Four organizations of the pandemic-vaccine industry are seeking to raise $123 billion; the money for their schemes will be coming from you.

The Expose News - com

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The claim that four organizations of the pandemic-vaccine industry are seeking to raise $123 billion and that the money will be coming from the public has been circulating. This article aims to review this claim, providing a thorough analysis and context to help readers understand the truth behind it.</p>
<h2>The Claim</h2>
<p>The claim states that the World Health Organisation (WHO), GAVI, the International Development Association (IDA), and the Pandemic Fund are seeking to raise a total of $123 billion. The money is expected to come from various sources, including national governments and private funders, ultimately impacting taxpayers.</p>
<h2>Breakdown of the Claim</h2>
<p>The claim is based on the following breakdown:</p>
<ul>
  <li>WHO wants to raise $11.1 billion.</li>
  <li>GAVI seeks $11.9 billion.</li>
  <li>IDA aims to raise $100 billion.</li>
  <li>The Pandemic Fund wants $2 billion.</li>
</ul>
<p>These figures add up to $123 billion.</p>
<h2>Analysis of the Claim</h2>
<p>To evaluate the claim, we need to consider the sources of funding and the transparency of these organizations.</p>
<h3>World Health Organisation (WHO)</h3>
<p>WHO is seeking $11.1 billion for its work over the next four years. According to Devex, WHO expects $4 billion in membership dues, leaving $7.1 billion to be fundraised from governments and the private sector. WHO's funding sources include national governments, private foundations like the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, and other non-state actors.</p>
<p>WHO's financial transparency has been a concern. The most recent audited financial statements published relate to the year ended December 2021. This lack of up-to-date financial reporting raises questions about accountability and transparency.</p>
<h3>GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance</h3>
<p>GAVI is asking for $9 billion in new pledges for the period 2026-2030, out of a total need of $11.9 billion. GAVI's funding comes from a mix of public and private sources, with the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation being a significant contributor.</p>
<p>GAVI's impact on global vaccine distribution is substantial, but its financial operations and profit margins are not fully transparent. The organization's spending on fundraising and management expenses raises questions about its efficiency and accountability.</p>
<h3>International Development Association (IDA)</h3>
<p>IDA hopes to raise $100 billion through a new cycle of funding. IDA's funds are primarily used for poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation. The organization's strategic directions for the latest funding round emphasize resilience, human capital, and climate adaptation.</p>
<p>IDA's funding comes from contributions from member countries, with top funders including Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The organization's focus on global agendas under the auspices of poverty alleviation raises concerns about the effectiveness and transparency of its spending.</p>
<h3>The Pandemic Fund</h3>
<p>The Pandemic Fund wants to raise $2 billion for its work. The fund is a World Bank partnership with a consortium of donor countries, foundations, and civil society organizations. Its founding financial contributors include various countries and private foundations like the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.</p>
<p>The Pandemic Fund's focus on strengthening pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response is crucial, but the lack of transparency in its financial operations and the involvement of private foundations raise questions about accountability and the potential for conflicts of interest.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that four organizations are seeking $123 billion for pandemic-vaccine schemes is partially true. However, the claim lacks context and transparency regarding the sources of funding and the specific uses of the money. The involvement of private foundations and the lack of up-to-date financial reporting by some organizations raise concerns about accountability and potential conflicts of interest.</p>
<p>While it is true that the money will ultimately come from taxpayers, the claim exaggerates the direct impact on individual taxpayers. The funding for these organizations comes from a mix of public and private sources, and the specific allocation of funds is not fully disclosed.</p>
<p>It is essential for these organizations to provide more transparency and accountability in their financial operations to build public trust and ensure that the money is used effectively and efficiently.</p>
<p>For further reading on the involvement of private foundations in global health, see the following study:</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.17104/1611-8944_2014_3_323">The Rockefeller Foundation and the Transition from the League of Nations to the UN (1939–1946)</a> by Ludovic Tournès, published in the Journal of Modern European History.</p>

Claim Review: Four Organizations Seeking $123 Billion for Pandemic-Vaccine Industry

<p>In the 1960s, the sugar industry funded research that downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted the hazards of fat, according to a newly published article in <a href='https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2548255'>JAMA Internal Medicine</a>. The article draws on internal documents to show that an industry group called the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) wanted to refute concerns about sugar's possible role in heart disease. The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did just that. The result was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding.</p>            <p>The sugar-funded project in question was a literature review, examining a variety of studies and experiments. It suggested there were major problems with all the studies that implicated sugar, and concluded that cutting fat out of American diets was the best way to address coronary heart disease. The authors of the new article say that for the past five decades, the sugar industry has been attempting to influence the scientific debate over the relative risks of sugar and fat.</p>            <p>The researchers note that they worked under some limitations — 'We could not interview key actors involved in this historical episode because they have died,' they write. Other organizations were also advocating concerns about fat, they note. There's no evidence that the SRF directly edited the manuscript published by the Harvard scientists in 1967, but there is circumstantial evidence that the interests of the sugar lobby shaped the conclusions of the review, the researchers say.</p>            <p>For one thing, there's motivation and intent. In 1954, the researchers note, the president of the SRF gave a speech describing a great business opportunity. If Americans could be persuaded to eat a lower-fat diet — for the sake of their health — they would need to replace that fat with something else. America's per capita sugar consumption could go up by a third.</p>            <p>But in the '60s, the SRF became aware of flowing reports that sugar is a less desirable dietary source of calories than other carbohydrates, as John Hickson, SRF vice president and director of research, put it in one document. He recommended that the industry fund its own studies — 'Then we can publish the data and refute our detractors.' The next year, after several scientific articles were published suggesting a link between sucrose and coronary heart disease, the SRF approved the literature-review project. It wound up paying approximately $50,000 in today's dollars for the research.</p>            <p>One of the researchers was the chairman of Harvard's Public Health Nutrition Department — and an ad hoc member of SRF's board. A different standard for different studies Glantz, Kearns and Schmidt say many of the articles examined in the review were hand-selected by SRF, and it was implied that the sugar industry would expect them to be critiqued.</p>            <p>In a letter, SRF's Hickson said that the organization's particular interest was in evaluating studies focused on carbohydrates in the form of sucrose. 'We are well aware,' one of the scientists replied, 'and will cover this as well as we can.' The project wound up taking longer than expected, because more and more studies were being released that suggested sugar might be linked to coronary heart disease. But it was finally published in 1967. Hickson was certainly happy with the result: 'Let me assure you this is quite what we had in mind and we look forward to its appearance in print,' he told one of the scientists.</p>            <p>The review minimized the significance of research that suggested sugar could play a role in coronary heart disease. In some cases the scientists alleged investigator incompetence or flawed methodology. It is always appropriate to question the validity of individual studies, Kearns told Bloomberg via email. But, she says, the authors applied a different standard to different studies — looking very critically at research that implicated sugar, and ignoring problems with studies that found dangers in fat.</p>            <p>Epidemiological studies of sugar consumption — which look at patterns of health and disease in the real world — were dismissed for having too many possible factors getting in the way. Experimental studies were dismissed for being too dissimilar to real life. One study that found a health benefit when people ate less sugar and more vegetables was dismissed because that dietary change was not feasible. Another study, in which rats were given a diet low in fat and high in sugar, was rejected because such diets are rarely consumed by man.</p>            <p>The Harvard researchers then turned to studies that examined risks of fat — which included the same kind of epidemiological studies they had dismissed when it came to sugar. Citing few study characteristics and no quantitative results, as Kearns, Glantz and Schmidt put it, they concluded that cutting out fat was no doubt the best dietary intervention to prevent coronary heart disease.</p>            <p>In a statement, the Sugar Association — which evolved out of the SRF — said it is challenging to comment on events from so long ago. 'We acknowledge that the Sugar Research Foundation should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities, however, when the studies in question were published funding disclosures and transparency standards were not the norm they are today,' the association said. Generally speaking, it is not only unfortunate but a disservice that industry-funded research is branded as tainted, the statement continues. What is often missing from the dialogue is that industry-funded research has been informative in addressing key issues.</p>            <p>The documents in question are five decades old, but the larger issue is of the moment, as Marion Nestle notes in a commentary in the same issue of JAMA Internal Medicine: 'Is it really true that food companies deliberately set out to manipulate research in their favor? Yes, it is, and the practice continues.' In 2015, the New York Times obtained emails revealing Coca-Cola's cozy relationships with sponsored researchers who were conducting studies aimed at minimizing the effects of sugary drinks on obesity. Even more recently, the Associated Press obtained emails showing how a candy trade association funded and influenced studies to show that children who eat sweets have healthier body weights than those who do not.</p>            <p>As for the article authors who dug into the documents around this funding, they offer two suggestions for the future. Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry-funded studies, they write. They also call for new research into any ties between added sugars and coronary heart disease.</p>

Claim Review: Sugar Industry Funded Research to Shift Blame to Fat

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The article from The Expose claims that the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and the World Health Organization (WHO) employ 200 fortune tellers to find the pathogen that could cause the next pandemic. This claim is misleading and inaccurate. Let's delve into the details to understand the truth behind this claim.</p>
<h2>Understanding the Claim</h2>
<p>The article suggests that CEPI and WHO are using unscientific methods, akin to fortune-telling, to predict the next pandemic pathogen. It also implies that these efforts are driven by the vaccine industry and individuals like Bill Gates.</p>
<h2>The Truth Behind the Claim</h2>
<p>CEPI and WHO are indeed involved in efforts to prepare for future pandemics. However, these efforts are based on scientific research and collaboration, not fortune-telling. The WHO R&amp;D Blueprint for Epidemics is a global platform for research and development collaboration, focusing on medical countermeasures, including vaccines.</p>
<p>The report mentioned in the article is the result of a meeting held in May 2024, where over 200 scientists from more than 50 countries collaborated to evaluate the evidence related to 28 Viral Families and one core group of Bacteria, encompassing 1,652 pathogens. The goal is to investigate entire families of pathogens that can infect humans, develop knowledge and tools for entire pathogen families, foster research that generates knowledge, tools, and countermeasures that can be rapidly adapted to emerging threats, and encourage globally coordinated research efforts.</p>
<h2>Scientific Basis</h2>
<p>The approach taken by CEPI and WHO is grounded in scientific principles. Pathogen prioritisation is a process aimed at categorising pathogens according to their public health importance, antimicrobial resistance, and potential for epidemic or pandemic spread. This is not fortune-telling but a systematic and evidence-based approach to prepare for future health threats.</p>
<p>For example, a study published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0895-3">Nature Medicine</a> discusses the importance of preparedness for future pandemics through scientific research and collaboration. The study highlights the need for a proactive approach to identify and mitigate potential pandemic threats.</p>
<h2>Addressing Misconceptions</h2>
<p>The article from The Expose misrepresents the efforts of CEPI and WHO by comparing them to fortune-telling. This is a misleading analogy that undermines the scientific basis of these efforts. The claim that these efforts are driven by the vaccine industry and individuals like Bill Gates is also unfounded. While it is true that CEPI was co-founded and co-funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, among others, this does not imply that the efforts are unscientific or driven by profit motives.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that CEPI and WHO employ 200 fortune tellers to find the pathogen that could cause the next pandemic is false. The efforts of CEPI and WHO are based on scientific research and collaboration, aimed at preparing for future pandemics through a systematic and evidence-based approach. The misleading and inaccurate claims in the article from The Expose should be disregarded.</p>

Claim Review: CEPI and WHO Employ 200 Fortune Tellers to Find the Pathogen That Could Cause the Next Pandemic

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>A recent article from The People's Voice claims that the FDA authorized the use of a new Covid vaccine from Novavax under emergency use authorization without clinical trial data. This claim has raised concerns about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. This article aims to review the claim and provide a thorough analysis based on available evidence.</p>
<h2>Background</h2>
<p>The Novavax Covid-19 vaccine is a protein subunit vaccine, which is a more traditional approach compared to mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna. It has been authorized for use in several countries and has undergone clinical trials to assess its safety and efficacy.</p>
<h2>Clinical Trial Data</h2>
<p>The claim suggests that the FDA authorized the updated Novavax vaccine without clinical trial data. However, this is not entirely accurate. The original Novavax vaccine underwent extensive clinical trials, including Phase 3 trials involving thousands of participants. The results of these trials were published in peer-reviewed journals, such as the <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2107659">New England Journal of Medicine</a>.</p>
<p>The updated vaccine, designed to target more current Covid variants, was authorized based on the data from the original trials, as well as ongoing safety monitoring and real-world evidence. This approach is not unusual, as regulators often rely on existing data and post-marketing surveillance to make decisions about updated vaccines.</p>
<h2>Emergency Use Authorization</h2>
<p>The article also questions the authenticity of the Covid pandemic 'emergency' authorization, given that President Joe Biden ended the Covid emergency over a year ago. However, the emergency use authorization (EUA) for Covid-19 vaccines is still in effect, as the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to determine when the emergency is over. The EUA allows the FDA to authorize the use of unapproved medical products during a public health emergency.</p>
<h2>Side Effects</h2>
<p>The article mentions that the Novavax vaccine has similar side effects to mRNA vaccines, including myocarditis and pericarditis. While it is true that these side effects have been reported, they are rare, and the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks, according to the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)</a>.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that the FDA authorized the Novavax Covid vaccine without clinical trial data is misleading. While the updated vaccine was authorized without new clinical trials, this decision was based on extensive data from previous trials and ongoing safety monitoring. The benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks, and the EUA is still in effect. Therefore, the claim rating is 2 out of 5, indicating that the claim is mostly false.</p>

Claim Review: Novavax Covid Vaccine Authorized Without Clinical Trial Data

If you want to replace an existing title on a portal and you want the replaced title to be visible to you and your followers.

Move the mouse over the title and make a right click.

Select Remedia -> Alternate Title from the menu

In the pop-up window, enter a new title that you like.

The blue icon copies the existing title into the input field, so you don't have to type everything...

By pressing Submit, the title will be replaced, which will be visible to you and others who visit the pages.

(There is a possibility that you will have to reload the page for the changes to be visible)

You can contact one of the fact-checking organizations.

Claim rated as -> Choose from false to true

Add claimer -> Opens a pop-up window that allows you to search for existing people already registered in the system or to create a new profile of that person.

Claimed At -> Enter the link to the page where the claim was found. You can add more places and link more claim authors

Short description -> short content that is seen when sharing articles on social networks

Field for entering the content of the article.

After the article is published, it will be visible on the Remedia social network and to everyone who has the Remedia Chrome extension installed

And you can engage in debunking yourself.

CAUTION! Abusing the platform is not allowed, entering unverified, misleading or untrue content will result in the deletion of the entire account with all content

Canonical -> If you enter content that already exists somewhere (your property), you can enter a link and Remedia will try to enter the content in the provided fields.

Featured image -> Image that is displayed when you share an article on other social networks.

Write your title -> Enter the title of the article

The claim being reviewed -> Enter the claim here, but BEWARE! An assertion is not the entire statement someone has made, but something concise and unambiguous. Check the claim entry multiple times as each change will create a new claim in the system.

Claim made on -> date when someone published the claim.

After installing the Chrome extension, you can log in and use advanced functionalities. One of them is 'Dislike'.

By right-clicking on an article, the options provided by the Remedia extension are opened, by selecting Dislike, the article will become more transparent and less visible.

Your action will be visible to you and all people who follow you!

Alternate Title

1. Log in to the Remedia social network with a Google or Facebook account (link above right).

2. Install the Chrome extension (if you didn't)

4. Enter the email you used to open your Google or Facebook account. Submit.

5. After the input field appears, rewrite the code. Accept.

That's it! Now you can use the advanced functions of the Remedia Chrome extension.

Alternate Titles

Remedia's work so far:

Remedia, the best thing that happened to media!

On the Feed page, you can enter Status, Opinion and Claim Review

It is enough to enter the title, short description and content.

Below the fields for entering content, you will find fields for entering links. By entering page links in these fields, you 'show' the Chrome extension on which pages to display your content

Press Publish to publish your opinion. (It may be necessary to wait a moment while all links are generated)

Claim: "Four organizations of the pandemic-vaccine industry are seeking to raise $123 billion; the money for their schemes will be coming from you." is Half True

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: