There Seems To Be A Conflict Of Interest Here

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today that may explain why Dr. Fauci is promoting remdesivir and downplaying the success of hydroxychloroquine.

It seems that remdesivir has some very interesting connections. Gilead Sciences is the company that produces remdesivir.

The article explains:

And just who, or what is Gilead Sciences? Gilead is partnered with Wuxi AppTec, an international pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and medical device company. According to Wikipedia, “The company covers the development cycle through five core operations, including small molecule R&D and manufacturing, biologics R&D and manufacturing, cell therapy and gene therapy R&D and manufacturing, medical device testing, and molecular testing and genomics.” And where, you may ask, is the company located? Wuxi AppTec was begun in Shanghai by Dr. Gi Li now with facilities also in Wuxi City and Suzhou, China, as well as facilities in St. Paul, Minnesota, Philadelphia and Atlanta. Wuxi AppTec is owned in part by none other than America’s own – George Soros.

Follow the money.

The article includes the following:

The article continues:

In addition, WND reports Gilead is related to UNITAID:

Holding this web together is the fact that Gilead has endorsed and is engaged with a drug purchasing group, UNITAID. UNITAID is an outgrowth of the United Nations, Millennium Declaration of 2000, which is now the U.N. Global Compact.

The large investors in UNITAID include WHO, George Soros, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and a partnership relationship with the Clinton Health Access Initiative. Both Drs. Fauci and Birx are associated with the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

The one person behind the promotion of Gilead’s remdesivir is the doctor who has worked with Gilead for a long time, Dr. Fauci.  He also has downplayed and criticized the use of the much cheaper drug hydroxychloroquine:

Can there be any uncertainty as to why Dr. Fauci, who worked closely with Gilead, is strongly promoting its more expensive and less effective medication, which has already failed against Ebola, over a readily available, markedly affordable medication with a 91% success rate?

How long has the production of remdesivir been in the planning?  Why is this drug so highly touted by Dr. Fauci?  The answer appears to be related to Gilead Sciences.

These connections might explain a lot.

 

It Just Gets Messier

The Washington Free Beacon reported yesterday that The Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI). which was spun off from the Clinton Foundation in 2010, is not going to refile its tax returns. The CHAI failed to comply with a conflict-of-interest pledge after promising to do so.

The article reports:

The Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), which was spun off from the foundation in 2010, did not solicit a State Department ethics review of multiple contributions from foreign governments as mandated by a conflict-of-interest pledge established before Hillary Clinton assumed the role of secretary of state in 2009. A CHAI representative told Reuters in April that the organization was planning to refile its 2012 and 2013 tax returns.

However, Politico reported Monday that the same representative insists that the organization never promised to refile the forms and will not do so.

“Contrary to what was reported, CHAI has consistently stated that they would conduct a review process to determine whether the transposition errors required a refiling,”  CHAI spokeswoman Maura Daley stated. “After conducting the review, the transpositional errors made had no material impact and we do not believe a refiling is required.”

The Clinton Foundation itself has had some problems with accountability. In April of this year, The New York Post reported the following:

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

Democratic voters really need to reconsider whether or not they want to put these people back in the White House. They are obviously ethically challenged.