Can the WHO be Reformed, or is there a Better Way for Health, Freedom and Sovereignty?

On Monday 27 March 2024, at the beginning of the week in which the World Health Organization (WHO) convened the 77^th World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland, the World Council for Health (WCH) hosted an event to discuss the topic: Can the WHO be reformed? Or is there a better way for health freedom and sovereignty?

The WHA was meeting that week to vote on amendments to the International Health Regulations of 2005 and to push through a controversial new ‘pandemic treaty’ despite member states not having reached consensus, and without these instruments having been subjected to the necessary public participation required by the WHO itself.

WCH Steering Committee members Dr Tess Lawrie and Shabnam Palesa Mohamedhosted the panel, which comprised the following experts: Dr Astrid Stuckelberger(Switzerland), Dr Wahome Ngare (Kenya), Fahrie Hassan (South Africa), and Dr Meryl Nass (USA).

The panellists were unanimous in their conclusion that the WHO has become so deeply corrupt and mired in conflicts of interest that it no longer serves the interests of its member states and is beyond being reformed. If nations are to preserve their sovereignty, it is time to exit the WHO and to create a Better Way that promotes health, freedom, and sovereignty.

We hope that this summary of the presentations encourages you to watch the entire recording of this eye-opening session.

“[WHO] member states can no longer be bound to the WHO constitution while private partners guide the institution.” - Dr Astrid Stuckelberger

Having worked for both the UN and the WHO for many years, Dr Stuckelberger provided an insider’s perspective on these supranational organisations. She described the UN as ‘octopus-like’, with its numerous agencies, like tentacles, reaching into and controlling every aspect of life.

Systemic problems include the fact that NGOs, corporations, and donors are exerting increasing influence on the UN and its agencies – far more than member states and civil society. Indeed, where the WHO is concerned, health and disease have become a business.

National sovereignty is threatened by the fact that decisions are made by a two-thirds majority vote, resulting in the interests of many member states not being represented. Where the UN is concerned, it is not acceptable that any of the five Security Council members can use their veto to direct the whole world

The UN and its agencies increasingly disobey their own rules. What happened during Covid was unacceptable, with lockdowns and the injections undermining people’s health. Currently, the WHO is at risk of violating its own Constitution, the UN Charter, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, due to violations of individual and national sovereignty, and natural law. However, highly paid staff members, keen to reap the rewards of extended periods of employment, remain complacent, unwilling to challenge the status quo.

Dr Stuckelberger calls for a return to natural law, transparency, sovereignty, representativity, and appreciation for the natural and cultural differences between countries. The hierarchical, pyramid structure of the UN and its agencies needs to be inverted, with the people deciding on how they are represented.

“WHO is no longer a health-promoting body. It has become an imperialist arm of global corporate interests.” - Dr Wahome Ngare

Dr Ngare observed that, since its inception, the UN has been driven by a pathological need to reduce the population of the world, especially Africa, which has been inaccurately accused of being ‘overpopulated’. He believes that the UN and WHO are serving the interests of corporates that intend to appropriate Africa’s natural resources.

Kenya has good reason to be suspicious of the WHO and its vaccination campaigns, as many citizens have been killed, injured, or sterilised by vaccines. Dr Ngare gave three examples of the WHO’s “sickening need to inject everyone with something.”

The WHO sponsored the production of a tetanus vaccine that did not reach the market, but which they rolled out in Kenya around 2014. It was found to produce antibodies to human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG), a hormone that sustains pregnancy. This resulted in women suffering miscarriages and infertility.
The WHO is now pushing the HPV vaccine, stating that it will protect against cancer of the cervix caused by a sexually transmitted virus. But they are targeting young girls up to ten years of age who are not at risk, and the vaccine has serious side effects (see the documentary Sacrificial Virgins).
Malaria is treatable using African herbal medicines such as Artemisia and Quinine, and this means that no vaccine is required. However, the WHO is promoting a malaria vaccine specifically for Africa that is only 36% efficacious.

Being aware of these scandals enabled Dr Ngare to recognise WHO’s mismanagement of the Covid event. This included the media campaign that focused more on marketing vaccines than on protecting people’s health. WHO promoted the unreliable PCR test that may have misidentified influenza cases as Covid. And vaccine trial results were withheld, making informed consent impossible.

Despite what has been revealed about the laboratory origins of SARS-CoV-2, instead of the WHO condemning this and calling for a moratorium on gain-of-function research, they are preparing the world for another pandemic dubbed ‘Disease X’. According to Dr Ngare, all of this only makes sense if one views the vaccine programme as the deliberate deployment of a bioweapon.

The IHR amendments and pandemic treaty will facilitate both the creation of new pandemics using man-made viruses, and the mandating of vaccines as countermeasures. The resultant injuries, deaths, and infertility will contribute to the goal of reducing the human population and establishing a one world government. In Dr Ngare’s words: “It is time for Africa and the people of the world who are interested in sovereignty to stand up against this madness.”

“I believe as my research has shown that there's no way in heaven that the WHO can be reformed. The only option is to exit the group.” - Fahrie Hassan

Fahrie’s research into corruption and conflicts of interest within the WHO system has caused him to conclude that this unelected body is a criminal organisation that cannot be trusted. In his presentation he went into depth, unpacking the relationships and investments that contribute to the global health security agenda. Key to this is the WHO’s ten-year pandemic plan, which has already generated a 20-fold return on investment for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). The diagram below gives a sense of the web of organisations, institutions, corporations, and donors involved in promoting and profiting from the role played by One Health in Agenda 2030.

In recent years, corporates and donors have exerted increasing influence on the work of the WHO through their contributions, in particular Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) funding, 50% of which comes from vaccine companies. This has led Fahrie to assert that the WHO is in the business of pushing and profiting from vaccines.

WHO’s trail of corruption

WHO has been involved in a number of corruption scandals over the years, such as:

The Chernobyl nuclear disaster: WHO covered up deaths, listing only 50 deaths over the past 30 years, whereas a New York Academy of Sciences study identified nearly a million deaths. In response, the WHO launched a media campaign to destroy the credibility of the study and threaten the researchers.
The opiate conspiracy: WHO was involved in a corrupt relationship with Purdue Pharma, the company that produced opioid analgesics. Purdue funded research centres collaborating with WHO, while the WHO claimed in their 2011 guidelines that opioid analgesics were safe and effective. Hundreds of thousands of people died from the opioid epidemic that ensued. Many years later, Purdue was forced to reach a settlement worth $8.3 billion.
The tobacco scandal: While the WHO ostensibly took an anti-tobacco position, they failed to disclose to the public that their own tobacco guidelines were drawn up by a tobacco industry lobbyist who was a member of their Board.
The Swine Flu hoax: In 2009 the Director General of WHO, Margaret Chan, declared H1N1 a global pandemic, warning of millions of impending deaths. In fact, vaccine companies had already produced vaccines, but the pandemic failed to materialise. In partnership with the WHO, these companies fabricated a pandemic to sell vaccines.
Covid crimes: Fahrie gave an overview of the WHO’s involvement in the many questionable aspects of the Covid-19 event, including for example misrepresenting projected deaths; spreading the myth of asymptomatic transmission; promoting the PCR test prior to publication of the Corman-Drosten paper; demonising hydroxychloroquine based on a fraudulent study published in the Lancet; lying about the efficacy of the Covid jab; and covering up the 139,000 adverse events from the Pfizer trial.

A warning to Africa

Fahrie concluded his presentation with a deep dive into the implications for Africa of conflicts of interest relating to relationships between the WHO, the African Union, and Africa CDC. He warned of “economic hitmen courting Africa and wanting them to turn over all resources” by using pandemic preparedness as a Trojan horse. He denounced the attempt to use the pandemic treaty and amended IHR as cover for the exploitation of the continent.

“WHO has many rules and breaks them all the time … The entire organisation is one big conflict of interest.” - Dr Meryl Nass

Dr Nass is a medical doctor and an expert on epidemics, anthrax, vaccines, and biological warfare. She lost her medical license when she treated patients with Covid and spread what her detractors called ‘misinformation’. She has played a significant role in alerting the public and decision-makers to the threats posed by the IHR amendments and the pandemic treaty.

In order to continue negotiating the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments, Dr Nass revealed that the WHO ignored their own rules: the IHR amendments should have been put on the table for four months prior to acceptance to allow countries to scrutinise them, and the treaty should have been put on the table six weeks ahead. Neither happened. Similarly, two years ago a set of amendments initiated by the US were passed without a vote. It is clear that well-paid WHO officials are unwilling to rock the boat in an institutional culture that rewards ‘yes people’.

Dr Nass explained that only 13% of the WHO’s budget currently comes from member states; the rest comes from private entities or nations that have pharmaceutical industries, or from philanthropies like the BMGF. These groups have captured the WHO since the organisation became involved in public-private partnerships about 25 years ago. They have shifted the focus of the WHO from conventional public health to anti-human, anti-health initiatives like One Health, and pandemic preparedness and response. Indeed, the WHO has become a tool of those who are intent on creating a one world government.

Despite their vast investment in corrupting the WHO, Dr Nass celebrated the fact that neither of the two negotiating committees were able to produce a consensus document in time for the WHA. The policy throughout the negotiations around the pandemic treaty was that ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’. At least half the treaty and most of the amendments to the IHR have not been agreed on. Unsurprisingly, though, nations did agree with the WHO on the need for surveillance and censorship, which they have been carrying out increasingly over the past few years.

Can the WHO be reformed?

The WHO has become a completely non-transparent organisation that spends most of its budget on its own staff and contractors, and on first world industries; relatively little trickles down to local health agencies. To address this, public-private partnerships would have to be abolished, leaving the nations to fund the organisation. However, a goal of the pandemic treaty and the IHR is to increase the budget of the WHO by a factor of ten to over $40 billion a year!

Dr Nass pointed out two dangerous proposals, which she hoped would be abandoned:

The bio-hub system: a set of labs to collect pandemic pathogens (i.e., biological warfare agents), study them, and share them with other nations and organisations. That would increase the likelihood of pandemics.
One Health: this categorises everything in the world (ecosystems, plants, animals, etc.) under the rubric of health, enabling the WHO to give orders about all aspects of life.

In conclusion, Dr Nass stated:

“WHO is just a microcosm of the UN system. The whole system needs to be revamped. A light needs to be shone on it. We need transparency and we need decentralization.”

“Most of us in the health freedom movement are advocating to withdraw from the WHO because you can't revise their treaties and you cannot reform the behemoth.” - Shabnam Palesa Mohamed

Speaking from an African perspective, Shabnam pointed to the colonial origins of the WHO, and to the insidious assumptions of neo-colonialism and corporate colonisation that serve to maintain the hegemony of powerful interests. Historically, the UN too sought to improve conditions in the colonies rather than to question their legality.

Today, supranational organisations like the UN and WHO, and mega-corporations, are exerting power over nations through neocolonialism and corporate colonialism. They exert influence often through economic means, and dominate states politically, economically, socially, and militarily.

Considering that the WHO wishes to give the Director General sweeping powers over nations during public health emergencies, Shabnam warned that in 2015 an audit report had identified a massive increase in incidents of fraud, corruption, harassment (including sexual harassment), and failure to comply with professional standards. In one specific case, WHO staff members were involved in sexually abusing women in the DRC. She encouraged people to watch the film Infertility: A diabolical agenda, which exposes the WHO’s involvement in a population control experiment in Kenya that they promoted as a vaccination campaign, as mentioned by Dr Ngare. Shabnam also shared images of babies and children from Africa damaged and killed by vaccines promoted by the WHO as ‘safe, effective, and necessary’.

Shabnam spoke of the necessity of public participation in healthcare decision-making, which is listed as a principle in the preamble to the WHO Constitution and in the Alma Ata Declaration, but has been ignored. She therefore called on nations to withdraw from the WHO, pointing to a policy brief published by WCH, Rejecting Monopoly Power over Global Public Health, which can be used to engage ethical decision-makers.

Finally, she highlighted why it is essential to resist the IHR amendments and pandemic treaty:

The danger of pathogen sharing
Giving the pharmaceutical industry global-scale indemnity for any harm caused by their products
The declaration of many more public health emergencies of various kinds
Lowering the threshold for declaration of a public health emergency
Establishing a new Conference of the Parties (COP) and associated costs
Calls to censor what WHO defines as mis- and disinformation
‘Equity’ being used as an excuse for the transfer of wealth and increasing access by developing nations to harmful pharmaceutical products
Calls for increased sharing of personal and health information
Giving WHO a blank slate for enforcement.

For more on these issues and the WCH’s efforts to resist the global take-over of public health, please watch the whole of Shabnam’s comprehensive presentation, and remember ...

Concluding with a vote!

In concluding this highly informative panel, Dr Tess Lawrie reminded viewers that the mission of the World Council for Health is to set countries free of the WHO and to set people free, reminding us of how to be healthy, how to self-govern, and to facilitate new and better ways in different countries. The growing list of WCH Country Councils is there to help individuals achieve health sovereignty and take charge of your own health and self-determination.

In answer to the question “Can the WHO be reformed? Or is there a better way?” the presenters stated emphatically:

Unfortunately, with its institutional culture and its lack of transparency, there is no way the current WHO can be reformed. – Dr Meryl Nass
Clearly, no! There is a Better Way – there are many better ways than the current WHO management and the UN system. – Dr Astrid Stuckelberger
No way! – Dr Wahome Ngare
I agree with the former participants. There's no way that the WHO can be reformed. And I believe in the principles of the WCH, in the World Council for Health, that there is a Better Way if we follow the seven principles. – Fahrie Hassan
I can confidently say, since we held the hearing on the 26th of March and we had all our country council representatives urge to exit the WHO, I can confidently say that the WHO cannot be reformed. I can speak on behalf of the country councils that we've established that the choice would be to exit the World Health Organization. – Dr Tess Lawrie
Absolutely! the WHO cannot be reformed. There is always a Better Way for health, for freedom and sovereignty, and we're seeing the greatest awakening in history around the world attesting to people who want to retain their rights of self-determination. – Shabnam Palesa Mohamed