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

<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>The claim that Australia's future pandemic response will focus on targeted, individualised surveillance, quarantines, and mandates rather than large-scale lockdowns has been circulating. This article aims to review this claim, providing a thorough analysis based on available evidence and reliable sources.</p>
<h2>Background</h2>
<p>The claim originates from an article published on The Expose, which discusses a report funded by philanthropic foundations outlining future pandemic responses in Australia. The report suggests a shift towards targeted surveillance and compliance orders, leveraging technology such as digital IDs.</p>
<h2>Analysis of the Claim</h2>
<h3>Targeted Surveillance and Quarantines</h3>
<p>The idea of targeted surveillance and quarantines is not new and has been discussed in various contexts. For instance, the World Health Organization (WHO) has emphasized the importance of targeted measures to control outbreaks. A study published in <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293850/">The Lancet</a> discusses the effectiveness of targeted interventions in managing pandemics.</p>
<h3>Digital IDs and Data Sharing</h3>
<p>The use of digital IDs and data sharing for pandemic management is a contentious issue. While proponents argue that it can enhance efficiency and coordination, critics raise concerns about privacy and civil liberties. A report by the <a href="https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/05/19/necessary-and-proportionate/ensuring-human-rights-covid-19-response">Human Rights Watch</a> highlights the potential risks associated with digital surveillance during pandemics.</p>
<h3>ESG Scoring and Social Impact Investing</h3>
<p>The claim also mentions the role of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) scoring and Social Impact Investing in shaping pandemic responses. ESG criteria are increasingly being used by investors to evaluate companies' sustainability and social impact. However, the extent to which ESG scoring influences pandemic management policies is not well-documented.</p>
<h2>Evidence and Sources</h2>
<p>To evaluate the claim, we reviewed several sources, including:</p>
<ul>
  <li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293850/">The Lancet</a> - Study on targeted interventions for pandemic management.</li>
  <li><a href="https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/05/19/necessary-and-proportionate/ensuring-human-rights-covid-19-response">Human Rights Watch</a> - Report on digital surveillance and human rights.</li>
  <li><a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-similarities-and-differences-with-influenza">World Health Organization</a> - Guidelines on pandemic management.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that Australia's future pandemic response will focus on targeted surveillance and mandates rather than large-scale lockdowns is partially true. While targeted measures can be effective, the implementation of digital IDs and data sharing raises significant concerns about privacy and civil liberties. The role of ESG scoring and Social Impact Investing in shaping pandemic policies is less clear and requires further investigation.</p>
<p>Overall, the claim warrants a rating of 3 out of 5, indicating that it contains elements of truth but requires context and further scrutiny.</p>

Claim Review: Australia's Future Pandemic Plan

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The claim that PCR tests can kill you and could be used to vaccinate people has been circulating, causing concern among the public. This article aims to review the evidence and provide a thorough analysis of these claims.</p>
<h2>Understanding PCR Tests</h2>
<p>PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) tests are widely used to detect the presence of viral genetic material, including SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The test involves taking a sample from the nasal or oral cavity and analyzing it for viral RNA.</p>
<h2>Claim Analysis</h2>
<h3>PCR Tests Can Kill You</h3>
<p>The claim that PCR tests can kill you is based on reports of adverse events such as cerebrospinal fluid leakage and even death. However, these incidents are rare and often result from improper administration of the test. For example, a case reported in the <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaotolaryngology/fullarticle/2772795">JAMA Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery</a> described a woman who experienced cerebrospinal fluid leakage after a PCR test. Similarly, a case reported in <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2021/214/1/case-cerebrospinal-fluid-leak-following-nasal-swab-covid-19">The Medical Journal of Australia</a> involved a woman who developed symptoms of meningitis after a PCR test.</p>
<p>While these cases are concerning, they are isolated incidents and do not represent the norm. Properly administered PCR tests are generally safe and effective. The risk of adverse events can be minimized by following established guidelines for test administration.</p>
<h3>PCR Tests Could Be Used to Vaccinate You</h3>
<p>The claim that PCR tests could be used to vaccinate people is based on speculation about the potential use of nasal or anal swabs to deliver vaccines. While nasal vaccinations are not new and have been used for conditions like the flu, there is no evidence to suggest that PCR tests are being used for this purpose. The idea that PCR tests could be used to deliver vaccines without the knowledge or consent of the individual is unfounded and lacks scientific support.</p>
<p>Researchers at Johns Hopkins University have developed a device capable of delivering drugs, but this technology is not currently being used in PCR tests. The suggestion that PCR tests could be used to vaccinate people is purely speculative and not supported by evidence.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that PCR tests can kill you and could be used to vaccinate people is largely unfounded. While there are risks associated with improper administration of PCR tests, the overall safety and efficacy of these tests are well-established. The idea that PCR tests could be used to deliver vaccines is speculative and lacks scientific support. It is important to rely on credible sources of information and to follow established guidelines for the administration of PCR tests.</p>
<h2>Claim Rating</h2>
<p>The claim rating is 2 out of 5, indicating that the claim is largely false but contains some elements of truth regarding the risks of improper administration.</p>

Claim Review: The PCR Test Can Kill You and Could Be Used to Vaccinate You

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: