The United States exits the WHO:

~ WHOlly appropriate

Dr Lisa Hutchinson

No one could have escaped the news that the newly inaugurated US President, Donald J. Trump has signed an Executive Order to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO). The key reasons cited for this decision include the WHO’s mishandling of decisions and policy during the Covid-19 pandemic, the failure to adopt reforms and, crucially, a lack of independence from the influence of member states or concerns relating to conflicts of interest. Trump has pledged that the US will pause the transfer of funds to the WHO as well as identify alternative partners to fulfil the necessary activities that this organization assumes. Furthermore, the US will cease negotiations with the WHO on the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and the Pandemic Treaty. At HART, we have followed the journey of the ongoing negotiations of the WHO Pandemic Agreement.

The US exit from the WHO also ends its financial contributions to the organization, which accounts for around 22% of the WHO’s mandatory contributions. This withdrawal means the WHO has now lost its largest financial contributor of $1.3 billion. Although the withdrawal process may take up to 1 year, during this transition period, the US will cease all negotiations of the Pandemic Treaty, the IHR amendments and any prior decisions will not be legally binding. On hearing this, millions in the US and around the world have celebrated and welcomed this exit from the WHO. Not least because it removes further financial funding and could save millions from untested, harmful vaccines while also being denied access to alternative beneficial therapies in instances of any future ‘health emergencies’. Could this milestone decision be the catalyst for other nations to withdraw from the WHO?

Several have commented that the largest loser of the US exit from the WHO is Bill Gates who has contributed 88% of the total philanthropic funding for the WHO. This move by the USA could not be in further contrast with the UK: Sir Keir Starmer wishes to extend the WHO’s control over the UK by agreeing to the IHR amendments in March 2025. Last April, over 100,000 members of the British public signed a petition to end our membership with the WHO. Unsurprisingly perhaps, the UK Government ignored the petition, despite the signature count exceeding the 100,000 threshold for debate in Parliament; instead, the UK government ploughed ahead without consideration for the valid, wider concerns raised.

Some might think that the US withdrawal from the WHO is tragic. But a closer examination of how monopolies can be created by organizations such as the WHO, together with other federal agencies and collaborators, including the CDC, NIH and FDA, reveals a far more disturbing reality. Beneath the benign guise of the WHO lurks malign intentions: a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The glaring lack of transparency, undisclosed conflicts of interests and power creep that these seemingly unaccountable centralized organizations possess, are a threat to democracy. Since all countries will have different socioeconomic challenges, and the response to any global health threat would be equally varied, surely the public health and biosecurity threats to any country is the responsibility of that country: there should be no submission to a one-size-fits-all diktat. National sovereignty should be respected and not trampled on by an unelected, unaccountable body with nonsensical policies. Yet despite these concerns, the outgoing President Biden has already approached African nations directly to strengthen ties towards a global government health and security strategy.

We emphasize that the WHO is not a democratically elected body and there are grave concerns over the power it wields over sovereign nations. Any glimmers of a democracy the UK might have will be flushed away to an autocratic dictatorship, led by unelected people in positions of power, such as the Director General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, if we do not continue to object to the IHR amendments and WHO Pandemic Treaty. As highlighted in earlier posts, the Pandemic Treaty and IRH amendments have little to do with nation states working together in circumstances where potentially harmful infectious diseases arise, but are a power grab by an authoritarian, unaccountable entity. If the Pandemic Treaty and IRH amendments succeed, the WHO would be able to declare a pandemic or international emergency even when no such emergency exists! The WHO could impose lockdowns, usher in mandatory vaccinations and other autocratic decisions, which would never be in the best interests of the public. Future furlough schemes in such ‘emergencies’ are unlikely, but the WHO would have carte blanche to decide the health decisions for every person in the UK. Incredibly, even the power to insist that every citizen carry a global health passport would be assumed by the WHO. The financial implications are grave because during the covid pandemic, WHO recommendations cost the UK £400 billion in national debt. We literally cannot afford to go down this route again! The shutting down of society and the economy for undefined, prolonged periods, as experienced in 2020 and 2021 spiralled the cost of living crisis to unprecedented levels, as well as terrorising the public and destroying the mental health of citizens, not to mention the untold devastation to our children’s education and wellbeing.

President Trump clearly concludes that the WHO is not capable or appropriately placed to make healthcare-based policy decisions that are justified for the American people. His decision to exit the WHO is a welcome sign of someone who is not intent on squandering individual and national sovereignty. In the UK, we should not sit back and allow our government to continue with the WHO IHR amendments, especially given the huge number of objections that have been willfully ignored.

There is an alternative way: we could for example support the refreshing approach of the World Council for Health (WCH), a coalition of independent health organizations and medical professionals advocating for a decentralized, holistic, and patient-centered approach to healthcare. Either way, we certainly need a more collaborative healthcare approach.