What do WHO's collaborating centers in Denmark do?
- jearungby
- Sep 27
- 9 min read
Updated: Sep 30
By Dr. Jeanne A. Rungby, MD, drawing by Lars Bo Appel
Worldwide, WHO has around 800 ongoing collaborating centers, most of them at public institutions, paid for by taxpayers.
What actually goes on in these centers?
The World Council for Health has taken a closer look at a number of these "Collaborating" centers (WHOCC).
They deal with the following topics, among others:
Training of health professionals: Doctors, nurses and midwives
Gender identity and sex education in schools
Preparing health authorities for pandemics
Instructing ministries on how to respond in declared emergencies
Decision on which diagnostic codes may/may be used (ICD system)
Public universities seem to be used for
Market research
Preparation of technical manuals
Determination of toxic limit values for chemical substances
Development of diagnostic tests (PCR/antibody) and preparation of vaccines
Gain of Function research (development of dangerous viruses in laboratories - e.g. avian influenza)
Secret donors
It all sounds good if you put on the gullible glasses.
However, a recent article in the Guardian revealed that more than 60% of WHO’s activities are funded by secret donors with secret conditions attached. We know that the pharmaceutical industry and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are historically some of the largest donors to WHO, and that official payments from member states only make up a tiny fraction.
The World Health Council is deeply concerned about the centralized, unprecedented power that WHO expects to be granted by member states in its new treaties, without any associated public democratic debate or votes, given that WHO is governed by unelected representatives who have also granted themselves diplomatic immunity.
Conflicts of interest
The question is whether these collaboration centers actually have tasks that conflict with sovereignty and serve the interests of private and secret donors.
Let's take a closer look at the terms of cooperation for these "collaboration centers"?
WHO partners
The entities collaborating with WHO are obliged to follow a
Mandatory work schedule .
The product, including intellectual property,
belongs to WHO!
A non-competition clause must be signed, and
there is no possibility of withdrawal.
All legal responsibility rests with the institution, including any harm to human subjects.
WHO has exempted itself from responsibility in these agreements!
WHO collaborating centres can be:
Universities,
Training centers for doctors, nurses and midwives,
The military
Ministries and
Governments!!!
An open letter in the Lancet in support of the WHO
On June 27, 2025, nearly 500 heads of these WHO collaborating centers signed an open letter in The Lancet expressing their full and unreserved support for the WHO. This was probably in response to the US's open withdrawal from the WHO.
Most , if not all, of these undersigned center managers are employed by and in public authorities in their respective countries.
There is thus potential for conflicts of interest between the interests of WHO and the interests of the citizens of member states.
The World Council for Health has decided to request access to documents on the activities of these centers, referring to the WHO charter and the Freedom of Information Act, which applies in most countries, to gain insight into what is happening at these centers.
For Denmark, Anna Birna Almarsdottir, PhD, has signed the letter in the Lancet.
There are currently three collaborating centers in Denmark.
Parker Institute (Bispebjerg-Frederiksberg University Hospital)
University of Copenhagen
Technical University of Denmark
The Parker Institute does not provide much transparency regarding their WHOCC. However, the website states that:
A Clinical Research Unit for Health Promotion is being developed in Denmark and Sweden for WHO-CC with a global function in research, teaching and education, including the international network of hospitals from five continents. The activities focus on improving prevention, treatment and rehabilitation in relation to alcohol, tobacco, drugs, malnutrition, obesity, physical inactivity and comorbidity (non-communicable diseases).
Together with WHO, to develop and evaluate a new user-friendly program for rapid implementation in clinical settings as an RCT (Randomized Clinical Trial) and embedded interviews.
The University of Copenhagen 's WHOCC (MEDUSA) deals with the following:
Development of courses for professionals who can influence patients' use of medicine and who want to improve their awareness of patients' perspectives. The course material is in the nature of market research, including what drives doctors' choice of prescriptions and patients' motivation to see a doctor. The teaching material is marked with the University of Copenhagen header and logo. It is not openly communicated that the material has been prepared for WHO. The teaching material is used at partner universities in many countries.
The Technical University of Denmark's WHOCC works on the following topics, among others:
Global surveillance of infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance as well as development and implementation of procedures for building laboratory capacity with a focus on whole genome sequencing.
Examples of topics for subdivisions:
Developing solutions for future chemical food control , including a platform for studying the mechanisms and effects of chemicals in biological systems and on humans.
Study of molecular and reproductive toxicology, including how chemicals in the environment can disrupt normal development and cause disease, with a particular focus on endocrine disruptors and how exposure to these can cause reproductive or cognitive disorders.
WHO's role
The WHO has not acted in the interest of the people during the pandemic and the new IHR and pandemic treaty give unprecedented power to Secretary General Tedros, who can declare a pandemic on suspicion alone with global lockdowns and forced vaccination. In hindsight, it is in the interest of the people to know whether the work (data and results) carried out with Danish tax money and at Danish institutions can be misused by the WHO's secret donors for hidden interests.
When toxic threshold values for chemicals are set, it is interesting to know whether WHO has determined which substances should be tested. We know that nanoparticles can damage the development of primary early eggs in the ovaries of laboratory animals. If one wants to sterilize by exposing the fertile population, our children, to toxic substances, then results obtained in these collaboration centers can be misused by secret donors who have an agenda towards harmful nanoparticles in textiles, creams, foods, medicines and vaccines.
The WHO has made no secret of its desire to develop vaccines with sterilizing effects. Should we be naive and believe in an always altruistic, benevolent purpose in the functions of these WHO collaborating centers?
WCH-Scandinavia supports the World Council for Health's global initiative to take a closer look at the national WHOC Centres. We have therefore sent an open letter to the head of the Danish WHO Collaborating Centres:
The open letter
Att. Anna Birna Almarsdottir, PhD,
WHO CC for research and education in the patient perspective on medicine use.
University of Copenhagen, Denmark
September 26, 2025
Email:aba@sund.ku.dk
The World Council for Health (WCH) is addressing you with respect for and in your capacity as coordinator of WHO's current collaborating centers (CC), hereinafter referred to as WHO collaborating centers in Denmark.
You are a co-signatory of an open letter in support of WHO's "Collaborations centres" in the Lancet on 27 June 2025 entitled "Open letter in support of WHO". On this occasion, we kindly request access to documents detailing the work of these collaboration centres, which this letter will explain.
To begin with, it should be noted that WCH is an international coalition of civil society groups that seeks to advance public understanding through science and shared health-focused knowledge. We are dedicated to protecting human rights. WCH is not funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
The WHO Charter of Values states that "WHO adheres to the core values of the United Nations of integrity, professionalism and respect for diversity. The values of WHO staff also reflect the principles of human rights, universality and justice enshrined in the WHO Constitution, as well as the Organization's ethical standards. These values are inspired by WHO's vision of a world in which all people achieve the highest attainable standard of health, and our mission to promote health, ensure a safe world and help the vulnerable with measurable results for people at the national level. We are individually and collectively committed to putting these values into practice."
Your open letter published in The Lancet
We refer to your open letter in The Lancet (Annex 1), where you collectively and unreservedly “fully support WHO in carrying out its constitutional mandate and call on everyone – including Member States, donors, partners and other stakeholders – to continue to invest in WHO to promote health and safety while helping vulnerable populations around the world.”
In May 2025, the World Health Assembly adopted an international pandemic treaty, which is ostensibly intended to coordinate international responses to future health crises, with a promise of cooperation, transparency and preparedness. The WHO seeks to oblige countries to share information and essential resources, as well as coordinate responses during pandemics, through a legally binding framework. Currently, the IHR amendments, which were controversially adopted last year, are set to enter into force in September 2025, despite massive political and public opposition (including, but not limited to) the role played by the WHO during Covid-19.
Given that WHO is approximately 60% funded by secret donors with attached conditions, as just described in the Guardian , the World Council for Health is deeply concerned about the centralized, unprecedented power that WHO expects to be granted by member states, without any associated public democratic debate or votes. In your open letter you support the collaboration with WHO through secret agreements in WHO collaborating centers, although actively carried out at a Danish educational institution covered by the Public Access Act. It is our impression that you thereby fully support WHO in carrying out its controversial mandate, including the amendments to the International Health Regulations from 2005 and the new pandemic treaty.
Conflicts of interest, transparency and accountability.
In the WHO's guide to their global collaborating centers, we find that WHO has binding agreements with entities in almost every country in the world.
The entities collaborating with WHO are obliged to follow one of the WHO
"authorized work plan"
The product, including intellectual property, belongs to WHO.
There is a commercial clause that must be signed without the possibility of withdrawing.
All legal responsibility rests with the institution, including any injuries to human test subjects.
WHO thus appears to have absolved itself of responsibility in these agreements.
WHO collaborating centres could be universities, training centres for doctors, nurses and midwives, the military and governments.
The WHO CC's terms of reference are available on the WHO website.
“The terms of reference are concise and consist of a single sentence, providing a general overview of the future area of cooperation. They should reflect the future cooperation between WHO and the proposed institution and not the usual work of the institution. Details of the activities should not be included. ”
This is a disturbing lack of transparency and could potentially be a violation of human rights.
The WHO CC's activities, work plans, deliverables, intellectual property rights, patents and funding related to the WHO CC designation periods are not transparent/available for review.
In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, we kindly ask you to provide the following:
· Which and how many WHO collaborating centres in Denmark are/were public authorities in the period from 2015 to the present?
· Do WHO Collaborating Centres have established conflicts of interest in relation to the public in Denmark through WHO CC contracts?
An example could be the provision of sensitive personal data (raw data) to WHO experts, which WHO can later use in another context without your institution's knowledge.
Another example could be that the collaboration led to important scientific findings that require informing the Danish public and authorities, such as harmful or toxic effects of medication.
A third example could be that educational materials, under pressure from the WHO, contain scientifically incorrect information about products for, for example, pregnant women, which serves the interests of the pharmaceutical industry but not the interests of pregnant women.
· Are you yourself, in your capacity as WHO coordinator, and the other employees in the WHO collaborating centres, employed and paid by the University of Copenhagen, DTU or the Parker Institute and/or by WHO?
· Is the collaboration with WHO in the collaborating centers carried out entirely or partly with public funds?
We also request information and documents of general interest from WHO collaborating centers, including the following:
· All WHO CC work plans, results, and patents as well as related information on funding for each WHO CC for the period 2015-2025 carried out at public institutions in Denmark. In the case of links provided, these must be functional and accurate in relation to the requested material.
In accordance with both the WHO Charter and the Public Access Act, we ask you to engage in a transparent, respectful and public discussion with the World Council for Health's experts about WHO's results in public institutions in Denmark over the past five years.
Please acknowledge receipt of these requests in writing to
We look forward to receiving the requested, transparent and unedited information as stated above within 7 working days from the date of this letter in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act.
WHO and WHO Collaborating Centres are committed to engaging with WCH and others to discuss these serious concerns. Ultimately, as individuals and organisations, we are legally obliged to obtain the public's informed consent for our actions.
This letter is sent to all co-signatories of the open letter in support of WHO's "Collaborating centres" in the Lancet on June 27, 2025 with the title "Open letter in support of WHO".
All responses will be evaluated by our experts and published.
We look forward to hearing from you and value your contribution to upholding human rights and the rule of law.
Kind regards
World Council for Health
On behalf of the World Council for Health Scandinavia
Dr. Jeanne A. Rungby, MD.
Sources:
https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/lancet-open-letter-support-who#:~:text='As current directors, past directors, and safety while helping vulnerable
https://wchweb.b-cdn.net/Web Content/ExitTHEwho/World CouncilforHealthResponsetoWHOonsecretiveCollaboratingCentres.pdf
WHOCC Parker Institute https://www.parkerinst.dk/staff/hanne-tønnesen
Comments