TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In May 2024, 194 WHO member states will vote on international agreements for pandemic prevention behind closed doors. These agreements give the WHO leadership in health matters related to pandemics, but the process is not widely reported or discussed in the media, parliaments, universities, or society.

The transcript discusses several intertwined points about the FDA's funding, information sources, and a personal health journey. It states that the FDA gets 47% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry, and that this information was released only after a rumor claimed 50% of their funding came from big pharma. The speaker notes, “the people that you’re supposed to be making rules and regulations for are the same people that are paying you money,” describing this as a conflict of interest and urging readers to consider the implication of funding influencing regulatory decisions. The speaker then shifts to their personal experience with health issues and the challenge of finding valid information that isn’t paid for by big pharma. They share a statistic attributed to women with similar issues: “85 to ninety percent of the women who experience the same issues that I experience notice changes in their symptoms or alleviation completely from their symptoms simply by changing their diet, namely going gluten free.” Although the speaker says they personally are not inclined to adopt gluten-free changes, they are cutting out refined carbs and sugars from their diet and report progress: “I've been on this diet for two days now, and I already feel a ton different.” This personal anecdote is presented in the context of comparing diet-driven symptom changes to pharmaceutical influence. The speaker mentions ongoing changes to their living space and routines as part of their broader stance. They say, “we're putting up our squat rack again in our home gym,” signaling a strengthening or lifestyle shift. They also report, “we did get some egg laying birds,” suggesting new household activities. Throughout, there is a reiterated sentiment directed at big pharma: “basically saying a big to big pharma,” underscoring their stance against pharmaceutical influence. Finally, the speaker emphasizes the surprising nature of the 47% funding figure and reiterates, “I still can't believe it's 47% of their funding, and they think that's okay.” They invite audience engagement, closing with, “as always, I look forward to hearing your thoughts about all of this down below.”

Since 2017, France has spent a staggering amount, allocating 25 billion euros to multilateral funds. This includes contributions to UN agencies, Bill Gates-sponsored vaccine NGOs, and organizations involved in reforestation efforts in the Amazon rainforest. However, according to the Court of Auditors, there's a lack of clarity regarding the allocation and expenditure of these funds, as we're unable to effectively track where the money goes.

The transcript centers on alleged mismanagement of funds from a Fire Aid benefit concert claimed to raise over $100,000,000 for Los Angeles fire victims. The speakers assert that residents are asking where the money went and imply a lack of transparency or accountability. Key points include: - The Fire Aid initiative reportedly raised about $100,000,000 for residents, community needs, and funds intended to help with the aftermath, yet there is no clear accounting of where the money ended up. - The Fire Aid website states that all direct donations will be distributed under the advisement of the Annenberg Foundation. The IRS Form 990 lists the Annenberg Foundation as a 501(c)(3) based in Kunshakin, Pennsylvania, in a certain office building. - A red flag is raised that only 33% of the Annenberg Foundation’s annual expenses go toward actual charity programs; the remainder goes to administrative costs, including executive compensation. - The transcript highlights Cynthia Kennard (referred to as Cinny) as top leadership, earning roughly three-quarters of a million dollars plus six-figure bonuses, described as nearly seven figures for one person. - There is a reference to a photo or moment showing Cynthia Kennard with Gavin Newsom discussing issues like homelessness, described as an “if you know, you know” moment. - A comparison is drawn with Doctors Without Borders, noting that it spends almost 90% of its money on actual programs and less than 1% on administrative costs. - Local journalists’ inquiries revealed that the Fire Aid site lists only three Palisades organizations among nearly 120 grant recipients: Kahelet Israel, Chabad of Pacific Palisades, and Palisades Charter High School; none appear to be specific to Pacific Palisades. - Attempts to contact the Annenberg Foundation were described as fruitless or thwarted, with extensions that didn’t lead to returns, referrals to a mysterious man named Philip (no last name), and no subsequently found contact. - The speakers conclude that the $100,000,000 was allegedly largely consumed by administration, with about 70% directed toward the organization itself and the rest disbursed to various other nonprofits, each carrying their own administrative costs, leading to the impression that much of the money disappeared. Overall, the dialogue portrays the Fire Aid fundraising as potentially lacking transparency and accountability, with accusations that the majority of funds may have been diverted to administrative costs rather than direct charitable use, and that grant dispersals to other nonprofits were not clearly explained or traceable.

The WHO is set to have a final vote on two international agreements involving pandemic prevention and preparedness. This process is conducted privately and is not widely reported or discussed in the media, national parliaments, universities, or society. The WHO asserts its unquestionable leadership in all health matters through these legal instruments.

We have various big donors, including the Open Society Institute, the Wallace Global Fund, the Arca Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation. George Soros funds the Open Society Institute. However, these donors do not ask for anything in return. We maintain a positive relationship with them, and they appreciate our transparency.

According to the speaker, the Gates Foundation provides 88% of the foundation donations to the World Health Organization. The speaker claims this violates competitiveness laws in both Europe and the United States. They assert that these donations are not independent or charitably funded, but rather directed donations, which are forbidden under the tax laws on both sides of the Atlantic and have no place in the charter of the World Health Organization or any UN-affiliated organizations. The speaker alleges this constitutes tax crime, racketeering, money laundering, and racketeering leading to murder and global terrorism.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is primarily funded by member states, but over the years, voluntary contributions have increased while assessed contributions have been frozen. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has become a major funder of WHO. Some believe that Bill Gates controls WHO and uses it to promote his own interests, particularly in the vaccine industry. The United States, United Kingdom, and Gates Foundation have significant influence in global health, not just in financing but also in other ways. The pandemic treaty and amendments to international health regulations proposed by WHO could challenge national sovereignty and personal medical freedom. They also involve surveillance of citizens' social media and censorship of information that goes against WHO's narrative. The cost of being prepared for the next pandemic is estimated to be relatively small compared to other global challenges. Stronger financing, estimated at $31 billion per year, is needed to strengthen global health security, with the idea of a new financing facility directed by WHO and installed in the World Bank. Strengthening WHO's role is crucial for a safer world.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is primarily funded by member states, but over the years, voluntary contributions have increased while assessed contributions have been frozen. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has become a major funder of the WHO, leading to concerns about their influence on public health policy. The United States, United Kingdom, and Gates Foundation have played a significant role in shaping global health initiatives. The majority of extra funding for the WHO comes from the Gates Foundation and Gavi, a corporation focused on vaccine sales. The WHO has proposed a pandemic treaty and amendments to international health regulations, which could limit national sovereignty and personal medical freedom. These agreements also involve surveillance of citizens' social media and censorship of dissenting health information. The cost of preparing for future pandemics is estimated to be relatively small compared to other global challenges. Stronger financing, estimated at $51 billion per year, is needed to strengthen global health security, with a proposed dedicated financing facility anchored in the WHO's constitutional mandate.

Universities, health organizations, and other institutions are in need of funding, while big multinational corporations have the money to provide it. These corporations use their financial influence to gain control. They give grants for research, collaborate on projects, and pay individual professors, doctors, and researchers. They may also fund educational programs that align with their interests. Although these arrangements are supposed to be independent, it is clear that corporations prioritize supporting their own products. If organizations do not comply, they risk losing funding. This financial influence is how the medical establishment is swayed.

The speaker claims that an analysis of political donations from the State Department, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy reveals that 94-98% of donations went to the left. This pattern allegedly extends to international NGOs and contractors, including World Vision and Catholic Relief Services, with over 90% of political donations favoring the left. The speaker suggests these organizations' boards consist of highly paid, prominent individuals. The speaker alleges the left is misusing USAID and taxpayer money across the federal government as a slush fund to finance their own people, creating a one-sided apparatus that funds only one side of the political equation.

The speaker's research into political donations from the State Department, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy found that 94-98% went to the left. A similar pattern was observed when examining international NGOs and contractors, including World Vision and Catholic Relief Services. The speaker alleges that the left is misusing taxpayer money across the federal government as a slush fund to finance their own people. This creates a one-sided apparatus where taxpayer money funds only one side of the political equation, enabling recipients to support left-leaning media and political activities.

The transcript presents a critical examination of Bill Gates, portraying him as transforming from a software magnate into a global health power broker whose wealth and influence have reshaped public health, vaccine development, and population policy. It argues that Gates’ philanthropic activities are not purely charitable but are deployed to extend control over health systems, global research agendas, and even the reproductive choices of people worldwide. Key claims and points are detailed across several strands: - Public image and power shift: Bill Gates is described as no longer a “public health expert” yet becoming a central figure in billions of lives, guiding medical actions and vaccine strategies. The program asserts that Gates’ reinvention through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been aided by a sophisticated public relations apparatus and by directing media coverage of global health issues. - Foundation scale and reach: The Gates Foundation is depicted as the world’s largest private foundation, with assets reported as tens of billions of dollars and a broad remit in global health, development, growth, and policy advocacy. Its influence extends to funding media outlets, think tanks, and reporting units across multiple outlets (BBC, NPR, Our World in Data, ABC, among others), creating what the program calls “tentacles” across global health. - Partnerships and funding of global health initiatives: Gates is credited with initiating and funding major global health vehicles, including: - Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, with seed funding and ongoing commitments that have shaped vaccination markets. - The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and other public-private partnerships that coordinate vaccine development and immunization programs. - Support for CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations), the World Health Organization’s vaccine initiatives, and other pandemic preparedness efforts. - The World Health Organization’s funding profile, described as heavily dependent on Gates Foundation support, with Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted as a non-medical doctor connected to Gates-backed initiatives. - The “Decade of Vaccines” and vaccine policy: Gates is credited with launching a decade-long vaccine initiative, including a pledge of billions of dollars to vaccine development and distribution. This is linked to the creation of a global vaccine action plan and to Gavi’s role in establishing vaccine markets. The narrative asserts that vaccines have been used to steer global health policy and to secure roles for private firms in public health decision-making. - Vaccine development concerns: The program raises concerns about the safety and speed of vaccine development, criticizing the eighteen-month timeline Gates advocates for a universal vaccine, and questioning the use of new technologies (DNA and mRNA platforms) and rapid deployment with limited testing. It highlights potential safety risks, including historical vaccine-associated disease enhancement and concerns about broad immunization in a short period. - Vaccine safety and regulation: It is claimed that vaccine safety at scale is hard to guarantee and that liability protections for vaccine makers and public health officials have been enacted (e.g., a U.S. declaration granting liability immunity for COVID-19 countermeasures), a point framed as enabling risk-bearing without accountability. - Population control framing: A central thread is the assertion that Gates seeks to reduce population growth through health improvements, vaccines, and reproductive health services. The transcript traces Gates’ interest in contraception and population issues to his family background and to Rockefeller-era eugenics historical contexts, arguing that discussions about fertility, contraceptive technologies, and demographic trends have long-term population implications. It cites specific Gates Foundation activities in reproductive health, including funding for innovative birth-control delivery methods, depot injections, implanted devices, and efforts to develop digital identity tied to health services as tools within a broader population-control framework. - Digital identity and biometric ID: The narrative emphasizes Gates’ involvement with biometric identification through Gavi and ID2020, noting partnerships with Microsoft and the Rockefeller Foundation, the Aadhaar system in India, and the World Bank’s ID4D initiative. It argues that vaccination programs, biometric identity, and cashless payments are being integrated into a comprehensive “population control grid,” enabling state and private actors to track, truncate, or deny access to services based on identity and health status. - Data, surveillance, and privacy concerns: The piece contends that the push for digital IDs, digital health records, and biometrics will erode privacy and enable broad government and corporate surveillance, linking health data to financial services, voting, housing, and welfare. It highlights projects involving digital certificates, immunity passports, and real-time health data collection via microneedle patches and barcode-like skin markers, suggesting these innovations could be used to control access to services. - Epstein connections and broader conspiracy context: The program references alleged connections between Gates and Jeffrey Epstein, including flight logs and involvement in philanthropic funding discussions, framing these ties as part of a broader pattern of influence. It also points to prior associations with notable figures (Buffett, Rockefeller, Soros) and critiques of Gates as aligning with a “population control” ideology. - The underlying motive and conclusion: Throughout, the narrative asserts that Gates’ wealth is being used not for charity alone but to build an overarching system of control—over health institutions, research funding, public policy, identification, and financial systems. It contrasts his public image as a generous philanthropist with alleged hidden agendas, suggesting that the real aim is to shape global governance and human behavior through vaccination, identification, and digital infrastructure. - Final framing and call to action: The closing sections urge viewers to recognize Gates’ influence as part of an ideology rather than a single person’s plan. It frames the situation as a broader movement that could continue beyond Gates personally, urging awareness and action to resist what the program deems a population-control regime embedded in global health and digital identity initiatives. In sum, the transcript portrays Bill Gates as a central figure driving a multifaceted, globally interconnected program—through the Gates Foundation, Gavi, CEPI, and related partnerships—that allegedly reconfigures vaccine policy, global health governance, reproductive health, biometric identification, and digital payments into a cohesive system of population control and surveillance, using philanthropy as a veneer for power and control.

A $100,000 donation intended to buy food for poor kids in Africa doesn't fully reach them because the NGO subcontracts the work, creating multiple middlemen. Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, estimates that 88¢ of every dollar goes to middlemen. Only 12¢ of each dollar spent on humanitarian assistance reaches the people who need it. There is a lot of waste.

Speaker 0 argues that the world has been lied to for 110 years by a small group of criminal industrial conspirators who aim to subjugate humanity to enrich themselves, impoverish and kill others, and that the words “acceptable death rate” have become an industrial norm. They claim this is not just a political disagreement but a crime, asserting that the World Health Organization (WHO) and pharmaceutical companies authorized to begin the process of killing human beings in the interest of advancing their goals. The speaker declares this is a criminal cartel and states they will show documents proving it, insisting this is not an allegation but something that is provable by their own words. The four-step process alleged for executing nefarious plans is: 1) they begin by planning an exercise, 2) they fund that exercise, 3) they create the rationale for what they will do, and 4) they deploy and profit from it. They claim this violates 15 U.S. code section 19 (and connect it to the Clayton Act and the early formation of WHO in 1947), and they claim violation of the TFEU (the treaty for the functioning of the European Union), asserting Article 101 sets out that this was never public health but racketeering to instill terror to adapt population behavior. Data from Zurich is used to argue there was no pandemic: the speaker notes that during the death pandemic of the globe, life insurance claims fell by $30,000,000,000, stating that the data is unambiguous and that there was genocide rather than a pandemic. They pivot to the 2011 WHO, Welcome Trust, PATH, and Gates Foundation malaria vaccine program for children under six months, highlighting that 66 children in the vaccine group were murdered and 28 in the control group were murdered, with the control described as a cocktail of pathogenic injections rather than saline. The speaker references Article five, section 13, claiming immunity from arrest or legal process was designed as permanent immunity for a criminal organization formed in 1947; they connect the first WHO director general, Renee Sand (sic) from the Dachau-era milieu, to Brock Chisholm, who allegedly advocated population control as a primary objective. The claim extends to funding and influence: Gates Foundation allegedly provides 88% of WHO’s foundation donations, which the speaker says constitutes a tax and competition law violation in Europe and the United States. The four-step process is illustrated again with sourcing: to sustain funding beyond the crisis, to increase public understanding for medical countermeasures like pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccines, and to use media hype to attract investors who see profit at the end of the process, as documented by the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board and Peter Daszak’s partnerships. The 2014 Rand Paul–Anthony Fauci correspondence is cited, showing a letter from NIAID to UNC Chapel Hill stating that gain-of-function research would continue during a moratorium with a budget funded by DARPA and NIH. The speaker quotes that the Wuhan virus was anticipated, citing a 2016 publication stating SARS-like Wuhan Institute of Virology virus one is poised for human emergence, implying foreknowledge and manipulation of the virus in Wuhan and UNC Chapel Hill. The talk shifts to the characterization of the work as biological warfare enabling technologies, referencing Ralph Baric’s 2005 DARPA/MITRE presentation and subsequent NIAID and DARPA funding, concluding that the project was to produce biological warfare enabling technologies rather than public health measures. They highlight substantial profits for Pfizer and Moderna from public funds and accuse the WHO of laundering money via a budget expansion request of 11%. In closing, the speaker maintains this is not a public health crime or constitutional crime, but a criminal conspiracy of criminal racketeers. They call for ending the criminal organization itself and urge everyone to destroy the WHO.

In May 2024, 194 WHO member states will vote on international agreements for pandemic prevention and response. The process is secretive and not publicly discussed. The WHO seeks absolute leadership in health matters related to pandemics.

In May 2024, 194 member states of the WHO will vote on international agreements regarding pandemic prevention. The process is secretive and not publicly discussed. The WHO seeks absolute leadership in health matters related to pandemics.

The Gates Foundation was formed after Microsoft's antitrust violations settlement. It funneled money to the World Health Organization, influencing its actions. The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board was created with members from Gates Foundation, NIAID, and others. The WHO's funding is mostly from Gates, giving them control. This violates Swiss law. The agenda includes population control, with statements about reducing the global population through vaccinations.

Universities, health organizations, and others seek money from big corporations to influence research and opinions. By funding research, paying individual professionals, and supporting programs, corporations ensure loyalty and favorable outcomes. This financial influence shapes the medical establishment, even if it appears independent on the surface.

We are the top funder, but Bill Gates is also a big funder of the World Health Organization. Bill Gates and the Communist Chinese Party have significant influence, overshadowing the United States. A small group of elites, including Bill Gates, could pass a global pandemic treaty and make amendments without needing approval from all member nations. This power grab is unprecedented in human history and will drastically impact our future if not stopped. Pay attention and take action before it's too late.

The speaker questions whether it is strange that leading environmental organizations have met for fifty years with CEOs of heavily polluting corporations while the natural world keeps getting worse. They say that critics of the WAF are right when considering who the most important partners are that account for almost 71% of the WES budget. The partners include BlackRock, the Open Society Foundations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and many other large corporations, of whom Vanguard and BlackRock own the shares directly or indirectly.

The discussion centers on OCCRP (the Corruption Reporting Project), its funding, and how it operates as “mercenary media” for state interests, particularly the U.S. State Department and USAID. The speakers argue that OCCRP is not independent journalism but a State Department–funded operation that produces hit pieces to seize assets, indict officials, and press regime change across multiple countries. Key findings and claims discussed - OCCRP’s funding and control: The group is described as receiving substantial funding from the United States government through USAID and the State Department, with other sources including Open Society (Soros), Microsoft, and NED. A recurring claim is that half of OCCRP’s funding comes from the U.S. government, that USAID and the State Department actually control hiring and firing decisions of top personnel, and that a “cooperative agreement” structure channels editorial direction through government-approved annual work plans and key personnel (including the editor‑in‑chief or chief of party). - Financial returns and impact: It is claimed that USAID boasted in internal documents that paying $20 million to independent journalists yielded $4.5 billion in fines and assets seized, and that mercenary reporting led to 548 policy changes, 21 resignations or removals (including a president and a prime minister), 456 arrests or indictments, and roughly $10 billion in assets returned to government coffers across various countries (Central Europe, Eastern Partnership, Western Balkans, etc.). A related claim is that total spending over OCCRP’s history amounts to about $50 million, with returns rising from $4.5 billion in 2022 to about $10 billion by 2024. - Geographic scope and targets: The reporting funded or influenced by the State Department covered broad regions—Germany, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, and the Western Balkans—extending to the Eastern Partnership and beyond. The pieces are described as having led to investigations and asset seizures that targeted political enemies of state authorities. - The role of “mercenary media” and independence claims: The speakers repeatedly contrast the claimed editorial independence of OCCRP with the reality of donor influence. They describe OCCRP as “mercenary media for the state,” funded to generate narratives and political outcomes favorable to U.S. foreign policy. They challenge the notion of independent journalism by noting the requirement that key personnel and annual work plans be approved or vetoed by USAID, and that there are “strings attached” to cooperative agreements that go beyond simple gifts. - Editorial process and donor influence: The conversation scrutinizes how the annual work plan, subgrants, and editor-level appointments are subject to USAID oversight. It is noted that, even when OCCRP claims editorial independence, the top editors must navigate donor influence, and in practice, the content may be shaped to align with funders’ interests. The argument is that without donor influence, OCCRP would not exist or would not continue to receive large sums of money. - The rhetoric of independence: Several speakers underscore the paradox of insisting on “independent media” while acknowledging that funding, governance, and personnel decisions are shaped by U.S. government agencies, with additional support from Soros/Open Society and corporate donors like Microsoft. They juxtapose “independence” rhetoric with admissions of entanglement with government and intelligence entities, and their discussions touch on the historical context of U.S. public diplomacy, the U.S. Information Agency, and the evolution of state-driven media influence. - Historical funding trajectory and organizations: The first funds reportedly came from sources such as the United Nations Democracy Fund, with later support from INL (the U.S. Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement) and a transition to USAID administration. The participants discuss the possibility that multiple U.S. government agencies (State Department, USAID, NED, INL) and private sponsors (Open Society, Microsoft) contribute to OCCRP’s budget, with the U.S. government described as the largest donor at various points, though not always claimed as the single dominating donor. - “Capacity building” and the machinery of influence: The conversation highlights “capacity building” as a common label for donor-driven expansion of media assets, civil society groups, and investigative journalism networks. They connect these efforts to broader U.S. democracy promotion programs and to the use of investigative reporting as a tool for law enforcement and political leverage—where journalists may gather information and feed it to prosecutors and foreign policy objectives. - Individual positions and disclosures: Several speakers identify named individuals (e.g., Drew Sullivan, Shannon McGuire) and discuss their roles, funding pathways, and concerns about editorial control. The dialogue reveals tensions between the journalists’ professional aims and the political-economic machinery enabling their work. Cumulative impression - The transcript presents a frontal, highly confrontational critique of OCCRP as a state-funded, state-influenced enterprise that positions itself as independent journalism while enabling significant political and legal actions abroad. The speakers claim conspicuously high returns on investment for government funding (billions of dollars in assets seized and numerous political changes) and describe the cooperative funding structure as funneling editorial output toward U.S. foreign policy objectives. They argue that independence is a veneer masking a structured, donor-driven process with formal approval channels for personnel and plans, and with direct implications for how narratives are shaped and which targets are pursued. They also connect OCCRP’s practices to broader historical patterns of U.S. public diplomacy, intelligence collaboration, and the global propaganda ecosystem.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is primarily funded by member states, but over the years, voluntary contributions have increased while assessed contributions have been frozen. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has become a major funder of the WHO, leading to concerns about their influence on public health policy. The United States, United Kingdom, and Gates Foundation have played a significant role in shaping global health initiatives. The majority of extra funding for the WHO comes from the Gates Foundation and Gavi, a corporation focused on vaccine sales. The WHO has proposed a pandemic treaty and amendments to international health regulations, which could limit national sovereignty and personal medical freedom. These agreements also involve surveillance of citizens' social media and censorship of dissenting health information. The cost of preparing for future pandemics is estimated to be relatively small compared to other global challenges. Stronger financing, estimated at $51 billion per year, is needed to strengthen global health security, with a proposed dedicated financing facility anchored in the WHO's constitutional mandate.

Universities receive funding from four main sources. First, federal student loans, which amount to trillions and are growing faster than inflation. Second, federal research funding, where universities often take up to 70% of grants for central use. Third, tax exemptions at the operating level, based on their nonprofit status. Fourth, tax exemptions for endowments, which serve as financial buffers. Analyzing these sources reveals that if federal and state funding were removed, many universities would face bankruptcy, highlighting the need for a potential rebuild of their financial structures.

Manufacturers must supply the FDA with evidence that their chemicals are safe before being added to foods. The speaker claims the burden of proof falls on the manufacturer seeking profit, not the FDA. The FDA relies on user fees and budget appropriations for funding. Manufacturers pay fees based on the weight of each batch, which supports the FDA's color certification program. The speaker suggests this system is essentially bribery, using a hypothetical example of a cartel making cocaine baby food and paying for a study to prove its safety. In fiscal year 2022, user fees accounted for $2.9 billion of the FDA's $6.2 billion budget. The speaker concludes that nearly half of the FDA's budget comes from big food and big pharma, which they believe is a conflict of interest.