WHO’s directing WHO’s health policy?

June 30, 2025

The World Health Organization (WHO) is often regarded as the ultimate authority on public health and its views on the safety of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) influence many governments globally.

However, the WHO’s credibility may be about to take a tumble, following the release of a new report by the Australian Medical Professionals’ Society (AMPS) this week.

The report, called ‘Follow the Money’, found that the WHO is acting, not as an independent authority, but in the interests of Big Business and allowing corporations significant influence over public health.

The report investigated the WHO’s funding arrangements with non-country donors in the category called ‘voluntary donations-specified’ for the period 2022-2023, using data from its website.

The results revealed some surprising facts.

  • The WHO encourages investment, offering investors a massive 3,400% return ($35 for every $1 invested).
  • The WHO allows donors (investors) to specify how their funds are to be spent – ie to influence the WHO’s activities.
  • The WHO accepted money directly from corporations who stood to profit from public health policy. Among its top-100 donors were pharmaceutical companies, organisations, UN agencies, banks, research institutions, regional administrations and others. At least 98% of these donors had pharmaceutical interests (eg owned, had shares in or invested in pharmaceutical companies, profited from loans related to the pharmaceutical industry, received money from pharmaceutical companies or promoted pharmaceutical projects). Together they donated close to US$2,798,329,167 for (specified) projects that they could influence from its top-100, non-country donors alone.
  • In accepting funds from businesses and organisations that can profit from its health policies, the WHO has a conflict of interests and is contravening its own Guidelines.
  • Two major players – the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (now the Gates Foundation) and the Rockefeller conglomerate occupied positions of significant influence in the donor network, donating directly to the WHO and to multiple organisations that donated to the WHO.

‘The investigation shows that the WHO’s current funding arrangements contravene the Organization’s own Guidelines and that serious conflicts of interest exist. This situation greatly compromises the WHO, calling into question both its integrity and the trustworthiness of its decisions,’ the report said.

The implications of the report’s findings have huge ramifications for public health.

If the WHO is developing health policy to accommodate and profit donors with commercial interests, how much confidence can the public have in its public health policies, including its pronouncements on EMF?

The AMPS report recognises the importance of EMF for health. It says,

‘As medical practitioners, AMPS recognises the value of pharmaceutical drugs to health. However, it understands that there are many ways of supporting public health that do not involve pharmaceuticals, including, but not limited to:

  • healthy food
  • building immunity
  • natural dietary supplements
  • exercise
  • good sleep
  • clean air and water
  • healthy homes
  • EMF-free environments
  • positive social networks
  • and a range of non-pharmaceutical treatment options.’

AMPS, ‘Follow the Money, Who’s Directing Global Health Policy?’, June 2025,

How safe is your home?

Claim a tax deduction for this financial year for making your home office or workplace EMF-safer.

Take a look at our wide range of products for reducing your exposure to EMF here.

Back to Blog