COVID Corruption Media Articles

Excerpts of Key COVID Corruption Media Articles in Major Media

Below are key excerpts of revealing news articles on COVID corruption from reliable news media sources. If any link fails to function, a paywall blocks full access, or the article is no longer available, try these digital tools.

For further exploration, delve into our comprehensive Coronavirus Information Center.

Note: Explore our full index to key excerpts of revealing major media news articles on several dozen engaging topics. And don't miss amazing excerpts from 20 of the most revealing news articles ever published.

The original coronavirus lockdowns had 'little to no' effect on pandemic death tolls in the US, UK and Europe, a controversial report suggests. Economists who carried out a meta-analysis found draconian restrictions imposed in spring 2020 – including stay-at-home orders, compulsory masks and social distancing – only reduced Covid mortality by 0.2 per cent. They warned that lockdowns caused 'enormous economic and social costs' and concluded they were 'ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument' going forward. The review, led by a Johns Hopkins University professor, argued that border closures had virtually zero effect on Covid mortality, reducing deaths by just 0.1 per cent. There has been a growing consensus that draconian restrictions have led to a rise in non-Covid deaths, thought to be people whose conditions worsened during the pandemic when they could not access healthcare. In the latest report, the researchers admit their review does not answer 'why' lockdowns didn't achieve their ultimate goal in saving lives but they float a number of explanations. They claimed the best explanation for differing Covid death rates in countries was 'differences in population age and health' and the 'quality of the health sector. But they could not rule out 'less obvious factors, such as culture, communication, and coincidences'. Covid deaths are also skewed by the volume of testing each country carries out, which many scientists have highlighted as the driving factor behind Britain's large toll.  

Note: Why did other major media completely ignore this vitally important news? You can find this critical study on the Johns Hopkins University website at this link. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.

Lockdowns during the first COVID-19 wave in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by .2% in the U.S. and Europe, according to a Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of several studies. "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted," the researchers wrote. "In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument." The researchers – Johns Hopkins University economics professor Steve Hanke, Lund University economics professor Lars Jonung, and special advisor at Copenhagen's Center for Political Studies Jonas Herby – analyzed the effects of lockdown measures such as school shutdowns, business closures, and mask mandates on COVID-19 deaths. "We find little to no evidence that mandated lockdowns in Europe and the United States had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality rates," the researchers wrote. The researchers also examined shelter-in-place orders, finding that they reduced COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%. Studies that looked at only shelter-in-place orders found they reduced COVID-19 mortality by 5.1%, but studies that looked at shelter-in-place orders along with other lockdown measures found that shelter-in-place orders actually increased COVID-19 mortality by 2.8%. The researchers concluded that limiting gatherings may have actually increased COVID-19 mortality. 

Note: Why did other major media platforms overlook this vitally important news? You can find this critical study on the Johns Hopkins University website at this link. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption and the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.

At this point, one thing about the pandemic is clear: The COVID-19 vaccines, even when followed by a booster, aren't going to stop the coronavirus – or provide long-term protection from infections. Right after the third shot – the booster – antibodies rise up quickly. But then about a month later, they begin to decline. As a result, protection against infection drops down to about 50% three months later. So the question is: Should you get a fourth dose to beef up protection again? A preliminary study from Israel ... suggests that for the general population, the answer is likely no. A fourth shot of the same vaccine – in this case Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna – offered very little extra protection against infection compared with only three shots. "Not a third dose, not a fourth dose, not a fifth dose will do anything to stop infections [long term]," says Dr. Gili Regev-Yochay, an infectious disease specialist at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel, and lead author of the new study. Regev-Yochay and her team gave about 300 health care workers a fourth shot, either Pfizer or Moderna. And then they looked to see if those people were less likely to become infected while working at Sheba Medical Center, compared with about 400 health care workers who had received only three shots. The extra dose reduced the risk of an infection by only about 10% to 30%, Regev-Yochay and her team report. The extra dose also didn't appear to activate T cells, which are critical for clearing out a future infection.

Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.

Massachusetts health officials on Tuesday reported ... 290 more deaths in people with breakthrough cases. In the last week, 27,530 new breakthrough cases - infections in people who have been vaccinated - were reported, with 555 more vaccinated people hospitalized over the period. It's a 40% drop in the rate of new breakthrough cases in Massachusetts - the previous week saw 46,092 new COVID infections in vaccinated people. On Tuesday ... there were 127 new deaths reported -- a statistic that includes three days because of the weekend -- bringing the death toll to 21,546. The seven-day average test positivity stands at 7.13%. In December, Massachusetts Department of Public Health officials released a study that found that 97% of breakthrough cases in the state did not become severely ill and rarely led to deaths, especially among young people. Massachusetts' COVID metrics, tracked on the Department of Public Health's interactive coronavirus dashboard, have been trending downward after spiking to heights not seen since previous surges, a peak thought to be driven at least in part by the omicron variant.

Note: As of Jan. 31, 2022, Massachusetts had a total of 21,546 COVID deaths as reported above. Their first COVID death was on Mar. 20, 2020. So over the 97 weeks since the start of the pandemic, they averaged 222 deaths a week. Yet in the last week of January 2022, this NBC article reports 290 breakthrough deaths. So the number of deaths among the vaccinated in that one week was greater than the average weekly number of deaths for the whole pandemic. Weren't these vaccines supposed to be 90% effective or more?

In the early days of the COVID pandemic, Cuba decided it was going to make its own vaccine. It didn't want to rely on the whims of foreign governments or international pharmaceutical companies to immunize its people. Cuba didn't even sign up for the COVAX program, backed by the World Health Organization, that was promising to purchase vaccines in bulk and distribute them equitably around the globe. Cuba's vaccine development effort wasn't just risky from health perspective. Politically if the rest of the world got vaccine far earlier than Cuba, it would be a huge blow to the government. Cuba now has five vaccines in various stages. Three of the vaccines, Soberana 1, Soberana 2 and Soberna Plus, were developed at the Finlay Institute in Havana. The other two, Abdala and Mambisa, came out of Cuba's Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. Soberana 2, Soberana Plus and Abdala are authorized by the Cuban authorities for use and export while the other two (one of which is a nasal spray) are still in clinical trials. None of them have yet been authorized by the World Health Organization or any other major international regulator. But they've allowed Cuba to boast one of the highest COVID vaccination rates in the world. More than 85% of the island nation is fully immunized against the virus – a far higher vaccination rate than the U.S.. At a time when many other low- and middle-income nations continue to struggle to get enough doses, Cuba is exporting vaccine to Iran, Venezuela, Mexico, Nicaragua and Vietnam.

Note: These vaccines do not rely on the mRNA technology about whose long-term side effects we know little to nothing. In deaths per million from COVID, Cuba is ranked #71 out of 155 countries as of early February 2022. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.

Here in California, our children continue to navigate the most restrictive policies in the country, in many cases not even allowing them to remove their masks while outdoors at school. There are now calls ... to exchange their cloth masks for thicker, larger and tighter N95/KN95 masks. The World Health Organization does not recommend the routine masking of young children at all, let alone the proposition that tight-fitting respirators should be donned by children for multiple hours a day. Yet we have come to view this as appropriate and necessary in California, despite our high levels of protection from serious COVID-19 illness given widespread vaccine uptake. Our government leaders made an implicit promise that the vaccination of adults and children would be the conduit by which our society would return to pre-pandemic freedoms. Despite a highly successful vaccination campaign in the Bay Area, most COVID-19 restrictions have remained in place for two years and counting. And despite widespread access to vaccines, we continue to prioritize the prevention of COVID-19 transmission, even in the absence of severe illness, above most other health considerations. Last week, we began an online petition asking California officials to immediately shift our public dialogue toward defining a path for removing all remaining COVID-19 restrictions in public schools. Despite the pushback we have received, normalizing our school environment is not a radical concept.

Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.

Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins University. The lockdowns during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%, said the broad review of multiple scientific studies. "We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality," the researchers wrote. But the research paper said lockdowns did have "devastating effects" on the economy and contributed to numerous social ills. "They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy," the report said. "Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument," the paper concluded. Early on, many states and 186 countries imposed bans on work, socialization, in-person schooling, travel and other restrictions to limit the spread of the disease, citing recommendations by top health care experts. Researchers at the Imperial College London, for example, predicted that such steps could reduce death rates by up to 98%. That never happened, according to the new study by researchers Steve Hanke, Jonas Herby, and Lars Jonung at Johns Hopkins.

Note: Why did other major media platforms overlook this vitally important news? You can find this critical study on the Johns Hopkins University website at this link. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption and the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.

Organizers of a demonstration protesting vaccine mandates outside Canada's Parliament have reportedly said they have enough money to keep trucks there for up to four years. Thousands of protesters converged on Parliament Hill in Ottawa over the weekend, joined by truckers who had traveled across Canada as part of a "Freedom Convoy." Although initially organized to oppose vaccine mandates for truck drivers crossing the Canada-U.S. border, it has grown in recent days into a movement against COVID-19 restrictions in general, and Justin Trudeau's government. The demonstration in Ottawa on Saturday saw truckers block the streets around Canada's parliament building. It comes as a GoFundMe campaign called "Freedom Convoy 2022" surpassed more than $7.1 million ($9.1 million CAD) in donations. Ottawa Police said on Sunday that officers have been "actively and patiently managing a well-funded, major demonstration in the downtown core" and that there had been "multiple cases of disruptive, inappropriate and threatening behavior from demonstrators." Police "are aware that many demonstrators have announced their intention to stay in place," the statement added. "This will continue to cause major traffic, noise and safety issues in the downtown core. We urge all residents to avoid travel to the core." Trudeau and his family left their home in Ottawa over security concerns. The Canadian leader has called the protesters a "small fringe minority."

Note: GoFundMe stopped donations to the group and Facebook removed the Freedom Convoy page. What gives them the right to do this? And if you look at MSM reporting, the vast majority of report put a negative spin on this. And you can bet that agent provocateurs have been sent to cause trouble then blamed on the protest. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.

A convoy of big rigs has arrived in the national capital to protest vaccine mandates and Covid-19 measures. It's been dubbed the Freedom Convoy. The movement was sparked by a vaccine mandate for truckers crossing the US-Canada border, implemented by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberal government earlier this month. Upset with the new measure that would require unvaccinated Canadian truckers crossing the two nations' boundary to quarantine once they've returned home, a loose coalition of truckers and conservative groups began to organise the cross-country drive that began in western Canada. It picked up steam and gathered support as it drove east. Many supporters, already opposed to Mr Trudeau and his politics, have grown frustrated with pandemic measures they see as political overreach. Social media and news footage showed trucks and companion vehicles snaking along highways, cheered on by people gathered on roadsides and overpasses, often waving Canadian flags and signs disparaging Mr Trudeau. A GoFundMe campaign has raised, to date, over a whopping C$7m ($5.4m; Ł4m) from over 99,000 donors. "We want to be free, we want to have our choice again, and we want hope - and the government has taken that away," Harold Jonker, a truck driver and trucking company owner, told the BBC. Mr Trudeau this week denounced the convoy and its supporters as a "small fringe minority". But the convoy has received some support from Conservative politicians.

Note: If you look at MSM reporting, the vast majority of report put a negative spin on this. And you can bet that agent provocateurs have been sent to cause trouble then blamed on the protest. Facebook removed the Freedom Convoy page while GoFundMe stopped donations to the group. What gives them the right to do this? For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.

Since the start of the pandemic, childcare costs have gone through the roof. Across the U.S., parents are seeing an average annual cost increase of 41% for center-based childcare providers, and spending an average of $14,117 annually, up from $9,977 pre-pandemic, according to data from a recent LendingTree report. Households with children younger than 5 were hit hardest by these increases, the report found. Since the pandemic began, center-based care providers for 3- and 4-year-olds have seen their annual costs increase by 57%. Costs for center-based care providers for kids under 2 grew by 37%. Care providers for 3- and 4-year-olds in Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana saw the biggest jump in expenses, with an annual average increase of at least 144%. As for the direct impact on households, Indiana families with kids under 5 put the biggest chunk of their income–20%–toward childcare, with the average family spending $11,212 a year. Vermont families are close behind, with 19% of their paycheck–an average of $13,538 annually–going toward childcare. Families in New Jersey, Mississippi, Kentucky, Texas, and North Dakota pay the lowest portion, at 11%. But they may also be seeing a jump in their costs in the near future; in each of those states, the average care center saw its expenses increase by over 50% during the pandemic. The bulk of the increased costs stems from staffing, which the Center for American Progress says makes up 70% of a childcare provider's total budget.

Note: Note that this major increase in childcare cost was caused not directly by the pandemic, but more by the isolation of the lockdown measures instituted. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.

Almost 500 U.S. service members have been discharged so far for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine. But that number is likely to climb as the various military branches continue the process of dealing with those who are refusing to get vaccinated against COVID-19, or have requested exemptions. The Navy said on Tuesday that it has discharged 23 active-duty sailors for refusing the coronavirus vaccine. The Air Force, as of January 21, has discharged 111 active-duty airmen. As of January 20, the Marine Corps had discharged 334 Marines. The Army is the only service that has not yet initiated separations for active-duty personnel for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine. But in a news release earlier this month, the Army said it had relieved six active-duty leaders, including two battalion commanders, from their positions for refusing the vaccine. The Army also said it had issued almost 3,000 general officer written reprimands to soldiers for vaccine refusal. The 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law in December, prohibits service members from being dishonorably discharged for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Last summer, the Department of Defense announced that it would make COVID-19 vaccination mandatory for all service members–active-duty, National Guard and Reserves. Around 98 percent of active-duty service members are fully vaccinated, according to the Department of Defense.

Note: This 3-minute video features a hearing where data was given by Dept. of Defense whistleblowers reporting on the health of US soldiers. The data clearly shows that neurological problems among troops increased by 10 times (1,000%) over previous years. Other disease also had major increases. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.

Pfizer Inc wants to intervene in a Texas federal lawsuit seeking information from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration used in licensing the company's COVID-19 vaccine, a litigation move that plaintiffs who are suing for the data say is premature. Pfizer's lawyers at DLA Piper told U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman on Jan. 21 it wanted a role in the proceedings to help the FDA avoid "inappropriately" disclosing trade secret and confidential commercial information. On Tuesday night, the group of doctors and scientists who sued last year over public access to the FDA's Pfizer licensing records said in a court filing that the company's bid to jump into the lawsuit was untimely because the plaintiffs have not challenged any redactions to requested records. Earlier this month, the judge ordered a fast-track release of hundreds of thousands of documents, calling the case "of paramount public importance." U.S. government agencies control the release of information under federal public-records laws, but companies can challenge and even sue to block the disclosure of certain details. The FDA earlier drew criticism over its plan to release 500 pages a month in response to the lawsuit from Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, a production schedule that would take more than 50 years to complete. In its filing, Pfizer said the company supports public disclosure of FDA records "to promote transparency and the public's confidence in the vaccine."

Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on Big Pharma corruption and coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.

Austrian lawmakers on Thursday voted 137-33 in favor of a COVID-19 mandate that requires all residents 18 and older to be vaccinated. The mandate, which will go into effect on February 1, will allow fines of up to $4,000 for noncompliance. Officials said the mandate is necessary since Austria's vaccination rate is one of the lowest in Western Europe. Our World Data reported that 74 percent of the country is vaccinated. Austria ... has had four lockdowns. AP reported that police will routinely check vaccination status, and those who cannot show proof of vaccination will first receive a warning and then be fined $685 if they don't comply. Chancellor Karl Nehammer said the government also plans to send unvaccinated individuals vaccine appointments and will be fined if they don't show up. Vaccination exemptions will be made for pregnant women, people who cannot get vaccinated for medical reasons and people who have recovered from coronavirus somewhere in the past six months. There will also be $1.59 billion invested into incentives to encourage unvaccinated people to get the shot. Since the mandate was first announced, there have been large protests in Vienna, drawing more than 40,000 people. The mandate is the first of its kind in Europe. Italy and Greece made the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory for ages 50-plus and 60-plus, respectively. The Austrian mandate is expected to stay in place until January of 2024.

Note: Greece is also issuing monthly fines to older people who don't get a vaccine. The government can now mandate what is put in your body when we don't even know the long-term effects. Is this is moral and ethical? For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.

In the pages of The BMJ a decade ago, in the middle of a different pandemic, it came to light that governments around the world had spent billions stockpiling antivirals for influenza that had not been shown to reduce the risk of complications, hospital admissions, or death. The errors of the last pandemic are being repeated. Memories are short. Today, despite the global rollout of covid-19 vaccines and treatments, [the] data underlying the trials for these new products remain inaccessible to doctors, researchers, and the public–and are likely to remain that way for years to come. This is morally indefensible for all trials, but especially for those involving major public health interventions. Pfizer's pivotal covid vaccine trial was funded by the company and designed, run, analysed, and authored by Pfizer employees. The company and the contract research organisations that carried out the trial hold all the data. And Pfizer has indicated that it will not begin entertaining requests for trial data until May 2025, 24 months after the primary study completion date. The lack of access to data is consistent across vaccine manufacturers. Regulators and public health bodies could release details such as why vaccine trials were not designed to test efficacy against infection and spread of SARS-CoV-2. Had regulators insisted on this outcome, countries would have learnt sooner about the effect of vaccines on transmission and been able to plan accordingly.

Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.

Previous infection with the coronavirus appeared to provide stronger protection against the Delta variant than did vaccination in a large sample of patients, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. Scientists analyzed testing, surveillance and immunization data from the [New York and California] to gauge the level of protection offered by vaccines and previous infection. During the week beginning May 30, 2021, vaccinated people who had not experienced Covid had the lowest risk of coronavirus infection and hospitalization, followed by unvaccinated people who had been previously diagnosed with Covid. By the week beginning Oct. 3, however, vaccinated people with a prior diagnosis fared best against the Delta variant. Unvaccinated people with a history of Covid also had lower rates of infection and hospitalization than those protected by vaccines alone. Waning of vaccine-derived immunity may explain why vaccinated people were less protected from infection with the Delta variant than those who had a prior diagnosis. A recent study of employees at the Cleveland Clinic suggested that ... vaccination does not add much benefit to a prior bout for the first many months.

Note: The full article is strongly biased towards vaccination, yet the data shows that prior exposure to COVID often provides better protection than the vaccines, whose protection clearly wanes over time. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.

Previous infection with the coronavirus appeared to provide stronger protection against the Delta variant than did vaccination in a large sample of patients, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. Scientists analyzed testing, surveillance and immunization data from the [New York and California] to gauge the level of protection offered by vaccines and previous infection. During the week beginning May 30, 2021, vaccinated people who had not experienced Covid had the lowest risk of coronavirus infection and hospitalization, followed by unvaccinated people who had been previously diagnosed with Covid. By the week beginning Oct. 3, however, vaccinated people with a prior diagnosis fared best against the Delta variant. Unvaccinated people with a history of Covid also had lower rates of infection and hospitalization than those protected by vaccines alone. Waning of vaccine-derived immunity may explain why vaccinated people were less protected from infection with the Delta variant than those who had a prior diagnosis. A recent study of employees at the Cleveland Clinic suggested that ... vaccination does not add much benefit to a prior bout for the first many months.

Note: The full article is strongly biased towards vaccination, yet the data shows that prior exposure to COVID often provides better protection than the vaccines, whose protection clearly wanes over time. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.

The Supreme Court's ruling last week shutting down the Biden administration's effort to enlist large employers in its vaccination campaign, experts said, would trigger a new wave of uncertainty about how companies keep workers safe from Covid-19. Now Starbucks, with 9,000 U.S. coffee shops and 200,000 workers, has become one of the first major retailers to backtrack on vaccine plans since the ruling. Starbucks told its employees in a memo on Tuesday that they would no longer be required to be fully vaccinated or submit to weekly coronavirus testing. Just two weeks earlier, the company had detailed the requirement and set a deadline of Feb. 9. The Supreme Court's decision did not prohibit companies from keeping their vaccine rules in place, and many will continue rolling out stringent Covid-19 safety protocols, especially as Covid case counts remain high. Starbucks's move to drop its vaccine-or-test deadline highlights how the court's ruling has put the responsibility for determining vaccination rules squarely on employers. And companies face a patchwork of federal, state and local laws, which range from vaccine mandates that are stricter than the federal government's to laws blocking companies from requiring workers to wear masks. Retailers and their advocates had been among the most vocal critics of the federal government's vaccine rule, saying it would have exacerbated their struggles to hire or hold on to workers when millions of unemployed Americans remain on the sidelines of the job market.

Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.

The pandemic has made the world's wealthiest far richer but has led to more people living in poverty, according to the charity Oxfam. Lower incomes for the world's poorest contributed to the death of 21,000 people each day. But the world's 10 richest men have more than doubled their collective fortunes since March 2020, Oxfam said. Oxfam typically releases a report on global inequality at the start of the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos. That event usually sees thousands of corporate and political leaders, celebrities, campaigners, economists and journalists gather in the Swiss ski resort for panel discussions, drinks parties and schmoozing. However for the second year running, the meeting (scheduled for this week) will be online-only after the emergence of the Omicron variant derailed plans to return to an in-person event. Danny Sriskandarajah, Oxfam GB's chief executive, said the charity timed the report each year to coincide with Davos to attract the attention of economic, business and political elites. "This year, what's happening is off the scale," he said. "There's been a new billionaire created almost every day during this pandemic, meanwhile 99% of the world's population are worse off because of lockdowns, lower international trade, less international tourism, and as a result of that, 160 million more people have been pushed into poverty." "Something is deeply flawed with our economic system," he added.

Note: BBC sadly fails to mention it is not the pandemic that has caused all of this, but the lockdowns. 21,000 a day, which is one million every 50 days, died as a result of the lockdowns. 160 million humans fell into poverty a result of these lockdowns, not to mention the huge increase in suicides, murders, domestic abuse, shuttered small businesses, and more. Even if a million lives were saved by the lockdowns, was it worth these tremendous costs? For more, see summaries of deeply revealing news articles on the coronavirus from reliable media sources.

Last night, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall received Dr. Anthony Fauci's unredacted FY2020 financial disclosures. The financial disclosures contain a wealth of previously unknown information. For example, the Fauci household's net worth exceeds $10.4 million. During the pandemic year of 2020, their household income, perks and benefits, and unrealized gains totaled $1,776,479 – including federal income and benefits of $868,812; outside royalties and travel perks totaling $113,298; and investment accounts increasing by $794,369. Fauci earned $434,312 in cash compensation (FY2020) outearning all 4.3 million federal employees including the president and four-star generals in the U.S. military. Between 2010 and 2020, Dr. Fauci earned cash compensation of $3.7 million from his federal employer. NIH does still not disclose Fauci's current salary (FY2022) or last year's salary (FY2021), despite comment requests for the information. Therefore, Fauci earned an estimated total of roughly $900,000 during the period. Federal employees have a lucrative amount of paid time off, subsidized healthcare, pension benefits and a myriad of other perquisites. For example, after just three-years, a rank-and-file federal employee receives 44 days of paid time off. Dr. Fauci has held a federal job for 55 years. When Fauci retires he'll reap a retirement pension estimated at $350,000 per year, the highest in federal history. With cost-of-living increases, Fauci would receive over $1 million during his first three years of retirement.

Note: After Forbes was pressured by the NIH, the column of the author of this article, Adam Andrzejewski, was terminated not long after it was published. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption and the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.

After raking in enormous profits from its coronavirus vaccine in 2021, the U.S.-based pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has kicked off the new year by hiking the prices of more than 120 of its drugs, resulting in significantly higher costs for patients amid a deadly pandemic. That's according to a new report released Thursday by Patients for Affordable Drugs (P4AD), which found that pharmaceutical companies have raised the prices of 554 medicines this month alone. Pfizer led the way with 125 price hikes to start 2022, leading P4AD to label the company the industry's "poster child for greed." "Due to sales of its Covid-19 vaccine, which is set to be the best-selling drug of all time, Pfizer shattered profit records in 2021. Projected sales for 2022 are $54.5 billion–more than double the previous record for one-year sales for a prescription drug," the report notes. "To put this into perspective, AbbVie's Humira previously held the spot with $19.8 billion in sales, and Pfizer's best-selling product just prior to the pandemic achieved worldwide revenues of $5.8 billion." "Despite this record revenue in 2021," the report continues, "Pfizer began 2022 with price hikes on seven of its 10 best-selling drugs," including its pneumonia vaccine (up 6.9%), a breast cancer medication (up 6.9%), and a treatment for people with cardiovascular disease (up 6%). "These hikes of 5% or 6% can translate into thousands of dollars in higher costs for patients," P4AD notes.

Note: See also a Forbes article asking why physicians aren't challenging outrageous pricing for medical costs. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on Big Pharma profiteering from reliable major media sources.

Important Note: Explore our full index to key excerpts of revealing major media news articles on several dozen engaging topics. And don't miss amazing excerpts from 20 of the most revealing news articles ever published.