Open The Books has been digging deeply into government and political corruption, helping to make transparent what they would prefer to keep hidden. The organization recently did a deep dive into California First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom‘s non-profits that peddle porn and WOKE ideology.
On Monday, Open The Books set its sights on the retired NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Dr. Anthony Fauci and his wife, Dr. Christine Grady. This first installment of their “House of Fauci” expose will make you want to chew nails. If you haven’t been paying attention, Grady is still currently employed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as the chief ethicist. Irony of ironies, says the writer; everything is irony.
Guess it saved them gas on their daily commute.
From Open The Books on Substack:
While Tony Fauci was the top paid federal bureaucrat and out-earned the U.S. President at $480,654 per year, Christine Grady, as the chief bioethicist at NIH out-earned the U.S. Vice President ($243,749). When adding 35-percent in benefits, the couple cost taxpayers an estimated nearly $1 million per year.
It’s difficult to know where Anthony Fauci ends and Christine Grady begins. Here’s how Tony Fauci described Grady’s influence on his public policy decisions:
“I’ve benefited greatly from this partnership of overlapping interest and common interest. So, a lot of the things that I do with regard to the development of vaccines, the development of therapies, being involved with outbreaks and pandemics, have ethical overtones to them. I can say that I am very blessed to be living with someone who is very likely, most people think, one of the most outstanding ethicists in the world. To have her in the house — you know, as a consultant on ethical issues—is pretty advantageous.”
So, the Faucis lived a conflict of interest at the breakfast table, the office, and back home around the dinner table. However, NIH has never acknowledged this.
In fact, NIH forced our organization to file two federal lawsuits with the public-interest law firm Judicial Watch as our lawyers to finally bring transparency to the Fauci/Grady job descriptions, conflict of interest documents, financial and ethics disclosures, contracts, and other documents.
As we have learned from Fauci’s relationship with Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance and their gain-of-function research, not to mention the evidence of NIH funding the torture of beagles, I surmise that Grady is not very good at her job. There is nothing ethical about co-signing research that has been deemed beyond the pale, morally or scientifically.
But it seems as though Fauci and Grady saw no issue with trafficking in conflicts of interest, while feathering their love nest.
While Grady’s work during the pandemic was described as “invaluable” by then-NIH director Francis Collins, the general public knows little about her day-to-day responsibilities.
An open records request for Grady’s job description reveals she, too, is meant to use her position to influence policy.
In reading that description from Grady’s job description, this popped out: (Emphasis mine)
Dr. Grady plans to continue to focus her research on informed consent, motivations, and vulnerability, some of which could be integrated with tools of neuroscience and the use of neuro-imaging to understand decision making.
Open The Books outlines how influential Grady was to Fauci’s decisions on lockdowns. In implementing these lockdowns on the American people (and the world), not one of us gave informed consent, the motivators to get us to lock down were based on false and misleading “science,” and Fauci had been warned by smarter people that the vulnerable populations—the marginalized, minorities, and low-income communities—would be adversely affected by lockdowns. Children and young adults, the least susceptible to the effects of COVID-19, were deliberately made to be vulnerable, while the most vulnerable, our elderly and infirm, were deliberately left unprotected.
Mortality from #COVID19 differs more than a thousand-fold between the old and young. Focused protection is the compassionate approach that balances COVID risks and collateral damage to public health.https://t.co/63I0hcZK1J
— Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) August 23, 2021
Dr. Fauci knew that his “draconian policies” on social isolation and economic lockdowns would have “collateral negative consequences,” and admitted Christine Grady was a driving force behind his hardline approach.
In a November 2021 interview with the couple, Fauci said that he gained strength from his wife’s support saying, “background and her experience in really core ethical principles [helped] me to really feel much more comfortable in what I was saying.”
In the interview, Christine Grady described how she mind-mapped national policy with her husband:
“But we’ve had conversations about the sort of consequences of telling people to stay home and what it would do for the economy. And there were a lot of people in those days that, and still who said, it’s ruining the economy. It’s much more important to just keep things going and not worry about transmitting virus…I said, that one of the messages should be, how many lives are you willing to sacrifice? And that message would be pretty stark and pretty brutal, but that’s really what the trade-off was…And so we’ve had that kind of conversation over dinner more than once, actually.”
Fauci replied that these conversations “sharpened [his] resolve” to move forward with lockdown policies.
Social isolation was one of the individual sacrifices Grady and Fauci thought were necessary to make on behalf of “public health.”
So, now we know. Not only was this couple getting fat on the taxpayer dime, but they colluded to destroy people’s physical, psychological, and emotional health.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 23, 2020
The Open The Books report delves even more deeply into the ways Fauci and Grady were in cahoots on pandemic policy: from the shifting mantras on masks, to pushing vaccines rather than already available treatments that could address COVID and its effects more concretely, to probably the most horrific part of the pandemic: advocating for patients to die in isolation, rather than be surrounded by their loved ones.
During the pandemic, Grady revealed a default preference for government control over individual rights and responsibilities. Grady was an early proponent of one of the most heinous pandemic polices: patients dying in isolation.
For example, while uncritically accepting dying in isolation as a fact of the pandemic, Grady’s primary solution was to expand funding for health care workers to have access to therapy and other resources to heal from their “moral distress.”
As early as April 2020 Grady said:
“Because of visiting policies and fear of contagion sometimes when somebody is really sick their family cannot visit them, they can’t see them…the stress and the sadness and the isolation on families is and is going to be great.”
This supposed head of ethics knew this, and did not care. In her policies, Grady also reflected Fauci’s disdain for individual liberties.
As a public health measure, lockdowns were a failure; as a political project and propaganda campaign, they were terrifyingly successful. Western leaders weren’t sure they could get away with suspending basic rights and freedoms for all citizens—until they managed exactly that. https://t.co/4PC07SlGwJ
— Geoff Shullenberger (@g_shullenberger) March 23, 2023
In a November 2020 NIH presentation she called these “lonely” deaths “understandable:”
“It’s a lonely kind of death, many institutions, understandably have visitor policies which either restrict the number of visitors to one or zero so sometimes people are dying without having their family nearby and that puts an additional burden on the healthcare staff.”
In one co-authored paper urging healthcare workers to “temper these potentially dehumanizing scenarios with imaginative solutions that do not sacrifice compassion and equal respect on the altars of safety and efficiency.”
She interrogates the tension between individual freedom and community safety in a book published April 26, 2022, as a co-author proposing a radical “solidarity model” for ethics in healthcare, stating that rather than emphasizing a respect for individuals to make decisions in their own interest:
“We should recognize that there are times when solidarity takes precedence over individual liberties, and broadening our concept of “respect for persons” means uniting as a profession to protect all those who expect to receive care from nurses in whatever healthcare setting they find themselves.”
She co-edited a section in the same book arguing this extends to dying in insolation:
“The solidarity model may apply to restricted family visitation, which generated moral distress for nurses, particularly when patients died without loved ones present…”
To be clear: the emotional distress of the nursing staff watching a patient die alone was more of a concern to Grady than the anguish the patient had to endure while dying without their loved ones being present. That is more than cold; it is calculated and craven.
These people are a special kind of sick, and they have infected and degraded not just public health, but our trust in the institutions that were supposed to uphold our lives and our freedoms. Just as Fauci needs to be held accountable, Grady also needs to be called before a Senate Oversight hearing to answer for her collusion with her husband in implementing these measures and co-signing these policies. She should also be placed on suspension or completely removed from her job. Grady is just as guilty as Fauci in the untold harm and deaths Americans suffered during the COVID pandemic.
