Rational discourse having become virtually impossible on the platform previously known as Twitter, which is increasingly dominated by mind-numbingly repetitive and seemingly unchallengeable memes, I today start an occasional series which I will call the ‘De-Memeinator’.
It will not require any great effort of proof on my part to show that the WHO is dominated by private interests: first and foremost among them, equally needless to say, being Bill Gates. This is established fact, at least on X, having been established by the ceaseless repetition of memes like this one.
Who really owns the #WHO ?
— Ivor Cummins (@FatEmperor) May 4, 2024pic.twitter.com/pExvesc7UJ
“The WHO is sustained by private donations, the bulk of which are made by pharmaceutical and biotech corporations,” the presumably computer-generated voice declaims, before the odd video moves on to what are in fact completely unrelated matters.
But the problem is that the notion that the WHO is largely funded by private sources is not only demonstrably false, but also wildly misleading. Private interests strictly speaking, i.e., the corporations alluded to in the video, only account for a miniscule part of the WHO budget; and even if we add in funding from philanthropies like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the private contribution to the WHO budget is still dwarfed by public funding, i.e., funding from member states and other international organisations.
The entire ‘the-WHO-is-owned-by-private-interests’ meme is based on nothing more than a conflation of ‘voluntary’ and ‘private’. Yes, the WHO budget largely depends on voluntary contributions: voluntary funding accounts for nearly 90% of all WHO funding. But who ever said that this voluntary funding comes from private sources? Some of it does, but most of it does not. Most of it comes from the very same member states who are also required to make assessed contributions to the WHO budget, but who may, as they see fit, voluntarily contribute more.
Consider the below chart, which shows the leading sources of “specified” voluntary contributions to the WHO budget for the 2020-2021 biennium, i.e., essentially the Covid period. The “specified” voluntary contributions make up the great bulk of all voluntary contributions to the WHO budget and also confer the greatest influence over the organisation, since they are earmarked for specific uses. ‘Thematic’ voluntary contributions, as the name implies, are earmarked for specific areas and thus also confer influence; whereas ‘core’ voluntary contributions are unearmarked, going into the core budget, and hence are tantamount to charitable donations.
As can be seen, whereas the Gates Foundation was unsurprisingly a major source of specified voluntary funds, it was not the leading source of them. The leading source of specified voluntary funding during the Covid biennium – as should come as a surprise to those who have been misled by the meme under discussion – was rather the member state Germany.
And before anyone – ‘thinking in memes’ – tells me that, well, GAVI is essentially a Gates organisation and GAVI plus the Gates Foundation still provided more voluntary funding than Germany, please have a look at the below breakdown of GAVI’s own funding for the current funding period. Contrary to what one would be led to believe by the ‘Gates-is-GAVI’ meme, GAVI receives the great bulk of its own funding from public sources and German funding even of GAVI outstrips Gates funding.
During the Covid biennium, Germany was also the leading provider of ‘thematic’ voluntary funding to the WHO, as can be seen in the below chart. The German-dominated and itself largely German-funded European Union, under the leadership of the former German Minister of Defence Ursula von der Leyen, was the second largest provider of ‘thematic’ funding. (It was the sixth largest provider of ‘specified’ funding.) The Gates Foundation did not provide any ‘thematic’ funding.
On the other hand, Germany provided literally zero non-earmarked – so to say, purely disinterested – ‘core’ voluntary funding. (The leading provider of ‘core’ voluntary funding during the Covid biennium was the United Kingdom.)
Furthermore, as I have shown in my earlier article here, whereas most of the Gates Foundation funding during the Covid biennium continued to be earmarked for the same use to which Gates funding had always been devoted, namely polio eradication, virtually all of the German voluntary funding went precisely to the COVID-19 response. The Gates Foundation provided veritable peanuts for the latter purpose: roughly $25 million in all as compared to the roughly $830 million – 33 times more – which Germany poured into the COVID-19 response budget. (The relevant funding data can be found here.)
Were it not for the effects of the ‘the-WHO-is-owned-by-private-interests’ meme, this massive influx of German money ought to raise questions about Germany’s motivations. This is especially so since Germany had not been a leading provider of voluntary funding in the past and since the German Government also just happens to have sponsored the mRNA drug developer BioNTech and the BioNTech vaccine, which would be made the very focal point of the COVID-19 response, at least in the West.
A recent analysis of voluntary WHO funding by Iwunna et al. found that private funding of the WHO has in fact been declining and that the contribution of private corporations accounted for just 1% of all voluntary contributions in 2020. Note that this means that the contributions of private corporations account for less than 1% of the WHO budget overall, since the total budget consists of both voluntary and assessed contributions. The contributions of private philanthropies like the Gates Foundation accounted for 17% of all voluntary contributions in 2020.
Thus, only 18% of all voluntary funding came from unambiguously ‘private’ sources. As can be seen in the below graph from Iwunna et al., the remaining 82% came either directly from the member states themselves (55%) or from other UN agencies besides the WHO, other international organisations like the European Union, international financial institutions like the World Bank, public-private ‘partnerships’ like GAVI – which, as the above graph makes clear, are themselves overwhelmingly dependent precisely on public sources of funding – and NGOs, which likewise largely depend on public sponsors such as the EU for their funding.
In short, it is fair to conclude that roughly 80% of all voluntary WHO funding comes precisely from public sources: either WHO members states or international institutions and other organisations which are themselves funded by states.
Furthermore, since, per Iwunna et al.’s calculations, 12% of the WHO budget is still funded by assessed contributions, this means that roughly 90% of the WHO budget overall is funded, either directly or indirectly, by states.
So, why is it a well-established fact on X that precisely the opposite is the case, that the WHO is ‘owned’ by private interests? What is going on? Was not the whole point of Elon Musk’s famous dictum ‘freedom of speech is not freedom of reach’ to contain misinformation? In pledging fealty to the EU’s Digital Services Act, did Musk not promise that ‘Community Notes’ would be “transformational” in this regard?
When has a ‘Community Note’ ever corrected the misinformation represented by the ‘the-WHO-is-owned-by-private-interests’ meme? And why should the ‘Community’ – whatever that is – even be required to intervene? Should it not be possible for individual users to address factually incorrect or misleading claims and for these challenges to gain visibility, thus correcting misinformation the old-fashioned way, viz. through dialogue and debate?
But apparently this is not possible. My own modest attempt at addressing the post cited at the outset of this article and pointing out the confusion between ‘private’ and ‘voluntary’ received no engagement, other than a ‘like’ from a sexbot, until I reposted it myself to my followers.
Why does blatant misinformation trend on X, whereas incontrovertible facts languish in obscurity? Either we have simply to despair for humanity or the X algorithm must be making this happen.
Robert Kogon is the pen name of a widely-published journalist covering European affairs. Subscribe to his Substack.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It beggars belief that these idiots seem to be in denial or in wilful ignorance of research like this :-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X
and a follow up:-
https://osf.io/bcsa6/
Clear biomolecular/genetic research showing the clear dangers the jabs have.
Are they actually wanting to kill/ruin lives?
Oh, and fao “John”, yes I am fully aware of the levels of expertise of the various authors/researchers.
“G-quadruplex structures can be computationally predicted from DNA or RNA sequence motifs,but their actual structures can be quite varied within and between the motifs, which can number over 100,000 per genome. Their activities in basic genetic processes are an active area of research in telomere, gene regulation, and functional genomics research.”
(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-quadruplex)
My concern is that the G-quadruplex structures have been been predicted by software from the RNA sequences, which in itself is not an issue, but there appears to be an assumption that they will all be oncogenetic in everyone, rather than there’s a chance that they may be in someone or they may not. There’s no indication of the likelihood of that occurring. This is why I question the reasons for having a computer scientist as lead author with the cancer specialist only involved in the editing process.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5909458/
Thank you for your informative responses which have given me a better understanding of your criticisms of the papers to which I referred.
I would though value your opinion on the following, (I have only had a chance to consider it briefly but it seems to me to be less based upon computational prediction?)
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.03.21256520v1?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
At this stage there are only really two possibilities. Either these doctors are so captured by the “Vaccines are all Good” mindset that they cannot use any critical reasoning and do not look at the research, or they are just plain evil. Neither possibility is encouraging.
Or they are just money whores, option 3.
Or very challenged??
example of the cognitively narrow intelligent. Like those who can play a piano concerto but don’t have essential basic skills but are in charge of the arts council. Which may make them more able to take the silver/money or just be incomplete in their cognition. ?
I was on a coastal golf course, sunny, windy, nobody around except three others, not a virus particle anywhere!! Just the odd golfer ha. The two golfers my husband was playing were from Geneva, very fit, sunny healthy, seemed intelligent and career high flyers.
On one of the greens next to the sea was a stone hut, with one toilet and a high widow open. Lots of fresh air swirling around in there. These supposed intelligent people put on their masks in the outdoors to go into an outdoor one toilet. Are these the types who would jab children and are quick to draconian rules for a moment of false safety.
My husband and I watched this strange spectacle with amazement it was like a a pilgrimage for the masked.
We waited until the 18th to tell them we were not jabbed
Well I counted that under the ‘evil’ heading. Putting money in front of children’s health is about the definition of it I think.
Yes It’s so difficult to believe that evil like this exists but it looks like it does.
The book “Dissolving Illusions” gives a pretty extensive account of the history of the small pox vaccine and how for most of the second half of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th, was pushed very hard and in many instances mandated. The punishment for some people who refused was terrible. The side effects were often terrible. And the effectiveness was never proven, always assumed.
You read it and the parallels with the current COVID craziness are uncanny.
When the medical profession and the state get together to impose something on us, it’s pretty terrifying.
Or ‘just following orders’….
The only possible explanation at this point for those wishing to jab the young, is one that that starts with “follow the money”. Corona never was and still is not a risk for the young (well, not really for anyone who does not already have one foot in the grave).
I was unhappy to see NL decide to start jabbing the 5-11 group end of Jan/beginning of Feb. However, the week that the jabs for that group opened up the health ministry said that as omick-take was less serious for children (i.e. *even* less serious), it was not clear that they really needed the jab, so parents should think about whether their child needed to be vaxxed.
Very, very Dutch method of dealing with prickly issues. If they had said outright it will do more harm than good, we won’t do it, they know people would have started questioning, they would have started asking whether the age group 12-18 had needed it, etc. So don’t nix it outright, just slowly, silently, stealthily extract yourself.
I bet they did the same with murderna. Once all the Scandinavian countries, France and Germany said they would no longer use it on the under-30s, I expected NL to follow suit, but as I far as know they have not officially done so. But I have no doubt that if there are still any under-30s foolish enough to get stabbed again, they ain’t getting murderna.
I would not want to be one of the kiddie drug pushers when people realise just how toxic this garbage is and how long they knew that it was toxic. Even if people didn’t get their kids jabbed, they will be furious that it was ever suggested or allowed.
So weird, I keep getting these images of Sri Lanka and that beautiful, overrun presidential compound. But with a few pitchforks added for good measure.
This is why poisoning the well of scepticism with the term ‘anti-vaxxer’ in advance of the roll-out of the injections was so effective, effectively making us all self-censor to avoid being tarred with this brush. However, reality continues to encroach on the lie and a tipping point surely approaches.
I can understand the vaccine gangsters like fauci and billy gate$ pushing for the poisoning of children with their snake oils, but I would normally expect doctors to exercise common sense and discretion. Not any more it seems. it appears that health professionals and “scientists” are as much under the thumb of big pharma as politicians are.
Grifter doctors push hard to get more fees from vaccinating children now they are running out of adult victims.
Better, more accurate headline.
Surely the point is that not only are they unnecessary but especially harmful to children – as explained by Geert Vanden Bosche’s recent voiceforscienceandsolidarity substack video. In essence, these jabs are not “live-attenuated” and will hinder the process by which children’s immune systems learn to cope with viral infections. Another problem is we really don’t know what these “transfection agents” are doing in our bodies. See interesting recent discussion with Kevin McKernan on J J Couey’s website gigaohmbiological. It’s technical but worth the time for reminders of why those who’ve taken this injection have taken a great risk with their health.
All I am asking is that you look at the adverse effects of MMR, smallpox, Hepatitis B and influenza vaccinations, all of which are old style vaccines. Adverse events include myocarditis, transverse myelitis, death, thrombocytopenia and other clotting disorders.
The RNA vaccines do not and cannot change your DNA as they do not and cannot enter the nucleus of normal cells, they replicate in the cytoplasm and do not have access to a transcriptase. The paper reporting on cancerous liver cells is based on an abnormal cell line that produces a transcriptase that healthy cells do not, the concentrations of RNA were orders of magnitude greater than in either the Pfizer or Moderna preparations. They could have used readily available normal cell lines, but chose HuH instead, which is effectively an immortal cell line.
Both Pfizer and Moderna have positive sense single stranded RNA in them, the same as the full SARS-CoV-2 virus. An ss + RNA virus is its own mRNA. They are not and cannot be gene therapy as they do not modify your DNA, they use the same technology that is used in gene therapy, which, by the way is 20 years old.
What people should be concerned about is risk v benefits, if smallpox were as benign as SARS-CoV-2 then the risks of the smallpox vaccine would outweigh its benefits and should not be universally administered.
Should everyone be vaccinated- NO
Should children of any age be vaccinated-NO
If people want to be vaccinated then that is their choice the same as it is their right not to be. What should not be happening is this dichotomy between those who chose to and those who chose not to be vaccinated, both sides appearing to be self righteous.
The last couple of years have destroyed forever the fantasy “kindly altruistic doctor” as portrayed in Dr Finlay’s Casebook and every other UK TV hospital drama produced since.
There may well be a few: but the vast majority are just as open/vulnerable to propaganda, coercion, threats, bribes and group-think as the rest of the population.
And the Government knew it. Which is why they were caught so unprepared to deal with a revolt by Care Workers who refused to be experimented on which, in turn, gave confidence to many NHS employees that tyranny must be resisted.
Any confidence I ever had in the State Health System has been completely destroyed over the past 2 years.
Strongly agree. I am further down this line: I actively distrust any and all doctors (having visited my family doctor and discovering she knew less about the mRNA vaccines than I), the legacy media (but that has been the case since 1980), Big Pharma and their fellow travellers, Big Philanthropy, Big Corporations, the academic faux-expert class, the civil servants, the politicians and MPs, the police, the intelligence services, the NGO’s, the justice system and even traffic wardens.
To add to this article: let’s try to answer the question that is the elephant in the room namely “What could have caused this change of mind, this abandonment of one’s own scientific work?” Although it is speculative, I venture three possible explanations, all of which could be true as they don’t cancel each other out. One: they were let into the secret world by the panicky intelligence services who know exactly where the virus came from and how much it was engineered before being leaked in Wuhan (see the excellent article by Debbie Lerner on the Brownstone Institute’s site). Two: threat of dismissal from their institutions. Three: big bucks from Big Pharma.
Just follow the money.
These doctors should be ashamed of themselves
My 11 year old grandson had his 1st jab last month. His parents, two otherwise intelligent people, think they’re doing the right thing and I’m not in a position to change that – I have tried!
The nurse giving the jab “explained” (ie told a blatant lie) to the 11 year old that the jab was absolutely safe and that he was helping to save others and his family (all of whom have had at least one dose of covid) and protect himself.
Criminal