One of the more hilarious things that the ivermectin crowd is currently doing is equating any funding ever received by the Gates Foundation as being purchased personally by Bill Gates
For example, @UNITAID. Various bizarre claims have been made that any funding from Unitaid is equivalent to receiving a personal bequest from Bill Gates
However, even a very cursory examination shows that the Gates Foundation contributes only a tiny fraction of the Unitaid budget. The main funder is France, followed by the UK 
Unitaid has, as with many of these large NGOs funded by countries, a bit of a complex structure, but they basically sit under the WHO with a separate executive. If we were to be deeply cynical, we might say that Unitaid funding was like getting cash from the French/UK govts...
...but realistically, I suspect that the WHO has just as much power over the decisions made by Unitaid. Having never worked with or for either organization (although I know lots of people who do), I'd guess it's probably a complex political headache
The funding that Unitaid DOES receive from the Gates Foundation is $10mil per year, and is earmarked for projects specifically addressing HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria (which is Unitaid's core purpose)
Anyway, you'd have to be deeply ignorant and completely uninterested in looking up basic facts to claim that Unitaid funding had much to do with Bill Gates
And I say this all as someone who is deeply distrustful of billionaires and would prefer that we didn't have to rely on the haphazard philanthropy of rich people to eliminate diseases we already know how to cure
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
