How Happy Are Fauci’s Pharma Friends That He Funded Gain of Function Research?

Last Updated on October 3, 2021 by Shaun Snapp

Executive Summary

  • Dr. Fauci funded gain of function research, which led to the virus escaping the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
  • This event was highly profitable for pharmaceutical companies.


Fauci has been exposed during the coronavirus for repeatedly lying about many things, including his funding of gain of function research in the unprofessional Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Our References for This Article

If you want to see our references for this article and related Brightwork articles, visit this link.

Dr Fauci’s Background

Dr. Anthony Fauci has served in many US Administrations. He is highly respected in the field and is head of the National Institutes of Health, the US government’s central medical grant endowing body. The NIH’s budget means that Fauci and the NIH drive a tremendous amount of science funded.

Dr. Fauci’s background is immunology and specifically infectious diseases. This makes it impossible for Fauci to deny knowledge around the gain of function research that will be the article’s topic.

Dr. Fauci and the Truth

The media and the public often refer to Dr. Fauci as a scientist. That is true, but one does not survive through the number of administrations that Dr. Fauci has and led the NIH without being a politician. Being political means achieving an objective, and those objectives usually contradict scientific truth. And being political and politically motivated contradicts following a scientific approach.

Repeated interviews and testimony from Dr. Fauci have revealed a willingness to bend the truth to meet political objectives. One of the first political analysts to pick up on this was Jimmy Dore. Dore critiqued Dr. Fauchi back in 2020 for providing contradictory information about wearing masks. It is important to note that back in mid-2020, no one in mainstream media was questioning Dr. Fauci.

However, within the establishment media in the US, Dr. Fauci has been untouchable. Depending upon the group one is speaking with, it can get you branded as “anti-science.”

The Rand Paul, Dr. Fauchi Interaction

If you have read the article How the US, China, and the NIH and Dr. Fauci Promulgated the Coronavirus., these same videos are embedded in that article to skip them.

Observe the analysis of Dr. Fauchi’s interaction with Rand Paul.

Note that YouTube is at a degree of censorship that Jimmy Dore stated he could not cover the story unless it had first been covered elsewhere. YouTube has been suppressing Jimmy Dore’s channel because YouTube is financially and politically connected to the Democratic Party in the US, and Jimmy Dore critiques the Democratic Party.

Therefore, they retaliate by restricting the growth of subscribers to his channel. This is not hypothetical or an evidence-free claim. I have noticed that Jimmy Dore’s subscriber numbers never increase, but his views are still high.

Second Coverage

This issue was also covered by the following video produced by The Hill.

It is of note that neither of these is establishment media outlets. Except for the few that Republicans like Fox News and Breitbart capture, the establishment media are captured by the Democratic party. Fauci’s lies cannot be found on these outlets. 

This illustrates a highly doctrinal media system, with journalists presenting themselves as the standard-bearers of what is true when they repeat biased claims by powerful entities. This shows the media as the victim of a massive Dunning Kreuger Effect. As soon as the establishment hypothesis is created, media entities do the work of discrediting any competing hypothesis. A competing hypothesis is then called a “conspiracy theory.” Taibbi explains that in his experience, anyone who would naturally question the establishment’s explanations is run out of establishment media. This leaves a mass of conformist journalists who the establishment easily manipulates. 

Question #1: How Much Money Has and Will Pharmaceutical Companies Profit from the Coronavirus?

The following quote provides some idea of how good coronavirus has been for pharmaceutical companies.

Pfizer reported $5.6 billion in net income during the second quarter of 2021 — that’s up more than $2 billion (from $3.5 billion) from its second quarter of 2020 report to the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the first half of 2021, Pfizer reported nearly $10.5 billion in net income. The company brought in $6.9 billion in the first six months of 2020.

As the pharmaceutical company’s income and reputation have skyrocketed from bringing the first COVID-19 vaccine to market, the company’s lobbying efforts have increased as well.

In Pfizer’s latest SEC disclosure, the company reported $7.8 billion in total revenue from its COVID-19 vaccine in the second quarter. Pfizer disclosed a total of $11.3 billion in COVID-19 vaccine revenue in the first half of 2021. While this revenue can’t be compared to any other year on record, since the vaccine was only first administered under the FDA’s emergency use authorization in Dec. 2020, Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine has provided more revenue than any other Pfizer vaccine on the market.

The company reported $14.1 billion total revenue from its vaccine programs in the first half of 2021. Just under $3 billion of that is coming from other Pfizer vaccines for diseases including pneumococcal disease, tick-borne encephalitis disease and meningococcal disease.

In Moderna’s second quarter SEC filing, the company reported a net income of nearly $2.8 billion. During the second quarter of 2020, Moderna reported a loss of $117 million. In total, the pharmaceutical company has generated $4 billion of net income in 2021.

Moderna’s total product revenue from its COVID-19 vaccine was $4.2 billion in the second quarter of 2021, and $5.9 billion for the first half of the year. Its COVID-19 vaccine is the first product the company has brought to market and therefore doesn’t have a comparable revenue in 2020. In 2020, Moderna spent just $280,000 on lobbying efforts and the company has spent $290,000 so far on lobbying in 2021.

Johnson & Johnson, which is a larger company than both Pfizer and Moderna with more products on the market, reported a booming net income of $6.3 billion in the second quarter of 2021, and $12.5 billion in the first half of 2021. However, the company reported just $164 million in sales of its one-dose COVID-19 vaccine in the second quarter, and $264 million in the first half of the year. Johnson & Johnson spent $5.6 million on lobbying efforts in 2020, and has already spent about $3.3 million on lobbying in 2021. – Open Secrets

The answer is that the coronavirus has been a bonanza for pharmaceutical companies. And they most certainly would have preferred to have the coronavirus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology than not have it leak. Furthermore, the coronavirus has not stopped GOF research. If more lab leaks can be generated, it can mean even more business for drug companies.

And Dr. Fauci, combined with funding from the Pentagon and other USAID, all of whom these companies can thank for this windfall.

Question #2: How Much Money Has and Will Dr. Fauci Profit from the Coronavirus?

Most do not know that Fauci makes money from drugs.

What most do not understand is how Dr. Fauci can and does profit directly from the vaccines. The Bayh-Dole Act – a law passed in 1980 – allows scientists involved in developing a drug to SHARE IN THE ROYALTIES on sales of the drug. This fact was publicly disclosed in 2005 when Dr. Fauci was involved in an Interleukin trial gone wrong. Patients were getting sick and dying of toxicity and complaining that Dr. Fauci had failed to disclose he had a financial interest in the drug. Dr. Fauci, along with an NIH physician, Joseph Kovacs, was a co-developer of Interleukin-2. Under Bayh-Dole, this was one of the many patents from which Dr. Fauci could derive drug royalties. The test subjects might have felt differently about their decision to enroll in the trial had Dr. Fauci informed them he would benefit with a portion of the $8.9 million in royalties. Today, it is unknown exactly how many patents in which Dr. Fauci has a direct or indirect financial interest. But, according to David E. Martin, PhD, a Batten Fellow at the University of Virginia and an expert on Intellectual Property rights (patents), the answer could be as high as 3,500.

This pre-existing patented pathogen was described as an infectious coronavirus that afflicted human lung tissue and involved a Spike protein and an ACE-2 receptor. Dr. Martin considers this conclusive evidence that “we made SARS,” and it did not arise out of nature from zoonotic transfer as we have been led to believe.

That patent clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing the fact that we knew the ACE receptor, the ACE-2 Binding Domain, the S1 Spike Protein, and other elements of what we have come to know as this scourge pathogen that was not only engineered but could be synthetically modified in the laboratory, using nothing more than gene sequencing technologies, taking computer code, and turning it into a pathogen or an intermediate of the pathogen.

Peter Daszak (whose organization Eco Health, through the NIH GOF research grant flowed to the NIH) was discussing ways to monetize the coronavirus vaccine as early as 2016. On February 12, 2016, Daszak stated,

“We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.” – The Desert Review

How Was the Vaccine Created So Quickly?

Media reports are that mRNA technology has advanced to the point where vaccines can be created far more quickly than ever before. That is why this quote is of interest.

Dr. Fauci failed to mention a canine coronavirus Spike protein vaccine had already been invented and patented by Pfizer on January 28, 2000. It was approved as US patent number 6372224.

However, with Operation Warp speed, we were led to believe a spike protein coronavirus vaccine was brand new.

On February 11, 2021, the US Department of Health and Human Services announced deals between the United States government and Pfizer and Moderna to purchase the vaccine. To date, more than $10 billion has been committed in payments for the COVID-19 vaccines.

With the soon-to-be-implemented booster shots, Bloomberg estimates the COVID vaccine market will emerge as a $100 billion industry in 2021 alone.

And if the industry gets its wish, there will be no end to the Pandemic. COVID-19 will become an endemic virus with hundreds of variants requiring hundreds of new drugs and new patents and new royalty checks to all the doctors and scientists involved – not the least of whom is Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Only this time, it will not be splitting a check for $8.9 million. Instead, it will involve royalties on some $100 billion annually. Now to the gaslighting. – The Desert Review

Why Hydroxychloroquine Had to Be Killed

Any treatment or drug that does not drive high profits for the pharmaceutical industry (so it is not patented) has to be killed in the public’s mind, or it will be used as a substitute for far more expensive patented drugs.

The following discusses this exact topic.

He (Peter Daszak) was also a member of the prestigious Lancet’s inspection team and appointed the lead inspector. So I guess it pays to be Anthony Fauci’s friend. The Lancet was coincidentally the same medical journal that published the fraudulent study that “killed” hydroxychloroquine. So it was pretty convenient for eliminating a competing treatment; however, the study provided fake data to imply HCQ was dangerous and was later retracted in shame. Causing the publishing of phony research speaks to the power and reach of Big Pharma and Big Regulators. This paper tarnished both Lancet and lead author Mandeep Mehra, but only after HCQ was dealt a death blow. – The Desert Review

The following graphic is from the website C19 Early Treatment.

Early treatment. 97% of early treatment studies report a positive effect, with an estimated reduction of 64% in the effect measured (death, hospitalization, etc.) from the random effects meta-analysis, RR 0.36 [0.29-0.46].

Late treatment. Late treatment studies are mixed, with 68% showing positive effects, and an estimated reduction of 19% in the random effects meta-analysis. Negative studies mostly fall into the following categories: they show evidence of significant unadjusted confounding, including confounding by indication; usage is extremely late; or they use an excessively high dosage.

This supports the claim of The Desert Review that Hydroxychloroquine is effective against the coronavirus. However, Trump was lampooned and smeared in the media for supporting Hydroxychloroquine.

However, instead of Hydroxychloroquine, a different, far less effective drug was preferred, as is covered in the following quotation.

HCQ is cheap (costing under $10 for the course of a COVID-19 treatment), well-understood by physicians having been prescribed for more than 80 years, and can be taken orally. Yet, Dr. Anthony Fauci and others at the National Health Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases preferred remdesivir, a proprietary, intravenous drug manufactured by Gilead Sciences, costing about $3,500 per treatment, with unknown side effects. And as to not make Big Pharma mad — and possibly threaten invites to cocktail parties, board seats and threaten grant monies — Dr. Fauci and his cohorts did everything possible to promote remdesivir and downplay HCQ, possibly costing millions of lives around the globe. – Washington Times

The following is the effectiveness of remdesivir according to C19 RMD.

Observe that this far lower effectiveness was obtained at 350x the price of Hydroxychloroquine. 

Fauci Providing False Information on AIDS in the 1980s

This video does a great job explaining how Fauci mismanaged the AIDS response from the NIH in the 1980s.

Fauci is speaking unscientifically right in this interview!

Both communicate what is a hypothesis and then concentrate on just AZT to exclude everything else.


Democrats have adopted Fauci and sanctified him and are unwilling to question anything Fauci says. Fauci is profoundly unscientific and is inappropriate to be head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which he has been head of since 1984.

Fauci is aggressively in favor of GOF research and lies about the NIH funds GOF research. There is no disputing that the pharmaceutical industry is extraordinarily happy having Dr. Fauci.