The WHO: Reform, Replace, or Get Out Now?

Action on World Health may be good for the rest of the world, but is a bad idea for the United States

A new organization that hopes to fix the problem of the WHO, Action on World Health, has just formed. It is a small group of public health professionals affiliated with Nigel Farage and his team. The organization is seeking people to join up and make donations. Its strategy has not been revealed yet. Watch the 1 1/2 minute video:

https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1863610208439689537

I like and respect all the founders, especially David Bell, who is going to issue the Bell Review on this subject. I’ve worked together with some of the founders during my efforts to stop the WHO’s biosecurity agenda.

Several founders are central to the REPPARE group, which did great work analyzing the academic house of cards upon which the WHO’s pandemic preparedness agenda is based.

Now they want to save public health. Public health is not medicine. It is government-directed policies and programs aimed at large numbers of people. Public health is the opposite of the doctor-patient relationship, in which individual needs and preferences are taken into account.

So what exactly should we save, and what needs to go? How do you “save public health” when the professionals (the public health experts) have been trained by a corrupt system? One in which virtually no public health professionals spoke up about the human rights abuses of COVID, the anti-science and anti-logic policies that were forced on us? When have public health professionals admitted the COVID vaccines kill? When have they admitted hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin and Vitamin D all treat (and could help prevent) COVID, even now?

I don’t want to save public health. I want a reckoning and a retraining of public health purveyors. Public health may need a new name and it certainly needs a major revamp, since the term alone makes me recoil. Who still has a positive feeling about public health? “Public health” has come to represent authoritarianism; utter lack of consideration for the people it was meant to serve; and lack of ability to think independently. I’m sorry, but how can you save an entrenched institution that repeatedly lied, destroyed livelihoods, gaslighted, induced hatred and fear of the unvaccinated, and kept pushing deadly shots on everyone 6 months old and up—doing so even today in the United States.

Right now, the WHO and its IHR and Pandemic Treaty (currently in negotiations) are a threat to every nation’s sovereignty. The original IHR amendments and Pandemic Treaty drafts, primarily written by WHO staff, were extremely dangerous. While they were not adopted, the WHO is now attempting to get a new Treaty adopted—a curious document for which the sticky details will be decided in the future. The globalists hope they can incrementally add in the provisions they want, over time. When we are not looking. They play a long game, and the WHO is one of the main weapons they have developed over decades in order to centralize control of health.

The WHO is a captured agency. Its corruption and its inability to accomplish very much are legendary. It is a huge bureaucracy with 6 regional offices, each with their own agendas and staff, and then there are additional offices around the world. Procedurally, everything is complicated and slow. For example, look at the website of the European Region office of the WHO to get an idea of their processes:

How do you unwind the WHO spider web?

This is perhaps the key question: Are WHO priorities our priorities? This screenshot is also from the WHO's European Region website:

Read the above. It is nearly all designed to increase control over us through a very limited set of “health” initiatives:

1. One Health

2. Sustainable Development Goals

3. Mental Health treatment

4. “Digital Health”— a euphemism for surveillance of health records?

5. Vaccinations

6. Behavioral health and improved mind control

7. Universal health coverage (making everyone pay for health insurance)

8. Emergencies, to be used for global governance of health

9. Promoting health and well-being—almost an afterthought

How would you reform the WHO? How long would that take? The 194 member countries would have to agree, and it would probably take another treaty or amendments to the WHO constitution. This is at least a multiyear process.

What about replacing it? That would require many nations to get together and create the replacement. That won’t happen by next July either. And you would not want to replace most of the WHO anyway. For example, the WHO "qualifies" vaccines for nations that have no national regulatory agency. Efforts are afoot to "harmonize" vaccine regulations internationally through the WHO, especially for future emergency vaccines. Do we really want the WHO or its replacement approving experimental vaccines and potentially removing liability from them?

In 2020, President Trump gave a year’s notice to the WHO that the US was exiting the organization: 6 months before his term ended. President Biden immediately withdrew the notice, as soon as he took office, and the US never left.

International law professor Francis Boyle says President Trump would not need to give notice again, and he could withdraw the US from the WHO on Day 1 of his Presidency if he chooses. The WHO has certainly given Americans considerably more reason to withdraw now, compared to 2020 (when no Pandemic Treaty or IHR amendments were even being discussed).

Withdrawal would immediately protect us from the IHR amendments and the Pandemic Treaty, and anything the WHO or its handlers might cook up in future. It would also save the US upwards of half a billion dollars a year.

Yes, malaria, tuberculosis and HIV programs should continue. But the WHO is not the primary source of these programs; the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria is. The Global Fund could take over WHO programs. Or a new agency tasked specifically with managing such programs could be created. Or USAID, which has an astounding budget of about $40 Billion/year, could take this job on. Isn’t that what it is supposed to be doing already?

Or maybe we should give the recipient nations the money and let them manage their own health programs. I don’t know. Why don’t we ask the people, rather than letting the experts and politicians decide, with no input from those who are said to benefit from this largesse?

Trump’s “American First” policy clearly supports leaving the WHO. If the remaining member nations do achieve the Herculean task of reforming the place, then the US can certainly rejoin it later.

I fear this well-intentioned organization, Action on World Health, founded by international citizens, is trying to find a fallback position for the people of other nations to pursue, especially the UK, when their nations have no intention of exiting the WHO. Calling for reform or replacement of the WHO might make sense for them.

But for the US, the best path is very clear. The WHO is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. We have seen its teeth. It is a dishonest broker, issues terrible advice and does the US no good whatsoever. Its intention is to govern us, and not for our benefit.

We would be crazy to stay and hope for improvement, when we have the chance to get out now. We need to do so before next July, before either new treaty goes into effect, and before the WHO can play any more tricks on us. Fortunately, President Trump understands this. Hallelujah for that!