In March of 2022, Pennsylvania Senator Doug Mastriano held a panel discussing Covid-19, treatments, and related topics. Featured as guest speakers were Dr. Peter McCoullough, Attorney Thomas Renz, Steve Kirsch, and Dr. Bryan Ardis, among others.
In his testimony, Dr. Ardis pointed out that Dr. Anthony Fauci, who somehow became the world’s resource on COVID-19, said in March of 2020 that Remdesivir (Veklury) was the only approved drug for treatment of COVID-19 (prior to FDA approval in October of the same year). The problem with this announcement, Dr. Ardis said, is that Remdesivir had recently been used in an African study to treat Ebola in the Republic of Congo with less-than reliable results.
The drug saw a mortality rate in Africa of 53.1%. “For remdesivir,” the National Library of Medicine said, “85 and 29% of patients with high- and low-viral loads at baseline died, respectively.” In an article titled “Why Remdesivir Failed: Preclinical Assumptions Overestimate the Efficacy of Remdesivir for COVID-19 and Ebola,” the American Society for Microbiology said that the models pushed forward “overpredict[ed] efficacy and minimize[d] toxicity of remdesivir in humans.”
Something that Anthony Fauci was well aware of, as an active participant in that study.
Dr. Ardis pointed out that the other clinical trials for Ebola, which had much higher success rates and lower lethal rates, were conducted with mixtures of monoclonal antibodies. These were highly discouraged by the mainstream narrative during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Fauci participated in Remdesivir studies that related to COVID-19 (dubbed Adaptive Covid-19 Treatment Trial) as well from February of 2020, which were unpublished and not peer-reviewed, and also had goal posts shifted for the two weeks prior to the announcement, seemingly making the drug appear to be more effective than previously thought (when the “primary endpoints” were at a higher success rate). The endpoint shift was published by ClinicalTrials.gov, but were not explained.
In April of 2020, Fauci made an announcement regarding the trial use of Remdesivir, where he said that the placebo use would be stopped and those patients would receive the actual drug due to positive results in COVID-19 patients. When he said this, he did so from the Oval Office in the White House, which many scientists condemned as a “photo op,” according to Reuters, who had interviewed several.
Fauci claimed that he announced the “benefits” of Remdesivir early due to ethical concerns, meaning he believed the study was so positive that those receiving a placebo should immediately be switched to receiving the actual drug. He was also concerned, he said, about “leaks of partial information” which could “lead to confusion.”
According to an April 2020 article in Biospace, “About 25% of patients receiving [Remdesivir] have severe side effects, including multiple-organ dysfunction syndrome, septic shock, acute kidney injury and low blood pressure. Another 23% demonstrated evidence of liver damage on lab tests.”
Both the United States and The European Union purchased massive amounts of Remdesivir in October of 2020 after Fauci’s approval of the drug for COVID-19 treatment, despite many scientists speaking out against the decision “who have closely watched the clinical trials of remdesivir unfold over the past 6 months,” a Science.org article said at the time. The article also discusses the “unusual” circumstances under which the US and EU deals were made.
Eric Topol, a cardiologist at the Scripps Research Translational Institute, objected to the drug’s approval by the FDA. At the time, he said, “This is a very, very bad look for the FDA, and the dealings between Gilead and EU make it another layer of badness.”
Chief Academic Officer at the Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Steven Nissen, said at the time, “I want to see the full data. I want to understand the statistics. I want to understand the benefit and risk. I want to understand the structure of the study, and all of it.” He called the ending of the placebo trials a “lost opportunity” to determine the drug’s ability to prevent death.
Ending the clinical trials of Remdesivir early and electing instead to move forward with giving it to most hospitalized COVID-19 patients “essentially limit[s] researchers’ ability to collect more data about whether the drug saves lives,” according to a May 2020 STAT News article.
Another May of 2020 article, this time on Psychiatric Drug Facts, said, “We have found that remdesivir is a failed antiviral drug that will probably do more harm than good for many coronavirus patients.”
And yet Fauci continued to push for its use.
At the same time as pushing the drug with which he’d had a negative experience in the past, Fauci slammed a Chinese study published in a British medical journal (The Lancet) that was published, peer-reviewed, and stated the drug failed to show improvement in COVID-19 patients. Fauci referred to that study as “underpowered” and “not an adequate study.”
Further, in April 2021, Pubmed said that there was a “statistically significant disproportionality signal” of “acute renal failure” and “remdesivir.”
Mainstream media, of course, backed Fauci without question. But with numerous scientific journals and scientist health blogs speaking out against Fauci’s and the FDA’s decision (one pointing out its “lackluster clinical performance”), why wasn’t the decision challenged?
The answer could lie in a little-known NIH page that gives “financial disclosure for companies related to COVID-19 treatment.” In Appendix A, Table 2, it’s shown that seven NIH panel members have direct ties to Gilead, the company that manufactures Remdesivir (Veklury), holding positions from “research support” to “advisory board” to “consultant.”
A popular phrase, specifically since the pandemic first broke out, was for people to “follow the money.” Well, we followed the money, and we found that it ends at Big Pharma and those who work for them.
As the image above shows, per Yahoo Finance, Gilead (manufacturer of Remdesivir) shows a slight increase in total revenue from 2018 to 2019. It raised moderately from 2019 to 2020, which is when the Remdesivir was starting to be pushed by Fauci, and then jumped even higher in 2021 after a solid year of the drug being exclusively offered as “FDA-approved.”
Liz Essley Whyte of Center for Public Integrity requested Fauci’s financial records (which are public record, but you have to request them to see them) in 2020 and received the 2019 documents. In them, she indicated that there were “no individual pharma stocks.”
However, the documents were heavily redacted. Why? What’s hiding behind the redactions?
Maybe it’s $10.4 million in investments in mutual funds, including $2.3 million in unrealized gains, which was recently disclosed.
Kansas Senator Roger Marshall said after the release of financial information, “Dr. Fauci was completely dishonest about his financial disclosures being open to the public. Dr. Fauci must be held accountable to all Americans who have been suing and requesting for this information but don’t have the power of a Senate office to ask for it.”
The New York Post said that Fauci made a total of $434,312 in 2020. He’s also on track to receive a retirement of $350,ooo per year.
Further, Forbes said, “During the pandemic year of 2020, their household income, perks and benefits, and unrealized gains totaled $1,776,479 — including federal income and benefits of $868,812; outside royalties and travel perks totaling $113,298; and investment accounts increasing by $794,369.”
So the average American was banished to their households and muzzled by a useless mask while the doctor pushed a drug he knew was not safe, all while that same doctor grossed in nearly $2 million.
Check back on Red Voice Media as we continue to point out why “conspiracy theory” actually means “the truth,” just a few months behind.
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Red Voice Media. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary. Red Voice Media would like to make a point of clarification on why we do not refer to any shot related to COVID-19 as a "vaccine." According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine necessitates that said vaccine have a lasting effect of at least one year in preventing the contraction of the virus or disease it's intended to fight. Because all of the COVID-19 shots thus far available have barely offered six months of protection, and even then not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision hereafter to no longer refer to the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson substances as vaccinations.