If WHO is Removed the Pandemic-Vaccine Health Swamp Still Exists; They Have Other Options to Continue With Their Agenda
The US withdrawal from the World Health Organisation doesn’t address the underlying issues with the international public health agenda, David Bell writes.
One-time or recurring donations can be made through Ko-Fi:
By Rhoda Wilson January 30, 2025
The US withdrawal from the World Health Organisation doesn’t address the underlying issues with the international public health agenda, David Bell writes.
WHO has become a tool of state and non-state interests, with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and pharmaceutical companies having significant influence over its activities. However, the US’ withdrawal is unlikely to greatly affect the pandemic agenda’s momentum.
“The covid-19 outbreak, and the response, would have looked almost identical if the WHO did not exist … remove the WHO and the World Bank (the main funder of the pandemic agenda), the PPPs looking to sell pandemic vaccines (GAVI and CEPI), the Gates Foundation, Germany, the UK, the EU, the US health ‘swamp’ itself and Pharma with its compliance media will still exist. They have other options to bring a veneer of legitimacy to their pillaging through public health,” Bell says.
Unaddressed Issues After WHO Withdrawal
By David Bell as published by Brownstone Institute
On Day One of his new administration, United States President Donald Trump signed an executive order notifying an intent to withdraw from the World Health Organisation (“WHO”). This has drawn celebration from some, dismay from others, and probably disinterest from the vast majority of the population, who are more concerned with feeding families and paying off debt. The executive order also leaves much unaddressed, namely the substantive issues that have changed the WHO and international public health over the past decade.
Change is certainly needed, and it is good that the WHO’s largest direct funder is expressing real concern. The reactions to the notice of withdrawal also demonstrate the vast gulf between reality and the positions of those on both sides of the WHO debate.
The new administration is raising an opportunity for rational debate. If this can be grasped, there is still a chance that the WHO, or an organisation more fit for purpose, could provide broad benefit to the world’s peoples. But the problems underlying the international public health agenda must first be acknowledged for this to become possible.
Table of Contents
What Actually Is the WHO? What Does It Do?
Despite being the health arm of the United Nations (“UN”), the WHO is a self-governing body under the 194 countries of the World Health Assembly (“WHA”). Its 34-member executive board is elected from the WHA. The WHA also elects the Director-General (“DG”), based on one country – one vote. Its 1946 constitution restricts its governance to States (rather than private individuals and corporations), so in this way, it is unique among the major international health agencies. While private individuals and corporations can buy influence, they can be completely excluded should the WHA so wish.
With 8,000 staff, the WHO is split into six Regions and a Head Office in Geneva, Switzerland. The Regional Office of the Americas, also called the Pan-American Health Organisation (“PAHO”), is based in Washington, D.C., and preceded the WHO, having been established in 1902 as the International Sanitary Bureau. Like other Regional Offices, PAHO has its own Regional Assembly, obviously dominated by the US, and is largely self-governing under the wider WHO and UN system.
The WHO is funded by countries and non-State entities. While countries are required to provide “assessed” or core funding, most of the budget is derived from voluntary funding provided by countries and private or corporate donors. Nearly all voluntary funding is “specified,” comprising 75% of the total budget. Under specified funding, the WHO must do the funders’ bidding. Most of its activities are therefore specified by its funders, not the WHO itself, with a quarter of this being private people and corporations with strong Pharma interests.
Therefore, the WHO, while governed by countries, has effectively become a tool of others – both State and non-State interests. The US is the largest direct funder (~15%), but the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (“BMGF”) is a close second (14%), and the partly Gates-funded GAVI public-private partnership (“PPP”) is third. Thus, Mr. Gates arguably has the largest influence in terms of specifying the WHO’s actual activities. The European Union and World Bank are also major funders, as is Germany and the United Kingdom (i.e. the remaining large Western Pharma countries).
In response to its funders, the WHO has shifted focus to areas where large Pharma profits can be accrued. Pharma must insist on this as it has a fiduciary responsibility to maximise return on investment for its shareholders by using its WHO connections to sell more product. The obvious way to make lots of money in Pharma is by spreading fear of vaccine-preventable diseases, and then making vaccines and selling them free from liability to as large a market as possible. This was highly effective during the covid-19 response, and the WHO is now sponsored by these interests to implement the surveil-lockdown-mass vaccinate paradigm behind the recent amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHR”) and the draft pandemic agreement.
While a shamefully willing tool, the WHO is not driving this. The US started the IHR amendment process and heavily backed it until the recent change of administration. The new administration, while signalling an intent to withdraw from the WHO, has not signalled a withdrawal from the pandemic industrial complex the US helped develop.
Critical to understanding the US withdrawal is the fact that the covid-19 outbreak, and the response, would have looked almost identical if the WHO did not exist. The WHO was not involved in the gain-of-function research, in vaccine development or in vaccine mandates. It abrogated its own ethical principles and prior recommendations in pushing lockdowns and mass vaccination and did huge harm in the process. However, it was countries that funded and conducted the virus modification that likely spawned covid-19. It was countries, in concert with Pharma, that mandated lockdowns on their people and pushed vaccination most heavily (the WHO never recommended the covid-19 vaccines for children).
This is not a defence of the WHO – the organisation was both incompetent, dishonest and negligent during covid-19. They were a public health disgrace. They have continued to deliberately mislead countries regarding future pandemic risk, and inflated return-on-investment claims, to sell the policies that benefit their sponsors. But remove the WHO, and the World Bank (the main funder of the pandemic agenda), the PPPs looking to sell pandemic vaccines (GAVI and CEPI), the Gates Foundation, Germany, the UK, the EU, the US health “swamp” itself and Pharma with its compliance media will still exist. They have other options to bring a veneer of legitimacy to their pillaging through public health.
The US Notice of Withdrawal
As President Trump’s 20th of January order of withdrawal notes, it repeats an executive order from mid-2020 that was subsequently revoked by President Biden. In theory, it takes at least 12 months for a withdrawal to take effect, based on the Joint Resolution of Congress in 1948 through which WHO joined, subsequently agreed by the WHA. However, as the new executive order is intended to revoke the Biden revocation, the remaining time to run is unclear. The waiting period could also be shortened by a further Act of Congress.
The 2025 notice of withdrawal is interesting, as the reasons given for withdrawal are relatively benign. There are four:
1. Mishandling of the covid-19 outbreak and other (undefined) global health crises. The “mishandling” is undefined, but may include WHO support for China in obscuring covid-19 origins as highlighted in the recent Covid-19 House of Representatives sub-committee report. There are few obvious candidates for other truly global health crises that the WHO mishandled, except perhaps the 2009 Swine flu outbreak, unless the executive order refers to any international (global) public health issue (in which case there are many).
2. Failure to adopt urgently needed reforms. These are undefined. Of concern, the only reforms the US has been pushing on the WHO in the past few years (pre-Trump administration) were intended to increase the authority of the WHO over sovereign States and the authority of its work. The recent Republican-dominated House subcommittee report recommended the same.
3. Inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states. This is presumably aimed at China but is also concerning as the WHO is subject to its Member States through the WHA. It would be strange if the US was hoping to free the WHO from such constraints. There is no mention of private sector involvement, now about 25% of WHO funding, which many would claim is the core reason for the corruption and deterioration of the WHO’s work.
4. Unfairly onerous payments by the US. The US provides 22% of the WHO’s assessed (core funding) but this is only a fraction of US payments. The vast majority of US payments have been entirely voluntary, and the US could presumably choose to stop these at any time, removing most of its funding but not its voting rights. With China listed by the WHO as paying less than Somalia and Nigeria in the current 2024-25 biennium (per mid-January 2025), the US has a reasonable gripe here, but a simple one to fix.
Missing from the executive order is any reference to the other promoters of the pandemic or emergency agenda. The World Bank’s Pandemic Fund is untouched by this executive order, as are the PPPs. CEPI (vaccines for pandemics) and GAVI (vaccines in general) provide private industry and investors such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation with direct decision-making roles they cannot ensure through the WHO.
The executive order requires the Director of the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy to “… review, rescind and replace the 2024 US Global Health Security Strategy.” It is hoped that this signals a recognition of the lack of an evidence base and financial rigour around the current policy. Indeed, the policy promoted by the US, the WHO, the World Bank and PPPs is irrelevant, by design, to a laboratory-released pathogen such as that which probably caused covid-19. The actual mortality from natural outbreaks that it is designed for has been declining for over a century.
Implications of Withdrawal
A full withdrawal of the US from the WHO will presumably reduce US influence within the organisation, enhancing that of the EU, China and the private sector. As it ignores the World Bank and the PPPs, it will not greatly affect the pandemic agenda’s momentum. Covid-19 would still have happened had the US been out of the WHO before 2020 and modRNA mass vaccination would still have been driven by countries and Pharma with the help of a compliant media. The WHO acted as a propagandist and helped waste billions, but never advocated for vaccine mandates or mass vaccination of children. Though it was appalling, the driving forces behind the wealth concentration and human rights abuses of the covid-19 era clearly originated elsewhere.
If the US withdraws its 15% of the WHO budget – about $600 million per year – others (e.g. EU, GAVI, Gates Foundation) could fill the gap. The executive order mentions withdrawing US contractors but these are few. Nearly all WHO staff are directly employed, not seconded by governments. The main effect will be to reduce coordination with agencies such as the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”). The US will have a continuing need to use WHO services, such as for prequalification (regulation) of hundreds of millions of dollars of commodities bought and distributed by USAID and related programmes but not regulated through the FDA. This is not a problem – the WHO lists are public – but the US would simply continue to use WHO services without paying for or influencing them.
The withdrawal notice also mentions the cessation of US involvement in negotiating the amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHR”) and the Pandemic Agreement. The IHR negotiations concluded 8 months ago and the US has two months to signal rejection. The IHR is separate from WHO membership. The pandemic agreement is subject to wide disagreement between countries and it is not clear whether it will go forward. However, provisions in the FY23 US National Defence Authorisation Act (pages 950 to 961) are already stronger than the US would be signing up to with these WHO agreements.
The history of US withdrawals from UN institutions is also one of subsequent re-entry after a change in administration. Leaving the WHO without influence will presumably make it even less like what the Trump administration would like, should history repeat itself and the next administration rejoin.
The hope is that the US withdrawal will force major reform within the WHO – one of the key reasons provided in the withdrawal notice. However, there is no hint in the executive order of the desired direction of change or whether the US will adopt a more rational policy. If such an intent were made clear, other countries would follow and the WHO itself may actually reboot. However, withdrawing without addressing these fallacies underlying the pandemic agenda entrenches the vested interests who profited through covid-19 and clearly aim to continue doing so.
Being Real About Reality
The enthusiasm for the WHO withdrawal seems widely to have forgotten two things:
The pandemic agenda and the covid-19 response that exemplified it is not primarily a WHO programme. (WHO said essentially the opposite in 2019).
The actual pandemic industrial complex of surveil-lockdown-mass vaccinate is already essentially in place and does not need the WHO for it to continue.
The WHO Bio-Hub in Germany is largely a German government and Pharma agency with a WHO stamp. The World Bank pandemic fund is the main funding current source for pandemic surveillance, the 100-day vaccine programme (CEPI) is directly funded by hapless taxpayers, and the Medical Countermeasures Platform is a partnership with countries, Pharma, the G20 and others. These would probably continue irrespective of the WHO’s existence. The pandemic industrial complex made hundreds of billions of dollars through covid-19 and has the capacity and incentive to continue.
The complexity of all this is being addressed on social media by statements such as “The WHO is rotten to the core,” “The WHO is unreformable” or even “Pure evil” – all unhelpful labels for a complex organisation of 8,000 staff, 6 fairly independent Regional offices and dozens of country offices. The WHO’s work on reducing the distribution of counterfeit drugs saves perhaps hundreds of thousands of people each year and these people matter. Its standards for tuberculosis and malaria management are followed globally, including by the US. In several countries, its technical expertise saves many lives – people who can be abandoned to cliches or taken seriously.
The organisation desperately needs reform, as President Trump notes. Its current leadership, having spent the last few years blatantly misleading and lying to countries about covid-19 and pandemic risk, seems an unlikely candidate to help. They have played the tune of private interests over the needs of the world’s people. However, the WHO’s structure makes it the only major international health institution that countries alone can actually force to reform. It simply needs sufficient Member States of the WHA to force the exclusion of private interests and to force the WHO back to diseases and programmes that actually have a significant bearing on human well-being.
Should such reform prove impossible, then the coalition of countries built around the reform agenda can replace it. The massive bureaucracy that global health has become needs to be seen through the same lens as that in the US. The fantasy built around pandemic risk is not substantively different from many on the domestic agenda that the Trump administration is now targeting. It is similarly erosive of human rights, freedom and human flourishing. Addressing this is an opportunity we would be foolish to miss.
About the Author
David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotechnology consultant in global health. David is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organisation, Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (“FIND”) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.
Related articles:
It’s unfathomable how our medical community went from caring for people to murdering them wholesale by being paid many thousands of dollars by the drug companies to follow their protocols. This turned a country full of doctors into a bunch of Frankensteins or Kavorkians. The medical community is responsible for as many deaths as Pfizer and Moderna and other mRNA drug companies that poisoned millions of people. They have ruined the trust doctors and patients had with each other. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I’ve noticed the medical community has already been culling the population gradually by telling patients their life isn’t worth living. You’ve got this wrong and that wrong with your health. Don’t you think you outta throw in the towel? That’s their mentality previous to the Covid vaccine(poison) so I can see how they were easily bought out by the drug companies. That needs to change now!! And in the future
Correct! It's not the *organizations* (WHO, CDC) etc.) it's the *PEOPLE* in those organizations.
That's why I've been yelling at the top of my voice since the Bill Clinton days that we ***MUST*** take out the psycho-criminals that are perpetrating the crimes. Failure to do that **guarantees** that they'll come at us again and again and again and again - until they succeed. A child can grasp this.