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

by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

a safety section Tramont later admitted having ghostwritten. Tramont had begun with a straightforward revision of the safety review committee’s conclusion, altering it from “unfavorable” to “favorable.” Tramont’s purged draft boldly concluded, “Single-dose Nevirapine is a safe and effective drug for preventing mother-to-infant transmission of HIV. This has been proven by multiple studies, including the HIVNET 012 study conducted in Uganda.” Tramont began massaging data sets to conform the rest of the report to this adjusted outcome. Tramont dismissed concerns raised by Luzar about pediatric liver problems and forged in his own bleached conclusions that the drug was safe. In Dr. Fishbein’s words, Tramont simply “rewrote the safety section, minimizing concerns about the toxicities, deaths, and record-keeping problems that had been highlighted by his medical safety expert.” Tramont’s editing skills produced a document that laid the foundation, in December 2002, for FDA’s approval of the lethal concoction for global use on pregnant women.

Boehringer Ingleheim never resubmitted its application to the FDA for preventing maternal-to-child transmission of HIV. Nevertheless, WHO—which, as we shall soon see, was by then under the control of Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci—began shipping this lethal concoction to developing nations globally to use on their pregnant women.35 “It’s a mystery why Nevirapine was ever developed, launched or marketed to the developing world the way it was,” says journalist Celia Farber, “since it was rejected by every Western drug safety agency—every single time. Why was it then re-purposed and shipped to non-Westerners? The double standard is quite stark. We need to start calling it what it is.” Says Dr. Fishbein: “The tragic irony here is that the Kampala Nevirapine research was performed to a level of standards that would be insufficient for supporting the drug’s approval for use in the United States, but Fauci fervently defended the study as adequate to justify giving nevirapine to Black Africans. Frankly, it strikes me as racist.” Reverend Jesse Jackson echoed Fishbein’s sentiment: “This was not a thoughtful and reasonable decision, but a crime against humanity. Research standards and drug quality that are unacceptable in the US and other Western countries must never be pushed onto Africa.”

by the late 1990s, Black Americans were increasingly suspicious of medical authorities. President Clinton’s belated 1996 official apology37 to the victims of the Tuskegee syphilis experiments (1935–1973) had reminded Blacks of other historic atrocities, including the barbaric gynecological experiments on Black women by Dr. J. Marion Simms (“Father of Modern Gynecology”).38 In 1992, a Los Angeles Times exposé revealed that the CDC had been conducting unlicensed experiments with a deadly flu vaccine on Black children in Haiti and Cameroon, and on 1,500 Black children in South Central Los Angeles beginning in 1986.39 Blacks were therefore understandably reluctant to sign up for clinical trials. Despite vigorous efforts by pharmaceutical companies and regulators to recruit Blacks, fewer than 4 percent of clinical trial enrollees in America were Black.40 Nevertheless, Dr. Fauci seemed to have a genius for finding Blacks, both American and African, to participate in his HIV chemotherapy drug experiments.

Experiments on black Americans making them wary

On July 29, doctors delivered her baby, Sterling, by C-section three days before Joyce died. When the shattered family gathered around her body, Dr. Thorpe and his team told them, to their bewilderment, that Joyce had died of rapidly progressed AIDS. They were lying. The year after her passing, Associated Press reporter John Solomon gave Joyce’s family a trove of DAIDS reports he had obtained from a Freedom of Information Act request.43 In those internal memos, DAIDS officials openly acknowledged to one another that Nevirapine caused Joyce Hafford’s liver to fail.

Dr. Fishbein explained further about the Proleukin trial: “It was a serious violation of protocols and the researchers were ignoring their legal duty to report the signal. They omitted and whitewashed all these safety problems. You can’t just focus on efficacy and ignore safety.” Dr. Fishbein told AP reporter John Solomon, “The ones that were in the study, and those that wanted to get in the study, neither were being informed. NIAID feared that if they understood the risks, they would drop out.” Dr. Fishbein had entered a dangerous realm at NIAID. He was interfering with ongoing drug approvals. Tramont was angry that Dr. Fishbein was allowing concerns about patient safety to become an obstacle to the agency’s central mission of getting new drugs through the approval process with positive reviews. Tramont warned Dr. Fishbein to slow down. “You are moving too fast. You need to get to know how this place works,” Tramont told him. “We need to act more like a pharmaceutical company; we need to get patients, and get studies done.”

Dr. Fishbein stumbled on another awkward fact: Anthony Fauci personally owned patents to IL-2 and stood to make millions in royalties if the treatment won FDA approval. Dr. Fishbein was shocked: “Dr. Fauci had a personal financial interest in the drug being tested! He was listed as a co-owner on the patent for Proleukin, and stood to earn royalties from it!”

Contemporaneous records obtained by the AP found that some fifty-one NIH scientists were then involved in testing products for which they secretly receive royalties; Dr. Fauci and his trusty longtime sidekick, Dr. H. Clifford Lane, “have received tens of thousands of dollars in royalties for an experimental AIDS treatment they invented [interleukin-2]. At the same time, their office has spent millions in tax dollars to test the treatment on patients across the globe.”

Dr. Fishbein’s questioning about Dr. Fauci’s patents tripped NIH into DEFCON 1. “All sorts of alarms went off,” recalls Dr. Fishbein. “I came into government very naive. At the very least, I assumed that since Dr. Fauci wanted me to make sure studies were properly done, safety came first and that the participants were protected,” he laughed. “I was wrong.” He recounts that he had met Dr. Fauci only once—at the interview when Dr. Fauci hired him as NIAID’s chief ethical and regulatory compliance officer. Dr. Fishbein recalls Dr. Fauci’s earnestness: “This is an important job. If you come across any problems in the agency, I want to hear about them personally. I want you to come directly to me.”54 Dr. Fauci told Dr. Fishbein that his “door would always be open.” But when Dr. Fishbein asked to meet with him about the IL-2 trials, Dr. Fauci went dark, and Dr. Fishbein felt the institution turning against him. “His guardians said he’d get back to me,” recalls Fishbein. “He didn’t.” He adds, “He basically ran away.”

Fauci two faced on safety with Fishbein

The Institute of Medicine, a branch of the National Academies of Sciences, is ostensibly Congress’s independent and trustworthy advisor on scientific issues. IOM regularly assembles panels of top scientists to oversee and review agency science. The presumption is that while regulated industries easily capture and compromise federal agencies, the Institute of Medicine is incorruptible. IOM members do not work for either industry or the government. Congress expects to get the straight poop from IOM. However, by that time, Dr. Fauci had already figured out how to control the IOM with invisible strings. The Capitol Hill lawmakers never realized that Dr. Fauci’s PIs dominated the IOM panel that assembled to investigate his wrongdoing. Six of its nine members were NIAID grant recipients then conducting their own trials for Dr. Fauci, with annual grants ranging from $120,000 to $2 million. The IOM’s study on Dr. Fishbein’s charges was predictably, therefore, yet another whitewash. The IOM panel strategically adopted an extremely narrow scope of investigation that did not include NIAID’s outrageous misconduct in Uganda or Tennessee. On April 7, 2004, the IOM panel reported its finding that the HIVNET 012 data should be considered valid.

Frustrated and angry at Dr. Fauci’s insubordination, Grassley and Baucus fired off a letter dated June 30 to NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni, demanding an explanation for Dr. Fishbein’s firing and accusing NIAID of retaliating against Dr. Fishbein to silence his corruption charges against NIAID.56 The letter noted that retaliation against an employee for reporting misconduct is “unacceptable, illegal, and violates the Whistleblower Protection Act.”

Dr. Fishbein told me that despite his nominal victory, Dr. Fauci continued to punish him from afar with reverberations reaching far beyond NIAID. “I couldn’t get a job in public health for five years,” Dr. Fishbein says of Dr. Fauci’s vendetta. “Everyone in science is terrified of crossing him. He’s like a mafia kingpin. He controls everything and everyone in public health.” Dr. Fishbein added, “He spreads so much money around and everyone knows he is vindictive. I had one friend tell me, ‘I can’t risk hiring you because I can’t afford to anger Fauci.’” Says Dr. Fishbein, “This was my first exposure to the cancel culture.”

Fauci the vindictive mafia kingpin

My experience at the Division of AIDS really opened my eyes about how the system really operated. The federal budget is a big trough to feed special interest groups. But if you become wise to it, open your mouth, and get on the wrong side of someone really powerful, they are out for blood. The government lawyers up, and they have unlimited resources to burn you. Truth may not be on their side, but they can throw every obstacle in your way to getting a fair hearing of your grievance. And you can’t get justice because litigation will drain you to your last penny. The system isn’t designed to help the aggrieved party. I couldn’t coerce Fauci for a deposition. He was too busy doing interviews and accepting awards. There were never any consequences for the perpetrators. They continued merrily in their careers. I had to start all over again. If they are determined to ruin your life, they can do it.” Farber is also disenchanted. “They unleash such violence over your whole existence if you cross them. You never walk the same again. They make you feel like you are a dead person, totally devalued. They put a lot of money into these attack campaigns over my article. They went nuclear. Their crusade to discredit and destroy me had lasting impacts on my life. But you know what? I didn’t get murdered. Joyce [Hafford] did. I think of her all the time.

Farber and Fishbein on the power of the corrupt to destroy you

“None of the available evidence for Nevirapine comes from a trial in which it was tested against a placebo. Yet, as the study’s senior author has said, a placebo is the only way a scientist can assess a drug’s effectiveness with scientific certainty.”58 Dr. Turner observed that the transmission rate that HIVNET 012 reported for HIV—13.1 percent—was above the background transmission rate. “The HIVNET 012 outcome is higher than the 12 percent transmission rate reported in a prospective study of 561 African women given no antiretroviral treatment. This, in effect, is the placebo group.” If anything, then, Dr. Fauci’s pet drug has aggravated rather than prevented transmission in all those African babies he was pretending to save. Farber argues that, under Dr. Fauci’s leadership, the failure of researchers to properly control with a placebo group “is perhaps the outstanding characteristic of AIDS research in general.” The statistical gimmick of getting rid of the inert placebo control group would become a tool wielded by Dr. Fauci to gain approvals

Fauci and the bo placebo gimmick

Finally, during all of Dr. Fauci’s tenure at NIH, Dr. Zeke Emmanuel was director of the Department of Bioethics (DOB), the ethical oversight board for all of NIH. Emmanuel’s deputy was Tony Fauci’s wife, Christine Grady. In 2012, Grady took over as director of DOB. That department oversees bioethics at clinical trials for all NIH subagencies, including responsibilities for overseeing ethical issues in clinical trials commissioned by her husband, like those for Nevirapine and Proleukin.

Fauci's wife Grady is in a bioethics oversight role

“Dealing with Tony Fauci is like dealing with organized crime,” says Dr. Fishbein. “He’s like the godfather. He has connections everywhere. He’s always got people that he’s giving money to in powerful positions to make sure he gets his way—that he gets what he wants. These connections give him the ultimate power to fix everything, control every narrative, escape all consequence, and sweep all the dirt and all the bodies under the carpet and to terrorize and destroy anyone who crosses him.”

Fauci is like organized crime

only a few months before the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci made a surprise announcement: he finally had a working HIV vaccine. While the inoculation had demonstrated a bare-bones 30 percent efficacy in human trials in Thailand, data from the Phase III trial in South Africa looked promising, and NIAID was getting teed up to test the vaccine on Americans.4 Dr. Fauci added some deflating caveats: While his new vaccine didn’t prevent transmission of AIDS, the nimble technocrat jauntily predicted that intrepid souls who took the jab would find that when they did get AIDS, the symptoms would seem to be much reduced. So confident was Dr. Fauci of the media’s slavish credulity that he assumed, correctly, that he’d never need to answer the many questions raised by this feverish gibberish. That entire odd proposition received zero critical press commentary. His success at slapping lipstick on this donkey and selling it to the world as a Thoroughbred may have emboldened his ruse—a year later—of placing similar cosmetics on the COVID vaccines that, likewise, neither prevent disease nor preclude transmission.

Covid vaxx followed the same corrupt sham as the AIDS vaxx

In 1991, as part of a settlement ending years of litigation, Bob Gallo finally admitted that he had stolen the HIV virus from Montagnier. He was hardly chastened. On April 14, John Crewdson reported, in the Chicago Tribune, that one of Gallo’s experiments with an HIV vaccine had killed three AIDS patients in Paris the previous year.

Apparently, the cowpox remained infectious, and three of their nineteen Paris volunteers immediately developed “vaccinia,” a frequently fatal necrosis, which caused acute lesions and an expanse of hardened, swollen, purplish-red skin around the victims’ injection sites as the disease devoured their flesh. As is typical of AIDS vaccine research, the NIH scientists cached the atrocity. Neither Gallo nor Zagury reported the deaths. Instead, Gallo vaunted the trial as a great success in the Lancet’s July 21, 1990, edition, audaciously claiming that there had been “no deaths” and “no complications or discomfort” among any of those to whom he administered the preparation.

Both Redfield and Birx were former Army medical officers who, in the 1980s and 1990s, led the military’s AIDS research, a specialty that seems like a magnet for hucksters and quacks. US military documents12 show that in 1992 Redfield and Birx, his then-assistant—both serving at Walter Reed in Washington—published inaccurate data in the New England Journal of Medicine, claiming that an HIV vaccine they helped develop and tested on Walter Reed patients was effective.13 They both must have known the vaccine was worthless.

Redfield and Birx fake data in AIDS vaxx research

Under threat of court-martial, loss of his medical license, and possible imprisonment, Dr. Redfield confessed to angry DOD interrogators and to the tribunal that his analyses were faulty and deceptive. He agreed to correct them and to publicly admit the vaccine was worthless at an upcoming AIDS conference at which he was scheduled to speak in July 1992. Perhaps it was the grandeur of the hall, the microphone, and the audience that conspired to weaken his resolve. Instead of retracting his falsehood, he boldly repeated his fraudulent claims at this and two subsequent international HIV conferences.17 As astonished prosecutors watched, he then brazenly parroted his debunked perjuries in testimony before Congress, swearing that his vaccine cured HIV.

Despite Redfield’s well-publicized history as a charlatan and pretender, President Donald Trump put him in charge of the CDC at a time when the agency’s overarching mission was promoting COVID vaccines. Trump also elevated Birx, a lifelong protégée to both Redfield and Anthony Fauci and confidante to Bill Gates. These three vaccine mountebanks—Redfield, Birx, and Fauci—led the White House coronavirus task force and steered America’s COVID response during the first year of the pandemic. The trio—none of whom ever treated a COVID patient—adopted controversial strategies to confine the nation under house arrest, shut down the global economy, deny the public access to early treatment and lifesaving therapeutics like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, excite persistent public terror through the broadcasts of deliberately exaggerated death and case counts, and repeatedly tell the world that “the only path back to normal is a miraculous vaccine.” With minimal scientific support, they imposed draconian quarantine, mask, and social-distancing mandates, purposefully or accidentally inducing a species of mass psychosis called “Stockholm syndrome” wherein hostages become grateful to their captors convinced that the only path to survival is unquestioning obedience.

Terrible troika run COVID response

An online group called SPOGGE gained widespread popularity. The acronym stands for “Society for Preventing Gates from Getting Everything.”

SPOGGE anti Gates group

The Rockefeller Foundation’s 1910 Flexner Report41 recommended centralizing America’s medical schooling, abolishing miasma theory, and reorienting these institutions according to “germ theory”—which held that germs alone caused disease— and the pharmaceutical paradigm that emphasized targeting particular germs with specific drugs rather than fortifying the immune system through healthy living, clean water, and good nutrition. With that narrative in hand, Rockefeller financed the campaign to consolidate mainstream medicine, co-opt the burgeoning pharmaceutical industry, and shutter its competition. Rockefeller’s crusade caused the closure of more than half of American medical schools; fostered public and press scorn for homeopathy, osteopathy, chiropractic, nutritional, holistic, functional, integrative, and natural medicines; and led to the incarceration of many practicing physicians.

Rockefeller corrupts medicine

Miasma vs. Germ Theory

“The idea that certain microbes—above all fungi, bacteria, and viruses—are our great opponents in battle, causing certain diseases that must be fought with special chemical bombs, has buried itself deep into the collective conscience.”

On his deathbed, the victorious Pasteur is said to have recanted, “Béchamp was right,” declaring, “the microbe is nothing. The terrain is everything.”44 Miasma theory survives in marginalized, yet vibrant, pockets among integrative and functional medicine practitioners. And burgeoning science documenting the critical role of the microbiome in human health and immunity tends to vindicate Béchamp, and particularly his teachings that microorganisms are beneficial to good health.

Miasma regains ground as microbiome import

On July 4, 2021, he commented to NBC’s Chuck Todd, “You know, as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, it was my responsibility to make sure that we did the science that got us to the vaccines that as we know now have already saved millions and millions of lives.”46 Most Americans accept this claim as dogma. It will therefore come as a surprise to learn that it is simply untrue. Science actually gives the honor of having vanquished infectious disease mortalities to nutrition and sanitation. A comprehensive study of this foundational assertion published in 2000 in the high-gravitas journal Pediatrics by CDC and Johns Hopkins scientists concluded, after reviewing a century of medical data, that “vaccination does not account for the impressive decline in mortality from infectious diseases . . . in the 20th century.”47 As noted earlier, another widely cited study, McKinlay and McKinlay—required reading in virtually every American medical school during the 1970s—found that all medical interventions including vaccines, surgeries, and antibiotics accounted for less than about 1 percent—and no more than 3.5 percent—of the dramatic mortality declines. The McKinlays presciently warned that profiteers among the medical establishment would seek to claim credit for the mortality declines for vaccines in order to justify government mandates for those pharmaceutical products.48

Fauci falsely claims vaxx. Instead nutrition and sanitation, not medical treatments, are the cause of dramatically improved mortality

Seven years earlier, the world’s foremost virologist, Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Edward H. Kass, a founding member and first president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and founding editor of the Journal of Infectious Diseases, rebuked his virology colleagues for trying to take credit for that dramatic decline, scolding them for allowing the proliferation of “half-truths . . . that medical research had stamped out the great killers of the past—tuberculosis, diphtheria, pneumonia, puerperal sepsis, etc.—and that medical research and our superior system of medical care were major factors extending life expectancy.”49 Kass recognized that the real heroes of public health were not the medical profession, but rather the engineers who brought us sewage treatment plants, railroads, roads, and highways for transporting food, electric refrigerators, and chlorinated water.

Real heroes of public health are engineers

in a zero-sum game that pits nutrition and sanitation against vaccines in a life-and-death conflict for resources and legitimacy. The historic clash between these warring philosophies offers a useful framework for understanding Bill Gates’s and Anthony Fauci’s approach to public health. In order to assess the effectiveness of their mass-vaccination projects, we would need a disciplined accounting that compares health outcomes in vaccinated populations to similarly situated unvaccinated cohorts. This is the kind of accounting that neither of these men has been willing to provide. The facts suggest that it is the absence of such reliable metrics and science-based analysis that allows Gates and Fauci to get away with their dubious claims about the efficacy and safety of their prescriptions. Any even-handed examination of the role of immunizations in Africa must acknowledge that mass-vaccination programs may serve a larger agenda in which the priorities of power, wealth, and control can eclipse quaint preoccupations with public health. And, once again, it was the Rockefeller Foundation that pioneered germ theory as a foreign policy tool.

Fauci and Gates will not stand up to placebo group studies

By the time John D. Rockefeller disbanded the Rockefeller Foundation’s International Health Division in 1951, it had spent the equivalent of billions of dollars on tropical disease campaigns in almost 100 countries and colonies. But these projects were window dressing for the Foundation’s more venal preoccupations, according to a 2017 report, U.S. Philanthrocapitalism and the Global Health Agenda.62 That idée fixe was opening developing world markets for US oil, mining, pharmaceutical, telecom, and banking multinationals in which the Foundation and the Rockefeller family were also invested. That white paper made the same complaints against the Rockefeller Foundation that contemporary critics level against the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: But the RF rarely addressed the most important causes of death, notably infantile diarrhea and tuberculosis, for which technical fixes were not then available and which demanded long-term, socially oriented investments, such as improved housing, clean water, and sanitation systems. The RF avoided disease campaigns that might be costly, complex, or time-consuming (other than yellow fever, which imperiled [the military, and] commerce). Most campaigns were narrowly construed so that quantifiable targets (insecticide spraying or medication distribution, for example) could be set, met, and counted as successes, then presented in business-style quarterly reports. In the process, RF public health efforts stimulated economic productivity, expa...

Gates Foundation models after Rockefeller in quest to expand US pharma and other industries

Gates has dubbed his foundation’s operational philosophy “philanthrocapitalism.” Here is a stripped-down explanation of how philanthrocapitalism functions: Bill and Melinda Gates donated $36 billion of Microsoft stock to the BMGF between 1994 and 2020.64 Very early on, Gates created a separate entity, Bill Gates Investments (BGI), which manages his personal wealth and his foundation’s corpus. Renamed BMGI in January 2015 to include Melinda,65 the company predominantly invests that loot in multinational food, agriculture, pharmaceutical, energy, telecom, and tech companies with global operations. Federal tax laws require the BMGF to give away 7 percent of its foundation assets annually to qualify for tax exemption. Gates strategically targets BMGF’s charitable gifts to give him control of the international health and agricultural agencies and the media, allowing him to dictate global health and food policies so as to increase profitability of the large multinationals in which he and his foundation hold large investment positions. Following such tactics, the Gates Foundation has given away some $54.8 billion since 1994, but instead of depleting his wealth, those strategic gifts have magnified it.66 Strategic philanthropizing increased the Gates Foundation’s capital corpus to $49.8 billion by 2019. Moreover, Gates’s personal net worth grew from $63 billion in 2000 to $133.6 billion today.67 Gates’s wealth expanded by $23 billion just during the 2020 lockdowns that he and Dr. ...

How Gates philanthropy controls and enriches

Dr. Fauci had, by then, persuaded a succession of US presidents to burnish their humanitarian bona fides by redirecting US foreign aid away from the causes of nutrition, sanitation, and economic development and toward solving Africa’s HIV crisis with vaccines and drugs.

Largely due to Tony Fauci’s influence, Clinton would squander billions of taxpayer dollars on this fruitless crusade during his presidency and millions more of corporate and philanthropic contributions through the Clinton Foundation during his twilight years.

George W. Bush similarly relied on Dr. Fauci’s counsel, diverting $18 billion of the US government’s relatively anemic foreign aid contributions to Dr. Fauci’s pet global AIDS projects between 2004 and 2008 alone.

There is little objective evidence that all the treasure has extended or improved the lives of Africans, but every penny accrued to Fauci’s reputation as Africa’s foreign aid Golconda. When it came to public health policy in Africa, Dr. Fauci owned the keys to the kingdom. Gates needed Dr. Fauci to unlock the door.

Citing Ralph Waldo Emerson’s observation that charity can be a “wicked dollar,” sociology Professor Linsey McGoey explains that philanthropy can have evil effect when it “places its beneficiaries under a boot rather than recognizing their equal right to foster their own independence, to realize their individuality.”78 Professor McGoey is the author of the 2015 book No Such Thing as a Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and the Profits of Philanthropy.

Goodread on Gates philanthropy

Bill Gates and Dr. Fauci offered biosecurity as the underlying rationale for their medical neocolonialism project. Paraphrasing the military’s Cold War dogma, Gates and Dr. Fauci warned that if we didn’t stop the germs in Africa, we’d end up fighting them in New York and Los Angeles. They echoed, also, the hackneyed crusaders’ narrative that they were rescuing the continent from famine, pestilence, and ignorance with superior know-how and breakthrough technologies.

They complained about pharmaceutical companies automatically lowering safety standards for clinical trials when they stepped onto the African continent. “Why us?” a prominent African journalist asked Specter. “It seems it’s always us. For how many years does Uganda have to be the test case?”81 “I am very worried about these trials,” said Peter Lurie, the deputy director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group.

aren’t careful, we could be in for the greatest injustice in the history of

Buried near the end of the New York Times article were some key facts. It turned out that the vaccine was not only ineffective, but researchers reported alarming safety signals that caused a safety monitoring committee to halt the study. Furthermore, instead of preventing infection, the Merck/NIAID researchers reported data suggesting the vaccine actually raised the risk of contracting HIV!86

Similar Results as the COVID-19 jabs

On February 3, 2020, Julie Steenhuysen of Reuters reported that NIAID had suddenly halted its clinical trial of its most promising HIV vaccine to date. NIAID was in the middle of Phase 3 trials on more than 5,000 South Africans when they realized that once again, the vaccine was raising the risk of AIDS in vaccinated individuals. Dr. Fauci issued another of his cheerful prognostications: “Research continues on other approaches to a safe and effective HIV vaccine, which I still believe can be achieved.”

Again AIDS vaxx raising the risk of contracting it

In 2020, many of the Gates/Fauci HIV vaccine trials in Africa suddenly became COVID-19 vaccine trials, as the unprecedented tsunami of new COVID-19 plunder began flowing through Dr. Fauci to the same disciplined legions of the virology caste.

Begins several pages if pivoting AIDS infrastructure to COVID

including justifying the jab for children and pregnant women. (In any rational universe, giving these untested low-efficacy shots to children and pregnant women would constitute both medical malpractice and child abuse given the low risk for COVID and higher risk from the vaccine among these cohorts.)

Jabs for pregnant women and children = malpractice

From their ranks, Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates tapped the charlatans and biostitutes who conducted the fraudulent studies that torpedoed hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and won approval for their pet blockbuster drug, remdesivir.

The saga of Fauci virologist Kristian Andersen, a PI who built his career on serial NIAID grants, offers a stark example of Fauci’s system of payoffs. Andersen was the first grantee to alert Tony Fauci, in a 10:32 p.m. email on January 31, 2020, to the strong evidence that COVID-19 was lab-generated and that the experiment that created it may bear NIAID’s fingerprints.100,101 After midnight, Dr. Fauci warned his chief aide to keep his phone on and stand ready for some important work: To arrange a secretive emergency meeting to discuss damage control with eleven of the world’s top virologists, including Andersen and five key researchers from the Wellcome Trust.102 Dr. Fauci was the only US government official on this phone call. Four days later, Andersen, who less than a hundred hours earlier was convinced the virus did not come from nature, submitted a letter—secretly edited by Fauci—signed by five prominent virologists—all NIAID and Wellcome Trust PIs—ridiculing the suggestion that the circulating coronavirus could possibly have been lab generated.103 One month later, Dr. Fauci—without disclosing his secretive involvement—cited that very letter at a White House press conference as proof that COVID-19 was naturally evolved.104,105 In the months that followed, Andersen’s employer, Scripps Research Institute, received an array of substantial grants from NIAID totaling $78 million for the calendar year.106 The NIAID, by the end of 2020, had granted the employers of four of th...

Fauci paid PIs to bury the C-19 lab leak

Every student of African history is familiar with the recurring theme of well-intentioned white men visiting calamity on Africans. My interest in Africa began as a child. I have traveled the continent for six decades and met some of its most visionary leaders, including Tom Mboya, Jomo Kenyatta, Julius Nyerere, and Nelson Mandela. These anticolonial leaders understood that poverty is a complex conspiracy of social, historical, political, institutional, and technical maladies. It is most often best addressed through small-scale, locally tailored, trial-and-error experimentation. The optimal solutions are invariably homegrown with regular local input, disciplined self-assessment, accountability, frequent course corrections, and lots of humility by administrators, officials, and above all foreigners.

How poverty programs in Africa should work -- bottoms up

Magical vaccines are Gates’s preeminent cookie-cutter solution for the ills of poverty, famine, drought, and disease. The absurdity of expensive shots as a remedy for indigence, a salve for malnutrition, or the dearth of potable water is obvious when one considers that three billion people live on less than two dollars per day. Eight hundred and forty million people don’t have enough to eat. One billion lack clean water, or access to sanitation. One billion are illiterate. About a quarter of children in poor countries do not finish primary school.122 Poverty is a target-rich environment, but the data suggest that Gates’s vaccines miss the target altogether. Sociologist Linsey McGoey quotes a young health researcher based at the University of Cape Coast, on western Ghana: “From my point of view, it’s more like [the Gates Foundation] are selling technology than solving problems. Most of their calls have to do with developing some new technology or vaccines.”

Gates arrogance around vaxx in Africa -- selling technology instead of solving problems

WHO is meant to be accountable to member governments.

McGoey observes that “Virtually every significant decision at WHO is first vetted by the Gates Foundation.”

The most powerful of these groups is GAVI, the second-largest non-state funder of the WHO. Gates created GAVI as a “public-private partnership” that facilitates bulk sales of vaccines from his pharma partners to poor countries. GAVI is the template for Gates’s impressive capacity to use his celebrity, credibility, and wealth to mesmerize key public officials and heads of state into giving Gates control over their foreign aid spending.