The Australian Medical Professionals Society brings you "Follow the Money"
An expose of The World Health Organisation
Click the picture below to access the full report.
“Follow the Money: WHO’s Directing Global Health Policy?”
Published by the Australian Medical Professionals’ Society (AMPS), June 2025
Purpose of the Report
This independent investigation by AMPS critically examines the World Health Organization’s (WHO) funding mechanisms, focusing on the top-100 non-country donors to the WHO’s voluntary contributions for specified purposes in 2022–2023. The report aims to evaluate whether these funding arrangements compromise the WHO’s independence, especially given its central role in new global health treaties such as:
The 2024 Amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).
The WHO Pandemic Treaty/Agreement.
Key Findings
Donor Influence and Return on Investment
The WHO offers donors a 3,400% return on investment, openly promoting “at least $35 for every $1 invested.”
Donors can earmark funds for specific purposes, allowing them to influence WHO priorities and operations.
These arrangements violate the WHO’s own conflict of interest guidelines.
Pharmaceutical Dominance
Of the top-100 non-country donors:
100% of pharmaceutical company donors had a vested interest in WHO projects.
96.5% of organisational donors were aligned with the pharmaceutical industry.
100% of UN agencies, banks, research institutions, regional governments, and other business donors had links to the pharmaceutical industry.
Direct donations from pharma companies (e.g., Sanofi, Bayer, Merck, Novartis, GSK) totalled $28.7 million.
Gates Foundation and GAVI together contributed over $1.3 billion, accounting for over 62% of specified donations.
Conflict of Interest and Policy Control
WHO’s budget is 70% donor-dependent, with funds being “highly earmarked.”
WHO's treaties potentially allow the organisation to mandate medical interventions globally—including lockdowns, genetic therapies, and forced vaccinations—regardless of actual threat.
Influential families (Gates, Rockefeller) were found to directly and indirectly control donation channels via interlinked organisations.
Inter-organisational Collusion
Shared staff, board overlaps, cross-funding, and mutual partnerships exist between top donors (e.g., GAVI, UNICEF, Wellcome Trust, Rockefeller Foundation, Gates Foundation, PATH, World Bank, etc.).
Foundations created by donors established or fund other major donor entities, creating a networked hierarchy of influence.
Discussion and Implications
WHO’s independence is compromised by accepting specified-purpose donations from organisations with vested pharmaceutical interests.
The WHO now acts more as a corrupt global public-private partnership than an impartial public health agency.
The “Decade of Vaccines” model, pushed by Gates and Rockefeller initiatives, dominates global health, potentially at the cost of more holistic or non-pharmaceutical public health approaches.
The report highlights pharmaceutical malfeasance, including fines, data manipulation, and unsafe drug releases, to argue that pharma-led health policy may not serve public interests.
Conclusions
The WHO’s financial model creates serious conflicts of interest.
It allows pharmaceutical companies and aligned foundations to shape global health policy.
These practices undermine trust in the WHO and raise concerns about the integrity of its pandemic response powers under international treaties.
Recommendations by AMPS
Australia should immediately withdraw from:
The International Health Regulations Amendments (2024).
The WHO Pandemic Agreement/Treaty.
Reinstate Australia’s former pandemic management plan.
Withdraw from the WHO entirely until it reforms to:
Eliminate conflict of interest.
Prioritise genuine public health over industry influence.
OPINION
Statement on the WHO’s Handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic
As a physician who has spent decades advocating for ethical, evidence-based, and patient-centred care, I can no longer remain silent on the catastrophic role the World Health Organisation (WHO) played during the COVID-19 crisis—what many of us now refer to as the plandemic.
The WHO’s mismanagement of the global response—marked by the unquestioning promotion of panic, lockdowns, school closures, and the rushed, coercive rollout of toxic gene-based injections—has irreparably damaged public health, public trust, and the very foundations of modern medicine.
By pushing lockdowns with no credible long-term public health justification, by supporting the closure of schools which has now proven to have harmed an entire generation, and by endorsing experimental mRNA injections under the guise of "safe and effective" without long-term safety data, the WHO betrayed its mandate to protect health and serve humanity. It silenced dissent, marginalised independent scientists, and became an enabler of pharmaceutical profiteering on an unprecedented scale.
Let me be clear: many in my profession now regard the WHO with absolute contempt. It has become a captured agency—serving its donors, not the people. Its credibility is in ruins, and its actions during COVID-19 were not just failures of policy, but violations of medical ethics and crimes against public trust, crimes against humanity.
We are calling this out—not as a matter of politics, but as a matter of principle. The WHO no longer deserves our blind allegiance. It must be reformed, held accountable, or abandoned altogether in favour of an agency that respects science, autonomy, and human rights. We do not need the WHO.
Ian Brighthope