Follow the Money – WHO ’s directing global health policy?
Follow the Money – WHO ’s directing global health policy?
The Australian Medical Professionals’ Society (AMPS) recently released a report outlining how the pharmaceutical industry is influencing global health policy through ‘specified donations’ to the World Health Organization (WHO).
The report, ‘Follow the Money’, investigated the WHO’s top-100, non-country donors for specified purposes in 2022-2023 using data from the WHO’s own website.
The WHO received US$2.8billion in 2022-23 through its voluntary donations to the specified purposes category. ‘The results showed that nearly all of the top-100 contributors to the WHO’s specified category of voluntary contributions were pharmaceutical companies or organisations that had interests compatible with the pharmaceutical industry,’ the report says. The graph below shows the types of donors and their contribution.
Key influencers of the WHO through their donations
‘By far the largest donor was the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ($829million), followed by the GAVI Alliance, cofounded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ($480million). Together, these organisations donated 62.24% of the specified voluntary donations for that period.’
The Rockefeller Group also had significant influence on the WHO policies through its funding relationships shown below.
Report recommendations
The Australian Medical Professionals' Society made the following recommendations in the report:
that the Australian Government, administrators and medical authorities recognise:
that the WHO is a compromised body with conflicted interests that is allowing donors to purchase influence;
that the activities of the WHO are being influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, the pro-pharmaceutical family groups behind them and an incestuous network of pro-pharmaceutical organisations linked to them;
that the amended International Health Regulations and Pandemic Agreement/Treaty reflect the interests of the pharmaceutical industry rather than the interests of the global population.
that the Australian Government:
immediately withdraws from the International Health Regulations and Pandemic Agreement/Treaty;
withdraws from the WHO until such time as that Organization can be demonstrated to be free of conflict of interests and to act in the best interests of global health rather than the interests of the pharmaceutical industry.
How will this affect WHO policies going forward?
Donors can affect WHO policies through two treaties developed by the World Health Organization. They are the Pandemic Agreement 2025, also known as the Pandemic Treaty, and the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005). Australia has endorsed both treaties, however, we have until 19 July 2025 to reject the amendments to the International Health Regulations.
‘These treaties give the WHO unprecedented influence over key aspects of the population’s health, leading to countries, such as Australia, enforcing medical testing; mandating pharmaceutical treatments, including gene therapies; declaring lockdowns and implementing travel restrictions,’ the report says.
Pharmaceutical companies will be major beneficiaries from these treaties. They will benefit from the ‘health solutions’ which will follow the WHO’s ‘One Health’ solution for all, focussing on the use of vaccines, medications, and prophylactic solutions, as these make money and keep bureaucrats in jobs. And with a return of investment of 3,400%, or US$35 for every US$1 invested, pharmaceutical influence over the WHO and global health policies is likely to grow even more.
What can you do about this?
Contact your Member of Parliament (MP) and Senators now.
Give your Member of Parliament and Senators a copy of the ‘Follow the Money Report’. (Where possible, make an appointment to see them and deliver it in person.)
Tell them that you DO NOT CONSENT to the provisions of the WHO’s treaties.
You’ll find more about how you can do this on the We DO NOT CONSENT page. Here you’ll find background information as to why this matters, a draft letter you can send to your MP, and a flyer you can download and distribute.
Big pharma in the news
Big pharma has been getting in the news for all the wrong reasons lately.
Pharma Has Mainstream Media in Its Pocket. ‘Just Look What Happened With the ‘Bethesda Declaration’ The National Institutes of Health (NIH) emerged from the COVID-19 era as among the most disreputable of all the agencies, a partner with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It was the home of Dr. Anthony Fauci, plus his wife, who was in charge of ethics.’ Read more.
Big Pharma Has a Trump Problem. ‘President Donald Trump’s clamp-down on federal science funding has handed Big Pharma an existential headache: the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has terminated more than 2,100 research grants and contracts, according to NIH scientists, totaling around $12 billion in early-stage studies that drugmakers often rely on to seed the next generation of therapies.’ Read more.
CEOs of BioNTech, Pfizer, J&J and Merck Make List of Highest-Paid Pharma Execs. ‘The CEO of Germany’s BioNTech outearned all his fellow pharma CEOs in 2024, according to Fierce Pharma. Dr. Uğur Şahin’s nine-figure salary — $287 million — rocketed him to the top of the industry publication’s list of highest-paid CEOs. Eli Lilly’s CEO, David Ricks, shot to second on the list with $29.2 million in total compensation. Eli Lilly makes the weight loss blockbuster drugs Zepbound and Mounjaro, which rival Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic and Wegovy. In July, Eli Lilly will start selling the drugs online at discounted prices directly to consumers who have a prescription.’ Read more.
Sanders, King Introduce Bill to Ban Prescription Drug Advertising to Consumers. ‘If the End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act passes, it will ban all prescription drug ads on television, radio, print and digital platforms, including social media. The ban would hit drug companies hard — they make back in sales up to five times as much as they spend on commercials. It will also affect the income streams of major television networks, which bring in billions of dollars from pharmaceutical ads.’ Read more.
