On 30 April 2020, Anthony Fauci, Director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases (NIAID) and Chief Medical Advisor to the President of the USA, promoted the outcomes of a remdesivir drug trial undertaken by the NIAID. In the media promotion, Fauci states remdesivir and/or a placebo were given to 1090+ individuals. He said,

During the media conference on 30 April 2020, Dr Fauci said,

“A trial that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases which is the Institute I direct sponsored called the adaptive Covirus disease treatment trial ACCT1 was started in February 21st of [2020] this year and it was a randomized placebo-controlled trial comparing the Gilead drug remdesivir with a placebo. It was highly powered with about a 1090 plus individuals so it is the first truly high powered randomized placebo-controlled trial it was an international trial involving multiple sites not only in the United States, but in various countries throughout the world including Germany, Denmark, Spain, Greece the UK etc.

The primary endpoint was the time to recovery, namely the ability to be discharged.

When you have a study like this, we have a data and safety monitoring board which looks at the data and they are independent so there's no prejudice on the part of the investigators because they're doing the trial or the drug is from a certain company. The data and safety monitoring board on Monday afternoon contacted me on April 27th first, on Friday the week before, and then again on April 27th, and notified the study team namely the multiple investigators who were doing the study throughout the world, that the data shows that remdesivir has a clear-cut significant positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery.

This is really quite important for a number of reasons, and I'll give you the data. It's highly significant. If you look at the time to recovery being shorter in the remdesivir arm, it was 11 days compared to 15 days, and that's a p-value for the scientists to a-listening of 0.001.

So that's something that although a 31% improvement doesn't seem like a knock out 100%, it is a very important proof of concept because what it is proven is that a drug can block this virus and I'll give you an example, in a moment of why we think looking forward this is very optimistic.

The mortality rate trended towards being better in the sense of less deaths in the remdesivir group.
8% vs. 11% in the placebo group.

It has not yet reached statistical significance, but the data needs to be further analysed.

The reason why we're making the announcement now is something that I believe people don't fully appreciate, whenever you have clear-cut evidence that a drug works you, have an ethical obligation to immediately let the people who are in the placebo group know so that they could have access. And all of the other trials that are taking place, now have a new standard of care.”

On 30 April 2020, at The White House with President Donald Trump, Dr Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institutes of US Allergy and Infectious Diseases [NIAID] spoke to media about the possibility of remdesivir to treat covid-19.

Dr Fauci globally promoted remdesivir and the outcome of a drug trial conducted in February to April 2020, stating remdesivir reduced hospital time.

Dr Fauci refused to present the full facts of the trial which resulted in deaths and serious adverse events. Further, at that time Dr Fauci was informed remdesivir resulted in 53.1% mortality during ebola trials and was rejected to treat ebola just a few months earlier.

Despite remdesivir being a toxic drug with death and serious adverse events, Dr Fauci promoted remdesivir, claiming it had a positive effect - claims that were rejected by the World Health Organisation in October 2020

Deals, Decisions & Kickbacks

FOX NEWS: The Ingram Angle: Is Fauci getting kickback from drug companies?

Fox reported an expose about how the pharmaceutical industry is sending hundreds of millions of dollars to NIH scientists and that includes Dr Anthony Fauci.

Anthony Fauci is the highest paid US federal government employee earning more than $456,000 in 2021.

openthebooks.com did an investigation that revealed Fauci and other NIH employees are getting paid royalties that haven't been disclosed from third parties like pharmaceutical companies

Trace Gallagher said:

• each year the US National Institutes of Health gives out billions of dollars in federal grant money to tens of thousands of recipients;

• it's surprising to learn that each year tens of millions of dollars in royalties or kickbacks flows back to the doctors and scientists at NIH for the work they have done on various experimental treatments;

• much of the royalty money comes frompharmaceutical companies and the scientists getting royalties include names like Dr Anthony Fauci and former NIH Director Francis Collins;

• the kickbacks could create potential conflicts of interest;

• watchdog groups believe the payments should be fully disclosed instead the NIH appears to be withholding the information;

• NIH defied a freedom of information request to produce the data;

• openthebook.com sued NIH and won but the NIH is slow in releasing information and is only releasing partial data that is heavily redacted making it impossible to know exactly how much each scientist is getting;

• Between 2009 and 2014 there were 2,200 royalty payments to 1700 NIH scientists totaling $134 million.

• Open the Books estimates by 2020 the total payments exceeded $350 million;

• from 2009 to 2014 Dr Fauci who makes $456,000 a year got 23 royalty payments.

Commentary

It’s not difficult to join the money dots from pharmaceutical companies to global decisions, and the makers of those decisions.

Gilead, made $5.6 billion in 2021 from remdesivir:

• Gilead is patent owner of the drug remdesivir.

• Antony Fauci was involved in the ebola drug trials in 2019.

• In August 2019 remdesivir was rejected to treat ebola.

• In December 2019 remdesivir was reported to result in 53.1% mortality.

• In January 2020 Gilead donated remdesivir for drug trials on c"ompassionate to treat covid patients.

• Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infection Diseases undertook a drug trial of remdesivir to treat covid-19.

• Gilead undertook 3 drug trials of remdesivir to treat covid;

• In April 2020 Anthony Fauci promoted remdesivir to reduce hospitalisation from 15 days to 10 day.

• In May 2020 remdesivir secured the global market to be ordained as the only drug to be used to treat covid in hospitalised patients,

despite 10 drug trials undertaken in 2020 that state remdesivir provides no benefits or antivirual effects.

WATCH: Rep. John Moolenaar (R-MI) used Open the Books findings to grill Acting Director of NIH Lawrence Tabak in a congressional appropriations hearing.

Dr. Tabak confessed that the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars in royalties have the "appearance of conflict of interest. "

BMJ Investigation

Maryanne Demasi

Patients and doctors expect drug regulators to provide an unbiased, rigorous assessment of investigational medicines before they hit the market. But do they have sufficient independence from the companies they are meant to regulate?

Over the past decades, regulatory agencies have seen large proportions of their budgets funded by the industry they are sworn to regulate.

In 1992, the US Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), allowing industry to fund the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) directly through “user fees” intended to support the cost of swiftly reviewing drug applications. With the act, the FDA moved from a fully taxpayer funded entity to one supplemented by industry money. Net PDUFA fees collected have increased 30 fold—from around $29m in 1993 to $884m in 2016.1

In Europe, industry fees funded 20% of the new EU-wide regulator, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), in 1995. By 2010 that had risen to 75%; today it is 89%.2

In 2005 in the UK, the House of Commons’ health committee evaluated the influence of the drug industry on health policy, including the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).3 The committee was concerned that industry funding could lead the agency to “lose sight of the need to protect and promote public health above all else as it seeks to win fee income from the companies.” But nearly two decades on, little has changed, and industry funding of drug regulators has become the international norm.

The BMJ asked six leading regulators, in Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, the UK, and US, a series of questions about their funding, transparency in their decision making (and of data), and the rate at which new d