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.
“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.
Ivor Cummins’ voice may sound computer generated, but I can assure you it isn’t. I suggest the writer of this piece contacts him directly and instigates a discussion, to which I believe Ivor would be fully open to.
Sadly whoever Robert Kogan is he has just binned all credibility – not because what he says strictly speaking might be correct regarding the use of the word ‘owns’ but factually speaking the WHO is IMHO such a corrupt organisation it is ‘owned’ in the sense of the gangland phrase “don’t forget, we own you”.
The UK is not ‘owned’ by corrupt hidden external political, commercial and industrial interests. But the webs of corruption in Whitehall and Westminster means the UK is ‘owned’ in the gangland sense.
And it is interesting that whenever I have tried to get information from WHO about their accounts I have been blanked.
Robert Kogan it seems has not.
I wonder why?
What is the smallest number of politicians and officials one has to ‘own’ to have influence over what happens in a country?
Politicians are easy [not all of course] with what is relative small change for the wealthy to make political donations or offer other incentives.
How much does it cost to buy a senior civil servant or two – and of course I am not suggesting they are for sale but one or two are likely to be open to financial or other incentives.
So it is not a matter of buying UK plc’s or WHO plc’s balance sheet.
It is a matter of getting the right people for the right price/incentives to win the day – sadly not great for the rest of us.
And we are simply unlikely ever to find out if this is going on and if it is the extent of it.
But unfortunately we have a pretty good idea it must be happening to some extent.
I am sure the majority of civil servants are genuine honest people some of whom are so committed they want to ensure DEI is strictly observed to the national detriment.
How much does favourable press coverage from the average journalist cost?
How many are open to incentives?
Are the many freebies showered on journalists from wealthy corporations and the like enough?
A few canapes and glasses of wine and the annual or more frequent invitation to those kinds of events?
After all one would not want to be gratuitously erased from the corporate or other Christmas card list.
Of course, I am sure the vast majority of journalists are ethical and would never stoop to such incentives for favourable coverage.
But then again, how is it a lot of news about important stuff is not available from the legacy media and we have to rely on sources like the Daily Sceptic and GB News?
Robert Kogan is mistaken. All his other writing suggests his motives are pure, so do not take my comments above to mean anything else.
I have no reason or evidence to suggest Robert Kogan is anything other than mistaken IMHO.
But I am not happy as you might guess from my foregoing comments.
Slightly off topic but I’m sure the man photographed above can shoulder some responsibility. Part of the COVID enquiry that the BBC have been all over. We have been witness to pure evil.
https://ufile.io/iuhhlg59
See what the WHO admits themselves about funding and the influence it has in Lillian Franck’s 2018 documentary TrustWHO.
An interesting pre-Covid documentary which also includes a section on swine flu and the involvement of Neil Ferguson.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2021/01/11/bill-gates-backed-climate-solution-gains-traction-but-concerns-linger/
Geo-engineering.
Here is something Billy is funding. This utter Next Tuesday is playing God with the whole of the planet now.
In Billy’s eyes he is god.
I know.👍
Even if you discard Billy boy’s “philanthropy” who is running these so called government funded NGO’s and what agenda do they have?The article skirts passed Germanies involvement, it invested heavily in bionTech even purchasing manufacturing facilities on its behalf so they could become the world leader in vaccine technology. It is the classic he who pays the piper calls the tune.
And of course no money passes under the table from – ahem – interested parties.
No.
No no no.
Naivety of the Week Award, awarded weekly on a week by week basis goes to:
ROBERT KOGON!
But I agree – the “X algorithm”, under Mr Musk’s “leadership” just as under Jack Dorsey’s, is indeed guilty of some serious sh*t.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/plastic-bottle-cap/
Thought we had left the EU?
No we are still tethered just like bottle caps. When these appeared a few months ago I thought ‘aye, aye,’ more manipulation. Oh yes, my behaviour has been manipulated, I just rip the damned things off.
Hey, stop showing off, hux, some of us don’t have a spare 25 Newtons of requisite force to tear the caps asunder. Actually, come to think of it, you’re directly guilty of excess CO2 production – that force doesn’t come from nowhere, y’ know!
On a serious note, the first time my milk carton had this cap, I thought I had moved it out of the way. A few sploshes of spilt milk and a couple of curses later, I found that the blasted cap had spun itself around under the effect of gravity to the bottom and thus diverted the flow of milk onto my kitchen top. That IS a waste.
Yes, zero tolerance now – caps get ripped off, first thing. Including that annoying dangly bit which also gets in the way.
Gotta love saving the planet.
Thanks M A k.😀😀😀
The multinationals producing or procuring these bottles won’t bother with creating a special line of bottles just for the UK market.
Similar annoyance you might be unaware of: Old Holborn tobacco sold in the UK comes with paper sticker with a banknote-style pattern printed on it which is otherwise empty. This paper sticker must be removed or destroyed before a pack can be opened. It serves no function in the UK but for sale in Germany, a tax stamp must (Steuerzeichen) must be on these packs. Presumably, it’s cheaper for the manufacturer when there’s just one kind of packaging, hence, people in the UK get bothered with the emtpy stickers because authorities in Germany demand such stickers.
Off-T
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-chemical-analysis-natural-years-today.html
This is definitely one for Chris Morrison.
Ridiculous article.
In the donors list provided, Kill Gates + Gavi is the largest financier.
This article is as nescient as saying that the Corona scamdemic was uninfluenced by Pharma + Kill Gates.
If Pharma controls ‘health’ in most countries which it does, is it not rational to believe that if the US Criminal State gives x $ p.a. that they are doing what their Pharma masters want?
Jesus Christ guy.
I’m afraid the only thing the author has demonstrated is that he doesn’t understand how the world works.
Obviously, he who puts the money wants to call the shots. Only in the fantasy world of a foolish kind is it otherwise.
And lo and behold, the top donors of the WHO are all organisations or countries that are highly invested in vaccines. Germany has BioNTech and does its bidding as has been widely reported here. The UK and the US have some the biggest pharmas and otgs.like the Welcome Trust all gunning for more jabs.
And the list tops out with Gates and Gavi.
And what is the WHO trying to do? Pass a new treaty that is all about coordinating the fight against disease with vaccines. Jesus, what a shock.
I would be more polite about the author if he didn’t take the condescending tone he has to criticise those who can see what is plain to see and which the poor idiot cannot see.
Well said.
What a naïve article.
The WHO like the rest of the global bureaucracy is ‘owned’ and ‘funded’ by big business interests, rich men, NGOs who own and fund it by lobbying (another word for bribery), influence and complicity.
The bureaucrats are willing partners in crime as their primary aim is their survival by ever increasing the things they have to do to justify their existence and get more money and bigger establishments.
Gates doesn’t provide much to the BBC or The Guardian given their total revenues but he certainly gets what he wants from the relatively small amounts he gives them.
Who is Robert Kogon?
WHO is Robert Kogon!
Leaving aside the merits of the article, I have strong doubts about the UK government feeling it needs to worry about my health, let alone some global body that is even less accountable.
I don’t agree with the commenters who deride the author Robert Kogon as “naive”.
I think he has just given us some very useful information about Taxpayers being forced to fund their own destruction by the WHO monstrosity. So while we are all gnashing our teeth at Bill Gates, we ourselves are being forced by our own governments to fund the whole scam.
Taxpayers being forced to pay for their own destruction is not news, Heretic.
The question is why. Why governments feel the need to sell us out. And money passing under the table is as old as the hills. Kogon IS naive. Or he is begging the question. Which is not necessary on DS.
I don’t want to imply that DS is a club. I understand that DS is trying to attract a new audience of people who are perhaps new to the idea of government corruption, whatever its colour! Good luck with that, eh…
Von der Layen is the head of the European commission and the job of the European commission is to produce vote-ready EU draft legislation. She doesn’t lead anything and neither does the European commission. Further, that the EU is largely paid Germany (as is the UN, for that matter) doesn’t mean it’s dominated by Germany.
Here’s a translation of some part of the political manifesto of the AfD:
The Euro (the currency) is broken as designed. The currency union necessarily turned into a sovereign debt union. We demand that the Euro experiment is to be ended. Should the Bundestag (German parliament) not agree with this, then, a referendum about the Euro must be held in Germany.
They’re demanding this because the way the Euro works is that Germany is underwriting to sovereign debt of the whole EU but without any influence over the spending decisions of the other EU governments whose political priorities in this area are very much different from the German ones. Eg, the German constitution demands that government budgets must be balanced, ie, that spending doesn’t exceed income. This rule is – especially by the current green-left government – frequently “creatively” circumvented in practice but that’s nevertheless how things are supposed to work.
When German politicians pour money into international organisation, its usually a fair assumption that their American puppet masters have ordered them to do so.
Please see this new video about Globalists/ WHO/ UN plans to use illegal immigrants as troops (some have already been trained in Turkey) to enforce the next Fake Pandemic Lockdowns, and that masses of Bird Flu vaccines for humans have already been shipped to the UK, while in the US they are already saying Bird Flu has jumped species to humans. It hasn’t, of course, but that will be the scaremongering tactic, apparently.
Breaking: Illegal Migrants that are pouring into our respective countries are in fact UN soldiers. (youtube.com)
This would line up with the WHO treaty getting ratified, which is probably the plan 😵💫
Exactly.
What a Dumb article ! If this idiot can’t see the writing on the wall he should stop writing !!
“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 (DODGY ORGANISATION)agencies besides the WHO, other international organisations like the European Union (ANOTHER DODGY ORGANISATION), international financial institutions like the World Bank (WOULD YOU TRUST THEM?), public-private ‘partnerships’ like GAVI (LESS SAID THE BETTER) – which, as the above graph makes clear, are themselves overwhelmingly dependent precisely on public sources of funding – and NGOs (NO VESTED INTERESTS THERE OF COURSE), which likewise largely depend on public sponsors such as the EU (ANOTHER WORD FOR CORRUPTION) for their funding.”
I rest my case.
The sheer complexity and opacity of the funding seems designed to conceal the truth. I very much doubt this is coincidental. If you catch a glimpse of a rat and smell a rat then there is probably a rat hiding in plain sight!
A little more honesty, transparency and clarity from the WHO would not go amiss!
It’s pretty obvious that the WHO, IHR legislation,UN, GAVI are controlled by Globalists, directly or via Government infestations.