top of page

Consider the Intentions of the World Health Organization(WHO)

Updated: May 10

BY: Steve McGill

The World Health Organization is a UN agency designed to “promote the highest possible health of all peoples,” (Constitution of the World Health Organization) of which the United States has been an active member since its inception. In fact, the U.S. hosted the conference in 1946 that led to its creation, and was one of the first of 194 countries to sign its constitution, upon which is the Orwellian mandate to “act as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work.” In layman’s terms, The World Health Organization wants to control the health directions of the entire world. They seek this control through an international (194 countries) agreement commonly referred to as the ‘Pandemic Agreement.” Its means of manipulating national leaders to sign on to the agreement comes through feel-good terminology and rewards-based persuasion.

According to the latest publicly available draft text, the overall objective of this new pandemic agreement is to help the world “prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics.” Provisions included in this agreement are numerous, primarily logistics, oversight, financing, and pathogen access. “Also included has been the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), meant to address equity concerns by asking richer countries to take on greater obligations to address common goals in pandemic preparedness and response than poorer countries” (Michoud, Kates, Rouw). A Biden Administration official involved in the negotiations said it’s important to wrap these negotiations up “sooner rather than later” (Ravelo). The U.S supports the deadline of May 2024 as the goal for voting, and statements from officials indicate U.S. support for the overall principles in the draft agreement. Given the track record and the objectives of the WHO, these intentions should be of strong concern to all freedom-loving Americans. 

First, the WHO grossly misinterpreted their evidence on the frequency of natural outbreaks and pandemic risk, which have been declining over the past one to two decades. Despite this fact, for 18 months, the WHO has been feverishly negotiating two documents designed to change the way pandemics and their threats are managed. And in these documents, by whom are central management and decision-making done? By the WHO, that’s who. And who, we should ask, would financially benefit from such finalized negotiations? This situation gets even scarier considering the fact that despite the overwhelming evidence that the Covid-19 outbreak is shown to have likely resulted from unnatural means (Office of the Director of National Intelligence), AND that a review of the effectiveness of the novel and highly-disruptive response is not due until 2030, national negotiating teams and the WHO are nonetheless “continuing with a paradigm of mass surveillance followed by mass vaccination with vaccines that will not undergo normal clinical trials.” (Brownstone Institute). 

The second primary reason reason for concern about the WHO’s intentions is seen in the fact that in deciding to vote on the two aforementioned documents, it has decided to break its own legal requirements found in its own constitution’s Article 55 Amendments: 

1. Amendments to these Regulations may be proposed by any State Party or by the Director-General. Such proposals for amendments shall be submitted to the Health Assembly for its consideration.

2. The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration.

A glowing red flag is seen in the words “at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration.” Another glowing red flag is seen in the WHO’s response to complaints from certain member states about the breach of contract (Article 55, section 2). The WHO claims that “the WHO Secretariat circulated all proposals for amendments” 17 months before the World Health Assembly, which is scheduled to take place on May 27 of this year. But in truth, the amendments they claim to have circulated no longer exist since the amendments have been largely modified, replaced, or deleted. (Brownstone Institute). In other words, it’s as if the WHO is saying, “We sent those documents 17 months ago for review, then we modified them, and now we expect you to sign on to the modified documents that you have not actually seen!” The WHO’s disrespect as seen in its dishonesty for its members is telling; the response of its members will also be telling.

There is no increasing frequency of natural outbreaks or pandemics. Moreover, 2020 proved that the kinds of interventions being proposed in these documents (not reviewed and discussed by voting members, including the U.S.) — lockdowns, mass-vaccination, and widespread economic disruption and human rights removals — have not been proven to be beneficial but have, conversely, proven to be destructive. They have, however, proven to be beneficial to certain sponsors of the WHO who will profit once again from the new proposed approach. 

With regard to the WHO, the decisions that U.S. leaders make in the next few weeks will determine the plight of the freedoms we’ve enjoyed throughout our history. The current Administration seems to be interested in complying with the mandates found in the documents proposed by the WHO, a senior official stating the importance of wrapping up the agreements “sooner rather than later.” (Ravelo). Conversely, a justified, more skeptical approach would, no doubt, be taken by a Trump Administration. But a new Administration in the next three weeks is an impossibility. So are we doomed to this madness? Not necessarily.

While your influence as an individual would not be affective, the influence of many, would. Take the time to review the following web site, and do what you can to help to ensure that a U.S. future under the umbrella of the WHO does not exist.

Works Cited

Bell, David, and Thi Thuy Van Dinh. “WHO Is Wrong to Rush the Vote.” Brownstone Institute, 8 May 2024,

Kates, Michoud, and Anna Rouw. “The ‘Pandemic Agreement;’ What is is, What it isn’t, and      What it Could Mean for the U.S.” KFF The independent source for health policy research, polling, and news, Accessed 8 May, 2024.

Ravelo, Jenny Lei. “Senior US official wants pandemic accord by May 2024, before elections.”, Accessed 8 May 2024

Roguski, James. “Toss the Treaty in the Trash.” James Roguski, 10 May 2024,


Interested in God's invitation? Click below:

47 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Consider God's Words About PRIDE

Mark 7:20-23 And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickednes

Consider the "Pride" Agenda

BY: Steve McGill June has arrived, and that means that the government and their ilk have decided that it’s time to celebrate, for an entire month, the worst of the seven deadly sins: Pride. On Sunday,


bottom of page