top of page
Search

WHO controls whom?

  • jearungby
  • 4 hours ago
  • 17 min read

The WHO versus national authorities.

 

Have the roles been reversed?


By Dr. Jeanne A. Rungby, MD, WCH-Scandinavia and Lucinda van Buuren, Registered nurse, independent investigator, WCH Nursing and Midwifery and WCH Australia.


While many rejoice and others paint horror scenarios about the United States leaving the WHO, it is relevant to look at how the WHO influences national and international politics and vice versa.

One thing is to officially "opt out," but it is another thing to terminate the many cooperation agreements the United States has with the WHO.

Going all the way with leaving the WHO means terminating all agreements with the WHO. This does not seem to have happened in the US.

On the contrary.

On 22 January 2025, the US officially terminated its membership of the WHO with one year's notice.

Despite this termination, the US National Institute of Health (NIH), for example, entered into a contract with the WHO on 17 January 2025 regarding viruses and pandemics. The contract runs until 17 January 2029.

The US has since entered into at least three new collaboration agreements (Collaborating Centres) with the WHO after the date of the US's announced withdrawal from the WHO.

Additionally, the US FDA has a functioning WLA agreement with the WHO (WHO-associated authority), which currently runs until June 2029. This WLA agreement gives the WHO significant influence over the registration and marketing of medicines and vaccines, including monitoring, control, marketing authorisations, regulatory inspections, laboratory control, overview of clinical trials and much more. See screenshot below:


 Through these partnerships, the WHO has considerable influence on

·      policy decisions, e.g. regarding foreign policy and pandemic preparedness,

·      agriculture and food,

·      health, including the training of health professionals,

·      standards for laboratories, companies, etc.,

·      diagnosis codes for diseases, including decisions on which diseases must be registered,

·      approval of applications for medicines and vaccines,

·      monitoring of side effects and much more.

 

This influence exercised by the WHO has been developed over many years, starting immediately after World War II through the WHO's collaborating centres.

In addition, there is comprehensive detailed regulation of medical regulatory authorities in a significant proportion of the world's countries through the WHO Associated Authorities (WLAs) and with common global databases developed and controlled by the WHO.

 

WHO collaborating centres (WHOCC).

 

Australian researcher Lucinda van Buuren has taken a close look at these collaborating centres. She has found that the WHO's influence on national policy has been exerted through the WHO's more than 800 collaborating centres around the world. The WHO also has a large number of other agreements and contracts, including 367 GOARN partners (Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network).

 

 

WHO collaborating centres are entities, such as a university or government agency, that collaborate with the WHO. They have entered into a binding agreement (designation form) that obliges the entity to follow a work plan ordered by the WHO.

The product (deliverable), including intellectual property rights, belongs to the WHO!

This information is taken from the WHO’s guide for collaborating centres. Unfortunately, the page has recently been taken down. A copy of the guide in PDF format can be found in the list of sources at the end.

The agreement with the WHO is subject to something resembling a non-competition clause, which must be signed with the possibility of withdrawal in three months’ notice.

All legal responsibility rests with the institution, including any harm to human subjects, false information, and more.

The WHO has exempted itself from liability in these agreements, just as vaccine manufacturers are exempt from liability.

WHO collaborating centres may be

·      Universities

·      Training centres for doctors, nurses and midwives,

·      The military

·      Ministries, and

·      Governments!!!

 

 

 

The first cooperation agreement (WHOCC) was concluded with the Danish State Serum Institute (SSI). The task concerned biological standards immediately after the end of World War II, starting on 1 January 1948 and ending on 20 September 1999. It must be assumed that the WHO (WHO stakeholders) has influenced the scientific method and culture at the SSI during the 51 years that it has dictated the work tasks in at least some of the SSI's departments. Over the years, the Danish SSI has produced, purchased and resold vaccines. It must therefore be assumed that the production of vaccines has, to some extent, been under the control of the WHO.

 

SSI has an advisory role to the Danish Minister of Interior and Health.

 

Among other things, the Serum Institute helped develop the first polio vaccines, in which Simian virus 40, a monkey virus, was found to have contaminated some polio vaccines in the period from approximately 1955 to 1963 because the vaccines were produced in monkey kidney cells. Archived test samples from the SSI's production showed infectious Simian virus 40 in some cases. This means that Danish children vaccinated from April 1955 to 1962 were exposed to Simian virus 40 via the vaccine. Simian virus 40 was subsequently suspected of having carcinogenic properties, mainly in rodents.

 

United States

 

In the United States, the first collaborative centre (WHOCC) was established in 1950 at John Hopkins University for molecular biology and genetics, including syphilis. The agreement was terminated on 31 October 1994. John Hopkins University has had 10 defunct WHO CCs and currently has 8 active WHO CCs.

The second collaboration agreement with the WHO in the United States was established with the US Department of Defence in 1958: Department of Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Department of Defence. Histological Classification of Soft Tissue Tumours. It was terminated on 7 June 1994.

The US WHO Collaborating Centre No. 204 was concerned with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) at the National Institute of Health (NIH), and the director/head of this WHO CC was Dr Anthony Fauci, who developed drugs for HIV.

 

The NIH (National Institutes of Health) and NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the NIH) have received significant royalties from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech for the use of NIH-developed technologies in their COVID-19 vaccines. These include patents on spike protein stabilisation.

In December 2022, Moderna paid a one-time payment of $400 million to NIAID/NIH for the use of patents on prefusion coronavirus spike proteins.

In addition, there are unpaid royalties on future sales as part of the amended agreement. As part of a larger settlement, up to $1.26 billion will be paid, which also includes the University of Pennsylvania ($467 million), but the NIH portion is specific to royalties.

Total royalties to NIH/NIAID from mRNA vaccines (2020-2026) are thus estimated at approximately $1,191.5 billion ($400 million from Moderna + $791.5 million from BioNTech). These royalties represent 1 - 5% of the full surplus from these vaccines.

 

At the time of writing, the United States has 70 active WHO collaborating centres. Eight appear to have been disconnected during 2025.

Thus, terminating these agreements with the WHO appears to be a very slow process for the United States. The figure below shows an overview of the WHO's collaboration centres throughout history.

 

Australia

 

The first Australian WHO Collaborating Centre listed was AUS-2, the WHO Collaborating Centre for the Histological Classification of Skin Tumours, designated on the 1st of January 1965. Australia has currently 44 listed active WHO CC’s and 84 listed discontinued WHOCC’s however current assignment numbers are up to AUS-174. We are unsure of the method used by the WHO for the numbering of the WHO CC’s and why there appears to be certain numbers that are not available via public access / or do not exist eg there is no listing for AUS-1.

 

Some current Australian Federal active WHO CC’s are

·      Australian Army Institute, AUS-37, WHO CC for Malaria

·      Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) AUS-137, WHO CC for Health Workforce Regulation

·      Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) AUS-42, WHOCC for the Quality Assurance of Vaccines and Other Biologicals

 

·      “The Australian Network of WHO Collaborating Centres Network was established in 2019 following an extensive scoping phase, undertaken by the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Australian Global Health Alliance, DFAT and the Federal Department of Health.”

·      “The Network seeks to exchange information, foster good practices, and develop technical cooperation amongst Australian WHO Collaborating Centres, and with the state and Commonwealth governments and other relevant stakeholders.”

·      “As of June 2023, there are 54 WHOCCs in Australia, the highest number per capita in the world.” 


WHO and Australia’s Country Cooperation Strategy

 

”The Australian Government Department of Health, in collaboration with government agencies responsible for the health portfolio, and the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for the Western Pacific are pleased to present this Australia–WHO Country Cooperation Strategy 2018–2022, the first such strategy between Australia and WHO. This is the first country cooperation strategy (CCS) to focus on a high-income country in the Western Pacific Region.”

 

This CCS focused on four strategic priority areas;

 

1)    ”Enhancing health security”

2)    ”Promoting people-centred health systems and universal health coverage (UHC)”

3)    ”Strengthening health regulation”

4)    ”Working together to support WHO in its efforts to achieve organizational excellence”

 

Denmark

 

Denmark, currently have five WHOCCs. These are located at the University of Copenhagen, the Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Bispebjerg Hospital, Rigshospitalet and the Parker Institute in Frederiksberg. There appear to have been 46 terminated cooperation agreements with the WHO in Denmark over the years.

 

Ministry of Health and Ministry of Foreign Affairs

 

However, the WHO also has close cooperation agreements with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Denmark. This agreement is attached as a PDF at the bottom of the page, as the link no longer appears to be working. 

 

The agreement is a strategy paper that

 

"forms the basis for Denmark's voluntary contribution to the WHO for 2024-2028 and is the central platform for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' dialogue and partnership with the WHO. The budget for the strategy period is DKK 390 million over five years (see section 6 for a detailed budget). The overall objective of Denmark's support is to contribute to the achievement of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals in the area of health, in particular Goals 3 (good health and well-being), 5 (gender equality), 10 (reduced inequalities) and 17 (partnerships)."

 

 

There are also indications that the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration is working closely with both the WHO and the UN. The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration's action plan for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is almost identical to the WHO's global action plan for AMR. It is unclear whether there are specific cooperation agreements between the WHO and the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration, but the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration works closely with both the SSI and The Technical University, DTU, which currently has two cooperation agreements (WHOCC) with DTU.

The WHO thus appears to exert considerable influence on the overall political agenda at national level in Denmark.

It is possible that similar agreements exist with the UN.

 

 

Over the years, step by step, national authorities have slowly, perhaps without a clear understanding of the surrender of sovereignty, transferred control to the WHO. Denmark seems to be a clear example of this transition.

What control are we talking about?

The entire education system, universities, research, ISO-standards, laboratory tests (PCR and antibody tests), guidance for health authorities on pandemic management, nutrition and dietary supplements, agriculture, medicines and vaccines.

The list is probably not complete.

 

What is a WHO-associated authority (WLA)?

 

A WLA is a regulatory national (Medicines Agency) or regional authority (EMA and European Commission) recognised by the WHO as meeting standards defined by the WHO for, among other things, the regulation of medicines and vaccines. WLAs are national and regional medicines authorities. Examples include the Therapeutic Goods Administration (Australia), the Paul-Ehrlich Institute (Germany) and the Food and Drugs Administration (USA).

 

Below is shown the WLA of Australia:

 


All European national medicines authorities are regulated by the European Medicines Regulatory Network (EMRN), a WLA! The European Commission and EMA are part of the WLA network.

WLAs have a common regulatory and legal framework. Harmonisation of laws across national borders is preceded by a year-long lobbying process, which must necessarily be prepared at ministerial level.

WLAs must comply with criteria set by the WHO and are monitored by the WHO through an evaluation process called "Performance Evaluation" .

"Prior to any PE activity, whether on-site or off-site, the WHO Secretariat shall prepare a term of reference."

 

The WHO draws up a detailed mandatory work plan, which the WLA must follow to achieve a certain “Maturity Level”. The purpose is

 

"to ensure that the RA controls medicinal products exported from its jurisdiction and that it follows the latest WHO guidelines and requirements for the issuance of certificates for pharmaceutical products, including having a reliable system for the approval of medicinal products and the licensing and inspection of manufacturing facilities."

 

Is an inspection of a manufacturing facility governed by the WHO reliable and independent?

 

For medicines and vaccines, through this process, the WHO checks registration and marketing authorisation, surveillance, market surveillance and control, licensing, regulatory inspection, laboratory testing and supervision of clinical trials.

 

Performance evaluation (PE)

 

While the world focused on the WHO's International Health Regulations (IHR), a performance evaluation of 30 WLAs was quietly conducted in early 2024 (from 9th of February to 15th of April). The WHO expert team conducted the assessment either on-site or remotely via a secure WHO platform.

Several pre-selected indicators were analysed. These indicators were determined by the WHO.

A number of these assessment indicators were mandatory for WLAs.

Annex 3 contains detailed questions that the WHO expert asks the national regulatory authorities (NRAs) during a Performance Evaluation, which forms the basis for approval as a WLA. See screenshot below:


Note that these authorities are indirectly being "influenced ". Serious adverse reactions are apparently supposed to be reported within hours or days (not weeks or months) after immunisation, while non-serious adverse reactions may be reported within months. This could be a manipulation towards a sorting of accepted safety signals in the interest of the manufacturers, as attention is diverted away from permanent and later occurring serious side effects, such as vaccine-induced immune suppression, autism spectrum disorders, cancer, and late deaths due to prolonged inflammatory conditions and autoimmune disorders. If a child dies, for example, three weeks after vaccination, it will probably be assessed that there is no causal link with the vaccine, as the death may not fall within the criteria predetermined by the WHO.

 

WHO requirements for WLA when outsourcing tasks.

 

If a WLA outsourcer has technical regulatory agreements with third parties for the performance of tasks, the PE exercise may be extended to these, depending on how critical the outsourced activities are assessed by the WHO. Written contracts are expected to be in place with the outsourced organisations approved (by the WHO?) for the type of regulatory activity being performed.

The contracts should clearly define: the duties and responsibilities of each party; the decision-making process for issuing, renewing or terminating contracts for outsourced services; established and implemented procedures for managing outsourced activities; and procedures for handling communication exchanges.

The WHO thus controls financial and technical decisions in these Regulatory Authorities

 

"The potential WLA is responsible for periodically assessing – through ongoing monitoring of all outsourced activities – the technical, material, human and financial capacity, as well as the facilities, equipment and technology of the contracted organisation(s). The contracted organisation should not subcontract work assigned to it under the contract to a third party without prior evaluation and approval of the arrangements by the RA."

 

It seems clear that these national regulatory authorities, including affiliated contracted companies, operate under the command of the WHO – not under democratic control with the associated principles of public accountability and transparency being set.

 

Declaration of interests and confidentiality obligation

 

Before any PE-related activities are initiated, all members of the WHO team participating in the PE exercise for a specific RA (WLA) must sign confidentiality agreements and declarations of interest – except for WHO employees.

In other words, employees of, for example, the German Paul Erlich Institute or the Australian TGA may not disclose details about the Performance Evaluation and more.

 

“Completed and signed confidentiality agreements and declaration of interest forms must be assessed and archived by the WHO Secretariat prior to the PE activity in accordance with the relevant WHO procedures. The signed forms will be available at the WHO and may be shared with the relevant authorities if necessary.”

 

Who may decide what is necessary?

 

Is a country sovereign if it signs such agreements with a non-governmental organisation, an NGO, governed by unelected authorities?

 

Division of responsibilities

 

The regional authority itself, e.g. the EMA or US-FDA, is responsible for:

·      Appointing one or more focal points to coordinate activities related to the assessment.

·      Appointing officials who will have access to the WHO's secure platform for information exchange.

·      Sharing all necessary information and documents with the WHO via the secure information exchangeplatform or other agreed means, including, among other things, national codes/rules/guidelines, relevant procedures and data specific to the documents selected for assessment.

·      Providing the WHO team with access to all relevant data and information throughout the assessment.

·      Provide necessary clarifications and explanations in response to questions from the WHO team.

·      Obtain and secure the necessary consent from all stakeholders involved to share the relevant information with the WHO.

 

Chain of command

 

The WHO Secretariat is responsible for WHO headquarters, regional offices and country offices (Annex 6, page 243).

The WHO headquarters in collaboration with WHO regional offices and relevant country offices, is responsible for:

·      establishing and maintaining tools and databases for evaluations

·      selecting and compiling a list of qualified WHO experts

·      training WHO experts to maintain control over processes and WHO-affiliated regional and national authorities.

·      creating a dedicated country website on the WHO information sharing platform for the assessment and uploading all relevant documentation for access and archiving purposes

·      Selection of WHO team members from the list of qualified experts to carry out the assessment on behalf of the WHO.

·      Arranging the necessary contractual agreements.

 

VigiBase and Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC).

 

One of the databases in use is VigiBase, which is developed, supplied and updated by WHO-UMC. According to its own website, the Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC) in Sweden is an independent, self-financed, non-profit foundation that runs the WHO's international drug monitoring programme as a WHO collaborating centre (WHOCC).

VigiBase is the WHO's global database of reports on adverse reactions to medicines and vaccines. The UMC website states that the UMC finances its own operations:

 

"by providing pharmacovigilance products and services to a range of external bodies. Funding its own operations 'ensures intellectual and scientific independence'."  

 

WHO-UMC is not subject to freedom of information laws. It is therefore not possible to gain insight into data on, for example, adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, as UMC is not obliged to comply with public access laws.

How come WHO-UMC is not subject to laws of publicity, and how come there is no democratic control over UMC, when data comes from multiple countries.

 

According to WHO-UMC, they investigate adverse reactions (AEFI) by looking at the clinical trials based on process 1 in phase 3 trials and at the product brochure, which is also based on the primary clinical phase 3 trials (process 1). If UMC's "experts" find side effects in these, they are accepted as adverse events.

In other words, if the reports from the regional authorities via VigiBase contain adverse reactions/safety signals that do not fall under either the definitions of AEFI (PE questions) or are found in the product summary, they cannot be considered biologically plausible, i.e. they are classified as having no causal relationship. This is therefore most likely a rough sorting process in which a number of the reported adverse reactions, that are not already included in the summary of product characteristics, are sorted out. As a result, adverse reactions may become very rare, despite reports.

 

If we zoom in on a single product, e.g. the COVID-19 mRNA injections from Pfizer (Comirnaty), it is worth noting that the finished commercial vaccine is not always the same as the vaccine referred to in the summary of product characteristics. We know this from a response to a request for access to information submitted to the Danish Medicines Agency (case number 2024024182).

The Danish Medicines Agency confirms that, specifically for Pfizer's Comirnaty (COVID-19 vaccine), no placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials have been conducted on humans with material from process 2, the mass-produced finished product that was given to more than half of the world's population.

 

In the same response, the Danish Medicines Agency writes:

 

"It is not unusual for a pharmaceutical company to make changes to its manufacturing process during the development of a drug/vaccine, and it was assessed by the approval of Comirnaty that the changes in the manufacturing process were acceptable and had no impact on the safety and/or efficacy of the vaccine."

 

It is therefore common for the final product administered to be manufactured using a different process than the product that has been approved.

 

The summary of product characteristics for vaccines is therefore usually based on the initial processes (phase 3), not on the final commercial manufacturing processes – nor, apparently, on reported side effects.

In most countries, the summary of product characteristics is used to inform healthcare professionals who administer vaccines.

The question remains. Will the informed consent be legally obtained if the information in the leaflet is not in accordance with the final end-user product?

 

An FDA document from 2019 shows that most member states, including the Pacific region, are already harmonised with the Uppsala database, VigiBase. The document is attached as a PDF at the bottom of the article, as the link is no longer functional (source 978929…pdf).

 

What role does the WHO expert play in connection with the national assessment visits (PE)?

 

A WHO expert is appointed by the WHO and, according to the "code of conduct for WHO experts" (page VIII), has the following affiliations:

 

"The expert shall respect the confidential nature of the committee's or meetings' discussions or the advisory function assigned by the WHO and shall not make public statements about the committee's or meetings' work or about the expert's advice."

 

The expert also undertakes to have “the best interests of the WHO at heart, as opposed to representing the views of their employers, other institutions or governments.”

 

There is therefore no doubt that WHO experts work for the WHO and not for the national democratic authorities (NDAs), even though they may be employed by them and thus paid by taxpayers in the respective democracies.

 

The WHO thus exercises parasitic control over the host organisation, in this case the national regulatory authorities. In this respect, the structure and terms of the WLA are very similar to those of the WHO Collaborating Centres (WHOCC), as mentioned earlier. Contracts must be signed by the regional or national authority and by the WHO.

So UMC (VigiBase) apparently functions as a Trojan horse for the WHO and its owners. All drug regulatory authorities supply data to UMC.

 

National sovereignty and public law

 

This mandatory obligation to refer to the WHO for collaborating centres (WHOCC) and for WHO-affiliated authorities (WLA) is a clear violation of laws on national sovereignty and conflicts with national public access legislation, which is evident in cases such as requests for access to documents. Employees, who must respond to requests for access to documents from citizens come into conflict with national legislation in that they are contractually bound by confidentiality agreements. This makes these contracts illegal, as these employees are effectively working for a foreign power.

 

Example.

In the autumn of 2025, the World Council for Health Scandinavia sent a request for access to documents to the three WHO collaborating centres in Denmark at the time: the Technical University of Denmark (DTU), the University of Copenhagen (KU) and the Parker Institute (PI). KU and the PI have not responded despite repeated requests. We received the following preliminary response from DTU:

 

"DTU must inform you that it is not possible to make a decision on your case within the statutory deadline. This is because DTU is in the process of determining whether all the documents that DTU has identified in connection with your request can be disclosed. In this connection, we are in the process of clarifying whether DTU must consult external parties before we make a decision in the case."

 

Who could this external party be? WHO headquarters?

Response from WCH-Scandinavia:

 

"If external consultation is required – e.g. if the WHO or ministries must be consulted before disclosure – we also request access to this communication and a legal justification for any withholding of documents that we believe to be in the public interest."

 

This request was not answered in the moment of writing.

 

Conclusion

 

In summary: The national drug regulatory authorities appear to have been taken over by the WHO. This seems to have been put into play in the shadow of the Covid pandemic, which apparently served as an excuse for a "global power grab".

 

The WHO thus has control over the reporting of adverse effects. Safety signals seem to be filtered by the WHO and not by national authorities for all medicines and vaccines.

 

Given that the WHO is controlled by industry interests, it is a legitimate question whether the WHO can be impartial in this detailed regulated control of national authorities.

An article in The Guardian reveals that more than 60% of WHO contributors are secret and bound by conditions. Previous analyses have shown that the pharmaceutical industry, either directly or through foundations, is among the largest contributors and condition setters, while member states account for a minimal proportion of contributors. It must be assumed that influence and policy follow the money.

 

There are obviously huge conflicts of interest, and it is incomprehensible that our elected politicians have allowed this hijacking of the regulatory authorities to happen.

It is unacceptable that the regulatory authorities are controlled by those, they are supposed to control.

There is a need for an independent commission to investigate this power grab and determine who is responsible for the surrender of sovereignty.

 

 

 

Sources:

 

Australian WHOCC's by 10th of March 2026

The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration's action plan for AMR:https://foedevarestyrelsen.dk/Media/638610430209006066/AMR-handlingsplan 2024 web.pdf

Country overview WHO linked Authorities:


 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All

Comments

bottom of page