The Australian Medical Professionals’ Society (AMPS) has done an independent investigation into the WHO, its funders and the beneficiaries of the WHO’s decisions in order to determine whether the WHO is acting as an independent and impartial agency that can be trusted to protect public health.
AMPS’ new report: “Follow the Money, WHO’s directing global health policy?” reveals how the World Health Organization (WHO) has allowed and encouraged commercial interests to corrupt global health policy.
Executive Summary:
The investigation by AMPS considered the potential for donors to the WHO to influence the Organization’s decisions on global health policy. To do this, it considered the funding mechanisms of the WHO and the affiliations of the WHO’s top-100 donors for specified purposes in 2022-2023 using data from the WHO’s website. Among the key points observed are the following.
-
The WHO invites investors, offering 3,400% returns, and allows donors to its specified purposes program to have a say in how their funds are spent.
-
The majority of the top-100 donors to the WHO’s specified donations program were pharmaceutical companies or aligned with pharmaceutical interests.
-
100% pharmaceutical companies donated a total of $28,722,232 directly to the WHO for specified purposes, contravening the WHO’s Guidelines, as well as donating to other top-100 donors.
-
58 organisations donated a total of $1,741,237,890 and 56 (96.5%) of these organisations were seen to be aligned with the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, receiving funds, cooperating on projects or promoting pharmaceutical products and expanding pharmaceutical markets.
-
100% UN agencies, which donated $494,683,067, were linked to the pharmaceutical industry or engaged in pharmaceutical projects.
-
100% banks, which donated $131,820,000, profited from pharmaceutical projects. • 100% research institutes, which donated $9,640,000, engaged in some way with the pharmaceutical industry.
-
100% regional administrations, which donated $13,380,978, had useful links with the pharmaceutical industry.
-
100% non-pharmaceutical businesses, which donated $9,418,000, had links with the pharmaceutical industry.
-
100% other bodies, which donated $369,427,000, were connected with the pharmaceutical industry.
-
There were connections between many of the top-100 donors that included crossfunding, collaboration, cross-staffing and links at governance levels.
-
Hierarchies were identified in the inter-organisational relationships, with the Gates and Rockefeller family groups in key positions.
-
The WHO’s funding arrangements contravene its own Guidelines and create a conflict of interest for the Organization.
-
Opportunities existed for donors to influence the WHO’s activities, giving pharmaceutical interests significant influence over global health.
‘Many people think that the WHO is an independent body focused on improving global health,’ said Dr Duncan Syme, President of AMPS. ‘However, our investigation shows that the WHO is primarily acting for the pharmaceutical industry, exchanging money for favours’.
‘The fact that the WHO is promising such lucrative returns on investment and allowing donors to specify how their funds are to be used is a real conflict of interest for the Organization,’ said Professor Ian Brighthope from the Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine. ‘It is clear that the pharmaceutical industry is having an untoward influence on global health policy and that the best interests of the public are not being served.’
AMPS is calling on Australian authorities to recognise the compromised nature of the WHO’s policies and to withdraw from two WHO “treaties”. The IHR amendments are due to come into effect on 19 September 2025 if our government fails to reject them by 19 July 2025. It further calls on the Federal Government to withdraw from the WHO until such time as the Organization cleans up its act.
‘Australians deserve the best possible approach to health,’ says Dr Syme, ‘not policies designed by pharmaceutical industries to profit their shareholders at taxpayers’ expense’.
Download the report: https://amps.redunion.com.au/policy-advocacy
Media enquiries: AMPS – Australian Medical Professionals’ Society hotline@redunion.com.au | www.amps.redunion.com.au
How much funding does WHO need for its Fourteenth General Programme of Work (GPW 14)?
WHO requires US$ 11.1 billion for the base budget of GPW 14 – that is, to deliver on its core work for 2025 through 2028. Approximately US$ 4 billion is expected from Assessed Contributions leaving a funding requirement of US$ 7.1 billion, the Investment Round aims to fundraise towards this requirement.
https://www.who.int/about/funding/invest-in-who/investment-round/frequently-asked-questions
https://www.who.int/about/funding/invest-in-who/investment-round
Voluntary contributions by fund and by contributor, 2024
https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA78/A78_INF3-en.pdf
Here’s a list of WHO’s top donors:
-
U.S.: $958 million -
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: $689 million
-
Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance: $500 million
-
European Commission: $412 million
-
World Bank: $268 million
-
Germany: $324 million
-
United Kingdom: $215 million
-
Canada: $141 million
-
European Investment Bank: $119 million
https://www.bostonherald.com/2025/01/28/who-funds-world-health-organization-biggest-donors/
THE WHO CONSTITUTION ONLY ALLOWS REGULATIONS TO BE ADOPTED WITHIN 5 CATEGORIES:
Article 21
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning: (a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce
On February 6, 2023 The IHR Review Committee recommended against amendments to the International Health Regulations regarding financing because…
THERE IS NO BASIS FOR REGULATIONS REGARDING FINANCING IN THE WHO CONSTITUTION!
In the 2024 amendments, financing was added to Article 44 in violation of the WHO Constitution:
Article 44 Collaboration
and, assistance and financinghttps://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA77/A77_ACONF14-en.pdf (page 31)
The text below is from Article 44bis of the 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations that must be rejected by July 19, 2025.
This amendment would redirect money to “organizations and other entities.”
The [Coordinating Financial] Mechanism shall… (e) leverage voluntary monetary contributions for organizations and other entities supporting States Parties to develop, strengthen and maintain their core capacities.
https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA77/A77_ACONF14-en.pdf (page 31)
https://www.who.int/about/funding/invest-in-who/investment-case-2025-2028
Investments in WHO delivers a healthy return of US$ 35 for every US$ 1 invested, in terms of the economic benefits of improving health outcomes by scaling up interventions based on WHO’s trusted guidance and support.
https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/376856/9789240095403-eng.pdf (page 6)
James Roguski
310-619-3055
JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive
RejectTheAmendments.com
RejectTheTreaty.com
NotSafeAndNotEffective.com
PCRfraud.com
MaskCharade.com
All content is free to all readers.
All support is deeply appreciated.
