Conflict of interest? Fauci’s wife runs bioethics department at NIH
BETHESDA, Maryland, June 4 (LifeSiteNews) – Dr. Anthony Fauci’s wife, Dr. Christine Grady, heads the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and has quietly become a key figure in medical research and medical ethics in America.
Christine Grady married Dr. Anthony Fauci in 1985, and together they worked on the AIDS crisis during the 1980s. Grady, 68, is a nurse-bioethicist and a senior investigator who is now Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the NIH, and also Head of the Section on Human Subjects Research.
Having moved to the NIH clinical center in 1983, Grady also worked with NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), although never as part of that division, which her husband runs.
In addition to her work at the NIH, Grady is also a senior research fellow at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics and an elected fellow of the Hastings Center and the American Academy of Nursing.
She received the NIH director’s award four times between 1999 and 2017. Along with being a part of numerous other task forces, Grady acted as a member of President Barack Obama’s Presidential Commission for study of bioethical issues from 2010-2017.
Already in 1997, Grady’s role in the bioethics department involved her participation in the Institutional Review Board of clinical protocols, informing and advising health officials in the establishment of policy, particularly members of the NIH. The department itself was founded in 1996, and Grady made its head in 2012, having been deputy director since 1996.
Meanwhile, Fauci was appointed as Director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in 1984, one year after Grady joined the NIH, and one year before they married.
Grady’s NIH and Fauci’s NIAID
NIAID “conducts and supports basic and applied research to better understand, treat, and ultimately prevent infectious, immunologic, and allergic diseases.” Indeed, among the 27 comprising institutes and centers of the NIH, NIAID has the “unique mandate” to “respond to emerging public health threats.”
In its research and operation, the NIAID is guided by the ethics of the NIH. This means essentially that Grady’s decisions on ethics are intimately linked to, and inform her husband’s decisions on vaccine research and development. The NIAID participated in the development of COVID-19 vaccines (namely the Moderna jab), and the trialing of the vaccines.
One of the most controversial projects in which NIH has been involved has been the creation of “humanized mice,” transplanting into mice tissue from aborted babies.
And now, as Elle gushingly reported, Grady is “spearheading research into the ethics of America's COVID-19 response.”
However, despite the NIH developing and giving the ethical green light to coronavirus injections – particularly Moderna’s, which was made with help by NIAID scientists – the number of deaths and adverse reactions continue to grow each week following administration of the injection.
The official data released by the U.S. government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) now numbers a total of 122,712 adverse reactions related to the Moderna injection since it began to be given last December. Of those, 2,077 patients died following the injection, around half of the total deaths following COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S., and 8,822 serious reactions were recorded.
Yet the injection continues to be a success for all those who have invested in it. Moderna’s coronavirus vaccine has received $2.5 billion in funding from the U.S. government so far. The company predicts it will garner $18.5 billion from sales of the injection, a product of which the NIH has ownership of some of the “intellectual property,” revealed NIH director Francis Collins.
This injection was co-developed by NIAID scientists, whose practice is guided by Grady’s ethics. In fact, Collins described Grady’s analysis of the COVID-19 situation as “invaluable” to the NIH.
Grady’s vaccine ‘ethics’ and predictions about digitized medical records in 2021
Grady herself has authored numerous papers and articles on the subject of ethics and vaccines, often proposing radical steps regarding vaccination. A 2004 paper entitled “Ethics of vaccine research” was prefaced by her stating that the goal of vaccination is “to benefit the community at large rather than the individual.” Such philosophy is echoed by governing health bodies today, who continue to recommend the COVID-19 injections as a good for the wider community, despite the growing number of adverse reactions, arguing that the benefits outweigh potential risks.
Then again, in 2012, she penned an article reflecting on her time in the field, and predicting what life could look like in the year 2021, painting a picture that eerily mirrors the current calls for health records to be digitized and utilized in the form of vaccine passports: “In 2021, most people in the U.S. have had their whole genome sequenced by their health care provider as a routine part of care and have access to their own sequence data stored in the cloud. Each person can decide whether or not and how she wants to share her sequence data with researchers through a menu of research studies publicly listed on a smart phone application.”
Grady also predicted the manner in which bioethicists and health ministers could become influential in the years around 2021, responsible for coordinating global health policy: “By 2021, international collaborators from around the globe, who had been committed to working together as partners to design and conduct research of high ethical and scientific quality research, were now collaborating on other issues of importance to global health and global justice. Bioethicists serve as clinical and research consultants, members of oversight committees and policy bodies.”
Another paper alluded to radical experiments on fetal therapy trials, under a “new ethical framework.” Considering only “biomedical benefits” in fetal therapy was not enough, co-wrote Grady. Under the new framework for such a medical field, “Studies that meet this overall proportionality criterion but have mildly unfavorable risk–benefit ratios for pregnant women and/or fetuses may be acceptable.”
Bill Gates connections
Gates is an ardent advocate for the roll-out of experimental coronavirus vaccines throughout the world, and has engaged in developing micro-chip style COVID-19 tracking platforms, in a style envisaged by Grady in her article looking to the future she envisaged in 2021.
Gates has publicly called for vaccines to be delivered to the entire world, declaring back in April 2020 that the world would not return to normal until the population had been “widely vaccinated.” He later ridiculed suggestions that the experimental COVID-19 vaccines could be unsafe, dismissing contrary opinions as “conspiracy views.”
A whistleblower from the World Health Organization (WHO) even revealed that Gates exerted so much influence in the WHO as to effectively control the organization, and was treated as a nation state in his own right.
Indeed, Fauci and Gates have long been partnered in rolling out vaccines to the global population. Back in 2010, Fauci’s NIAID partnered with the WHO and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to enact Gates’s plan for a decade of vaccines. A detail of particular importance is that Fauci was part of the five-man Leadership Council of the plan.
The Gates Foundation has also already donated many hundreds of thousands of dollars to both the NIH and the NIAID, calling into question the unbiased nature of any decision made by either Grady or Fauci regarding development, testing, and roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccines.
Hence, as numerous emails are currently being released revealing Fauci’s own actions at the start of the Wuhan coronavirus last year, and the “gain-of-function” experiments at the laboratory in Wuhan funded by NIAID, evidence suggests that his wife could well be in a position of severe conflict of interest as regards her own ethical guidance to the NIH.