The Secret Funding of the WHO Foundation

Have you ever heard of the WHO Foundation (WHOF)? With little fanfare, the WHOF was created in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic to enlarge the World Health Organization’s (WHO) funding base by attracting philanthropic donations from the commercial sector. The independent body pursues funds from across industry, civil society, and governments and then turns around and awards grants to the WHO, yet there is little to no transparency. In fact, a recent analysis found that, to date, little is known regarding the nature of donations to the WHOF. The foundation’s shroud of secrecy leaves it—and, in turn, the World Health Organization itself—exposed to risks of perceived reputational damage or undue influence. In other words, it leads one to suspect that the group’s decisions are swayed by corporate of big money influence.

Aside from the undisclosed funding recorded in the analysis, it is worth mentioning that the WHOF has assembled and convenes its own Health Emergencies Alliance (HEA), which it claims is committed to saving lives during health emergencies. The WHOF website notes that “reliable funding from HEA members enables the WHO to react rapidly with life-saving medical support, and to better prepare for future crises, wherever they strike.” No shocker there, as we know the WHO yearns to control global health one way or the other. HEA members include none other than Merck, Pfizer, the Firuza Foundation, Spotify, and Sanofi’s Foundation S—a group of cronies who profit from health catastrophes.

But back to the analysis. The WHOF—the shiny new outfit launched during the deep state mRNA pandemic exercise, whose goal is to charm funds from a glitzy array of sources—has been keeping its donor list a secret. The investigation found that over its first three years, transparency at the WHOF has taken a nosedive, leaving many to speculate who is really running the show behind global health priorities.

Indeed, the majority of the foundation’s donors are cloaked in mystery, with some hefty contributions—think $11 million—coming from anonymous benefactors. This secrecy raises eyebrows, as researchers point out it could open the door to “outside influence” and cozy commercial interests nudging the WHO’s agenda. The WHO, a United Nations self-appointed stalwart claiming to be the best option in the fight for global public health, relies heavily on member states and big players like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. With a not-so-successful attempt at hijacking global health with its power-hungry Pandemic Treaty, the WHO Foundation was meant to broaden that donor pool, but it seems to have brought a dense fog of secrecy along with it.

This unacceptable lack of transparency caught the eye of USRTK, which reached out to Paul Pandey, spokesperson at the WHOF. In a statement to USRTK, Pandey insists the foundation knows exactly who’s writing the checks, even if they’re shy about public recognition. Every donor, anonymous or not, goes through what sounds like a bureaucratic gauntlet of “strict due diligence and governance reviews” to keep conflicts of interest at bay. If a donor comes forward who wants to stay incognito—no problem. Pandey insists we should all rest assured that they face an extra layer of scrutiny (though she didn’t say by whom), and a special internal gift acceptance committee gives their donations a thorough once-over.

The new CEO of the WHOF, Anil Soni, has stated that the foundation will shield the WHO from corporate influence. Yet, considering Soni was previously the leader of global infectious diseases at Big Pharma player Viatris, a pharmaceutical company, and that the HEA members are primarily Big Pharma, the WHOF funding waters are incredibly murky.

And to make matters worse, despite the US President Donald Trump’s decision to pull funds from the WHO, and despite the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation alone being responsible for over 88 percent of the total amount donated by philanthropic foundations to the WHO, the WHO’s finances are in bad shape. With more donors needed, Soni noted that WHOF has accepted donations from companies like Tech Giant Meta (think transhumanism), but will refuse donations from other industries, such as tobacco and firearms.

The analysis, which was performed by authors including Nason Maani of the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, scoured through the scant funding disclosures listed on the WHOF website. Since its grand debut, they found that the foundation has raked in over $82 million, with more than 62 percent coming from mystery donors, with most anonymous gifts clocking in at over $100,000. And the plot thickens—by 2023, nearly 80 percent of contributions were from undisclosed sources, a sharp climb from the 40 percent anonymity rate in the first two years.

Without question, the foundation’s transparency has gone from “pretty open” to “where’d everybody go?” In its early days, it scored a respectable B on Open Democracy’s transparency scale, naming at least 85 percent of its $100,000+ donors. But now? It’s flunking with a D, barely naming any of its funders and doing so with no consistency. That’s right, it appears certain that the WHOF is rubbing shoulders with the “dark money” think tanks (deep state) that are plotting the next public health crisis.

That’s bad enough, but then there’s the matter of where all this shadowy money is going. Donors, it seems, have their favorites—think vaccinations or aid for Ukraine—which sounds noble until you realize their pet projects don’t always align with what countries actually need. The researchers flagged this as a problem, noting that donor-driven priorities can leave national health plans in the dust. It is eerily akin to Bill Gates using Africa as his experimental testing ground for whatever strikes his fancy.

When the curtain does part a bit for a rare public disclosure, things at WHOF aren’t appealing. Take Meta, for example, tossing funds to the WHO’s communication and digital health department. Coincidence? Maybe not, considering Meta’s been under fire for its role in spreading misinformation and stirring debates about kids’ mental health. The researchers raised an eyebrow, suggesting these donations might be less about charity and more about strategic alignment with Meta’s own PR needs. Sure sounds sneaky, right?

The bottom line? With so many anonymous donors, it’s nearly impossible to sniff out potential conflicts of interest, which is unacceptable. The WHO’s funding model is skating on thin ice, risking its already sketchy legitimacy. Despite that, with the deep state’s deep pockets, these transparency failures have little chance of leading to the fall of the WHO. Still, the researchers are sounding the alarm, calling for sturdier transparency and accountability mechanisms—because right now, the WHO Foundation’s donor list is more mysterious than a plot twist in a spy thriller.