New data from the National Institutes of Health has revealed that Big Pharma paid $690 million to Fauci’s agency during the pandemic.
The American people began to sense that Big Government was cozying up to Big Pharma during the pandemic. We can now clearly see how near they were.
During the pandemic, from late 2021 to 2023, the National Institutes of Health and its scientists earned $710 million in royalties, according to new data. These are the fees that private businesses, such as pharmaceuticals, pay the government scientists to license their discoveries for medical use.
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), a subagency under the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci, and 260 of its scientists received nearly all of that $690 million.
NIH is closely guarding information on this massive privatized royalty complex. To obtain information on the royalties paid between September 2009 and October 2021—a total of $325 million across 56,000 transactions—my company, OpenTheBooks.com, was compelled to file a lawsuit.
To get this fresh release, we had to file a second lawsuit, this time with Judicial Watch serving as our legal counsel.
Payments to NIH increased dramatically during the pandemic era: in those years, private sector funding flow more than doubled compared to the twelve years prior combined. It is $1.036 billion in total.
It’s unclear if these new figures even include the $400 million that Moderna and Pfizer agreed to pay in a settlement with the NIH for the Covid vaccination royalties.
Fauci, the face of our COVID response, will give the American people one final chance to obtain some transparency when he speaks before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic on Monday.
There are many things to explain.
He has been dismissing concerns about possible conflicts of interest between private royalty recipients and COVID policymakers—who steadfastly promoted vaccinations—for years.
He will now also have to explain shocking emails that one of his deputies sent out detailing internal methods for getting around the federal Freedom of Information Act.
Fauci won’t be allowed to personally courier letters to people or misspell things to avoid scrutiny—two of the FOIA-avoiding strategies that important Fauci deputy Dr. David Morens detailed.
Rather, Fauci will be the subject of cameras trained from all around the world, and he will be asked to testify about the details he provided in a sworn deposition earlier this year.
It’s an opportunity to either clear his name or strengthen the public’s impression of him and the NIH as evasive and self-serving.
Beyond this small group of scientists hiding conversations about the virus’s source, the NIH has continuously handled FOIA requests as though they were their viral assaults. Thus, it makes sense that we are plaintiffs in six active FOIA cases.
Typically, the NIH continues to withhold information that would make it easier for us to link treatments to the people who funded their inventions. For instance, they won’t disclose to us the precise amount of royalties given to each scientist. Thus, we are still unable to follow the money.
Meanwhile, the Royalty Transparency Act, sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul, should be put to a vote right away on the floor after passing committee unanimously.
Fauci has a lot of options on what to do in the interim. He might say he agrees with bills similar to Paul’s. He might demand that the CDC and NIH willingly “unmask” the royalties. Then, we may assess if their choices have improved their well-being or the welfare of the public.
Fauci might also be in favor of changes to the FOIA statute that hold deliberate violators accountable.
He ought to at least express regret for his colleagues’ complete disregard for FOIA and the transparency campaign they were engaged in, which has now come to light in private correspondence.
Providing for the general welfare and disclosing its revenue and expenditures to the public are two of the government’s most fundamental responsibilities.
As Dr. Fauci completes fifty years in the government and rises to the position of highest-paid bureaucrat, he ought to think about checking those boxes once again. For the sake of the past.
Recently, GreatGameIndia reported that during an interview with the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, Fauci admitted to fabricating COVID guidelines based on assumptions, not science.
