney failure on day three, four, and five after admission.82 Hospitals short on ventilators also ran out of dialysis machines. Physician and laboratory CEO Dr. Ryan Cole is one of many doctors who believe that many of those cases were attributable to remdesivir. “COVID-19 can affect the kidneys,” he says. “We know this because we can recover the spike protein from urine. But it’s dubious that the sheer

magnitude of acute renal failure we saw among hospitalized COVID patients can all be attributed solely to the coronavirus infection.”

Dr. Cole told me that in the animal studies, one-fourth of the animals died from kidney failure. He explains that kidney collapse can lead to fluid accumulations in the lungs and everywhere and results in multi organ failure and sepsis—all of which are also sequelae of COVID. “Remdesivir shouldn’t be on the market,” he added.

Dr. Fauci’s 2019 Ebola study proved that remdesivir, by day three, four, and five, caused acute kidney failure in upwards of 31 percent of patients. In less than five days of remdesivir treatment, 8 percent of all people died or experienced life-threatening multiple organ failure or kidney failure so severe they had to be taken off the drug. “So it may not be a coincidence that roughly the same number of hospitalized COVID patients—8–10x were dying in the first week,” says Cole.

Dr. McCullough gives us a stark and clear summary: “Remdesivir has two problems. First, it doesn’t work. Second, it is toxic and it kills people.”


“The only means to fight a plague is honesty.”
—Albert Camus, The Plague (1947)

During the spring of 2020, Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates carpet-bombed the airwaves, bearishly predicting that a “miraculous vaccine” would stop COVID transmission, prevent illness, end the pandemic, and release humanity from house arrest. Even vaccinology’s most stalwart tub thumpers —true believers like Dr. Peter Hotez and Dr. Paul Offit—regarded those forecasts as far-fetched and foolhardy.1,2 After all, for decades, two perilous and seemingly insurmountable impediments had thwarted every attempt to craft a coronavirus vaccine.

Leaky Vaccines

The first obstacle was the coronavirus’s tendency to rapidly mutate, producing vaccine-resistant variants. Vaccine developers like Hotez and Offit doubted that, after decades of futile efforts, researchers could suddenly develop a COVID vaccine that would provide “sterilizing immunity,” meaning that it would completely obliterate viral colonies in vaccinated individuals and prevent transmission and mutation.

As if to confirm such fears, in May of that year, Britain’s top vaccinologist, Andrew Pollard, admitted that the Oxford University’s government-funded and patriotically ballyhooed AstraZeneca vaccine had failed to achieve sterilizing immunity in monkeys; the inoculated macaques, even when asymptomatic, continued to support high viral loads in their nasal pharynxes.3 Then in August, Dr. Fauci primped up the dismaying news of similar failures by all the competing candidates with a kind of celebratory bravado. Instead of declaring defeat and retreating to the drawing board, Dr. Fauci cheerfully announced that none of the first-generation COVID vaccines was likely to prevent transmission.4 That news should have cratered the entire project. Leading virologists, including Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier, pointed out that a non-sterilizing, or “leaky,” vaccine could not arrest transmission and would therefore fail to stop the pandemic.5 Even worse, vaccinated individuals, he warned, would become asymptomatic carriers and “mutant factories” blasting out vaccine-resistant versions of the disease that were likely to lengthen and intensify rather than abbreviate the pandemic.

But Tony Fauci and his partner, Bill Gates, seemed to have a strategy for neutralizing the variant threat. The two men had put billions of taxpayer and tax-deducted dollars into developing an mRNA platform for vaccines that, in theory, would allow them to quickly produce new “boosters” to combat each new “escape variant.” This scheme was Big Pharma’s holy grail. Vaccines are one of the rare commercial products that multiply profits by failing. Each new booster doubles the revenues from the initial jab. Since NIAID co- owned the mRNA patent,6 the agency stood to make billions from its

coronavirus gambit by producing successive boosters for every new variant; the more, the better! The good news for Pharma was that all of humanity would be permanently dependent on biannual or even triannual booster shots. Dr. Peter McCullough warned that mass vaccination with a leaky vaccine during a pandemic “would put the world on a never-ending booster treadmill.”7 That kind of talk had Pharma popping champagne corks. In October 2021, Pfizer announced that it was projecting an astonishing $26 billion in revenues from its COVID boosters.8

Pathogenic Priming

The even more daunting obstacle to coronavirus vaccines was their tendency to induce “pathogenic priming”—also known as “antibody-dependent enhancement” (ADE)—an overstimulation of immune system response that can cause severe injuries and death when vaccinated individuals subsequently encounter the wild viruses. In early experiments, coronavirus vaccines produced a robust immune response in both animals and children— temporarily heartening researchers—but then tragically killing the vaccine recipients upon re-exposure to the wild virus, or making them vulnerable to uniquely debilitating infections. Early in 2020, vaccinology’s most brass- bound commissars warned of this pitfall as Dr. Fauci unleashed the industry, with billions in federal lucre, to gin up COVID inoculations at record pace. In his March 5, 2020 testimony before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee on Coronavirus, Bill Gates’s paid mouthpiece, Dr. Peter Hotez, cautioned:9

One of the things we’re not hearing a lot about is the unique potential safety problem of coronavirus vaccines. With certain types of respiratory virus vaccines you get immunized, and then when you get actually exposed to the virus, you get this kind of paradoxical immune enhancement phenomenon.10

Dr. Hotez confessed to the committee that his colleagues had killed a number of children from pathogenic priming during experiments with the

respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines in 1966, and recounted that during his own earlier work on coronavirus vaccines, he saw the same effect on ferrets:

We started developing coronavirus vaccines and our colleagues—we noticed in laboratory animals that they started to show some of the same immune pathology. So we said, “Oh my God, this is going to be problematic.”

In an April 26, 2020 interview with Pharma troll Dr. Zubin “ZDogg” Damania, MD, Merck’s top vaccine promoter, Dr. Paul Offit, amplified these concerns:11

[B]inding antibodies can be dangerous and cause something called Antibody Dependent Enhancement. And we’ve seen that. I mean, we saw that with the [Gates-funded] dengue vaccine. But with the dengue vaccine, in children who had never been exposed to dengue before, it actually made them worse when they were then exposed to the natural virus. Much worse. Vaccinated children who were less than nine years of age, who had never been exposed to dengue before, were more likely to die if they’d been vaccinated than if they hadn’t been vaccinated.12

And even Dr. Anthony Fauci, during his March 26, 2020, White House coronavirus briefing, acknowledged the perils of pathogenic priming:13

The issue of safety is something I want to make sure the American public understands: does the vaccine make you worse? And there are diseases, in which you vaccinate someone, they get infected with what you’re trying to protect them with [sic] and you actually enhance the infection. That’s the worst possible thing you could do—is vaccinate somebody to prevent infection and actually make them worse. (emphasis added)

Dr. Fauci must have recognized that since vaccine makers had immunity from liability [which he had helped arrange] and were playing, as it were, with house money [which he diverted to them through NIH], these companies had little incentive to invest in the kind of long-term studies necessary to eliminate the pathogenic priming hazard. In retrospect, it seems

that Dr. Fauci and his confederates had at least six strategies for dealing with this grim risk. All six tactics involved hiding the evidence of ADE if it did occur:

1) Dr. Fauci’s first approach was to abort the three-year clinical trials at six months and then vaccinate the controls—a preemption that would prevent detection of long-term injuries, including pathogenic priming. Regulators initially intended the Pfizer vaccine trial to continue for three full years, until May 2, 2023.14 Because the FDA allowed Pfizer to unblind and terminate its study after six months—and to offer the vaccine to individuals in the placebo group—we will never know whether vaccinated individuals in the trial suffered long-term injuries, including pathogenic priming, that cancelled out short-term benefits. Science and experience tell us that many vaccines can cause injuries like cancers, autoimmune diseases, allergies, fertility problems, and neurological illnesses with long-term diagnostic horizons or long incubation periods. A six-month study will hide these harms.

2) Second, as COVID czar, Dr. Fauci stubbornly refused to fix HHS’s designed-to-fail vaccine injury surveillance system (VAERS), which systematically suppresses reporting of most vaccine injuries. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a passive, voluntary system, jointly managed by the CDC and FDA, that accepts reports from anyone. A 2010 HHS study of the government’s notoriously dysfunctional VAERS concluded that VAERS detects “fewer than 1 percent of vaccine injuries.”15 Put another way, VAERS misses OVER 99 percent of vaccine injuries, thereby lending the illusion of safety to even the most deadly inoculations. In 2010, the federal Agency for Health Care Research Quality (AHRQ) designed and field-tested a state-of-the-art machine-counting (AI) system as an efficient alternative to VAERS. By testing the system for several years on the Harvard Pilgrim HMO, AHRQ proved that it could capture most vaccine

injuries. AHRQ initially planned to roll out the system to all remaining HMOs, but after seeing the AHRQ’s frightening results—vaccines were causing serious injuries in 1 of every 40 recipients—CDC killed the project and stowed the new system on a dusty shelf. Dr. Fauci left that system safely cached, throughout the pandemic, allowing HHS’s broken voluntary system to continue to conceal vaccine injuries, including any evidence of pathogenic priming.

3) Third, Dr. Fauci’s trump card was his capacity to enlist mainstream and social media companies to make reporting of injuries and deaths disappear from the airwaves, newspapers, and the Internet, and therefore from the public consciousness. Facebook, Google, and the television networks purged doctors and scientists who reported pathogenic priming, and censored reports about the waves of other vaccine injuries. As a federal official sworn for four decades to uphold the Constitution, Dr. Fauci should have been the champion of free speech and vigorous debate during the pandemic. Instead, he worked hand in glove with Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and other Big Tech titans to censor criticism of his various mandates and suppress information about vaccine injuries, including discussions of pathogenic priming.16,17 Email traffic shows that Dr. Fauci colluded directly with Mark Zuckerberg and the social media platforms to censor doctors who reported vaccine failures, harms, and deaths, to deplatform public health advocates like myself, and to evict and muzzle patients who reported their own injuries. The science journals, utterly dependent on Pharma advertising, obligingly refused to publish studies on the rash of deadly and debilitating jab reactions. The Bill Gates-funded fact- checking organization, Politifact,18 worked with Pharma-funded fact- checkers like FactCheck, which receives, funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and whose current CEO is Richard Besser, former acting head of the CDC, which owns $1.8 billion in Johnson & Johnson stock19,20 to “debunk” stories and studies of vaccine injuries.

On October 7, 2021, Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine, complained in a tweet that America’s people were almost utterly blind to the floods of adverse vaccine events that were killing and debilitating their countrymen: “The real problem here is the damn press and the internet giants. The press and these tech players act to manufacture and reinforce ‘consensus’ around selected and approved narratives. And then this is being weaponized to attack dissenters, including highly qualified physicians.”21

4) Fourth, Dr. Fauci allowed CDC to discourage autopsies in deaths following vaccination. CDC refused to recommend autopsies on deaths reported to VAERS. That omission allowed the agency to repeatedly make the audacious, fraudulent declaration that all the 16,000 reported deaths following vaccination by October 2021 were “unrelated to the vaccines.” The regulatory agencies thereby abolished vaccine deaths and injuries by fiat.

Instead of exposing this sort of rank deception by government authorities, media and social media enablers emboldened HHS to new nadirs in regulatory malpractice. In January of 2021, baseball superstar Hank Aaron, whom I knew, died seventeen days after receiving the COVID jab at a CDC-sponsored press conference in Atlanta. I observed, in a Defender article,22 that Aaron’s death was one of a wave of deaths among the elderly following COVID jabs. This was true, but the New York Times nevertheless vilified me for spreading “misinformation” and claimed that the Fulton County Coroner had determined that Aaron’s death was “unrelated to vaccines.” USA Today, Newsweek, TIME, Daily Beast, ABC, CNN, and CBS reported the Times claim.23 But when I called to verify their claim, the Fulton County Coroner told me that the office has never seen Aaron’s body and that no autopsy was ever performed. Aaron’s family had buried the home-run hero without a postmortem. The Times’ fabrication was part of the systematic campaign of deception, propaganda, and censorship by HHS

regulators in partnership with mainstream media—almost unprecedented in the American experience—that helped conceal the tsunami of vaccine injuries and fatalities.

“Anthony Fauci is a great guy in the same way that Harvey Weinstein was a great guy,” says Jeff Hanson, the chairman of a large publicly traded healthcare corporation. “It all changed when widespread private knowledge about him crossed the transom into public knowledge. Weinstein, too, had powerful mainstream media outfits watching his back.

Incidentally, autopsy reports from other nations are revealing exactly the sorts of information that CDC, understandably, wants to protect Americans from learning.

In September 2021, veteran German pathologists and professors Dr. Arne Burkhardt, who served as director of the Institute of Pathology in Reutlingen for 18 years, and Dr. Walter Lang, chief of a leading lung pathology institute for 35 years, performed autopsies on ten cadavers of individuals who died following vaccination, finding that five were very likely, and two more probably, related to the jab.24

In three cases, they found strong evidence of lethal multi-system inflammation and runaway autoimmunity, including rare autoimmune diseases, like Hashimoto’s, an autoimmune-triggered hypothyroidism; leukoclastic vasculitis, an inflammatory reaction in the capillaries that leads to skin bleeding, and Sjögren’s syndrome, an inflammation of the salivary and lacrimal glands. “Three autoimmune diseases in a total of ten is a strikingly high rate,” said Professor Lang. The doctors also found large clusters of endothelial cells detached from the walls of blood vessels, and clumps of red blood cells that cause thrombosis, and giant cells that formed around trapped foreign bodies. Lang said he had not seen anything like these clusters of lymphocytes in hundreds of thousands of pathological studies: “The lymphocytes are running amok in all organs.” Lang faulted government regulators for hindering autopsies on vaccine reactions: “We’re missing out on 90 percent.”

5) Fifth, Dr. Fauci populated the key FDA and CDC committees with NIAID, NIH, and Gates Foundation grantees and loyalists to insure rubber-stamp approvals for his mRNA vaccines, without any long-term injury studies. More than half of FDA’s VRBPAC committee, which approved EUAs for Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, and granted final licensure to the Pfizer vaccine, were grant recipients from NIH, NIAID, BMGF, and pharmaceutical companies.25,26 More than half the CDC’s ACIP committee participants were similarly compromised.

6) Sixth, by vaccinating the entire population, Dr. Fauci seems to be striving to eliminate the control group, to hide vaccine injuries. In a 2015 interview, Dr. Fauci said:

I mean, if a parent really feels strongly against [vaccination], that parent can get an exemption. So there’s never a situation where someone is going to tie you down and vaccinate you or say you can’t go to any schools at all if you’re not vaccinated. Nowhere should you force someone to do anything.27

In the run-up to the rollout, Dr. Fauci frequently repeated his ethical antipathy against mandating vaccination. But once the voluntary market reached saturation, those scruples melted away and, following his guidance, the federal policies began treating the vaccine-hesitant as dangerous public enemies. “Our patience is wearing thin,” warned Joe Biden during a national address on September 9, 2021.28

Dr. Fauci presided over a progression of increasingly draconian forms of coercion to compel vaccination of the entire population. With his open encouragement, universities, schools, businesses, hospitals, public employers, and a litany of other societal power centers simultaneously launched numbing waves of strong-arm tactics to compel unwilling Americans to submit to vaccination, including threats of discrimination, job loss, exclusion from schools, parks, sports and entertainment venues, bars, restaurants, military service, public employment, travel, and health care. The unvaccinated experienced exclusion, marginalization, vilification, purges by social media platforms and mainstream media, as well as threats of violence, incarceration, legal reprisals, and deprivation of rights. In October 2021, New York Governor Kathy Hochul promised to deny driver’s licenses and automobile registration to the unvaccinated. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio threatened to exclude the unvaccinated from subways, gyms, bars, and businesses. A Colorado hospital announced the removal of unvaccinated patients from its lists of those eligible for organ transplants. Observing that

some 25 percent of African Americans were unvaccinated, civil rights leader Kevin Jenkins declared, “This is the new Jim Crow.”

Whether intentional or not, the effect of this escalation was, increasingly, to eliminate the control group—which, coincidentally, would permanently hide the evidence of vaccine injuries. This motivation alone explains Dr. Fauci’s reckless and ferocious drive to vaccinate every last American, even those who have natural immunity and nothing to gain from vaccination, Americans below fifty, even kindergarten-age children with zero risk from COVID, and pregnant women, despite a nearly complete lack of information about the jab’s impact on the fetus. Dr. Fauci continued to insist that fully vaccinating the entire population was the only path to ending the pandemic. This assertion ignored the fact that COVID vaccines prevent neither transmission nor infection, nor reductions in viral loads. Overwhelming science has proven that vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals are equally likely to spread disease. A September 2021 Israeli study demonstrating that natural immunity provides 27x better protection against COVID than the Pfizer vaccine is just one of 29 recently published peer-reviewed studies that vouch for the superiority of natural immunity.29,30 What, then, is motivating the fierce campaign to nevertheless coercively vaccinate the vaccine- resistant 25 percent, other than a strategy to eliminate the control group to hide the deaths and injuries?

** *

By November 2021, that retinue of concerning devices largely succeeded in concealing from Americans the well-established facts that Dr. Fauci’s vaccines neither prevented the disease nor its transmission, and that COVID vaccines were killing and injuring record numbers of Americans. The relentless broadcast of frightening and purposefully inflated COVID death reports stoked fears of the contagion that convinced many Americans to believe the government’s mantra that COVID vaccines were “safe and

effective” and that, to the extent they weren’t, “the vaccines cause more good than harm.”

Physicians and scientists complained that Dr. Fauci’s vaccine promotions constituted a vast, unprecedented population-wide experiment, with shady recordkeeping and no control group. Meanwhile, the actual data suggested that the COVID vaccines were causing far more deaths than they were averting.

The Pfizer Vaccine: A Cold Look at the Shocking


At this book’s November 2021 publication date, only Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, known as Comirnaty, had won FDA approval. Although Comirnaty is not yet given in the United States, its counterpart—the Pfizer-BioNTech, the same vaccine under a different name—is, so I will focus on the Pfizer- BioNTech vaccine. As of October 6, US health officials had administered more than 230 million doses of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, compared to 152 million doses of Moderna, and 15 million doses of Johnson & Johnson.31

The final summary of the Pfizer’s six-month clinical trial data—the document that Pfizer submitted to FDA to win approval—revealed one key data point that should have killed that intervention forever. Far more people died in the vaccine group than in the placebo group during Pfizer’s clinical trials. The fact that FDA nevertheless granted Pfizer full approval, and that the medical community embraced and prescribed this intervention for their patients, is eloquent testimony to the resilience of even the most deadly and inefficacious products, and the breathtaking power of the pharmaceutical industry and its government allies to control the narrative through captive regulators, compliant physicians, and media manipulation, and to overwhelm the fundamental common sense of much of humanity.

The Pfizer vaccine trial offers a lesson on the perils of ignoring “all- cause mortality” as the governing endpoint for vaccine approval. But before

we talk about “all-cause mortality,” let’s look at the evidence that convinced FDA to grant Pfizer its license.

Mathematical Chicanery: Relative Risk vs.

Absolute Risk

On the next page is Pfizer’s table S4 that summarizes death data from Pfizer’s six-month clinical trial. This was Pfizer’s final report to FDA; the study by then was unblinded and over.32 As anyone can see, Pfizer won FDA’s approval despite the rather pathetic showing that its vaccine might prevent one COVID death in every 22,000 vaccine recipients.

So, how did Pfizer transform its unimpressive record of eliminating a single COVID fatality among 22,000 vaccinated subjects into a $5 billion/year success story? By gulling the public with a deceptive measure called “relative risk,” instead of the presumptive and far more useful measure of “absolute risk.”

The table shows that during the six-month trial, two people in the placebo group numbering approximately 22,000 and only one in the similarly sized vaccine group died from COVID. Believe it or not, this data point is the source of Pfizer’s claim that the vaccine is 100 percent efficacious against death. Since only one person died from COVID in the vaccine group and two died in the placebo group, Pfizer can technically represent that the vaccine is a 100 percent improvement over the placebo. After all, the number “2” is 100 percent greater than the number “1,” right? The media winked at this canard, obligingly reporting Pfizer’s extraordinary 100 percent efficacy claim. At least some reporters must have understood that most Americans hearing this statistic would naturally believe that the vaccine would prevent 100 percent of deaths. A more honest—and helpful— way of thinking about the Pfizer vaccine’s efficacy is to consider that 22,000 vaccines must be given to save a single life from COVID. Equally concerning, every virologist and infectious disease expert knew that the true reduction in risk of 1/22,000—or about 0.01 percent, as the BMJ reported—

was far too insignificant to make the vaccine even a minor barrier against the spread of COVID. It’s axiomatic that any vaccine that does not prevent transmission and that spares only 1 in 22,000 from death from the target contagion has no ability to stop a pandemic.33 “Because the clinical trial showed that vaccines reduce absolute risk less than 1 percent (See: Brown R. and colleagues from Waterloo in Canada), those vaccines can’t possibly influence epidemic curves. It’s mathematically impossible,” explains Peter McCullough. Nevertheless, Dr. Fauci continued to promote the vaccine as the ultimate panacea.

The entire justification that Gates and Dr. Fauci had been trumpeting for a year— that their vaccines would end the pandemic—was now so much exploded shrapnel. Nevertheless, Dr. Fauci continued to claim that full vaccination of the entire population was the only way to end the pandemic. He thereby justified his insistence that Americans submit to mass vaccination.

But the story gets even worse. As table S4 shows, this entire meager advantage of preventing a single COVID death in every 22,000 vaccinated individuals (1/22,000) is entirely cancelled out by a fivefold increase in excess fatal cardiac arrests and congestive heart failures in vaccinated individuals (5/22,000). Pfizer and its regulatory magician, Dr. Fauci, used smoke and mirrors to divert public attention from this all-important question of all-cause mortality.


*Pfizer reported five additional deaths in the vaccinated group before unblinding the study that the company failed to tabulate in Table S4.

All-Cause Mortality

“All-cause mortality” should be the key metric in weighing the value of any medical intervention. That measure alone tells us whether vaccinated individuals enjoy better outcomes and longer lives than the unvaccinated.

Drugs and vaccines that appear, at first glance, effective against the target disease may, over longer terms, trigger deaths from unexpected causes: accidents, cancers, heart attacks, seizures, even depression and suicide—or from pathogenic priming—which cancel out the short-term benefits of the intervention. As we shall see in the next two chapters, Dr. Fauci learned, at the outset of his career, to find excuses for abbreviating clinical trials of toxic medications to keep long-term mortalities invisible and to cloud overall cost/benefit assessments.

Pfizer’s six-month clinical data for its COVID vaccine trials suggested that, while the vaccine would avert a single death from COVID-19, the vaccinated group suffered 4x the number of lethal heart attacks as the unvaccinated. In other words, there was no mortality benefit from the vaccines; for every life saved from COVID, there were four excess heart attack fatalities.34 Twenty people died of “all-cause mortality” among the 22,000 recipients in Pfizer’s vaccine group, versus only fourteen in the numerically comparable placebo group. (Pfizer was evidently so alarmed by the total number of deaths in its vaccine cohort that it omitted five of them from table S4, and only disclosed them in fine print buried in the body of its report.) That means there were 42.8 percent more deaths in the vaccine than in the placebo groups. Under FDA guidelines, researchers must attribute all injuries and deaths among the study group during clinical trials to the intervention (the vaccine) unless proven otherwise.35 Under this rule, the FDA must assume people who take the vaccine have a 42.8 percent increased risk of dying.

This six-month safety report was so damning that it should have closed the case against this vaccine, but captured FDA officials nevertheless gave Pfizer their approval; the broken VAERS system and the mainstream and social media all conspired to conceal the evidence of the crime when vaccinated Americans began dying in droves, and CDC implemented its own retinue of enshrouding machinations to cloak the real-life carnage.

Did US Cases and Deaths Drop After the National

Vaccination Campaign Began?

Dr. Fauci and the vaccine lobby began an opportunistic campaign of deception by claiming credit for their jabs when COVID-19 deaths dropped precipitously in mid-December, 2020, just after the vaccine rollout began. But the first Pfizer jab had reached only 27 million Americans (about 8 percent of the population) by February 1, and—according to the CDC—the jab takes at least sixty days to provide protection, so vaccines had little if anything to do with the drop. By mid-April, only 31 percent of Americans were vaccinated and even by June 15, only 48 percent had been jabbed. The January drop-off was probably from natural herd immunity—thanks to the spread of natural infections over the previous year—and widespread use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine following Pierre Kory’s December 5 Senate testimony,36 and the proliferation of six nationwide telemedicine clinics and several large networks of independent physicians that began early treatment of about one-fourth to one-third of all new infections in January.

Americans wouldn’t see the true impacts of vaccines on US mortalities until summer. But let’s look, for a moment, at what happened in other countries with faster rollouts, less guileful regulators, and more scrupulous data collection and reporting.


International Databases: Infection Increases

Following COVID Vaccines

Virtually all the countries that implemented rapid and aggressive COVID-19 vaccine campaigns experienced dramatic spikes in COVID infections. This documentation of increased susceptibility to COVID among highly vaccinated populations hints at the onset of the dreaded pathogenic priming in the months following mass vaccination.37


The world’s most vaccinated nation, Gibraltar, aggressively inoculated its 34,000 inhabitants, achieving 115 percent coverage (officials also vaccinated Spanish tourists) by July 2021. In December 2020, prior to the vaccine rollout, Gibraltar’s health agency had experienced only 1,040 confirmed cases and five deaths from COVID-19. After the vaccination blitz, the number of new infections increased fivefold—to 5,314—and the number of deaths increased nineteen-fold.38


Malta, another of Europe’s vaccine champions, administered 800,000 doses to its 500,000 inhabitants, achieving vaccine coverage of nearly 84 percent over six months. But beginning in July 2021, the epidemic and fatalities surged, forcing the authorities to impose new restrictions and to admit that vaccination cannot shield the population from COVID.39


By July 2021, Iceland vaccinated 80 percent of its 360,000 inhabitants with one vaccine and 75 percent with two. But by mid-July, new daily infections had risen from about ten to about 120 before stabilizing at a rate higher than the pre-vaccination period. This sudden recurrence convinced Iceland’s chief epidemiologist, Þórólfur Guðnason, of the impossibility of achieving herd immunity through vaccination.40 “It’s a myth,” he publicly declared. “In

Iceland, people no longer believe in herd immunity,” according to oncologist and statistician Dr. Gérard Delépine.41


By June 2021, Belgium had vaccinated nearly 75 percent of its 11.5 million population with one jab, and 65 percent with two. However, by the end of June 2021, new daily infections had risen from less than 500 to nearly 2,000. Belgian health officials acknowledged that the current vaccines cannot stop COVID, nor protect Belgium’s citizens.42


Singapore vaccinated nearly 80 percent of the population of 5,703,600 with at least one dose by the end of July 2021. But in late August, the country faced an exponential resumption of the epidemic. Daily cases increased from about ten in June to more than 150 at the end of July, and 1,246 cases on September 24.43


By July 2021, the United Kingdom had inoculated over 70 percent of its 67 million Brits with one shot, and 59 percent with both. Nevertheless, by mid- July Great Britain was suffering 60,000 new cases per day.44 Faced with record viral surges, Britain’s leading vaccinologist, Andrew Pollard, leader of the Oxford Vaccine Group, acknowledged before Parliament: collective immunity through vaccination is a myth.45

Even more worrying, British data compiled by Will Jones for the Daily Sceptic from August 2020 show a NEGATIVE VACCINE EFFECTIVENESS of -53 percent for the over-40 age group. Reported infections are highest in the double-vaccinated. This means that fully vaccinated individuals from this age group experienced a 53 percent HIGHER reported infection rate than the unvaccinated that month. Rather than preventing cases, the vaccine may be enhancing transmission. This

disproportionate number of vaccinated persons who seem to be sickening and dying strongly suggests that the world is beginning to see the predicted expression of pathogenic priming.46


Israel, champion of the Pfizer injection and pioneer of draconian mass vaccination mandates, inoculated 70 percent of its nine million people with at least one shot, and nearly 90 percent of those at risk with two, by June 2021. Israel, which formerly boasted itself the template for ruthless vaccine efficiency, is now the global model for vaccine failure.47

The epidemic rebounded in Israel stronger than ever in July, with a national record of 11,000 new cases recorded in a single day (September 14, 2021), surpassing by nearly 50 percent the previous peaks in January 2021 during the outbreak following the first Pfizer injections.48

On August 1, 2021, the director of Israel’s Public Health Services, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated. Signs of more serious disease among fully vaccinated are also emerging, she said, particularly in those over the age of 60.49

68 Nations and 3,000 US Counties

An October 3, 2021 study by scientists at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health compared vaccination rates for 68 nations and 2,947 counties across America as of September 21, and compared them to COVID-19 cases per one million people. Their report concludes that nations and counties with higher vaccination rates do not experience lower per capita Sars-CoV-2 cases.50,51

Pathogenic Priming? COVID Vaccines Are Linked

to Increased Deaths and Hospitalizations

By August 2021, Dr. Fauci, the CDC, and White House officials were reluctantly conceding that vaccination would neither stop illness nor

transmission, but nevertheless, they told Americans that the jab would, in any case, protect them against severe forms of the disease or death. (It’s worth mentioning that HCQ and ivermectin could have accomplished this same objective at a tiny fraction of its price.) Dr. Fauci and President Biden, presumably with Dr. Fauci’s prompting, told Americans that 98 percent of serious cases, hospitalizations, and deaths were among the unvaccinated. This was a lie. Real-world data from nations with high COVID jab rates show the complete converse of this narrative; the resumption of infections in all those countries accompanied an explosion of hospitalizations, severe cases and deaths among the vaccinated! Mortalities across the globe, in fact, have tracked Pfizer’s deadly clinical trial results, with the vaccinated dying in higher numbers than the non-vaccinated. These data cemented suspicions that the feared phenomenon of pathogenic priming has arrived, and is now wreaking havoc.


Following its pioneering world-record vaccine rollout, Gibraltar saw an immediate spike in deaths, suffering 2,853 fatalities per million inhabitants, a European per capita mortality record. During the first days of the rollout— which began with senior citizens—some 84 elderly died immediately after vaccination. Gibraltar’s shell-shocked Governor General said it was the largest mortalities ever suffered in the nation, exceeding even those endured during World War II.


Over a period of seven months preceding October 2021, some 60 percent of those 2,542 Brits who died from COVID were double vaccinated. Of people hospitalized in the UK for COVID in the last seven months, 157,000 were double-vaccinated.52 There were more per capita deaths among the “fully” vaccinated than the unvaccinated.53 The UK government’s latest Office for National Statistics report on mortality rates by COVID vaccination status

shows that for age-adjusted mortality rate, the death rate by October 2021 was higher among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.54


According to October 2021 data from public health officials in Wales, UK, vaccinated individuals accounted for shocking 87 percent of all new COVID hospitalizations.55 Only 80 percent of Welsh were then fully vaccinated. In other words, only 13 percent of severe cases that required a trip to the hospital were unvaccinated, suggesting that those who have taken the experimental vaccine are more likely to experience adverse reactions and become hospitalized from COVID-19.


In Scotland, official data on hospitalizations and deaths for October 2021 showed 87 percent of those who had died from COVID-19 in the third wave that began in early July were vaccinated. Only 70 percent of Scots were, at the time, fully vaccinated.56


In Israel, an increase in hospitalizations accompanied the epidemic’s ferocious resumption. The vaccinated represented the majority of those hospitalized. By the end of July, some 71 percent of the 118 seriously and critically ill Israelis were fully vaccinated! This proportion of seriously ill people vaccinated is much higher than the proportion of fully vaccinated people: 61 percent. According to Israel’s official report, August deaths were more frequent among fully vaccinated patients (679) than among non- vaccinated patients (390), belying official claims of a protective effect of the vaccine against dying. On August 5, 2021, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, reported on Channel 13 News that 95 percent of severely ill COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated, and that vaccinated Israelis make up 85 percent to 90 percent of COVID-related hospitalizations

overall.57 As the doubly vaccinated overwhelmed Israeli hospitals, the government announced in August a new plan for coping with its “Pandemic of the Vaccinated.” Israel said it will “update” its definition of “full vaccination” to require three, or even four, injections. “We are updating what it means to be vaccinated,” said Israel’s COVID czar, Salman Zarka.


Vermont is America’s most vaccinated state. On October 10, 2021, with 86 percent of its citizens fully vaccinated (according to COVID Dashboard), Vermont officials nevertheless reported the largest rate of infections ever— and revealed that more than three-quarters of Vermont’s September COVID- 19 deaths occurred in the “fully vaccinated.” Unvaccinated accounted for only eight of the state’s 33 virus deaths that month, and officials declined to reveal whether those eight were partially vaccinated. A department spokesman explained to Lifesite News that the breakthrough cases may reflect failing vaccine efficacy, as those who died were likely “among the very first to be vaccinated.” As hospitalizations approached the pandemic peak, September turned into Vermont’s second-deadliest month during the pandemic, according to the Associated Press.

Cape Cod

In my own hometown in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, a CDC investigation of an outbreak in Barnstable County, between July 6 through July 25, found 74 percent of those who received a diagnosis of COVID-19, and 80 percent of hospitalizations, were among the fully vaccinated.58 COVID resurgence and soaring breakthrough cases have plagued most of heavily-vaccinated New England, including Massachusetts, which has a vaccination rate nearly as perfect as Vermont’s. COVID-19 cases were more than four times higher in the Bay State in September 2021 compared to the previous September. Half the deaths were among the fully jabbed and with an unknown number among partially vaxxed.

page180image66273472 page180image51478528

page181image66262464 page181image51486640


New England’s COVID vaccine failure reflects an alarming national trend. A September report from the US Department of Defense revealed that 71 percent of recent cases of those hospitalized for COVID-19 in late August were fully vaccinated. DOD did not explain how many of the remainder were partially vaccinated.

Critics suggest that the shocking and predictable rise in COVID death following vaccination is evidence of long-feared pathogenic priming. Officials have offered no other compelling explanation as to why the vaccine consistently precipitates disproportionate injuries and deaths among the jabbed. It is not my intention to resolve this mystery here. Rather, I’m sharing the preceding graphs because the data trends they illustrate clash dramatically with official narratives. For that reason, you will not see reports about this alarming phenomenon on mainstream media. The Johns Hopkins

University Coronavirus Resource Center collated the data for these graphs. Johns Hopkins is a central support column of mainstream medicine, and an aggressive promoter of COVID vaccines in particular. Johns Hopkins has received tens of millions of dollars from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and over a billion dollars from Tony Fauci’s NIAID and NIH.59,60 The Johns Hopkins data, nevertheless, clearly demonstrate that COVID deaths typically spike sharply in many country after country immediately after mass vaccination. The South African physicians group PANDA has assembled the Johns Hopkins data for every nation in an easy- to-view video.61 PANDA’s graphs illustrate this frightening “dead zone” that immediately followed vaccination drives in most of the world’s nations.

In the US, COVID Vaccines Caused Record Deaths

Despite CDC’s efforts to hide the carnage in the US, even the dysfunctional VAERS system has recorded unprecedented waves of documented deaths following COVID vaccines.

In 1976, US regulators pulled the swine flu vaccine after it was linked to 25 deaths.62 In contrast, between December 14, 2020 and October 1, 2021, American doctors and bereaved families have reported more than 16,000 deaths and a total of 778,685 injuries to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID vaccination.63,64 The Europeans’ surveillance sites tallied 40,000 deaths and 2.2 million adverse reactions. Due to chronic undercounting by VAERS and its European sister system, those numbers are almost certainly only a fraction of the true injuries. To illustrate how unprecedented this harm and death is, look at this “hockey stick” effect in CDC’s own graph of the 30-year history of deaths reported to VAERS from all vaccines.

Health workers have administered many billions of vaccines during the past thirty-two years, yet in just eight months, the COVID vaccines have injured and killed far more Americans than all other vaccines combined over three decades. VAERS data show the huge spikes—69.84 percent65—of


deaths occurring during the two weeks after vaccination, 39.48 percent within 24 hours of the injections.66 According to CDC’s fatality data, a COVID vaccine is 98 times more likely to kill than a flu vaccine.67

Other databases have, not surprisingly, yielded much higher projections of COVID vaccine deaths than VAERS.

A recent peer-reviewed study in the high-gravitas Elsevier journal Toxicology Reports found that COVID-19 vaccines kill more people in each age group than they save. According to that study the “best-case scenario” is five times the number of deaths attributable to each vaccination vs. those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic.68

Similarly, a September 2021 analysis by a team of prominent scientists and mathematicians convened by Silicon Valley entrepreneur Steve Kirsch— of half a dozen population and surveillance system databases, including

VAERS—using eight different independent methods, attributes 150,000 deaths to COVID vaccines in the United States since January 2020. Kirsch has offered a million-dollar reward for anyone who finds an error in this calculation.69,70 Kirsch’s study which found that the vaccines kill more people than they save in every age range was consistent with Pfizer’s six- month clinical trial finding that people who took the vaccine were more likely to die than people who didn’t take the vaccine (there were a total of twenty deaths in the people who took the vaccine vs. fourteen deaths in the people who didn’t take the vaccine).71

In yet another effort to calculate excess deaths from vaccinations from a non-VAERS database, Ohio-based Attorney Thomas Renz used the Medicare database (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) to calculate that there have been 48,465 deaths among Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries within fourteen days of a first or second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.72,73 There are about 59.4 million Americans covered by Medicare, representing only 18.1 percent of the population, so these staggering numbers are roughly comparable to Steve Kirsch’s population-wide estimate of 150,000.

How CDC Hid The Wave of Vaccine Deaths

According to Dr. Fauci, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the White House, and most mainstream media, we now have a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,”74 with 95 percent to 99 percent of COVID-related hospitalizations and deaths being attributed to the unvaccinated. As I mentioned above, these estimates are the product of systematic deception of the public—and presumably of the President—by America’s top regulators. So how did CDC go about fooling President Biden?

One of CDC’s bold deceptions is to hide vaccine mortalities in US data by counting all people as “unvaccinated” unless their deaths occur more than two weeks AFTER the second vaccine.75 (Ironically, CDC doubles down on this fraud by counting many of these vaccine deaths as COVID deaths.) In this way, CDC captures that wave of deaths that occurs after vaccination and

attributes them all to “unvaccinated.” This is only one of many statistical chicaneries that the CDC employs to hide vaccine injuries and to stoke public fears of COVID.

The CDC utilized an even brassier canard to support President Joe Biden’s claim that 98 percent of vaccine hospitalizations and deaths were among the unvaccinated. In an August 5 video statement, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky inadvertently revealed the agency’s principal gimmick for fabricating that statistic. Walensky sheepishly admitted that CDC included hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021 in its calculation.76 The vast majority of the US population were, of course, unvaccinated during that time frame, so it makes sense that almost all hospitalizations would therefore be only among the unvaccinated. This is simply because there were almost no vaccinated Americans during that time period! By January 1, only 0.4 percent of the US population had received a COVID shot.77 By mid-April, an estimated 37 percent had received one or more shots78 and as of June 15, only 43.34 percent were fully “vaccinated.”79 Using these data was therefore pretty blatant fraud. Of course, CDC never let on that it was foisting eight-month-old data on Americans, allowing us instead to believe that these were current hospitalization rates as of August. To compound this flimflam, CDC perpetuated an even more audacious hustle. CDC omitted the current (as of August) data related to hospitalizations from the Delta variant, which disproportionately hospitalized vaccinated individuals in those other countries for which we have more reliable data.

CDC’s promotion of this statistical bunko was obviously grossly misleading. Assuming President Biden wasn’t deliberately lying to the American people, it’s clear that CDC was lying to President Biden and using him to dupe the rest of us.

COVID Vaccines—Other Injuries

Despite the obstacles to reporting, VAERS recorded nearly 800,000 injuries by the 91⁄2 months between December 14, 2020 and October 2021, with 112,000 classified as “serious.” Pfizer either did not report several severe injuries—short of death—or deceptively deemphasized their severity, during clinical trials, including neurological harm, thrombocytopenia, blood clots, strokes, embolisms, aneurysms, myocarditis, Bell’s palsy, Guillain-Barré syndrome, multi-organ failure, amputation, blindness, paralysis, tinnitus, and menstrual harms. More than 30,000 women in the UK80 and 6,000 in the US have complained of the latter.81

On September 28, a scientific journal, JAMA Neurology, reported a new series of cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to COVID-19 vaccines,82 confirming the severity of the reaction and the associated high mortality rate, and another journal confirmed the resumption of hepatitis C in a patient related to the jab.83

The numbers of and diversity of these serious injuries probably continue to be dramatically underreported. Steve Kirsch has investigated several broad deceptions Pfizer used to conceal injuries to the vaccine group during its clinical trial. We know, for example, due to the courage of Maddie and her parents, that Maddie de Garay, a 14-year-old who participated in the Pfizer trial, suffered severe neurological injuries including seizures and permanent paralysis. However, Pfizer reported only that Maddie suffered a stomach ache.

The Pfizer vaccine only gained emergency authorization for use in children because Pfizer manipulated trial data and committed serious offences, like hiding Maddie de Garay’s injury.

Given that Maddie was only one of 2,300 teenagers in Pfizer’s trial, her injury was potentially very significant. By extrapolating a one in 2,300 injury rate to the 86 million teens who Pfizer and Dr. Fauci have targeted for vaccination, some 36,000 of these potentially debilitating injuries could be expected to develop nationwide. While COVID may kill old people,84 the vaccine, in Maddie’s case, shows it also kills and harms the young.

Pfizer’s clinical data predicted potentially fatal myocarditis in one in every 318 teens. Post-marketing data confirm astronomically high rates of myocarditis injuries. On October 1, 2021, a team of medical researchers and statisticians found that myocarditis rates reported in VAERS were significantly higher in teens than Pfizer had reported in its clinical data.

According to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, there have been 7,537 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis reported following COVID vaccines,85 with 5,602 cases attributed to Pfizer.86 Some 476 of these reports occurred in children from 12 to 17 years old.87

According to an article in Current Trends in Cardiology, “Within eight weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12–15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group.”88 But even these alarming numbers may underreport myocarditis injuries. Israeli data and US data presented to CDC’s advisory committee on June 23, 2021 similarly found the rate of reported cases of myocarditis in vaccinated teenage boys aged 12–17 is at least twenty-five times greater than expected, and is fifty times greater than the reported rate in vaccinated males over 65.

These astonishing numbers mean myocarditis is far from a “rare” side effect, as Dr. Fauci and Pfizer like to claim. Nor is it harmless. A recent study suggests that myocarditis is associated with a 50 percent mortality within five years.89 A teen had effectively zero risk of dying from COVID and a substantial risk of death from vaccination.

In October 2021, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland announced that they will pause the use of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for children under 18 years of age, after increased reports of inflammatory diseases like myocarditis and pericarditis.90,91 That same week, Iceland banned Moderna’s jab outright due to heart inflammation risk.

Furthermore, the VAERS data may also be dramatically underreporting myocarditis and other injuries.

Just before I published this book, in late October 2021, FDA made an extraordinary admission in a letter to Pfizer92 to explain the chronic underreporting of serious but common vaccine-induced injuries and deaths. FDA, at last, admitted that VAERS is worthless for detecting vaccine injuries.

We have determined that an analysis of spontaneous postmarketing adverse events [VAERS reports] reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA [Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act] will not be sufficient to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis. Furthermore, the pharmacovigilance system that FDA is required to maintain under section 505(k)(3) of the FDCA is not sufficient to assess these serious risks.

At best, this letter is a shocking acknowledgement that regulators have no way to assess whether their vaccines are killing and injuring more humans than they are helping. In any rational regulatory environment, FDA’s alarming admission would demand an instantaneous cessation of the vaccine rollout.

Only Dr. Anthony Fauci can answer the question, “Why—given FDA’s stunning confession that America has no functional surveillance system— did HHS not immediately stop the COVID vaccine rollout?” The answer, of course, is that Dr. Fauci knows that America’s bought, brain-dead, and scientifically illiterate media will never force him to answer this query.

Waning Vaccines

Compounding concerns over FDA’s confession that Americans have no way to assess the risks from COVID vaccines is the uncontestable proof that COVID vaccine efficacy drops precipitously almost immediately after vaccination.

Pfizer and FDA may have opted to end the company’s clinical trial after six months (the optional plan was a three-year trial ending in December 2023), after realizing that the vaccine was causing significant harms and that

its fast-waning efficacy would make a cost/benefit analysis unsupportable if the study continued. In other words, the injury axis almost immediately crosses the benefits axis.

An October 3, 2021 study in the peer-reviewed journal BioRxiv by Stanford and Emory University scientists suggests that antibody levels generated by the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine can suffer a ten-fold decrease seven months after the second vaccination.93 The scientists warn that the precipitous drop in antibody levels will compromise the body’s ability to defend itself against COVID-19 if the individual is exposed to COVID.

A second study published the same week confirms that the immune protection offered by two doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine drops off after only two months!94

Another government-funded study in October confirms the decline in vaccine effectiveness in England95 finding that the reduction in transmission “declined over time since second vaccination, for Delta reaching similar levels to unvaccinated individuals by 12 weeks for [the AstraZeneca vaccine] and attenuating substantially for [Pfizer].” In other words, within just three months, AstraZeneca did nothing to prevent transmission, and Pfizer was scarcely better.96

The study appearing in The Lancet confirms that vaccine effectiveness against infection disappears so fast that it is ephemeral. The heavily powered study involved 3,436,957 Kaiser Permanente Southern California customers and compared infections and COVID-19-related hospital admissions of fully vaccinated to unvaccinated people over the age of twelve for up to six months.97

The researchers found that vaccine effectiveness against infection plummeted from 88 percent during the first month after double vaccination to 47 percent after five months. The researchers found vaccine effectiveness against Delta infection was 93 percent during the first month after double vaccination but dropped to 53 percent after four months.98

This information should sicken every doctor who has ever given one of these jabs to a trusting patient. It means that these products confer no benefits to individuals or society and their long-term costs are foreboding and largely unknown. How could this have happened?

Vaccinating Children is Unethical

Our collective nausea can only amplify when we ask, “Why are we vaccinating children?” Kirsch’s model estimates that 600 children have already died from COVID vaccines as of September 2021. A recent Lancet study shows that a healthy child has zero risk for COVID, suggesting that most of these kids are dying unnecessarily.99 Some 86 percent of children suffered an adverse reaction to the Pfizer COVID vaccine in clinical trial. And one in nine children suffered a serious reaction grave enough to leave them unable to perform daily activities. How can we then justify forcing a healthy child to take a vaccine that is dead certain to injure many and kill some while bestowing no benefits? “How can anyone consider it ethical,” asks Kirsch, “to put a child at risk, for the pretext that it might shield an adult? Show me any adult who thinks this is okay, and I’ll show you a monster!”

COVID-19 vaccines have caused cardiac arrest, blindness, and paralysis in American children. British Health Service reports emergency calls for cardiac arrest are at an all-time high since the government began offering teens the COVID-19 vaccine. COVID vaccines do not protect children from hospitalization or death associated with COVID-19 because healthy children are not being hospitalized or dying with COVID-19 [NHS statistics]. Children will not gain anything from having the jab because the vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, as in three recent studies published by the CDC, UK government, and Oxford University. There is no evidence that the vaccines have prevented a single child’s death.


Troubling statistics from Britain’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) verify the expected: deaths among teenagers during the summer of 2021 increased significantly over the previous year, coinciding with the vaccine rollout. According to an analysis by The Exposé’s Will Jones,100 between

weeks 23 and 37 in 2021—simultaneous with the vaccine rollout—there were 252 deaths among 15- to 19-year-olds in England and Wales, compared to 162 in the same period in 2020, an increase of ninety, or 56 percent—a very high number that deserves some kind of explanation.

Importantly, there is no similar rise among younger children aged one to fourteen, a cohort that was not vaccinated. Instead, 2020 was a low-mortality year for this age group. COVID cannot be blamed for the sudden rise in deaths among 15- to 19-year-olds in summer 2021, as the Office of National Statistics (ONS) data shows that over the period, there were only nine deaths with COVID in that age group. This real-world evidence suggests that over the summer, the vaccines killed nine times as many 15- to 19-year-olds as COVID did—eighty-one versus nine. “If not,” asks Jones, “what are the other possible explanations, and how likely are they?”

Teen deaths among 15- to 19-year-olds have increased by 47 percent in the UK since they started getting the COVID-19 vaccine, according to official ONS data.101

Since the vaccine almost certainly causes more teen deaths and injuries than COVID-19, vaccinating this age group102 is highly unethical, and any physician who inoculates a healthy child is committing serious medical malpractice.

Nevertheless, Anthony Fauci is urging that kids will be vaccinated in schools without parental consent, despite a mountain of evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines are killing American children and bestow on them no benefit.

Media Censors Reports of Vaccine Deaths

Most Americans are unaware of all this carnage because the mainstream and social media companies immediately scrub injuries reported by doctors, victims, and families. Media outlets like CNN and the New York Times ignore the tsunami of vaccine injuries and deaths while reflexively inflating those deaths they can blame on COVID. As part of a broad propaganda

agenda, they report—with seeming glee—the occasional COVID death among the unvaccinated. Illustratively, on September 10, 2021, an ABC affiliate in Detroit solicited stories on its Facebook page about unvaccinated people who had died from COVID. Instead, the network got something they did not want: more than 230,000 messages containing heartbreaking stories of injuries and deaths from vaccines. None of these communications were reporting deaths among the unvaccinated. Readers shared the post over two hundred thousand times in ten days.103

Vaccinated Are Equally Likely to Spread COVID

Dr. Fauci’s official theology makes “unvaccinated” America’s national scapegoat, holding that they are more likely to spread disease and therefore should not be allowed to participate in civic life. The data across multiple sources and studies depict a very different reality.

In July 2021, the CDC found that fully vaccinated individuals who contract the infection have as high a viral load in their nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals who get infected. This means the vaccinated are just as infectious as the unvaccinated.

Another study from Indonesia supported this observation, noting that vaccinated individuals carry 251x the viral loads of Delta and other mutant variants than they did in the pre-vaccine era. Simply put, as Dr. Peter McCullough observed, “each vaccinated person is now a kind of Typhoid Mary for COVID, spreading concentrated viral loads of vaccine resistant mutants to vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.”104 CDC acknowledges that vaccinated individuals carry at least as many COVID germs in their noses as the unvaccinated.105 CDC cited this revelation to justify its August 2021 mask mandate.106

An October 2021 investigation by Israel’s medical authorities of a COVID-19 outbreak in a highly vaccinated population of health workers at the Meir Medical Center in Sheba recorded 23.3 percent of patients and 10.3 percent of staff infected, despite a 96.2 percent vaccination rate among

exposed individuals.107 Moreover, the researchers recorded multiple transmissions between two fully vaccinated individuals, both wearing surgical masks, and in one instance using full PPE, including N-95 mask, face shield, gown, and gloves.108

Endnotes – Arbitrary Decrees: Science-Free


  1. 1  Norah McDonnell, Dr. Fauci Says, “With All Due Modesty, I Think I’m Pretty Effective.” InStyle. (July 15, 2020). all-due-modesty-i-think-im-pretty-effective
  2. 2  Darragh Roche, “Fauci Said Masks ‘Not Really Effective in Keeping Out Virus,’ Email Reveals,” Newsweek (Jun. 2, 2021), sks-not-really-effective-keeping-out-virus-email-reveals-1596703
  3. 3  USA Today, ‘Danger of getting coronavirus now is just minisculely low’, USA Today Video (Feb. 17, 2020), navirus-what-dont-we-know-dr-anthony-fauci-q-a-opinion/4790996002/
  4. 4  US Dept HHS, 00:44:12, “Update on the New Coronavirus Outbreak First Identified in Wuhan, China | January 28, 2020,” YouTube, 6koHkBCoNQ&t=2605s
  5. 5  Shaun Griffin, Covid-19: Asymptomatic cases may not be infectious, Wuhan study indicates, BMJ, (Dec. 1, 2020).
  6. 6  Children’s Health Defense, The Science of Masks, (2020-2021). https://childrenshealt
  7. 7  Jeffrey D. Smith et al, Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis, CMAJ. (May 17, 2016). tent/uploads/Effectiveness-of-N95-respirators-versus-surgical-masks-in-protecting-he alth-care-workers-from-acute-respiratory-infection-a-systematic-review-and-meta-ana lysis.pdf
  8. 8  Ibid.
  9. 9  Alex Gutentag, “The War on Reality,” Tablet (Jun. 28, 2021),
  10. 10  Edmund DeMarche, Fauci’s controversial ‘60 Minutes’ interview about mask-wearingwas one year ago, FOX News, (Mar 8, 2021). controversial-60-minutes-interview-about-mask-wearing-was-one-year-ago

page195image66268032 page195image66267840 page195image66266112page195image66263424 page195image66267648page195image66267456 page195image66267264 page195image66267072page195image66266880 page195image66266688 page195image66266496 page195image66265536page195image66265344page195image66265152 page195image66264960 page195image66264768page195image66264576 page195image66264384page195image66264192

  1. 11  Graison Dangor, “CDC’s Six-Foot Social Distancing Rule Was ‘Arbitrary’, Says Former FDA Commissioner,” Forbes (Sept. 19, 2021), graisondangor/2021/09/19/cdcs-six-foot-social-distancing-rule-was-arbitrary-says-for mer-fda-commissioner/?sh=238cdd32e8e6
  2. 12  Face The Nation, “Gottlieb calls CDC’s six-foot distancing recommendation ‘arbitrary’,” Twitter (Sept. 19, 2021), 82587173941248
  3. 13  Spectator TV, “WHO Special Envoy on COVID – Dr David Nabarro on Lockdowns (Oct. 8, 2020),” YouTube …of Record, 00:09:39, YdSpiLBQWV0
  4. 14  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing On-Premises Restaurant Dining with County-Level COVID- 19 Case and Death Growth Rates — United States, March 1–December 31, 2020, MMWR, (Mar 12, 2021).
  5. 15  Donald G. McNeil, Jr., “How Much Herd Immunity Is Enough?,” New York Times (Dec. 24, 2020), oronavirus.html?searchResultPosition=2
  6. 16  Wen Shi Li, et al, Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies, Nature Microbiology, (Sep 9, 2020). 41564-020-00789-5
  7. 17  Nouara Yahi et al, Infection-enhancing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies recognize both the original Wuhan/D614G strain and Delta variants. A potential risk for mass vaccination?, Journal of Infection, (Aug 9, 2021). m/article/S0163-4453(21)00392-3/fulltext
  8. 18  Jordan Lancaster, Fauci Doesn’t Have An Answer To Why Those Who Recovered From Covid Are Required To Take Vaccine, The Daily Caller, (Sep 10, 2021). https:// ne/
  9. 19, Dr. Fauci calls for unvaccinated Americans to be banned from air travel and to mandate #COVID19 vaccines for school children, Twitter, (Sep 13, 2021). http s://
  10. 20  Nieman Foundation, “Dr. Anthony Fauci: ‘You’ve Got to Evolve with the Science. Science Is a Self-Correcting Process’,” Nieman Reports (Jun. 30, 2021), https://niema
  11. 21  Alan Reynolds, “How One Model Simulated 2.2 Million U.S. Deaths from COVID- 19,” Cato Institute (Apr. 21, 2020, 3:05 p.m.), del-simulated-22-million-us-deaths-covid-19

page196image66259776 page196image66263232page196image66263040 page196image66262848 page196image66262656 page196image66262080page196image66261888 page196image66261696 page196image66261504page196image66261312 page196image66261120 page196image66260544 page196image66260352page196image66260160 page196image66259968 page196image66257280page196image66259008 page196image66258816 page196image66258624page196image66260736 page196image66260928

Ryan Chatelain, “U.S. COVID deaths in 2021 surpass 2020 total,” Spectrum News

  1. 22  NY1 (Oct. 06, 2021),–covid-deaths-in-2021-top-2020-total *Models predicted 2.2 million deaths, 352,000 deaths were reported in 2020, the difference was 1.848 million deaths or a 525% overestimation of deaths related to COVID-19 based on models used to determine lockdowns.
  2. 23  BMGF Committed Grants, “Imperial College London 2016-2020,” BMGF Grants Database, ollege&yearAwardedEnd=2020&yearAwardedStart=2016
  3. 24  Centers for Control and Prevention, Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics, (Oct 6, 2021). weekly/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR3-wrg3tTKK5-9tOHPGAHWFVO3DfslkJ0KsDEPQ pWmPbKtp6EsoVV2Qs1Q
  4. 25  Vincent Racaniello & Rich Condit, “COVID-19 with Dr. Anthony Fauci-Episode 641” TWiV (Jul. 17, 2020),
  5. 26  Daniel Payne, In little noticed July interview, Fauci warned that widely used COVID tests may pick up ‘dead’ virus, Just the News, (Dec 10, 2020). m/politics-policy/coronavirus/newly-surfaced-video-july-fauci-tests-dead-virus
  6. 27  Michelle Rogers, “Fact check: Hospitals get paid more if patients listed as COVID- 19, on ventilators- Senator Scott Jensen video,” USA TODAY, (Apr. 24, 2020), https:// aid-more-covid-19-patients-coronavirus/3000638001/
  7. 28  Ibid. USA Today
  8. 29  Ross Lazarus et al, Medicare paid hospitals $39,000 per deaths from treating COVID-19, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), (2010). https://digital. df
  9. 30  Jonathan Rothwell, “U.S. Adults’ Estimates of COVID-19 Hospitalization Risk,” GALLUP, (Sep 27, 2021). mates-covid-hospitalization-risk.aspx
  10. 31  Elizabeth Fernandez, “Smoking Nearly Doubles the Rate of COVID-19 Progression,” UCSF (May 12, 2020), oubles-rate-covid-19-progression
  11. 32  Becky McCall, “Vitamin D Deficiency in COVID-19 Quadrupled Death Rate,” Medscape (Dec. 11, 2020),
  12. 33  Berkeley Lovelace, Jr., “CDC study finds about 78% of people hospitalized for Covid were overweight or obese,” CNBC (Mar. 8, 2021),

page197image66257664 page197image66257472page197image66256896 page197image66257088page197image66270912 page197image66320640 page197image66319488page197image66321216 page197image66308736page197image66309120 page197image66308928page197image66320256 page197image66319680 page197image66319872page197image66319104 page197image66319296page197image66318336 page197image66318912 page197image66318528page197image66320064 page197image66306048



  1. 34  Carolyn Crist, “Study: In U.S., Lockdowns Added 2 Pounds per Month,” WebMD,(Mar. 23, 2021)
  2. 35  M. Science, J. Johnstone, et al, “Zinc for the treatment of the common cold: asystematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” CMAJ. 2012;184(10):E551-E561. doi:10.1503/ cmaj.111990 mc/articles/PMC3394849/
  3. 36  College of Physicians and Surgeons, Statement on Public Health Information, (Apr 30, 2021). mation
  4. 37  Emma Talkoff & Ashley Fetters Maloy, “The anti-vax wellness influencers,” Post Reports-Podcast (Oct. 1, 2021) 00:10:11, post-reports/the-antivax-wellness-influencers/ 96jw8o9QtrMHPoI5Aa (00:10:25)
  5. 38  Gabby Landsverk,“Long-term quarantines can weaken your immune system due to loneliness and stress. Here’s how to cope,” Insider (May 12, 2020), https://www.insid -5
  6. 39  “Stress Weakens the Immune System,” APA (Feb. 26, 2006), earch/action/immune
  7. 40  Yale, “Harvey Risch, MD, PhD Biography,” Yale School of Public Health (Jul. 15, 2019),
  8. 41  Peter A. McCullough, et al., The Pathophysiologic Basic and Clinical Rationale for Early Ambulatory Treatment of COVID-19, V:134 I:1 The American Journal of Medicine P16-22, (Jan 1, 2021,) DOI:
  9. 42  Peter A. McCullough, et al., Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19), 30;21(4):517-530 Rev Cardiovasc Med. (Dec. 2020), doi: 10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264,
  10. 43  FLCCC, “Dr. Pierre Kory, M.P.A., M.D. curriculum vitae,” FLCCC Alliance, https://c ory.pdf
  11. 44  Joel Rose, U.S. Field Hospitals Stand Down, Most Without Treating Any COVID-19 Patients, NPR, (May 7, 2020).

page198image66316992 page198image66315456page198image66316224 page198image66316416 page198image66316608 page198image66312192page198image66315648 page198image66309312 page198image66309504page198image66312768 page198image66312384 page198image66315840page198image66315264 page198image66315072 page198image66314880page198image66314688 page198image66314496 page198image66314304page198image66314112 page198image66316032 page198image66312960 page198image66313920page198image66313728


  1. 45  New York Times staff, Nearly One-Third of U.S. Coronavirus Deaths Are Linked toNursing Homes, (Jun 1, 2021). New York Times,
  2. 46  New York Times staff, Nearly One-Third of U.S. Coronavirus Deaths Are Linked toNursing Homes, (Jun 1, 2021). New York Times,
  3. 47  The FLCCC Alliance, FLCCC (2021),
  4. 48  Paul G. Harch, Hyperbaric oxygen treatment of novel coronavirus (COVID-19)respiratory failure, Medical Gas Research, ()pr-Jun, 2020).
  5. 49  Scott A Gorenstein et al, Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for COVID-19 patients withrespiratory distress: treated cases versus propensity-matched controls, Undersea & Hyperbaric Medical Society, (Third-quarter, 2020). 2931666/
  6. 50  Saikiran Kannan, Did nasal rinsing help ASEAN control pandemic or swift action?, India Today, (jul 24, 2020). nsing-help-asean-control-pandemic-or-swift-action-1703801-2020-07-24
  7. 51  Peter A. McCullough et al., The Pathophysiologic Basic and Clinical Rationale for Early Ambulatory Treatment of COVID-19, V:134 I:1 The American Journal of Medicine P16-22, (Jan 1, 2021,) DOI:
  8. 52  Jianjun Gao et al, Breakthrough: Chloroquine phosphate has shown apparent efficacy in treatment of COVID-19 associated pneumonia in clinical studies, BioScience Trends, (Mar 26, 2020). Breakthrough: Chloroquine phosphate has shown apparent efficacy in treatment of COVID-19 associated pneumonia in clinical studies
  9. 53  National Health Commission & State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Diagnosis and Treatment Protocol for Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia, (Mar 3, 2020). ation.pdf
  10. 54  Aimee Quin, Interview with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., (Oct. 1, 2021).
  11. 55  AAPS, “Physician List & Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment,” AAPS (Aug.28, 2021),
  12. 56  The WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) WorkingGroup, Association Between Administration of Systemic Corticosteroids and

page199image66309696 page199image66312576 page199image66312000page199image66311808 page199image66311616 page199image66311424 page199image66311232page199image66311040 page199image66310848 page199image66310656 page199image66310464page199image66309888 page199image66306240page199image66308544 page199image66308352page199image66308160 page199image66307968 page199image66307776

Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 A Meta-analysis, (Sep 22,


  1. 57  Univesity of Oxford, Common asthma treatment reduces need for hospitalisation inCOVID-19 patients, study suggests, (Feb 9, 2021). Common asthma treatmentreduces need for hospitalisation in COVID-19 patients, study suggests
  2. 58  Ly-Mee Yu, DPhil et al, Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at high risk ofcomplications in the community in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial, The Lancet, (Aug 10, 2021). https://www.thelance
  3. 59  Aaron Z. Reyes et al, Anti-inflammatory therapy for COVID-19 infection: the case for colchicine, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, (May, 2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.n
  4. 60  Peter A. McCullough et al, Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19), Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, (2020). 153-8174/RCM2020264.shtml
  5. 61  R. Derwanda, M. Scholzb, & V. Zelenko, “COVID-19 outpatients: early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study,” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, Volume 56, Issue 6, Dec 2020, 106214, 214,
  6. 62  McMaster University, Antidepressant fluvoxamine can save COVID-19 patients, McMaster-led research shows, (Aug 17, 2021). cles/antidepressant-fluvoxamine-can-save-covid-19-patients-mcmaster-led-research-s hows/
  7. 63  Gilmar Reis, et al., “Effect of Early Treatment With Hydroxychloroquine or Lopinavir and Ritonavir on Risk of Hospitalization Among Patients With COVID-19: The TOGETHER Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA Netw. Open, 4(4):e216468 (Apr. 22, 2021), doi:10.1001/ jamanetworkopen.2021.6468. amanetworkopen/fullarticle/2779044
  8. 64  Paul E. Alexander, et al., Early multidrug treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) and reduced mortality among nursing home (or outpatient/ambulatory) residents, V: 153 ISSN: 0306-9877 (Aug. 2021), 110622.
  9. 65  Juan IgnacioMorán Blanco, et al., Antihistamines and azithromycin as a treatment for COVID-19 on primary health care – A retrospective observational study in elderly

page200image66307200 page200image66307008 page200image66306816page200image66306624 page200image66306432 page200image66320832 page200image66321024page200image66321984 page200image66320448 page200image66302528page200image66302336 page200image66291968page200image66292160 page200image66292352 page200image66291392

patients, V: 67 ISSN 1094-5539 (Apr. 2021),


  1. 66  Peter A. McCullough, et al., Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrugtreatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19), 30;21(4):517-530 Rev Cardiovasc Med. (Dec. 2020), doi: 10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264,
  2. 67  The New York Times, “See How the Vaccine Rollout Is Going in Your State,” NYT (Jan. 31, 2021), om/interactive/2020/us/covid-19-vaccine-doses.html

Endnotes – Killing Hydroxychloroquine

  1. 1  Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2018 Form 990, Attachment C, page 4, (2018). http s:// 35c2aa163
  2. 2  U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products and Related Authorities, (Jan 2017). ation/search-fda-guidance-documents/emergency-use-authorization-medical-products -and-related-authorities#preeua
  3. 3  Jonathan Saltzman, US Government Has Invested $6 Billion In Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine, STAT News, (April 30th 2021). overnment-has-invested-6-billion-in-modernas-covid-19-vaccine/https://www.statnew ne/
  4. 4  Bob Herman, NIH-Moderna Confidential Disclosure Agreement, AXIOS, (Nov 6, 2015) al-Agreements.html
  5. 5  Zain Rizvi, The NIH Vaccine, PUBLIC CITIZEN, (Jun 25, 2020). https://www.citize
  6. 6  Legal Information Institute, 15 U.S. Code § 3710c – Distribution of royalties received by Federal agencies, CORNELL LAW SCHOOL, e/text/15/3710c
  7. 7  Marisa Taylor and Aram Roston, Pressed by Trump, U.S. pushed unproven coronavirus treatment guidance, REUTERS, (Apr 4, 2020). rticle/us-health-coronavirus-usa-guidance-exclu/exclusive-pressed-by-trump-u-s-push ed-unproven-coronavirus-treatment-guidance-idUSKBN21M0R2
  8. 8  World Health Organization, Unedited Report of the 18th Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines, (Mar 21-25, 2011).

page201image66303296 page201image66302720 page201image66302912 page201image66303104page201image66305600 page201image66305408 page201image66305216page201image66305024 page201image66304832 page201image66304640page201image66304448 page201image66303872 page201image66303680page201image66303488page201image66297152 page201image66301952 page201image66301760 page201image66301568page201image66299648 page201image66304064 page201image66304256page201image66299840 page201image66301376page201image66301184


  1. 9  Concordia Pharmaceuticals Inc, PLAQUENIL® HYDROXYCHLOROQUINESULFATE TABLETS, USP, (Jan, 2017).
  3. 11  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Medicines for the Prevention of MalariaWhile Traveling Hydroxychloroquine (PlaquenilTM),
  4. 12  Peter A. McCullough, MD, Why doctors and researchers need access tohydroxychloroquine, THE HILL, (Aug 7, 2020).
  5. 13  Els Keyaerts et al, In vitro inhibition of severe acute respiratory syndromecoronavirus by chloroquine, BIOCHEMICAL AND BIOPHYSICAL RESEARCHCOMMUNICATIONS, Oct 8, 2004).
  6. 14  Keyaerts, Els et al., In vitro inhibition of severe acute respiratory syndromecoronavirus by chloroquine Biochemical and biophysical research communicationsvol. 323,1 (2004): 264-8. doi:10.1016/j. bbrc.2004.08.085,
  7. 15  Martin J. Vincent et al, Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirusinfection and spread, (Aug 22, 2005).
  8. 16  Julie Dyall, et al, Repurposing of clinically developed drugs for treatment of MiddleEast respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection, Volume 58 Issue 8, ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY, 4885-93 (2014), https://ww
  9. 17  Adriaan H. de Wilde et al., Screening of an FDA-Approved Compound Library Identifies Four Small-Molecule Inhibitors of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Replication in Cell Culture, VOL 58 ISSUE 8, ASM JOURNALS ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY, 4875-4884 (2014), https://d
  10. 18  Yi Su et al, Efficacy of early hydroxychloroquine treatment in preventing COVID-19 pneumonia aggravation, the experience from Shanghai, China, BIOSCIENCE TRENDS, (Jan 23, 2021).
  11. 19  Jean-Christophe Lagier et al, Outcomes of 3,737 COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin and other regimens in Marseille, France: A

page202image66299264 page202image66299072 page202image66298880page202image66298688 page202image66298496 page202image66298304page202image66298112 page202image66297920 page202image66297728page202image66297536 page202image66297344 page202image66295232 page202image66296768 page202image66296576page202image66296384 page202image66296192


Aug, 2020).

  1. 20  Saja H. Almazrou et al, Comparing the impact of Hydroxychloroquine basedregimens and standard treatment on COVID-19 patient outcomes: A retrospective cohort study, SAUDI PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL, (Dec 2020).
  2. 21  Majid Mokhtaria et al, Clinical outcomes of patients with mild COVID-19 following treatment with hydroxychloroquine in an outpatient setting, INTERNATIONAL IMMUNOPHARMACOLOGY, (July, 2021). article/pii/S1567576921002721
  3. 22  The COVID-19 RISK and Treatments (CORIST) Collaboration, Use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is associated with reduced mortality: Findings from the observational multicentre Italian CORIST study, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, (Dec 1, 2020). https://www.ej
  4. 23  Awadhesh Kumar Singh et al, Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19 with or without diabetes: A systematic search and a narrative review with a special reference to India and other developing countries, DIABETES & METABOLIC SYNDROME: CLINICAL RESEARCH AND REVIEWS, (May-Jun, 2020).!
  5. 24  Alyssa Paolicelli, Drug Combo with Hydroxychloroquine Promising: NYU Study, SPECTRUM NEWS NY1 (May 20, 2021, 7:18 AM), oroughs/news/2020/05/12/nyu-study-looks-at-hydroxychloroquine-zinc-azithromycin -combo-on-decreasing-covid-19-deaths
  6. 25  Roland Derwand, Martin Scholz and Vladimir Zelenko, COVID-19 outpatients: early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS, (Dec 2020). 6/
  7. 26  Samia Arshad, Treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and combination in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, (Aug 2020). MC7330574/
  8. 27  Fabricio Souza Neves, Correlation of the rise and fall in COVID-19 cases with the social isolation index and early outpatient treatment with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in the state of Santa Catarina, southern Brazil: A retrospective analysis,

page203image66295808 page203image66295616 page203image66295424 page203image66294848page203image66294656 page203image66294464 page203image66294272page203image66294080 page203image66293888page203image66293696 page203image66293504page203image66292928 page203image66292736 page203image66291584


  1. 28  Didier Raoult et al, Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS, (Jul 2020). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g ov/pmc/articles/PMC7102549/
  2. 29  Roland Derwand, Martin Scholz and Vladimir Zelenko, COVID-19 outpatients: early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS, (Dec 2020). 6/
  3. 30  Harvey A. Risch, Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients That Should Be Ramped Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, (Nov 2, 2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.
  4. 31  Wesley H. Self et al, Effect of Hydroxychloroquine on Clinical Status at 14 Days in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19, JAMA, (Nov 9, 2020). m/journals/jama/fullarticle/2772922?utm_campaign=articlePDF&utm_medium=articl ePDFlink&utm_source=articlePDF&utm_content=jama.2020.22240
  5. 32  Harvey A. Risch, Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients That Should Be Ramped Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, (Nov 2, 2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.
  6. 33  A Anglemyer, HT Horvath, L. Bero, “Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. Art. No.: MR000034. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000034.pub2. Accessed 11 October 2021, https://www.cochra
  7. 34  Peter A. McCullough et al, Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19), REVIEWS IN CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE, (2020). article/2020/2153-8174/RCM2020264.shtml
  8. 35  Joseph A. Ladapo, et al, Randomized Controlled Trials of Early Ambulatory Hydroxychloroquine in the Prevention of COVID-19 Infection, Hospitalization, and Death: Meta-Analysis, MEDRXIV (Sep. 30, 2020), 0.20204693

page204image66293312 page204image66291008 page204image66290816 page204image66290624 page204image66290432page204image66290240 page204image66290048 page204image66289856 page204image66289664page204image66136768 page204image66134656 page204image66134080 page204image66133888page204image66133312 page204image66133504 page204image66133120page204image66132352 page204image66132928

  1. 36  Jia Liu, et al, Hydroxychloroquine, a less toxic derivative of chloroquine, is effective in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro, NATURE, (Mar 18, 2020). https://www.
  2. 37  Zhaowei Chen et al, Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: results of a randomized clinical trial, MEDRXIV, (Apr 10, 2020). https://www.medrxi
  3. 38  Wei Tang et al, Hydroxychloroquine in patients with mainly mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: open label, randomised controlled trial, BMJ, (May 14, 2020).
  4. 39  Lotta Ulander, et al., Hydroxychloroquine reduces interleukin-6 levels after myocardial infarction: The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled OXI pilot trial, 15;337:21-27 Int J Cardiol (May 4, 2021), doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.04.062. htt ps://
  5. 40  Abdulrhman Mohana et al, Hydroxychloroquine safety outcome with an approved therapeutic protocol for COVID-19 outpatients in Saudi Arabia, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASE, (2021). S1201-9712(20)32235-9/pdf
  6. 41, Hydroxychloroquine Prices, Coupons and Patient Assistance Programs, DRUGS.COM (Sept. 1, 2021), ne
  7. 42  Allison Inserro, Gilead Sciences Sets US Price for COVID-19 Drug at $2340 to $3120 Based on Insurance, AJMC (Jun. 29, 2020), d-sciences-sets-us-price-for-covid19-drug-at-2340-to-3120-based-on-insurance
  8. 43  and Nathalie Boudet-Gizardin, Can Hydroxychloroquine Be Legally Prescribed in France for Patients with COVID-19?, Ginestié Magellan Paley-Vincent, (July 4, 2020). scribed-in-France-for-patients-with-covid-19/
  9. 44  Id.
  10. 45  Public Health Agency of Canada, Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine can haveserious side effects. These drugs should be used only under the supervision of a physician, (Apr 25, 2020). c/2020/72885a-eng.php
  11. 46  Barry Bateman, Illegally imported chloroquine destroyed, ENCA.COM, (Sep 23, 2020).
  12. 47  Bethany Rodgers, Feds want a Utah pharmacist who illegally imported malaria drugs to destroy them. He’s pitching a different plan., THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, (Apr 24, 2021).

page205image66132160 page205image66132544 page205image66132736 page205image66131776page205image66131968 page205image66174976 page205image66175168 page205image66175360page205image66175552 page205image66175744 page205image66175936page205image66176512 page205image66176704page205image66176896 page205image66177088 page205image66177280 page205image66177472page205image66177664 page205image66177856

Joan Donovan, et al, Trading Up the Chain: The Hydroxychloroquine Rumor,

  1. 48  MEDIA MANIPULATION, (March, 2020).
  2. 49  James Todaro, MD, HCQ Tweet, TWITTER, (Mar 13, 2020).
  3. 50  Ben Hirschler, Google venture arm backs UK universal flu vaccine company, Reuters(Jan. 14, 2018),
  4. 51  Project Vaseline by Verily, Building a research community of engaged participants toaid scientists in the fight against COVID-19,
  5. 52  Ben Hirschler, GSK and Google parent forge $715 million bioelectronic medicinesfirm, REUTERS, (Aug 1, 2016). and-google-parent-forge-715-million-bioelectronic-medicines-firm-idUSKCN10C1K 8
  6. 53  Christina Farr, Alphabet’s Verily builds its own lab to speed up coronavirus test results, CNBC, ronavirus-testing-lab.html
  7. 54  Kayla Epstein, Trump keeps touting a decades-old malaria pill as a coronavirus ‘game changer’, undercutting his top infectious-disease expert, BUSINESS INSIDER, (Mar 21, 2020). n-whether-chloroquine-can-treat-coronavirus-2020-3
  8. 55  Scott Sayare, He was a Science Star. Then He Promoted a Questionable Cure for COVID-19., NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, (May 21, 2020). https://www.nytim
  9. 56  Elizabeth Cohen & Wesley Bruer, US stockpile stuck with 63 million doses of hydroxychloroquine, CNN (Jun. 17, 2020), ydroxychloroquine-national-stockpile/index.html
  10. 57  BBC News, ‘Ousted’ US vaccine expert Rick Bright to file whistleblower complaint, BBC NEWS, (Apr 24, 2020).
  11. 58  FDA News Release, Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Revokes Emergency Use Authorization for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine, FDA (Jun. 15, 2020), ht tps:// a-revokes-emergency-use-authorization-chloroquine-and
  12. 59  U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Revokes Emergency Use Authorization for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine, (Jun 15,

page206image66178624 page206image66178816 page206image66179008page206image66179200 page206image66179392page206image66179584 page206image66179776page206image66179968 page206image66180160page206image66180352 page206image66180544 page206image66181120page206image66181312 page206image66181504 page206image66181696page206image66181888 page206image66182080 page206image66182272page206image66182464 page206image66180928



  1. 60  World Health Organization, WHO discontinues hydroxychloroquine andlopinavir/ritonavir treatment arms for COVID-19, (July 4, 2020). t/news/item/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonav ir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19
  2. 61  Meryl Nass, MD, Covid-19 Has Turned Public Health Into a Lethal, Patient-Killing Experimental Endeavor, ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION, (Jun 20, 2020). t-killing-experimental-endeavor/
  3. 62  Id.
  4. 63  Meryl Nass, WHO and UK trials use potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine dose–according to WHO consultant, ANTHRAX VACCINE-POSTS BY MERYL NASS, M.D. (Jun. 14, 2020), tentially-fatal.html
  5. 64  RECOVERY: Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy, (2021).
  6. 65  Transparency data: List of participants of SAGE and related sub-groups, GOV.UK (Jun. 18, 2021), p-for-emergencies-sage-coronavirus-covid-19-response-membership/list-of-participan ts-of-sage-and-related-sub-groups
  7. 66  Member Bios Update, NERVTAG (Nov. 2018), k/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/756256/NERVTAG_Me mber_Bios_update_November2018.pdf
  8. 67  Tess de la Mare, Zoonotic disease needs to be stopped at source, top scientist warns, (Jun 11, 2021). -be-stopped-at-source-top-scientist-warns-40529238.html
  9. 68  World Health Organization, WHO R&D Blueprint COVID-19 Informal consultation on the dose of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the SOLIDARITY Clinical Trial, 5-6 (Apr. 8, 2020). print-meetings/rd-blueprint-expert-group-oncq-dose-call-apr8.pdf
  10. 69  World Health Organization, WHO R&D Blueprint COVID-1 Informal consultation on the potential role of chloroquine in the clinical management of COVID 19 infection, (Mar 13, 2020). rint-expert-group-on-CQ-call-Mar-13-2020.pdf
  11. 70  Mayla G.S. Borba, et al. Effect of High vs Low Doses of Chloroquine Diphosphate as Adjunctive Therapy for Patients Hospitalized With Severe Acute Respiratory

page207image66183808 page207image66184000page207image66184192 page207image66184384 page207image66184576page207image66184768 page207image66184960page207image66185152 page207image66185344 page207image66185536 page207image66185728page207image66186304 page207image66186496page207image66186688 page207image66186880 page207image66187072page207image66187264 page207image66187456page207image66187648 page207image66186112page207image66185920 page207image66187840page207image66188032

Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial, 3(4):e208857 JAMA (Apr. 24, 2020), open/fullarticle/2765499

  1. 71  Id.
  2. 72  Marcus Vinicius Guimarães de Lacerda, ESCAVADOR,
  3. 73  Ruanne V. Barnabas et al, Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis toPrevent Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection, ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, (Dec 8, 2020). PMC7732017/
  4. 74  Christine Johnston et al, Hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin for treatment of early SARS-CoV-2 infection among high-risk outpatient adults: A randomized clinical trial, ECLINICAL MEDICINE (published by THE LANCET). (Feb 26, 2021).
  5. 75  Researchers Overdosing COVID-19 Patients on Hydroxychloroquine, States Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS), CISION PR NEWSWIRE (Jun. 17, 2020), ovid-19-patients-on-hydroxychloroquine-states-association-of-american-physicians–s urgeons-aaps-301078986.html
  6. 76  Lindzi Wessel, ‘It’s a nightmare.’ How Brazilian scientists became ensnared in chloroquine politics, SCIENCE, (Jun 22, 2020). 6/it-s-nightmare-how-brazilian-scientists-became-ensnared-chloroquine-politics
  7. 77  Bill Gates, Opinion: Bill Gates: Here’s how to make up for lost time on covid-19, WASHINGTON POST, (Mar 31, 2020). ll-gates-heres-how-to-makeup-for-lost-time-on-covid-19/2020/03/31/ab5c3cf2-738c-1 1ea-85cb-8670579b863d_story.html
  8. 78  Ibid.
  9. 79  Elizabeth Cohen & Wesley Bruer, US stockpile stuck with 63 million doses ofhydroxychloroquine, CNN (Jun. 17, 2020),
  10. 80  America’s Front Line Doctors, This Virus Has a Cure, (Jul 27 2020).
  11. 81  Max Zahn, Bill Gates: Spread of ‘Outrageous” Coronavirus Video Shows Flaw inSocial Media Platforms, YAHOO, (Jul 29, 2020). tes-spread-of-outrageous-coronavirus-video-shows-flaw-in-social-media-platforms-12 4710983.html

page208image66188608 page208image66188800 page208image66188992 page208image66189184page208image66189376 page208image66189568 page208image66189760page208image66189952 page208image66190144page208image66190336 page208image66190528 page208image66191104page208image66158592 page208image66158784page208image66158976 page208image66159168 page208image66159360 page208image66159552page208image66159744 page208image66159936 page208image66160128page208image66160320

  1. 82  Dina Bass and Candy Cheng, Bill Gates on Covid Vaccine Timing, Hydroxychloroquine, and That 5G Conspiracy Theory, BLOOMBERG, (Aug 13, 2020).
  2. 83  Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2018 Form 990, Attachment C, page 4, (2018). http s:// 35c2aa163
  3. 84  Dina Bass and Candy Cheng, Bill Gates on Covid Vaccine Timing, Hydroxychloroquine, and That 5G Conspiracy Theory, BLOOMBERG, (Aug 13, 2020).
  4. 85  Mandeep Mehra, et al., RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis, THE LANCET (May 22, 2020), S0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
  5. 86  Mandeep Mehra, et al, RETRACTED: Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19, 382:e102 NEJM (May 2020), 0.1056/NEJMoa2007621
  6. 87  Melissa Davey and Stephanie Kirchgaessner, Surgisphere: governments and WHO changed Covid-19 policy based on suspect data from tiny US company, THE GUARDIAN, (Jun 3, 2020). 9-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine
  7. 88  Denise M. Hinton, Letter revoking EUA for chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate, U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, (Jun 15, 2020).
  8. 89  BBC, Coronavirus: WHO halts trials of hydroxychloroquine over safety fears, (May 25, 2020).
  9. 90  Jacqueline Howard, UK Covid-19 trial ends hydroxychloroquine study because there’s no evidence the drug benefits patients,
  10. 91  Matthias Blamont, Alistair Smout and Emilio Parodi, EU governments ban malaria drug for COVID-19, trial paused as safety fears grow, REUTERS, (May 27, 2020). htt ps:// nts-ban-malaria-drug-for-covid-19-trial-paused-as-safety-fears-grow-idUSKBN2340 A6
  11. 92  Kelly Servick & Martin Enserink, A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling, SCIENCE (Jun. 2, 2020), g/news/2020/06/mysterious-company-s-coronavirus-papers-top-medical-journals-may -be-unraveling

page209image66161280 page209image66161472page209image66161664 page209image66161856 page209image66162048page209image66162240 page209image66162432 page209image66162624 page209image66162816page209image66163008 page209image66163200page209image66163776 page209image66163968page209image66164160 page209image66164352page209image66164544 page209image66164736

  1. 93  Roni Caryn Rabin, Scientists Question Validity of Major Hydroxychloroquine Study, NYT (May 29, 2020), xychloroquine.html
  2. 94  James Heathers, The Lancet has made one of the biggest retractions in modern history. How could this happen?, THE GUARDIAN (Jun. 5, 2020), https://www.theg ns-in-modern-history-how-could-this-happen
  3. 95  WHO Solidarity Consortium, Repurposed Antiviral Drugs for Covid-19 — Interim WHO Solidarity Trial Results, 384:497-511 NEJM (Dec. 2, 2020), DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2023184.
  4. 96  The RECOVERY Collaborative Group, Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19, 383:2030-2040 NEJM (Oct. 8, 2020), DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022926.
  5. 97  Richard Smith, Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies, 2.5 PLOS MEDICINE e138 (May 2005). doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138. 1140949/
  6. 98  Id.
  7. 99  Id.
  8. 100  Horton, R. [2004], The dawn of McScience. New York Rev Books 51(4): 7–9. Angell,M. (2005), The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us And What ToDo About It. New York: Random House.
  9. 101  Devan Cole, Fauci: Science shows hydroxychloroquine is not effective as acoronavirus treatment, CNN (May 27, 2020),
  10. 102  Christopher M. Wittich, et al., Ten common questions (and their answers) about off-label drug use, 87(10), MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS, 982–990,
  11. 103  FDA, FDA cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial due to risk of heart rhythm problems,FDA (Jul. 1, 2020), ns-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-orchloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-o r
  12. 104  George C. Fareed, MD et al, Open letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci regarding the use of hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19, THE DESERT REVIEW, (Aug 13, 2020),

page210image66165120 page210image66165312 page210image66165504page210image66165696 page210image66165888page210image66166080 page210image66166272page210image66166464 page210image66166656 page210image66166848page210image66167040 page210image66167616 page210image66167808page210image66168000 page210image66168192page210image66168384



  1. 105  Id.
  2. 106  Samia Arshad, et al., Treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and combination in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 97 IJID (Aug. 2020) 396-403, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.099. 574/
  3. 107  Beth LeBlanc, Fauci: Henry Ford Health’s hydroxychloroquine study ‘flawed’, THE DETROIT NEWS (Aug. 1, 2020), higan/2020/07/31/anthony-fauci-henry-ford-health-hydroxychloroquine-study-flawed/ 5559367002/
  4. 108  Boards of pharmacy and other actions relating to COVID-19 prescribing, AMA (2020), prescribing.pdf
  5. 109  Valerie Richardson, Rudy Giuliani urges Andrew Cuomo to lift hydroxychloroquine restrictions for coronavirus, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, (Apr 5, 2020). https://ww oxychlor/
  6. 110  News 4 and FOX 11 Digital Team, Gov. Sisolak signs emergency regulation restricting drug distribution during COVID-19, (Mar 24, 2020). m/news/local/gov-sisolak-signs-emergency-regulation-restricting-drug-distribution-du ring-covid-19
  7. 111  American Medical Association, Boards of pharmacy and other actions relating to COVID-19 prescribing, AMA ADVOCACY RESOURCE CENTER, (Apr 27, 2020). ing.pdf
  8. 112  Free Republic, Is HCQ banned in your state? (probably not), (Aug 18, 2020). https://f;page=1
  9. 113  FDA FAQ, Frequently Asked Questions on the Revocation of the Emergency Use Authorization for Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate and Chloroquine Phosphate, FDA (Jun. 15, 2021),
  10. 114  National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, BULLETIN—NIH Clinical Trial Evaluating Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin for COVID-19 Closes Early, (Jun 20, 2020). g-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycincovid-19
  11. 115  Denise M. Hinton, Letter revoking EUA for chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate, U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, (Jun 15,

page211image66168576 page211image66168768page211image66168960 page211image66169152page211image66169344 page211image66169536page211image66169728 page211image66169920 page211image66170112page211image66170304 page211image66170496 page211image66171072page211image66171264 page211image66171456page211image66171648 page211image66171840 page211image66172032page211image66172224 page211image66172416page211image66170880 page211image66170688


  1. 116  World Health Organization, Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Solidarity Trial andhydroxychloroquine, (Jun 19, 2020).
  2. 117  Natasha Donn, Covid-19: Portugal becomes 4th country to suspend use ofhydroxychloroquine, PORTUGAL RESIDENT, (May 29, 2020). https://www.portuga oroquine/
  3. 118  Michel Jullian and Xavier Azalbert, Covid-19: hydroxychloroquine works, a proof ?, FRANCE SOIR, (Jul 13, 2020). oxychloroquine-works-irrefutable-proof
  4. 119  Catherine Perea, Doctor Sánchez Cárdenas believes that the use of hydroxychloroquine in Panama has yielded results, TELEMETRO, (Aug 26, 2020). h ttps:// xicloroquina/3169570.html
  5. 120  Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS), AAPS vs. Food & Drug Administration et al, (Jun 2, 2020). 2020.pdf
  6. 121  Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, More Evidence Presented for Why Hydroxychloroquine Should be Made Available, in a New Court Filing by AAPS, AAPS ONLINE, (Jul 22, 2020). why-hydroxychloroquine-should-be-made-available-in-a-new-court-filing-by-aaps/
  7. 122  Jo Nova, Countries that use Hydroxychloroquine may have 80% lower Covid death rates, JONOVA (Aug. 8, 2020), -hydroxychloroquine-may-have-80-lower-covid-death-rates/
  8. 123, COVID-19 treatment studies for Hydroxychloroquine, (Sep 20, 2020).
  9. 124, Countries based on current HCQ/CQ usage, tries.html,
  10. 125  Statista, Coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths worldwide per one million population as of September 21, 2021, by country, (Sep 21, 2121) 04709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/
  11. 126  George C. Fareed, MD et al, Open letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci regarding the use of hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19, THE DESERT REVIEW, (Aug 13, 2020), -fauci-regarding-the-use-of-hydroxychloroquine-for-treating-covid-19/article_31d378 42-dd8f-11ea-80b5-bf80983bc072.html

page212image66172800 page212image66172992 page212image66173184page212image66173376 page212image66173568 page212image66173760page212image66173952 page212image66174144page212image66174336 page212image66174528page212image66174720 page212image66077056 page212image66077248page212image66077440 page212image66077632page212image66077824 page212image66078016 page212image66078208 page212image66078400 page212image66076864 page212image66076672page212image66078592 page212image66078784page212image66078976page212image66079168 page212image66079360

Statista, Coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths worldwide per one million population as of

  1. 127  September 24, 2021, by country, (Sep 24, 2021).
  2. 128  Id.
  3. 129  Id.
  4. 130  Id.
  5. 131  Reported Cases and Deaths by Country or Territory, WORLDOMETER (Sept. 24,2021),
  6. 132  The Global Economy, Netherlands: Covid new deaths per million, (2021).
  7. 133  Marine Strauss, Belgium, once hard-hit, reports zero coronavirus deaths for first time since March, REUTERS, (Jul 14, 2020).
  8. 134  Statista, Coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths worldwide per one million population as ofSeptember 24, 2021, by country, (Sep 24, 2021).
  9. 135  More Evidence Presented for Why Hydroxychloroquine Should be Made Available, ina New Court Filing by the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS), CISION PR NEWSWIRE (Jul. 22, 2020), s/more-evidence-presented-for-why-hydroxychloroquine-should-be-made-available-i n-a-new-court-filing-by-the-association-of-american-physicians–surgeons-aaps-3010 98030.html
  10. 136  Harvey Risch, The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It, NEWSWEEK (Jul. 23, 2020), vid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535
  11. 137  Meryl Nass, How a False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative was created, and more, ANTHRAX VACCINE-POST BY MERYL NASS, M.D. (Jun. 27, 2020), https://anth
  12. 138  Id.
  13. 139  Id.
  14. 140  Id.
  15. 141  Id.
  16. 142  Ronald L. Trowbridge, Anthony Fauci: A Product of His Training, THEINDEPENDENT (Apr. 27, 2020), 3129

page213image66080704 page213image66080896 page213image66081088 page213image66081280page213image66081472 page213image66081664page213image66081856 page213image66082048page213image66082240 page213image66082432 page213image66082624page213image66083200page213image66083392 page213image66083584 page213image66083776page213image66083968 page213image66084160 page213image66084352page213image66084544

  1. 143  NIH ends key COVID-19 studies of hydroxychloroquine, BIOPHARMADIVE (Jun. 22, 2020), s-trial-halt/580270/
  2. 144  Meryl Nass, Fauci the Hypocrite. Do NIAID royalties cloud his thinking?, TRUTH IN THE AGE OF COVID, (Apr 19, 2020). do-niaid-royalties/
  3. 145  Darryl Falzarano, Emmie de Wit, et al., Treatment with interferon-a2b and ribavirin improves outcome in MERS-CoV-infected rhesus macaques, 19(10) NAT MED 1313- 1317, (2013), doi:10.1038/ nm.3362
  4. 146  Liz Szabo, Scientists fight deadly new coronavirus, USA TODAY (Apr. 18, 2013), htt ps:// atment-for-new-sars-like-virus/2091443/
  5. 147  Id.
  6. 148  Id.
  7. 149  Id.
  8. 150  U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Package Insert, PEG-IntronTM (Peginterferonalfa-2b) Powder for Injection, Schering Corporation, (Oct 3, 2001).
  9. 151  Pfizer and BioNTech, FDA Briefing Document Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine,Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting, (Dec 10,2020).
  10. 152  ModernaTX, Inc., FDA Briefing Document Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, Vaccinesand Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting, (Dec 17. 2020).
  11. 153  Janssen, Ad26.COV2.S Vaccine for the Prevention of COVID-19, Vaccines andRelated Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting, (Feb 26, 2021).
  12. 154  Christopher J. Boggs, Insurance Implications of Required Vaccines, INSURANCEJOURNAL, (Feb 22, 2021).
  13. 155  Kevin J. Hickey, The PREP Act and COVID-19: Limiting Liability for MedicalCountermeasures, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE (Updated Mar. 19,2021),
  14. 156  Children’s Health Defense Team, Here’s why Bill Gates wants indemnity… Are you willing to take the risk?, CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE, (Apr. 11, 2020), lling-to-take-the-risk/

page214image66085696 page214image66085888 page214image66086080 page214image66086272page214image66086464 page214image66086656page214image66086848 page214image66087040 page214image66087232page214image66087424 page214image66087616 page214image66088192 page214image66088384page214image66088576 page214image66088768 page214image66088960page214image66089152 page214image66089344

Dr. Anthony Fauci: No placebo-controlled trial has shown hydroxychloroquine is

  1. 157  effective, 1:17 YOUTUBE CNBC (Jul. 31, 2020),
  2. 158  WHO, WHO recommends against the use of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients, WHONEWSROOM (Nov. 20, 2020)
  3. 159  Charan, Jaykaran et al. Rapid review of suspected adverse drug events due toremdesivir in the WHO database; findings and implications, 14,1 EXPERT REVIEW OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY 95-103 (2021), PMID: 33252992 doi:10.1080/17512433.2021.1856655
  4. 160  Real-World Evidence, Real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) are playing an increasing role in health care decisions, FDA (Jul. 16, 2021), https://www.
  5. 161  FDA, 21st Century Cures Act, US FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION (Jan. 31, 2020), -century-cures-act
  6. 162  Michael Thau, COVID19: Top Yale Professor Says ‘Decisions Not Based On Science’, PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC, (Oct 14, 2020). ovid19-top-yale-professor-says-decisions-not-based-on-science/
  7. 163  Id.

Endnotes – Ivermectin

  1. 1  The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015, The Nobel Prize Press Release (Oct. 5, 2015),
  2. 2  World Health Organization, “Executive summary: the selection and use of essential medicines 2021: report of the 23rd WHO Expert Committee on the selection and use of essential medicines,” WHO (Sep. 30, 2021), m/WHO-MHP-HPS-EML-2021.01
  3. 3  World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines—22nd List, WHO (2021), ML-2021.02-eng.pdf
  4. 4  Andy Crump and Satoshi Ōmura, “Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective,” Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B, (Feb 10, 2011), http s://
  5. 5  Fatemeh Heidary and Reza Gharebaghi, Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 complementary regimen, The Journal of Antibiotics (June 12, 2020),

page215image66090112 page215image66090304 page215image66090496page215image66090688 page215image66090880page215image66091072page215image66091264 page215image66091456 page215image66091648page215image66091840 page215image66092032page215image66092608 page215image66092800 page215image66060288page215image66060480 page215image66060672 page215image66060864

“Lab experiments show anti-parasitic drug, Ivermectin, eliminates SARS-CoV-2 in cells in 48 hours.” Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute (April 3, 2020), https://w ents-show-anti-parasitic-drug,-Ivermectin,-eliminates-SARS-CoV-2-in-cells-in-48-ho urs

  1. 7  Ibid.
  2. 8  Juan Chamie-Quintero et al., “Ivermectin for COVID in Peru: 14-fold reduction innationwide excess deaths, p<0.002 for effect by state, then 13-fold increase afterivermectin use restricted,” OSF Preprints (March 8, 2021),
  3. 9  Hector Carvallo, et al., “Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Topical Ivermectin +IotaCarrageenan in the Prophylaxis against COVID-19 in Health Personnel,” Journal of Biomedical Research and Clinical Investigation V. 2 I 1 at 1007 (Nov. 17, 2020), ht tps://
  4. 10  Alam et al., “Ivermectin as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 among Healthcare Providers in a Selected Tertiary Hospital in Dhaka—An Observational Study,” European Journal of Medical & Health Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 6 (Published December 15, 2020).
  5. 11  AD Santin, et al., “Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge,” 43:100924 New Microbes New Infect (Aug. 3, 2021) doi: 10.1016/j.nmni.2021.100924, https://pubme
  6. 12  Statement to U.S. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: “Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of the COVID-19 Solution, Part II.” THE ICON STUDY: Dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter Reviews Ivermectin, Hope Pressworks (January 18, 2021), -reviews-ivermectin
  7. 13  Alam et al., “Ivermectin as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 among Healthcare Providers in a Selected Tertiary Hospital in Dhaka—An Observational Study,” Alam et al., European Journal of Medical & Health Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 6 (Published December 15, 2020), w/599
  8. 14  Peter A. McCullough et al., “Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19),” Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2020, Vol. 21 Issue (4): 517-530 https://rcm.imr
  9. 15, “A Letter to NIH and Dr. Anthony Fauci. Is Anybody Home?,” Ivermectin for COVID (Mar. 4, 2021),


page216image66062208 page216image66062400page216image66062592 page216image66062784page216image66062976 page216image66063168 page216image66063360page216image66063552 page216image66063744 page216image66063936 page216image66064128page216image66064704 page216image66064896 page216image66065088 page216image66065280


  1. 16  C. Bernigaud et al., “Bénéfice de l’ivermectine: de la gale à la COVID-19, unexemple de sérendipité,” Annales de Dermatologie et de Vénéréologie (December, 2020), a%3Dihub
  2. 17  C. Bernigaud et al., “Ivermectin benefit: from scabies to COVID-19, an example of serendipity,” Annals of Dermatology and Venereology (December, 2020), https://c19iv
  3. 18  Choudhury, Abhigyan et al.,“Exploring the Binding Efficacy of Ivermectin against the Key Proteins of SARS-CoV-2 Pathogenesis: An in Silico Approach,” Future Virology (March 25, 2021),
  4. 19  Peter A. McCullough et al., “Early Ambulatory Multidrug Therapy Reduces Hospitalization and Death in High-Risk Patients with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19),” Vol. 6 No. 03 (March, 2021) | Page No.: 219–221
  5. 20  “FLCCC Alliance Invited to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel to Present Latest Data on Ivermectin,” Press Release, Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) (January 7, 2021), https://covi el-FollowUp-Jan7-2021.pdf
  6. 21  Dr. Andrew Hill, “Covid-19: WHO-sponsored preliminary review indicates Ivermectin effectiveness,” Dr. Andrew Hill, Swiss Policy Research (December 31, 2020),
  7. 22  Carlos Chaccour, “The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with non-severe COVID-19: A pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial,” EClinical Medicine Published by the Lancet, (Jan 19, 2021), rticle/PIIS2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext
  8. 23  Pierre Kory, et al., “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19,” Front Line COVID-10 Critical Care Alliance (Jan 16, 2021), oads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pd f
  9. 24  “Dr. Pierre Kory, president of the FLCCC Alliance testifies before Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs looking into early outpatient COVID-19 treatment,” Press release, Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) (December 8, 2020),

page217image66065664 page217image66065856 page217image66066048 page217image66066240page217image66066432 page217image66066624 page217image66066816page217image66067008 page217image66067200page217image66067392 page217image66067584page217image66068160 page217image66068352page217image66068544 page217image66068736



  1. 25  Pierre Kory et al., “Clinical and Scientific Rationale for the “MATH+” HospitalTreatment Protocol for COVID-19,” Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (December15, 2020),
  2. 26  “One Page Summary of the Clinical Trials Evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19,”Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) (January 11, 2021), https://co al-Trials-Evidence-for-Ivermectin-in-COVID-19.pdf
  3. 27  Testimony by Dr. Pierre Kory to the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (2020), Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC),
  4. 28  “FLCCC Alliance Invited to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel to Present Latest Data on Ivermectin,” Press Release, Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) (January 7, 2021), https://covi el-FollowUp-Jan7-2021.pdf
  5. 29  Donato Paolo Mancini, “Cheap antiparasitic could cut chance of Covid-19 deaths by up to 75%,” The Financial Times (January 19, 2021), b76fc-da98-4a31-9c1f-926c58349c84
  6. 30  “NIH Updates its Position on Ivermectin,” COVEXIT: COVID-19 News & Policy Analysis (January 14, 2021), in/
  7. 31  “Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection,” National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines (Last Updated: February 11, 2021), al-therapy/ivermectin/
  8. 32  Peter Yim, “Federal Judge Allows NIH Ivermectin Deception Case to Proceed.” Trial Site News (August 28, 2021), mectin-deception-case-to-proceed/
  9. 33  National Institutes of Health email from Safia Kuruiakose, PharmD to partially redacted list of recipients (January 5, 2021). Email was obtained via Freedom of Information Act. AdzR/view?usp=sharing
  10. 34  National Institutes of Health email from Andy Pavia to Dr. Susanna Naggie, M.D., and Cc: Safia Kuruiakose, PharmD and partially redacted list of recipients (January 6,

page218image66067968page218image66067776 page218image66068928 page218image66069120page218image66069312 page218image66069504page218image66069696 page218image66069888 page218image66070080page218image66070272 page218image66070464 page218image66071040 page218image66071232page218image66071424 page218image66071616 page218image66071808page218image66072000 page218image66072192 page218image66072384

2021). Email was obtained via the Freedom of Information Act.


  1. 35  “Large clinical trial to study repurposed drugs to treat COVID-19 symptoms,”National Institutes of Health news release (April 19, 2021), -events/news-releases/large-clinical-trial-study-repurposed-drugs-treat-covid-19-symp toms
  2. 36  TrialSite News staff, “Chairman of Tokyo Metropolitan Medical Association Declares During Surge, Time for Ivermectin is Now,” TrialSite News (August 16, 2021), http s:// uring-surge-time-for-ivermectin-is-now/
  3. 37  TrialSite News staff, “Ivermectin Authorized in Indonesia as Pharma Issued License for Production to Battle COVID-19,” TrialSite News (June 24, 2021), https://trialsiten -to-battle-covid-19/
  4. 38  World Tribune staff, “Media mum on India’s Ivermectin success story; El Salvador offers it free to citizens,” World Tribune (Sept. 19, 2021), https://www.worldtribune.c om/media-mum-on-indiasivermectin-success-story-el-salvador-offers-it-free-to-citize ns/
  5. 39  Nick Corbishley, “As US Prepares to Ban Ivermectin for Covid-19, More Countries in Asia Begin Using It,” Naked Capitalism (September 7, 2021), https://www.nakedcapit asia-begin-using-it.html?
  6. 40  Rodrigo Guerrero et al., “COVID-19: The Ivermectin African Enigma,” Europe PMC, doi: 10.25100/cm.v51i4.4613 (December 30, 2020), C/PMC7968425
  7. 41  Justus R. Hope, M.D., “Ivermectin obliterates 97 percent of Delhi cases,” The Desert Review (Jun 1, 2021 Updated Jun 7, 2021), tional/ivermectin-obliterates-97-percent-of-delhi-cases/article_6a3be6b2-c31f-11eb-8 36d-2722d2325a08.html
  8. 42  Justus R. Hope, M.D., “Ivermectin crushes Delhi cases,” The Desert Review (May 18, 2021; updated September 8, 2021), o_editor/ivermectin-crushes-delhi-cases/article_31f3afcc-b7fa-11eb-9585-0f6a290ee1 05.html
  9. 43  See video at 6:58. However, the video is unavailable as of 9/25/2021. pko4LIdUQCI
  10. 44  Bhuma Shrivastava and Malavika Kaur Makol, “Forecaster who predicted India’s COVID peak sees new wave coming,” Boston Globe (Aug 1, 2021), https://www.bost

page219image66070656 page219image66072576 page219image66072768page219image66072960page219image66073152 page219image66073344 page219image66073536page219image66073728 page219image66073920 page219image66074112page219image66074304 page219image66074880page219image66075072 page219image66075264page219image66075456 page219image66075648 page219image66075840page219image66076032 page219image66076224page219image66074688 page219image66074496 page219image66076416page219image66109440 page219image66109632 page219image66109824


  1. 45  The Hindu Net Desk, “Coronavirus updates | January 1, 2021,” The Hindu (Jan 1,2021),
  2. 46  Maria Caspani and Peter Szekely, “U.S. tops 21 million COVID-19 cases with recordhospitalizations as states ramp up vaccinations,” Reuters (Jan 6, 2021),
  3. 47  Maulshree Seth, “Uttar Pradesh government says early use of Ivermectin helped tokeep positivity, deaths low,” The Indian Express (May 12, 2021), https://indianexpres p-deaths-low-7311786/
  4. 48  “Uttar Pradesh government says early use of Ivermectin helped to keep positivity, deaths low,” MSN (May 12, 2021), esh-government-says-early-use-ofivermectin-helped-to-keep-positivity-deaths-low/ar- BB1gDp5U
  5. 49  “India State of 241 MILLION People Declared COVID-Free After Government Promotes Ivermectin,” (September 18, 2021), m/posts/india-province-of-241-million-people-declared-covid-free-after-government- promotes-ivermectin/
  6. 50  “33 districts in Uttar Pradesh are now Covid-free: State govt,” Hindustan Times, New Delhi (September 10, 2021), 3-districts-in-uttar-pradesh-are-now-covid-free-state-govt-101631267966925.html
  7. 51  Justin R. Hope, “Ivermectin A Success In Indian States Where It Is Used,” Peckford 42 (Aug 22, 2021), ss-in-indian-states-where-it-is-used/
  8. 52  Ibid.
  9. 53  Stefan J. Bos, “India’s Largest State Nearly COVID-Free After Using AlternativeDrug,” Worthy News (Sept 13, 2012),
  10. 54  Justus R. Hope, “India’s Ivermectin Blackout: Part II,” The Desert Review (Aug 13,2021),
  11. 55  Justus R. Hope, M.D., “Tamil Nadu leads India in new infections, denies citizensivermectin,” The Desert Review (May 21, 2021/Updated Sep 8, 2021), -denies-citizens-Ivermectin/article_32634012-ba66-11eb-9211-ab378d521f9a.html

page220image66110592 page220image66110784page220image66110976 page220image66111168 page220image66111360page220image66111552 page220image66111744page220image66111936 page220image66112128page220image66112320 page220image66112512 page220image66113088page220image66113280 page220image66113472 page220image66113664page220image66113856 page220image66114048page220image66114240 page220image66114432 page220image66112896page220image66112704 page220image66114624page220image66114816 page220image66115008page220image66115200page220image66115392

  1. 56  evention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx
  2. 57  Justus R. Hope, M.D., “Dr. Tess Lawrie: The Conscience of Medicine.” The DesertReview (May 4, 2021), tess-lawrie-the-conscience-of-medicine/article_ff673eca-ac2d-11eb-adaa-ab952b1d26 61.html
  3. 58  Luke Andrews, “Cheap hair lice drug may cut the risk of hospitalized Covid patients dying by up to 80%, study finds,” Daily Mail (January 4, 2021), https://www.dailymai ts-dying-80-study-finds.html
  4. 59  Dr. Tess Lawrie, “Who are the BIRD Group?,” BIRD (Jan. 2021), https://bird-group.o rg/who-are-bird/
  5. 60  TrialSite News staff, “Are the Independent Actually Dependent? Is Cochrane’s Ivermectin Analysis Biased?” TrialSite News (May 6, 2021), m/are-the-independent-actually-dependent-is-cochranes-ivermectin-analysis-biased/
  6. 61  National Institutes of Health, NIH Awards by Location and Organization, https://repor &rfa=&om=y&pid=&view=state
  7. 62  Unitaid Press Release, “Unitaid hails new US$ 50 million contribution from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,” Unitaid (Dec. 7, 2017), nitaid-hails-new-us-50-million-contribution-bill-melinda-gates-foundation/#en
  8. 63  “Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution, Part II.” Testimony by Dr. Pierre Kory to U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (December 8, 2020), t-treatment-an-essential-part-of-a-covid-19-solution-part-ii
  9. 64  U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, “Google/YouTube censor Senate hearing on ivermectin and early treatment of Covid-19,” Wall Street Journal (February 4, 2021), https://anthraxv
  10. 65  “Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19,” “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration (September 3, 2021), mer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19
  11. 66, “Ivermectin COVID-19 Search Results,”, http s:// ate=&city=&dist=&Search=Search
  12. 67  David R. Henderson and Charles L. Hooper, “Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?” Wall Street Journal (Jul 28, 2021)

page221image66116352 page221image66116544page221image66116736 page221image66116928 page221image66117120page221image66117312 page221image66117504 page221image66117696 page221image66117888page221image66118080 page221image66118272 page221image66118464 page221image66119040page221image66119232 page221image66119424 page221image66119616page221image66119808 page221image66120000page221image66120192 page221image66120384 page221image66118848page221image66118656 page221image66120576page221image66120768 page221image66120960

Rapid Increase in Ivermectin Prescriptions and Reports of Severe Illness Associated

  1. 68  with Use of Products Containing Ivermectin to Prevent or Treat COVID-19, Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention (Aug 26, 2021),
  2. 69  “AMA, APhA, ASHP statement on ending use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19.”Press Release, American Medical Association (September 1, 2021). https://www.ama- treat-covid-19
  3. 70  “Psychiatric Drug Facts: What your doctor may not know,” COVID-19 and Coronavirus Resource Center, with Peter R. Breggin MD, virus-resource-center/
  4. 71  Merck, “Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Merck (Feb. 4, 2021), use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
  5. 72  Special to The New York Times, “Merck Offers Free Distribution of New River Blindness Drug,” New York Times (Oct. 22, 1987), 22/world/merck-offers-free-distribution-of-new-river-blindness-drug.html
  6. 73  Rick Speare and David Durrheim, “Mass treatment with ivermectin: an underutilized public health strategy,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization (Aug. 2004), http s://
  7. 74  Staff reporter, “Merck and AstraZeneca to start COVID-19 drug trials in Japan,” The Japan Times (Mar. 13, 2021), l/science-health/merck-astrazeneca-clinical-trials/
  8. 75  Annalisa Merelli, “Merck’s new Covid-19 drug could be one of the most lucrative drugs ever,” Quartz (Oct 1, 2021), -billion-from-its-covid-19-drugs-in-2021/
  9. 76  Marc Lipsitch, “Why Do Exceptionally Dangerous Gain-of-Function Experiments in Influenza?”
  10. 77  Jon Cohen and Charles Piller, “Emails Offer Look Into Whistleblower Charges of Cronyism Behind Potential COVID-19 Drug,” Science Insider (May 13, 2020), http s:// m-behind-potential-covid-19-drug
  11. 78  U.S. Government Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA),
  12. 79  Sharon Lerner, “Merck Sells Federally Financed COVID Pill to U.S. for 40 TimesWhat it Costs to Make,”The Intercept (Oct 5, 2021), 05/covid-pill-drug-pricing-merck-ridgeback/

page222image66122688 page222image66122880 page222image66123072 page222image66123264page222image66123456 page222image66123648 page222image66123840 page222image66124032page222image66124224 page222image66124416 page222image66124608page222image66125184 page222image66125376 page222image66125568page222image66414720 page222image66409152 page222image66407232page222image66409344 page222image66409536 page222image66404352page222image66404544 page222image66419904

  1. 80  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Biden Administration announces U.S. government procurement of Merck’s investigational antiviral medicine for COVID-19 treatment” (June 9, 2021), den-administration-announces-us-government-procurement-mercks-investigational-an tiviral-medicine-covid-19-treatment.html
  2. 81  Ibid.
  3. 82  Manojna Maddipatla and Amruta Khandekar, Bengaluru, “Pfizer begins study of oraldrug for prevention of COVID-19,” Reuters (September 27, 2021), https://www.reuter g-2021-09-27/
  4. 83  Tyler Durden, “Pfizer Launches Final Study For COVID Drug That’s Suspiciously Similar to ‘Horse Paste,’” Zero Hedge (September 28, 2021), https://www.zerohedge. com/covid-19/pfizer-launches-final-study-covid-drug-thats-suspiciously-similar-iver mectin
  5. 84  “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” U.S. FDA @US_FDA Twitter post (August 21, 2021 at 6:57 a.m.), tus/1429050070243192839
  6. 85  “Intestinal Parasite Guidance: Summary of Recommendations. All Middle Eastern, Asian, North African, Latin American, and Caribbean refugees should receive presumptive therapy with: Albendazole, single dose of 400 mg (200 mg for children 12-23 months) AND Ivermectin, two doses 200 mcg/Kg orally once a day for 2 days before departure to the United States.” CDC Immigrant, Refugee, and Migrant Health website (as of September 26, 2021), delines/overseas-guidelines.html
  7. 86  Jake Tapper, “‘Don’t do it’: Dr. Fauci warns against taking Ivermectin to fight Covid- 19,” CNN video (August 29, 2021), r-anthony-fauci-ivermectincovid-19-sotu-vpx.cnn
  8. 87  Leah Willingham, “Livestock medicine doesn’t work against COVID, doctors warn,” AP News (August 25, 2021), -69c5f6d4476ca9b25bc7038e99a4a075
  9. 88  Vanessa Romo, “Joe Rogan Says He Has COVID-19 And Has Taken The Drug Ivermectin,” NPR (September 1, 2021), joe-rogan-covid-ivermectin
  10. 89  Tyler Durden, “Rolling Stone Issues ‘Update’ After Horse Dewormer Hit-Piece Debunked,” Zero Hedge (September 5, 2021), olling-stone-horse-dewormer-hit-piece-debunked-after-hospital-says-no-ivermectin

page223image66417792 page223image66417984page223image66419520 page223image66419328 page223image66419136page223image66418944 page223image66418752 page223image66418560 page223image66418368 page223image66418176page223image66417600 page223image66417024 page223image66416832 page223image66416640page223image66416448 page223image66416256 page223image66416064page223image66415872 page223image66415680 page223image66417216 page223image66417408page223image66415296

  1. 90  Ken Miller, “Dozens line up at Oklahoma City church for COVID vaccine,” Associated Press (January 26, 2021), ptist-oklahoma-city-oklahoma-coronavirus-pandemic-ec6293de7e118079141e90b887 4533a8
  2. 91  Peter Wade, “One Hospital Denies Oklahoma Doctor’s Story of Ivermectin Overdoses Causing ER Delays for Gunshot Victims: The hospital says it hasn’t experienced any care backlog due to patients overdosing on a drug that’s been falsely peddled as a covid cure,” Rolling Stone (Updated September 5, 2021, 8:55 pm ET), ahoma-hospitals-covid-1220608/
  3. 92  “Video: Livestock feed stores are reporting shortages of ivermectin as many Americans buy up the anti-parasite drug and misuse it to treat Covid,” The Daily Mail (September 17, 2021), mectin-Explained-Anti-Parasite-Drug-Emerged.html
  4. 93  Jon Jackson, “Patients Overdosing on Ivermectin Are Clogging Oklahoma ERs: Doctor,” Newsweek (September 2, 2021), sing-ivermectin-are-clogging-oklahoma-ers-doctor-1625631
  5. 94  Martin Pengelly and agencies, “Ivermectin misuse adding to Covid pressures at Oklahoma hospitals, doctor says: Jason McElyea says people overdosing on anti- parasitic drug that some people believe without evidence can cure or treat Covid,” The Guardian (September 13, 2021), 4/oklahoma-doctor-ivermectin-covid-coronavirus
  6. 95  Graig Graziosi, “Doctor says gunshot victims forced to wait for treatment as Oklahoma hospitals overwhelmed by coronavirus patients. (First paragraph: “People poisoning themselves with a drug most commonly used as a horse dewormer are turning up hospitals in rural Oklahoma, a doctor has claimed”), The Independent (September 4, 2021), s/gunshot-oklahoma-hospitals-ivermectin-overdose-b1914322.html.
  7. 96  “Patients overdosing on ivermectin backing up rural Oklahoma hospitals, ambulances”: “‘The scariest one I’ve heard of and seen is people coming in with vision loss,’ he said.” Twitter repost by Rachel Maddow, MSNBC @maddow (September 2, 2021),
  8. 97  Tyler Durden, “Rolling Stone Issues ‘Update’ After Horse Dewormer Hit-Piece Debunked,” Zero Hedge (September 5, 2021), olling-stone-horse-dewormerhit-piece-debunked-after-hospital-says-no-ivermectin
  9. 98  Martin Pengelly, “Oklahoma hospitals deluged by ivermectin overdoses, doctor says,” Guardian (Sep. 4, 2021),

page224image66413952 page224image66413760 page224image66413568page224image66413376 page224image66413184 page224image66412992page224image66412800 page224image66412608page224image66412032 page224image66411840 page224image66411648page224image66411072 page224image66410880page224image66410688 page224image66410496 page224image66410304page224image66410112 page224image66409920 page224image66404736

U.S. Food & Drug Administration, “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or

  1. 99  Prevent Covid-19,”
  2. 100  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Rapid Increase in IvermectinPrescriptions and Reports of Severe Illness Associated with Use of Products Containing Ivermectin to Prevent or Treat COVID-19, (Aug 26, 2021). https://emerge
  3. 101  Erin Woo, “How Covid Misinformation Created a Run on Animal Medicine,” The New York Times (September 28, 2021), ogy/ivermectin-animal-medicine-shortage.html?searchResultPosition=1
  4. 102  Dr. Eddy Bettermann, MD, “Massive ‘horse’ lies about Nobel prize winning treatment,” (September 27, 2021), es-about-nobel-prize-winning-treatment/

Endnotes – Remdesivir

  1. 1  Sydney Lupkin, Remdesivir Priced At More Than $3,100 For A Course Of Treatment, NPR, (May 8, 2020). 8/851632704/putting-a-price-on-covid-19-treatment-remdesivir
  2. 2  Kathryn Ardizzone, Role of the Federal Government in the Development of Remdesivir, KEI Briefing Note 2020:1., (March 20, 2020). wp-content/uploads/KEI-Briefing-Note-2020_1GS-5734-Remdesivir.pdf
  3. 3  Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Form 990-PF, 2016. https://docs.gatesfoundation.or g/Documents/A-1_2016_Form_990-PF_Signed.pdf
  4. 4  United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Gilead Sciences, Inc.. Form 10- K
  5. 5  Allison DeAngelis, Gilead, Gates Foundation join Watertown biotech’s $55M financing round, Boston Business Journal, (2018). n/news/2019/01/29/gilead-gates-foundation-join-watertown-biotechs.html
  6. 6  Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, University of California San Francisco, (Sept. 2016).
  7. 7  Christopher Rowland, Taxpayers paid to develop remdesivir but will have no say when Gilead sets the price, Washington Post, ss/2020/05/26/remdesivircoronavirus-taxpayers/
  8. 8  Gilead Sciences, GlobalData offers view on Gilead’s suspension of Covid-19 trials in China, News-Medical Life Sciences, (April 29, 2020), eads-suspension-of-covid-19-trials-in-china-should-serve-as-bellwether-for-studies-in

page225image66408960 page225image66408768 page225image66408576page225image66408384 page225image66408192 page225image66408000page225image66407808 page225image66407616 page225image66407040page225image66406848 page225image66406656page225image66406080 page225image66405888 page225image66405696page225image66405504 page225image66405312page225image66405120 page225image66404928page225image66403712 page225image66399296 page225image66398720page225image66398528



  1. 9, Investigational Therapeutics for the Treatment of People WithEbola Virus Disease, (October 28, 2018).
  2. 10  Ibid.
  3. 11  Erika Check Hayden, “Experimental drugs poised for use in Ebola outbreak,” Nature (May 18, 2018),
  4. 12  National Institutes of Health, Investigational Drugs Reduce Risk of Death from Ebola Virus Disease, NIH News Release, (November 27, 2019). events/news-releases/investigational-drugs-reduce-risk-death-ebola-virus-disease
  5. 13  Sabue Mulangu, “A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ebola Virus Disease Therapeutics, New England Journal of Medicine,” (December 12, 2019). https://www.
  6. 14  Ibid. at Table 2. Comparison of Death at 28 Days According to Treatment Group.
  7. 15  NIH Press Release, “NIH clinical trial of remdesivir to treat COVID-19 begins,” NIH, (Feb. 25, 2020),
  8. 16  Ibid. NIH Press Release
  9. 17  Ibid. NIH Press Release
  10. 18  Andres Hill, et al, “Minimum costs to manufacture new treatments for COVID-19,”ScienceDirect Journal of Virus Eradication Volume 6, Issue 2, April 2020, Pages 61-69,
  11. 19  Angus Liu, “Fair price for Gilead’s COVID-19 med remdesivir? $4,460, costwatchdog says,” FIERCE PHARMA, (May 4, 2020) arketing/gilead-s-covid-19-therapy-remdesivir-worth-4-460-per-course-says-pricing- watchdog
  12. 20  Matthew Herper, Gilead announces long-awaited price for Covid-19 drug remdesivir, STAT (Jun. 29, 2020), esivir-price-covid-19/
  13. 21  Angus Liu, Gilead banks on blockbuster remdesivir with sunnier 2020 outlook, FirecePharma, (July 21, 2020). -by-potential-remdesivir-covid-19-sales-elevates-2020-outlook-despite-weak-base
  14. 22  Ibid.
  15. 23  “Gillings School researchers receive $6M+ grant to fight infectious diseases,” UNCGillings School of Global Public Health (Aug. 31, 2017), s/gillings-researchers-receive-6m-grant-to-fight-infectious-disease/

page226image66403328 page226image66403136page226image66402944 page226image66402752page226image66402560 page226image66402368page226image66402176 page226image66401600 page226image66401408page226image66401216 page226image66401024page226image66400448 page226image66400256page226image66400064 page226image66399872page226image66399680 page226image66399488 page226image66398912page226image66393536 page226image66400640page226image66400832

NIH Funding: Awards by Location & Organization, Ralph S. Baric: summary for

  1. 24  Fiscal Year 2017,,46&ic=&fm=&orgid=578206&distr=&rfa=&pid=1885536&om=n#tab5
  2. 25  Reality Check Team, “Coronavirus: Was US money used to fund risky research inChina?,” BBC (Aug. 2, 2021),
  3. 26  Understanding The Risk Of Bat Coronavirus Emergence, Award No. R01AI110964,US Dept. HHS,
  4. 27  Jon Cohen, “Quarantined at home now, U.S. scientist describes his visit to China’s hotzone,” SCIENCE (Mar. 6, 2020),
  5. 28  Zhang Yan, David Stanway, “China lab seeks patent on use of Gilead’s coronavirustreatment,” Reuters (Feb. 4, 2020), tent/china-lab-seeks-patent-on-use-of-gileads-coronavirus-treatment-idUSKBN1ZZ0 RL
  6. 29  Ibid.
  7. 30  BMGF Press Release, “Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and MastercardLaunch Initiative to Speed Development and Access to Therapies for COVID-19,” BMGF (Mar. 10, 2020), eleases/2020/03/COVID-19-Therapeutics-Accelerator
  8. 31  Matt Krantz, “Bill Gates’ Coronavirus Manifesto Reveals 5 Forecasts For Investors,” Investor’s Business Daily (Apr. 24, 2020 01:48 PM ET) s-and-funds/sectors/bill-gates-coronavirus-manifesto-reveals-forecasts-investors/
  9. 32  Associated Press, Fauci calls Henry Ford study on hydroxychloroquine and COVID- 19 ‘flawed’, (July 31, 2020). ry-ford-study-onhydroxychloroquine-and-covid-19-flawed
  10. 33  CNBC, Dr. Anthony Fauci: No placebo-controlled trial has shown hydroxychloroquine is effective, (July 31, 2020). xDjVwXM8ESE
  11. 34  CNN, Dr. Fauci warns against taking Ivermectin to fight Covid-19, (August 29, 2021). ovid-19-sotu-vpx.cnn
  12. 35  Jason D. Goldman, et al. Remdesivir for 5 or 10 Days in Patients with Severe Covid- 19. NEJM, (May 27, 2020).
  13. 36  European Medicines, Assessment Report: Vaklury, (June 25, 2020). https://www.ema. n.pdf

page227image66396224 page227image66397760page227image66397568 page227image66397376 page227image66397184page227image66396992 page227image66396800 page227image66396608page227image66396416 page227image66395840page227image66395648 page227image66395072page227image66394880 page227image66394688page227image66394496 page227image66394304 page227image66394112page227image66393920 page227image66393728 page227image66395264page227image66395456 page227image66388736

NIAID, “A Multicenter, Adaptive, Randomized Blinded Controlled Trial of the Safety

  1. 37  and Efficacy of Investigational Therapeutics for the Treatment of COVID-19 inHospitalized Adults,” NIH Clinical Trials .GOV (Apr. 2, 2020), https://clinicaltrials.g ov/ct2/show/NCT04280705(
  2. 38  John H. Beigel, M.D., et al, “Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Final Report,” N Engl J Med 2020; 383:1813-1826, DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764, http s://
  3. 39  Health News Review, “Primary Outcome Measures: Screenshot of,” Health NewsReview (Apr. 30, 2020, 3:18 PM), https://www.healt M.png he-nih-remdesivir-trial/
  4. 40  COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel Members, (Last Updated: August 4, 2021), ht tps://
  5. 41  Jon Cohen, “Quarantined at home now, U.S. scientist describes his visit to China’s hot zone,” SCIENCE (Mar. 6, 2020), scientist-reveals-what-it-s-be-china-s-hot-zone
  6. 42  COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Guidelines. National Institutes of Health. Available at https://www.covid19 Accessed October 1, 2021.
  7. 43  AHRP, “Brazilian Scientists Speak Out Against Corrupted “Science” & the Use of Inhumane Study Methods,”AHRP (May 27, 2020), -speak-out-against-corrupted-science-the-use-of-inhumane-study-methods/
  8. 44  AHRP, “Dissolving Illusions–“Authoritative” Medical Information Sources Are Corrupted,”AHRP (Nov. 26, 2017), mation-sources-are-corrupted/
  9. 45  AHRP, “Nobody Should Volunteer for Clinical Trials As Long As Research Data Is Secret,” AHRP (Apr. 12, 2012), trials-as-long-as-research-data-is-secret/
  10. 46  AHRP, “Medical Journals Complicit in Corruption of Medicine,” AHRP (Nov. 13, 2010),
  11. 47  AHRP, “BMJ Demands Raw Data From Pharma Clinical Trials,” AHRP (Dec. 10, 2009),
  12. 48  Yeming Wang, MD, et al., Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial, VOL 395, I 10236,

page228image66392000 page228image66391808 page228image66391616page228image66391424 page228image66390848 page228image66390656page228image66390464 page228image66390272 page228image66390080page228image66389888 page228image66389696page228image66389120 page228image66388928 page228image66388544page228image66453248 page228image66448256page228image66448640 page228image66448064 page228image66447872page228image66447680 page228image66438080page228image66443072

P1569-1578, (MAY 16, 2020),

  1. 49  Ibid.
  2. 50  Phil Taylor, “Gilead slides as second Chinese trial of remdesivir is stopped,” PHARMAPHORUM (Apr. 15, 2020), as-two-chinese-trials-of-remdesivirare-stopped/
  3. 51  Erika Edwards, Remdesivir shows promising results for coronavirus, Fauci says, NBC, (April 29, 2020). ug-remdesivir-shows-promise-large-trial-n1195171
  4. 52  Gina Kolata, Peter Baker and Noah Weiland, “Remdesivir Shows Modest Benefits in Coronavirus Trial,” New York Times, (April 29, 2020, Updated Oct. 29, 2020), https://
  5. 53  FDA, “EUA Letter of Approval Veklury (remdesivir),” RADM Denise M. Hinton- FDA, (May 1, 2020 revised Oct. 22, 2020), oad
  6. 54  Veklury (remdesivir), “Information for US Healthcare Professionals”,
  7. 55  Sarah Boseley, US secures world stock of key Covid-19 drug remdesivir, The Guardian, (June 30, 2020). ys-up-world-stock-of-key-covid-19-drug
  8. 56  Francesco Guarascio, EU makes 1 billion-euro bet on Gilead’s COVID drug before trial results, Reuters, (Oct 13, 2020.) virus-eu-remdesivir/eu-makes-1-billion-euro-bet-on-gileads-covid-drug-before-trial-r esults-idUSKBN26Y25K
  9. 57  Gillings School News, Remdesivir, developed through a UNC-Chapel Hill partnership, proves effective against COVID-19 in NIAID human clinical trials, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, (April 29, 2020). ws/remdesivir-developed-at-unc-chapel-hill-proves-effective-against-covid-19-in-niai d-human-clinical-trials/
  10. 58  Ibid.
  11. 59  AHRP, “Fauci’s Promotional Hype Catapults Gilead’s Remdesivir,” AHRP (May 6,2020),
  12. 60  Public Citizen, “The Public Already Has Paid for Remdesivir,” Public Citizen, (May7, 2020),
  13. 61  Umair Irfan, “The FDA approved remdesivir to treat Covid-19. Scientists arequestioning the evidence.,” Vox (Oct. 24, 2020), desivir-approved-by-fda-covid-19-fda-gilead-veklury

page229image66452864 page229image66452672 page229image66452480page229image66452288 page229image66452096 page229image66451904page229image66451712 page229image66451520 page229image66450944 page229image66450752page229image66450560 page229image66449984 page229image66449792page229image66449600 page229image66449408 page229image66449216page229image66449024 page229image66448832page229image66442880 page229image66450176page229image66450368 page229image66447488

  1. 62  Jeremy Hsu, “Covid-19: What now for remdesivir?,” 371:m4457 BMJ (Nov. 20, 2020),
  2. 63  Jon Cohen & Kai Kupferschmidt, “The ‘very, very bad look’ of remdesivir, the first FDA-approved COVID-19 drug,” Science (Oct. 28, 2020), ews/2020/10/very-very-bad-look-remdesivir-first-fda-approved-covid-19-drug
  3. 64  Umair Irfan, “The FDA approved remdesivir to treat Covid-19. Scientists are questioning the evidence,” Vox (Oct. 24, 2020) esivir-approved-by-fda-covid-19-fda-gilead-veklury
  4. 65  Jon Cohen & Kai Kupferschmidt, “The ‘very, very bad look’ of remdesivir, the first FDA-approved COVID-19 drug,” SCIENCE (Oct. 28, 2020), g/news/2020/10/very-very-bad-look-remdesivir-first-fda-approved-covid-19-drug
  5. 66  Science Media Centre, expert reaction to a study about compassionate use of remdesivir for patients with severe COVID-19, (April 11, 2020). r-patients-with-severe-covid-19/
  6. 67  Ibid.
  7. 68  Steven Levy, Bill Gates on Covid: Most US Tests Are ‘Completely Garbage. Wired,(August 7, 2020).
  8. 69  Owen Dyer, Covid-19: Remdesivir has little or no impact on survival, WHO trialshows. BMJ 2020;371:m4057 (Published October 19, 2020). ntent/371/bmj.m4057?ijkey=f9301c3ac0aca0af6e1df53f1c90e72b9dc769cd&keytype 2=tf_ipsecsha
  9. 70  FDA News Release, “FDA Approves First Treatment for COVID-19,” FDA (Oct.22, 2020), tment-covid-19
  10. 71  Kari Oakes, “WHO backs off on remdesivir as FDA issues another EUA.” Regulatory Focus (November 19, 2020). 20/11/who-backs-offon-remdesivir-as-fda-issues-another
  11. 72  Michael E. Ohl, et al., “Association of Remdesivir Treatment With Survival and Length of Hospital Stay Among US Veterans Hospitalized With COVID-19,” JAMA 4(7):e2114741 (2021) doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14741, https://jamanetwor
  12. 73  PRAC reviews a signal with Veklury, PRAC (Oct. 2, 2020), https://www.ema.europa. eu/en/news/meeting-highlights-pharmacovigilance-risk-assessment-committee-prac-2 8-september-1-october-2020

page230image66446912 page230image66446720 page230image66446528page230image66446336 page230image66446144 page230image66445952page230image66445376 page230image66445184page230image66444992 page230image66444800page230image66444608 page230image66444032 page230image66443840page230image66443648 page230image66443456page230image66443264 page230image66438272 page230image66440768page230image66440960 page230image66444224 page230image66444416 page230image66442496page230image66442304 page230image66442112

  1. 74  “EU medicines agency studies effect of COVID-19 drug on kidneys,” Euronews (Oct. 2, 2020), of-covid-19-drug-on-kidneys
  2. 75  CDC, “Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): Clinical Management and Treatment” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Feb. 16, 2120), 19-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html
  3. 76  NIH, “COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines:Therapeutic Management of Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19” NIH (Aug 25, 2021), https://www.covid19treatmentguidelin–therapeutic-manage ment/
  4. 77  NIH, “COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines: General Management of Nonhospitalized Patients With Acute COVID-19” NIH (Jul. 8, 2021), https://www.covid19treatmentgu–therapeuti c-management/
  5. 78  Sanna Gevers, et al, ‘Remdesivir in COVID-19 Patients with Impaired Renal Function,’ JASN (Feb. 2021) 32 (2) 518-519; DOI: 101535
  6. 79  Jonathan Grein, M.D., et al, “Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19,” N Engl J Med 2020; 382:2327-2336, DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007016
  7. 80  Tavares, Remdesivir is approved for testing on coronavirus patients in Brazil and Europe, oronavirus-patients-in-brazil-and-europe/
  8. 81  Lisandra Paraguassu, Ricardo Brito, After record COVID-19 deaths, Bolsonaro tells Brazilians to stop ‘whining’, Reuters, (March 5, 2021). e/us-health-coronavirus-brazil/after-record-covid-19-deaths-bolsonaro-tells-brazilians -to-stop-whining-idUSKBN2AX114
  9. 82  “Kidney problems more prevalent in NYC COVID-19 patients,” Columbia (Jun. 8, 2020), ovid-19-patients

Endnotes – Final Solution: Vaccines or Bust

1 Robert Kuznia, “The timetable for a coronavirus vaccine is 18 months. Experts say that’s risky,” CNN (Apr. 1, 2020), accine-timetable-concerns-experts-invs/index.html

page231image66440384 page231image66440192 page231image66440000page231image66439808 page231image66439616page231image66439424 page231image66439232page231image66439040 page231image66438848 page231image66438656 page231image66438464page231image66821440 page231image66816640page231image66814720 page231image66814912page231image66829504 page231image66829696page231image66826432 page231image66826624 page231image66821632page231image66826816

  1. 2  Stuart A. Thompson, “How Long Will a Vaccine Really Take?,” NYT (Apr. 30, 2020), accine.html
  2. 3  Luke Andrews, ‘It can prevent pneumonia’: Oxford professor running coronavirus vaccine trial comes out in its defence after all of the monkeys given the treatment catch the disease, The Daily Mail, (May 22, 2020). cetech/article-8347391/It-prevents-pneumonia-Oxford-professor-defences-coronaviru s-vaccine.html
  3. 4  Sara G. Miller, ‘The looming question’: Fauci says studies suggest vaccines slow virus spread, NBC News, (Feb 17, 2021). ws/looming-question-fauci-says-studies-suggest-vaccines-slow-virus-spread-n125814 2
  4. 5  Veronika Kyrylenko, Nobel Prize Winner Warns Vaccines Facilitate Development of Deadlier COVID Variants, Urges Public to Reject Jabs, The New American, (May 20, 2021). te-development-of-deadlier-covid-variants-urges-the-public-to-reject-jabs/
  5. 6  Zane Rizvi, “The NIH Vaccine,” The Public Citizen (Jun. 25, 2020), https://www.citiz
  6. 7  Alex Newman, Dr Peter McCullough on Vaccine Death Rate, Raccoon Medicine, (May 29, 2021). ccine-death-rate-ignored/
  7. 8  Associated Press, “COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters Could Mean Billions for Drugmakers,” USNews (Sept. 25, 2021), cles/2021-09-25/covid-19-vaccineboosters-could-mean-billions-for-drugmakers
  8. 9  Peter Hotez March 5, 2020 testimony before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee on Coronavirus. Hotez speaks at around the 25:00 mark. http s:// ring-coronavirus
  9. 10  Peter Hotez March 5, 2020 testimony before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee on Coronavirus. Hotez speaks at around the 25:00 mark. http s:// ring-coronaviru
  10. 11  The Reality About Coronavirus Vaccine (W/Dr. Paul Offit), Dr. Paul Offit interview with Dr. Zubin “ZDogg” Damania, M.D. (Apr. 5, 2020). fit-2/
  11. 12  Ibid.

page232image66828544 page232image66828352 page232image66828160page232image66827968 page232image66827776 page232image66827584page232image66827392page232image66827200 page232image66826240page232image66821824 page232image66824320 page232image66825856 page232image66825664page232image66825472 page232image66825280page232image66825088 page232image66824896page232image66824704 page232image66824128 page232image66826048

  1. 13  Dr. Anthony Fauci, 00:57:48, “White House coronavirus briefing (March 26, 2020),” YouTube,
  2. 14, “Study to Describe the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of RNA Vaccine Candidates Against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals,” (April 30, 2020), 28&draw=2&rank=1
  3. 15  Ross Lazarus, “Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System” (ESP:VAERS),(Sep 30, 2010), t/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf
  4. 16  Jerry Dunleavy, “Republicans press Facebook for documents on COVID-19 origins ‘censorship’ and Fauci emails,” Yahoo News (Jun. 9, 2021), now/republicans-press-facebook-documents-covid-230200549.html
  5. 17  Leopold, NIH FOIA: Anthony Fauci Emails, pp. 2065-2068, https://s3.documentclou
  6. 18  Who Pays for Politifact? *Feb, 2021). act/
  7. 19  Our Funding, (2021),
  8. 20  Facebook Fact-Checkers Secretly Funded by Johnson and Johnson,” Vision News(May 6, 2021),
  9. 21  @RWMalone Twitter (Oct. 7, 2021, 9:08 AM),
  10. 22  Children’s Health Defense Team, “Home Run King Hank Aaron Dies of ‘UndisclosedCause’ 18 Days After Receiving Moderna Vaccine,” The Defender-Children’s Health Defense (Jan.22, 2021), days-after-receiving-moderna-vaccine/
  11. 23  Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., “National Media Pushes Vaccine Misinformation — Coroner’s Office Never Saw Hank Aaron’s Body,” The Defender-Children’s Health Defense (Feb. 12, 2021), er-receiving-moderna-vaccine/
  12. 24  “‘Die Lymphozyten laufen Amok’—Pathologen untersuchen Todesfälle nach COVID-19-Impfung.” RT Question More (September 21, 2021). nd/124390-lymphozyten-laufen-amok-pathologen-untersuchen-todesfaelle-nach-impf ung/
  13. 25  National Institutes of Health, NIH Awards by Location and Organization, https://repor

page233image66822976 page233image66822784 page233image66822592page233image66822400 page233image66822208 page233image66822016page233image66817024 page233image66819520page233image66819712 page233image66821248page233image66821056 page233image66820480 page233image66820288 page233image66820096page233image66819904 page233image66819328 page233image66819136page233image66818944 page233image66818752 page233image66820672page233image66820864 page233image66818560 page233image66818368 page233image66818176

  1. 26  Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Committed Grants Database, https://www.gatesfoun
  2. 27  Frontline, Dr. Anthony Fauci: Risks From Vaccines Are “Almost Nonmeasurable”, Frontline, (Mar 23, 2015). isks-from-vaccines-are-almost-nonmeasurable/
  3. 28  Katie Rogers & Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Biden Mandates Vaccines for Workers, Saying, ‘Our Patience Is Wearing Thin’,” New York Times, 9/09/us/politics/biden-mandates-vaccines.html
  4. 29  Sivan Gazit, Roei Shlezinger, et al, “Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections” medRxiv 2021.08.24.21262415; doi:
  5. 30  Brownstone Institute, “Natural Immunity and Covid-19: Twenty-Nine Scientific Studies to Share with Employers, Health Officials, and Politicians,” Brownstone Institute (Oct. 10, 2021), 19-twenty-nine-scientific-studies-to-share-with-employers-health-officials-and-politic ians/
  6. 31  “COVID-19 vaccine doses administered by manufacturer, United States,” Our World in Data, ntry=~USA
  7. 32  Stephen J. Thomas et al., Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine, medRxiv preprint (July 28, 2021). ent/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf
  8. 33  Ronald B. Brown, Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials, Medicina, Medicina, (Feb. 26, 2021). 82/
  9. 34  Stephen J. Thomas et al., Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine, medRxiv preprint (July 28, 2021). ent/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf
  10. 35  U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Good Review Practice: Clinical Review of Investigational New Drug Applications, (Dec, 2013). 21/download
  11. 36  Senate Testimony, Dr. Pierre Kory, FLCCC (Dec. 8, 2020) https://covid19criticalcare. com/senate-testimony/
  12. 37  Gérard Delépine, High Recorded Mortality in Countries Categorized as “Covid-19 Vaccine Champions”. Increased Hospitalization, Freedom of Speech, (Oct 1, 2021). ht tps:// -19-vaccine-champions-increased-hospitalization/

page234image66816448 page234image66816256 page234image66816064page234image66815872 page234image66815680 page234image66815488page234image66815296 page234image66815104page234image66814528page234image66814336 page234image66814144 page234image66653760page234image66653952 page234image66662016 page234image66661632page234image66661824 page234image66661440 page234image66659520 page234image66659712 page234image66655104page234image66659904 page234image66660096

  1. 38  Ibid.
  2. 39  Ibid.
  3. 40  “COVID-19 in Iceland: Vaccination Has Not Led to Herd Immunity, Says ChiefEpidemiologist,” Jelena Ćirić, Iceland Review (August 3, 2021), https://www.icelandr s-chief-epidemiologist/
  4. 41  Delépine.
  5. 42  Ibid.
  6. 43  Ibid.
  7. 44  Ibid.
  8. 45  Holly Ellyatt, “Here’s why herd immunity from Covid is ‘mythical’ with the delta variant,” CNBC (Aug. 12, 2021), s-mythical-with-the-covid-delta-variant-experts-say.html
  9. 46  “Vaccine Effectiveness Drops Further in the Over-40s, To as Low as Minus 53%, New PHE Report Shows – And That’s a Fact.” Will Jones, The Daily Sceptic (September 24, 2021). -further-in-the-over-40s-as-low-as-minus-53-new-phe-report-shows-and-thats-a-fact/
  10. 47  Delépine.
  11. 48  Ibid.
  12. 49  Ibid.
  13. 50  “Population Wide Epidemiological Geography Demonstrates Vaccination Doesn’tCorrelate to Reduction in SARS-CoV-2 Infection.” TrialSite News (October 3, 2021). accination-doesnt-correlate-to-reduction-in-sars-cov-2-infection/
  14. 51  S.V. Subramanian, A. Kumar, “Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States,” European Journal of Epidemiology (September 30, 2021), 07/s10654-021-00808-7
  15. 52  A comparison of age adjusted all-cause mortality rates in England between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Norman Fenton and Martin Neil, Probability and Risk (September 23, 2021). -england.html
  16. 53  SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England. Technical briefing 23, Public Health England (September 17, 2021). 547/Technical_Briefing_23_21_09_16.pdf
  17. 54  Ibid.

page235image66662208 page235image66662784 page235image66662592page235image66663168 page235image66662976page235image66663552 page235image66663360page235image66663936 page235image66663744page235image66664320 page235image66664128 page235image66664896 page235image66664704page235image66665472 page235image66665280 page235image66666048

“Breakthrough Cases Surge: Vaccinated Individuals Accounted for 87% of Covid

  1. 55  Hospitalizations Over the Past Week in Wales UK; 99% of All New Cases WereUnder 60 Years Old.” Julian Conradson, Gateway Pundit (September 30, 2021). http s:// ndividuals-accounted-87-covid-hospitalizations-past-week-wales-uk-99-new-cases-60 -years-old/
  2. 56  Senedd Research, COVID-19 vaccination data, (Jul 10, 2021). https://research.sened
  3. 57  Nosocomial outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a highly vaccinated population, Israel, July 2021. Pnina Shitrit et al., Eurosurveillance (Volume 26, Issue 39, 30/Sep/2021).
  4. 58  Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention, Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections, Associated with Large Public Gatherings — Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021, MMWR, (Aug 6, 2021
  5. 59  Committed Grants Johns Hopkins University, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, http s:// sity
  6. 60  National Institutes of Health, NIH Awards by Location and Organization, Johns Hopkins University, =&fm=&orgid=4134401&distr=&rfa=&om=y&pid=&view=state
  7. 61  World Snapshot, PANDA Pandemics Data & Analytics,
  8. 62  Shari Roan, Swine flu ‘debacle’ of 1976 is recalled, Los Angeles Times, (Apr 27,2009).
  9. 63  Found 16,310 cases where Vaccine is COVID19 and Patient Died, NVIC (From Oct.1, 2021 release of VAERS data),
  10. 64  Found 778,685 cases where Vaccine is COVID19, NVIC (From Oct. 1, 2021 releaseof VAERS data),
  11. 65  Med Alerts, Found 14,925 cases where Vaccine is COVID19 and Patient Died(September 10, 2021).
  12. 66  Id.
  13. 67  COVID-19 Vaccinations 98 Times More Deadly Than Flu Vaccines (According to VAERS Reports), TrialSite News, (August 28, 2021). Archived at: https://web.archiv

page236image66665664page236image66650304 page236image66653568 page236image66657408page236image66650688 page236image66707904 page236image66705408page236image66705024 page236image66705984page236image66706176 page236image66705216page236image66701184 page236image66701376 page236image66701568page236image66701760 page236image66701952page236image66702144 page236image66702720page236image66702912 page236image66702336


  1. 68  Ronald Kostoff, Why Are We Vaccinating Children Against COVID19? ToxicologyReports, Vol 8 2021, pages 1165-1684,
  2. 69  Steve Kirsch, Vaccine Safety Evidence, (July 20, 2021).
  3. 70  U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Vaccines and Related Biological ProductsAdvisory Committee Meeting, Steve Kirsch Segment, (Sep 17, 2021). YouTube,04:20:16,
  4. 71  U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Vaccines and Related Biological ProductsAdvisory Committee Meeting, Steve Kirsch Segment, (Sep 17, 2021). YouTube,04:21:33,
  5. 72  Whistleblower Lawsuit! Government Medicare Data Shows 48,465 DEAD FollowingCOVID Shots—Remdesivir Drug has 25% Death Rate! Brian Shilhavy, Health Impact News (September 28, 2021). ower-lawsuit-government-medicare-data-shows-48465-dead-following-covid-shots-re mdesivir-drug-has-25-death-rate/
  6. 73  Attorney Files Lawsuit Against CDC Based on “Sworn Declaration” from Whistleblower Claiming 45,000 Deaths are Reported to VAERS—All Within 3 Days of COVID-19 Shots. Health Impact News (2021). 1/attorney-files-lawsuit-against-cdc-based-on-sworn-declaration-from-whistleblower- claiming-45000-deaths-are-reported-to-vaers-all-within-3-days-of-covid-19-shots/
  7. 74  “How CDC Manipulated Data to Create ‘Pandemic of the Unvaxxed’ Narrative.” Dr. Joseph Mercola, The Defender (August 16, 2021). defender/cdc-manipulated-data-create-pandemic-unvaxxed-narrative/
  8. 75  Public health investigations of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases, CDC, https:// stigations-Protocol.pdf
  9. 76  Virginia Langmaid, “Data on hospitalizations and deaths in the unvaccinated do not reflect Delta variant, CDC director says,” CNN (Aug. 5, 2021), us/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-vaccine-updates-08-05-21/h_82f976bb0f238323e 3e0482af5d2d563
  10. 77  Our World in Data, “COVID-19 vaccination doses administered per 100 people, Jan 1, 2021,” Our World in Data, (Jan. 1, 2021), navirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2021-01-01&facet=none&picker Sort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=People+vaccinated+%28by+dose%29&Int

page237image66703872 page237image66704064 page237image66704256page237image66704448 page237image66704640 page237image66704832 page237image66706560 page237image66706368page237image66707328 page237image66706752page237image66707136 page237image66707520 page237image66708672page237image66708096page237image66708480 page237image66708288page237image66709056 page237image66708864page237image66709824 page237image66707712 page237image66706944page237image66709248 page237image66709632 page237image66709440page237image66710208page237image66710016

erval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false &country=ARE~PRT~ESP~SGP~URY~DNK~CHL~IRL~CAN~FIN~CHN~IND~U SA~IDN~PAK~BRA~NGA~BGD~RUS~MEX~JPN~ETH~PHL~EGY~VNM~TUR ~IRN~DEU~THA~GBR~FRA~TZA~ITA~ZAF~KEN~OWID_WRL

  1. 78  Our World in Data, “COVID-19 vaccination doses administered per 100 people, Apr 15, 2021,” Our World in Data, (Apr. 15, 2021), oronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2021-04-15&facet=none&pic kerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=People+vaccinated+%28by+dose%29& Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=fal se&country=ARE~PRT~ESP~SGP~URY~DNK~CHL~IRL~CAN~FIN~CHN~IND~ USA~IDN~PAK~BRA~NGA~BGD~RUS~MEX~JPN~ETH~PHL~EGY~VNM~TU R~IRN~DEU~THA~GBR~FRA~TZA~ITA~ZAF~KEN~OWID_WRL
  2. 79  Our World in Data, “COVID-19 vaccination doses administered per 100 people, June 15, 2021,” Our World in Data, (Jun. 15, 2021), oronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2021-06-15&facet=none&pic kerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=People+vaccinated+%28by+dose%29& Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=fal se&country=ARE~PRT~ESP~SGP~URY~DNK~CHL~IRL~CAN~FIN~CHN~IND~ USA~IDN~PAK~BRA~NGA~BGD~RUS~MEX~JPN~ETH~PHL~EGY~VNM~TU R~IRN~DEU~THA~GBR~FRA~TZA~ITA~ZAF~KEN~OWID_WRL
  3. 80  Victoria Male, “Menstrual changes after covid-19 vaccination” BMJ (2021) 374 doi:
  4. 81  MedAlerts, “5,990 cases where Location is U.S., Territories, or Unknown and Vaccine is COVID19 and Symptom is Amenorrhoea or Dysmenorrhoea or Menopausal disorder or Menopausal symptoms or Menopause or Menopause delayed or Menstrual discomfort or Menstrual disorder or Menstruation delayed or Menstruation irregular,” MedAlerts/VAERS, (Oct. 1, 2021), E=ON&GROUP1=AGE&EVENTS=ON&SYMPTOMS[]=Amenorrhoea+%2810001 928%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Dysmenorrhoea+%2810013935%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Me nopausal+disorder+%2810058825%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Menopausal+symptoms+% 2810027304%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Menopause+%2810027308%29&SYMPTOMS[] =Menopause+delayed+%2810027310%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Menstrual+discomfort +%2810056344%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Menstrual+disorder+%2810027327%29&SY MPTOMS[]=Menstruation+delayed+%2810027336%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Menstruati on+irregular+%2810027339%29&VAX=COVID19&STATE=NOTFR
  5. 82  Sue Hughes, “CVST After COVID-19 Vaccine: New Data Confirm High Mortality Rate,” MEDSCAPE, (September 30, 2021)

page238image66710784page238image66700608page238image66700032 page238image66700416page238image66700224 page238image66700992page238image66700800page238image66714816page238image66715392page238image66715008page238image66715200 page238image66714240page238image66713664page238image66713856page238image66714048page238image66713280page238image66713472page238image66712896 page238image66713088 page238image66712512page238image66712704page238image66711360page238image66714624page238image66714432page238image66712320page238image66712128page238image66711936 page238image66711552page238image66711744


  1. 83  Ruud Lensen et al., Hepatitis C Virus Reactivation Following COVID-19 Vaccination—A Case Report. Int Med Case Rep J 2021; 14: 573–576,
  2. 84  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Severe Outcomes Among Patients withCoronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) — United States, February 12–March 16, 2020, MMWR, (Mar 27, 2020). e2.htm
  3. 85  MedAlerts, “Found 7,537 cases where Vaccine is COVID19 and Symptom is Myocarditis or Myopericarditis or Pericarditis,” MedAlert/VAERS, (Oct. 1, 2021), htt ps:// ON&SYMPTOMS[]=Myocarditis+%2810028606%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Myopericar ditis+%2810028650%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Pericarditis+%2810034484%29&VAX=C OVID19
  4. 86  MedAlerts, “Found 5,602 cases where Vaccine is COVID19 and Manufacturer is PFIZER/BIONTECH and Symptom is Myocarditis or Pericarditis,” MedAlert/VAERS, (Oct. 1, 2021), E=ON&GROUP1=AGE&EVENTS=ON&SYMPTOMS[]=Myocarditis+%28100286 06%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Pericarditis+%2810034484%29&VAX=COVID19&VAXM AN=PFIZER/BIONTECH
  5. 87  MedAlerts, “Found 476 cases where Age is 12-or-more-and-under-18 and Vaccine is COVID19 and Manufacturer is PFIZER/BIONTECH and Symptom is Myocarditis or Pericarditis,” GE&EVENTS=ON&SYMPTOMS[]=Myocarditis+%2810028606%29&SYMPTOM S[]=Pericarditis+%2810034484%29&VAX=COVID19&VAXMAN=PFIZER/BIONT ECH&WhichAge=range&LOWAGE=12&HIGHAGE=18
  6. 88  A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products. Jessica Rose PhD, MSc, BSc1 and Peter A. McCullough MD, MPH, Current Problems in Cardiology. In Press, Journal Pre-proof (October 1, 2021). http s://!
  7. 89  Michael Kang, Viral Myocarditis, StatPearls (Updated 2021 Aug 11),
  8. 90  Megan Redshaw, “Sweden, Denmark Pause Moderna’s COVID Vaccine for Younger Age Groups Citing Reports of Myocarditis,” The Defender (October 6, 2021), https:// myocarditis/

page239image66699264 page239image66684416 page239image66682880 page239image66688448 page239image66683072page239image66684608page239image66698432page239image66686528 page239image66698816 page239image66698624page239image66684992page239image66601728 page239image66609024page239image66607104 page239image66606144page239image66606336 page239image66604224page239image66601152 page239image66608640 page239image66604608 page239image66609408page239image66609792 page239image66610368

Essi Lehto, “Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna COVID-19

  1. 91  vaccine,” Reuters (October 7, 2021),
  2. 92  Letter to Amit Patel, Pfizer Inc., BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH from U.S. Food &Drug Administration (August 23, 2021).
  3. 93  Mehul Suthar et al., “Durability of immune responses to the BNT162b2 mRNAvaccine,” BioRxiv preprint (October 2021),
  4. 94  Maggie Fox, “Studies confirm waning immunity from Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine,”CNN (October 7, 2021),
  5. 95  Sara Y. Tartof, Ph.D. et al., “Effectiveness of mRNA BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccineup to 6 months in a large integrated health system in the USA: a retrospective cohort study.” The Lancet (October 04, 2021), cle/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext
  6. 96  Will Jones, New Lancet Study Confirms Plummeting Vaccine Effectiveness, The Daily Sceptic (October 7, 2021), -confirms-plummeting-vaccine-effectiveness/
  7. 97  Sara Y Tartof, et al, Effectiveness of mRNA BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine up to 6 months in a large integrated health system in the USA: a retrospective cohort study, (Oct 4, 2021). 183-8/fulltext
  8. 98  Ibid.
  9. 99  Sunil S Bhopal, et al, Children and young people remain at low risk of COVID-19mortality. (May 1, 2021).
  10. 100  “Investigation: Deaths among Teenagers have increased by 47% in the UK since theystarted getting the Covid-19 Vaccine according to official ONS data.” Will Jones, The Exposé (October 2, 2021). ave-increased-by-47-percent-since-covidvaccination-began/
  11. 101  Ibid.
  12. 102  Sunil S Bhopal et al., Children and young people remain at low risk of COVID-19mortality, The Lancet, (May 2021).
  13. 103  Facebook page for WXYZ-TV Channel 7, accessed at September 20, 2021:

page240image66978944 page240image66975424 page240image66971776page240image66859392 page240image66902976 page240image66675904 page240image66676864page240image66672448 page240image66672640 page240image66667264page240image66679552 page240image66681664 page240image66682624page240image66682432 page240image66682240 page240image66682048page240image66681856 page240image66673024 page240image66676096 page240image66681472page240image66672832

Nguyen Van Vinh Chau et al, Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Among

  1. 104  Vaccinated Healthcare Workers, Vietnam, preprints with The Lancet (Aug 10, 2021).
  2. 105  Lindsey Tanner, Mike Stobbe and Philip Marcelo, “Study: Vaccinated people cancarry as much virus as others,” AP News (July 30, 2021)
  3. 106  Apoorva Mandavilli, C.D.C. Internal Report Calls Delta Variant as Contagious asChickenpox.” The New York Times (July 30, 2021, Updates September 1, 2021),
  4. 107  Pnina Shitrit, et al, Nosocomial outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a highly vaccinated population, Israel, July 2021 (Sep 30, 2021).
  5. 108 updates, new citations and references, and new information about topics in this chapter:

page241image66680512 page241image66680320page241image66680128 page241image66679936page241image66679360 page241image66679168 page241image66678976page241image66678784 page241image52278688



“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

—C. S. Lewis

For five decades, Dr. Anthony Fauci has wielded formidable power to fortify the pharmaceutical industry’s explosive growth and its corrosive influence over our government regulatory agencies and public health policy. During his fifty-year career, Dr. Fauci has nurtured a complex web of financial entanglements among pharmaceutical companies and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and its employees that has transformed NIAID into a seamless subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Fauci unabashedly promotes his sweetheart relationship with Pharma as a “public-private partnership.”1

From his perch at NIAID, Dr. Fauci has used his $6 billion annual budget2 to achieve dominance and control over a long list of agencies and governing bodies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health and Human Services (HHS) agencies, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Pentagon, the White House, the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN) organizations, and into the deep pockets of the Clinton and Gates Foundations, and Britain’s The Wellcome Trust.

A leviathan yearly grant budget gives Dr. Fauci power to make and break careers, enrich—or punish—university research centers, manipulate scientific journals, and to dictate not just the subject matter and study

protocols, but also the outcome of scientific research across the globe. Since 2005, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has funneled an additional $1.7 billion3 into Dr. Fauci’s annual discretionary budget to launder sketchy funding for biological weapons research, often of dubious legality. This Pentagon funding brings the annual total of grants that Dr. Fauci dispenses to an astonishing $7.7 billion—almost twice the annual donations of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Working in close collaboration with pharmaceutical companies and other large grant makers, including Bill Gates—the biggest funder of vaccines in the world—Dr. Fauci has consistently used his awesome power to defund, bully, silence, de-license, and ruin scientists whose research threatens the pharmaceutical paradigm, and to reward those scientists who support him. Dr. Fauci rewards loyalty with prestigious sinecures on key HHS committees when they continue to advance his interests. When the so-called “independent” expert panels license and recommend new pharmaceuticals, Dr. Fauci’s control over these panels gives him the power to fast-track his pet drugs and vaccines through the regulatory hurdles, often skipping key milestones like animal testing or functional human safety studies.

Dr. Fauci’s funding strategies evince a bias for developing and promoting patented medicines and vaccines, and for sabotaging and discrediting off-patent therapeutic drugs, nutrition, vitamins, and natural, functional, and integrative medicines. Under his watch, drug companies engineered the opioid crisis and made American citizens the globe’s most over-medicated population.4 During his half-century as America’s Health Czar, Dr. Fauci has played a central role in crafting a world where Americans pay the highest prices for medicine5 and suffer worse health outcomes compared to other wealthy countries.6 Adverse drug reactions are among the nation’s top four leading causes of death, after cancer and heart attacks.7,8 Dr. Fauci’s impressive longevity at NIAID is largely due to his enthusiasm for promoting this Pharma-centric agenda.

NIAID: A Pharma Subsidiary

Under Dr. Fauci’s management, NIAID has become the center of a web of corrupting financial ties with the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Fauci’s NIAID looks much more like a drug company than any sort of agency to advance science.

“I’ve been interviewing scientists for a long time in this country, and let me tell you something. There are two kinds: Those who are serfs of Anthony Fauci and those who are genuine scientists. The serf class will refract whatever the latest Lysenkoism is from Fauci and NIAID. They are protecting their grants,” says Celia Farber, whose 2006 Harper’s article, “Out of Control: AIDS and the Destruction of Medical Science,” laid bare the culture of squalor, corruption, and violence at the vendetta-driven Division of AIDS (DAIDS). “The latter [genuine scientists] are the minority. They look, sound, and behave like scientists. And to varying degrees, they all live in a climate of both economic and reputational persecution. Peter Duesberg is one very famous example but there are others. Fauci’s vendetta system has many ways of crushing the natural scientific impulse—to question and to demand proof. Breathtakingly, because of Fauci’s impact since 1984, this tradition has been all but snuffed out in the US. ‘Everybody is afraid.’ How many times have I heard that line?”

By all accounts, Anthony Fauci has implemented a system of dysfunctional conflicts and a transactional culture that have made NIAID a seamless appendage of Big Pharma. There is simply no daylight between NIAID and the drugmakers. It’s impossible to say where Pharma ends and NIAID begins. “It’s like Ozark,” says Farber.

Researchers in NIAID’s labs supplement their income with honoraria they earn by attending Pharma seminars and briefing pharmaceutical company personnel with inside information about research progress on new drugs in NIAID’s pipeline.9 Dr. Fauci’s underlings routinely perform

private projects for drug companies in their NIAID labs and take contract work running clinical trials for Pharma’s new drugs. Journalist and author Bruce Nussbaum reports that it is standard practice for Dr. Fauci’s employees to pocket enough gravy from the deal flow to add 10–20 percent to their NIAID salaries from this sort of work. NIAID officials justify this controversial practice arguing that the influx of pharmaceutical dollars strengthens NIAID’s labs and allows the agency to retain talented staff. NIAID also deducts 40, 50, or 60 percent off the top of these contracts for “overhead,” cementing the agency’s partnership with the industry.10 It’s no surprise that a 2004 Office of Government Ethics investigation chided Dr. Fauci for failing to control the corrupting entanglements between his staffers and pharmaceutical companies.11,12 That report cited NIAID for failing to review and resolve possible ethical conflicts affecting two-thirds of NIAID’s workers who were moonlighting in private industry.

The investigators also found13 that NIAID had failed to obtain approval for a full 66 percent of “outside activities” the institute had undertaken over the review period. Outside activities, according to the NIH,14 are undertakings that “generally involv[e] providing a service to or a function for an outside organization, with or without pay or other compensation.” That could include generating income from a pharmaceutical patent from a drug company, consulting for industry, obtaining silent or equity involvement with biotech firms, or conducting paid lectures and seminars. Dr. Fauci’s management style thrives on creating many such opportunities for his agency and its employees to participate in profitable ventures with pharmaceutical companies.

Dr. Fauci’s drug development enterprise is rife with other corrupting conflicts. Most Americans would be surprised to learn, for example, that pharmaceutical companies routinely pay extravagant royalties to Dr. Fauci and his employees and to NIAID itself. Here’s how the royalty system works: Instead of researching the causes of the mushrooming epidemics of

allergic and autoimmune diseases—the function for which US taxpayers pay his salary—Dr. Fauci funnels the bulk of his $6 billion budget to the research and development of new drugs. He often begins the process by funding initial mechanistic studies of promising molecules in NIAID’s own laboratories before farming the clinical trials out to an old boys’ network of some 1,300 academic “principal investigators” (PIs) who conduct human trials at university-affiliated research centers and training hospitals, as well as foreign research sites. After these NIAID-funded researchers develop a potential new drug, NIAID transfers some or all of its share of the intellectual property to private pharmaceutical companies, through HHS’s Office of Technology Transfer. The University and its PIs can also claim their share of patent and royalty rights, cementing the loyalty of academic medicine to Dr. Fauci.

Once the product gets to market, the pharmaceutical company pays royalties—a form of legalized kickbacks—through an informal scheme that allows Pharma to funnel its profits from drug sales to NIAID and to the NIAID officials who worked on the product. Under a secretive, unpromulgated HHS policy, Dr. Fauci and his NIAID underlings may personally pocket up to $150,000 annually from drugs they helped develop at taxpayers’ expense.15,16,17

The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the named owner of at least 4,400 patents. On October 22, 2020, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report titled: BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH: NIH Should Publicly Report More Information about the Licensing of Its Intellectual Property. In this document, the authors reported that the NIH has received, “up to $2 billion in royalty revenue for NIH since 1991, when FDA approved the first of these drugs. Three licenses generated more than $100 million each for the agency.”18

However, Dr. David Martin has reported that the NIH Office of Technology Transfer licensing records19 suggest that NIH was less than

transparent with the GAO investigators. Conspicuously absent from the GAO report are over 130 NIH patents associated with active compounds generating billions of dollars in revenue.

NIAID grants have resulted in 2,655 patents and patent applications, of which only 95 include an assignment to the Department of Health and Human Services as an owner.20 Dr. Fauci assigned most of these patents to universities, thereby making the ultimate commercial beneficiaries entirely opaque while binding the invaluable loyalty of American medical schools and the nation’s most influential physicians to Dr. Fauci and his policies.

Somewhat fishily, one of the largest holders of NIAID-generated patents is SIGA Technologies (NASDAQ: SIGA).21 SIGA publicly acknowledges a close affiliation with NIAID, but the GAO omits all mention of SIGA in its report. SIGA’s CEO, Dr. Phillip L. Gomez, spent nine years working for Dr. Fauci at NIAID developing Dr. Fauci’s signature vaccine programs for HIV, SARS, Ebola, West Nile Virus, and Influenza before exiting to commercial ventures. While NIAID clearly developed SIGA’s technology, the company reports revenue from NIAID but no royalty or commercial payments to NIH or any of its programs.

Eight US patents list Dr. Anthony Fauci as an inventor. However, NIAID, NIH, and GAO do not list any of them in their reports of active licensing despite the fact that Dr. Fauci has acknowledged collecting patent royalties on his interleukin-2 “invention.”22

Furthermore, GAO reported none of NIAID’s patents despite clear evidence that Gilead Sciences and Janssen Pharmaceuticals (a division of Johnson & Johnson) have generated over $2 billion annually from sales directly resulting from NIAID-funded technologies.23 Missing from the GAO report are two patents for Janssen’s Velcade® that have generated sales in excess of $2.18 billion annually for many years. The GAO report also omits any mention of the patents for Yescarta®, Lumoxiti®, or Kepivance® in violation of 37 USC §410.10 and 35 USC §202(a). At least

thirteen of the twenty-one patents in the GAO report, including Dr. Fauci’s Moderna vaccine, illegally fail to disclose government interest despite their indisputable NIH pedigrees.

How big is Dr. Fauci’s drug development enterprise? Since Dr. Fauci arrived at NIH, the agency has spent approximately $856.90 billion.24,25 Between 2010 and 2016, every single drug that won approval from the FDA —210 different pharmaceuticals— originated, at least in part, from research funded by the NIH.26

Following drug approval, Dr. Fauci continues to collaborate with his pharmaceutical partners on promoting and pricing and profiting from their new product. Over the decades since Dr. Fauci took over NIAID, the agency has formalized an elaborate process of negotiating against US taxpayers to allow Pharma to extract maximum profits back from NIAID’s germinated drugs. With NIAID’s help, the lucky pharmaceutical company walks the new drug through accelerated FDA approval. The CDC then sets obscene retail prices for these collaborative products in secretive negotiations. Such sweetheart deals—at taxpayer and consumer expense— and accelerated approvals can yield direct financial benefits to NIAID, to Dr. Fauci’s favored employees, and even to Dr. Fauci himself.27

Dr. Fauci launched his career by allowing Burroughs Wellcome (now GlaxoSmith-Kline) to charge $10,000 annually28 for azidothymidine (AZT), an antiretroviral medication developed exclusively by NIH and tested and approved by Dr. Fauci himself. Dr. Fauci knew that the product cost Burroughs Wellcome a mere $5/dose to manufacture.29 Higher profit for industry “partners” often means more extravagant royalty payments for his NIAID and NIH cronies.

Another antiviral drug developed by Dr. Fauci’s shop, remdesivir, provides a recent example of a similar Pharma money-making scheme facilitated by NIAID/NIH. While remdesivir proved worthless against COVID, Dr. Fauci altered the study protocols to give his pet drug the

illusion of efficacy.30, 31 Despite opposition from FDA and WHO, Dr. Fauci declared from the White House that remdesivir “will be the standard of care” for COVID, guaranteeing the company a massive global market. Dr. Fauci then overlooked Gilead’s price gouging; the company sold remdesivir for $3,300–$5,000 per dose, during the COVID pandemic. The raw materials to make remdesivir cost Gilead under $10. Medicaid must, by law, cover all FDA-approved drugs, so taxpayers again foot the bill. Through these boondoggles, Anthony Fauci has made himself the leading angel investor of the pharmaceutical industry.

The disparate treatment of patented versus less expensive off-patent COVID-19 drug treatments by federal health agencies clearly exposes Dr. Fauci’s historic bias for high-ticket patent medicines that favor extravagant pharmaceutical industry profits over public health.32

A 2017 study in the Emory Corporate Governance and Accountability Review summarizes how compromised federal public health officials like Dr. Fauci have transformed NIAID, NIH, CDC, and FDA into pharmaceutical marketing machines.33 The Emory researchers paint drug and vaccine makers as “thick as thieves,” with HHS officials acting not as regulators, but as “enablers, or perhaps worse still, [they are] complicit in questionable or ethically unsound activity as a result of being driven by self-serving motives . . .” According to Dr. Michael Carome, a former HHS official and a director of the advocacy group Public Citizen, “Instead of a regulator and a regulated industry, we now have a partnership. . . . That relationship has tilted the agency [HHS] away from a public health perspective to an industry friendly perspective.”34 Dr. Fauci is the human face of this corrupt dynamic.

Under Dr. Fauci’s leadership, the commercial features of this partnership have eclipsed his agency’s mission to advance science. At NIAID, the Pharma tail now wags the public health dog. Dr. Fauci has done almost nothing to advance NIAID’s core obligation of researching the

causes of the devastating explosions in epidemics of chronic allergic and autoimmune diseases that, under his tenure, have mushroomed to afflict 54 percent of children,35 up from 12.8 percent when he took charge of NIAID in 1984.36 While ignoring the explosion of allergic conditions, Dr. Fauci has instead reshaped NIAID into the leading incubator for new pharmaceutical products, many of which, ironically, profit from the cascading chronic disease pandemic.

Over the last fifty years at NIH, Dr. Fauci has played a leading role in Big Pharma’s engineered demolition of American health and democracy, working hand in glove with pharmaceutical companies to overcome federal regulatory obstacles and transform the NIH and NIAID into a single- minded vehicle for development, promotion, and marketing of patented pharmaceutical products, including vaccines and vaccine-like products.

Most of us would like “America’s Doctor” to properly diagnose our illnesses using the best science, and then instruct us on how to get healthy. What if, instead of spending their entire budgets developing profitable pharmaceutical products, Dr. Fauci and the heads of other NIH institutes deployed researchers to explore the links between glyphosate in food and the explosion of gluten allergies, the link between pesticide residues and the epidemic of neurological diseases and cancers, the causal connections between aluminum and Alzheimer’s disease, between mercury from coal plants and escalating autism rates, and the association of airborne particulates with the asthma epidemic? What if NIH financed research to explore the association between childhood vaccines and the explosion of juvenile diabetes, asthma, and rheumatoid arthritis, and the links between aluminum vaccine adjuvants and the epidemics of food allergies and allergic rhinitis? What if they studied the impacts of sugar and soft drinks on obesity and diabetes, and the association between endocrine disruptors, processed foods, factory farms, and GMOs on the dramatic decline in public health? What would Americans look like if, for fifty years, we had a

public health advocate running one of our top health agencies—instead of a Pharma shill? What would have happened if we’d spent that hundreds of billions dollars on real science, instead of drug development? Dr. Fauci seems willing only to give us diagnoses and cures that benefit Big Pharma —instead of public health—and to cover his trail with artifice.

His critics have compared Dr. Fauci to a similarly long-lived federal agency bureaucrat, J. Edgar Hoover, who used his five-decade dictatorial control of the FBI to transform the agency into a vehicle for shielding organized crime, fortifying his corrupt political partners, oppressing Black Americans, surveilling his political enemies, suppressing free speech and dissent, and as a platform for building a cult of personality around his own inflated ego. More recently, Dr. Fauci’s perennial biographer, Charles Ortleb, analogized Dr. Fauci’s career and pathological mendacity to the sociopathic con men Bernie Madoff and Charles Ponzi.37 Another critic, author J. B. Handley, labeled Dr. Fauci “a snake oil salesman” and a “bigger medical charlatan than Rasputin.”38 Economist and author Peter Navarro, former Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, observed during a national network television interview in April 2021 that “Fauci is a sociopath and a liar.”39

His white lab coat, his official title, and his groaning bookshelves crowded with awards from his medical cartel collaborators allow Dr. Fauci to masquerade as a neutral, disinterested scientist and selfless public servant driven by a relentless commitment to public health. But Dr. Fauci doesn’t really do public health. By every metric, his fifty-year regime has been a catastrophe for American health. But as a businessman, his success has been boundless.

In 2010, Dr. Fauci told adoring New Yorker writer Michael Specter that his go-to political playbook is Mario Puzo’s novel The Godfather.40 He spontaneously recited his favorite line from Puzo’s epic: “It’s nothing personal, it’s strictly business.”


  1. Coronavirus Response, 116th United States Congress, May 12, 2020, Testimony of Dr. Anthony Fauci, or-senate-testimony-transcript-may-12 at 34:06
  2. “NIAID Budget Data Comparisons,” NIH/NIAID (2021), grants-contracts/niaid-budget-data-comparisons
  3. Dr. David E. Martin, The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier (Jan. 18, 2021) https://f.hubspot
  4. Teresa Carr, “Too Many Meds? America’s Love Affair with Prescription Medication,” Consumer Reports, Aug. 3, 2017, scription-drugs/too-many-meds-americas-love-affair-with-prescription-medication/# nation
  5. M. Jackson Wilkinson, “Lies, Damn Lies, and Prescriptions,” MJACKSONW.COM, Nov. 6, 2015,
  6. Maggie Fox, “United States Comes in Last Again on Health, Compared to Other Countries,” NBC News, Nov. 16, 2016, e/united-states-comes-last-again-health-compared-other-countries-n684851
  7. Peter C Gøtzsche, “Prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death,” THE BMJ OPINION, June 16, 2016, che-prescription-drugs-are-the-third-leading-cause-of-death/
  8. “Preventable Adverse Drug Reactions: A Focus on Drug Interactions,” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, March 6, 2018, ns-labeling/preventable-adverse-drug-reactions-focus-drug-interactions
  9. Bruce Nussbaum, Good Intentions: How Big Business and the Medical Establishment are Corrupting the Fight Against AIDS (Atlantic Monthly Press, 1990), 162
  10. Nussbaum, op. cit.,162–163
  11. Daniel Payne, John Solomon, “Fauci Files: Celebrated doc’s career dotted withethics, safety controversies inside NIH,” Just the News (July 23, 2020), https://justth himself-his-career
  12. Marilyn L. Glynn, Letter to Edgar M. Swindell, Jul. 26, 2004, m/sites/default/files/2020-07/OGE-2004NIHEthicsReview_0.pdf
  13. Ibid.
  14. National Institutes of Health, Visiting Scientists, Outside Activity,

page252image66673792 page252image66673600 page252image66672064page252image66672256 page252image66671680 page252image66671872page252image66671104 page252image66670912 page252image66671296 page252image66671488page252image66670528 page252image66670720page252image66669376 page252image66669952page252image66669568 page252image66669760page252image66668800 page252image66669184page252image66667840 page252image66668992 page252image66670336page252image66670144 page252image66668416 page252image66668608

  1. J. Solomon, “Researchers mum on financial interests,” CBS News (Associated Press), Jan 10, 2005; s-mumon-financial-interests-flna1c9475821
  2. Information for NIH Inventors, Inventor Royalties, NIH Office of Technology Transfer,
  3. J. H. Tanne, “Royalty payments to staff researchers cause new NIH troubles,” BMJ, Jan 22, 2005,
  4. “Biomedical Research: NIH Should Publicly Report More Information about the Licensing of Its Intellectual Property,” US Government Accountability Office, October 22, 2020,
  5. Martin, op. cit.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Ibid.
  8. Tanne, op. cit.
  9. Martin, op. cit.
  10. “Proposed 1969 Budget Asks $1,196.6 Million Appropriation for NIH,” NIHRecord, Feb. 6, 1968,
  11. Appropriations History by Institute/Center (1938 to Present), NIH Office of Budget,
  12. Ekaterina Galkina Cleary et al., “Contribution of NIH funding to new drug approvals2010-2016,” PNAS, Mar 6, 2018; first published Feb 12, 2018;
  13. Tanne, op.cit.
  14. Mark H. Furstenberg, “AZT the First AIDS Drug,” Washington Post, Sept 15, 1987, aids-drug/f38de60b-1332-4bb3-a49f-277036b1baf2/
  15. Philip J. Hiltz, “AIDS Drug Maker Cuts Price by 20%,” New York Times, Sept 19, 1989, tml
  16. Meryl Nass, “Faking results: Fauci’s NIAID-paid Remdesivir Study changed its Outcome Measures Twice, in order to show even a whiff of benefit,” Anthrax Vaccine-Posts by Meryl Nass, M.D., May, 2, 2020, https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.c om/2020/05/faking-results-faucis-niaid-paid.html
  17. Changes (Side-by-Side) for Study: NCT04280705 March 20, 2020 (v10), April 23, 2020 (v16), NIH, C=Side-by-Side#StudyPageTop

page253image66628480 page253image66685376page253image66684224 page253image66817600page253image66813952 page253image66732032 page253image66732224page253image66732416 page253image66732608 page253image66732800page253image66732992 page253image66733568page253image66733760 page253image66733952page253image66734144 page253image66734336 page253image66734528

Elizabeth L. Vliet, “A Tale of Two Drugs: Money vs. Medical Wisdom,” American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, May 7, 2020, f-two-drugs-money-vs-medical-wisdom/

  1. Leslie E. Sekerka & Lauren Benishek, “Thick as Thieves? Big Pharma Wields Its Power with the Help of Government Regulation,” Emory Law Scholarly Commons Vol. 5, Issue 2 (2018),
  2. Caroline Chen, “FDA Repays Industry by Rushing Risky Drugs to Market,” PROPUBLICA (June 26, 2018) ry-by-rushing-risky-drugs-to-market
  3. Christina D. Bethell, Michael D. Kogan, et al., “A National and State Profile of Leading Health Problems and Health Care Quality for US Children: Key Insurance Disparities and Across-State Variations,” Academic Pediatrics, (May–June 2011), htt ps://
  4. Jeanne Van Cleave, Steven L. Gortmaker, James M. Perrin, “Dynamics of Obesity and Chronic Health Conditions Among Children and Youth,” JAMA, (Feb. 17, 2010), doi:10.1001/ jama.2010.104
  5. Charles Ortleb, Fauci: The Bernie Madoff of Science and the HIV Ponzi Scheme That Concealed the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Epidemic, (HHV-6 University Press, 2020), 27, 39, 41
  6. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., “‘TRUTH’ with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.–Episode 7,” Interview with J.B. Handley, Children’s Health Defense, July 9, 2020. https://childrenshealthde
  7. Sinéad Baker, “Trump advisor Peter Navarro went on a wild rant on Fox News, calling Fauci the ‘father’ of the coronavirus,” Business Insider, (Mar 31, 2021), http s:// avirus-fox-news-rant-2021-3
  8. Cory Steig, “Dr. Fauci uses this line from ‘The Godfather’ to help deal with stress and politicians,” CNBC, (Oct. 21, 2020). updates, new citations and references, and new information about topics in this chapter:


page254image66735680 page254image66735872 page254image66736064page254image66736256 page254image66736448 page254image66736640 page254image66736832page254image66737024 page254image66737216page254image66737408 page254image66737600 page254image66738176page254image66738368 page254image66738560

page255image66735104 page255image52179136



“Guys like Fauci get up there and start talking and you know he doesn’t know anything really about anything, and I’d say that to his face. Nothing. The man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope and if it’s got a virus in there, you’ll know it… He doesn’t understand electron microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine. And he should not be in the position like he’s in. Most of those guys up there on the top are just total administrative people and they don’t know anything about what’s going on at the bottom. Those guys have got an agenda, which is not what we’d like them to have, being that we pay them to take care of our health in some way. They’ve got a personal kind of agenda. They make up their own rules as they go, they change them when they want to, and they smugly, like Tony Fauci, do not mind going on television, in front of the people that pay his salary, and lie directly into the camera.”

—Dr. Kary Mullis, winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for his invention of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technique, from interview with Gary Null, 1993.

“Of course! I will always give you truth. Just ask the question and I’ll give you the truth. At least to the extent, that I think it is, right [laughs].”

—Dr. Fauci, Der Spiegel, September 2020

“Scientifically,” he [Harvey Bialy] says, “cancer is still an interesting question. AIDS has not been an interesting question for fifteen years.”
“Why do you say that?”
“Because it’s been a closed book for fifteen years. It has been clear for fifteen years that this is a non-infectious condition that has its cause in a whole variety of chemicals.”

His voice rises. “Doesn’t the book demonstrate very clearly that scientifically, nothing happened between 1994 and 2003? Zero. Absolutely nothing except one wrong epidemiological prediction after another, one failed poisonous drug after another. 0.000.000 cured. No vaccine, or even a fake vaccine. It’s a total

failure. We’ve turned virology inside out and upside down to accommodate this bullshit hypothesis for seventeen years now. It’s enough.”

—From Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS, by Celia Farber

Prior to 1987, Peter Duesberg never had a single grant proposal rejected by the NIH. Since 1987, he has written a total of thirty research proposals; every single one has been rejected. He has submitted several proposals on aneuploidy, as recently as last year—they too have been rejected.

“They just took him out,” says Richard Strohman, a retired UC Berkeley biologist. “Took him right out.”
“The system works,” says Dave Rasnick. “It’s as good as a bullet to the head.”

—From Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS, by Celia Farber


Anthony Stephen Fauci was born in Brooklyn’s Dyker Heights neighborhood on December 4, 1940. Three of his grandparents were native Italians; his maternal grand-father was born in the Italian-speaking region of Switzerland. All four came to the United States at the end of the nineteenth century. Both his parents were born in New York City. His father, Stephen Fauci, graduated from the College of Pharmacy, Columbia University. His mother, Eugenia, went to Brooklyn College and Hunter College. They married at eighteen years old. It’s tempting to link his emergence as the modern champion of the pharmaceutical paradigm to the fact that Dr. Fauci’s parents owned a drugstore. His father, a pharmacist, filled prescriptions; his mother worked the cash register, and young Tony apprenticed on his Schwinn bicycle for a lifelong career delivering drugs.

Anthony attended Our Lady of Guadeloupe Grammar School in Brooklyn and Regis High School, an elite Jesuit academy, where his tenacity distinguished him in the classroom and on the basketball court. Regis heavily weighted its curriculum toward the classics: “We took four years of Greek, four years of Latin, three years of French, ancient history,

theology, etc.,” he told an NIH oral historian in 1989. He was a good athlete in a borough of stickball aces. An early Yankees fan, he preferred the reliable champions to the hometown heroes and describes himself as “somewhat of a sports outcast among my friends, who were all Brooklyn Dodgers fans.”1 The underdog Dodgers lost eight of eleven World Series encounters against the Bronx Bombers. Tony’s idols were Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, and Mets/Dodgers/Giants great Duke Snider. His appetite for total victory and domination made him a ferocious contender. Despite his diminutive size—he is 5 ́7 ̋—he played basketball and football and was a star point guard and captain of Regis’s 1958 basketball squad. Tony scored an impressive ten points per game, according to his yearbook. It wasn’t enough; the Raiders ended the season with a dismaying 2-16 record. A teammate, Bob Burns, recalls that “he was ready to drive through whoever was in his way.” Another classmate, John Zeman, told Wall Street Journal reporter Ben Cohen, “He was just a ball of fire. He would literally dribble through a brick wall.”2

Dr. Fauci went to Holy Cross College in 1958, studying philosophy, French, Greek, and Latin and graduating in 1962 with a BA. “I still am very interested in the classics,” he said in a 1989 interview with Dr. Victoria Harden, director of the NIH Historical Office.3 Dr. Fauci grew up Roman Catholic: “I credit very much the Jesuit training in precision of thought and economy of expression in solving and expressing a problem and the presentation of a solution in a very succinct, accurate way. This has had a major, positive influence on the fact that I enjoy very much and am fairly good at being able to communicate scientific principles or principles of basic and clinical research without getting very profuse and off on tangents.”4 Perhaps reason became the enemy of his faith—or, perhaps, Jesuit discipline robbed the catechisms of their fun. Today, Dr. Fauci brushes off queries about his Catholicism, describing himself as a humanist.5

Dr. Fauci never doubted that he wanted to be a doctor, commenting that in high school, “[T]here really was no question that I was going to be a physician. I think there was subliminal stimulation from my mother, who, right from the very beginning when I was born, wanted me to be a physician.”6

Dr. Fauci earned his medical degree from Cornell in 1966, graduating first in his class. Like his wife, immunologist and NIH’s Bioethics Department Director Dr. Christine Grady, Dr. Fauci is a lifelong germaphobe, but he confesses that he went into virology and immunology not so much to kill bugs as to avoid combat service in Vietnam: “I left Cornell and went into my internship and residency in 1966. That was at the exponential phase of the Vietnam War, and every single physician went into military service. I can remember very clearly when we were gathered in the auditorium at Cornell early in our fourth year of medical school. The recruiter from the Armed Forces came there and said, ‘Believe it or not, when you graduate from medical school at the end of the year, except for the two women, everyone in this room is going to be either in the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, or the Public Health Service. So, you’re going to have to take your choice. Sign up and give your preferences.’ So I put down Public Health Service as my first choice and then the Navy. Essentially, I came down to the NIH because I didn’t have any choice.”7

The US Public Health Service was a heavily militarized public health agency led by its uniformed officer corps, including the surgeon general, which had grown out of military hospitals operated by the early Navy. NIH was its research arm created during World War II to support soldiers’ health during the war. As infectious disease mortalities in the US declined precipitously in the mid-1950s, NIH maintained its relevance by declaring war on cancer.8,9

“I was very lucky because I knew that it was a phenomenal scientific opportunity. I wanted to learn some basic cellular immunology with the

ultimate aim of going into what has been my theme for the past twenty-one years—human immunobiology and the regulation of the human immune system.”10

After completing his residency at Cornell Medical Center, Dr. Fauci joined NIH in 1968 as a clinical associate at the NIAID, one of two dozen of NIH’s sub-agencies. In 1977, he became deputy clinical director of NIAID. Oddly, his specialty was applied research in immune-mediated illness—a subject of increasingly grave national concern. He would spend the next fifty years largely ignoring the exploding incidence11 of autoimmunity and allergic diseases, except to the extent they created profitable markets for new pharmaceuticals. Dr. Fauci became NIAID’s director on November 2, 1984, just as the AIDS crisis was spiraling out of control.

NIAID: A Sleepy, Irrelevant Agency

When Dr. Fauci assumed leadership of NIAID, the agency was a backwater. Allergic and autoimmune disorders were hardly a factor in American life. Peanut allergies, asthma, and autoimmune diseases (e.g., diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis) were still so rare that their occasional occurrences in schoolchildren were novelties. Most Americans had never seen a child with autism; only a tiny handful would recognize the term until the 1988 film Rain Man introduced it into the vernacular. Cancer was the disease Americans increasingly feared, with nearly all the attention at NIH and the bulk of federal health funding going to the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

Worst of all, by the era of Dr. Fauci’s ascendance as an ambitious bureaucrat at NIAID, infectious diseases were no longer a significant cause of death in America. Dramatic improvements in nutrition, sanitation, and hygiene had largely abolished the frightening mortalities from mumps, diphtheria, smallpox, cholera, rubella, measles, pertussis, puerperal fever, influenza, tuberculosis, and scarlet fever.12 The devastating lethality from

these former scourges that decimated earlier generations of Americans had dwindled. From 1900, when one-third of all deaths were linked to infectious diseases (e.g., pneumonia, tuberculosis, and diarrhea and enteritis), through 1950, infectious disease mortality decreased dramatically (except for the 1918 Spanish flu), leveling off in the 1950s to what we see today, about 5 percent of all US deaths.13

Annual deaths from communicable disease dropped in the 1980s to around 50 per hundred thousand population, from 800 per hundred thousand in 1900.14 By the twentieth century, more people were dying of old age and heart attacks than from contagious illnesses.15

At NIAID and at its sister agency, CDC, the bug hunters were sliding into irrelevance. NIAID’s heyday was a distant memory; it had served at the forefront of the war against deadly pestilence. NIH had mobilized scientists to track the epidemics of cholera, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and the 1918 Spanish flu contagion that infected and killed millions globally.

Today CDC and NIAID promote the popular orthodoxy: that intrepid public health regulators, armed with innovative vaccines, played the key role in abolishing mortalities from these contagious illnesses. Both science and history dismiss this self-serving mythology as baseless. As it turns out, the pills, potions, powders, surgeries, and syringes of modern medicine played only a minor role in the historic abolition of infectious disease mortalities.

An exhaustive 2000 study by CDC and Johns Hopkins scientists published in Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, concluded, “Thus vaccination does not account for the impressive declines in [infectious disease] mortality seen in the first half of the [20th] century . . . nearly 90 percent of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available.”16

Similarly, a comprehensive 1977 study by McKinlay and McKinlay, formerly required reading in almost all American medical schools, found that all medical interventions, including vaccines, surgeries, and antibiotics, contributed only about 1 percent of the decline and at most 3.5 percent.17 Both CDC and the McKinlays attributed the disappearance of infectious disease mortalities not to doctors and health officials, but to improved nutrition and sanitation—the latter credited to strict regulation of food preparation, electric refrigerators, sewage treatment, and chlorinated water. The McKinlays joined Harvard’s iconic infectious disease pioneer, Edward Kass, in warning that a self-serving medical cartel would one day try to claim credit for these public health improvements as a pretense for imposing unwarranted medical interventions (e.g., vaccines) on the American public.

As the McKinlays and Kass18 had predicted, vaccinologists successfully hijacked the astonishing success story—the dramatic 74 percent decline in infectious disease mortalities of the first half of the twentieth century—and deployed it to claim for themselves, and particularly for vaccines, a revered and sanctified—and scientifically undeserving—prestige beyond criticism, questioning, or debate.

An Agency Without a Mission

In 1955, as deaths from epidemic disease declined, NIAID’s forerunner organization at NIH, the National Microbiological Institute (NMI), became part of the NIAID,19 to reflect the diminished national significance of infectious diseases and the unexplained increases in allergic and immune system diseases. Congress ordered NIAID to support “innovative scientific approaches to address the causes of these diseases and find better ways to prevent and treat them.”

Food allergies and asthma were still rare enough to be considered remarkable. Eczema was practically unknown, as were most autoimmune

diseases, including diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, Graves’ disease, Crohn’s disease, and myelitis.20,21

As early as 1949, Congressional bills to abolish CDC because of the remarkable decline in infectious disease mortalities twice won by impressive majorities.22 From the mid-1970s, CDC was seeking to justify its existence by assisting state health departments to track down small outbreaks of rabies and a mouse disease called hantavirus, and by linking itself to the military’s bioweapons projects. Looking back from 1994, Red Cross officer Paul Cummings told the San Francisco Chronicle that “The CDC increasingly needed a major epidemic” to justify its existence.23 According to Peter Duesberg, author of Inventing the AIDS Virus, the HIV/AIDS theory was salvation for American epidemic authorities.24

James Curran, the Chief of the CDC’s Sexually Transmitted Diseases unit, described the desperation among the public health corps in the early 1980s: “There was double-digit inflation, very high unemployment, a rapid military buildup and a threat to decrease all domestic programs, and this led to workforce cuts at the Public Health Service, and particularly CDC.”25 Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis similarly recalled the institutional desperation during the Reagan administration era. He said of the CDC: “They were hoping for a new plague. Polio was over. There were memos going around the agency saying, ‘We need to find the new plague’; ‘We need to find something to scare the American people so they will give us more money.’”26 NIH scientist Dr. Robert Gallo—who would become Dr. Fauci’s partner, coconspirator, and confidant—offered a similar assessment: “The CDC in Atlanta was under threat for reductions and even theoretically for closure.”27

Drumming up public fear of periodic pandemics was a natural way for NIAID and CDC bureaucrats to keep their agencies relevant. Dr. Fauci’s immediate boss and predecessor as NIAID Director, Richard M. Krause, helped pioneer this new strategy in 1976, during Dr. Fauci’s first year at the

agency. Krause was a champion of what he called “The Return of the Microbes” strategy,28 which sought to reinstate microbes to their former status as the feared progenitors of deadly diseases. That year, federal regulators concocted a fake swine flu epidemic that temporarily raised hopes around CDC for the resurrection of its reputation as a life-saving superhero.29

Even in that idealistic era, regulators were allowing Pharma to craft public health policy behind closed doors. Director Krause, whom Dr. Fauci would shortly succeed, invited Merck executives to sit in on internal planning meetings as collaborators.30 Working with Merck, NIAID31 used taxpayer funds to subsidize development and distribution of vaccines,32 and to rush untested products to market.33 But the swine flu pandemic was a dud, and HHS’s response was a global embarrassment. Only one casualty— a soldier at Fort Dix34—succumbed to the “pandemic,” and Merck’s experimental vaccine triggered a national epidemic of Guillain-Barré syndrome, a devastating form of paralysis resembling polio, before regulators recalled the jab.35 The four vaccine manufacturers—Merck & Co., Merrell, Wyeth, and Parke-Davis—had refused to sell the vaccines to the government unless they were guaranteed profits and indemnity. They were sued for $19 million within months of the vaccination campaign. The Department of Justice handled the lawsuits.36

Prior to 1997, the FDA forbade pharmaceutical advertising on television, and the drug companies had not yet transformed television reporters into pharmaceutical reps. Journalists, in short, were still permitted to do journalism. Sixty Minutes aired a scathing segment in which Mike Wallace mercilessly exposed the corruption, incompetence, and cover-ups at HHS that led to the phony swine flu pandemic and the wave of casualties from NIH’s experimental vaccine.37 The scandal forced the resignation of CDC Director David Sencer for his role in concocting the phony pandemic

and pushing the dangerous vaccine.38 NIAID chief Richard Krause quietly resigned in 1984, deeding his seat to his faithful deputy, Tony Fauci.39

In a poignant emblem of the ascending power of the pharmaceutical paradigm under Dr. Fauci’s stewardship, the Sixty Minutes report on the 1976 pandemic scandal is now largely scrubbed from the Internet. You can still view it on the Children’s Health Defense website.


Despite those catastrophic outcomes, Dr. Fauci’s takeaway from the 1976 swine flu crisis seems to have been the revelation that pandemics were opportunities of convenience for expanding agency power and visibility, and for cementing advantageous partnerships with pharmaceutical behemoths and for career advancement. Four years later, the AIDS pandemic proved a redemptive juncture for NIAID and the launch pad for Dr. Fauci’s stellar rise. The lessons he learned from orchestrating regulatory responses to the AIDS crisis would become familiar templates for managing subsequent pandemics.

Tony Fauci spent the next half-century crafting public responses to a series of real and concocted viral outbreaks40,41—HIV/AIDS42 in 1983; SARS43 in 2003; MERS44,45,46 in 2014; bird flu47,48 in 2005; swine flu (“novel H1N1”)49 in 2009; dengue50,51 in 2012; Ebola52 in 2014–2016; Zika53 in 2015–2016; and COVID-1954 in 2020. When authentic epidemics failed to materialize, Dr. Fauci became skilled at exaggerating the severity of contagions to scare the public and further his career.

Even all those years ago, Anthony Fauci had already perfected his special style of ad-fear-tising, using remote, unlikely, farfetched and improbable possibilities to frighten people. Fauci helped terrify millions into wrongly believing they were at risk of getting AIDS when they were not; emphasis in his statement is added to highlight the caveats and conditional language:

The long incubation period of this disease, we may be starting to see, as we’re seeing virtually, as the months go by, other groups that can be involved, and seeing it in children is really quite disturbing. If the close contact of the child is a household contact, perhaps there will be a certain number of individuals who are just living with and in close contact with someone with AIDS or at risk of AIDS who does not necessarily have to have intimate sexual contact or share a needle, but just the ordinary close contact that one sees in normal interpersonal relationships. Now that may be farfetched in a sense that there have been no cases recognized as yet in which individuals have had merely casual contact, close or albeit with an individual with AIDS who for example have gotten AIDS. For example, there have been no cases yet reported of hospital personnel, who have fairly close contact with patients with AIDS. There have been no case reports of them getting AIDS; but the jury is still out on that because the situation is constantly evolving and the incubation period is so long, as you know. It’s a mean of about fourteen months, ranging from six to eighteen months. So what medical researchers and public health service officials will be—are concerned with is what we felt were the confines of transmissibility now going to be loosening up and broadening up so that something less than truly intimate contact can give transmission of this disease.

The message people took away from those 250 rambling and obfuscating words: “Something less than truly intimate contact can give you this disease.”

Translated into English, however, it’s just twelve words of truth: There have been zero cases of AIDS spread by ordinary close contact.

Dr. Fauci’s most vocal critics complain that, from his earliest days running NIAID, he was neither a competent manager nor a particularly skilled or devoted scientist. His gifts were his aptitude for bureaucratic infighting; a fiery temper; an inclination for flattering and soft-soaping powerful superiors; a vindictive and domineering nature toward subordinates and rivals who dissented; his ravenous appetite for the spotlight; and finally, his silver tongue and skilled tailor. He won his initial

beachhead by wresting jurisdiction over the AIDS crisis from NIH’s Big Kahuna, the National Cancer Institute (NCI).55

In 1981, the CDC first recognized the emergence of a new disease that health officials dubbed Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) among about fifty gay men in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. The AIDS crisis initially landed at NCI because the condition’s most pronounced signal was Kaposi’s sarcoma, which was then considered a deadly skin cancer associated with immune suppression.

A decade earlier, in 1971, President Nixon had launched the “War on Cancer.”56 The medical establishment promised a cancer cure by 1976.57 Instead, Pharma quickly transformed NCI into its cash cow as captured regulators funneled hundreds of billions of dollars into single-purpose patented cancer remedies and wonder-drug production that the agency developed with pharmaceutical company partners. The money enriched Pharma, researchers, doctors, and universities, but yielded little net public health benefit. Fifty years and $150 billion dollars later,58,59 soft tissue and non-smoking cancers have increased dramatically.60 NCI, ever-sensitive to offending Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Ag, and Big Chemical, had spent almost nothing to address public exposures to carcinogens from medicines, vaccines, meats, processed foods, sugar, and chemical-laden agriculture. Mainstream cancer research suggests that one-third of all cancers could be eliminated through lifestyle changes. But according to cancer expert Samuel Epstein, NCI spent “Just 1 million—that is 0.02 percent of its $4.7 billion budget in 2005—on education, press releases, and public relations to encourage” better eating habits to prevent cancer.61

Under NIH’s regulatory rubric, the only exposures that are permissible targets of criticism and research in that universal bugaboo are Big Tobacco and the sun, which doesn’t pay lobbyists. NIH’s unbridled criticism of UV light has made sunscreen lotions another booming profit center for Big Pharma.

For Pharma and its NCI regulators and enablers, the AIDS crisis looked like another ATM machine. But in 1984, NIH scientist Robert Gallo linked AIDS to his virus, HTLV-III, which in time would be renamed the “human immunodeficiency virus” (HIV). Dr. Fauci then moved aggressively to capture that revenue stream for his agency. In a dramatic confrontation with NCI’s Sam Broder that year, Dr. Fauci persuasively argued that, since AIDS was an infectious disease, NIAID must have jurisdiction. His victory over NCI in that tip-off placed Dr. Fauci in position to capture the sudden flood of congressional AIDS appropriations flowing to NIH through the adept lobbying of a well-organized AIDS community then besieging the Capitol for resources to study and treat the “gay plague.”

In 1982, congressional AIDS funding was a pitiful $297,000.62 By 1986, that number jumped to $63 million.63 The following year, it was $146 million.64 By 1990, NIAID’s annual AIDS budget was $3 billion. But Gallo’s HIV/AIDS hypothesis proved a PR windfall for Dr. Fauci, as well. “The most dangerous place in America is between Tony and a microphone,” recalls Dr. Fauci’s perennial Boswell, Charles Ortleb, the former publisher of the New York Native, the gay newspaper that chronicled the early AIDS epidemic. “Once people recognized that this was caused by a virus,” recalled CDC’s James Curran, “media attention went from no news coverage to the most-covered news story in history. People went from neglecting it, to fear and panic.”65

The expanded flow of cash spelled opportunity for Dr. Fauci. “AIDS was his big chance,” wrote historian and journalist Bruce Nussbaum, who penned the definitive history of early AIDS research, Good Intentions: How Big Business and the Medical Establishment are Corrupting the Fight Against AIDS.66 “He wasn’t well known as a brilliant scientist, and he had little background in managing a big bureaucracy; but Fauci did have ambition and drive to spare. This lackluster scientist was about to find his true vocation—empire building.”67

“Teflon Tony”

The AIDS crisis’s best-known activist—and the most vocal critic of the NIH response—playwright Larry Kramer, may have been the first to make the cold assessment about Dr. Fauci’s winning capacity for combining charm and flattery with evasion, misdirection, and misinformation to bedazzle the media into suspending skepticism and overlooking his reliable incompetence. “The main reason that Fauci has gotten away with so much,” Kramer observed in 1987, “is that he’s attractive and handsome and dapper and extremely well spoken and he never answers your question.”68 Historians Torsten Engelbrecht, author of Virus Mania, and Konstantin Demeter call Fauci “Dr. Baron of Lies.”69

Asked to offer thoughts on Fauci, veteran AIDS “war” reporter Celia Farber pulls back and takes a broad view. She said:

People understand the Arendt concept of the “banality of evil.”
You have set yourself the formidable task of deconstructing him. Why is he

“evil”? (Which he is.)
It’s not because he is so “banal,” so bureaucratic, so boring. That’s the drag

In fact, he is a revolutionary—a very dangerous one, who slipped behind

the gates when nobody understood what he was bringing in.
What was he bringing in? He was bringing in—as a trained Jesuit and

committed Globalist—a new potion that would achieve any and all aims for Pharma and the powers he served. The potion was then known as Political Correctness—now called “woke.”

Fauci switched the entire linguistic system of American science, from classical “speak,” to woke “speak.” He brought in Cancel Culture, essentially, before anybody could imagine what it was. It was too perverse for genuine scientists to conceive of such a thing mixing with science, they could not believe it, or grasp it. Like a rape. It was incredibly confusing. That’s what I documented, on the ground, that horror and confusion among real scientists, as American science changes so radically before their eyes, to accommodate HIV.

Farber went on:

Let me elaborate a bit. Fauci’s reign begins in 1984, a year of total change. Everything changes, all of a sudden. Gallo is deployed with Margaret Heckler to make the declaration by US Government fiat that the “probable cause of AIDS” had been “found” and that it was some kind of trans-Atlantic fusion that looked “virus like” on the big screen, but was really neither a cogent virus nor a pathogen. The reason it “flew” to use [Nature Bio/Technology founding editor] Harvey Bialy’s word, was because everything had already changed. It was understood, without overt commands, that the “gay cancer” that had everybody in such a panic could not be assessed as complex toxic illness with a complex cause. The entire US media understood what to say and not say, and not only because of the allegiance to the shadow government, but because the era of classical science had ended. It ended that day. It would henceforth be a crime against decency to, for example, address anything that could be making gay men sick other than “the virus.”

That’s not “bad science.” That’s perfectly executed political correctness. And they are diametrically at odds, in the Biblical sense of good and evil.

What Fauci did was he made political correctness the new currency, of his funding empire. Peter Duesberg was not “wrong” about HIV and AIDS, he was politically incorrect about it and that was how Fauci banished him—sentenced him to funding and reputation death, as though he had done something really bad by dissenting against HIV theory. Stop and think how insane this is. An elite cancer virologist brought over from Germany’s Max Planck Institute whose credentials are so outstanding, who was well on his way to solving cancer’s genetics . . . felled suddenly by a fatwah, issued by this . . . Mufti? Who was he to issue a fatwah against America’s top cancer virologist? Well, he did. He blocked every federal research dollar to Duesberg after 1987, because Duesberg repudiated the woke ideology Fauci’s HIV empire, in a few paragraphs of a scientific paper that was about something else. He sustained the economic and reputational attack/vendetta for the next 3 decades. Without blinking. It’s really an unbelievable story. It would make Americans’ blood boil if they knew about it—because almost all have lost somebody in their family to cancer.

Fauci had, by 1987, when Duesberg wrote the Cancer Research paper that sealed his scientific fate, an apparatus that included mass media, psychological operations, public health—this octopus that just straight-up throttled the entire scientific tradition of Western civilization. Evidence based science and the discourse culture that goes with it— gone. That’s what he did. It’s no small

feat. He destroyed American science by snuffing out its spirit, the spirit of open inquiry, proof and standards.

The reason so many outstanding scientists lent their names to opposing Fauci’s vendetta on Duesberg was not that they cared, necessarily, about the cause of AIDS; This was, for them, a battle over the very soul of science. Kary Mullis [PCR inventor] broke down crying in an interview I did with him in 1994, talking about it—talking about what Fauci did to Peter Duesberg and what it meant.

The real scientists were horrified. Suddenly a guillotine was present. A new and strange terror. People were “guilty,” of thought-crimes like “HIV denialism.” Fauci had made political correctness the new revolutionary language, see? And that meant if you were “bad,” if you didn’t push agenda driven science, everything was taken away from you. And the media cheered. And anybody who didn’t was destroyed, vilified, harassed, fired, in a word, canceled.

His gifts for deflection, misdirection, and obfuscation, and perhaps his boyish charm, give Dr. Fauci a Teflon quality—which he shared with President Ronald Reagan, under whom he initially came to power. Something about Dr. Fauci allows him to escape responsibility for (or even mild questioning about) his steady parade of sketchy decisions, his confident claims unsupported by scientific evidence, his relentless cascade of lies and failed predictions, and his miserable track record for keeping Americans healthy.

As the nation’s newly appointed AIDS czar, Dr. Fauci was now a gatekeeper for almost all AIDS research. NCI already had long experience and robust infrastructure for conducting clinical trials on new drugs. NIAID had neither. Nevertheless, parroting NCI’s vows to cure cancer, Dr. Fauci promised Congress that he would quickly produce drugs and vaccines to banish AIDS. In his 1990 book, Nussbaum concludes that Fauci’s triumph over NCI cost many thousands of Americans their lives during the AIDS crisis.70 Myriad contemporary critics concurred with that assessment.

The PIs: The Pharma/Fauci Mercenary Army

NIAID’s lack of in-house drug development capacity allowed Dr. Fauci to build his new program by farming out drug research to a network of so- called “principal investigators,” or PIs, effectively controlled by pharmaceutical companies. Today, when people refer to the “Medical Cartel,” they are principally speaking of pharmaceutical companies, hospital systems, HMOs and insurers, the medical journals, and public health regulators. But the glue that holds all these institutions together, and allows them to march in lockstep, is the army of PIs who act as lobbyists, spokespersons, liaisons, and enforcers. Tony Fauci played a key historic role in elevating this cohort to dominate public health policy.

PIs are powerful academic physicians and researchers who use federal grants and pharmaceutical industry contracts to build feudal empires at universities and research hospitals that mainly conduct clinical trials—a key stage in the licensing process— for new pharmaceutical products. Thanks to NIH’s largesse, and to NIAID in particular, a relatively tiny network of PIs —a few hundred—determines the content and direction of virtually all America’s biomedical research.

In 1987, some $4.6 billion of NIH’s $6.1 billion budget went to these off-campus researchers.71 By 1992, NIH’s budget had expanded to $8.9 billion,72 with $5 billion going to outside scientists at 1,300 universities, laboratories, and other elite institutions.73,74 Today, Dr. Fauci’s NIAID alone controls $7.6 billion in annual discretionary expenditures that he distributes mainly to PIs around the globe.75

PIs are pharmaceutical industry surrogates who play key roles promoting the pharmaceutical paradigm and functioning as high priests of all its orthodoxies, which they proselytize with missionary zeal. They use their seats on medical boards and chairmanships of university departments to propagate dogma and root out heresy. They enforce message discipline, silence criticism, censor contrary opinions, and punish dissent. They

populate the Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) that influence the design of clinical trial protocols and guide the interpretation of clinical trial outcomes and conclusions; the external advisory FDA panel, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), that guides determination of whether new vaccines are “safe and effective” and merit licensure (marketing); and the CDC panel, The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), that essentially mandates vaccines to children. They are the credentialed and trusted medical experts who prognosticate on television networks—now helplessly reliant on pharmaceutical ad revenue—to push out Pharma content. These “experts”—Paul Offit, Peter Hotez, Stanley Plotkin, Ian Lipkin, William Schaffner, Kathleen Edwards, Arthur Caplan, Stanley Katz, Greg Poland, and Andrew Pollard—appear between Pharma ads on network and cable news shows to promote the annual flu shots and measles scares, to drum up fears about COVID, and to rail against “anti-vaxxers.” They write the steady stream of editorials that appear in local and national newspapers to reinforce the hackneyed orthodoxies of the pharmaceutical paradigms—“all vaccines are safe and effective,” etc. They root out heresy by sitting on the state medical boards—the “Inquisition” courts—that censure and de-license dissident doctors. They control the medical journals and peer-review journal literature to fortify Pharma’s agenda. They teach on medical school faculties, populate journal editorial boards, and chair university departments. They supervise hospitals and chair hospital departments. They act as expert witnesses for pharmaceutical companies in civil court and the federal vaccine court. They present awards to one another.

The 2006 meeting of CDC’s ACIP provides an illustrative blueprint for how Tony Fauci and his Pharma partners use their PIs to control the key FDA and CDC panels that license and “recommend” new vaccines for addition to the childhood schedule. That 2006 ACIP panel recommended two new blockbuster Merck shots: the Gardasil HPV vaccine for all girls

ages nine through twenty-six,76 and three doses of a Merck rotavirus vaccine, Rotateq, for infants at ages two, four, and six months.77 Both Bill Gates78 and Tony Fauci (via NIAID)79 had provided seed and clinical trial funding for the development of both Gardasil and the rotavirus vaccine.80,81Merck maintained it had not tested either vaccine against an inert placebo in pre-approval trials, so no one could scientifically predict if the vaccines would avert more injuries or cancers than they would cause. Nevertheless, the sister FDA panel, VRBPAC, approved Gardasil—to prevent cervical cancer—without requiring proof that the vaccine prevented any sort of cancer, and despite strong evidence from Merck’s clinical trial that Gardasil could dramatically raise risks of cancer and autoimmunity in some girls.82 ACIP, nevertheless, effectively mandated both jabs. Gardasil would be the most expensive vaccine in history, costing patients $420 for the three-jab series and generating revenues of over $1 billion annually for Merck.83

That year, nine of the thirteen ACIP panel members and their institutions collectively received over $1.6 billion of grant money from NIH and NIAID.

Systemic Conflicts of Interest

Pharma and Dr. Fauci similarly rig virtually all the critical drug approval panels using this strategy of populating them with PIs who, bound by financial fealty to Pharma and NIAID funders, reliably approve virtually every new drug upon which they deliberate—with or without safety studies.

From 1999 to 2000, Government Oversight Committee (GOC) Chairman Republican Congressman Dan Burton investigated the systemic corruption of these panels during two years of intense investigations and hearings. According to Burton, “CDC routinely allows scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on influential advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines . . . while these same scientists have financial ties, academic affiliations and other . . . interests in the

products and companies for which they are supposed to be providing unbiased oversight.”84, 85

Paul Offit: Voting Himself Rich

The notorious “Television Doctor” Paul Offit was the codeveloper of the rotavirus vaccine that ACIP approved in that 2006 session. Offit is one of Dr. Fauci’s most prominent PIs and an exemplar of the kind of power, influence, and lucre available to PIs whose entrepreneurial energies are unobstructed by scruples. Offit is the darling of both mainstream and social media. He is a perennial guest on CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN, on cable shows such as The Daily Show, and a former guest on The Colbert Report. He is the New York Times’s guest expert and provides regular editorials for the Times’s op-ed pages. He is a frequently quoted expert on evening news broadcasts and a regular contributor to online media outlets including HuffPost, Politico, and The Daily Beast.86 Media platforms uniformly identify Offit as a “vaccine expert” from the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP). With Offit’s encouragement, they seldom, if ever, disclose his pervasive financial entanglements with Dr. Fauci and the pharmaceutical companies. In 2011, for example, while presenting at NIH for the Great Teachers Lecture Series, he unabashedly declared, “I’m sorry, I have no financial conflicts of interest.”87 Given his voluminous conflicts, the brashness of that claim indicates his shameless arrogance. Dr. Offit, in fact, is a vaccine developer who has made millions monetizing his relationships with vaccine companies. He occupies the “Hilleman Chair” at CHOP (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia), which Merck funded with a $1.5 million donation and named in honor of the company’s heavyweight vaccinologist.88

Offit and his university and hospital affiliates have flourished largely based on hundreds of millions in grant monies from Dr. Fauci’s agency and from virtually all the big vaccine companies. In 2006 alone, his institution,

CHOP, received $13 million from NIAID and $80 million from NIH. Offit’s biennial propaganda books—including titles like Vaccines: What Every Parent Should Know and Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure—are unabashed paeans to Big Pharma, and scourges to industry detractors and natural health. Offit uses these plugola tomes to exalt a wide range of “miracle” pharma products, to vilify vaccine hesitancy, and gaslight and bully the mothers of vaccine-injured children. Merck launders hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal payments to Offit through bulk purchases of these propaganda broadsides, which the company then distributes to pediatricians across the country.89

Offit is the most visible spokesperson for Pharma, its allied industries, and the chemical paradigm in general. He represents himself as an authoritative source of reliable information, but he is actually a font of wild industry ballyhoo, prevarication, and outright fraud. He brazenly claims, against all scientific evidence, that vaccine injuries are a myth—that all vaccines are safe and effective, that children can safely receive ten thousand vaccines at once,90 and that aluminum is safe in vaccines for babies because it is a “vital nutrient.”91 (There is no scientific study suggesting that aluminum is safe or that it has any nutritional value.) Offit says that mercury in vaccines is harmless and is quickly excreted from the body.92 (Published science demonstrates decisively that mercury is a cataclysmically harmful and persistent toxin, and it is well known that both ethyl and methylmercury bioaccumulate.) Dr. Offit vocally supports GMO foods93 and chemical pesticides and is an obstreperous foe of vitamins, nutrition, and integrative medicine.94 He warns against the fallacy of going “GMO free,” and takes the radical position that dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) is harmless. He bitterly demonizes Rachel Carson for killing millions of people by hatching the plot against Monsanto’s DDT.95

Dr. Offit counsels his fellow PIs that lying is part of their job. He justifies any whopper that maximizes vaccine uptake. In 2017, Offit coached a group of fellow PIs, “You can never really say that MMR doesn’t cause autism but frankly when you get in front of the media you better get used to saying it because otherwise people hear a door being left open when a door shouldn’t be left open.”96 In his 2008 book, Autism’s False Prophets, Offit fabricated a conversation claiming that a vaccine safety advocate, J. B. Handley—a prominent Portland, Oregon, businessman with a severely autistic son—threatened one of Offit’s acolytes. Handley sued Offit for libel,97 forcing him to retract the statement, to publicly apologize for the fabrication, and to make a humiliating $5,000 donation to Jenny McCarthy’s autism charity.98 Despite such embarrassments, the mainstream media treat Offit’s most outlandish statements as gospel. Physicians rely upon the veracity of his pronouncements in making treatment decisions. Dr. Offit serves on the board of various pharma front groups99 and astroturf organizations100 and commands a vast network of bloggers and trolls, each of them directly or indirectly paid by the pharmaceutical companies to stifle debate, propagate lies, bully and intimidate the mothers of intellectually disabled children, silence scientific and medical dissent, and root out heresy.

In 1998, Offit sat on the CDC’s ACIP Committee and participated in the debate that added rotavirus vaccine to the mandatory schedule for the first time, neither from the debate nor the vote, despite the fact that he had his own rotavirus vaccine then in development. He voted that year to add Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals’s rotavirus vaccine, RotaShield, to the mandatory schedule despite the absence of functional safety studies. Offit knew that ACIP’s positive vote on Wyeth’s rotavirus jab would virtually guarantee a similar approval for his own rotavirus vaccine during an upcoming ACIP session.101

Before arriving at ACIP, every vaccine must first get reviewed by FDA’s sister “independent panel” called VRBPAC (which is also populated with Dr. Fauci’s and Big Pharma’s PIs), then licensed as “safe and effective” by the FDA. According to the findings of that 2000 Congressional investigation,102 four of the five FDA VRBPAC committee members who voted to license the Wyeth rotavirus vaccine that year had financial conflicts with the four pharmaceutical companies, Sanofi, Merck, Wyeth, and Glaxo, that were developing versions of the vaccine.

Once the FDA committee gave RotaShield its blessing, the vaccine moved to ACIP to vie for a CDC “recommendation,” which effectively mandates the vaccine for 3.8 million school children annually, guaranteeing the manufacturer a trapped market worth hundreds of millions.

During the 1998 ACIP session, Dr. Offit sat as one of five full voting members. (There were five additional nonvoting members.) His Rotateq codeveloper, Stanley Plotkin, also sat on the committee. The ACIP Committee unanimously recommended Wyeth’s RotaShield vaccine.

The August 2000 Congressional investigation found that the majority of ACIP members were conflicted in that vote.103 That report found that seven out of ten ACIP working group committee members who voted to approve the rotavirus vaccine in June 1998 had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.

According to the Congressional Report:

  • The Chairman served on Merck’s Immunization Advisory Board.
  • One member was under contract with the Merck vaccine division, received funds from various vaccine manufacturers, includingPasteur (now Sanofi), and was under contract as a principalinvestigator from SmithKline (now GSK).
  • Another member (of that same ACIP panel) received a salary fromMerck as well as other payments from Merck.
  • Another member was participating in vaccine studies with Merck, Wyeth (now Pfizer), and SmithKline (now GSK).
  • Another member received grants from Merck and SmithKline (now GSK).
  • Another member shared a patent on his own rotavirus vaccine funded by a $350,000 grant for Merck to develop this vaccine and was a paid consultant to Merck.The last of these bullet points referred to Paul “I Have No Conflicts” Offit. Dr. Fauci’s and Pharma’s corrupt control of those two panels allowed Wyeth to obtain both an FDA license and a CDC “recommendation” without having to genuinely safety test this product, a process that would have revealed terrible risks. Even the truncated trials of Wyeth’s RotaShield, conducted with no placebo, revealed serious side effects in babies, including “failure to thrive,” fevers high enough to cause brain injury, and a condition called intussusception, wherein a child’s intestines telescope into themselves, causing an agonizing blockage that, in some instances, results in death. The intussusception figures alone were statistically significant—cited as one in two thousand of the children who received the vaccine.104 At this time, there were around 3.8 million children in the target age group living in the United States; this translated to around 1,890 statistically likely cases of intussusception.105Nevertheless, VRBPAC, under Fauci’s and Pharma’s tight control, approved the vaccine, and ACIP put it on the mandatory schedule. Less than a year after Dr. Offit and his confederates on ACIP voted to mandate RotaShield with no authentic safety testing, Offit again sat on the ACIP committee that revoked this earlier recommendation. ACIP pulled RotaShield from the market in October 1999 due to the many children who, predictably, suffered intussusception.106 VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, contains fifty reports of vaccine-related intussusception for the year 1999.107 Paul Offit’s shrewd maneuvering

through this sequence of events opened an unobstructed path to approval and enormous riches for his own rotavirus vaccine, RotaTeq.

Since its approval, Dr. Offit’s rotavirus vaccine has caused a wave of catastrophic illnesses and agonizing deaths in babies from intussusception.108

From 1985 to 1991, prior to the introduction of the rotavirus vaccine, the rotavirus disease caused only 20–60 deaths per year nationwide, mainly due to dehydration associated with diarrhea.109,110 Since dehydration is easily treated, virtually all deaths from rotavirus are avoidable with timely and appropriate medical care.

Reported adverse reactions from Dr. Offit’s RotaTeq vaccine range from 953 to 1,689 per year. These included fever, diarrhea, vomiting, irritability, intussusception, SIDS, severe combined immunodeficiency, otitis media, nasopharyngitis, broncho-spasm, urinary tract infection, hematochezia, seizures, Kawasaki disease, bronchiolitis, urticaria, angioedema, gastroenteritis, pneumonia, and death.111

The best evidence indicates that Dr. Offit’s rotavirus vaccine causes negative net public health impacts; in other words, Dr. Offit’s vaccine almost certainly kills and injures more children in the United States than the rotavirus disease killed and injured prior to the vaccine’s introduction.

Finally, in 2010, after its introduction, NIH learned that Offit’s vaccine, RotaTeq, also contained the porcine retrovirus that causes an HIV-like syndrome called “wasting disease” in pigs.112 Neither Dr. Fauci nor any other agency has ever funded a study to establish the safety of injecting their dangerous pig retroviruses into babies. Millions of American children have now been inoculated with the virus, thanks to Offit.

In 2006, ACIP added Offit’s vaccine to the schedule, allowing Offit and his business partners to sell his patent rights for the formulation to Merck for $186 million. Offit made a declared profit of over $20 million as a result of this series of transactions. Offit reported, in a gushing 2008 Newsweek

story, that the millions he made from his rotavirus caper was “like winning the lottery.”113 In a less-adoring assessment of the scam, UPI journalist Dan Olmsted and coauthor Mark Blaxill accused Offit of “voting himself rich.”114

The disturbing saga of Paul Offit and his rotavirus vaccine illustrates how Tony Fauci’s PIs stuff the sausages at HHS.

How PIs Control Public Marketing

Dr. Fauci’s choice to transfer virtually all of NIAID’s budget to pharmaceutical PIs for drug development was an abdication of the agency’s duty to find the source and eliminate the explosive epidemics of allergic and autoimmune disease that began under his watch around 1989.115,116 Refereed science, surveillance data, and manufacturers’ inserts all implicate the very drugs and vaccines that Tony Fauci largely helped develop as culprits in those new epidemics. NIAID money effectively became a giant subsidy to the blossoming pharmaceutical industry to incubate a pipeline of profitable new drugs targeted to treat the symptoms of those very diseases.

While NIH remains a massive funding source for PIs, rich contracts from big drug companies and royalty payments from drug products often dwarf their government funding. Pharma money is the PIs’ bread and butter, commanding their loyalties and dictating their priorities. They and their clinics and research institutions are, effectively, arms of the pharmaceutical industry. Their empires rely on Pharma for their growth and survival.

Moreover, PIs typically function in quasi-feudal fiefdoms: loyal to a single pharmaceutical company. Each drug company—Glaxo, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Johnson & Johnson, and Gilead—cultivates a cadre of its own reliable PIs whom it funds to conduct clinical trials and drug research. Unwritten protocols dictate that a Merck PI will not customarily perform research for a Merck competitor. Typically, the drug company contracts with the reliable PI’s medical school, attending hospital, or research

institution to run clinical trials. The company makes payments ranging from a few hundred dollars to $10,000 (depending on the trial phase, complexity, and the company) for each patient enrolled in the drug trial,117 with the university skimming one-half to two-thirds of those funds for “academic overhead.”118 Those payments from the pharmaceutical company secure long-term loyalty from the institution and its board. Moreover, both the researcher and the university customarily share patent interests in any product the PI helps develop, collecting rich royalties when it hits the market. Additional money from the Pharma sponsor supports the PI’s assistants and laboratory costs. The drug company also pays “legalized bribes” to the PI grantee through honoraria, expert witness fees, speaking gigs, and first-class travel to exclusive resorts for conferences. All these perquisites tend to fortify loyalty and incentivize the favorable research results necessary to securing FDA drug approvals. On all sides of these transactions, each stakeholder understands that positive reviews of the subject drug promise future work.

According to Nussbaum, “PIs do their own kind of science and, more often than not, their experiments have little to do with either health or the public. They test drugs by private pharmaceutical companies for personal gain, for money that goes to their universities, and for power.”119

The system allows pharmaceutical companies to systematically divert federal monies—the initial NIAID grant—to serve their own private profit priorities. Naturally, the system is hostile to drugs with expired patents or those that emerge from companies that are not paying the PI’s research expenses. This bias explains Dr. Fauci’s signature animosity toward non- pharmaceutical, unpatentable, or patent-expired and generic remedies.

In his unpublished history of the HIV era, Down the Rabbit Hole, author and historian Terry Michael offers a similar description of Dr. Fauci’s abrogation of his scientific role to the army of Pharma PIs: “But NIH has other clients, including thousands of grant-seeking medical science Ph.D.’s

produced by American universities after World War II. NIAID funds much of the pharmaceutical industry’s research and clinical trials. In fact, Big Pharma has become a client of the NIH and especially its NIAID.”120

This powerful army, garrisoned at hospitals and universities in every large American community, allows Pharma and Dr. Fauci to control the public health narrative around the country. Before I understood its structure, I encountered the pervasive power of the combination.

Between 1990 and 2020, I served as president of an influential environmental group, Waterkeepers, with 350 affiliates around the county and the globe. Waterkeepers is the world’s largest water protection group. I published regularly in the New York Times and all the major papers: Boston Globe, Houston Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and San Francisco Chronicle; in magazines including Esquire, Rolling Stone, and The Atlantic; and in online publications, most often in HuffPost. I delivered over 220 speeches each year, including sixty paid speaking engagements to large audiences at universities and corporate events. I earned a substantial income from those appearances. All that changed in 2005, after I published an article, “Deadly Immunity,” about corruption in CDC’s vaccine branch, simultaneously in Rolling Stone and Salon.

Newspapers thereafter generally refused to publish my articles on vaccine safety and ultimately banned me from publishing on any issues. In 2008, without consulting me or citing a specific reason, Salon retracted and removed my 2005 article. Salon’s founder, David Talbot, faulted Salon for caving in to Pharma. Rolling Stone finally removed the article without explanation in February 2021, and HuffPost purged all half-dozen of my vaccine articles. The editors of those online journals had thoroughly fact- checked my pieces prior to publication. They removed them without notice to me, and without ever explaining their decisions. It was the beginning of the mass censorship of any vaccine information that departs from official

narratives. That year, universities and corporate hosts and municipal speakers’ forums suddenly cancelled my scheduled speeches in droves. My bookings dropped from sixty paid speeches per year down to one or two. My speakers’ bureau told me that floods of telephone calls from powerful members of the medical community had prompted the cancellations. They deluged the offices of presidents and board members of the colleges, businesses, and community groups that were hosting me, protesting my appearances. The callers were public health officials and leading doctors from local hospitals, university medical schools, and influential research centers in those locales. Using similar language, they offered dire warnings that I was anti-vaccine, anti-science, a “baby killer,” and that my appearance would jeopardize public health and vital funding to university medical school programs.

The threat to interrupt money flows to the university PIs invariably trumps the traditions of speech freedom revered—in theory—by university administrators. Starting in 2019, PIs at NYU attempted to force the ouster of popular historian and propaganda expert Professor Mark Crispin Miller from its faculty roster and law professor Mary Holland from its law school faculty because they dared question reigning vaccine orthodoxies.

Terry Michaels summarized how Dr. Fauci exploited the strategic landscapes of the HIV pandemic to launch his career on a trajectory toward the unimaginable power that would allow him to dictate official orthodoxies, control the press, set international health policies, and even to shut down the global economy: “Dr. Anthony Fauci seized an opportunity to create a multi-billion dollar bureaucracy, distributing thousands of grants to seekers of federally funded research largesse, with a disproportionate (to other diseases) number going to HIV-AIDS researchers.”121

Tony Fauci did not create the PI system, but his inexperience both as a scientist and as an administrator meant that he relied upon it and was, at first, at its mercy. Later, he took command of those troops and organized

them into a powerful juggernaut that journalist John Lauritsen calls “the Medical Industrial Complex.”122


  1. 1  Scott Allen, “Dr. Fauci Is Looking Forward to Seeing the Nationals Play Again,” Washington Post, April 15, 2020, 5/dr-fauci-is-looking-forward-seeing-nationals-play-again/
  2. 2  Ben Cohen, “Fauci Was Basketball Captain. Now He’s America’s Point Guard,” Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2020, all-captain-now-hes-americas-point-guard-11585479601
  3. 3  Dr. Victoria Harden, “Dr. Anthony S. Fauci Oral History 1989,” National Institutes of Health, Office of NIH History and Stetten Museum, Mar 7, 1989,
  4. 4  Ibid.
  5. 5  “Q & A With Dr. Anthony Fauci,” C-SPAN, Jan 8, 2015,
  6. 6  Harden, “Dr. Anthony S. Fauci Oral History 1989”
  7. 7  Ibid.
  8. 8  “Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service: Our History,” U.S.Department of Health and Human Services;
  9. 9  “A Short History of the National Institutes of Health,” National Institutes of Health, Office of NIH History and Stetten Museum, U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices;
  10. 10  Harden, “Dr. Anthony S. Fauci Oral History 1989”
  11. 11  Cezmi A. Adkis, “Does the epithelial barrier hypothesis explain the increase inallergy, autoimmunity and other chronic conditions?” Nature Reviews Immunology(2021).
  12. 12  McKeown, Thomas. The Role of Medicine: Dream, Mirage, or Nemesis? (PrincetonUniv. Press 2014)
  13. 13  Victoria Hansen et al., “Infectious Disease Mortality Trends in the United States,1980-2014,” JAMA 2016;316(20):2149-2151.
  14. 14  Gregory L. Armstrong et al., “Trends in Infectious Disease Mortality in the UnitedStates During the 20th Century,” JAMA 281(1), 61-66 (1999). https://jamanetwork.c om/journals/jama/fullarticle/768249

page285image66748608 page285image66748800page285image66748992 page285image66749184 page285image66749376page285image66749568 page285image66749760 page285image66749952 page285image66750144page285image66750336 page285image66750528 page285image66751104page285image66751296 page285image66751488 page285image66751680 page285image66751872

“Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Control of Infectious Diseases,” CDC MMWR (July 30, 1999), 48(29): 621-629. wrhtml/mm4829a1.htm#fig1

  1. 16  Bernard Guyer et al., “Annual Summary of Vital Statistics: Trends in the Health of Americans During the 20th Century,” Pediatrics (December 2000), 106 (6) 1307- 1317, at 1314, 1315. icsDec.2000-VOl-106No.6.pdf
  2. 17  John B. McKinlay and Sonja M. McKinlay, “The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century,” Milbank Memorial Fund (Summer, 1977), ntent/uploads/mq/volume-55/issue-03/55-3-The-Questionable-Contribution-of-Medi cal-Measures-to-the-Decline-of-Mortality-in-the-United-States-in-the-Twentieth-Cen tury.pdf
  3. 18  Edward H. Kass, “Infectious Diseases and Social Change,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases (123, no. 1 1971), 110-14. Accessed May 11, 2021. ble/30108855
  4. 19  Supra note 32, at “New Institutes”
  5. 20  Jean-François Bach, “The Effect of Infections on Susceptibility to Autoimmune andAllergic Diseases,” New England Journal of Medicine (2002), 347:911-920;
  6. 21  Megan Scudellari, “Cleaning up the hygiene hypothesis,” PNAS (Feb 14, 2017),114(17), 1433-1436;
  7. 22  Peter H. Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus (Regnery Publishing 1996), 134
  8. 23  Ibid., 146
  9. 24  Ibid., 146
  10. 25  James Curran, MD, 00:08:15 – “House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic,”YouTube Video (2009),
  11. 26  Kary Mullis, PhD, 00:08:03 – “House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic,”YouTube Video (2009),
  12. 27  Robert C. Gallo, MD, 00:08:36 “House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic,”YouTube Video (2009),
  13. 28  Richard M. Krause MD, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Aug13, 2019),
  14. 29  Robert F. Kennedy Jr., “‘60 Minutes’ – Swine Flu 1976 Vaccine Warning,” Video,April 1, 2020, accine-warning/


page286image66753600 page286image66753792 page286image66753984page286image66754176 page286image66754368 page286image66754560page286image66754752 page286image66754944 page286image66755136 page286image66755328 page286image66755520page286image66756096 page286image66756288page286image66756480 page286image66756672 page286image66756864page286image66757056 page286image66757248 page286image66757440

  1. 30  Richard Krause, “The Swine Flu Episode and the Fog of Epidemics,” Emerging Infectious Diseases (Jan, 2006),
  2. 31  U.S. Comptroller General Elmer B. Staats, Letter to the U.S. House of Representative Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (Feb 6, 1979) http s://
  3. 32  Richard E. Neustadt and Harvey V. Fineberg, “The Swine Flu Affair: Decision Making on a Slippery Disease,” National Academies Press (1978). https://www.nap. edu/catalog/12660/the-swine-flu-affair-decision-making-on-a-slippery-disease
  4. 33  Rick Perlstein, “Gerald Ford Rushed out a Vaccine. It Was a Fiasco,” New York Times (Sep 2, 2020) ne-trump.html
  5. 34  Patrick Di Justo, The “Great” Swine Flu Epidemic of 1976, REAL CLEAR POLITICS, (Apr 28, 2009) swine_flu_epidemic_of_1976_212900.html
  6. 35  Rebecca Kreston, ‘The Public Health Legacy Of The 1976 Swine Flu Outbreak,” DISCOVER MAGAZINE, (Sep 30, 2013) the-public-health-legacy-of-the-1976-swine-flu-outbreak
  7. 36  Thomas O’Toole, “4 Swine Flu Vaccine Firms Sued for Total $19 Million,” Washington Post (WP Company, January 27, 1977), m/archive/local/1977/01/27/4-swine-flu-vaccine-firms-sued-for-total-19-million/f8e1 7851-0eb7-4991-85ba-245a4cd5d8d0/.
  8. 37  Mike Wallace, “Swine Flu”, 60 Minutes, YouTube Video (Nov 4, 1979) https://www.
  9. 38  Mike Stobbe, “David Sencer; lost job for urging swine flu vaccinations in ’76,” (May 3, 2011) 2011/05/03/david_sencer_lost_job_for_urging_swine_flu_vaccinations_in_76/
  10. 39  “NIAID Director Resigns to Be Emory Med. Dean,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, The NIH Record (July 3, 1984) dNIH/files/pdf/1984/NIH-Record-1984-07-03.pdf
  11. 40  Anthony S. Fauci, M.D.; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Institutes of Health (Director’s page; content last reviewed by NIH on March 14, 2021);
  12. 41  Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. 1988–1994; Office of AIDS Research, National Institutes of Health (Director’s Corner; content last reviewed by NIH on July 11, 2018); https://w
  13. 42  Anthony S. Fauci, “The Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome The Ever- Broadening Clinical Spectrum,” JAMA (1983), 249(17):2375-2376; https://jamanetw

page287image66755904 page287image66755712 page287image66757632page287image66757824 page287image66758016page287image66758208 page287image66758400 page287image66758592page287image66758784 page287image66758976 page287image66759168page287image66759744 page287image66759936 page287image66760128page287image66760320 page287image66760512page287image66760704 page287image66760896page287image66761088 page287image66761280 page287image66759552page287image66759360 page287image66761472

  1. 43  John R La Montagne et al., “Severe acute respiratory syndrome: developing aresearch response,” Journal of Infectious Diseases (Feb 15, 2004) 189(4):634-41;
  2. 44  Shauna Milne-Price et al., “The Emergence of the Middle East RespiratorySyndrome Coronavirus,” PMC (Jul 2014), 71(2): 121-136;
  3. 45  “First Confirmed Cases of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) Infection in the United States, Updated Information on the Epidemiology of MERS-CoV Infection, and Guidance for the Public, Clinicians, and Public Health Authorities — May 2014,” MMWR (May 2014) 63: 431-436; mwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6319a4.htm
  4. 46  “NIH: We’re working on MERS vaccine,” interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, CNN, 2014.
  5. 47  “NIAID Initiates Trial of Experimental Avian Flu Vaccine,” Science Daily, March 25, 2005;
  6. 48  Robert Roos, “YEAR-END REVIEW: Avian flu emerged as high-profile issue in 2005.” CIDRAP News, Jan 5, 2006. 006/01/year-end-review-avian-flu-emerged-high-profile-issue-2005
  7. 49  Sundar S Shrestha et al., “Estimating the burden of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in the United States (April 2009–April 2010),” Clinical Infectious Diseases, (Jan 1, 2001).
  8. 50  Nidhi Bouri et al., “Return of Epidemic Dengue in the United States: Implications for the Public Health Practitioner,” Public Health Reports, (May-Jun, 2012). https://
  9. 51  “Jordan Report—Accelerated Development of Vaccines 2012,” National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Institutes of Health, at 95 “Vaccine Updates”; -vaccines-2012
  10. 52  “Researching Ebola in Africa,” National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health (Content last reviewed by NIH on September 23, 2019);
  11. 53  “Why NIAID Is Researching Zika Virus,” National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Institutes of Health (Content last reviewed by NIH on September 8, 2017); ches-zika

page288image66762432 page288image66762624 page288image66762816 page288image66763008page288image66763200 page288image66763392 page288image66763584page288image66763776 page288image66763968page288image66764160 page288image66764352 page288image66661056page288image66604416 page288image66764800 page288image66764992page288image66765184 page288image66765376 page288image66765568

  1. 54  “COVID-19 Clinical Research,” National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Institutes of Health (Content last reviewed by NIH on November 2, 2020);
  2. 55  Nussbaum, op. cit., 127–129
  3. 56  Anna D Barker and Hamilton Jordan, “Legislative History of the National CancerProgram,” in Donald W Kufe et al., Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine, 6th ed., 2003(Chapter 81);
  4. 57  Torsten Engelbrecht, Claus Köhnlein, et al., “Virus Mania: How the MedicalIndustry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billions at our Expense” (Books onDemand 3rd ed, 2021), 98
  5. 58  Eliot Marshall, “Cancer Research and the $90 Billion Metaphor,” Science (Mar. 11,2011).
  6. 59  National Cancer Institute, NCI Budget and Appropriations, (Jan. 13, 2021).
  7. 60  National Cancer Institute, Cancer Stat Facts: Soft Tissue including Heart Cancer,
  8. 61  Engelbrecht et al., op. cit., 24.
  9. 62  Cristine Russell, “Anthony S. Fauci,” Washington Post, November 3, 1986,
  10. 63  Ibid.
  11. 64  Ibid.
  12. 65  James Curran, MD, 00:08:54 -“House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic,”YouTube Video (2009),
  13. 66  Nussbaum, op. cit., 126.
  14. 67  Ibid., 126–127
  15. 68  Ibid., 122.
  16. 69  Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter, Anthony Fauci: 40 Years of Lies FromAZT to Remdesivir, OFF-GUARDIAN, (Oct. 27, 2020).
  17. 70  Nussbaum, op. cit., 127.
  18. 71  Ibid., 131
  19. 72  “History of Congressional Appropriations 1990-1999,” National Institutes of Health,Office of Budget,:
  20. 73  “NIH Awards by Location & Organization,” National Institutes of Health,

page289image66767296 page289image66767488page289image66767680 page289image66767872 page289image66768064 page289image66768256 page289image66768448page289image66768640 page289image66768832page289image66769024 page289image66769216 page289image66769792page289image66769984 page289image66770176 page289image66770368page289image66770560


  1. 74  “Trends in NIH Funding (1992-2013),” Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research,,
  2. 75  “Budget Updates From January 2021 NIAID Advisory Council Meeting,” NationalInstitute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, (Feb 3, 2021).
  3. 76  Elissa Meites et al., “Human Papillomavirus Vaccination for Adults: UpdatedRecommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC-MMWR (Aug 16, 2019) https://www.
  4. 77  “Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Rotavirus vaccination coverage and adherence to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)- recommended vaccination schedule–United States, February 2006-May 2007,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC-MMWR (Apr 18, 2008) https://pubme
  5. 78  “Summary of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation-supported HPV Vaccine Partner Activities,” World Health Organization,, (2006) age/HPV_partner_info_gates.pdf
  6. 79  “Safety of and Immune Response to a Novel Human Papillomavirus Vaccine in HIV Infected Children,” (Jun, 2006). NCT00339040
  7. 80  “Bill and Melinda Gates Announce a $100 Million Gift to Establish the Bill and Melinda Gates Children’s Vaccine Program,” Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, (Dec, 1998) 8/12/bill-and-melinda-gates-childrensvaccine-program
  8. 81  National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, NIAID 60th Anniversary Timeline, (Apr 1, 2008)
  9. 82  VRBPAC Background Document, “GardasilTM HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine May 18, 2006 VRBPAC Meeting,” at 13 (Table 17, Study 013), archived at g/2006-4222B3.pdf.
  10. 83  “News Release: Merck Announces Fourth-Quarter and Full-Year 2020 Financial Results,” Merck (Feb. 4, 2021). rth-quarter-and-full-year-2020-financial-results/
  11. 84  Mark Benjamin, “UPI Investigates: The vaccine conflict,” UPI, (Jul 21, 2003) http s:// 21058841736/

page290image66769408 page290image66770752 page290image66770944 page290image66771136 page290image66771328page290image66771520 page290image66771712 page290image66771904 page290image66772096page290image66772288 page290image66772480 page290image66773056 page290image66773248page290image66773440 page290image66773632 page290image66773824page290image66774016 page290image66774208 page290image66774400page290image66772864 page290image66772672page290image66774592 page290image66774784

“Close Ties and Financial Entanglements: The CDC-Guaranteed Vaccine Market,” The Children’s Health Defense Team, Children’s Health Defense (Jun 6, 2019). http s:// guaranteed-vaccine-market/

  1. 86  Suzanne Humphries, “Herd Immunity: Flawed Science and Mass Vaccination Failures,” Waking Times, (Jul 17, 2012). y-flawed-science-mass-vaccination-failures/
  2. 87  Paul Offit, M.D., “Communicating Vaccine Science to the Public,” Contemporary Clinical Medicine: Great Teachers Lecture Series, 3:19 NIH (Dec. 14, 2011), https://
  3. 88  Sharyl Attkisson, “How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?” CBS News (Jul 25, 2008)
  4. 89  Mark Benjamin, “UPI Investigates: The vaccine conflict,” UPI (Jul 21, 2003) https:// 58841736/
  5. 90  Sharyl Attkisson, “How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?” CBS NEWS (Jul 25, 2008)
  6. 91  “The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Vaccine Education Center: Vaccines and Aluminum, April 2013,” Archived at: http:/ edients/aluminum.html/
  7. 92  Paul A. Offit, “Is There Mercury in Vaccines?” Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (Aug 11, 2015) deo/there-mercury-vaccines
  8. 93  Karen Iris Tucker, “‘Bad Advice’ by Penn scientist Paul A. Offit: Take back the science conversation in our culture,” The Philadelphia Enquirer (Aug 31, 2008), htt ps:// -offit-take-back-the-science-conversation-in-our-culture-20180831.html
  9. 94  Paul A. Offit, MD, Do You Believe in Magic? Vitamins, Supplements, and All Things Natural: A Look Behind the Curtain (Harper Collins 2014)
  10. 95  Dan McQuade, “CHOP Professor: Silent Spring Author’s Mistake Killed Millions,” Philadelphia Magazine (Feb 6, 2017), ilent-spring-paul-offit-rachel-carson/
  11. 96  “Paul Offit Accidentally Speaks The Truth About MMR and Autism,” YouTube video, (May 19, 2017),
  12. 97  “Columbia University Press and Dr. Paul Offit Sued for Autism’s False Prophets,” The Age of Autism (Feb 10, 2009),


page291image66775744 page291image66775936page291image66776128 page291image66776320 page291image66776512 page291image66776704page291image66776896 page291image66777088page291image66777280 page291image66777472page291image66777664 page291image66778240page291image66778432 page291image66778624page291image66778816 page291image66779008page291image66779200page291image66779392 page291image66779584 page291image66778048page291image66777856 page291image66779776


  1. 98  J.B. Handley, “Dr. Paul Offit, The Autism Expert. Doesn’t See Patients withAutism?” The Age of Autism (Oct 26, 2009),
  2. 99  Vaccinate Your Family, Board of Directors, (Apr 20, 2020),
  3. 100  Immunization Action Coalition, Advisory Board, (Sep 8, 2020),
  4. 101  Mark Benjamin, “UPI Investigates: The vaccine conflict,” UPI (Jul 21, 2003),
  5. 102  “Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making Majority Staff Report,” U.S. Houseof Representatives, Government Reform Committee, (Aug 21, 2000), https://children g-majority-staff-report-us-house-of-representatives-3.5.pdf
  6. 103  Ibid.
  7. 104  Stephan Foster, “Rotavirus Vaccine and Intussusception,” Journal of PediatricPharmacology (Jan-Mar, 2007),
  8. 105  “Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making, Majority Staff Report,” U.S. Houseof Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, (Jun 15, 2000),
  9. 106  “Suspension of Rotavirus Vaccine After Reports of Intussusception—United States,1999,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Sep 3, 2004),
  10. 107  “Found 50 Cases where Symptom is Intususseption and Vaccine Dates from 1990-01-01,” National Vaccine Information Center,, aersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=AGE&EVENTS=ON&SYMPTOMS =Intussusception+%2810022863%29&VAX_YEAR_LOW=1999&VAX_MONTH_ LOW=01&VAX_YEAR_HIGH=1999&VAX_MONTH_HIGH=12
  11. 108  Mark Benjamin, “UPI Investigates: The vaccine conflict,” UPI (Jul 21, 2003), http s:// 21058841736/
  12. 109  “Delayed Onset and Diminished Magnitude of Rotavirus Activity — United States, November 2007– May 2008,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC-MMWR (Jun 27, 2008), https://www.

page292image66780160 page292image66780352page292image66780544 page292image66780736 page292image66780928 page292image66752832page292image66752256 page292image66761856 page292image66761664 page292image66764544page292image66665088 page292image66716032page292image66716224 page292image66716416 page292image66716608 page292image66716800page292image66716992 page292image66717184 page292image66717376page292image66715840page292image66715648 page292image66717568page292image66717760 page292image66717952 page292image66718144page292image66718336

P. E. Kilgore, et al., “Trends of Diarrheal Disease–Associated Mortality in US Children, 1969 through 1991,” JAMA, (Oct 11, 1995). nals/jama/article-abstract/389779

  1. 111  U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Package Insert – RotaTeq, (2006), https://www.f
  2. 112  Shasta D. McClenahan, et al., “Molecular and infectivity studies of porcine circovirus in vaccines,” VACCINE (May 11, 2001), ne.2011.04.087
  3. 113  Claudia Kalb, “Dr. Paul Offit: Debunking the Vaccine-Autism Link,” Newsweek (Oct 24, 2008), link-91933
  4. 114  Dan Olmstead and Mark Blaxill, “Voting Himself Rich: CDC Vaccine Adviser Made $29 Million Or More After Using Role to Create Market,” Age of Autism (Feb 16, 2009), er-made-29-million-or-more-after-using-role-to-create-market.html
  5. 115  Christina D. Bethell, Michael D. Kogen, et al., “A National and State Profile of Leading Health Problems and Health Care Quality for US Children: Key Insurance Disparities and Across-State Variations,” Academic Pediatrics (May-June, 2011). htt ps://
  6. 116  “Chronic Illness in Children—Who is Sounding the Alarm?” The Children’s Health Defense Team, (Sep 12, 2019), l-children-who-is-sounding-the-alarm/
  7. 117  Maria Trimarchi, “How much do pharmaceutical test subjects get paid?” How Stuff Works, (2021), subjects-get-paid.htm
  8. 118  Jane Redecki, “University budget Models and Indirect Costs,” Ithaca S&R, February 25, 2021, sts/
  9. 119  Nussbaum, op. cit., 330
  10. 120  Terry Michaels, Down the Rabbit Hole: How US Medical Bureaucrats, PharmaCrony Capitalists, and Science Literate Journalists Created and Sustain the HIV-AIDS Fraud (Unpublished Manuscript), 10
  11. 121  Ibid.
  12. 122  John Lauritsen, The AIDS War: Propaganda, Profiteering and Genocide from the Medical-Industrial Complex (Asklepios, 1993),


page293image66719680 page293image66719872 page293image66720064 page293image66720256 page293image66720448page293image66720640 page293image66720832 page293image66721024page293image66721216 page293image66721408page293image66721600 page293image66722176page293image66722368 page293image66722560 page293image66722752page293image66722944

For updates, new citations and references, and new information about topics in this chapter:

page294image66723328 page294image52411632



“Doctors need three qualifications: to be able to lie and not get caught, to pretend to be honest, and to cause death without remorse.”

—Jean Froissart 1337–1405

The AZT approval process was a shakedown cruise for Tony Fauci. As he ran AZT around the regulatory traps, Dr. Fauci pioneered and perfected the retinue of corrupt, deceitful, and bullying practices and strategies that he would replicate again and again over the next thirty-three years, to transform NIAID into a drug development dynamo.

When Dr. Fauci entered the principal investigator (PI) drug-testing universe, only one pharmaceutical company, Burroughs Wellcome (predecessor to GlaxoSmithKline), had a drug candidate teed up to test as an AIDS remedy—a toxic concoction, azidothymidine, known popularly as “AZT.”

US government–financed researchers developed AZT in 19641 as a leukemia chemotherapy. AZT is a “DNA chain terminator,” randomly destroying DNA synthesis in reproducing cells. AZT’s developer, Jerome Horwitz, theorized that the molecule might inject itself into cells and interfere with tumor replication. FDA abandoned the toxic chemotherapy compound after it proved ineffective against cancer and breathtakingly lethal in mice.2 Government researchers deemed it too toxic even for short- regimen cancer chemotherapy. Horwitz recounted that the drug’s “extreme toxicity made it ‘so worthless’ that he ‘didn’t think it was worth patenting.’” Former BusinessWeek journalist Bruce Nussbaum recounted that Horwitz “dumped it on the junk pile” and “didn’t [even] keep the notebooks.”3

Soon after NIH’s team identified HIV as the probable cause of AIDS in 1983, Samuel Broder, head of the National Cancer Institute (NCI)—another sub-agency of the NIH—launched a project to screen antiviral agents from around the world as potential treatments. In 1985, his team, along with colleagues at Duke University, found that AZT killed HIV in test tubes.4

NCI’s study inspired Burroughs Wellcome to retrieve AZT from Horwitz’s scrap heap and patent it as an AIDS remedy. Recognizing financial opportunity in the desperate terror of young AIDS patients facing certain death, the drug company set the price at up to $10,000/year per patient—making AZT one of the most expensive drugs in pharmaceutical history.5 Since Burroughs Wellcome could manufacture AZT for pennies per dose, the company anticipated a bonanza.

In order to justify these exorbitant prices for an existing drug, wrote Dr. Marcia Angell, the longtime editor of the New England Journal of Medicine in her 2004 book, The Truth About Drug Companies, “the company claimed far more credit than it deserved.”6 After Burroughs Wellcome’s CEO sent a self-congratulatory letter to the New York Times rationalizing AZT’s exorbitant sticker price with the standard Pharma embroidery about the high risks and extravagant costs of early drug development, Broder and four colleagues from the NCI and Duke responded angrily, reciting the seminal contributions Burroughs Wellcome did not make:

The company specifically did not develop or provide the first application of the technology for determining whether a drug like AZT can suppress live AIDS virus in human cells, nor did it develop the technology to determine at what concentration such an effect might be achieved in humans. Moreover, it was not first to administer AZT to a human being with AIDS, nor did it perform the first clinical pharmacology studies in patients. It also did not perform the immunological and virological studies necessary to infer that the drug might work and was therefore worth pursuing in further studies. All of these were accomplished by the staff of the National Cancer Institute working with staff at Duke University.7

The NCI scientists pointedly added that the company’s squeamishness about handling the HIV pathogens made it impossible for Burroughs Wellcome to perform any meaningful research: “Indeed one of the key obstacles to the development of AZT was that Burroughs Wellcome did not work with live AIDS virus nor wish to receive samples from AIDS patients.”8

When Fauci appropriated the HIV program from the National Cancer Institute, NIAID inherited AZT, which was then further down the clinical trial path than any other drug.9

AZT proved to be an irresistible opportunity for Fauci. After all, Burroughs Wellcome not only had a head start in the AIDS drug program, the company also had its own army of veteran “principal investigators” (PIs) with plenty of expertise at running the complex regulatory hurdles— which Dr. Fauci had not yet mastered. Dr. Fauci needed a visible success to jump-start his program and anoint his new regime with the patina of competence. Nussbaum described how the British pharmaceutical company manipulated its leverage over Dr. Fauci to gain monopoly control over the government’s HIV response: “Wellcome’s PIs came to dominate NIAID’s clinical trial system. They formed a web linking Wellcome, the drug AZT, and the NIH. They came to sit on the institute’s key drug selection committee, and they voted on whether to give high or low priority to the testing of each anti-AIDS drug, including those that might possibly compete with AZT in the marketplace. The PIs were a power unto themselves. They were, in fact, out of control.”10

Dr. Fauci would later mimic this successful model to populate key drug and vaccine approval committees in FDA, CDC, and at the Institute of Medicine (IOM) with his Pharma PIs, giving him, and his Pharma partners, complete, vertically integrated control over the drug approval process from molecule to market.

But all did not go smoothly. Even with Burroughs Wellcome holding the reins, progress at NIAID was glacial. AZT’s horrendous toxicity hobbled researchers struggling to design study protocols that would make it appear either safe or effective. With AZT devouring his bandwidth, Dr. Fauci failed to populate clinical trials for any competing drug. After three years and hundreds of millions spent, NIAID had not produced a single new approved treatment.

Meanwhile, bustling networks of community-based AIDS doctors mushrooming in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and Dallas had become specialists in treating the symptoms of AIDS. As Dr. Fauci swung for the fences—the miraculous new antiviral “cure” for AIDS —these community doctors were achieving promising results with off-label therapeutic drugs that seemed effective against the constellation of symptoms that actually killed and tormented people with AIDS. These included off-the-shelf remedies like ribavirin, alpha interferon, DHPG, Peptide D, and Foscarnet for retinal herpes; and Bactrim, Septra, and aerosol pentamidine for AIDS-related pneumonias. Despite years of pleading by the HIV community, Dr. Fauci refused to test any of those repurposed drugs, which had older or expired patents and no Pharma patrons.11 One of the most promising of these “street drugs” was AL 721, an antiviral that was far less toxic than AZT. Two of Dr. Fauci’s top scientists, Robert Gallo and Jeffrey Laurence from NCI, had found AL 721 effective in reducing HIV viral loads—but, under pressure from his phalanx of Burroughs Wellcome PIs, Dr. Fauci refused to follow up.12 Big Pharma and its PIs were loath to test any drug with patents they didn’t control. None of the big pharmaceutical companies were interested in cultivating rivals for their high-margin blockbusters like AZT.

Dr. Fauci’s failure to move these remedies through the NIAID system spawned a burgeoning sub-rosa market where people with AIDS and

community doctors purchased remedies from underground “buyers’ clubs.”13

One of NCI’s top virologists, Dr. Frank Ruscetti, who worked directly under Robert Gallo, recalls of that era, “We could have saved millions of lives with repurposed and therapeutic drugs. But there’s no profit in it. It’s all got to be about newly patented antivirals and their mischievous vaccines.”14

The PIs made sure that Pharma’s AZT was the only arrow in NIAID’s clinical trial quiver. Because of Dr. Fauci’s inexperience and perhaps deliberate sandbagging, he and his PIs had only managed to fill 5–10 percent of the slots in his clinical trials for other promising drugs that would compete with AZT. According to Nussbaum, “In time, the clinical trials network Fauci set up would come to be known as the ‘HUD of the nineties.’ Money was spent, but trials went under-enrolled, drug treatments never seemed to emerge, and people with AIDS continued to get sick and die.”15

At the mercy of Burroughs Wellcome, Dr. Fauci cut the company PIs every courtesy to accelerate AZT’s approval. FDA and NIH waived long- term primate studies that would be a high-risk gambit on a compound of such well-known toxicity. (Dr. Fauci would take the same shortcut thirty-six years later to accelerate approvals of his pet drug, remdesivir, and Moderna’s coronavirus vaccine.) Dr. Fauci endorsed Burroughs Wellcome’s scheme to price AZT at a sumptuous $10,000 per patient per year by agreeing to pay the top-shelf sticker price for the pills used in NIAID’s clinical trials.16

According to Nussbaum, “Tony Fauci’s managerial incompetence,” which put him utterly at the mercy of Burroughs Wellcome and its AZT and AZT-only agenda, “had exacted a staggering cost. By 1987, more than a million Americans were infected by the AIDS virus. Not a single drug treatment had come out of the government’s enormous biomedical research system.”17

Nussbaum chronicles the escalating frustration among AIDS activists who were winning vast Congressional appropriations for NIAID, with nothing to show. By 1988, Nussbaum recounts, “several hundred million tax dollars had somehow disappeared into the nation’s biomedical establishment and not one new drug had been produced.” Tony Fauci’s incompetence was frustrating the national response to the pandemic. “Where was Tony Fauci at this time?” Nussbaum asks. “Nowhere. . . . He wasn’t, after all, a ‘details’ man. He was busy being a ‘hit-the-front-pages- every-day’ kind of guy.”18

AIDS activists and public health officials were wondering, “Where did all the grant money go? Did NIAID keep the money? Who benefited? Certainly not the tens of thousands of people with AIDS who grew angrier and angrier with each wasted, passing day.”19 Activists complained that Dr. Fauci was not being forthcoming about the status and enrollment of his clinical trials. He was stonewalling inquiries and had veiled the entire process in secrecy.

Despite pleas from patients, their doctors, and advocates, despite the vast financial windfalls flowing to his agency from the HIV community’s adept lobbying, Dr. Fauci refused to meet with the AIDS community leadership during his first three years as America’s “AIDS Czar.” That reticence further soured Dr. Fauci’s already difficult relationships with the community he was responsible to serve.

It was a hardwired reflex at NIAID to exaggerate public fears of pandemics, and Dr. Fauci’s first instinct as national AIDS czar had been to stoke contagion terror. He made himself a villain among AIDS activists with a fear-mongering 1983 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association warning that AIDS could spread by casual contact.20 At the time, AIDS was almost exclusive to intravenous drug users and males who had sex with other males, but Dr. Fauci incorrectly warned of “the possibility that routine close contact, as within a family household, can

spread the disease.” Given that “nonsexual, non-blood-borne transmission is possible,” Fauci wrote, “the scope of the syndrome may be enormous.” In his history of the AIDS crisis, And the Band Played On, author Randy Shilts reports that the world’s leading AIDS expert, Arye Rubinstein, was “astounded” at Fauci’s “stupidity” because his statement did not reflect the contemporary scientific knowledge.21 The best scientific evidence suggested the infectivity of HIV, even in intimate contact, to be so negligible as to be incapable of sustaining a general epidemic.

Nevertheless, Dr. Fauci’s reflexive response was to amplify the widespread panic of dreaded pestilence that would naturally magnify his power, elevate his profile, and expand his influence. Amplifying terror of infectious disease was already an ingrained knee-jerk institutional response at NIAID.

In 1987, the Wall Street Journal won a Pulitzer Prize for its investigation of an HHS scheme its writers characterized as a deliberate campaign by officials to misre-present AIDS as a general pandemic to secure greater public funding and financial support.22

The flimflam worked. Terror of pestilence, it turns out, is a potent impulse, and Fauci was adept at weaponizing it—and he quickly learned that other “respected authorities” would follow his lead. Following Dr. Fauci’s fear-mongering prophecy, Theresa Crenshaw of the President’s AIDS Commission made the astonishing forecast that within fourteen years, double the number of people then on the planet would be dying from lethal infections: “If the spread of AIDS continues at this rate, in 1996 there could be one billion people infected; five years later, hypothetically ten billion.” Crenshaw asked, “Could we be facing the threat of extinction during our lifetime?”23 Crenshaw’s dire soothsaying never materialized. In 2007, WHO estimated only 33.2 million people worldwide were HIV-positive.24 The HIV prevalence curves based on CDC’s own data show that at least in

the US, HIV has not spread at all since testing was first available, stubbornly remaining at the same levels relative to population.

The Oprah show broadcast Crenshaw’s subsequent prognostication that “By 1990, one in five heterosexuals may be dead of AIDS.”25 Thankfully, this prognosis was also hyperbolic. According to CDC data, about one in 250 Americans tests HIV-positive, and outside the risk groups this number drops to about one in five thousand—about 1/1,000th Crenshaw’s bodement.26 The hysteria following Fauci’s dystopian prediction prompted Der Spiegel to warn that AIDS infections would entirely exterminate the German population by 1992.27 The following year (1985), the magazine Bild Der Wissenschaft also forecast the prompt extinction of the Teutonic race.28

A slightly less exuberant 1986 prophecy by Newsweek had five to ten million Americans lethally infected by 1991.29 Newsweek’s auguring was off by ten times; US authorities have since identified only one million HIV infections.30

Dr. Fauci’s embellishments quickly made HIV-positives the modern equivalent of lepers. Paranoia of AIDS from nonsexual contact persisted for years. In New York in 1985, for instance, 85 percent of schoolchildren at one public elementary school stayed home during opening week, while hundreds of parents demanded the school system bar any HIV-positive children from attending classes.31 The Reagan administration made it unlawful for persons with AIDS to enter the United States. The Cuban government quarantined AIDS victims in modern leper colonies. AIDS activists charged Dr. Fauci with causing the “irrational, punitive” response that followed his hysterical statements.32

A year later, growing furor over his assertion forced Dr. Fauci to acknowledge that health officials had never detected a case of the disease spread through “casual contact.”33

Finally, AIDS activists further complained that Dr. Fauci lacked sensitivity and human compassion toward people suffering from the disease. His laser focus on a single magic bullet antiviral left Dr. Fauci reluctant to study drugs that treated the constellations of grim infections that tortured and killed people with AIDS; patient care—which typically involved off-the-shelf drugs—was incompatible with NIAID’s mushrooming mercantile obsession with high-price patented antivirals. Dr. Fauci’s narrow focus on AZT over off-patent therapeutic medications prompted the AIDS plague’s most vocal activist, Larry Kramer, to call Dr. Fauci a “damned bungler”34 and “Public Enemy Number One.”35

Melisa Wallack and Craig Borten, who received Oscar nominations for their script, Dallas Buyers Club, intensively researched NIAID’s institutional hostility to patient care and repurposed drugs during the 1986 AIDS crisis. Dr. Fauci’s campaign to sabotage therapeutic remedies played a key role in precipitating the emergence of the organized underground medical network. So-called “Buyers Clubs” filled the vacuum by providing treatments that community doctors and their patients considered effective against AIDS, but that FDA refused to approve. “Dr. Fauci was a liar,” recalls Wallack, who researched Dr. Fauci intensively for her film. “He was utterly beholden to pharmaceutical companies and was hostile to any product that would compete with AZT. He was the real villain of this era. He cost a lot of people their lives.”36

By 1987, thousands of AIDS activists from organizations like amfAR and ACT UP—many of them dressed in burial frocks—began mounting mass protests against Dr. Fauci at NIH’s Bethesda, Maryland, research complex and demanding that he, at last, meet with them. Carrying signs that read, “Red Tape Kills Us,” and “NIH— Negligence, Incompetence and Horror,” protesters were met by a line of police officers in riot gear.37 The protestors objected to Dr. Fauci’s narrow focus on Wellcome’s single patented antiviral and wanted more attention for existing therapeutic drugs

that seemed to reduce the worst of AIDS’s most agonizing and deadly symptoms.

As the clamoring crowds multiplied on NIH’s expansive Bethesda campus, Congressman Henry Waxman intervened to force Dr. Fauci to finally sit down with activists in the spring of 1987. It was his first meeting with AIDS advocates since he became AIDS Commissar three years earlier. “The arrogance was simply part of NIH culture,” wrote Nussbaum. “No one thought that people with AIDS and their local doctors had anything to recommend in terms of their own treatment. The same was true of people with cancer. They were all ‘patients’ or ‘victims’ to be pitied and helped by white-coated scientist-heroes.”38

Larry Kramer, Nathan Kolodner, Dr. Barry Gingell, and singer/songwriter and pioneering AIDS activist Michael Callen finally took their seats across a broad table from Dr. Fauci and fifteen of his selected scientists from FDA and NIH. Throughout that meeting, the advocates found Dr. Fauci both manipulative and “dismissive” of their concerns. According to Nussbaum, these leaders “had said time and again that NIAID was obsessed with AZT, that most of the trials and people with AIDS involved in the trials were on just that one drug.”39 They began by confronting Dr. Fauci with the fact that his own most trusted scientists, Dr. Laurence and Dr. Gallo, had found AL 721 effective in reducing viral loads;40 Dr. Fauci responded with a barrage of misdirection and obfuscation. He cherry-picked a single assay from an obscure laboratory that had found AL 721 ineffective and refused to discuss or acknowledge the two studies by his own agency that supported its use.

They next questioned him about his sandbagging on aerosol pentamidine. According to Nussbaum, “. . . dozens of community doctors and thousands of PWAs [people with AIDS] already knew: that Aerosol Pentamidine prevented AIDS’ most lethal symptom—pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP).”41 Doctors had also found early intervention with

Bactrim and Septra to be effective prophylaxis against PCP. The activists presented Dr. Fauci with a modest request: that NIAID agree to make guidelines for physicians who wanted to use Bactrim to treat people with AIDS preventively, or even a statement supporting consideration of the use. An official declaration by NIH that doctors consider these treatments “standard of care” would require insurance companies to cover their costs, making them available to AIDS victims, many of whom were destitute. Dr. Fauci met both requests with refusal. He said he simply could not recommend a drug until he saw “randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial” results. That was the “gold standard,” he said. It would be that, or nothing. When they asked him, “Why not?” he shouted, “There’s no data!”42 He told them that the treatment experiences and voluminous case study reports of dozens of community AIDS doctors was not real science. The activists were aware of this increasingly lethal irony: It had been NIAID’s decision to not fund any randomized trials on these unpatented drugs. Dr. Fauci himself had constructed this dead end. This pattern of resourceful stonewalling to obstruct repurposed off-patent drugs with lifesaving potential would become a pattern familiar to Dr. Fauci’s critics during the COVID crisis.

According to Callen, “We asked him—no, we begged him—to issue interim guidelines urging physicians to prophylax those patients deemed at high risk for PCP (pneumonia) [with Bactrim or aerosol pentamidine]. Although it would not have cost the government much to have done so, he steadfastly refused to issue such guidelines. His reason: no data. So, the Catch-22 was complete and many people died of PCP who didn’t have to.”43

When the activists asked Dr. Fauci to at least add AL 721, Peptide D, DHPG, and aerosolized pentamidine to his clinical trials, Dr. Fauci’s refusal was loud: “I can’t do that!” he shouted. “I can’t convene a consensus conference.”44 The choice, he explained, of which compounds would enter

NIAID’s clinical trial pipeline was made, not by public agreement, but by a panel of “independent scientists.” Dr. Fauci did not mention that virtually all the members of his “independent panel” were pharmaceutical PIs, with ties to NIAID and Burroughs Wellcome.

Following that meeting, a group of frustrated community doctors raised money from their own AIDS patients to collect data for a randomized trial on Bactrim. It took them two years, and their results strongly supported Bactrim’s effectiveness against pneumonia. AIDS activists lamented that two years of stalling by Fauci on aerosol pentamidine and Bactrim had cost seventeen thousand people their lives.45

Following the NIH parley, the fury of the AIDS patient advocates against Dr. Fauci mounted. In their view, the community doctors were generating plenty of good science. Those treatment experiences—often published—had as much validity as case studies upon which scientists routinely rely. As Nussbaum points out, “There was plenty of data, if only Fauci and the rest of NIH were willing to look at real people in real communities instead of the endless bottoms of their test tubes.”46

Michael Callen told Nussbaum that Dr. Fauci’s single-minded concern seemed to be avoiding the mortification of acknowledging success by doctors outside his agency. “He would not be humiliated even if ‘Fauci’s decision cost the lives of tens of thousands of people with AIDS.’”47

Michael Callen, Larry Kramer, and the other AIDS activists left the NIH sit-down in a fierce rage. In June 1987 at a postmortem at ACT UP’s circus-like New York City headquarters auditorium (where I often spoke on environmental issues during that era), Kramer lambasted Dr. Fauci for his Pharma bias:

“Where are the drugs the government promised?” he asked. “After we got them millions of dollars for their experiments, what do we get? A ten-thousand- dollar drug! What about all the other drugs out there?”48

Congressional Confrontation April 28, 1988

Dr. Fauci had given Kramer and the other activists the bum’s rush. He could not do the same with his congressional patrons. For years, my uncle, Senator Ted Kennedy, the chair of the Senate Health Committee, and Senator Lowell Weicker, who chaired Senate Appropriations, along with their allies in the House, California Congressman Henry Waxman and Manhattan Congressman Ted Weiss, had fought hand-to-hand combat with Ronald Reagan’s tight-fisted budget director, David Stockman, to free up money for AIDS research.

In 1980, Teddy became the first presidential candidate to actively campaign for gay rights. I stumped with him in San Francisco’s Castro District when he shattered political taboos by barnstorming the gay bars, shaking hands, and snapping photos. When the AIDS epidemic broke a year later, Teddy defied convention by hiring Terry Beirn, the first openly gay/HIV-infected Senate aide, to stage-manage the legislative battle against AIDS. Beirn became the leading national advocate for the community- based clinical trials for remedies like Bactrim and aerosolized pentamidine, to which Dr. Fauci had shown such hostility.49 Beirn had hatched the idea for a community research initiative (CRI) with Teddy’s close friend Mathilde Krimm, of the activist group of amfAR, and Martin Delaney of Project Inform. Their proposal was to create a “parallel track” approval system that would allow community AIDS doctors to conduct clinical studies on the off-the-shelf drugs that neither Pharma nor NIAID wanted to test. Delaney, who did not have AIDS but made his bones in the movement smuggling ribavirin from Mexico for the Buyers Clubs, described the parallel track program as “medically supervised guerilla drug trials.”50 Appealing to his friend Senator Orrin Hatch’s Mormon sense of compassion toward the ill, Senator Kennedy had recruited the Utah conservative Republican to cochampion the AIDS issue. Independent-minded Connecticut Senator Lowell Weicker was another key ally. Those three

most powerful senators from three different political perspectives worked in tandem and with Waxman and Weiss in the House. Their coordinated bipartisan efforts freed up hundreds of millions of dollars from the White House bean counters, over the objections of powerful Christian conservatives who framed AIDS as God’s just punishment for the homosexual lifestyle.

For two years, Senator Kennedy and Beirn vainly urged Dr. Fauci to create a “parallel track.” Kennedy was frustrated by Dr. Fauci’s reticence to listen to the HIV community. He considered it petty, cruel, and irresponsible that Dr. Fauci would not allow testing of the buyers’ club drugs.

In a September 2007 interview, Dr. Fauci recalled the urgency that Teddy brought to the topic. He said that Kennedy urged him, “We’ve got to have a clinical trial process that reaches out to the community. He was really the one who pushed very hard for the community program for clinical research on AIDS. That was one of his big agenda items. He wanted to get community access to clinical trials at the community level, not just limited to the trials run by drug companies and NIAID.”51

By 1987, Dr. Fauci’s political partners from all parties realized that Dr. Fauci’s program was “in shambles.”52 Despite the millions from Congress, not a single AIDS drug had emerged from NIAID’s pipeline. Senator Kennedy was beginning to suspect that Dr. Fauci was either inept or “in the tank” with Pharma. Ronald Reagan was pushing to transfer the entire AIDS effort to “more efficient” private pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fauci’s failed predictions, organizational inadequacies, and obfuscations had steamed his Capitol Hill allies past their boiling points.

In the spring of 1988, Dr. Fauci’s congressional sponsors turned on him during a dramatic Capitol Hill confrontation. The April 28 hearing began with Rep. Weiss— perhaps Dr. Fauci’s most loyal sponsor—demanding that the NIAID chief explain his snail’s progress. Dr. Fauci responded by

whining that he had no budget to purchase lab space, computers, desks, and office supplies, or to hire new workers.53

The stunned Upper West Side congressman reminded Dr. Fauci that he had accepted $374 million from Congress for AIDS research. It seemed astonishing that those sums were insufficient to purchase clerical supplies and furniture. Oblivious that his lame excuses were only stoking his benefactor’s scorching rage, Fauci moaned that his office items required separate budget columns not provided for in the massive congressional appropriation. In a barely controlled fury, Rep. Waxman coldly asked Dr. Fauci why he never informed his congressional mentors of this logjam. That question provoked a cavalcade of vague and dissembling bellyaching during which Dr. Fauci suggested, obliquely, that he had feared antagonizing the Reagan White House—which might have frowned on his cozy bonhomie with congressional Dems.

Dr. Fauci’s fuzzy equivocation prompted Rep. Waxman to darken visibly. “He was furious,” recounts Nussbaum. “He practically levitated out of his chair.”54

California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi complained of Dr. Fauci’s lackluster performance that “from our perspective, we have a burning building behind us and we’re coming to you all for water and we’re finding out that there’s not somebody there to turn on the faucet.”55

Pelosi next delivered the “coup de grâce,” as Nussbaum chronicled the explosive exchange. Rep. Pelosi asked Dr. Fauci to assume that he had AIDS and found himself dying of pneumonia: “You know the theory behind aerosol pentamidine to prevent pneumonia is strong. You know that the aerosol pentamidine was evaluated by the NIH as highly promising. You know that many studies in San Francisco recommend it routinely and that it is available. . . . Would you take aerosol pentamidine or would you wait for a study?”56

For three years, Dr. Fauci had done everything in his power to deny aerosol pentamidine and its companion drug, Bactrim, to AIDS sufferers. But here’s what he told the panel in 1988: “If I were an individual patient, I would probably take aerosolized pentamidine if I already had a bout ofPneumocystis. In fact, I might try, even before then, taking prophylactic Bactrim.”57 These were two promising remedies that everyone on the panel and in the audience knew that Fauci had refused to either test or recommend. At that very moment, Dr. Fauci was denying tens of thousands of AIDS patients access to these lifesaving remedies.

Nussbaum describes the scene that followed: “Silence. There was dead silence in room 2154 of the Rayburn House Office Building. People at the hearing just stared at Fauci and at one another. Here was the head of the NIH effort against AIDS publicly admitting that he personally would not follow the government’s own guidelines and recommendations. Here was a top government scientist basically admitting that the government effort should be circumvented by the millions of people with AIDS. Here was Tony Fauci openly calling for the prophylaxis of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia while his own clinical trials system did not have a single preventative drug in trial. It was a truly mind-wrenching admission. Fauci himself was calling into question the very foundation of the government’s entire research effort against AIDS.”58

Thirty-two years later, Dr. Fauci performed an encore of this kabuki dance during the early COVID crisis. On March 24, 2020, he answered a question from a journalist by admitting that, if he became ill with COVID, he would take hydroxychloroquine as his remedy.59 Shortly thereafter, Dr. Fauci launched his aggressive campaign to deny HCQ—and all early treatments—to the rest of humanity.

Dr. Fauci’s 1988 Capitol Hill performance left all his former friends wanting a piece of him. “Fauci was in deep trouble. These were his supporters, his financial mentors, his political protectors from an

administration that was so aligned against the gay community and so ideologically antagonistic to the very existence of the NIH that it wanted Pharma to privatize the whole shebang. Now, Weiss and Waxman were clearly gunning for him. Fauci realized that the entire hearing was a setup to show his personal shortcomings.”60

Larry Kramer was thunderstruck: “When he read about the NIH delays, the ineptitude and perhaps the moral cowardice behind them, Kramer lost control.”61

On May 31, 1988, Kramer wrote his famous “Open Letter to Tony Fauci” in the Village Voice. Kramer’s diatribe compared NIAID to the fraternity of miscreants, delinquents, and dimwitted knuckleheads in the comedy film Animal House. He called Dr. Fauci an “idiot” and a “murderer.” He described Fauci sweating and squirming under Representative Ted Weiss’s questioning: “You were pummeled into admitting publicly what some have been claiming since you took over some three years ago. You have admitted that you are an incompetent idiot.”62

Said Kramer, “You expect us to buy this bullshit and feel sorry for you? YOU FUCKING SON OF A BITCH OF A DUMB IDIOT, YOU HAVE HAD $374 MILLION AND YOU EXPECT US TO BUY THIS GARBAGE OF EXCUSES!”63

Kramer accused Fauci of keeping his mouth shut for thirty-six months to pander to the Reagan White House. He asked Fauci, “WHY DID YOU KEEP QUIET FOR SO LONG?” while people perished in the pandemic. It reminded him, he said, of Hitler’s “good lieutenant”: Adolf Eichmann. He accused Fauci of being too cowardly and self-involved to speak up until forced to by a Congressional committee: “We lie down and die and our bodies pile up higher and higher in hospitals and homes and hospices and streets and doorways.”64

Referring to aerosol pentamidine, Kramer pointed out, “[W]e know and hear what is working on some of us somewhere. You couldn’t care less

about what we say. You won’t answer our phone calls or letters, or listen to anyone in our stricken community. What tragic pomposity!”65

“How many years ago did we tell you about aerosol pentamidine, Tony? That this stuff saves lives. And WE discovered it ourselves. We came to you, bearing this great news on a silver platter as a gift, begging you: Can we get it officially tested, can we get it approved by you so that insurance companies and Medicaid will pay for it (as well as other drugs we beg you to test) as a routine treatment, and our patients going broke for medicine can get it cheaper? You monster.”66

“We tell you what the good drugs are, you don’t test them, and YOU TELL US TO GET THEM ON THE STREETS! You continue to pass down word from On High that you don’t like this drug or that drug— WHEN YOU HAVEN’T EVEN TESTED THEM!”67

“There are more AIDS patients dead because you didn’t test drugs on them,” Kramer said, “than because you did.”68

After the Congressional hearing, everyone realized that the little Emperor had no clothes; Dr. Fauci recognized that his political life was dangling by a thread. He had spent hundreds of millions of dollars building a drug-testing network that didn’t work. The Congress he had always been able to charm, double-talk, and bamboozle had finally called fraud! His only hope for reputation and career salvation was a dramatic and unexpected change.

“He had been tarred with an ‘incompetence’ brush by the very people who were his major supporters in the past. Only a complete change of strategy could resuscitate Tony Fauci’s career. If he was to continue receiving financial support for AIDS research from Congress, if he was to continue being the head of NIAID, he had to reinvent himself.”69

Dr. Fauci’s Strategic Pivot

Anthony Fauci needed a makeover, and this master of bureaucratic survival responded to his existential crisis with a breathtaking pivot. Suddenly, Dr. Fauci turned to embrace the AIDS activists he had previously reviled. In the summer of 1989, he accosted Larry Kramer on a Montreal street during an international AIDS conference, took him for a walk, effectively begged forgiveness, and proposed a working partnership.70 He began testing AIDS community drugs in parallel trials, as Senator Kennedy and amfAR had long requested.

Dr. Fauci partnered with the AIDS doctors—the contemporary equivalents of Front Line COVID-19 healers Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Richard Urso, and Dr. Ryan Cole (among others)—giving them authority and millions of dollars to launch local Community Research Initiative (CRI) programs that allowed community AIDS clinics to test promising drugs outside the formal clinical trial programs dominated by Dr. Fauci’s Pharma PIs, and to quickly win federal approvals. “Fauci himself was now trying to build a system that consisted of greater access to drugs at a much earlier stage in the testing game,”71 said Nussbaum. In a gesture of reconciliation with his biggest critics, Dr. Fauci named the parallel track program after Senator Kennedy’s aide, Terry Beirn, and he gave Larry Kramer a seat at the table.

Most ironically, in light of his successful campaign to sabotage hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the COVID crisis, Dr. Fauci suddenly dropped his knee-jerk insistence that every drug needed randomized placebo-controlled testing prior to approval. In an extraordinary volte-face, he fiercely argued that if a drug looked promising for alleviating potentially lethal illness during pandemics, patients ought to be able to get access to it, even if it hadn’t been through a double-blind placebo trial. In a brassy display of chutzpah and brazenly hypocritical misdirection, he questioned the ethics of FDA regulators who insisted on placebo testing of beneficial drugs during a global pandemic when people were dying. He

seemed to have forgotten that this was precisely his posture until just a few weeks before. Dr. Fauci accused the FDA of foot-dragging and overmanaging drug development. He openly attacked NIAID’s sister agency for its cruel and rigid insistence on randomized double-blind placebo testing for DHPG, a promising remedy for retinal herpes. In order to quiet the AIDS community, Tony Fauci even put AL 721 into trials. Dr. Fauci became a vocal cheerleader of “parallel track” approval of the retinue of popular buyers’ club drugs: “It doesn’t make any sense to deprive those people of the choice of whether or not they want to take a chance on a drug that has proven to be effective, as long as it doesn’t interfere with clinical trials. As a scientist, I think it’s an appropriate thing to do.”72

“Fauci transformed himself in the summer of 1989. He became an aggressive advocate for speeding up testing and drug approval for all life- threatening diseases, not just AIDS,” recalls Nussbaum. “Fauci adopted virtually the entire ACT UP program at once and as a whole. It was the kind of flip-flop that comes with a true religious conversion. It was so startling that it appeared as if Fauci had found the light, had an epiphany, and transformed himself into another being.”73 This sudden flip-flop presaged Dr. Fauci’s 2021 neck-wrenching switcheroo when he suddenly demanded an investigation of the Wuhan lab after energetically forestalling that inquiry for over a year.

By the end of 1989, his insurrection against his own old orthodoxies and his merciless attacks on the beleaguered satraps at FDA had made Dr. Anthony Fauci into something of a hero to some in the HIV community.

Industry to the Rescue

Not everyone was happy. Dr. Fauci’s U-turn had infuriated his industry PIs. Big Pharma’s front-line troopers were in open revolt against his ballyhooed reforms. The CRI system was proving a disaster for the industry. The AIDS community’s network of two hundred CRI doctors was testing anti-AIDS

drugs in “parallel track” programs with low cost and quick enrollments. The community doctors, Nussbaum explained in 1990, “know more about treatment than do [Dr. Fauci’s] ivory-tower PIs hidden away from the realities of life and driven by careers that don’t reward them for furthering the public health.”74 So many AIDS patients were flocking to participate in CRI trials with caring doctors they knew and trusted that Dr. Fauci’s traditional Pharma PIs were having trouble recruiting volunteers to their clinical trials. The CRI was so successful that it began challenging the primacy of NIAID’s traditional top-down university- and hospital-based research. The PI network that formerly enjoyed an unchallenged monopoly on drug trials balked as the gay community’s upstart doctors threatened their exclusive position at NIAID’s billion-dollar research funding teat.

Big Pharma’s PIs were to Dr. Fauci what the Praetorian Guard was to the Roman emperors: Fauci was at once their commander and their hostage. Ultimately, they exercised life-or-death power over him. It’s worth recalling that the vast majority of Roman emperors died at the hands of their subordinates, with either assistance or acquiescence in their murders by their “loyal” Praetorians.

His fifty years at NIH are resounding proof of Dr. Fauci’s unerring survival skills. The political instincts that have made him history’s longest- lived—and highest-paid—public health apparatchik must have informed him that antagonizing his Praetorians would eventually be fatal. He needed to make peace.

Whether Dr. Fauci’s brief conversion was ever heartfelt, it was necessarily shortlived. Fauci’s managerial style and his deep reliance on his network of Pharma PIs doomed parallel track from the outset. Nussbaum always doubted Dr. Fauci’s authenticity: “Fauci’s conversion,” he concluded, “smacked of opportunism.” Subsequent history, including the history we are living today, supported Nussbaum’s cynical assessment.75

AIDS activists afterward learned that at the same time Dr. Fauci was telling them and Senator Kennedy’s office that he was finally testing AL 721, Teflon Tony was confiding to his Pharma PIs that he had rigged the AL 721 studies to fail: “I wanted to debunk it,” he reassured them.76 Just as he would do with hydroxychloroquine during the COVID crisis thirty years later, he designed his AL 721 clinical trials in a way that would ensure their failure and thus discredit the unpatentable medicine. Dr. Fauci told the Burroughs Wellcome PIs who dominated his “independent” committee, “Let’s put the thing into trial and get it over with once and for all.”77

Nussbaum’s verdict: “If there was any chance for a fair test for AL 721, it wasn’t going to come from Tony Fauci’s clinical trials system.”78

At first, his devious plan backfired. Instead of debunking AL 721, the NIAID study confirmed that AL 721 stopped viral replication. When those promising results began emerging, Dr. Fauci and his PIs cancelled the trial, making sure that AL 721 never went to Phase 2. Dr. Fauci told skeptical activists that he could not get any volunteers to enroll in the study. (In 2021, he would invoke the same bunko to kill NIAID’s ivermectin trials.)

Around the same time, activists realized that Dr. Fauci’s vows to test aerosol pentamidine—which he admitted before Congress was effective— were a subterfuge. Dr. Fauci opened clinical trials for aerosol pentamidine but again claimed, disingenuously, that he couldn’t populate them. Dr. Fauci’s sandbagging finally prompted frustrated HIV activists to finance and conduct their own trial of aerosol pentamidine. Completed in 1990, that study demonstrated the drug’s clear effectiveness against PCP. “The data had not been generated out of Tony Fauci’s multimillion-dollar drug-testing system,” Callen recalled. “That [Fauci’s] system has not been able to enroll a single person in its trials of aerosol pentamidine. The HIV community and community doctors generated the data. A private company, LyphoMed, funded the study.” Said Nussbaum, “The community has rolled up its

sleeves and done an end run around federal incompetence and indifference.”79

Nussbaum points out that even at the height of Dr. Fauci’s “conversion,” NIAID continued to ignore hundreds of other effective drugs for opportunistic diseases because “PIs have their own scientific agenda, which is not necessarily the same as the country’s.”80

Dr. Fauci’s whole charade ended the moment the FDA approved AZT.

By then, Dr. Fauci had rigged the key committees that controlled drug approvals at NIH and FDA by stacking them with academic and industry scientists and doctors from his PI system: “Scientists who . . . made their entire careers in AZT . . . sat on committees voting on potential commercial competitors. Scientists who have had financial dealings with Burroughs Wellcome or other pharmaceutical companies have come to dominate the government’s entire clinical trials network.”81

While they actively stymied clinical trials for aerosolized pentamidine and AL 721, Dr. Fauci’s insider’s cabal greased the skids, allowing Burroughs Wellcome to skip animal testing and to proceed directly to human trials. This omission was unprecedented in the history of chemotherapy drugs, but again foreshadowed the decision to allow the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to proceed to human testing without completing the usual panel of safety testing in animal models.82 Government researchers had thoroughly assessed AZT’s frightening toxicity, including its lethal effects on rodents after short-term exposures with minuscule doses. Neither NIAID nor Burroughs Wellcome ever completed any long-term animal study. Burroughs Wellcome financed Dr. Fauci’s fast-tracked human trials, fragmenting their study groups in twelve cities into small cohorts, making safety signals difficult to detect.

In 1987, Dr. Fauci’s team declared the human study a success and terminated it after four months of a proposed six-month study—a record- setting speed for chemotherapy approval. That four-month observation

period was far too short for researchers to detect side effects that would occur in patients taking AZT for years, or even a lifetime. But Dr. Fauci argued that his decision to abort the study was the only ethical choice: after sixteen weeks, nineteen trial subjects in the inactive placebo group and only one participant from the AZT group had died—an outcome that could be hailed as an extraordinary 95-percent efficacy! Dr. Fauci said that those results proved AZT safe and effective against AIDS. Even more importantly for Burroughs Wellcome shareholders, Dr. Fauci cleared AZT for use on healthy HIV-positive people, meaning people with no symptoms. Following those brief clinical trials, FDA granted AZT fast-tracked Emergency Use Approval in March 1987.

A Moment of Triumph

For Dr. Fauci, the FDA licensure was a moment for exultation. After years of humiliation and failure with his critics pounding him against the ropes, he finally had something to show: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 3,200 people, which allegedly showed that AIDS patients receiving AZT survived at rates exponentially higher than those denied the treatment. Dr. Fauci now had a product that validated his clinical trial system. At this first whiff of AZT’s success, even before his AZT study was published, the young technocrat seized the moment to do what he always did best. He called a press conference.

Two years later, Dr. Fauci would reminisce about those halcyon days: “When I first got involved in AIDS research, I was reluctant to deal with the press. I thought it was not dignified.”83 There is, in fact, little evidence of that reticence in the public record. From the outset, Tony Fauci seemed almost desperate for such indignities.

Dr. Fauci launched his media blitz with an unprecedented action: At ten o’clock in the morning following his evening receipt of the initial study results, Dr. Fauci began personally calling key journalists to announce his

triumph. “No director of an NIH institute had ever contacted the press like that,” says Nussbaum.84 Traditionally, the NIH director himself made major announcements, but Dr. Fauci was apparently unwilling to share the glory with his nominal boss, NIH Director James Wyngaarden, or with HHS Secretary Otis Bowen. In making his proclamation, Dr. Fauci employed the gimmick that he watched Robert Gallo pioneer during his premature announcement of Gallo’s study linking HIV to AIDS. That announcement had shattered another tradition: Historically, agencies didn’t announce the results of clinical trials until the data were peer-reviewed and published so that journalists—and the scientific community—could read the study and reach their own conclusion about what the science said. Gallo had trailblazed the technique of “science by press release” four years earlier, when he had staged an HHS press event to announce that the probable cause of AIDS had been found, a retrovirus that would later be named the “Human Immunodeficiency Virus” or “HIV.” The press reported Gallo’s discovery as scientific fact, even though Gallo had not published a peer- reviewed paper supporting his enormously consequential assertion. Here was a useful innovation that allowed regulatory officials to craft and control the public narrative from inception. The science was what the regulators declared it to be. There could be no opportunity for journalists to read the ambiguous data, consider contrary expert opinion, or second-guess official pronouncements.

Dr. Fauci made himself the virtuoso of this technique, displaying it, at its apogee, during his April 28, 2020, announcement of remdesivir’s miraculous performance during NIAID’s rigged and fraud-tainted clinical trials, while seated on an Oval Office couch beside President Trump. He had no peer-reviewed or published study, no authentic placebo trial, no data, and not even a handout for the press. With this vague hearsay claim, he forced through Emergency Use Authorization for his darling drug and sold

Gilead’s entire inventory to the president without publishing a word or ever leaving the sofa.

Under Dr. Fauci’s leadership, this practice would become a routine vehicle for extreme abuse in the COVID-19 era, when vaccine companies habitually disclosed cherry-picked highlights of their clinical trials in press releases weeks before publishing far less bullish study results. Those tactics drew criticism as “pump and dump” enterprises with company executives simultaneously unloading stock timed with deceptive announcements that drove up share prices. At least one case—Dr. Fauci’s Moderna vaccine— prompted a federal securities investigation.85

Using the same extravagant language he would later apply to remdesivir, Dr. Fauci boasted to reporters that his trial had produced “clear- cut evidence” that AZT “saved lives.” Any reporter who wanted to cover the story for the evening news had to take his word for it. And then, as now, some people simply couldn’t conceive that Anthony Fauci would lie or exaggerate. Dr. Fauci giddily declared that his agency would recommend AZT not only for individuals with full-blown AIDS, but for asymptomatic people who had tested positive for HIV but showed no sign of AIDS. He never mentioned that AZT cost $10,000 for annual treatment—only that Burroughs Wellcome would sell it for $500/bottle. The FDA approval meant the taxpayers would subsidize AZT’s costs.

Burroughs Wellcome’s shares soared 45 percent on Dr. Fauci’s announcement, adding 1.4 billion pounds to the company’s UK stock market value in one day.86 The company’s CEO predicted that AZT profits would bring in over $2 billion per year.87

The PIs had handed NIAID its first successful drug trial. Dr. Fauci was now in the clear and he knew that the PIs had pulled his chestnuts from the fire. Not only had they given him a blockbuster AIDS drug, they had also built him a tried-and-tested system for producing future drug approvals. He

no longer needed to pander to the CRI doctors. Dr. Fauci wasted no time in putting an end to his parallel-track charade.

When Dr. Fauci abandoned the CRI system, NIAID just as quickly lost its brief interest in patient care or in testing repurposed new drugs against the opportunistic infections that killed people with AIDS. NIAID went back to its comfortable niche nurturing pharmaceutical blockbusters. “It was the same old story,” recounts Nussbaum. “Nothing had changed for years.”88

There was only one problem: Dr. Fauci’s entire clinical trial for AZT had been an elaborate fraud.

A Moment of Truth, Uncovering the Fraud

In July 1987, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) finally

published Burroughs Wellcome’s official report on the Phase II AZT trials

—the so-called “Fischl study”— which was the basis of the FDA’s approval

of AZT.89 Outside scientists finally had the chance to scrutinize the study’s

details for the first time. Many had earlier expressed shock at its

abbreviated duration, but now they began to uncover evidence of fatal

methodological flaws—some attributable to confirmation bias, but others

clearly the product of corruption, and deliberate falsification. Within days,

reporters, researchers, and scientists began lobbing aspersions on Dr.

Fauci’s Pollyannaish and self-serving interpretation of the data. European

scientists complained that NIAID’s raw data showed no benefit of reducing

symptoms, a finding that threatened Glaxo’s biggest anticipated profit pool.

The Swiss newspaper Weltwoche termed his AZT trials a “gigantic botch- up.”90,91

Investigative journalist and market research analyst John Lauritsen, who had covered the AIDS crisis since 1985, became the first intrepid journalist to critically analyze the details of the AZT trials. When he saw the NEJM reports, he quickly realized that the research was invalid. In his first AZT article, “AZT on Trial” (19 October 1987), he wrote: “The description of

methodology was incomplete and incoherent. Not a single table was acceptable according to statistical standards—indeed, not a single table made sense. In particular, the first report, on ‘efficacy,’ was marred by contradictions, ill-logic, and special pleading.”92 He telephoned the nominal authors of the report, Dr. Margaret Fischl and Douglas Richman, and spoke to each for half an hour: “Neither one of them could explain the tables in the reports that they themselves had allegedly written.” They could only say that he should call Burroughs Wellcome for answers to his questions.

The New York Native published Lauritsen’s reports beginning in 1987. These reports later appeared in two books, Poison by Prescription: The AZT Story (Poison) (1990) and The AIDS War: Propaganda, Profiteering and Genocide from the Medical-Industrial Complex (TAW) (1993).93

Eighteen months after AZT’s approval, FDA conducted its own investigation of the study. For many months, the FDA, cowering before Fauci’s bullying, kept its damning reports secret. The most shocking revelations about Dr. Fauci’s systemic conduct would emerge after Lauritsen finally obtained some five hundred pages from the FDA investigators’ trove of documents, using the Freedom of Information Act. Those papers clearly demonstrated that the Fauci/Burroughs Wellcome research teams had engaged in widespread data tampering, which some have viewed rose to the level of homicidal criminality.

These documents showed that the “double-blind, placebo-controlled” trials had become unblinded almost immediately, which alone rendered them invalid. Internal FDA communications with the research team revealed rampant falsification of data, sloppiness, and departure from accepted procedures.94

In one of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents, Harvey Chernov, the FDA analyst who reviewed the pharmacology data, recommended that AZT should not be approved. Chernov noted many serious toxicities of AZT, especially its effect on the blood: “Although the

dose varied, anemia was noted in all species (including man) in which the drug has been tested.” Chernov further noted that AZT is likely to cause cancer: “[AZT] induces a positive response in the cell transformation” assay and is therefore “presumed to be a potential carcinogen.”95

The Phase II trials were supposed to last for twenty-four weeks, but Wellcome and Dr. Fauci aborted them at the halfway point. The investigators claimed that AZT was miraculously prolonging the lives of those taking it. Lauritsen analyzed the mortality data and concluded that they were certainly false. Although few patients finished the full twenty- four weeks of treatment, and two dozen lasted less than four weeks on the drug, the investigators analyzed the skimpy data anyway, using bizarre statistical projections to forecast the probability of a patient’s experiencing various opportunistic infections if the trials had continued as planned. Lauritsen scathingly comments: “This is analogous to estimating the probability of developing arthritis by the age of seventy, using a sample in which only a few people had reached this age, and in which some were still teenagers.”

Most seriously, FDA investigators found a great many instances of cheating in the Boston center where they began their review. Dr. Fauci’s decision to terminate the trials prevented the inspectors from investigating the other eleven centers, which were, presumably, just as dreadful as Boston. After agonizing over whether to exclude data from the delinquent Boston center or from patients with protocol violations, the FDA decided to exclude nothing: “False data were retained. Garbage was thrown in with the good stuff.” The FDA argued that if all the false data were excluded, there would be an insufficient number of patients left to complete the trials. Lauritsen pointed out that FDA’s knowing use of false data constituted fraud.96

In 1991, four years later, Lauritsen filed a Freedom of Information request asking for various FDA documents pertaining to the Phase II AZT

trials—most importantly, the “Establishment Inspection Report” on the Boston center, written by FDA investigator Patricia Spitzig. After months of lies, evasions, and obstructions from the FDA, a courageous female FDA whistleblower breached all the stonewalling and saw to it that Lauritsen got the Spitzig Report.97 It was a bombshell:

As it turned out, the Boston Principal Investigators (PIs) cheated on almost every patient. The Burroughs Wellcome PIs had quickly realized that AZT was so reliably deadly that they were hard-pressed to keep the trial recruits alive for the full six-month study. The Boston team solved this dilemma by lying about the length of time patients were in the trials. The company incentivized this sort of fraud by paying its PIs according to how many months they kept the AZT trial subjects alive. “Simply put,” says Lauritsen, “the doctors received a great deal more money,” from longer-term enrollments.

Pharma PIs know that their careers and paychecks depend on their ability to consistently produce study outcomes that will win FDA approval for the subject drug. Such perverse incentives naturally drive research bias, confirmation bias, data tampering, strategic laziness, and deliberate falsification and cheating. PIs routinely covered up adverse events, violated protocols, falsely reported AZT patients as being placebo patients, and lost control of the test product.

FDA based its AZT approval on Case Report Forms (CRFs) filed by Burroughs Wellcome PIs, who each had compelling financial and career inducements to downplay injuries to achieve a successful trial. However, there were also reams of shocking information in the medical records of private physicians, hospitals, and the diaries of patients that contradicted the crisis. In virtually every patient, the FDA’s Spitzig found serious discrepancies between the medical records and what the PIs had entered on their CRFs.

The rules of the trials clearly stated that the PIs must record all adverse reactions on their CRFs and report immediately to the FDA. The Boston PIs did neither.

The FDA documents showed that the PIs knew very well which patients were on AZT and which on placebo, that they were skewing safety results in AZT’s favor to give advantage to the AZT participants. Researchers began by placing the sickest patients in the placebo group. The researchers then bent over backward to coddle the group that took AZT, giving them more supportive medical services than the placebo subjects. For example, individuals taking AZT during the four-month study received six times more blood transfusions than the placebo group.

Of those who got AZT, all suffered from its unspeakable toxicity. “A number of them . . . would very definitely have died from anemia,” had the PIs not given the blood transfusions to keep them alive, says Lauritsen. AZT causes anemia in every animal species ever studied, including human beings. In his book, Poisoned by Prescription, Lauritsen explains how “[p]atients taking AZT became anemic, and suffered low white blood cell counts accompanied by vomiting.” FDA’s documents showed that everyone in the AZT group suffered severe toxicities and anemia, yet NIAID’s official report listed no adverse effects among AZT recipients.

Some of the AZT patients suffered adverse reactions so deadly that they needed multiple blood transfusions just to keep them alive. Dr. Fauci’s crooked researchers pumped these individuals with regular blood transfusions and then neglected to record their multiplicity of health problems. In the AZT group, thirty patients—over half the total—clung to life until the end of the study only with help from multiple blood transfusions. In each case the Boston PIs checked “no adverse reactions” on the CRFs. Some 20 percent received multiple transfusions. In the placebo group, on the other hand, only five patients received transfusions.

“What happens when you get a blood transfusion?” asks noted AIDS researcher and author Dr. Robert E. Willner, MD, PhD. “You look better, you feel better, and you live a little bit longer. But the most important question and lesson from all of this, you must ask the question: Why do

those on AZT need six times more transfusions in a four-month period than the individuals on the placebo? Because you’re dealing with a killer drug. . . .”98

“Many of the patients would have died from the toxicities of AZT if they had not been given emergency blood transfusions,” reports Lauritsen. “This is a serious adverse effect. That means literally that they would have died from the poison. And yet the case report forms that showed up eventually would report no adverse effects. I mean, this is a type of dishonesty. It’s hard to go any further than that.”

Dr. Willner, who died in 1995, accused Dr. Fauci of using transfusions and other artifices to systematically conceal AZT’s horrendous toxicity. “What do we have to say about the National Institutes of Health, when a private, independent laboratory, found AZT to be 1,000 times more toxic than the laboratory of the NIH? We can understand a 5 percent error in a laboratory, even a 10 percent error, but a 10,000 percent error or a 100,000 percent error? That’s fraud.”99

One typically appalling item in Spitzig’s report concerned Patient #1009, who was already taking AZT and was therefore ineligible to participate in the clinical trial. The Boston PIs nevertheless illegally entered him in the study and assigned him to the placebo group, although he never stopped taking AZT. He suffered typical AZT toxicities including severe headaches and anemia, dropped out of the study after less than a month, and died two months later. The PIs counted him as a death in the placebo group. Lauritsen wrote: “Further comment would be superfluous. If this is not fraud, the word has no meaning.”100,101

Even in that innocent era, the United States mainstream media heavily censored journalistic criticism of Dr. Fauci and the corruption in the AZT studies. Most Americans were therefore unaware of any dissent from the AIDS orthodoxy. This was less true in Europe and the UK. On February 12, 1992, Channel 4 Television in London broadcast a documentary, “AZT:

Cause for Concern.” Produced by Meditel, the film described the material from the FOIA documents, exposed the crooked AZT trials as rank fraud, and chronicled the terrible toxicities of the drug. The next day, the charity, Wellcome Foundation, divested itself of most of its stock in Wellcome Pharmaceuticals, the parent company of Burroughs Wellcome, the manufacturer of AZT. Burroughs Wellcome stocks plunged, and the company suffered a series of hostile takeovers by SmithKline Beecham and then by Glaxo. Millions around the world viewed the UK documentary, but neither it nor any of the Medical AIDS-critical documentaries have ever been broadcast in the US.102

AZT is the most toxic drug ever approved for long-term use. Molecular biologist Professor Peter Duesberg has explained AZT’s mechanism of action: It is a random terminator of DNA synthesis, the life process itself. Dr. Joseph Sonnabend stated simply: “AZT is incompatible with life.”103

On January 27, 1988, NBC News broke the censorship blockade to broadcast the first of reporter Perry Peltz’s three-part exposé on the AZT Fischl trial.104,105 Peltz reported additional evidence of widespread tampering with the rules and the pervasive cheating, which she discovered had started on day one. Peltz learned that Fauci’s claim that the study was double-blind was a wholesale canard and reported that most volunteers knew who was on the drug and who wasn’t. Since everyone was desperate for the “miracle drug,” the volunteers on AZT admitted to sharing their drug with placebo group members. This practice assured that researchers would get no clean results from either cohort. Furthermore, Peltz learned both placebo and study subjects were taking other drug regimens they obtained by purchasing remedies from buyers’ clubs. Peltz was practicing understatement when she branded NIAID’s AZT experiments as “seriously flawed.”

Dr. Fauci loves the media spotlight, but only when the pitcher is throwing softballs. Peltz closed her report with a pointed comment: “When

preparing this report, we repeatedly tried to interview Dr. Anthony Fauci at the National Institutes of Health. But both Dr. Fauci and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Frank Young declined our request for interviews.”106 When Lauritsen saw the NBC broadcast, he commented, “Welcome to the club, Perri!” Fauci also refused to speak to the BBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Radio, Channel 4 Television (London), Italian television, The New Scientist, and Jack Anderson. All these outlets had expressed skepticism about the Fischl report.107

Of course, Dr. Fauci remained a constant presence on the more obeisant media outlets. Despite years of ineptitude and catastrophe, he has managed to survive by cultivating credulous journalists who do not ask critical questions and give him free rein to broadcast self-serving propaganda. Furthermore, he had already become a master at persuading media outlets against giving platforms to his critics, a technique that served him well in 2020 and 2021.