Daughter of Hugh Auchincloss, who Replaces Tony Fauci, Gets Paid by Big Pharma
Is This Corruption, or the New Normal?
Tony Fauci’s wife, Christine Grady, is not a private citizen. She has a very influential post: she is a director of Bioethics at the NIH, while her husband Tony was the director of NIAID until December.
Christine heads the NIH section on human subjects research, vetting ethics of vaccine trials, and much more. A couple where the husband is responsible for developing vaccines and their trials in human subjects, and the wife is responsible for bioethics of human subjects research, presents obvious ethical problems, would you agree?
Christine was the person who could call attention to one subject of the Pfizer COVID vaccine trial, Pfizer Study Subject C4591001 1162 11621327, who died from the COVID vaccine but was recorded as an “unrelated death.” She did not do this, of course, as her husband’s vaccine development was too important to derail with a few deaths here and there.
Sounds bad, right?
Well, Fauci is outdone by his future replacement Hugh Auchincloss. Hugh will be responsible for the same things as Anthony Fauci was - such as vaccines, infectious diseases, gene therapy, and more.
It turns out that Hugh has a little conflict of interest.
His daughter Kalah Auchincloss, is the Executive Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of Greenleaf Health.
The firm that Kalah Auchincloss works for is an “FDA Consulting firm,” which consults pharmaceutical companies on how to access the FDA. (Kalah previously held senior positions at the FDA.) Areas of expertise for Greenleaf Health include “Cell & Gene Therapy” related services, “regulatory policy services,” and more. Paying Greenleaf is a way to get the doors open at the FDA.
So while her dad Hugh would be heading the NIAID, Kalah would get paid nicely for “expediting access” to the FDA for gene therapy-related companies, regulatory requests, etc.
I am very happy for Kalah, as it seems that she has a very nice gig going. I am happy for her dad Hugh also. I am less happy for the general public, who expects an impartial regulator working without conflicts of interest.
Is that a “10% for the Big Guy” situation?
Are we being watched by honest regulators?
If Kalah gets paid very well by a company that depends on Hugh’s decisions, and such a company develops a new “safe and effective” treatment for something, would you take it?
Would we even know if Kalah made an extra million here and there while her dad handled multi-billion contracts?