Tag: who

US and Argentina announce plan to create an alternative global health system after withdrawing from WHO

The US Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and his Argentine counterpart, Minister of Health Mario Lugones, have signed a joint declaration reaffirming their countries’ withdrawals from the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) and announcing plans to create an alternative international health system.

The new system aims to be grounded in scientific integrity, transparency, sovereignty and accountability, with Kennedy and Lugones stating that their withdrawal from WHO marks the beginning of a new path towards building a modern global health cooperation model.

During his visit to Buenos Aires, Argentina, Kennedy met with Lugones and Argentine President Javier Milei to discuss key health priorities – including healthcare reform, addressing chronic disease and their new global health collaboration – to define a joint work agenda that will strengthen transparency and trust in the health system.

Lugones expressed his shared vision with Kennedy, stating that they believe in the future of collaboration in global health and have similar visions about the path forward, with the declaration expressing a shared vision of the challenges facing the region’s health systems and the measures needed to transform them.

Keep reading

New WHO Guidance Calls for Injectable Contraceptives for Kids

The World Health Organization (WHO) released a new guideline on preventing adolescent pregnancies in low and middle-income countries. The proposed framework advances a vision of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) for young people that promotes controversial ideas, and norm changes inconsistent with what governments have agreed to.

Revised for the first time in over a decade, the guideline focuses almost exclusively on preventing adolescent pregnancies through increased and prolonged contraception use, including “self-administered injectable contraception,” and access to sexuality education.

In its recommendations, the WHO frames adolescents’ choice to discontinue “contraceptive use due to side-effects, and due to changing life circumstances and reproductive intentions” in a negative light and as an obstacle to overcome.

The framework calls on mobilizing “[p]olitical, governmental, religious, traditional and other influential leaders” to “support the access to, uptake of, and continued use of contraceptives.”

The guideline also asks policymakers to ensure that laws on age and consent related to sexual activities are designed in such a way as to promote adolescents’ access to contraception. Such a move could mean lowering the age of legal consent or making regulations more flexible to enable young people’s access to contraception without stigma.

Critics note that an exclusive focus on mass contraceptive use among adolescents monopolizes the discourse on how to best prevent adolescent pregnancies and undermines efforts to tackle the problem holistically.

The 112-page guideline does not mention the merits of raising awareness about the negative consequences of nonmarital sexual behavior through programs centered around abstinence and delay of sexual debut.

Critics also disagree with the WHO framing adolescents’ opposition to contraceptives due to side effects or religious beliefs as based on myths and misinformation.

Beyond its recommendations on contraceptives, the guideline promotes adolescents’ access to sex education, saying that “[m]any adolescents are unaware…[on how] to have sex safely and pleasurably.”

The document references the latest UN inter-agency technical guidance on comprehensive sexuality education (CSE), which has helped shape sexuality education curricula and materials in many countries around the world.

The technical guidance dedicates an entire section to the “Social Construction of Gender and Gender Norms,” teaching children aged 5-8 the difference between biological sex and gender and encouraging them to “reflect on how they feel about their biological sex and gender.” The same section says children aged 9-12 should be able to “explain how someone’s gender identity may not match their biological sex” and “acknowledge that masturbation does not cause physical or emotional harm.”

Another goal laid out in the CSE guidance is that children aged 12- 15 are able to state that sexual “fantasies and desires are natural and not shameful and occur throughout life.”

Keep reading

Media Hypes New COVID Variant NB.1.8.1 Just ONE WEEK After WHO Member States Signed Pandemic Agreement

Dozens of mainstream media outlets published articles this week warning readers of a new COVID-19 variant spreading throughout China, Europe and the U.S.

Several headlines about the NB.1.8.1 variant also pointed out the Trump administration is restricting access to COVID shots for healthy citizens, attempting to tie the decision to the new strain’s spread.

“Today, the ‘Covid Vaccine’ for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule…” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Tuesday.

The variant just happens to be making headlines across the globe just a week after the World Health Organization adopted the world’s first Pandemic Agreement.

“The world is safer today thanks to the leadership, collaboration and commitment of our Member States to adopt the historic WHO Pandemic Agreement,” said Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “The Agreement is a victory for public health, science and multilateral action. It will ensure we, collectively, can better protect the world from future pandemic threats. It is also a recognition by the international community that our citizens, societies and economies must not be left vulnerable to again suffer losses like those endured during COVID-19.”  

The U.S. did not sign onto the agreement as it did not have representatives present during the vote with President Donald Trump announcing in January America officially left the WHO.

While current data does not indicate the NB.1.8.1 strain causes more severe illness than prior variants, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine, told CBS News in an emailed statement that “it may spread more easily.”

Keep reading

RFK Urges Other Countries to Join the U.S. in Leaving the WHO: «We Don’t Have to Suffer the Limitations of a Dying WHO»

In an unprecedented act of political courage, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., current U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, has openly challenged the World Health Organization (WHO), describing it as “dying” and accusing it of being riddled with corruption and influenced by political interests—particularly those of China.

In a recorded message delivered during the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Kennedy called on other countries to follow the United States’ lead and withdraw from the organization. According to Kennedy, the WHO mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic by concealing information about human transmission of the virus and promoting false theories about its origin.

He also criticized the new pandemic treaty adopted by the WHO, calling it a perpetuation of systemic dysfunction. In response, the Trump administration has begun forming a new global health alliance with countries such as Argentina, Italy, and Israel.

Keep reading

WHO’s Pandemic Agreement is adopted despite concerns about unelected institutions imposing global policies

Members of the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) adopted a global pandemic accord on Tuesday, 20 May 2025; 124 countries voted in favour, no countries voted against, while 11 countries abstained and 46 countries were not present.  The total votes cast don’t add up, but those are the numbers WHO has declared.

For the countries that abstained – of which, shamefully, the UK was not one – their concerns included loss of national sovereignty, lack of legal clarity and the risk of unelected institutions imposing policy.

Please note: The Pandemic Agreement has been called various names over the years.  It has also been referred to as the Pandemic Treaty, Pandemic Accord and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”). 

To ensure the Pandemic Agreement was adopted by the easiest possible route, WHO had determined that a vote need not take place, and instead it would be adopted by “consensus.”

Surprised that a “democratic institution” did not want to have a vote, Slovakia requested that a vote on the draft Pandemic Agreement take place, which Tedros the Terrorist attempted to stop hours before the vote was scheduled.

Keep reading

World Health Organization Approves Pandemic Agreement

The World Health Organization (WHO) on May 20 approved a pandemic agreement that is aimed at preventing, preparing for, and responding to future health emergencies.

The treaty says countries shall adopt a “One Health approach” by taking measures to identify and address factors that start pandemics. It says that countries must train workers to prepare for and respond to health emergencies and take steps to strengthen health systems, including improving vaccine coverage.

One section outlines how pharmaceutical companies that volunteer will provide the WHO with 20 percent of their vaccines, medicines, and tests. The WHO will then distribute the products “on the basis of public health risk and need, with particular attention to the needs of developing countries.”

The exact process will be laid out in a future agreement that will be considered at the 2026 World Health Assembly.

The consensus vote took place during the assembly on Tuesday, a day after a committee meeting in which 124 countries voted in favor, zero objected, and 11 abstained.

The approval of the agreement followed three years of negotiations.

Keep reading

The WHO Cannot Be Saved

As humans, we commonly consider ourselves, our beliefs, and our work of particular importance. It is not surprising, then, that when we form institutions, those within them seek to promote the institution’s relevance, expand their work, and centralize decision-making within their own ‘particularly important’ group.

Few want to divest power and resources, let alone put themselves and their colleagues out of a job. This fatal flaw infects all bureaucracies, from local to national and regional to international.

It is unsurprising, then, that the World Health Organization (WHO), an international health bureaucracy of over 9,000 staff, a quarter of them in Geneva, should suffer the same problems. The WHO was originally intended primarily to transfer capacity to struggling states emerging from colonialism and address their higher burdens of disease but lower administrative and financial capabilities. This prioritized fundamentals like sanitation, good nutrition, and competent health services that had brought long life to people in wealthier countries. Its focus now is more on stocking shelves with manufactured commodities. Its budget, staffing, and remit expand as actual country need and infectious disease mortality decline over the years.

While major gaps in underlying health equality remain, and were recently exacerbated by the WHO’s Covid-19 policies, the world is a very different place from 1948 when it was formed. Rather than acknowledging progress, however, we are told we are simply in an ‘inter-pandemic period,’ and the WHO and its partners should be given ever more responsibility and resources to save us from the next hypothetical outbreak (like Disease-X). Increasingly dependent on ‘specified’ funding from national and private interests heavily invested in profitable biotech fixes rather than the underlying drivers of good health,  the WHO looks more and more like other public-private partnerships that channel taxpayer money to the priorities of private industry.

Pandemics happen, but a proven natural one of major impact on life expectancy has not happened since pre-antibiotic era Spanish flu over a hundred years ago. We all understand that better nutrition, sewers, potable water, living conditions, antibiotics, and modern medicines protect us, yet we are told to be ever more fearful of the next outbreak. Covid happened, but it overwhelmingly affected the elderly in Europe and the Americas. Moreover, it looks, as the US government now makes clear, almost certainly a laboratory mistake by the very pandemic industry that is promoting the WHO’s new approach.

Collaborating on health internationally remains popular, as it should be in a heavily interdependent world. It also makes sense to prepare for severe rare events – most of us buy insurance. But we don’t exaggerate flood risk in order to expand the flood insurance industry, as anything we spend is money taken from our other needs.

Public health is no different. If we were designing a new WHO now, no sane model would base its funding and direction primarily on the interests and advice of those who profit from illness. Rather, these would be based on accurate estimates of localized risks of the big killer diseases. The WHO was once independent of private interests, mostly core-funded, and able to set rational priorities. That WHO is gone.

Keep reading

The False Claims of WHO’s Pandemic Agreement

One way to determine whether a suggestion is worth following is to look at the evidence presented to support it. If the evidence makes sense and smells real, then perhaps the program you are asked to sign up for is worthy of consideration. 

However, if the whole scheme is sold on fallacies that a child could poke a stick through, and its chief proponents cannot possibly believe their own rhetoric, then only a fool would go much further. This is obvious – you don’t buy a used car on a salesman’s insistence that there is no other way to get from your kitchen to your bathroom.

Delegates at the coming World Health Assembly in Geneva are faced with such a choice. In this case, the car salesman is the World Health Organization (WHO), an organization still commanding considerable global respect based on a legacy of sane and solid work some decades ago. 

It also benefits from a persistent misunderstanding that large international organizations would not intentionally lie (they increasingly do, as noted below). The delegates will be voting on the recently completed text of the Pandemic Agreement, part of a broad effort to extract large profits and salaries from an intrinsic human fear of rare causes of death. Fear and confusion distract human minds from rational behavior.

Keep reading

“Monkeypox” is a side effect of mRNA “vaccines”—according to the WHO!

The World Health Organization (WHO) has admitted that so-called “monkeypox” is actually a side effect of Covid mRNA “vaccines.”

The United Nations “health” buried the admission on the WHO’s VigiAccess website.

The website contains a database that lists all known side effects of all drugs and vaccines that have been approved for public use.

Under “potential side effects” for the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the WHO lists “monkeypox,” “smallpox,” and “cow pox” among hundreds of other disorders.

They are listed under “infections and infestations” that emerge as “side effects” of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has admitted that so-called “monkeypox” is actually a side effect of Covid mRNA “vaccines.”

The United Nations “health” buried the admission on the WHO’s VigiAccess website.

The website contains a database that lists all known side effects of all drugs and vaccines that have been approved for public use.

Under “potential side effects” for the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the WHO lists “monkeypox,” “smallpox,” and “cow pox” among hundreds of other disorders.

They are listed under “infections and infestations” that emerge as “side effects” of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.

Keep reading

If WHO is removed the pandemic-vaccine health swamp still exists; they have other options to continue with their agenda

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.

Keep reading