The World Health Organization (WHO) might finally be getting just what it wanted: Unlimited power and control.
The deadline to opt out of the International Health Regulations is July 19 – less than two months from now. It is time to notify your lawmakers to take immediate action in their parliaments and say NO to these regulations. So far, no country has opted out, and due to lack of media coverage most people appear completely unaware that a problem even exists.
On June 1, 2024, the WHO's 194 member states agreed to sweeping amendments of the WHO International Health Regulations that give the organization's Director-General -- currently "Dr." Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who is not a medical doctor and to all appearances is in China's pocket -- overwhelming authority to declare not only actual international public health emergencies, but also potential ones.
"Agreed" is hardly accurate: member states did not even vote on them, but "agreed" on them through what is known as a consensus process. If no country objected by the end of a deadline, the amendments were to be considered approved. The process may not even have been legal. The final text was apparently not circulated with sufficient advance notice, while the negotiations were largely held behind closed doors, meaning that there was no transparency. Did parliamentarians in WHO member states even know what their governments "agreed" to?
In addition to the International Health Regulations, the WHO member states, all 194 of them, agreed on a historic draft Pandemic Treaty in April 2025 and on May 20 they adopted the WHO Pandemic Treaty at the 78th session of the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland. It will have to be ratified by at least 60 states, however, before it can come into effect, which means that it is up to citizens to prevent that from happening. In addition, there are still outstanding "details" such as the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System (PABS) to facilitate the sharing of genetic data on potential pandemic pathogens that the treaty introduces, on which there is still a lack of consensus. With it, the WHO handed itself sweeping powers over how countries respond to future health emergencies.
Frank Gaffney, President of the Institute for the American Future, wrote on X shortly before the adoption of the treaty:
"In less than a month, world government will be imposed on us indirectly, if not directly, thanks to a new pandemic treaty the World Health Organization finalized yesterday and plans to adopt and make legally binding in mid-May – with profound implications for public health, personal freedoms and national sovereignty.
"If you liked how the COVID-19 crisis was handled – in large measure thanks to the incompetence and malfeasance of the WHO and the insidious influence of the perpetrator, the Chinese Communist Party, and the principal beneficiary, Big Pharma – you're going to love this new world order.
"Among its consequences will be: universal health IDs, vaccine mandates, obligatory censorship, technology transfers, open-ended financial costs and the proliferation of viruses with the potential to cause pandemics – all 'managed' by greatly empowered and unaccountable international bureaucrats."
Congratulating himself on the adoption of the treaty, "Dr." Tedros declared in a monstrously untruthful statement:
"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."
Following the adoption of the Pandemic Treaty, US Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr. posted the following statement to X, urging countries to exit the WHO:
"Like many legacy institutions, the WHO has become mired in bureaucratic bloat, entrenched paradigms, conflicts of interest, and international power politics. While the United States has provided the lion's share of the organization's funding historically, other countries such as China have exerted undue influence over its operations in ways that serve their own interests and not particularly the interests of the global public. Global cooperation on health is still critically important to POTUS and myself, but it isn't working very well under the WHO as the failures of the COVID era demonstrate. I urge the world's health ministers and the WHO to take our withdrawal from the organization as a wake-up call."
No one on this planet voted for this treaty and, worse, no one will be allowed to criticize any of this in the future, if the UN has its way: The original Pandemic Treaty draft contained language against "misinformation" and "infodemics." The text agreed upon, after pushback, toned down the speech restrictions to "just" requiring member states to promote "timely, transparent, accurate, science- and evidence-informed information" to counter "misleading narratives" during pandemics. There is, however, another, newly acquired, instrument in the UN's toolbox, the "Digital Global Compact" (DGC) that seeks to make it impossible to criticize this new UN/WHO reign of terror.
The DGC is a new totalitarian tool of censorship meant to silence anyone who disagrees with the globalist agenda. Buried near the end of the DGC, in paragraph 30, is the only thing you need to know about it:
"We must urgently counter and address... all forms of hate speech and discrimination, misinformation and disinformation... We will establish and maintain robust risk mitigation and redress measures... We commit by, 2030 to: (a)... Develop, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, effective methodologies to measure, monitor and counter all forms of violence and abuse in the digital space... call on social media platforms to establish safe, secure and accessible reporting mechanisms for users and their advocates to report potential policy violations."
The WHO is a specialized UN agency, the purpose of which is purportedly "to promote health, keep the world safe, and serve the vulnerable." WHO receives a large amount of its funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is jointly controlled by activist billionaire, climate crusader and globalist Bill Gates, and his ex-wife Melinsa. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has in some years been the second-largest donor to the WHO, after the United States -- before President Donald J. Trump, on his first day in office in 2025, mercifully withdrew the US from the organization.
"If a private foundation were to become WHO's highest donor, it would be transformational," Lawrence Gostin, faculty director for the O'Neill Institute at Georgetown University and director of WHO's Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law, said in 2020, adding that the idea that a private foundation could have such influence, "would have been unimaginable" at the time when the WHO was founded as an intergovernmental institution. "It would enable a single rich philanthropist to set the global health agenda," Gostin said, referring to Gates.
Apparently, however, anything is possible, including not only letting Gates and the pharmaceutical industry put the WHO with its member states into their pockets, but also giving them unlimited power.
Christine Anderson, a German Member of the European Parliament from the Alternative für Deutschland party, said this month:
"They realized something during COVID: as much as they wanted to impose even harsher restrictions, they were limited—because in a democracy, if a politician goes too far, they risk not being re-elected. So the workaround? Shift the authority to an unelected body like the WHO. That way, when harsh measures are imposed—lockdowns, vaccine mandates, or whatever else—they can say, 'Hey, it wasn't us. Our hands are tied. The WHO made the call.'"
The amended health regulations give the WHO such unprecedented power that former UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman has warned:
"[T]he WHO's proposed amendments to its international health regulations and its forthcoming pandemic treaty present the most serious threat to national sovereignty in a generation.
"Buried within these legal frameworks are proposals that would allow unelected WHO officials to declare public health emergencies and issue recommendations – including on lockdowns, border closures and vaccine requirements."
These demands include digital vaccine passports; the amended regulations encourage the use of digital tools for health documentation. Digital vaccine passports, not yet compulsory, could be made a requirement. Earlier drafts of the amendments, which were discarded after pushback, also had included proposals for mandatory digital health documents and provisions for approving vaccination certificates during emergencies, and even for vaccines in research phases.
It is disastrous that national governments have agreed for this power to be given to the unaccountable WHO. Sadly, it made itself into a fully disgraced and corrupt body, so deeply in the pockets not only of Gates and the pharmaceutical industry, but also of Communist China.
During Covid-19, the WHO and "Dr." Tedros actually praised China for its "extraordinary" handling of the pandemic. To this day, nothing has been done about the duplicitous role WHO played during Covid, when the organization parroted Chinese Communist Party propaganda about the virus. China, too, has never suffered a single negative consequence -- not only for having unleashed the virus on the world, but for having deliberately lied about the virus's human-to-human transmissibility.
The WHO itself admits that approximately 15 million people died from the Covid virus -- which it refused to try to stop before it grew into a pandemic. Apparently, we are all now supposed to pretend that all of that never happened, and look to the WHO for instruction and guidance in even potential pandemics. The European Union in June 2024 praised the amended health regulations as "historic." Yes, they are "historic" -- but for the wrong reason.
Should the unelected and corrupt WHO, then, be allowed to determine when a pandemic is declared and, if so, how to deal with it? Should the WHO be able to recommend restrictions, lock you down, keep your children home from school, and dictate whether or not you should take a vaccine? Would you like "Dr." Tedros to decide how you must live?
The most obvious downside, based on past performance, is that WHO will weaponize its powers under the disguise of "public health" to pursue strictly political agendas. According to Braverman:
"The WHO insists these measures are necessary to ensure global preparedness. But the question is preparedness for what – and on whose terms? It is not difficult to imagine a future crisis – real or perceived – where political interests masquerade as public health, especially in an age where digital censorship and ideological capture are increasingly normalised."
Sadly, Braverman's scenario of political interests masquerading as public health is even not far-fetched. In May 2024, the WHO declared:
"In a resounding call to action, the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly has recognized climate change as an imminent threat to global health, passing a resolution which underscores the urgent need for decisive measures to confront the profound health risks posed by climate change.
"The resolution, supported overwhelmingly by Member States, presents an overview of the existential threat that climate change poses to human health. The Health Assembly asserts that radical action is imperative to safeguard the health of the planet, underscoring the interdependence of environmental sustainability and public health."
What does it mean? That public health, according to the WHO and its member states (your governments), is now intertwined with "climate change." If climate warrior Bill Gates and his WHO cohorts feel like it, they can declare a "climate pandemic," pronounce lockdowns and a rollout of whatever measures they might see fit "to save the planet." In fact, ever since Covid-19, the WHO's corrupt Tedros has continued to fearmonger, making dire-sounding "predictions" that a new pandemic is "inevitable."
There is a perfect reason for that: Without an ever-present, imminent and terrible-sounding "pandemic" there would be no legitimacy for WHO to seize all this power and gain access to so much control. This arrogation of power to itself could reasonably turn into runaway totalitarianism unless lawmakers step up immediately and demand that their governments object to the amendments to the International Health Regulations -- and opt out of them.
Welcome to George Orwell's "Ministry of Truth." Lawmakers around the world urgently need to act on behalf of the people they were elected to represent. No governments here seem to have the interests of their citizens at heart. Time is running out – fast.
Robert Williams is based in the United States.
Baraka Israel