I knew something was amiss when the pandemic hit. I have four degrees in the field of psychology including a PhD. My years of training and experience were telling me something wasn’t right. My BS detector as all the best psychologists would call it kept going off. I just kept wondering why our National health leaders kept putting the burden of handling the spread on us? 

Yes, they were feverishly working on a vaccine. But why were they not as frantically looking for a cure or treatment? And why were they continuous knocking down every possible treatment that was suggested? 

So, I did what any good academic would do. I started trying to figure out the answer to my questions. In my search I uncovered a trail of corruption, monetary incentives, secrecy, and lies. 

In 2018 Congress questioned the NIH (Anthony Fauci leads the NIH’s infectious disease research institute) and the CDC about ethical issues with both the CDC and NIH Foundations between 2014 and 2018 with regard to their collection of money from anonymous donors. 

For the CDC one of the donors turned out to be Coca Cola. They gave money for research involving whether unhealthy foods caused type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Barbara Bowman, who was the director of the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention for the CDC during this time advised a former Vice President of Coca Cola on how to stop the World Health Organization from cracking down on added sugar. Bowman quit the CDC two days after her advice to the former Coca Cola executive was revealed.

Christine Potkul writes:

“Concerns were also raised when the FNIH terminated a study examining the long-term effects of alcohol consumption. The alcohol industry donated nearly $100 million toward the research, but the project was shut down when investigators discovered that NIH workers inappropriately contacted industry figures—Congress strictly prohibits any contact between the researchers and their private donors.”

In their code of ethics both groups (CDC Foundation and FNIH and CDC and NIH) have an obligation to be unbiased. They also have an obligation to be transparent about their donors. 

During the fiscal years of 2014 through 2018, the CDC Foundation received $79.6 million from companies like Pfizer, Biogen, and Merck. Since it was created in 1996, the nonprofit organization has accepted 161 million from corporations.

An article published by Science Magazine In 2018 states that the FNIH filed a donation with the Internal Revenue Service for 19.1 million. According to the magazine the filing does not name the donor, but FNIH told Science it was the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle, Washington. 

The vaccine companies and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have come out with several vaccines and stand to make a lot of money from it. It turns out that the U.S. government pledged more than $9 billion to five U.S. pharma companies and $1.95 billion to Pfizer alone. But these companies only receive the money when the vaccine is competed. 

Now not only will they receive the $9 billion, they will all receive the revenue from the distribution and sales. If you estimate that each vaccine dose will cost around 100 dollars and a billion people worldwide take it, that’s a hundred billion dollar market. It’s also important to point out that this is not a one-time vaccine. It looks like it will be a yearly vaccine with a booster, multiplying the profits.

That got me thinking about the potential cures that have already been looked at and disregarded by the medical community.

In a news article through the Wall Street Journal, A professor in Israel at Hebrew U found promising results with a cholesterol drug called Fenofibrate. Its trials have shown that Fenofibrate can downgrade COVID to the severity of the common cold. But we’ve heard very little about it.

Hydroxychloroquine was ripped apart by the medical establishment. The media and world/national health leaders highly condemned the use due to possible serious side effects. But several articles came out later stating that research has shown Hydroxychloroquine with zinc and azithromycin has protective benefits if given early against COVID-19. It was only when given during the advanced stages of COVID that it was more harmful than helpful. 

There was also an article published in 2005 by the NIH on a government website that found that Hydroxychloroquine was effective against the SARS-Corona virus. Didn’t the NIH say that Hydroxychloroquine was ineffective in treating the virus? How did it work in 2005, but not now?

Dr. Pierre Kory the medical director of the trauma and life support center at the University of Wisconsin, a board-certified critical medicine, pulmonary diseases, and internal medicine doctor, shared my sentiments. In testimony in front of the Senate on December 7th, he questioned the CDC and the NIH in their dissemination of medical information including the idea that they have promoted only expensive experimental drugs including the vaccine. 

He takes it one step further in explaining to the board that he has mountains of evidence about an older long-used drug, Ivermectin. He states that, the research and evidence comes from some of the most published doctors in the nation and world. A drug he calls “a solution to this crisis…. It basically obliterates the transmission of this virus. If you take it (prophylactically) you will not get sick.” Here is his testimony

But the drug remains unapproved for use in the treatment of COVID.

So, what does this have to do with the CDC, the NIH, the pharmaceutical companies, and the Gates Foundation? They have all invested a lot in the production and success of COVID vaccines. Billions ride on its successful completion and administration around the world. And let’s not forget that Pfizer and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations are major donors for the CDC and NIH. If effective prophylactics and therapies tame Covid and drastically reduce the death toll, there would be less demand for the vaccine.. I wonder if Pfizer and the Gates Foundation would still be willing to donate if the CDC and NIH were funding studies and promoting the use of these cheap, generic drugs as an alternative to vaccines?

Hydroxychloroquine is $37 for a bottle of 100 pills. Budesonide is between 75 and 350 dollars for an inhaler which has 50-200 doses. Ivermectin costs around 80 dollars for 20 pills. Far less of a profit then they would get from a vaccine. And remember, besides Ivermectin, which can be given as a prophylactic, these treatments would only be given to those who were diagnosed with COVID, which would be a far smaller portion of the population. Clearly, we can see why the vaccine has a much greater financial appeal to some powerful health sector actors.   

Carrie Lynn Caoili, MA/EdS., PhD. Follow Dr. Carrie and her Co-host Stephanie on their YouTube channel Alternate View- YouTube.