How to “Buy” Influence at the NIH

Jun 5, 2024
How to “Buy” Influence at the NIH

Follow the money.

When something just doesn’t seem right, and actions are being taken that just don’t make much sense, following the trail of money almost always leads to answers.

Thanks to some very recent revelations that came as a result of filings under the Freedom of Information Act, we now know a lot more about how and why the National Institutes of Health (NIH) so aggressively pushed the mRNA “vaccines” during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

While it’s not a topic I enjoy revisiting, there are investment implications we must be aware of.

Illogical Contradictions

Like so many of us, things just didn’t make sense during the pandemic.

Policies were illogical — many of them contradicted what we all experienced in the real world.

We were told to clean surfaces and avoid surface contact early on, based on concerns about surface transmission. But the evidence was clear — COVID-19 didn’t spread by surfaces, only through airborne transmission.

We were told to wear masks to avoid transmission, and yet anyone could see and feel that air escaped out of our masks on the sides and around the nose. Videos of people in cold climates, shown breathing while wearing every mask available, were vivid examples of how useless they were.

We were told children weren’t particularly suspectable to the virus. While some countries, like Sweden, kept schools open throughout the pandemic, others, like those the U.S. and many European nations, closed schools for extended periods. And even within the U.S., states and school districts had varying policies on school closures, as well as mask mandates and social distancing rules that spanned months and years.

And the totalitarian approach was antithetical to a free and democratic society.

What really raised my concerns in 2020 was:

  • More patients died who took the mRNA “vaccines” in the clinical trials than the control group (who didn’t take the shots)
  • The control group in the trials was “eliminated” when they gave the shots to them after 60 days. The trials, by design, lost the ability to track the health of the unvaccinated control group beyond 60 days
  • There were no long-term studies on safety
  • Side effects and deaths caused by the mRNA “vaccines” were not investigated
  • Prominent epidemiologists and virologists who shared scientific research and analysis that was different than the desired narrative were censored, banned, and often slandered in an effort to damage their reputations
  • Best practices for viral infections that were well established were ignored
  • Early treatment protocols that were being tested by physicians around the world — and shown to have varying levels of success, like Vitamin D, Ivermectin, and nasopharyngeal washes — were not only not recommended by the CDC, in some cases they were prohibited (Ivermectin).

There are not political statements. These are statements of fact, based on observations and research happening in real time, which my team and I tracked each week in my e-letter at the time, The Bleeding Edge.

With each month that passed, the list continued to get longer. It was obvious to me that powerful forces were at work.

But so much of it was hidden and obfuscated. After all, had we all known about the lies, corruption, and conflicts of interest, I don’t think we would have ever tolerated what took place.

And for the most part, many people along the way thought, “What does it matter? It’s not like we’ll ever know the truth behind it all.”

Well, in the last few days, there has been a breakthrough in understanding of just how deep the rabbit hole goes. It’s a stunning revelation about the degree of the conflicts of interests involved… and how far they will go to incentivize the pushing of these experimental mRNA drugs.

29X Royalties

Thanks to filings made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the U.S., it is now public that in 2022 and 2023, pharmaceutical companies paid the National Institutes of Health (NIH) $710,381,160 in patent royalties.

It’s an unbelievable sum. And the truth behind it gets much worse.

The payments were made to the NIH and its leadership and scientists whose names were on the NIH patents.

Specifically, of that total sum, $690 million of those royalty payments went directly to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led by Anthony Fauci, and 260 of its scientists.

If the money had been distributed equally, that would amount to $2.65 million to each person. Every one of them likely became a millionaire, as long as the mRNA drugs were pushed aggressively in the U.S. and around the world.

But it wasn’t distributed equally. Meaning: Some were paid very significant figures, much more than others.

Where the newly public information gets really interesting is when we compare this windfall in 2022 and 2023 to past payments.

Between 2009-2021, Fauci’s NIAID received just $23.9 million. That amounts to just shy of $2 million a year during that 13-year window.

The payments made to Fauci’s NIAID and its scientists in 2022 and 2023 were 29-times more than what was received in the 13-year period between 2009-2021.

“Okay sure, Jeff, but come on,” you may be thinking. “Desperate times call for desperate measures. It was a global pandemic with an unknown pathogen. Of course we’d all be interested in the NIH moving as fast as possible to conduct research to find us all a solution to avoid a mass casualty event.”

But that’s not what this was. Biopharmaceutical companies — that had developed their own technology — offered to pay NIH and its scientists a windfall of patent royalties from past research conducted at the NIH. These royalty payments did not in any way speed up the development of a vaccine.

It’s important for us to keep in mind that employees of the NIH and Fauci’s NIAID are public servants. Taxpayers fund all salaries and pensions for these government jobs. Their work product belongs to the government and the people.

These royalty payments are related to mRNA technology associated with the mRNA “vaccines.” 

It would make sense for any royalties related to taxpayer-funded research, then, be returned to the NIH — to reduce taxpayer burden for NIH budgets and salaries and to fund new research. That’s what typically happens with university research.

But that’s not what’s going on.

$690 million — in royalty payments sourced from external pharmaceutical companies — was paid in a two-year period to NIAID and 260 of its leadership and scientists.

Talk about a conflict of interest.

When I read through the now public information, it made me sick to my stomach.

The very people that were aggressively pushing the experimental mRNA drugs and speaking out against early treatment therapies, were the very same people that were making millions off of royalties.

Even the person who was placed in charge of Operation Warp Speed (the government program to develop the “vaccine”), John Mascola, had been receiving royalties from Moderna for his work at NIAID since 2018.

Related to that, Mascola was part of a public patent dispute between the NIH and Moderna. The NIH argued for more money, in the form of royalties, for patents that were suggested to be related to the mRNA “vaccines” that Moderna developed.

It’s important to note that the U.S. government gave Moderna about $10 billion in grants between 2020-2022 for the development and production of its mRNA “vaccines.”

Last February, the NIH won the patent dispute and Moderna agreed to pay $400 million to NIH and its leadership and scientists. It’s not yet clear from the FOIA documents that were released if the $400 million was part of the $690 million, or separate. It appears that it may be in addition to the $690 million. NIH, however, hasn’t been willing to confirm.

Despite being in public service, it’s probably not a surprise that the NIH is still not cooperating. The NIH, in its released documents, has redacted thousands of names associated with royalty payments made, and it has also redacted the dollar amounts made to individuals!

Thanks to government watchdog organization Open The Books, we now have some incredible insights to the conflicts of interest and the clear motivations for pushing these drugs on the global population.

Revelations on Record

Open The Books is continuing with its lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act to gain access to the information that has been redacted by the NIH.

It seems obvious that the truth will only reveal that the conflicts get even worse.

And all of this government “push” happened knowing that the mRNA “vaccines”:

  • Did not stop infection of the COVID-19 virus
  • Did not stop replication of the COVID-19 virus
  • Did not stop transmission of the COVID-19 virus
  • Caused severe adverse events, including death.
Fauci June 3, 2024 Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic
June 3, 2024 Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic

While all of the FOIA information was coming out in the last few days and being digested, Anthony Fauci was on Capitol Hill, giving testimony at the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic hearings. It’s not something that many of us would even know about, but the information is public. 

Here’s some things that were revealed in the testimony, some of which had already come out in previous congressional hearings:

  • Fauci confirmed that one of his advisors obstructed investigations into the origins of COVID-19 and deleted federal COVID-19 records.
  • Fauci’s NIH did fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, through a proxy — EcoHealth Alliance — which is most likely responsible for the pandemic. (Gain-of-function research involves the manipulation of a virus or other organisms to enhance or change their properties. This can include making a virus more transmissible, more virulent, or able to infect different types of cells or species. The goal of this research is often to understand how viruses evolve and to develop better ways to prevent and treat disease…or to make a bioweapon.)
  • Fauci appears to be throwing EcoHealth under the bus, supporting the debarment proceedings against EcoHealth and its president, Peter Daszak.
  • Fauci admitted that there was no scientific evidence to justify the six feet apart rule that was pushed by government agencies including himself.

The reality is that the pandemic, resulting from gain-of-function research, created 40 new biopharmaceutical billionaires.

We’re only just scratching the surface with how much money was being thrown around to buy influence and compliance in order to ensure that these mRNA “vaccines” were injected into the largest possible global population, as many times as possible.

And if all of this wasn’t unbelievable enough, the FDA just approved a second mRNA-based vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

A Clear Policy Shift

Moderna RSV Vaccine

This may not seem like a big deal, just the normal course of business for the FDA. But we should consider this:

  • While Moderna’s press release touted high levels of efficacy, the absolute risk reduction for clinically significant outcomes was below 1%.
  • The median follow-up period for the mRNA “vaccine” was just 3.7 months. Meaning there are no long-term safety studies.
  • The FDA licensing was made without complete safety information required for routine approval, which would be 2-3 years of observation for vaccines.
  • There was no FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee meeting to evaluate Moderna’s new drug.
  • There was no FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research meeting to evaluate Moderna’s new drug.

Making this even more incredible is the scientific research that has already shown the link between the mRNA COVID “vaccines” and myocarditis, auto-immunity, genomic integration, and oncogenicity (i.e. causing a cancerous tumor).

Suddenly, this all makes sense. 

If we understand the scale of the mRNA royalty payments made directly to government scientists that have moved and shifted throughout the NIH, CDC, and FDA, and we understand how they benefit from further adoption of mRNA-related technology, we can see how individuals are personally incentivized to rush approvals to get more mRNA related products into the market.

Many more multi-millionaires will be born…

And this tells us that there is a clear shift in FDA policy. 

Any biotech or pharmaceutical companies submitting applications to the FDA for synthetic mRNA drugs will no longer have to meet past stringent standards for safety.

As for my own health, I won’t ever consider taking an mRNA drug, unless there are years of safety data available. 

But from an investment perspective, companies pursuing mRNA drugs will likely have a faster timeframe to market, with more likely approvals, which will directly impact share price.

We always welcome your feedback. We read every email and address the most common comments and questions in the Friday AMA. Please write to us here.

Previous Post Next Post