The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health

by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The medical literature attests to the ravaging effects of heroin, morphine, speed, cocaine, and other injected drugs on the immune system: “From as early as 1909 evidence has accumulated that addiction to psychoactive drugs leads to immune suppression (clinical autoimmunity), similar to AIDS.”67 Today, thousands of American junkies who are not infected with HIV are losing the same CD4+ T-cells and getting the same diseases as AIDS patients. STDs from promiscuous sex and blood-borne diseases like hepatitis A, B, and C added to the immune suppression among this cohort. Duesberg’s theory was by no means novel or outlandish. Dr. Fauci himself conceded in 1984 that drugs were a reasonable explanation for PCP and other signature symptoms of AIDS: “If I were to take drugs that would markedly immunosuppress me, there would be a reasonably good chance that I would get that pneumonia. That’s what happens to the AIDS individuals.”

Durack observed that, other than drug-using homosexuals, the only patients with AIDS symptoms were “junkies.”71 In Duesberg’s view, the highest risk addiction was the ubiquitous use of amyl nitrite poppers, which had well-established links with autoimmune disease.

The men were all promiscuous party enthusiasts in the “fast lane” gay lifestyle. They were taking many different recreational drugs simultaneously and combining drugs in excess of patterns among straight drug users. They frequented bars, clubs, and bathhouses. They had daily multiple anonymous sexual partners—upward of a thousand per year—and contracted most of the common sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis, gonorrhea, and hepatitis B. They were, therefore, also functionally addicted to a pharmacopoeia of antibiotic prescription medications; “all of that created a situation where a handful of gay men,” says Mark Gabrish Conlan “were burning the candle at both ends and putting a blowtorch to the middle. It’s no wonder that after a while, their immune systems started to collapse and they started getting sick in these unusual ways that previously had only been seen in older people whose immune systems had deteriorated from age.”

Chemists developed amyl nitrite as a vasodilator in the 1850s and began, in the 1960s, packaging it in glass ampules that doctors would pop open under the noses of unconscious patients to reanimate them. That same mechanism that prompted reanimation provided the relaxation of the anal musculature and a powerful rush that made poppers the reigning sex drug. Poppers became a mainstay of the gay social scene in the late 1970s. Prior to 1987, every AIDS patient acknowledged heavy consumption of poppers.74 Every porn shop, bar, and bathhouse locker room sold poppers.75 Party gays huffed them continuously in dance clubs and during extreme sex. The saloons and dance halls reeked of their pungent chemical aroma. At the end of each evening, bartenders routinely announced, “Last call for alcohol,” “Last call for Poppers.”76 Researchers believe poppers to be the direct cause of Kaposi’s sarcoma, a rare form of skin cancer that afflicts the nose, throat, lungs, and skin.77 Kaposi’s sarcoma was the initial indicator disease of AIDS, but it was also common in gay men who were not infected with HIV.

Randy Shilts, writing in his classic history of the AIDS crisis, And the Band Played On, the poppers’ starting point offers a “compelling” explanation for AIDS. “Everybody who got diseases seemed to snort poppers,” writes Shilts.87

Classic history of AIDS is And the Band Played On by Randy Shilts

Burroughs Wellcome was profiting from both causing the AIDS epidemic and then from poisoning a generation of gay men with the AZT “Cure.” Tony Fauci played traffic cop in this feedback loop. On the one hand, he was using his regulatory authority to promote AZT, and to kill its competition, effectively orchestrating Burroughs Wellcome’s monopoly control over AIDS treatment. At the same time, he was suppressing the study of the toxicity of poppers and directing the blame for AIDS on the virus, thereby shielding Burroughs Wellcome from significant liability.

Robert Gallo himself privately signaled doubts about his own theory that HIV alone can cause either Kaposi’s sarcoma or AIDS. At a high-level meeting of US health authorities in 1994—titled “Do Nitrites Act as a CoFactor in Kaposi’s Sarcoma?”—Gallo made some astonishing confessions to his trusted colleagues. HIV, he acknowledged, might only be a “catalytic factor” in Kaposi’s: “There must be something else involved.” Then he added a breathtaking concession, which could have been taken from the very research in Duesberg’s article: “I don’t know if I made this point clear, but I think that everybody here knows—we never found HIV DNA in tumor cells of KS. So this is not directly transforming. And in fact, we’ve never found HIV DNA in T cells although we’ve only looked at a few. So, in other words we’ve never seen the role of HIV as a transforming virus in any way.”

In a rational universe populated by critical thinkers, Duesberg’s suspicion that AZT causes immune collapse should never have seemed revelatory. The FDA, after all, had deemed AZT too toxic to use for even short-term cancer therapy. AZT is highly mutagenic, meaning that it destroys the genes themselves. It causes cancer in rodents. It targets the bone marrow where blood cells called lymphocytes are made. These are the very cells that an AIDS patient needs most for immunity. AZT randomly destroys bones, kidneys, livers, muscle tissue, the brain, and the central nervous system. Cancer patients typically take chemo drugs for only two weeks. Thanks to Tony Fauci’s Fischl study, doctors were now prescribing AZT for life! “Chemotherapy,” says Duesberg, “is restricted to a few months. The hope is that the cancer dies before you die.”95

AIDS is an iatrogenic (doctor-caused) pandemic, and Dr. Fauci would be its author. It wouldn’t be the first one. Historically, there are many examples of prescribed medicines causing worse injuries than their target disease. The notorious Tuskegee Experiment (1932–1973),

A scientific study in the New England Journal of Medicine article in late July 1987 headlined “The Toxicity of Azidothymidine (AZT) in the Treatment of Patients with AIDS and AIDS-Related Complex,”101 and a comprehensive investigation by The Independent of London in May 1993, “The rise and fall of AZT,”102 both supported Duesberg’s theory that AZT was a deadly killer of dubious efficacy against amorphous AIDS.

Kaposi’s sarcoma uncoupled from the disease and AIDS cases began to look increasingly like AZT poisoning. “Then at a certain point, when really that sort of AIDS virtually ceased to exist, there came a new type of AIDS,” says John Lauritsen.106 “So they expanded the definition, and also they began giving the anti-HIV drugs to people who were in fact not even sick, but merely positive on the HIV test. And in that case, of course, when they finally became sick enough from the AIDS drugs they were called ‘AIDS patients.’

In his history of the era, historian Terry Michaels wrote, “. . . the CDC, for the years between about 1986 and 1996, created the illusion that tens of thousands in America died from AIDS or HIV in that decade, rather than AZT and other ‘monotherapy’ nucleoside analog drugs.”114 According to Dr. Claus Köhnlein, MD, a German internist and coauthor of Virus Mania, “Most of the deaths attributed to AIDS, or HIV disease as eventually it would be called, from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s were the result of iatrogenic illness, resulting from prescription of high dose, toxic, DNA chain-terminating chemotherapy, specifically, azidothymidine (AZT) ending in premature death for scores of thousands of ‘HIV positive’ gay men, plus many hemophiliacs, IV drug users, Sub-Saharan Africans, and a few heterosexuals unlucky enough to have taken the specious HIV test, like the late tennis star, Arthur Ashe, who died in 1993.” Köhnlein observes, “The treatment causes a very similar condition we would expect from an AIDS patient. That’s why nobody noticed that there was something wrong with the treatment.”

his Oct. 30, 2020 exposé, “The Other Media Blackout,” Wall Street Journal columnist and editorial board member Holman W. Jenkins Jr. complained that the medical community has failed “to acknowledge complicity in poisoning hundreds of thousands of human beings. The illness and death that resulted from high AZT doses administered in the 1980s and 1990s is irrefutable.”123

Read The Other Media Blackout by Holman Jenkins

Dr. Fauci quickly moved to build financial bridges to gay leadership and quiet dissent from AIDS activists. That year, he began by funding ACT UP and amfAR and leading AIDS activists, like Kramer and Martin Delaney. NIAID funneled extravagant annual public education grants to advocacy groups. The funding effectively muted their criticisms of Dr. Fauci.

ideology and medical opinions attributing the “gay disease” to orgies and excess partying tended to feed anti-gay bigotry. The gay community, therefore, happily endorsed Dr. Fauci’s one-bug theory. There were compelling mercantile drivers, as well.

The gay press glossed over urgent medical warnings from scientists about the dangers of poppers. The Advocate, a popular US magazine for homosexuals, refused to print letters from dissident scientists like Duesberg while accepting parades of poppers advertisements from Great Lakes Products, the era’s largest manufacturer of sex drugs. Those advertisements exonerated poppers from any connection to AIDS, openly declaring them harmless.131 Pharmaceutical companies including Hoffmann-La Roche invested money in the gay community with innumerable advertisements for AIDS medications. Burroughs Wellcome ran an ad for poppers calling amyl nitrite (i.e., poppers) “the real thing.” Gay publications and organizations continued to promote poppers and censure stories about their health risks.132 His historical cultivation of relationships with gay leaders was one of the factors that made Dr. Fauci a darling of liberals during the early COVID crisis.

Gallo’s newly discovered pathogen was “partnering” with HIV, then HHV6 was the senior partner in the collaboration. I can’t help wondering if it occurred then to Gallo that if only he had not impetuously stolen Montagnier’s discovery four years earlier, he might have collected his long-sought Nobel for his own authentic discovery of a much more plausible AIDS virus. Alas, it was not to be. But Dr. Fauci had committed his agency to the HIV hypothesis. And Gallo had built his career on HIV—even if he stole it from Montagnier, says Charles Ortleb. “When Gallo began that battle with Fauci,” says Ortleb, “the agency was already fully committed to the HIV theory and could not afford any signs of retreat.” I asked, “Why would Gallo not pull rank?” Ortleb answered, “Gallo is a classic sociopath. He knows that his survival means acquiescing to Fauci.”

Knox and Carrigan found that every AIDS patient had active replication of HHV-6A in every stage of AIDS, from their diagnosis to their autopsies, with many having CD4+ cell counts over 700. With HHV-6A, there were none of the bewildering questions about how a seemingly benign retrovirus could possibly cause all that carnage. “It’s also much more destructive. . . . It kills very well, and it destroys tissue very well. It can infect the brain, the lungs, the lymphoid organs, and the bone marrow.” When New York Native interviewer Neenyah Ostrom asked Knox, “Can HHV-6A do everything that HIV can do?” Knox gave this chilling answer: “As far as immunologic damage? Oh, HHV-6A does it much more efficiently than HIV.”141 Citing data from multiple studies by diverse scientists, Knox added: “Where we have seen HHV-6A in tissue, we see dead tissue. And where you see . . . HIV alone . . . you don’t see dead tissue. You don’t see destroyed organs and scar formation, and that’s what you see when you see HHV-6A. We find replacement of the normal architecture of the lymph nodes with scar tissue. HHV-6A kills it. It kills the lymph node tissue.”

HHV-6 in the lymph nodes of 22 percent of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome patients and only 4 percent of healthy people.

Said Knox, “In laboratory testing, HHV-6A is sensitive to acyclovir. So we have a curiosity as well. I mean, that would be pretty dandy, because certainly acyclovir has less toxicity than [AZT], and if you’re talking about treating healthy people in a clinical trial, you’re looking for something that people can take orally.”150 These kinds of findings threatened to derail and discredit Anthony Fauci’s entire HIV/AIDS paradigm. What, after all, would be the implications if a mild, off-patent remedy like acyclovir could safely treat AIDS more effectively than Dr. Fauci’s expensive pharmacopoeia of deadly chemotherapy poisons? He choked off any further funding for HHV6 research, despite Knox’s potentially lifesaving discovery of the efficacy of acyclovir against AIDS.

many researchers baffled by Anthony Fauci’s unconventional claim that antibodies—heretofore the signal of a robust immune response—should, uniquely with HIV, instead be the signal for impending death.

June 1990 San Francisco AIDS conference, Luc Montagnier made his tectonic announcement that “The HIV virus is harmless and passive, a benign virus.”160, 161 He added that he had discovered that HIV only becomes dangerous in the presence of a second organism. He described a tiny, bacteria-like bug called a mycoplasma. His laboratory had demonstrated that in culture with his new mycoplasma, HIV becomes a vicious killer. Montagnier declared that he now believes that HIV is “a peaceful virus” that becomes lethal only when combined with mycoplasma infertans. As Montagnier spoke, Dr. Shyh-Ching Lo sat in the audience, basking in vindication. Dr. Lo’s important new ally, Montagnier, the Nobel laureate of AIDS, had independently discovered the same mycoplasma and concluded, like Lo, that it was the primary cause of the immune system collapse known as AIDS. The two had not shared their data. Separately, they had made the same earthshaking discovery four months apart.

Thirty-four years later, with over half a trillion dollars spent on AIDS research,172 Dr. Fauci has not budgeted one dollar to study the role of Lo’s and Montagnier’s mycoplasma or in Gallo’s, and Knox’s HHV-6 virus in the etiology of AIDS. Between 1981 and 2020, US taxpayers alone shelled out $640 billion for AIDS research173, 174 focused almost exclusively on developing drugs to address Dr. Fauci’s sketchy HIV hypothesis. Yet the growing list of medications hasn’t demonstrably extended the life of a single patient, and the cure for AIDS is still nowhere in sight.175 “The minute someone suggests that the orthodoxy might be wrong, the establishment starts to call him crazy or a quack,” Rubin continued. “One week you’re a great scientist; the next week, you’re a jerk. Science has become the new church of America and is closing off all room for creative, productive dissent.”176,177 After suggesting in print, two years earlier, that HIV might need a co-cofactor to cause AIDS, Gallo went dark. Gallo today refuses to discuss the matter. The normally loquacious and combative Gallo refused my request to talk about HHV6.

Dissent and alternate hypotheses are silenced and renounced and dissenters thrown out of the church of science like heretics

AIDS and Fear

Good summary section of the corruption for Goodreads

Kary Mullis says in his book Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, “What people call science today is probably very similar to what was called science in 1634. Galileo was told to recant his beliefs or be excommunicated. People who refuse to accept the commandments of the AIDS establishment are basically told the same thing.”

Kary Mullis book Dancing Naked in the Minefield

Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, Rebecca Culshaw writes, “The persistence of this intellectually bankrupt theory in the public mind is attributable entirely to the campaign of fear, discrimination, and terror that has been waged aggressively by a powerful group of people whose sole motivation was and is behavior control. Yes, the money and the vast interests of the pharmaceutical industry and government-funded scientists are important, but the seeds of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis are sowed with fear. If the fear were to end, the myth would end.”

Book Science Sold Out by Rebecca Culshaw

During the government/industry polio vaccine experiments of the 1950s–1960s, US vaccinologists like Hilary Koprowski and Stanley Plotkin worked with Belgian colonial authorities in the Congo to recruit millions of Black African child “volunteers” for dozens of mass-population trials with experimental vaccines that were perhaps considered to be too risky to test on white children. As late as 1989, the CDC conducted lethal experiments with a hazardous measles vaccine on Black children in Cameroon, Haiti, and South-Central Los Angeles, killing dozens of little girls before halting the program.4 CDC did not tell “volunteers” that they were participating in an experiment.

2014, another CDC whistleblower, the agency’s senior vaccine safety scientist, Dr. William Thompson, disclosed that top CDC officials had forced him and four other senior researchers to lie to the public and destroy data that showed disproportionate vaccine injuries—including a 340 percent elevated risk for autism—in Black male infants who received the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) vaccine on schedule.5 So it was only natural that Dr. Fauci and his Pharma partners employed Black and Hispanic foster children for cruel and barbaric treatments in their efforts to develop their second-generation antivirals and chimeric HIV vaccines that provided the initial stepping-stones for his career.

1980 Bayh–Dole Act8 allowed NIAID—and Dr. Fauci personally—to file patents on the hundreds of new drugs that his agency-funded PIs were incubating, and then to license those drugs to pharmaceutical companies and collect royalties on their sales. NIAID’s drug development enterprise quickly eclipsed HHS’s regulatory function. Millions of dollars began flowing in from drug royalties to NIH and to NIAID’s high-level personnel, including Dr. Fauci—further blurring the boundaries between public health and Pharma profits.

NAIAD patents allowed in an act of Congress

exposé by the Associated Press, “In all, 916 current and former NIH researchers are receiving royalty payments for drugs and other inventions they developed while working for the government.”9 That investigation concluded that scientists and administrators at the National Institutes of Health flagrantly disregard ethical and legal requirements of financial disclosure.

Royalties

“Beginning around 1990, clinical trials became the profit center for the medical community. The insurance industry and HMOs were squeezing doctors so that it became hard to make big money practicing medicine. The most ambitious doctors left patient care and gravitated toward clinical trials. Everybody involved was making money except the subjects of the human experiments. At the center of everything was NIH and NIAID. While people were not paying attention, the agency quietly became the partner of the industry.”

Clinical trials for profits

In 2004, investigative journalist Liam Scheff chronicled Dr. Fauci’s secretive experiments on hundreds of HIV-positive foster children at Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC) in New York City and numerous sister facilities in New York and six other states between 1988 and 2002.11 Those experiments were the core of Dr. Fauci’s career-defining effort to develop a second generation of profitable AIDS drugs as an encore to AZT.

Experiments on kids in foster care

BBC’s heartbreaking 2004 documentary, Guinea Pig Kids,21 chronicles the savage barbarity of Dr. Fauci’s science projects from the perspective of the affected children.

BBC documentary Guinea Pig Kids

Dr. Fauci has built his career on that attitude. Nobody even asks him a follow-up question. NIAID’s narrative, at that time, was that these children were among the doomed as they ‘had AIDS,’ so supposedly they were all going to die anyway. When people died, in large numbers, gruesome deaths, NIAID’s medical researchers called it ‘lessons learned.’”

John Solomon’s AP investigation finally brought Dr. Fauci’s experiments to national prominence. AP identified at least forty-eight AIDS experiments NIAID conducted on foster children in seven states—mostly in violation of the federal requirement that NIAID provide those children an advocate. In addition to the Dapsone trial that killed at least ten children, NIAID sponsored another study testing a combination of adult antiretroviral drugs. AP reported that of the fifty-two children in the trial, there were twenty-six moderate to severe reactions—nearly all in infants. The side effects included rash, fever, and dangerous drops in infection-fighting white blood cells.32

Medical records that NIAID ultimately and reluctantly released proved that Dr. Fauci’s PIs were testing his dangerous vaccines on children from one month to eighteen years old. AP writer John Solomon confirmed that despite contrary requirements in official NIAID protocols, NIAID was knowingly allowing its Pharma partners to violate NIAID’s written study protocols by conducting these experiments on children with and without proof of HIV infection.33

Between 1985 and 2005, NIAID and its Pharma partners conscripted at least 532 infants and children from foster care in New York City as human subjects of clinical trials testing NIAID’s experimental AIDS drugs and vaccines.45 ICC and the medical research centers that conducted the trials received substantial payments for hosting the experiments, from both the National Institutes of Health and the manufacturers of the drugs. Among those companies were Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Micro-Genesys, Biocine, Glaxo, Wellcome, and Pfizer.46 The subsequent independent investigations—by the Associated Press,47 by the federal Office of Human Research Protections,48 and by the Vera Institute of Justice49—confirmed that most children did not have the protection of an independent advocate to give or refuse consent to experimental interventions, and that they were almost all children of color: predominantly African American (64 percent) and Latino (30 percent), suggesting discriminatory policies consistent with HHS’s long history of medical racism.

During the decades since Dr. Fauci took over NIAID, he has sanctioned drug companies to experiment on at least fourteen thousand children, many of them Black and Hispanic orphans living in foster homes. He permitted these companies to operate without oversight or accountability. Under Dr. Fauci’s laissez faire rubric, these companies systematically abused and, occasionally, killed children.54, 55 Dr. Fauci presided over these atrocities, collaborating with pharmaceutical company researchers and winking at their loose definitions of “informed consent” and “volunteer.” Instead of looking out for the best interests of children, Dr. Fauci gave outlaw drug makers56 free rein to torture vulnerable children behind closed doors, with neither parental permission nor requisite oversight from child welfare authorities.

14,000 children experimented on by Fauci

Dr. Fauci approved a $424,000 NIAID grant in 2020 for experiments in which dogs were bitten to death by flies.58 The insects carried a disease-carrying parasite that can affect humans. The researchers strapped capsules containing infected flies to the bare skin of twenty-eight healthy beagle puppies and kept them in agonizing suffering for 196 days before euthanizing them. NIAID acknowledged it subjected other animals, including mice, Mongolian gerbils, and rhesus monkeys to similar experiments.

Dr. Fauci’s agency gave $400,000 to University of Pittsburgh scientists to graft the scalps of aborted fetuses onto living mice and rats.59, 60 NIAID sought to develop rat and mouse “models” using “full-thickness fetal skin” to “provide a platform for studying human skin infections.” Dr. Fauci’s sidekick and putative boss, Francis Collins—who casts himself as a pious Catholic—kicked in a $1.1 million sweetener from NIH for this malignant project.

Eisenhower made an equally urgent—although less celebrated—warning against the emergence of a federal bureaucracy, which, he believed, posed an equally dire threat to America’s Constitution and her values: In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. . . . [We] must . . . be alert to the danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

Eisenhower prediction has been realized

Ugandan dictator Yoweri Museveni rolled out the red carpet for Pharma. Uganda became one of many African nations seeking to cash in on the lucrative business of farming out their citizens for the booming clinical trial business. In 1997, Uganda granted Dr. Fauci’s Johns Hopkins–based PI, Brooks Jackson, permission to run clinical trials on Nevirapine in Kampala.

Pharma researchers commonly employ the highly unethical gimmick of eliminating the placebo control group in order to mask injuries in the study group. The absence of an inert placebo comparator group allows PhD grifters to dismiss all injuries and deaths in the study group as sad coincidences not associated with the drug they are testing.

Unethical elimination of the placebo group is a trick of pharma

the Westat audit confirmed the long inventory of severe violations of Good Clinical Practice, including—most disturbingly—the convenient “loss of critical records.”15 The missing records included a vital logbook that appeared to have documented the study’s worst atrocities before its mysterious disappearance. NIAID’s Uganda team told the Westat researchers that they had lost the critical log that, among other things, recorded all the adverse events and deaths. The remaining records didn’t report which mothers received which drugs or even whether they survived the study. The auditors reported a scene of pure chaos. “Drugs were given to the wrong babies, documents were altered, and there was infrequent follow-up, even though one third of the mothers were marked ‘abnormal’ in their charts at discharge. The infants who did receive follow-up care were, in many cases, small and alarmingly underweight. ‘It was thought to be likely that some, perhaps many, of these infants had serious health problems.’”

Injuries that researchers would score as “serious” or “deadly” if they happened to white Americans became “minor” injuries when Black Africans were the victims. Under their relaxed rubric, clinical trials staff scored “life-threatening” injuries as “not serious.” When they reported them at all, NIAID classified mortalities among its African volunteers as “serious adverse events,” rather than “death.” NIAID’s Ugandan team had entirely neglected to report thousands of adverse events and at least fourteen deaths.

Nevirapine would have been D.O.A. in FDA’s licensing process. But Nevirapine

“Tony Fauci knew that Nevirapine had fundamental safety and efficacy deficits that went way beyond recordkeeping,” says Farber. Those problems were existential: the drug didn’t work, and it killed both mothers and children. According to Farber, “Two inspections had now declared HIVNET 012 to be a complete mess: Boehringer’s own and Westat’s, which had been performed in conjunction with NIAID.

“Their on-the-ground solution to the Nevirapine toxicity problem in Africa was to simply not monitor for safety,” says Farber. Dr. Smith realized the monumental implications of her findings, which jeopardized the mission-critical project to license Nevirapine to prevent maternal to child transmission of HIV. Dr. Smith therefore trod delicately. She concluded her report by stating “safety reporting did not follow DAIDS reporting requirements during the conduct of HIVNET 012. Safety conclusions from this trial should be very conservative.”

“Dr. Fauci said he was going to save African pregnant women and their babies. It turns out that this is an extremely dangerous drug with no demonstrated ability to save a single life. This isn’t rocket science. Dr. Fauci knew all about the ‘safety problems,’ but for Fauci and his cult of HIV drug worship, no drug is ever ‘unsafe.’” Farber researched the episode extensively for her 2006 article in Harper’s Magazine, “Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science.”

On January 29, 2003, the new president took the podium at his State of the Union speech and announced Dr. Fauci’s new program to the world, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR): On the continent of Africa, nearly 30 million people have the AIDS virus. . . . Yet across that continent, only 50,000 AIDS victims—only 50,000—are receiving the medicine they need. . . . I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean.32 His power to deliver a $15 billion health program and to summon unprecedented accolades from a sitting president gave Dr. Fauci unchallengeable power over the entire US health bureaucracy unmatched in American history. He now enjoyed consolidated power over HHS and all its subsidiaries. “After Bush’s State of the Union, all of HHS fell in line behind Dr. Fauci’s project to rewrite history,” recalls Farber. “The political stakes were very high.” To save the reputation of his boss and employer, and by extension everyone else implicated in this scandal, Ed Tramont rose to the task.