As of July 4, we're $6,500 in the red for the quarter. Donate here to support this vital work.
Subscribe here to our free email list

Suppressed COVID Treatments

10,000 Patients, 0 Deaths Among Those Treated Early

"'When we start treatment before Day Seven, not a single patient of ours has died. Not a single one,” says Tyson. The overall mortality rate for Imperial County is 3.4 percent. At his urgent care clinics where early treatment is the rule, the rate is .07 percent [1/50th that of the county]."
  ~~  From article on Dr. Brian Tyson whose team has treated nearly 10,000 COVID patients

Dear friends,

Three eye-opening essays below reveal the intense levels of deception and suppression around COVID-19 and early treatments. The stories related leave no doubt that government and media have colluded to suppress inexpensive, effective treatments in order to pad the fat pockets of big Pharma with their expensive and highly profitable treatments.

The tragic result: Hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths worldwide. Who will take responsibility for the unconscionable loss of so many?

If you don't have time to read all of these articles, the parts highlighted in bold tell the story in a concise way. Please help to spread the word and open others to the sad, deeper reality here. Together we can make a difference.

With best wishes for a transformed world,
Fred Burks for PEERS and WantToKnow.info
Former White House interpreter and whistleblower

Note: These articles have been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.


10,000 Covid Patients, Almost Zero Deaths: The ‘Miracle’ of Imperial Valley
By Kevin Nelson
March 8, 2022

suppressed treatments

Two Doctors Face Off Against a Hostile Medical Establishment. Their Offense? Treating Covid Patients Early and Having Success.

The Imperial Valley is a place most Californians are only vaguely aware of. Many residents of the big coastal cities might be hard pressed to even find it on a map. It is a farming region tucked into the southeastern corner of the state, smack dab on the border with Mexico.

And in the early months of 2020, it turned into a Covid-19 hot zone. More cases, more hospitalizations, more deaths—adjusted for population—than any other county in California.

Enter two physicians, Dr. Brian Tyson and Dr. George Fareed, whose extraordinary success in treating Covid-19 patients in the early stages of their illness has generated national and international attention—but also censorship, medical establishment scorn, and attacks on their reputation and license to practice medicine.

“I’ve practiced ER and ICU medicine for many years,” says Tyson, an urgent care physician who heads up three urgent care clinics in El Centro and two other cities in Imperial Valley. “And never in my life did I expect to encounter such hostility. Never.”

Twitter has banned him. YouTube has taken down videos posted by him and his colleague Fareed, a 77-year-old family medicine specialist and graduate of Harvard Medical School who has also taught at that university. When Tyson spoke on the steps of the Supreme Court in the fall of 2021 with a group of other physicians advocating for early Covid treatment, the video generated 200,000 views on Facebook. Facebook deleted it off its site.

“For them to disregard the data and say that we’re the ones spreading misinformation, it’s mind-blowing,” he says. “They’ve shadow-banned me on Facebook. Anything I post there, nobody sees. They’ve hindered my business, simply because we’ve saved people’s lives.”

Tyson’s and Fareed’s new book, Overcoming the Covid Darkness: How Two Doctors Successfully Treated 7,000 Patients, is their latest effort to maneuver around the censors and the indifference of the general media and continue to tell their amazing story. Current events have already made the book’s subtitle out of date; in an interview with California Weekly in late February, Tyson estimated that the number of Covid-positive patients they’ve seen at his clinics now approaches 10,000.

10,000 Covid patients with only seven deaths. That is their clinical track record.

And of the seven who died under their care, all were very ill when they arrived at the clinics, and all of them only began to be treated in the second week after they contracted the virus.

“When we start treatment before Day Seven, not a single patient of ours has died. Not a single one,” says Tyson. “Of those we lost, they all presented after Day Seven. It just shows how important it is to treat people early.”

One of their Covid success stories was 106 years old. Another was a woman two months pregnant. Over the past two years a river of humanity—nursing home residents and their caregivers, migrant farmworkers, meat packing plant workers, prison guards, Border Patrol agents, teachers, doctors, nurses, sheriffs, hundreds of members of a local Baptist church—has poured into the clinic and outside in the parking lot where they set up tents to handle the overflow. All needed help, and all got it.

This is why some have dubbed Tyson’s and Fareed’s work “the miracle of Imperial Valley,” although both men would concede it’s not a miracle at all. It’s a practical affirmation of an almost banal medical truism: catching a disease or illness early is the best way to fight it. In the beginning of Covid they administered an early treatment protocol of hydroxychloroquine, zinc and antibiotics, the so-called “HCQ cocktail.” Since then they have added Ivermectin to the mix and fine-tuned other elements based on what they have learned from their patients and the reports and experiences from other front-line physicians around the world.

“We would not accept there was no early outpatient treatment available,” says Tyson. “When people got sick they went to the hospital. Then they were told to go home and wait without being offered treatment. Then when they can’t breathe anymore and they’re in crisis, they’d come back to the hospital in a panic. To me it’s absolutely criminal.”

He adds, not mincing his words:

“This has been the biggest public health failure in the history of medicine. The decisions are not being made in the best interests of health, but in the best interests of power and money.”

The overall mortality rate for Imperial County is 3.4 percent, he says. At his urgent care clinics where early treatment is the rule, the rate is .07 percent [1/50th that of the county].

Some claim that the stark difference in the success rate is owing to the fact that they see healthier patients—a criticism Tyson dismisses. “The argument that we’re not taking care of the sickest patients like the hospital does, it’s just not true. Same population, same demographics. We have no exclusion criteria whatsoever.”

From the height of the pandemic when they were seeing 300 patients a day, the clinics have seen a recent drop-off in Covid cases. “Omicron burnt through the valley like a wildfire out here,” he reports. Although the crisis may be backing off somewhat, for the moment, Tyson himself is not. Last month he announced his candidacy for the 25th District of the U.S. Congress to represent the Imperial Valley region in Washington.

Tyson and his wife Fabiola, a nurse-practitioner, have seven children—two from his previous marriage, two from hers, and three they adopted together. One night while the two of them were watching TV, she gave him a piece of advice that he took to heart. “Stop yelling at the TV because they can’t hear you,” she told him. “Do something about it or shut up.”

Tyson is doing something about it. And clearly, he is not going to stay quiet about it either.

suppressed treatments of COVID
Dr. Tyson tending to a patient.

Kevin Nelson is a journalist, author and contributor to California Weekly.

Note: The above article was originally published on this webpage.


The Extraordinary Story of How Governments Suppressed Effective COVID Treatments and Targeted Physicians Who Prescribed Them
Meryl Nass, M.D.
February 23, 2022

In 2020, I compiled a list of more than 50 ways authorities and pharma companies in multiple countries stopped the use of chloroquine drugs for COVID. This was (and is) a stunning collection, widely read and reproduced on many websites.

When you read it, you are astounded to learn that all the U.S. (and many international) public health agencies took many different actions that led to increased deaths and destruction from COVID and prolonged the pandemic.

“Avoiding the Trump drug” served as a great cover story. Taking hydroxychloroquine for COVID was equated to drinking bleach.

But here’s the kicker: The authorities knew all about chloroquine and other treatments for COVID-19 before there was a COVID-19 — because they had figured it out for the 2003 SARS epidemic and the 2012 MERS epidemic, both caused by related coronaviruses. But they hushed it up.

Five Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) U.S. scientists (employed by the U.S. government), along with three Canadian government scientists, in 2005 published a paper showing chloroquine was an effective drug against SARS coronaviruses. European scientists showed the same thing in 2004.

Chloroquine-Potent-Inhibitor-SARS-Coronavirus-study

The CDC paper concluded: “… chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-COV infection … suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.”

Chloroquine looked very promising for both prevention and treatment of the first SARS. After all, it has been used for many decades to prevent and treat malaria. (I took it for prevention, and later for treatment, 50 years ago).

Nine years later, in 2014, scientists at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — the agency run by Dr. Anthony Fauci — published a study showing the same thing.

Moreover, the NIAID study revealed that not only did chloroquine work in vitro against the MERS coronavirus, but dozens of existing drugs, which could have been tested in patients as soon as the pandemic started, were also effective against SARS and MERS coronaviruses.

Repurposing Clinically Developed Drugs

This is what the NIAID authors wrote:

“Here we found that 66 of the screened drugs were effective at inhibiting either MERS-CoV or SARS-CoV infection in vitro and that 27 of these compounds were effective against both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV. These data demonstrate the efficiency of screening approved or clinically developed drugs for identification of potential therapeutic options for emerging viral diseases, and also provide an expedited approach for supporting off-label use of approved therapeutics.”

Just in case you think these papers were flukes, two unrelated groups of European scientists found essentially the same thing. This 2014 European paper was published back-to-back with the NIAID paper.

I have cited the 2004 European paper elsewhere, and these citations can also be found in Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s book, “The Real Tony Fauci,” which according to Amazon, has now sold more than 800,000 copies. Please read it.

On the other hand, if you are seeking misinformation on COVID, I’d recommend Fauci’s own book, “Expect the Unexpected.”

I have to repeat myself because the information is so shocking and I don’t want you to miss it: Our governments already knew of options for treating COVID before it appeared — but instead of immediately trying these already identified, safe, cheap and available drugs, and offering early treatments, they did everything they could to stop people from obtaining the chloroquine drugs.

Please read my long article on this suppression and the two articles I wrote here and here about how patients were administered borderline lethal doses of hydroxychloroquine to give the drug a black eye.

Check the links. Verify that what I have just written is correct. Human beings planned and carried out these medical crimes against humanity. Who are those humans? What are they doing now? This has to be investigated and justice obtained, to prevent such crimes from happening to patients ever again.

The “Why?” and “How could this be?!!” requires people to take a huge leap, in order to understand the world we live in. Many people don’t have the fortitude to dissect their worldview and rebuild it in accord with the facts that have spilled out over the last two years.

But I am about to present some more facts that I hope you can assimilate into your understanding of the world. It might require a stiff drink, or perhaps some chocolate.

Whatever it takes, read on. It might save your life or someone else’s.

Ivermectin sales explode

Ivermectin was not identified in the studies I mentioned above as a potentially useful coronavirus drug. But some people knew it was likely to work in early 2020, because the French MedinCell company, working with Monash University and supported by Bill Gates, was developing an injectable version (which would be able to be patented). MedinCell issued a press release about this on April 6, 2020, and an informational paper on April 23, 2020.

There was a brief run on the veterinary drug at this time in the U.S., according to a warning issued April 10, 2020, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), indicating some people knew it might be an effective COVID treatment and were acquiring veterinary versions.

But there was not a lot of buzz and sales did not take off at that time.

Here is what the FDA said on April 10, 2020:

“FDA is concerned about the health of consumers who may self-medicate by taking ivermectin products intended for animals, thinking they can be a substitute for ivermectin intended for humans … Please help us protect public health by alerting FDA of anyone claiming to have a product to prevent or cure COVID-19 and to help safeguard human and animal health by reporting any of these products.”

In December 2020, a full eight months later, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) held a Senate hearing that was focused on ivermectin’s benefits for COVID. Intensive care specialist Dr. Pierre Kory, originally a New Yorker, gave a particularly compelling speech.

People began paying attention to the drug. YouTube then removed Kory’s speech — censoring a Senate hearing!

I think the authorities were initially scared to repeat the same tricks with ivermectin they had used to beat down the chloroquine drugs. And because ivermectin has efficacy late in the disease as well as at the start, and is not toxic at several times the normal dose, some of the tricks used against chloroquine (giving it too late in the disease course or overdosing patients) simply would not work with ivermectin. The U.S. authorities kept quiet.

South Africa was the trial balloon. On Christmas Eve 2020, South African authorities banned the importation of ivermectin. However, several local organizations mounted legal actions, and they won. Within several months ivermectin was back on the shelves.

Thanks in great measure to the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, ivermectin’s popularity gradually began to explode. Then the CDC published a report in late August 2021, showing ivermectin prescriptions had quadrupled in a month, and the drug was now selling at 25 times the pre-COVID rate.

Number Ivermectin Prescriptions Dispensed

Business Insider reported, “More than 88,000 prescriptions for the drug were filled by pharmacies in the week ending August 13, the CDC said in a report published August 26.”

Apparently, this terrified the powers that be. What if the pandemic got wiped out with ivermectin? It worked too well! Would that be the end of vaccine mandates, boosters, vaccine passports and digital IDs? The end of the Great Reset?

Targeting doctors

Something had to be done and fast. It had to be big. It had to be effective. Public health officials couldn’t simply take the drug off the market — that would require a long process and would leave a paper trail.

What to do? There was probably only one option: Scare the pants off doctors. Loss of license is the very worst thing you can do to a doctor. Threaten their licenses and they will immediately fall into line. You can’t get a prescription if there is no doctor to write it.

The Philippines Department of Health tested the strategy.

The powers that be could also scare the pharmacies. This required stealth — no paper trail. It required intimidation, backed by a one-two punch: actually suspending doctors’ (and maybe pharmacists’) licenses.

You couple that with a huge media offensive, and threats from an industry of medical “nonprofits.” You invent “misinformation” as a medical misdemeanor, studiously failing to define it. You make people think the legal prescribing of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine is a crime, even though off-label prescribing is entirely legal under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Did Fauci give the order? Was it CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky? Maybe it was acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock?

It was probably some combination, plus the public relations professionals managing the messaging and the media.

Here’s what happened …

1. Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), along with several other senators, introduced the “Health Misinformation Act” in July 2021, because “misinformation was putting lives at risk,” Lujan said. A huge supporter of COVID vaccinations, the 49-year-old senator suffered a stroke on Feb. 1.

2. The pharmacies suddenly could not get ivermectin from their wholesalers. No reason was given except “supply and demand.” But it seemed the supply was cut off everywhere. Ivermectin was dribbled out by the wholesalers, a few pills a week per pharmacy, not enough to supply even one prescription weekly.

Some powerful entity presumably ordered the wholesalers to make the drug (practically) unavailable — with no shortages announced. I called the main manufacturer in the U.S., Edenbridge, and was told they were producing plenty of ivermectin.

Hydroxychloroquine had been restricted in a variety of ways, determined by each state, since early 2020. It had also been restricted by certain manufacturers and pharmacy chains in 2020. Suddenly, in September 2021, it became considerably harder than it already was to obtain.

3. In late August 2021, the CDC sent out a major warning about ivermectin but provided only two examples of anyone having a problem with the drug: One person overdosed on an animal version, and one overdosed on ivermectin bought on the internet. This should not have been news. However, pharmacists and doctors read between the lines and knew this was code for “verboten.” Almost all of them stopped dispensing ivermectin at that time. It should be of interest to everyone that our health agencies now speak in coded messages to doctors and pharmacies, presumably to avoid putting their threats on paper and being accountable for them.

4. Also in August 2021, various “nonprofit” medical organizations started issuing warnings, in concert, regarding doctors prescribing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, and spreading misinformation — especially about COVID vaccines. These organizations included the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Pharmacists Association and several specialty boards.

Here is an example of the AMA’s language: “A handful of doctors spreading disinformation have fostered belief in scientifically unvalidated and potentially dangerous 'cures' for COVID-19 while increasing vaccine hesitancy …”

These organizations told doctors they could lose their licenses or board certifications for such behaviors. Mind you, none of these so-called nonprofit organizations has any regulatory authority. Nor do I believe they have any authority to claw back a board certification. They were blowing smoke. And they were probably paid to do so. Who paid them?

5. Over the course of three days at the end of August 2021, national media reported on four doctors in three states whose boards were investigating them for the use of ivermectin.

Hawaii’s Medical Board went after Maui’s chief medical officer:

“The Hawaii Medical Board has filed complaints against Maui’s top health official and a Valley Isle physician following reports that they backed COVID-19 treatments that state and federal health agencies advise against.”

They really wanted to make an example by going after a chief medical officer, who had the guts to treat COVID patients. Clearly, the orders are coming from high up on the food chain.

Here were some of the other August headlines I collected about doctors who legally prescribed a fully approved drug off-label:

August headlines

6. The FSMB is an organization that assists 71 state and territorial medical boards with policies, training, etc. Members pay dues and the organization accepts donations. Its president earns $777,255/year — not bad for a backwater administrative job at an organization headquartered in Euless, Texas.

After the FSMB instructed its members that misinformation was a crime, somewhere between eight and 15 of its member boards began to take action. (Media have reported that eight, 12 or 15 boards of its 71-member boards did so, according to the FSMB.)

7. On Feb. 7, 2022, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued its own dire warning about the spread of misinformation, disinformation and a neologism, “malinformation:”

“The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis-, dis- and malinformation (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors.

“These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence. Mass casualty attacks and other acts of targeted violence conducted by lone offenders and small groups acting in furtherance of ideological beliefs and/or personal grievances pose an ongoing threat to the nation.”

Thus it appears that misinformation and disinformation have been selected to play an important role in a newly developing narrative, as the pandemic restrictions and accompanying narratives become long in the tooth.

8. I presume the majority of the 71 medical boards’ attorneys knew something about the U.S. Constitution, knew that every American has an inalienable right to freedom of speech, and simply ignored the FSMB’s exhortation to go after misinformation spreaders.

The Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine, however, went along. Three doctors in Maine, including me, recently had their licenses suspended or threatened for writing waivers for COVID vaccines, “spreading misinformation” and/or prescribing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (all of which are legal activities for doctors).

Boards have broad powers to intervene in the practice of medicine, and their members are shielded from liability as agents of the state. And so they went after a chronic Lyme doctor several years ago, who found, as expected, it would be too onerous to fight back, so he gave up his license.

9. Here is what the Maine Board claims about me:

“The board noted that Ivermectin isn’t Food and Drug Administration “authorized or approved” as a treatment for COVID-19 in the suspension order …

“The board said that her continuing to practice as a physician ‘constitutes an immediate jeopardy to the health and physical safety of the public who might receive her medical services, and that it is necessary to immediately suspend her ability to practice medicine in order to adequately respond to this risk.'”

I am 70 years old, and my medical practice was set up as a service so that everyone could access COVID drugs who wanted them. My fee was $60 per patient for all the COVID care they needed.

I am sure the Maine Board had calculated that given all the above, I would not challenge the board’s suspension and would simply surrender my license as it would probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the board’s actions in court.

However, I was surprised to find that on the day my license was suspended, there was massive national publicity about my case. The story was on The Associated Press wire and covered from the San Francisco Chronicle to the Miami Herald. The Hill, Newsweek, the Daily Beast and many other publications all ran hit pieces about me.

I gathered that my situation was bigger than just a renegade Maine medical board: I had been selected to serve as an example to physicians nationwide who might be prescribing early treatment for COVID.

Once I realized I was being used as a poster child in a national fear campaign designed to purge doctors who think independently, I decided to fight back. Fortunately, Children’s Health Defense is helping with my legal expenses, which is what allows me to mount a strong attack against the bulldozing of free speech, patient autonomy and choice, and the doctor-patient relationship.

There is a lot riding on the outcome.

Note: The above article was originally published on this webpage.


How NIH Got Forbes to Cancel Me After I Wrote About Fauci
Adam Andrzejewski
March 10, 2022

In January 2021, Adam Andrzejewski, founder of OpenTheBooks.com, wrote a factual article about Dr. Anthony Fauci in which he pointed out that Fauci is the highest-paid U.S. government employee. After the National Institutes of Health complained, Forbes terminated Andrzejewski’s regular column.

Dr. Anthony Fauci is the most highly compensated federal employee and the most visible. So, it’s incumbent upon all of us to give him oversight.

In 2011, I founded a national transparency organization called OpenTheBooks.com.

Last year, we filed 47,000 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, the most in American history. We successfully captured and displayed online $12 trillion of federal, state and local spending.

Over the past 14 months — since January 2021 — we investigated Fauci’s financials by filing FOIA requests. When I published our original reporting at Forbes, here is what happened.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), Fauci’s employer, loaded an artillery shell in their big gun and fired it at the C-suite at Forbes. Quickly, Forbes folded and my column was terminated.

Background

At OpenTheBooks.com, we believe transparency revolutionizes U.S. public policy and politics.

As a regular contributor to Forbes since May 2014, I published 206 investigations while writing an estimated quarter-million words on the platform. In May 2018, Forbes upgraded my title to senior policy contributor.

Over this nearly eight-year period, my articles were a-political and used hard data to fact check Republicans, Democrats and unelected bureaucrats. Since 2019, I published 112 articles for 13,031,558 views — an average of 116,353 views per investigation.

Here are three examples of our original reporting:

  • The Biden Administration left behind up to 600,000 weapons, 75,000 military vehicles and 16,000-night vision devices in their hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan.
  • No, President Donald Trump didn’t drain the swamp — the swamp grew by 50,000 executive agency positions during his four years.
  • In 2004, Dr. Fauci received a permanent pay adjustment for his biodefense work. In other words, Fauci was the top-paid federal employee precisely because he was paid to stop a pandemic.

In 2020, I published 36 investigations at Forbes and the editors chose 26 for special showcase on the platform, a designation called “Editors’ Pick.”

The first piece I published in 2021 broke national news that Fauci was the most highly compensated federal employee and even out-earned the president, four-star generals and 4.3 million colleagues. That piece alone has 900,000+ views.

However, none of the 56 articles I published during 2021-2022 received an “Editors’ Pick” designation.

Something changed at Forbes after I wrote about Fauci.

Peak moment

The controversy surrounding Fauci’s finances reached a fever pitch in January of this year, and my column at Forbes was right in the middle of it.

In the Senate hearing on Jan. 11, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), cited my Forbes article in his questioning of Fauci’s salary and his financial disclosures.

First, Fauci claimed his financials were “public knowledge,” then, the hot mic caught the doctor calling the senator a “moron.”

It was Fauci’s code red moment and one of the top national news stories of the day.

As reported by The Washington Post, when Fauci went back to NIH, he admitted, “Maybe the senator has a point. Maybe my financial investments, though disclosed and available, should be much easier to see.”

In fact, Fauci’s financials were not available and I had firsthand knowledge.

Immediately, I published the evidence behind the lack of transparency at Forbes on Jan. 12: No Fauci’s Records Aren’t Available. Why Won’t NIH Immediately Release Them?

During an entire year, NIH had refused to produce Fauci’s job contract, job description, non-disclosure agreement, conflict of interest, financial disclosures, ethics agreements and royalties subject to our OpenTheBooks FOIA request.

In October 2021, we sued NIH with Judicial Watch and we still hadn’t received the 1,200 pages promised by the agency.

PolitiFact fact-checked Sen. Marshall and Fauci on their statements during the hearing, Fauci said all you have to do is ask for his financial disclosure. Yes, but it could take a while. PolitiFact cited my Forbes column as “Primary Source Material” for their Truth-O-Meter analysis.

In one of the top national news stories of the week, the fact-checkers used my original reporting to hold both sides accountable in the heated U.S. Senate hearing.

Beginning of the end of my column at Forbes

Rather than putting the full weight of Forbes behind obtaining the 1,200 pages of unreleased Fauci financials, Forbes went after my column.

On Jan. 12, Sen. Marshall wrote a demand letter to NIH for Fauci’s unredacted ethics/financial disclosures. In the letter, Marshall included footnotes that referenced my Fauci-Forbes columns.

On Friday, Jan. 14 at 5:00 p.m. EST, NIH produced Fauci’s unredacted ethics/financial disclosures from 2019 and 2020 subject to Sen. Marshall’s demand letter. The 2020 disclosures had never been released and only heavily redacted 2019 disclosures were previously released.

Working through the night, I dug through the 178 pages of disclosure and published the breaking investigation at Forbes on Saturday, Jan. 15 at 3:03 p.m. EST: Disclosures Show Dr. Fauci’s Household Made $1.7 Million In 2020, Including Income, Royalties, Travel Perks And Investment Gains.

Our findings included:

  • Net worth: The Fauci household net worth exceeded $10.4 million.
  • Earnings and gains: Salaries, benefits, royalties, investment gains in the Fauci household exceeded $1.7 million in 2020.
  • Fauci’s wife: Christine Grady, the chief bioethicist at NIH made $234,284 in 2020.
  • Royalties: Fauci made between $100,000 and $1 million as an editor and board member of McGraw-Hill.
  • Awards: In 2021, Fauci was awarded a $1 million prize for “speaking truth to power” from the Dan David Foundation in Israel.

These were newsy findings.

However, Justice Louis Brandeis said it best, “There is no great writing, only great rewriting.”

A regular editor at Forbes suggested some language and style edits and identified a typo — a number that was right in the title and wrong in the text. Quickly, the edits were incorporated while the article had less than 350 views.

(Today, the column has 120,000+ views and is the definitive analysis of Fauci’s fiscal year (FY) 2020 financial disclosures, the latest available.)

Then at 4:22 p.m. EST, I received an email from Caroline Howard, the executive editor at Forbes — a person who I had never spoken to or met during my nearly eight years as a contributor:

Caroline Howard email

Let’s break down the executive editor’s email above.

“I see this is your third article on Fauci in 3 weeks. Huh.”

Each article on Fauci from Dec. 28 through Jan. 15 published original journalism and broke national news. Each article added substantial context to the national discussion.

The first article estimated Fauci’s $350,000 golden-parachute retirement pension as the highest in U.S. federal history (Dec. 28, 2021). Articles two and three (Jan. 12 and 15, 2022) resulted from the surprisingly heated Senate hearing on Fauci’s finances (discussed above).

Only six of my 56 published pieces at Forbes during 2021-2022 were on Fauci. But, again, each column was original reporting with important national implications.

“… the tone of your posts straying into advocacy …”

I am a transparency advocate and it is one reason why Forbes chose me to contribute.

Currently, there is a war on transparency at NIH with 633 FOIA requests past due triggering 33 lawsuits from various parties in federal court. Good journalism holds the agency accountable.

In fact, since my appointment in May 2014 at Forbes, I only wrote about government transparency and accountability. All 206 investigations followed the money and properly cited the original research of our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com.

“Everyone who publishes on the Forbes platform must steer clear …”

The rest of the emailed insinuations are hyperbole and borne out by the fact that Forbes kept my author archive live even after my column was terminated.

National Institutes of Health pressured Forbes

On Sunday, Jan. 16 at 12:43 p.m. EST, six top communications, government relations and public affairs officers at NIH wrote a “corrections” email to Randall Lane, the chief content officer and editor of Forbes and me.

The email did not contain any substantial corrections.

NIH found nothing wrong with the major facts and analysis in my article: the Fauci household’s entire cash compensation, benefit, royalty and investment portfolio.

In other words, all substantive findings remained intact and validated.

Cancellation

Of course, the real purpose of the NIH’s email wasn’t to correct my work.

Two directors, two bureau chiefs and two top PR officers didn’t send an email to the Forbes’ chief on a Sunday morning because they wanted to correct the record about Fauci’s travel reimbursements.

They sent that email to subliminally send a message: We don’t like Andrzejewski’s oversight work, and we want you to do something about it.

Unfortunately, Forbes folded quickly.

Within 24 hours of the NIH email to Randall Lane, my regular Forbes editor called and announced new rules. Forbes barred me from writing about Fauci and mandated pre-approval for all future topics.

Then, Forbes went silent and terminated my column roughly 10 days later on Jan. 28.

On the day Forbes canceled me, the editors bent the knee. A new piece on Fauci published: “Fauci’s Portrait Will Soon Hang In The Smithsonian.”

Of course, the article was designated an Editors’ Pick.

Note: Forbes and NIH didn’t respond to requests for comment. A Forbes spokesperson previously told the New York Post, “Forbes regularly removes contributors who don’t meet our high editorial standards.”

Additional note: The above article was originally published on Adam Andrzejewski’s OpenTheBooks Substack page.


Bookmark and Share

Finding Balance: WantToKnow.info Inspiration Center

WantToKnow.info believes it is important to balance disturbing cover-up information with inspirational writings which call us to be all that we can be and to work together for positive change. For an abundance of uplifting material, please visit our Inspiration Center.

See our exceptional archive of revealing news articles.

Please support this important work: Donate here

Explore the mind and heart expanding websites managed by the nonprofit PEERS network:
www.peerservice.org - PEERS websites: Spreading inspiration, education, & empowerment
www.momentoflove.org - Every person in the world has a heart
www.personalgrowthcourses.net - Dynamic online courses powerfully expand your horizons
www.WantToKnow.info - Reliable, verifiable information on major cover-ups
www.weboflove.org - Strengthening the Web of Love that interconnects us all

Subscribe here to the WantToKnow.info email list (two messages a week)