In March 2026, we published a post with the title:

That post was part of our ‘Was it safe/ Was it effective?’ campaign. It advocated Socratic Dialogue as a way to broach a very specific, loaded and emotionally triggering topic, while minimising the risk of hostility or shutdown.

But there is another, intertwined issue: what about the relationships themselves that were deeply fractured during the Covid era and its aftermath? Are they irrevocably broken? Or are there ways in which the rift can be healed, should we choose to do so?

In this guest piece, Caroline Brown, a qualified counsellor, shares her perspective. The piece is in two parts. Part One is a reflection on her own experiences of 2020 and beyond; in Part Two she offers tips for a possible way forward. (Of course, this advice can apply to many other relationship contexts, over and beyond the surreal backdrop of Covid.)

Subscribe now

Part One: Trying to make sense of 2020…

Easter Sunday, 2026. Its 4.15pm and I have spent the day with people who were strangers just a few years ago; most of them people I met in 2021.

Boris Johnson’s fateful words in March 2020 —“you must stay at home”— heralded a massive 180 degree shift in my life. Perhaps fortunately, I couldn’t see what was about to unfold on both the world stage and for me personally. And if I had: would I do anything differently? I am not sure.

It seemed very strange to warn the men and women of the country against venturing out of their homes. I couldn’t imagine what kind of seismic event could warrant such an extreme reaction — certainly nothing I could see from my window. I remember turning to a good friend of mine, staying with me at the time, confused and not a little concerned by the gnawing sensation that rights were being threatened: our right to live our lives freely and to make choices for ourselves.

In the face of any threat to national security, wouldn’t a competent and caring leader make his best attempt to allay fears and reassure people? Our government was not doing this and, more often, it appeared they were doing the very opposite: stoking the fire. The statistical reports several times a day —alleged contagion and alleged deaths from the strange new illness— was sending people, even the usually grounded friends I knew, into a heady tailspin. Months later, I learned that it had become normal for people to wash every new grocery item entering their house. A couple of years later I heard that some were so scared they didn’t leave their homes for a year or two.

Such was the esteem many British people held for the government. They couldn’t countenance anything other than a caring government intent on saving its public. They took the Prime Minister’s word as gospel — even, weirdly, people who usually despised and distrusted the Government. Months later the phenomenon called ‘Cognitive Dissonance’ explained this polarity to me.

The announcement that any death within a month of a ‘positive PCR test’ was to be recorded as a ‘Covid death’ validated my suspicions of an unfolding dystopia. From the start, my intuition told me there was nothing terrible out there. But my ‘reasoning’ mind told me not to be too hasty to assume. After all, I hadn’t lived through a pandemic before, so what did I have to make such comparisons with? I researched and became aware of other voices - significant ones - of experienced virologists, immunologists and pharmacologists, particularly Dr. Mike Yeadon and Professor John Ioannidis who spoke of how ‘locking down’ the population was not the way to treat a virus. And lawful voices such as Lord Jonathan Sumption and Dr. Vernon Coleman who confronted the issue from a human rights perspective.

It was made clear: this was not going to be the line that those around me stood upon. I have reflected back on these exchanges and know that I didn’t go in heavily or judgementally, just openly.

As the so-called ‘vaccines’ were rolled out and enforced, I hoped many others would stand against the coercion to roll up a sleeve and allow an untrialled serum to be injected. Many saw these as the passport to freedom — and again I heard my voice echoing along with other solitary voices in the ether. It is a sadness that my own attempts were met with indifference or coldness by those I loved.

Many other good people I have since met have had similar experiences. Sadly to this day, these relationships often remain fractured.

Part Two: Repairing what was broken

The effect of the Covid lockdown meant that many of us fixed upon the narrative that made most sense to us at the time. For some, this meant going along with the protocols of mask-wearing, the distancing, restricting activities, and ultimately with rolling up a sleeve. Others were focussed on the restrictions being imposed and sensing it as an assault on human rights and liberty. This latter group tended to be sceptical about the supposedly deadly virus — and utterly opposed to what appeared to be a hastily rolled-out remedy, lacking essential clinical trials.

Fuelled by constant news and media coverage, the two points of view were weaponised and became a battleground, seeing friends and family members locked in opposition.

Here are some ideas that could prepare you for a successful repair — if indeed, that is what you wish for.

Some key tools are self-awareness, self-control, honesty and empathy.

• Reflection. Before reaching out, reflection is key. Give yourself time to think honestly about where the communication broke down. Was it where you originally thought, or were there signs of something unravelling beforehand?

• Managing expectations. Always make sure you feel calm before opening up the conversation and decide in advance what you want as the outcome, keeping it realistic. If the rift is deep, or there has been an extended time without contact, it might mean that one conversation is only the first step towards reconciliation.

• Specific intentions. Be honest with yourself about your intention: whether you need to feel heard, or to set a boundary, or reconnect with that person. Being aware of this will help you stay on track during the conversation and determine the direction of travel. If your long-term aim is to repair and move past the rupture, the first stage should simply focus upon meaningful reconnection rather than on sorting out the rights from the wrongs.

• “What did we say to each other? What did we do?” Before trying to work through it with the other person, it is important to have as clear as possible an idea of what your own words (or actions) were. This can be hard for two reasons: memory can be unreliable, and we are biased to thinking that we are right. It is hard to begin an important conversation if you are unclear about what happened. Consider what you were responsible for saying that might have triggered them. Even if you feel justified, acknowledge your part in the escalation: whether it was an attitude, a tone of voice or a carelessly chosen word. Journalling your thoughts or talking about it with a close friend can help.

• Perspective. Seeing your relationship as a whole, rather than from the limited viewpoint of a single event, can help you to rebalance perspective.

• Mode of delivery: written or spoken? Face-to-face conversation is usually best where possible, but a phone call, letter or message are an option if emotions feel too raw. You can write down a brief script for yourself if that helps, starting with why you are contacting them and using “I” statements, ensuring that anything that could be heard as accusatory is left out. If speaking in real time feels overwhelming, write a letter or text message to them. This has the advantage of being able to state your point of view without putting them under pressure to respond.

• Expressing a wish to reconcile. Once you have decided to reach out, in your own words tell them you wish the rupture had not happened and that you miss them, and/or would like to resume contact. That way, they will know from the start the reason you are contacting them and this should help them relax. This is important as when people are on edge and defensive, their ability to receive the message accurately is impaired.

• Acknowledgement. When they are responding, listen (or read) without interrupting. Be prepared to acknowledge their perspective with the expectation that it is unlikely to be the same as yours. Validate their feelings by saying, “I see how it could have sounded like that,” or “I understand why you are upset”.

• Sincerity. Acknowledge that the rift happened and tell them simply how you feel about it. If there is something that you believe you were wrong for saying, or said in haste, or was tactlessly phrased, then let them know. You can say that you had your own reasons for feeling as you did but hadn’t meant to hurt them. Initially, try to avoid over-explaining. Once your relationship feels stronger again, you both may decide to look at the issue in more detail.

• Affection. Let them know you care about and respect them, and don’t want this stand-off to continue.

• Shared history. Before closing the conversation, find the common ground that was there before by mentioning a shared interest or event where you both have fond memories.

Share

The next steps

Rebuilding trust takes time and consistency. Be prepared that it might take longer than you wish for things to resolve. You may want to ask “What can we do to heal this?” or suggest how to prevent such a rift from reoccurring. But it is not all down to you.

Later, once reconnection is established, you can begin to think about what lingering issues still need to be addressed.

To discover more about using Socratic dialogue to approach difficult Covid-themed topics, see our previous article ‘How to Open Up a Conversation About the Covid Injections— Minus the Confrontation?’

World Council for Health stands for a Better Way.

Disclaimer:

This article is not intended to be used in place of individual medical advice. It cannot be used to diagnose illness or access treatment. Individuals may use the materials provided by World Council for Health to complement the care provided by their qualified, trusted health professionals. All information provided by World Council for Health or in connection with its website is offered to promote consideration by individuals and their trained healthcare providers of various evidence-based prevention and treatment options. The information on this website is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for medical advice. Errors and omissions may occur.

The U.S. military’s Covid vaccine mandate was in effect between August 2021 and January 2023. Involuntary immunisation was explicitly authorised. There was no realistic choice or informed consent.

During this time, thousands who refused were dishonourably discharged, resulting in catastrophic personal losses. Many were labelled as “mentally unsound” in order to discredit their testimony.

And those who took the injection? An unprecedented number are being discharged with severe and life-limiting medical conditions. These are men and women who had previously been fully screened and certified as fit for active service.

What happens when the very people trained to obey, to serve their country, are faced with medical orders which are unlawful and inhumane?

Their story is now being told.

Subscribe now

‘Duty to Disobey’ is a new film from Children’s Health Defense. Through firsthand accounts, this documentary tells an unmissable story of conscience, conviction and coercion.

From the film ‘Duty to Disobey’:

“They threatened me with imprisonment, they charged me with Article 92 UCMJ. It was really surreal to be court-martialled for not wearing a muzzle and not participating with the experimental testing, because I was ‘unvaccinated’.

—Mark Charles Bashaw, (Active) Captain, U.S. Army

“Today they have grounded over 100 pilots, permanently grounded them. […] Those type of numbers should have gotten someone’s attention by now. […] We don’t have anybody investigating this DoD-wide ‘mishap’ that has killed and injured so many.”

—Dr. Theresa Long, M.D. MPH, FS, (Active) Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army

“Commanders who decided that their career was more important than the wellbeing of their subordinates, all the commanders who suddenly turned against the Constitution, all the commanders who forgot about the rights of their service members: those are the commanders who were rewarded. Those are the commanders who have since been promoted.”

—Brad Miller, (Former) Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army

Click image below to view the short teaser trailer:

Click image below to view the full-length trailer:

Download and share the flyer below:

Better Way Conference: 30th - 31st May

‘Duty to Disobey’ will also be promoted at the Better Way Conference in Rhode Island. Mary Holland, CEO of Children’s Health Defense, will be a panelist on the Health Governance panel. Don’t forget: this is 30th - 31st May, with a Gala Dinner on Friday 29th.

Use coupon code SUBSTACK10 for your 10% discount.

TICKETS AT: Betterwayconference.org

Share

Share World Council for Health

Donate to World Council for Health

Does This Ring a Bell?

People locked on a cruise ship because of an infectious disease. Does that sound familiar?

In May 2026, the MV Hondius – a cruise ship off the coast of Cape Verde – became a floating quarantine zone. The culprit was announced to the world with the kind of breathless urgency we have come to recognize all too well: hantavirus. Media headlines screamed of a deadly outbreak, a mysterious virus jumping from rodents to humans, now isolated at sea with nowhere to run. The fear script wrote itself.

But before you cancel your summer cruise plans and start stockpiling ineffective N95 masks, let us take a deep, critical breath. This story is not about a new plague. Rather, it can be seen as a test. A test to see if we learned anything from the catastrophic 2020 Covid response. And spoiler alert: apparently, we haven’t.

The Real Health Crisis They Aren’t Talking About

Before we dive into the virus du jour, we have to ask a massive, glaring question that our so-called health authorities seem utterly incapable of answering. Why is there such a hyper-focus on infectious diseases when they are not even a top ten cause of death in the industrial world?

According to Our World in Data, in advanced economies, infectious diseases account for less than one in twenty deaths, or roughly 4.6% of all mortality (Ritchie et al., 2026). So what is actually killing us? The true pandemics of our time are heart disease, cancer, dementia, and diabetes. And these conditions have almost nothing to do with viruses, but instead are often diseases of lifestyle, metabolism, and diet. Processed sugar, industrial seed oils, chronic nutrient deficiencies, and systemic inflammation are the real silent killers stalking the Western world. Why are headlines in the media not alarming us about these true pandemics?

The fact that our health systems —with the support of mainstream media— spend billions of dollars panicking over a rare rodent-borne virus, while ignoring the metabolic wrecking ball of the standard Western diet, is not a bug in the system. It is a feature. It keeps the population scared, dependent on expensive pills and injections, and permanently distracted from the simple, powerful, and inexpensive solutions that are already sitting on their own plates. A health care approach that fails to prioritize lifestyle factors is not health care at all. It is crisis management designed for profit, not for cure.

Subscribe now

What Hantavirus Actually Is and Why the Fear Is Overblown

Hantaviruses belong to the Hantaviridae family. They are enveloped, single-stranded RNA viruses. Unlike many other zoonotic viruses that are transmitted via insect vectors, hantaviruses are primarily transmitted to humans through contact with infected mammals — most notably wild rodents such as deer mice (Jonsson et al., 2010). The virus is shed in the urine, feces, and saliva of these rodents; humans typically contract the infection by inhaling aerosolized particles from these excretions. This is not an airborne virus in the manner of influenza or the common cold. It usually requires a very specific set of circumstances: a poorly ventilated space, fresh rodent droppings, and the physical act of disturbing that dust.

The impact on the human body generally manifests in two primary ways. In the Western Hemisphere, hantavirus causes Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome, or HPS, a severe respiratory illness. In Europe and Asia, it tends to cause Hemorrhagic Fever with Renal Syndrome, or HFRS, which affects the kidneys (Kruger et al., 2015). Both are serious. Both can be fatal. But both are also rare outside of very specific ecological niches.

The media has seized upon the fact that this particular outbreak involves the Andes virus strain, which has documented cases of human-to-human transmission. However, a careful reading of the scientific literature shows that such transmission is exceptionally rare and appears to require sustained, intimate contact with the blood or bodily fluids of a critically ill patient, rather than casual conversation or shared airspace (Martinez et al., 2005). This is not a virus that spreads like Covid or like the flu. It is fundamentally different. And yet the narrative has been constructed to blur that distinction.

The Playbook and the Business of Pathogen Sharing

We have seen this movie before. The failure of the last approach was not merely medical. It was philosophical. The answer to viral threats is not, and never will be, a rapid deployment vaccine that would require a decade of proper safety testing. The idea that every new outbreak demands an immediate, mass-produced genetic intervention is not science. It is ideology.

Instead of empowering individuals with cheap, safe, existing tools, the World Health Organization and its network of Collaborating Centers have created a new business model based on what is euphemistically called Pathogen Sharing (World Health Organization, 2021). The architecture works like this:

• A virus is identified.

• The genetic sequence is shared with WHO Collaborating Centers.

• This triggers a pre-arranged system in which pharmaceutical giants receive immediate access to develop mRNA and DNA gene therapies.

The result, as documented by epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher in May 2026, is that there are currently at least thirteen hantavirus vaccine and gene therapy programs already in active development. These include six DNA vaccines from the US Army and USAMRIID, three mRNA vaccines from Moderna and others, and several viral vector and protein subunit candidates (Hulscher, 2026). Both the HPS and HFRS viruses are being targeted. This is not science racing to save lives. It is a business plan. And you are the market.

In 2025, Dr. Tess Lawrie remarked that in the WHO Collaborating Centers’ terms of reference, viral hemorrhagic fevers came up with surprising frequency.

Share

The PCR Problem That Will Not Go Away

Before we accept the official numbers regarding this outbreak, we must confront an uncomfortable truth that the mainstream media has once again chosen to ignore. The hantavirus PCR test has a fundamental design flaw that should concern anyone who understands the basics of molecular biology.

Writing on 6th May 2026, Jon Fleetwood refers to the results of a BLAST analysis (used for comparing biological sequences). It shows that significant portions of the genetic sequences used by the PCR test to supposedly detect hantavirus also directly match human DNA sequences.

This matters because the PCR detection system can “light up” —and generate a positive result— even if the genetic match is imperfect (Holland et al., 1991). Combined with the BLAST findings, this raises the very real possibility that so-called hantavirus cases may represent nothing more than the PCR system detecting the patient’s own genetics rather than an actual virus. We saw this same pattern with Covid testing. And now we are seeing it with hantavirus. At what point do we start asking critical questions instead of simply accepting the numbers we are handed?

The Real Solutions You Already Have Access To

Now we arrive at the most important section of this post.

You do not need a military grade genetic injection to protect yourself from an ssRNA virus. You do not need to wait for a vaccine that may or may not be safe. What you need is a basic understanding of virology, immunology, and metabolic health. The solutions already exist. They are cheap. They are safe. And they are available to you right now without a prescription in most cases.

First Solution: Zinc Ionophores.

There is a category of virus called single-stranded RNA viruses. It includes all the Covid strains, all the influenza strains, RSV, Ebola, Marburg, and hantavirus. They can all be treated with the same fundamental protocol using zinc ionophores taken together with supplemental zinc.

• Research into zinc ionophores has identified them as potential inhibitors of RNA dependent RNA polymerase, or RdRp, which is the essential enzyme for the replication of all single stranded RNA viruses (Te Velthuis et al., 2010).

• Hydroxychloroquine and quercetin have both been identified for their ionophore activity, allowing intracellular zinc to reach levels that effectively interfere with the viral life cycle (Derwand & Scholz, 2020; Dabbagh-Bazarbachi et al., 2014).

• Zinc itself has demonstrated inhibitory effects on the replication of various single stranded RNA viruses, including coronaviruses and influenza (Read et al., 2019). The clinical implications are straightforward. Early administration of zinc in combination with an ionophore has been linked in observational studies to reduced hospitalization rates and improved patient outcomes.

Second Solution: Dramatically Reducing Refined Sugar Intake

This solution is perhaps the most powerful and the most ignored. A remarkable study published in Frontiers in Public Health used an expert knowledge system to mine the open access CORD–19 literature database, to understand why some people are more severely affected by SARS-CoV-2 than others (Logette et al., 2021). The conclusion was striking. Elevated blood glucose is the most likely single risk factor to explain why, in otherwise healthy patients, disease can reach a severity normally associated with age and known comorbidities.

The mechanism is clear. Elevated blood glucose:

• increases glucose in the pulmonary airway surface liquid, which breaks down the innate antiviral defenses of the lungs, and facilitates viral infection and replication;

• causes dysregulations in the immune response, which facilitate the cytokine storm and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

In other words, sugar acts like an accelerant on a viral fire.

Third Solution: Vitamin D Optimization.

A systematic review and meta analysis published in Nutrients in 2021 examined the relationship between vitamin D3 status and Covid 19 mortality risk (Borsche et al., 2021). The analysis included one population study and seven clinical studies that reported vitamin D blood levels either before infection or on the day of hospital admission.

The authors concluded that:

“The datasets provide strong evidence that low D3 is a predictor rather than just a side effect of the infection.”

They added:

“Despite ongoing vaccinations, we recommend raising serum 25(OH)D levels to above 50 ng/mL to prevent or mitigate new outbreaks…”

This makes sense because vitamin D modulates both the innate and adaptive immune response in ways that no vaccine can replicate (Grant et al., 2020; Martineau et al., 2017).

Fourth Solution: Hypochlorous Acid, or HOCl.

This is a molecule that deserves far more attention than it currently receives. HOCl is not a pharmaceutical. It is not a vaccine. It is a naturally occurring antimicrobial agent that the human immune system produces in neutrophils and other immune cells specifically to kill pathogens (Wang et al., 2007).

When used in controlled formulations, whether as a nasal spray, a surface disinfectant, or a room level aerosol, HOCl provides a straightforward mechanism for reducing viral burden at the point of exposure. Think of it as upstream prevention. Instead of waiting for a virus to reach the lungs and cause systemic disease, you intervene at the site of initial infection, the nasal mucosa and the upper respiratory tract.

• A nasal spray formulation of HOCl offers direct antiviral activity at the primary portal of entry for respiratory pathogens.

• Room nebulization, dispersing a fine mist of HOCl throughout an enclosed space, offers environmental viral control without the toxicity profile of traditional chemical disinfectants.

Both approaches are mechanistically sound and immediately applicable to situations like the one aboard the quarantined cruise ship.

Importantly:

At the time of writing, there has been no identified person-to-person spread in North America. There are only an estimated ~300 cases of human-to-human transmission in history; the known mechanism is close and prolonged contact, with direct exchange of body fluids. And this is only 10% of all Andes cases. The bottom line is: be careful when dealing with rodent excretions and avoid inhaling the dust.

Share World Council for Health

Putting It All Together

This is not a novel threat. Hantavirus has been endemic to South America for decades. It has killed people in Argentina with predictable regularity. What is different now is not the virus, but the level of preparedness among the population to accept fear-based narratives without question.

After the virus scares of the last few years, we should all be alert to overhyped threats. 2020: Covid; 2022: Monkeypox; 2024: Bird Flu; 2026: Hantavirus. Will we remember the lessons?

If the goal is to inform the public and protect health, the conversation needs to expand dramatically. If the goal is to maintain a narrative of helplessness and fear in order to justify the next round of experimental gene therapies and lockdowns, then the current approach makes perfect sense.

Conclusion: Step Out of Fear and Into Self Empowerment

You do not need to be afraid of hantavirus. You need to be mindful of rodent droppings in poorly ventilated spaces. You need to be aware of your own metabolic health. And you need to be equipped with the knowledge that cheap, safe, and proven tools already exist to support your immune system against the entire class of ssRNA viruses. Real prevention and real treatment are already in your kitchen, in your supplement cabinet, and in your own power to make informed choices.

World Council for Health stands for a Better Way.

Disclaimer:

This article is not intended to be used in place of individual medical advice. It cannot be used to diagnose illness or access treatment. Individuals may use the materials provided by World Council for Health to complement the care provided by their qualified, trusted health professionals. All information provided by World Council for Health or in connection with its website is offered to promote consideration by individuals and their trained healthcare providers of various evidence-based prevention and treatment options. The information on this website is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for medical advice. Errors and omissions may occur.

References

Borsche, L., Glauner, B., & von Mendel, J. (2021). COVID-19 mortality risk correlates inversely with vitamin D3 status, and a mortality rate close to zero co uld theoretically be achieved at 50 ng/mL 25(OH)D3: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients, 13(10), 3596. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13103596

Dabbagh-Bazarbachi, H., Clergeaud, G., Quesada, I. M., Ortiz, M., O’Sullivan, C. K., & Fernández-Larrea, J. B. (2014). Zinc ionophore activity of quercetin and epigallocatechin-gallate: From Hepa 1-6 cells to a liposome model. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 62(32), 8085–8093. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf5014633

Derwand, R., & Scholz, M. (2020). Does zinc supplementation enhance the clinical efficacy of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine to win today’s battle against COVID-19? Medical Hypotheses, 142, 109815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2020.109815

Fleetwood, J. (2026, May 7). Hantavirus PCR test sequences repeatedly match human DNA: New BLAST analysis raises false positive concerns. Jon Fleetwood. https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/p/hantavirus-pcr-test-sequences-repeatedly

Goodman, B. (2026, May 7). What doctors know about how the Andes hantavirus spreads. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2026/05/06/health/andes-strain-hantavirus-explained

Grant, W. B., Lahore, H., McDonnell, S. L., Baggerly, C. A., French, C. B., Aliano, J. L., & Bhattoa, H. P. (2020). Evidence that vitamin D supplementation could reduce risk of influenza and COVID-19 infections and deaths. Nutrients, 12(4), 988. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12040988

Holland, P. M., Abramson, R. D., Watson, R., & Gelfand, D. H. (1991). Detection of specific polymerase chain reaction product by utilizing the 5′→3′ exonuclease activity of Thermus aquaticus DNA polymerase. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 88(16), 7276–7280. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.88.16.7276

Hulscher, N. (2026, May 6). The vaccine cartel and US Army are developing 13 hantavirus vaccines and gene therapies. Focal Points. https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/the-vaccine-cartel-and-us-army-are

Jonsson, C. B., Figueiredo, L. T. M., & Vapalahti, O. (2010). A global perspective on hantavirus ecology, epidemiology, and disease. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 23(2), 412–441. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00062-09

Kruger, D. H., Figueiredo, L. T. M., Song, J.-W., & Klempa, B. (2015). Hantaviruses—Globally emerging pathogens. Journal of Clinical Virology, 64, 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2014.08.033

Logette, E., Lorin, C., Favreau, C., Oshurko, E., Coggan, J. S., Casalegno, F., Sy, M. F., Monney, C., Bertschy, M., Delattre, E., Fonta, P. A., Krepl, J., Schmidt, S., Keller, D., Kerrien, S., Scantamburlo, E., Kaufmann, A. K., & Markram, H. (2021). A machine-generated view of the role of blood glucose levels in the severity of COVID-19. Frontiers in Public Health, *9*, 695139. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.695139

Martineau, A. R., Jolliffe, D. A., Hooper, R. L., Greenberg, L., Aloia, J. F., Bergman, P., Dubnov-Raz, G., Esposito, S., Ganmaa, D., Ginde, A. A., Goodall, E. C., Grant, C. C., Griffiths, C. J., Janssens, W., Laaksi, I., Manaseki-Holland, S., Mauger, D., Murdoch, D. R., Neale, R., Rees, J. R., Simpson, S., Jr., Stelmach, I., Kumar, G. T., Urashima, M., & Camargo, C. A., Jr. (2017). Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ, 356, i6583. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6583

Martinez, V. P., Bellomo, C., San Juan, J., Pinna, D., Forlenza, R., Elder, M., & Padula, P. J. (2005). Person-to-person transmission of Andes virus. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 11(12), 1848–1853. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1112.050501

Read, S. A., Obeid, S., Ahlenstiel, C., & Ahlenstiel, G. (2019). The role of zinc in antiviral immunity. Advances in Nutrition, 10(4), 696–710. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmz013

Ritchie, H., Mersmann, S., & Spooner, F. (2026). What do people die from in different countries? Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/what-do-people-die-from-in-different-countries

te Velthuis, A. J. W., van den Worm, S. H. E., Sims, A. C., Baric, R. S., Snijder, E. J., & van Hemert, M. J. (2010). Zn2+ inhibits coronavirus and arterivirus RNA polymerase activity in vitro and zinc ionophores block the replication of these viruses in cell culture. PLoS Pathogens, 6(11), e1001176. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1001176

Wang, L., Bassiri, M., Najafi, R., Najafi, K., Yang, J., Khosrovi, B., Hwong, W., Barati, E., Belisle, B., Celeri, C., & Robson, M. C. (2007). Hypochlorous acid as a potential wound care agent. Journal of Burns and Wounds, 6, e5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1853323/

World Council for Health. (2025, December 3). Collaborating centres, pathogen labs and digital ID: The WHO’s reach goes far deeper than you think. https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/collaborating-centres-pathogen-labs

World Council for Health. (2026, February 17). Exposing the WHO Collaborating Centres: New reports reveal institutional encroachment — on an international scale. https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/exposing-the-who-collaborating-centres

World Health Organization. (2021). Pandemic influenza preparedness framework for the sharing of influenza viruses and access to vaccines and other benefits (2nd ed.). World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240024854

World Council for Health has uncovered a network of World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centres operating in many countries worldwide, including the US, the UK and Australia. These are institutions designated by the WHO to advance its mandates and agendas. There are currently 827 WHO Collaborating Centres worldwide.

Despite the US exiting the WHO, there are still 70 active WHO collaborating centres in the country. Through its “collaboration” tentacles, WHO maintains influence and control regardless of whether a country is in or out of the WHO.

These centres undertake a wide range of activities that extend well beyond the limited examples described in WHO guidance, and clearly they are not fringe organisations. They are universities, hospitals, regulatory agencies, health ministries, national laboratories, military and bioweapons facilities, charities, and health professional training bodies – all formally designated by the WHO Director-General to advance WHO mandates and WHO agendas within their host countries. These are WHO tentacles embedded in institutions we continue to fund with our taxes.

What are the implications of this over-reaching, global institutional network for national sovereignty and the international health security agenda?

Find out more and read the reports:

www.worldcouncilforhealth.org/world-council-for-health-exclusively-reveals-the-shocking-truth-about-who-collaborating-centres/

Watch the interview:
thehighwire.com/watch/ or click on the image above.

Join the health sovereignty conversation at the Better Way Conference with Del Bigtree and Dr. Tess Lawrie in person and virtually.

TICKETS AT: Betterwayconference.org

Plus Better Way Conference Gala Dinner Focus:

Join us for the opening night! Featuring the amazing singer-songwriter Joseph Arthur plus special guest!

Join us for an exclusive Gala Dinner Experience, celebrating the launch of the Better Way Conference in Rhode Island. Guests will enjoy a three-course organic gourmet dinner followed by a live performance by Joseph Arthur. Your favourite speakers from the health and freedom movement will also be there, live in person!

With strictly limited availability and only a few tickets remaining, this special night takes place on Friday 29th May 2026, doors open from 7pm. Use coupon code SUBSTACK10 for your 10% discount.

TICKETS AT: Betterwayconference.org

Please consider donating to World Council for Health. Every donation we receive is used to support our worldwide coalition and fund initiatives that promote wellbeing for all.

Donate

JOIN US ON SOCIALS:

Telegram | Substack | Facebook | Instagram | X | TikTok

In classical Athens, democracy was not taken for granted. The Athenians knew that power, once concentrated, corrupts quickly.

To protect their fledgling political system, they invented a radical tool: the ostrakismos, or “potsherd court.” This practice lasted around 70 years, from 487–416 BC.

How did it work? Once a year, citizens were asked a single, provocative question: Is anyone in the city becoming so powerful that they threaten our freedom? If a majority voted yes, a second vote was held. Each citizen would scratch a name onto a broken piece of pottery (ostraka). If a quorum of 6,000 was met, the person with the most votes —guilty of no crime, charged with no offense— was exiled for ten years. Hence the word ‘ostracism’.

There was no trial, no appeal, and no need to prove malicious intent. It was pre-emptive. The mere perception of outsized influence was enough.

Subscribe now

The Ideal Versus the Practice

Ostracism was introduced by the reformer Cleisthenes, a key architect of Athenian democracy. Athens understood a truth that is all too easy to forget: the greatest danger to democracy is not necessarily foreign invasion, but the accumulated power of homegrown demagogues. These could be charismatic ‘celebrity’ politicians, oligarchs who buy loyalty, or figures who bend civic institutions into personal tools.

The ostrakismos gave the demos (the common people) a last-resort lever: a way to reset the balance of power without violence. The ostracised person’s status and property remained theirs, and after ten years of exile they were able to return and continue their life as before.

As is often the case, there was a drift between the intention and the reality. Uğur Oral (2023) writes:

“Although ostracism was seen as the insurance of democracy and the guarantee of the system when it was first implemented, it later moved away from its real purpose. It is also seen that some Athenian rulers, who wanted to increase their power, used ostracism as a weapon by influencing the views of the people to weaken or eliminate their rivals.”

Smithsonian writer Megan Gannon (2020) agrees that ostracism was vulnerable to manipulation, factionalism and misuse:

“Nearly all of Athens' most prominent politicians were targets […] The ancient writer Plutarch tells us that the final ostracism took place in 416 B.C. when political rivals Alcibiades and Nicias, realizing they were both facing ostracism, teamed up to turn the votes of their fellow citizens against another candidate, Hyperbolus, who was banished. The outcome apparently disgusted enough Athenians that the practice ended.”

Aside from leadership rivalries, the Athenian device was blunt and imperfect and easily driven by the vagaries of mass sentiment. The virtuous Aristides was famously ostracised: Plutarch tells an anecdote of one voter who claimed to be simply tired of hearing him called ‘the Just.’

And yet: the mechanism’s original purpose, to guard against the unfettered accumulation of power-without-accountability, still resonates down the ages.

Share

Relevance for Our Time

Imagine adapting this principle for the 21st century. We live in an era of super PACs, billionaire-funded media empires, and algorithmic echo chambers that amplify the loudest, most extreme voices. The public often feels voiceless not because they cannot vote, but because their vote seems weightless against concentrated power.

Democracy is not just about electing leaders. It is about systematically preventing anyone from becoming irremovable.

An updated “ostrakismos” would not mean exile, of course. Nor would it mean the reckless abandonment of due process — or other undesirable consequences such as short-termism, mob rule and political paralysis.

But the spirit of the mechanism, as originally intended, could translate into powerful modern tools:

• Citizen-initiated recall votes for public officials who accumulate unchecked influence.

• Binding “cooling-off” periods for media magnates or CEOs whose cross-industry dominance begins to resemble monopolies.

• Citizen panels (democratic juries) empowered to flag and temporarily suspend outsized political donations or lobbying activity.

Today, as political authority becomes increasingly centralized, and trust in institutions erodes, we need new forms of democratic self-defense and oversight. In an era of opaque bureaucracy and regulatory capure, the existing checks and balances are no longer adequate. The ostrakismos reminds us that the public’s voice is strongest not only at the ballot box — but also when it has the courage to say, “No single person should ever become more powerful than the people themselves.”

World Council for Health stands for a Better Way.

Sources:

Forsdyke, S. (2005). Exile, ostracism, and democracy: The politics of expulsion in ancient Greece. Princeton University Press.

Gannon, M. (2020, October 27). Ancient Athenians voted to kick politicians out of Athens if enough people didn’t like them. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ancient-athenians-voted-kick-politicians-out-if-enough-people-didnt-them-180976138/

Lang, M. L. (1990). The Athenian Agora: Vol. XXV. Ostraka. American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Malkopoulou, A. (2025). Ostracism, political exclusion and democratic self-defence today [Lecture]. Department of Political Science, University of Vienna. https://politikwissenschaft.univie.ac.at/details/news/ipw-lecture-ostracism-political-exclusion-and-democratic-self-defence-today/

OpenSecrets. (n.d.). Super PACs. https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/super-pacs/2022

Oral, U. (2023). “Ostracism”, the people’s way of protecting democracy from tyrants in ancient Athens. Elektronic Journal of Social Sciences, 22(86), 653–662. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.1209928

Plutarch. (1914). Aristides. In B. Perrin (Trans.), Plutarch’s Lives (Vol. 2). Harvard University Press. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plut.+Arist.+7

Salamanca, E. (2023). Pruning of the people: Ostracism and the transformation of the political space in ancient Athens. Philosophies, 8(5), 81. https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9287/8/5/81

UK Parliament. (2001, March 22). House of Commons debates (Hansard). UK Parliament. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo010322/debtext/10322-13.htm

Węcowski, M. (2022). Athenian ostracism and its original purpose: A prisoner’s dilemma. Oxford University Press.

Picture this scenario…

You’re reading this article on a mobile device which is likely tracking not just your location, but your heart rate, your sleep patterns, your oxygen saturation, and —if you have the right apps— the electrical rhythms of your heart. Your watch is selling your blood sugar data. Your pacemaker is reporting your compliance to your insurance company. You are no longer just a citizen. You are a node in one of the world’s most valuable data networks, and paying for the privilege.

For decades, we have operated under a comforting illusion: that our bodies are private, autonomous domains. That narrative is fast collapsing. We are witnessing the transition from traditional medicine to a system of bio-electronic monitoring and synthetic biology that operates beneath the skin.

Welcome to Healthcare 4.0. It is not just about curing disease; but about data harvesting, predictive modeling, behavioral modulation — and control.

To begin with, we must confront the surveillance infrastructure already wrapped around your wrist and sitting in your pocket. This is not conspiracy theory, but the published reality of modern engineering.

Subscribe now

Smartwatches & Fitness Trackers: The Medical Device You Bought Yourself

The Apple Watch, Samsung Galaxy Watch, Google Fitbit, and Garmin devices are classified largely as wellness devices rather than medical devices, which means they face patchy regulatory oversight. Yet they capture an extraordinary array of physiological data. These include: photoplethysmography (PPG) data for heart rate; accelerometer data for activity and respiratory rate; blood oxygen (SpO2) during both sleep and activity; sleep stage analysis (REM, deep and light sleep, and even snore detection); glucose levels and menstrual cycle tracking via user input; and on newer models electrocardiogram (ECG) waveforms and skin temperature.

Who owns this data? According to its terms of service, Apple states it may share (encrypted) health data with “third parties” for “research purposes.” Garmin reserves the right to sell data to “commercial partners.” Samsung shares data with “affiliates” and “selected partners” for marketing. Promises of anonymization (even if they are technically compliant with the law) are not a hard guarantee against re-identification, especially when multiple data points and pattern recognition comes into play.

Many consumers agree to these terms without reading them or adjusting the applicable privacy settings — and in any case, such settings are far from watertight. Third-party software development kits (SDKs) are frequently embedded into apps, meaning your data is being sent to multiple parties without your knowledge or meaningful consent.

A 2022 investigation by the Organisation for the Review of Care and Health Apps (ORCHA) found that of 25 fertility apps, “84% allowed the sharing of personal and sensitive health data to third parties.” (In 2023, a U.S. federal court ruled that the Premom Ovulation Tracker had improperly shared sensitive health data.) A 2019 study by Privacy International found a similar trading of personal information — this time regarding mental health.

Donate

The Medical Implant Grid: Surveillance and Vulnerability

The most intimate surveillance happens inside your body. When devices are implanted in your flesh, they are collecting data and transmitting it to servers you have never seen, owned by corporations you have never heard of, governed by terms you have never read.

And if control were ever to be seized maliciously, the consequences would be deadly.

Continuous Glucose Monitors (CGMs)

Devices like Dexcom, Freestyle Libre, and Medtronic Guardian continuously measure blood glucose and can transmit data to phones, doctors, and—increasingly—insurance companies. They collect glucose readings every one to five minutes, which amounts to ~288 readings per day. Via interpretation or user input, they can also track meal times and carbohydrate estimates, insulin doses and timing, exercise impact on glucose, and overnight glucose patterns.

Who has access to this data? Your doctor has access with your “consent”— though that consent is often buried in paperwork you signed at intake. Your insurance company may have access and use it to adjust premiums. App developers have access and sell data to third parties. Researchers have access, often without re-consent from patients whose data they are using. People wearing these devices often have no idea who is watching their blood sugar beyond their physician.

Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (ICDs)

Pacemakers are no longer simple electrical pulses. Modern devices are computerised implants inside your chest. They collect heart rhythm data 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They record every arrhythmia event with exact timestamps. They monitor activity levels via built-in accelerometers. They measure thoracic impedance to assess fluid status and predict heart failure. And they track device battery status and lead integrity.

Remote monitoring means that most pacemakers now use home monitors that automatically transmit data to your cardiologist via cellular or WiFi. The same data is accessible to device manufacturers like Medtronic, Abbott, and Boston Scientific, and—under certain interpretations of data ownership laws—to insurers.

Privacy issues are one thing. But there is an additional deep cause for concern. Implantable cardiac devices are not the sealed, secure systems commonly assumed. In our increasingly networked era, they are vulnerable to attacks. As early as 2008, Halperin et al. revealed:

“Our investigation shows that an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (1) is potentially susceptible to malicious attacks that violate the privacy of patient information and medical telemetry, and (2) may experience malicious alteration to the integrity of information or state, including patient data and therapy settings for when and how shocks are administered.”

Four years later, security expert Barnaby Jack showed that pacemakers and ICDs could still be hacked easily. And in 2017, the BMJ reported that:

“Three quarters of a million patients around the world use pacemakers with cybersecurity vulnerabilities that could potentially be sabotaged remotely by hackers with radiofrequency equipment, the US Food and Drug Administration has warned.”

Patches were released, but these necessitated a clinic visit and were not automatic updates.

A pacemaker, therefore, can be weaponized. The same remote programming features that allow cardiologists to adjust pacing without surgery can be used by malicious actors. Most concerning is that anyone who can purchase an inexpensive software-defined radio and download public exploit code could potentially have this capability.

Insulin Pumps

Modern insulin pumps—such as the Medtronic 780G, Tandem Mobi, and Omnipod 5—are hybrid closed-loop systems that communicate wirelessly with Continuous Glucose Monitors (CGMs) to automatically adjust insulin delivery. They collect data on every insulin dose including time, amount, and type. They track real-time glucose values, meal announcements (via user-entered data), and exercise modes.

What can go wrong is terrifying. In controlled settings, it has been demonstrated that insulin pumps can be accessed and manipulated wirelessly, using relatively cheap equipment. Attack vectors could include remote insulin overdose, remote insulin suspension, manipulating CGM readings to cause incorrect dosing, and hijacking the wireless link between pump and CGM.

The chilling possibility is that such attacks could be performed without leaving forensic evidence. The pump logs will show “user-initiated bolus” even when the user never touched the device. A murder could be made to look like a medical error, a suicide, or natural causes.

Implantable Loop Recorders (ILRs)

These small devices, about the size of a USB stick, are implanted under the skin of the chest to continuously monitor heart rhythm for up to three years. They are often used for unexplained fainting, palpitations, or atrial fibrillation detection.

Who has access? Cardiologists, device manufacturers, and —in some healthcare systems— automated AI algorithms which flag “abnormalities” without any human review. In the automated systems, an algorithm decides whether your heart rhythm is suspicious, and whether to alert your doctor. By extension, an algorithm could decide whether to flag your file for insurance review. A human being is unlikely to see your data unless the algorithm decides it is worth their time.

Smart Contact Lenses and Retinal Implants

Emerging technologies are pushing biosensing even further. The cameras used in retinal implants (bionic eyes) might potentially become a further step towards human–machine integration. Smart contact lenses being developed by companies like Mojo Vision and Google (through its Verily subsidiary) can contain miniature displays, sensors, and wireless transmitters. This raises the alarming, but no longer implausible, possibility of a permanent visual record of everything you see. Additionally, research prototypes have explored tracking intraocular pressure using smart contact lenses, and detecting biomarkers such as glucose levels in tears (Elsherif et al., 2022). All of this indicates that the trajectory is becoming more continuous, more intimate.

Cochlear Implants and Auditory Manipulation

Cochlear implants, which restore hearing to the deaf, are essentially computers that translate sound into electrical signals sent directly to the auditory nerve. As computers, these devices could potentially be hacked. An attacker could send signals that the patient perceives as sounds that are not there: voices commanding them, warnings no one else can hear, music that will not stop. The line between therapy and weapon blurs completely.

Smart Pills and Ingestible Sensors

Proteus Digital Health (now defunct, but its technology has been acquired and rebranded) created ingestible sensors that, once swallowed, communicate with a wearable patch to confirm medication adherence. The sensor is activated by stomach fluid and transmits a unique signal that identifies the patient, the medication, and the time of ingestion. The FDA approved this technology in 2017. Your doctor can therefore know, with certainty, whether you took your pill. Your insurance company can know too. And if you are prescribed medication as a condition of parole, probation, or employment, the authorities can know as well.

Proponents of this technology talk with great enthusiasm of the “compliance” that it will enable. Litvinova et al. (2022) report:

“According to the WHO global strategy, digital technologies are connected to the future of world health. Digitalization has the potential to benefit health promotion, maintain global security, and provide services to the most vulnerable groups of the population.

Digital pills occupy an important place among the digital health solutions. Digital pills contain integrated sensors that allow monitoring of the course of pharmacotherapy through an interaction with the software of, e.g., tablets and smartphones. Such monitoring is of great importance, as low patient compliance (medication opt-out) is a major challenge for all areas of medicine.”

Albert Bourla, Pfizer CEO, is also a fan of the smart pill on “compliance” grounds. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in 2018 (see video below), he famously said:

“Imagine the applications of that… the compliance. The insurance companies to know that the medicines that patients should take, they do take them.”

Neural Implants: The Final Frontier

Brain–computer interfaces, or BCIs (think Elon Musk’s Neuralink) represent the most direct form of human–machine integration yet developed. Rather than relying on external sensors, these systems record electrical activity from the brain itself and translate it into digital output. In 2021, Willett et al. demonstrated that motor cortex signals could be decoded to reconstruct intended handwriting. This allowed a paralysed participant to communicate by “writing” with their thoughts — with a high degree of both speed and accuracy.

Such systems are still highly specific and limited in scope: in this case it was based on intended hand movements rather than mind-reading in a more general sense. But crucially, it shows that translating neural activity into externally readable information is no longer science fiction.

Enabling a severely disabled person to write again is of course an astonishing and laudable achievement. As with all medical advances, the crucial question is: how far will the technology go, and how can it be kept from those who would abuse it? Could it extend so far as to decode intended speech — including thoughts you never speak aloud? Would your inner monologue, the final frontier, the last refuge of privacy, be finally ruptured?

Share

From ‘Hackable Human’ to Self-Sovereignty

Against the possibility of a bleak future governed by algorithms, technocracy and relentless biomedical surveillance… a counter-movement is rising.

Chaffer and colleagues (2025) champion the concept of the “Self-Sovereign Patient”: an individual who exercises control over their own health data and care journey, empowered by blockchain, Internet of Things, and AI. Far from being pessimistic about where our increasingly tech-driven society is going, they write:

“In Healthcare 4.0, we are witnessing a fundamental shift from provider-centric systems to patient-centric models, where individuals assume the role of the Self-Sovereign Patient.”

For example: zero-knowledge proofs are cryptographic methods that allow a doctor to verify you are in good health without seeing your specific viral load or genetic markers. The math proves the statement without revealing the data. Your privacy is preserved. The verification is still valid. In a similar vein, Soulbound Tokens (SBTs) are non-transferable digital tokens that can represent verifiable credentials, medical licenses, or consent records. They cannot be sold or transferred. They are permanently bound to your digital identity, proving your status without revealing your data.

In the sovereign future of active resistance, you are the administrator of your own biology. You optimize yourself. You control your health data. You choose what to share. Your mind remains private. Informed consent is absolute. You read every word before signing.

Share World Council for Health

The Last Word

It goes without saying that medical progress can benefit humanity in numerous ways. But like all progress, it is vulnerable to abuse, whether through baked-in surveillance mechanisms or backdoor security flaws. We therefore need to be vigilant and discerning — not naive. The technology is neutral; its governance is not.

Recognizing the reality of seductively-disguised surveillance machinery is the first step toward reclaiming agency. The cage is only invisible if you refuse to look. Now you have seen it, what will you do? Choose wisely. Choose actively. Choose sovereignty. For yourself and for future generations.

World Council for Health stands for a Better Way.

Disclaimer:

This article is not intended to be used in place of individual medical advice. It cannot be used to diagnose illness or access treatment. Individuals may use the materials provided by World Council for Health to complement the care provided by their qualified, trusted health professionals. All information provided by World Council for Health or in connection with its website is offered to promote consideration by individuals and their trained healthcare providers of various evidence-based prevention and treatment options. The information on this website is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for medical advice. Errors and omissions may occur.

References

Bai, T., Hu, Y., He, J., Fan, H., & An, Z. (2022). Health-zkIDM: A healthcare identity system based on Fabric blockchain and zero-knowledge proof. Sensors, 22(20), 7716. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22207716

BBC News. (2019, September 4). Mental-health information “sold to advertisers”. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49578500

Chaffer, T. J., Littlejohn, J., Nadarasa, A., & Lamschtein, C. (2025). The self-sovereign patient as a cornerstone of healthcare 4.0. Blockchain in Healthcare Today, 8(2), 414. https://doi.org/10.30953/bhty.v8.414

Chai, P. R., Castillo-Mancilla, J. R., Buffkin, E., Darling, C., Rosen, R. K., Horvath, K. J., Boudreaux, E. D., Robbins, G. K., & Boyer, E. W. (2015). Utilizing an ingestible biosensor to assess real-time medication adherence. Journal of Medical Toxicology, 11(4), 439–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-015-0494-8

Diggins, C., & Arizmendi, C. (2012, December 11). Hacking the human brain: The next domain of warfare. WIRED. https://www.wired.com/2012/12/the-next-warfare-domain-is-your-brain/

Dyer, O. (2017). Abbott Laboratories offers fix for 745 000 pacemakers vulnerable to hacking. BMJ, 358, j4190. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4190

Elsherif, M., Moreddu, R., Alam, F., Salih, A. E., Ahmed, I., & Butt, H. (2022). Wearable smart contact lenses for continual glucose monitoring: A review. Frontiers in Medicine, 9, 858784. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.858784

Federal Trade Commission. (2023, June 26). Easy Healthcare Corporation, U.S. v. https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/202-3186-easy-healthcare-corporation-us-v

FemTech World. (2022, July 28). New study accuses women’s health apps of sharing users’ data. https://www.femtechworld.co.uk/news/new-study-accuses-womens-health-apps-of-sharing-users-data/

Halperin, D., Heydt-Benjamin, T. S., Ransford, B., Clark, S. S., Defend, B., Morgan, W., Fu, K., Kohno, T., & Maisel, W. H. (2008). Pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators: Software radio attacks and zero-power defenses. https://secure-medicine.org/hubfs/public/publications/icd-study.pdf

Ho, J. D. (2024). Digital pill: Overview. EBSCO Information Services. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/technology/digital-pill-overview

Kemp, T. (2025, September 2). Understanding mobile app tracking and how to limit it. California Privacy Protection Agency. https://privacy.ca.gov/2025/09/limit-mobile-app-tracking/

Litvinova, O., Klager, E., Tzvetkov, N. T., Kimberger, O., Kletecka-Pulker, M., Willschke, H., & Atanasov, A. G. (2022). Digital pills with ingestible sensors: Patent landscape analysis. Pharmaceuticals (Basel), 15(8), 1025. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph15081025

Ngak, C. (2011, August 29). Black hat hacker can remotely attack insulin pumps and kill people. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/black-hat-hacker-can-remotely-attack-insulin-pumps-and-kill-people/

Pinna, A., Lunesu, M. I., Tonelli, R., & Sansoni, S. (2025). Soulbound token applications: A case study in the health sector. Distributed Ledger Technologies: Research and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1145/3674155

Willett, F. R., Avansino, D. T., Hochberg, L. R., Henderson, J. M., & Shenoy, K. V. (2021). High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting. Nature, 593, 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03506-2

World Economic Forum. (2018, January 25). Transforming health in the fourth industrial revolution [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/Uio8X1h0H-E?si=RyfZeREnOkh2y-1K&t=2716

You might have missed it. While headlines chased geopolitical chaos, a quiet but tectonic shift occurred in the corridors of Brussels late last year. In December 2025, a provisional agreement was struck. By January 2026, the European Parliament’s Environment Committee had waved it through with a robust majority of 47–31.

They call it the deregulation of New Genomic Techniques (NGTs). I call it the Great Unlabeling.

In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the horror was visible. The doctor could see his creation’s unnatural seams. Today’s genetic engineers have solved that problem for good. Their creations look, smell, and taste exactly like nature — while carrying viral promoters, bacterial genes, and novel proteins never before seen in the human food supply. Dr. Frankenstein’s monster was a warning we could see. The unlabeled CRISPR tomato on your plate is a warning you cannot.

For decades, Europe held a relatively hard line on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). But now, the EU is sprinting in the opposite direction, driven by a potent cocktail of geopolitical competition and biotech capital. The new legislation creates a two-tier system. “Category 1” NGT plants —those deemed comparable to conventional breeding— will be exempt from GMO labeling and risk assessments.

Simultaneously, the parallel European Biotech Act is slashing red tape for gene therapies in humans: cutting approval timelines for clinical trials from 106 days to about 75 — and in some cases as few as 47.

The message from Brussels is clear: Move fast, don’t ask too many questions, and don’t scare the public with labels.

But before we swallow this pill, both literally and figuratively, we need to rewind. Because to understand the madness of the current moment, we must look at the history of plant modification, the chemical hellscape of the Glyphosate Era, and the fierce critics who saw this disaster coming decades ago.

Subscribe now

Part I: The Roundup Reality Check

To understand why gene editing is not a clean break from the past, we have to look at the disaster of the “herbicide-tolerant” era.

When the first wave of GMOs hit in the 1990s —soybeans and corn engineered to survive dousings of glyphosate (Roundup)— the sales pitch was environmentalist utopia. “We will use fewer chemicals!” they promised. “No-till farming will save the soil!”

It was a lie. Instead of using fewer chemicals, we created a chemical arms race. Weeds evolved resistance to glyphosate. So what did we do? We sprayed more. When that failed, we introduced “stacked traits” (resistance to multiple herbicides like 2,4-D and Dicamba), which are even more volatile and prone to drifting onto neighboring farms, destroying organic crops and ecosystems (Benbrook, 2012; Mortensen et al., 2012).

We created a Glyphosate Circle:

1. Engineer a seed to resist poison.

2. Saturate the field with poison to kill everything but the seed.

3. Soil microbiome collapses.

4. Weeds evolve resistance.

5. Engineer a seed to resist stronger poison.

6. Repeat.

Yet for thirty years, regulators have claimed these plants are “substantially equivalent” to natural ones.

Share

Part II: The Fatal Flaw of ‘Substantial Equivalence’

This brings us to the fiercest critic the biotech world has ever seen: Dr. Mae-Wan Ho.

In the late 1990s, while the WHO and FAO were rubber-stamping the safety of GMOs, Dr. Ho and Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher published a takedown so devastating it should have stopped the industry in its tracks. Their report, Fatal Flaws in Food Safety Assessment (1998), eviscerated the concept of Substantial Equivalence.

What is Substantial Equivalence? It is the regulatory loophole that allows GMOs to skip toxicology testing. If a biotech company can argue that their Franken-plant is chemically similar enough to a regular plant, it is deemed safe by default.

Ho argued this was pseudo-science. On Page Two of the report, she noted that the tests were so undiscriminating that a “grossly altered” potato with deformed tubers was still passed as “substantially equivalent.” The principle is arbitrary. It relies on the industry to tell regulators what is safe, with no requirement for long-term animal feeding trials, no requirement for carcinogenicity tests, and crucially, no requirement for environmental monitoring.

She warned of “horizontal gene transfer”: the possibility that the spliced genes (often containing viral promoters and antibiotic resistance markers) could jump from your dinner into the bacteria in your gut, or into the soil microbiome. Nearly thirty years later, we know this is a real risk (as outlined by van den Eede et al., 2004), yet a robust risk assessment is still not part of the standard protocol.

Why we still have no clue

The standard approval protocol for a new GMO or NGT does not require:

• Long-term carcinogenicity studies (Do tumors show up after 2 years? Don’t look.)

• Fertility studies (Does it cause sterility in the 3rd generation? Don’t ask.)

• Microbiome disruption studies (Does it turn your intestinal flora into a chemical factory? Who knows.)

• Soil health monitoring (Does the root exudate kill earthworms? Not our problem.)

As Séralini et al. (2014) demonstrated in their long-term study on GM maize, rats developed tumors and organ damage after two years. These findings were aggressively attacked by industry — precisely because such long-term tests are not required. Hilbeck & Otto (2015) further note that combinatorial effects of multiple GM traits are almost never tested.

Part III: The Loss of Informed Consent

Here is the existential rub: you cannot consent to an experiment you do not know is happening.

If I told you that a tech startup wanted to test a new software on your laptop without telling you, you’d sue them. If a pharmaceutical company wanted to try a new gene therapy on your cells without your signature, this would be a criminal act.

But if an agrochemical company wants to edit the genome of your wheat using CRISPR, and then remove the label so you can’t tell the difference? The EU says that is fine for “Category 1” plants.

This is the death of informed consent.

By removing the label, the industry effectively admits that consumers would reject the product if given a choice. Poll after poll shows Europeans want transparency. By stripping labels away, they are forcing you to participate in a continent-wide experiment with your biology and the ecology of your backyard.

Donate

Part IV: The Industry Takeover

Why is this happening? Follow the money. Biotech is now a trillion-dollar global industry. When you have that much capital concentration, regulatory capture is not a bug; it is a feature.

The new EU Biotech Act explicitly frames this as a “competitiveness” issue: We are lagging behind the US and China! We must deregulate to innovate!

This is the language of the revolving door. Former regulators sit on biotech boards. Biotech executives sit on advisory panels. The same companies that demand the approval of their products are often the ones given veto power over the publication of negative results.

On Suppression of Criticism

For decades, scientists who found negative results in GMO studies faced professional ruin. Companies have a long history of demanding “confidentiality” over raw data. Studies looking at the long-term health impacts of GMOs have been notoriously underfunded, as who would pay for a 10-year study that might kill a revenue stream? In many cases, university researchers must get permission from the company to publish the results of the research funded by that company (Waltz, 2009; Cornucopia Institute, 2013).

Fugh-Berman (2013) has shown how industry funding biases “basic science” and leads to systematic suppression of negative data. The result is a scientific literature that appears overwhelmingly positive, but only because the negative studies were never allowed to see the light of day.

Share World Council for Health

Part V: What is at Stake? An Ecological Catastrophe

We already have evidence that this technology is not safe. The “glyphosate cycle” has decimated insect and bird populations. Relyea (2005) also demonstrated the devastating impact on aquatic biodiversity. In the outcome of his experimental study:

“Roundup completely eliminated two species of tadpoles and nearly exterminated a third species, resulting in a 70% decline in the species richness of tadpoles.”

Pleasants & Oberhauser (2013) showed that in the U.S. Midwest, the collapse in the monarch butterfly population is another consequence of the glyphosate cycle. This occurs as milkweed, the essential food source for monarch larvae, is rapidly being replaced by glyphosate-resistant crops:

“We estimate that there has been a 58% decline in milkweeds on the Midwest landscape and an 81% decline in monarch production in the Midwest from 1999 to 2010 […] results strongly suggest that a loss of agricultural milkweeds is a major contributor to the decline in the monarch population.”

But the new NGTs are not just about herbicide resistance. They are about “gene drives” and novel proteins. We have zero long-term studies on what these novel proteins do to:

• Bumblebees (significant contributors to animal pollination — upon which around 75% of crop species depend to some degree).

• Soil Fungi (the internet of the soil).

• Bats (insect predators).

• Human Infants (the most vulnerable population).

In his 2003 book Seeds of Deception, Jeffrey M. Smith documented decades of industry deception on this very point.

The Environmental Assessment Mirage

Critics such as Mae-Wan Ho (1999) have long argued that a proper environmental assessment would take decades. Why?

1. Gene Flow: A gene edited for drought resistance might jump to a wild relative, creating a “super weed” we cannot kill.

2. Soil Time: Changes to soil microbial communities take 5–10 years to manifest, let alone stabilize.

3. Intergenerational Effects: If horizontal gene transfer occurs in the human gut, the impact on fertility or immune function might not show up in the parent who ate the tomato, but in the children or grandchildren.

We are rolling the dice on a generational timescale.

Part VI: A Call for Sanctuary

We are being inundated, living in a toxic soup of technological arrogance. It is not just the food. It is:

• the EMF (5G radiation) we didn’t ask for

• the herbicides drifting from conventional farms onto our land

• the fungicides raining down on vineyards

• the biotech sprays being released into the open air — with mRNA sprays currently under development.

We demand a Sanctuary. A space where we are not exposed to NGTs; where we are not forced to eat unlabeled gene-edited Franken-foods; where we are not bathed in electromagnetic frequencies; and where the soil is allowed to heal without synthetic biology intruding.

We demand the right to a sovereign, self-determined life.

What You Can Do Right Now

The trilogue —between the European Parliament, Council and Commission— is moving fast. The final plenary vote is imminent, likely to be May 2026.

Write to your representatives. Not an email, but a letter. Tell them:

1. I reject the deregulation of NGTs without mandatory labeling.

2. I demand long-term (10+ year) environmental and health impact studies before approval.

3. I demand “GMO/NGT-Free” zones where traditional farming is protected from genetic trespass.

World Council for Health supports harmony with the natural environment, for the benefit of all life on earth, and stands for a Better Way.

Disclaimer:

This article is not intended to be used in place of individual medical advice. It cannot be used to diagnose illness or access treatment. Individuals may use the materials provided by World Council for Health to complement the care provided by their qualified, trusted health professionals. All information provided by World Council for Health or in connection with its website is offered to promote consideration by individuals and their trained healthcare providers of various evidence-based prevention and treatment options. The information on this website is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for medical advice. Errors and omissions may occur.

References

Benbrook, C. M. (2012). Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. -- the first sixteen years. Environmental Sciences Europe, 24(1), Article 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24

Castaldi, L. (2026, March 18). European Parliament and Council successfully agree and close trilogue on regulation of NGT plants (Report No. E42025-0027). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=European+Parliament+and+Council+Successfully+Agree+and+Close+Trilogue+on+Regulation+of+NGT+Plants_Brussels+USEU_European+Union_E42025-0027.pdf

Cornucopia Institute (2013, September 9). Do seed companies control GM crop research? https://www.cornucopia.org/2013/09/seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/

Council of the European Union (2026, April 21). New genomic techniques: Council adopts new rules to boost sustainable and competitive EU food systems. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/04/21/new-genomic-techniques-council-adopts-new-rules-to-boost-sustainable-and-competitive-eu-food-systems/

Fugh-Berman, A. (2013). How basic scientists help the pharmaceutical industry market drugs. PLoS Biology, 11(11), e1001716. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001716

Hilbeck, A., & Otto, M. (2015). Specificity and combinatorial effects of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry toxins in the context of environmental risk assessment. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 3, Article 71. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2015.0007

Ho, M.-W., & Steinbrecher, R. A. (1998). Fatal flaws in food safety assessment: Critique of the joint FAO/WHO Biotechnology & food safety report (TWN Biotechnology & Biosafety Series No. 1). Third World Network. https://twn.my/title2/biosafety/pdf/bio01.pdf

Ho, M.-W., Ryan, A., & Cummins, J. (1999). Cauliflower mosaic viral promoter—a recipe for disaster? Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease, 11(4), 194–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/08910609908540827

Klein, A.-M., Vaissière, B. E., Cane, J. H., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S. A., Kremen, C., & Tscharntke, T. (2007). Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1608), 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3721

Macdonald, G. (2026, February 4). Proposed Biotech Act would help EU win more trials, says EMA. Bioxconomy. https://www.bioxconomy.com/clinical-and-research/proposed-biotech-act-would-help-eu-win-more-trials-says-ema

Mortensen, D. A., Egan, J. F., Maxwell, B. D., Ryan, M. R., & Smith, R. G. (2012). Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. BioScience, 62(1), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.12

Pleasants, J. M., & Oberhauser, K. S. (2013). Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: effect on the monarch butterfly population. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 6(2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00196.x

Relyea, R. A. (2005). The impact of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity and productivity of aquatic communities. Ecological Applications, 15(2), 618–627. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5342

Séralini, G.-E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., Hennequin, D., & de Vendômois, J. S. (2014). Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environmental Sciences Europe, 26(1), Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5

Smith, J. M. (2003). Seeds of deception: Exposing industry and government lies about the safety of the genetically engineered foods you’re eating. Yes! Books.

van den Eede, G., Aarts, H., Buhk, H.-J., Corthier, G., Flint, H. J., Hammes, W., Jacobsen, B., Midtvedt, T., van der Vossen, J., von Wright, A., Wackernagel, W., & Wilcks, A. (2004). The relevance of gene transfer to the safety of food and feed derived from genetically modified (GM) plants. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42(7), 1127–1156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.001

Waltz, E. GM crops: Battlefield. Nature 461, 27–32 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/461027a

Wei, W., & Stewart, C. N. (2023). Biosafety and ecological assessment of genetically engineered and edited crops. Plants, 12(13), 2551. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12132551

5G infrastructure is emblematic of the tensions surrounding all things digital. And for good reason.

Electromagnetic frequency radiation (EMF) has been studied for decades — and multiple studies point to a negative impact on health. In France, as of April 10th 2020, 1667 people had identified themselves to the organization Une Terre pour les EHS as EHS (electro-hypersensitive). The true figure may be far higher.

The fact that it’s virtually inescapable intensifies the sense of injustice felt by opponents to EMF. As of early 2026, around 47,000–48,000 5G sites are operational in France alone (ANFR, 2026).

Resistance to EMF: acts of sabotage

France has seen a significant rise in sabotage of 5G masts since Covid. According to French news site Reporterre, in May 2021 an internal report from the Ministry of the Interior had already listed 174 acts of sabotage in one year. Burned relay antennas, fibre optic cables severed, pylons unbolted: this is a growing underground revolt.

Between April and June 2020, dozens of antennas were vandalised across France, including several in Toulouse, with responsibility for some acts claimed on anarchist websites such as Info Libertaire. In 2021, two monks in the Rhône were indicted for arson-related offences, stating they had acted “to protect the population from the harmful effects” of 5G. That same year, a fire at a Bouygues Telecom site in Saint-Héand disrupted mobile networks across towns for several days.

Subscribe now

When protest becomes prosecution: the Limoges case

A recent case in Limoges encapsulates the mounting anger surrounding 5G expansion. After a series of arson attacks on telecom infrastructure, six people were arrested. Four were released without charge. The remaining two were prosecuted over incidents occurring in 2020 and 2021 — including an attack which paralysed communications for more than a week. Perhaps surprisingly, these two defendants were a 70-year-old retiree and a primary school teacher. This highlights how the 5G conflict has extended far beyond the usual notions of vandalism and its perpetrators.

The defence framed these actions as a form of civil resistance. One of the defendants spoke of corporations that “make millions on our backs” while suppressing democratic debate. His lawyer described the actions of the accused as an “intermediate means of protest between violence against people" on the one hand, and passive inaction on the other.

Prosecuting parties, on the other hand, rejected this framing and requested custodial sentences. They emphasised the material damage inflicted, and argued that existing legal and democratic mechanisms provide appropriate means of protest. They also maintained that current scientific evidence does not demonstrate any particular risks from 5G. Whether this stance appears convincing or disingenuous is, of course, another matter.

The outcome –according to activist reporting– was that the defendants received suspended sentences of two and three years respectively.

Share

An emerging pattern

These are not isolated, random incidents. Rather, they are framed as targeted disruptions of the “nerve nodes” of economic and surveillance systems. And when the bigger picture is examined, it points to a broader pattern: a growing refusal of an increasingly digitised, hyper-connected society. Whether they have taken direct action or not, many people have called for the adoption of the precautionary principle against the “digital onslaught” — and a moratorium on 5G.

But what about those on the other side of the equation? In 2021, Orange reported “around one antenna per week is the target of vandalism”. In total, over a two-year period, Orange was said to have experienced 130 attacks in France, including 61 on mobile phone sites. Industry figures warn of mounting costs —estimated in the tens of millions of euros— with a single pylon costing around €200,000 to replace, and far more when wider infrastructure is damaged. Yet authorities remain cautious about publicising the scale of the problem. As one industry representative put it, the aim is to avoid “giving ideas to certain people.”

Donate

Rage against the machine: the historical precedent

Observers note that such revolt is not new. Science historian François Jarrige explains:

"Sabotage increases when more institutional forms of negotiation are in crisis. It is precisely at the moment when technical choices are still uncertain and not totally rooted in imaginations and institutions that it is possible to act. The same thing happened with the GMO, nuclear power, but also with the car in its beginnings, and industrial mechanization in XIXth century. Today, it is the turn of digital communications infrastructures."

Thus, this movement draws on a longer tradition of resistance to top-down technological change. The term sabotage itself was redefined by 19th Century anarcho-syndicalist Émile Pouget as a form of direct action against the powerful. Earlier still, the Luddites embodied a similar impulse: resistance not to technology per se, but to the social and economic consequences of unmitigated, runaway mechanisation.

Anarchist publication Courant Alternatif No.14 of November 2021 states:

“We refuse the technological nightmare that is spreading around the world. On the progression of the power of machines and the omnipresence of connected objects in our lives with the illusory notion of an improvement in our daily life. We see humans being tricked by the attraction of electricity that powers our channels; by these machines that are gradually removing our faculties, our autonomy, these intrusions and controls of our lives.”

Contemporary movements, therefore, echo historical antecedents. In Grenoble, for example, the STopMicro collective has opposed the expansion of microelectronics plants. They cite the environmental impact and resource demands of the digital industry, and question the assumption that an increasingly “connected” society is desirable.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Share World Council for Health

From sabotage to “white zones” and beyond

For some, the issue requires even greater urgency. Individuals who are electro-hypersensitive seek out so-called zones blanches (white zones): areas with minimal electromagnetic exposure. One case is that of Philippe Tribaudeau, a former teacher who has lived for over a decade in a remote forest area, owing to his severe sensitivity to electromagnetic fields. His home is two small caravans, and he has faced legal and personal struggles — as well as a frustrating degree of institutional scepticism regarding his condition.

However, with the support of Association Zones Blanches, an organisation which advocates for people living with electro-hypersensitivity, he has recently won an important round in his ongoing battle against eviction.

The heightened tensions and extreme measures surrounding 5G and digital infrastructure reflect societal questions on a whole bundle of issues. These issues are deeply intertwined. They include: environmental limits, transparency and trust, democratic mechanisms, public consent, the reliability of official safety data, the pace of technological change, David versus Goliath scenarios, and what qualifies as a justified and proportionate response.

For now, we can say this: the direction of change is not set in stone. And remarkable things do become achievable when people work together to shine a light on institutional and corporate opacity — and to spread awareness where they can.

We will have several speakers focusing on the topic of Electromagnetic Radiation at the Better Way Conference in New England. Join us live and online: https://www.betterwayconference.org/

World Council for Health stands for a Better Way.

References

Agence nationale des fréquences (ANFR) (2026). Observatoire des déploiements des réseaux mobiles. Retrieved April 17, 2026, from https://www.anfr.fr/gestion-des-frequences-sites/lobservatoire/

Association Zones Blanches (AZB) (n.d.). Association Zones Blanches. https://asso-zonesblanches.org

Cholez, L.-A., & d’Allens, G. (2021, December 15). Exclusif : la carte des sabotages des antennes 5G. Reporterre. https://reporterre.net/Exclusif-la-carte-des-sabotages-des-antennes-5G

Courant Alternatif (2021, November). Courant alternatif (No. 14). Organisation Communiste Libertaire.

Dieudonné, M. (2020). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: A critical review of explanatory hypotheses. Environmental Health, 19, 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-020-00602-0

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) (n.d.). Publications. https://icbe-emf.org/publications/

La Bogue (2026, April 7; updated April 8). Procès des inculpé·es du 15 juin 2021 à Limoges. https://labogue.info/spip.php?article2460&lang=fr

Lauret, D. (2026, March 21). Incendier des antennes 5G, un «acte nécessaire»? La justice appelée à trancher. Reporterre. https://reporterre.net/Incendier-des-antennes-5G-un-acte-necessaire-La-justice-appelee-a-trancher

Lavorel, R. (2024, October 4). «Mon cerveau brûlait»: le combat d’un homme hyper sensible aux ondes face à l’État. Reporterre. https://reporterre.net/Mon-cerveau-brulait-le-combat-d-un-homme-hyper-sensible-aux-ondes-face-a-l-Etat

Le Matin (2021, September 20). Deux moines arrêtés pour avoir mis le feu à des antennes relais. https://www.lematin.ch/story/deux-moines-arretes-pour-voir-mis-le-feu-a-des-antennes-relais-273432889822

Manière, P. (2021, September 14). Réseaux télécoms : les actes de vandalisme se multiplient. La Tribune. https://www.latribune.fr/technos-medias/telecoms/reseaux-telecoms-les-actes-de-vandalisme-se-multiplient-892271.html

Sansnom (2021, November 4). Saint-Héand (Loire) : l’antenne-relais réduite au silence [MaJ]. https://sansnom.noblogs.org/archives/8988

STopMicro (n.d.). https://stopmicro38.noblogs.org/

The Connexion (2020, June 29). Dozens of 5G antennas vandalised in France during lockdown. https://www.connexionfrance.com/news/dozens-of-5g-antennas-vandalised-in-france-during-lockdown/437999

📍 Rhode Island, USA: May 29–31, 2026

World Council for Health is delighted to announce that Dr. Paul Marik and Prof. Angus Dalgleish are confirmed to run the Cancer Workshop on Sunday May 30.

Dr. Bryan Ardis will be joining us on the A Better Way for Biological Products & Informed Consent panel (day 1), and Francesca Havens will be joining us on the A Better Way for Self-Healing panel (day 2).

Tickets are on sale for the workshop from $55, and online tickets are available from $30 for the 2-day event.

Subscribe now

In-person speakers include Dr. Tess Lawrie • Dr. Marivic Villa • Del Bigtree • Dr. Bret Weinstein • Dr. Peter McCullough • Dr. Mark Trozzi • Dr. Pierre Kory • Jan Jekielek • Dr. Beverley Rubik • Dr. Meryl Nass • Dr. Larry Palevsky • Mary Holland • Dr. Sherri Tenpenny • Dr. Bryan Ardis • Dr. Mark Brody • Christof Plothe DO • Reggie Littlejohn and many others.

Speaker listings cannot be guaranteed and may be subject to change. Kindly note that Kevin McKernan and Dr. William Makis have withdrawn their attendance.

Share

Event Details

Gala Dinner: Friday, May 29, 2026 (Evening)

Conference Dates: May 30–31, 2026

Location: Rhode Island, USA

Livestream at: https://www.betterwayconference.org/

Hosted by: World Council for Health & World Council for Health New England

For tickets, full speaker lineup and event schedule, visit: https://www.betterwayconference.org/

Disclaimer:

This article is not intended to be used in place of individual medical advice. It cannot be used to diagnose illness or access treatment. Individuals may use the materials provided by World Council for Health to complement the care provided by their qualified, trusted health professionals. All information provided by World Council for Health or in connection with its website is offered to promote consideration by individuals and their trained healthcare providers of various evidence-based prevention and treatment options. The information on this website is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for medical advice. Errors and omissions may occur.

📍This year it will be in Rhode Island, USA, on May 30-31 — with a Gala on May 29.

🎟️ For 10% off the ticket price, use basket code LAWRIE10. If you’re unable to attend in person, virtual tickets are also available.

In this short video introduction, Dr. Tess Lawrie describes why this event is in a whole different class from other symposia you may have attended...

“In our six panel conversations, (our speakers) have 15 minutes maximum to share their key message, after which the solutions offered are discussed and debated. In the spirit of the Better Way ethos, there’s no topic off limits as we value different perspectives. Thus our Q&A sessions can get very lively!”

—Dr. Tess Lawrie

Subscribe now

The incredible line up of speakers includes:

👉Dr. Tess Lawrie

👉Del Bigtree

👉Dr. Bret Weinstein

👉Dr. Peter McCullough

👉Prof Angus Dalgleish

👉Dr. Paul Marik

👉Dr. Pierre Kory

👉Jan Jekielek

👉Dr. Sherri Tenpenny

👉Vic Mellor

👉Dr. Meryl Nass

👉Dr. Marivic Villa

👉Dr. Mark Brody

AND OTHERS...

“There’s a Better Way for the USA, and indeed the world. And we’ll be co-creating it together with you again in May.”

—Dr. Tess Lawrie

Disclaimer:

This article is not intended to be used in place of individual medical advice. It cannot be used to diagnose illness or access treatment. Individuals may use the materials provided by World Council for Health to complement the care provided by their qualified, trusted health professionals. All information provided by World Council for Health or in connection with its website is offered to promote consideration by individuals and their trained healthcare providers of various evidence-based prevention and treatment options. The information on this website is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for medical advice. Errors and omissions may occur.

In the debate over wind turbines, the law of unintended consequences has become all too familiar. Some of these consequences are:

• pollutants in their materials (microplastics, fibreglass, “forever chemicals” such as PFAS and BPA)

• the wrecking of countryside and ancient forest to make way for wind farms — including habitats of endangered species

• birds mangled in the blades

• audible noise pollution and its damage to wildlife (Teff-Seker et al., 2022).

So much for eco-friendly energy.

To add to the growing list of harms, there is another factor at play. Invisible and (largely) inaudible, it is barely acknowledged by planning and regulatory authorities — yet its impacts can be devastating.

That factor is infrasound.

Subscribe now

Facts about infrasound

Infrasound refers to sound waves with frequencies below 20 Hz. These are usually inaudible to humans, but at high intensity they can be perceived in the body as physical pressure or vibrations.

Wind turbines emit these waves as pulsations (in contrast with nature, where infrasound is continuous). These pulsations, which are described by Professor Ken Mattsson as “periodic explosions”) can result in symptoms that include sleep disturbances, migraines and a sensation of motion sickness.

This infographic shows a distillation of current findings:

In 2019, advocacy group Motvind was formed to campaign against wind turbines in Norway. Tim Smith, a farmer in Wales, has established a UK branch — since renamed as Save This Land. It has both a website and Facebook page.

In 2024, he spoke with Dr Tess Lawrie about his deep concerns regarding wind farms: the devastating effects on fauna (including bizarre behavioural disturbances) and subsequent desertification of local ecosystems. Dr Lawrie also notes:

“I learned that worms are particularly sensitive to turbine vibrations and rapidly vacate land with wind turbines; thus farmers who choose to farm turbines and not food leave a legacy of incomparable destruction for the land itself. Even if the turbines were to be removed in due course, which given their size and non-biodegradable materials would be extremely difficult, it would take generations to restore the land to productivity.”

Share

Opening the debate — could the winds be changing?

Grim as the outlook seems, there has recently been very real progress in the battle against wind farms — and on infrasound specifically. As Tim Smith says: “Things have moved on with the turbine fight and we have peer reviewed scientific papers on the propagation of and harms from wind turbine infrasound. The authors presented their findings at the EU Parliament last month.”

i) The evidence exposed: what published papers are showing

Christian Vahl, a cardiologist and medical professor from University of Mainz in Germany, has published extensively on infrasound, though many websites featuring his work are no longer accessible. Years earlier, using samples of heart muscle, he and his team showed that just one hour of high-level infrasonic exposure can significantly reduce cardiac contraction function — and that the effects of infrasound would “involve a wide range of process, like calcium metabolism and mitochondrial integrity” (Chaban et al., 2019). In a 2020 interview, Professor Vahl emphasised how “infrasound is not an esoteric phenomenon, but a biophysically measurable effect that must be taken seriously.”

More recently, a study by Dastan et al. (2026), which explores therapeutic dose-dependent applications of infrasound, concludes that:

“Infrasound can travel long distances with minimal attenuation and permeate biological tissues due to its marked particle displacement and deep penetration […] responses vary according to sound pressure levels, frequencies, exposure duration and tissue type […] In animal models, prolonged or intense exposure to infrasound has been shown to induce neuroinflammatory responses and memory impairment […] Overall, existing data indicate that infrasound may be harmful at chronic exposure depending on intensity and frequency, yet beneficial when precisely regulated.”

So if the dose makes the poison, the findings by Mattsson et al. (2026) are particularly damning:

“The results show that modern, large-scale wind turbines generate infrasound levels significantly higher than those reported for older, smaller turbines.”

Share World Council for Health

Ken Mattsson, a professor of scientific computing from Sweden, was among the infrasound researchers who presented their findings to the European Parliament in March 2026. In an interview later that day with MEP Fernand Kartheiser, he explained:

“Building these new wind turbines 600 metres from where people live is not a safe distance. And besides infrasound, you also have this audible sound which can be very annoying also … and at the level of 60dBA, it’s quite high and this amplitude modulated sound can propagate 10km. And it’s very disturbing because it’s pulsating, and this of course affects all kinds of living organisms […] Horses move away as far as they can from the noise and they refuse to come back home because it’s closer to the wind turbines.

“I talk to authorities responsible for noise in Sweden, and they don’t want to listen to the facts, and they still claim that ‘if you can’t hear it, it can’t harm you’ and it’s almost impossible to reach them.”

Regarding the environmental damage of offshore wind turbines, he continues:

“They’re much larger so of course they emit lots of infrasound in the air. And over water it propagates much further, but it also propagates lots of infrasound in the ocean… and lots of marine life communicate with infrasound.”

Nonetheless, he gives overall grounds for optimism:

“I think that the atmosphere is a little bit more open to discuss this. Ten years ago, this was ‘no, don’t go there.’ But now, the winds are a little bit changing, I feel that.”

ii) Litigation victories: the French precedent

Public pressure has resulted in some successful challenges in court, forcing regulatory bodies to rethink permissions and regulations. These include the following French lawsuits:

• In March 2024, France’s highest administrative court, the Conseil d’État, ruled that the government had acted unlawfully in its approval of a wind turbine noise-measurement framework, as it had skipped the legally-required environmental assessment. The judgement means the rules have to be properly redrawn, thus putting planned installations under extra scrutiny and delay. Hence, where governments display an obdurate determination to accelerate wind farm development at all costs, the judicial system can –sometimes– provide the necessary restraint.

• In November 2025, a retired teacher successfully sued in Strasbourg for damage to her health, caused by the installation of wind turbines near her home in Somme. Although the ruling in her favour was technically based on angoisse (i.e. stress and anxiety, which the court agreed had been caused by the turbines), she had a range of physical symptoms consistent with infrasound exposure: dizziness, tinnitus, sleep disorders. Tests on her house revealed high infrasound levels, which insulation was unable to prevent. The audible noise and flashing light would not have helped either.

The signal among the noise

Concerns regarding wind farms and infrasound can no longer be mockingly dismissed as flimsy fringe science. Emerging biological evidence shows that regulatory frameworks based on obsolete assumptions, scientific laziness, ideological stubbornness and vested interests are, frankly, not fit for purpose. When plausible mechanisms for harms exist, the burden of proof cannot indefinitely be dumped onto the victims.

Invisible and often inaudible, infrasound is far from inconsequential. We all need to take it very, very seriously, and give it a prominent focus in the increasingly compelling case against wind farms.

World Council for Health stands for a Better Way.

Disclaimer:

This article is not intended to be used in place of individual medical advice. It cannot be used to diagnose illness or access treatment. Individuals may use the materials provided by World Council for Health to complement the care provided by their qualified, trusted health professionals. All information provided by World Council for Health or in connection with its website is offered to promote consideration by individuals and their trained healthcare providers of various evidence-based prevention and treatment options. The information on this website is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for medical advice. Errors and omissions may occur.

References

BBC News. (2024, November 15). Appeal against wind farm ruling thrown out. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy5l92y4p1zo

Chaban, R., Ghazy, A., Buschmann, K., Vahl, C. F., & Schnelle, N. (2019, March). High level infrasound exposure reduces the contractility of human cardiac tissues in in-vitro model [Poster]. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Chirurgie, ID 410, Poster-Nr. DGCH-13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339080917_High_level_infrasound_exposure_reduces_the_contractility_of_human_cardiac_tissues_in_in-vitro_model

Conseil d’État. (2024, March 8). Décision n° 465036. https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2024-03-08/465036

Dastan, M., Ribeiro, E. D. P., Bellut-Staeck, U., Zhou, J., & Lehmann, C. (2026). Infrasound and human health: Mechanisms, effects, and applications. Applied Sciences, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/app16031553

Kartheiser, F. (n.d.). Podcast avec Ken Mattsson : santé publique et infrasons issus de l’énergie éolienne dans l’UE [Video]. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/reel/2497485887389456/

Kirschstein, G. (2020, May 11). Explosive Mainz study: Infrasound of wind turbines can significantly damage human heart performance. (Translated from German.) Mainz&. https://mainzund.de/brisante-mainzer-studie-infraschall-von-windraedern-herzleistunug-vahl/

Lawrie, T. (2024, November 17). Wind farms and the climate hoax. A Better Way with Dr Tess Lawrie. https://drtesslawrie.substack.com/p/wind-farms-and-the-climate-hoax

Mattsson, K., Eriksson, G., Persson, L., Chilo, J., & Tatar, K. (2026). Efficient finite difference modeling of infrasound propagation in realistic 3D domains: Validation with wind turbine measurements. Applied Acoustics, 243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2025.111156

McCulloch, B. (2026, March 6). French court ruling may open way for cases against wind turbines. The Connexion. https://www.connexionfrance.com/news/french-court-ruling-may-open-way-for-cases-against-wind-turbines/768624

Motvind Norge (homepage). https://www.motvind.org/

Save This Land (homepage). https://savethisland.org/

Save This Land. [Facebook page] https://www.facebook.com/people/Save-This-Land/100095081501645/

Teff-Seker, Y., Berger-Tal, O., Lehnardt, Y., & Teschner, N. (2022). Noise pollution from wind turbines and its effects on wildlife: A cross-national analysis of current policies and planning regulations. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 168, 112801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112801

The Telegraph. (2024, November 25). Golden eagle killed after flying into wind turbine. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/25/golden-eagle-dead-wind-turbine-scotland-dumfries-galloway/

World Council for Health. (n.d.). Wind turbines: the hazards of wind turbine blade debris. https://www.worldcouncilforhealth.org/wind-turbines-health-effects

Every so often, published science reveals a heretical truth.

The journal Nature has spent at least two decades as the temple of “settled climate science”. However, last month it published a paper with the title: “Broadly stable atmospheric CO₂ and CH₄ levels over the past 3 million years” (Marks-Peterson et al., 2026).

This means that for three million years, carbon dioxide appears to have barely budged. Methane didn’t either.

Yet here’s the thing. During that time, Earth went through titanic climate changes. This includes the Pleistocene glaciations, when ice sheets over North America were more than a mile thick; and later warm, lush periods such as the Ipswichian Interglacial (~125,000 years ago) when hippos lived in Britain. If all this occurred while CO₂ was barely twitching, the implications are a snowball straight to the face of the establishment narrative.

What Did They Find, and How?

The researchers analysed ancient air bubbles preserved in Antarctic ice from the Allan Hills Blue Ice Area — a natural freezer stretching deep into the Pliocene epoch. By using isotopic signatures in the trapped gases, they reconstructed atmospheric CO₂ and CH₄ going back 3.1 million years.

They found:

• CO₂ stuck at around 250 ± 10 ppm (that’s parts per million — one molecule of CO₂ for every four thousand molecules of air), with maybe a 20 ppm wiggle over millions of years.

• CH₄ (methane) — same story: no marked change across the long term.

And yet, temperatures and ice coverage went on wild joyrides — up, down, up again. If CO₂ were really the master switch of planetary climate, that data would be impossible.

Subscribe now

The Narrative Cracks

For decades, the party line was simple:

• Humans burned fossil fuels.

• CO₂ went up.

• Therefore the Earth is cooking, and your car is killing the planet.

The problem is: this study shows the same CO₂ levels lasted through entire epochs of major glacial shifts. Apparently, the planet didn’t care. The “carbon thermostat” wasn’t even plugged in.

Furthermore, they found virtually no “runaway” feedback between CO₂ and warming. If CO₂ caused warming, and warming released more CO₂ from oceans and permafrost —as we’re told— we should see massive spikes. But the record shows otherwise. That catastrophic feedback loop we’re so often warned about is, to say the least, highly exaggerated.

Of course, this result isn’t being shouted from the rooftops. The framing in Nature is noticeably cautious. Calmly stating that this greenhouse gas data extends back to the late Pliocene epoch is far more guarded and grant-friendly than asserting: “we just detonated the core assumption of industrial‑scale climate politics.”

The richer irony is these ice cores were taken from the blue ice areas of Antarctica — the same continent supposedly melting at unprecedented rates. The one thing that is melting is the credibility of the CO₂ panic.

Share

A Quick Trip Through Geological Time

Imagine three million years as a movie. You fast‑forward: glaciers form, melt, continents drift, sun cycles vary, orbital tilt wobbles, sea levels rise and fall by hundreds of feet — yet CO₂ just… chills.

By analogy: that’s like watching a house turn from winter to summer to blizzard while the thermostat reads the same 68°F the whole time. Either the thermostat’s broken, or it was never the thing controlling the temperature in the first place.

So What Actually Drives Climate?

The evidence points to a combination of factors, which dwarf CO₂’s whisper:

• Orbital mechanics: the tilt, wobble and eccentricity of the earth, known as Milankovitch cycles,* modulate insolation (i.e. the amount of solar radiation received) by latitude.

• Solar cycles: shifts in output and magnetic shielding affect cloud formation and ocean absorption.

• Ocean circulation: this is the true heater of the planet, redistributing enormous thermal energy.

• Cosmic ray flux: according to the Svensmark hypothesis, this is linked to solar and galactic conditions which influence cloud nucleation.**

Donate

Gatekeeping the Narrative

i) Milankovitch Cycles and NASA’s Public Messaging

It is interesting that many sources give a solid explanation of the Milankovitch cycles — but hastily follow it with “…this doesn’t explain current warming”. It's almost as if this statement has become a required add-on, to ensure the science is protected from being appropriated by all those pesky “climate change deniers”. The link marked * above, which leads to an explanation by NASA, is a case in point.

In fact, as part of its public outreach, NASA devotes a whole extra page to this caveat. It’s worth taking a moment to study how the messaging operates here. For example:

• It downplays any meaningful role for orbital or solar processes in shorter-term climate dynamics.

• It sidesteps Malinkovitch’s all-important distribution of sunlight by instead focusing on total solar output in recent years (i.e. it quietly shifts the variable used).

• While the figures it gives for CO₂ fluctuations are compatible with the Marks-Peterson paper (as levels can oscillate within glacial cycles, but are smoothed out by long-term averages), the new findings do imply that the role of CO₂ feedback as a driver in climate change, over millions of years, was far more limited than was previously assumed. Hence NASA’s confident statement that “these fluctuations provided an important feedback to the total change in Earth’s climate that took place during those cycles” now appears premature and overstated.

• NASA’s assertion that troposphere warms + stratosphere cools, therefore greenhouse gases appears both elegant and persuasive. However, stratospheric temperature is influenced by other factors (ozone changes, volcanic aerosols, atmospheric dynamics) rather than one single root cause.

Using absolutist “scientists know” language, NASA’s page builds a superficially plausible case that burning fossil fuels is indeed cooking the planet. But it ignores the features of complex systems: internal variability, nonlinear thresholds (whereby small triggers can produce disproportionately large changes), and palaeoclimate mechanisms which are still under debate. The flaws are thus revealed: its didactic tone, its oversimplifications, and a framing which is policy-adjacent rather than scientifically neutral. This is a classic case of “the science is settled” nudging, which omits a wider part of the story.

ii) Scorning the Svensmark Hypothesis

Regarding the Svensmark hypothesis (marked ** above), a similar orthodoxy drives much of the surrounding commentary. In 1996, Henrik Svensmark was labelled “extremely naive and irresponsible” by the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel — for suggesting that rises in Earth’s temperature could be largely explained by sun activity. Svensmark later reflected in a 2007 interview:

“I was just stunned. I remember being shocked by how many thought what I was doing was terrible. I couldn’t understand it because when you are a physicist, you are trained that when you find something that cannot be explained, something that doesn’t fit, that is what you are excited about. […] It was as though people were saying to me, ‘This is something that you should not have done.’ That was very strange for me, and it has been more or less like that ever since.

“Some are accusing me of doing it for political reasons; some are saying I’m doing it for the oil companies. This is just ridiculous. I think there’s a huge interest in discrediting what I’m doing, but I’ve sort of gotten used to this. I’ve convinced myself the only thing I can do is just to continue doing good science.”

Share World Council for Health

The Real Lesson: Perspective Is Everything

All of this doesn’t mean humans have zero effect on climate. Every perturbation matters somewhere. But it does mean the climate system is vastly more resilient than the fear narrative implies.

For three million years, it has accommodated changes in the sun, the tilt of Earth’s axis, even the formation of the Isthmus of Panama. But we are told, as a matter of urgency, that it’s now being irrevocably destabilized by backyard barbecues and SUVs. That’s emotive marketing, not hard-headed science. When you step back, you realize the true scandal isn’t in the data, but in how selectively we’ve been shown it. Science in the service of politics stops being science. It becomes scripture.

Institutions are loath to admit that the climate is not a fragile glass ornament. But nature —unbothered by budgets, bureaucrats, Net Zero zealotry or Davos panels— tells us otherwise.

It’s the politics, not the climate, that needs cooling; and priorities that need recalibrating. So perhaps it’s time we turned down the hysteria and turned up the curiosity.

World Council for Health stands for a Better Way.

Disclaimer:

This article is not intended to be used in place of individual medical advice. It cannot be used to diagnose illness or access treatment. Individuals may use the materials provided by World Council for Health to complement the care provided by their qualified, trusted health professionals. All information provided by World Council for Health or in connection with its website is offered to promote consideration by individuals and their trained healthcare providers of various evidence-based prevention and treatment options. The information on this website is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for medical advice. Errors and omissions may occur.

References

Knapton, S. (2017, December 19). Exploding stars are influencing our weather, scientists find. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/12/19/exploding-stars-influencing-weather-scientists-find/

Long, M. (2007, June 25). The Discover interview: Henrik Svensmark. Discover Magazine. https://ftp.space.dtu.dk/pub/Henrik/FB/Svensmark%20.pdf

Marks-Peterson, J., Shackleton, S., Higgins, J., Severinghaus, J., Yan, Y., Buizert, C., Kalk, M., Beaudette, R., Hishamunda, V., Eves, D., Carter, A., Kurbatov, A., Epifanio, J., Morgan, J., Nesbitt, I., Bender, M., & Brook, E. (2026). Broadly stable atmospheric CO₂ and CH₄ levels over the past 3 million years. Nature, 651, 647–652. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-10032-y

NASA. (2020, February 27). Milankovitch (orbital) cycles and their role in Earth’s climate. https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

NASA. (2020, February 27). Why Milankovitch (orbital) cycles can’t explain Earth’s current warming. https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/

For the first time, many of the most prominent figures in the global health freedom movement will be together at a single event.

Welcome to the Better Way Conference 2026.

• Organised by: World Council for Health in partnership with World Council for Health New England

• This year’s conference theme: “Co-creating New Health Solutions — A Better Way For the USA”

• Where: Crowne Plaza, Warwick, Rhode Island, USA

• Date: Saturday 30th – Sunday 31st May 2026

  🥂🍴There is a VIP Drinks and Gala Dinner option on Friday May 29th. See booking page for details.

Featured speakers include Dr Tess Lawrie, Del Bigtree, Dr Bret Weinstein, Dr Peter McCullough, Dr Bryan Ardis, Dr Mark Brody, Dr Sherri Tenpenny, Dr William Makis, Dr Pierre Kory, Dr Meryl Nass, Mary Holland, Kevin McKernan and more…

Never before have these people all been together in person.

Subscribe now

The event will explore the issues which are increasingly hard to ignore:

• The paradox: Why are health outcomes often so poor in the US, despite spiralling costs?

• Perverse incentives and structural failings: Is the current healthcare framework (from research through to treatment) capable of delivering true wellbeing? Or does it need to be entirely rebuilt?

• Visionary thinking: What might alternative models look like — and are they feasible?

Across two days, panels will tackle the big questions, from scientific integrity and peer review through to governance, accountability, informed consent — and of course personal health sovereignty: empowering patients to take back control of their health.

Share

** EARLY BIRD TICKETS ARE STILL AVAILABLE! **

To learn more about the event, including the lineup, the themes, and how to book your ticket, go to https://www.betterwayconference.org/

World Council for Health stands for a Better Way.

Disclaimer:

This article is not intended to be used in place of individual medical advice. It cannot be used to diagnose illness or access treatment. Individuals may use the materials provided by World Council for Health to complement the care provided by their qualified, trusted health professionals. All information provided by World Council for Health or in connection with its website is offered to promote consideration by individuals and their trained healthcare providers of various evidence-based prevention and treatment options. The information on this website is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for medical advice. Errors and omissions may occur.

This month, a meningitis outbreak among students in Kent, England —linked to a nightclub in Canterbury— was the subject of serious concern. It tragically claimed the lives of two young people: a teenager and a 21-year-old.

The media coverage was alarming: for example “The deadly delays in tackling meningitis outbreak” (The Telegraph) and “experts warn of explosive outbreak… one of the fastest-growing outbreaks of the disease they have seen in the UK” (The Guardian).

Yet a few days later, the tone and content were calmer. The BBC announced “Meningitis outbreak passes peak, says health agency”. Similarly, The Guardian went with“Kent meningitis outbreak may have peaked as UKHSA reports slowdown in cases” — and the Daily Mail confirmed that “Meningitis cases fall as health officials reveal some people were wrongly told they had the disease”.

So what are the facts about meningitis, and what do the statistics actually show us? (N.B. Info presented here is up-to-date at the time of writing.)

Subscribe now

Meningitis: key facts

Meningitis is not a single disease

• It’s an umbrella term which covers inflammation of the brain/spinal cord (the meninges).

Most cases are not the dangerous kind

• Viral meningitis is far more common and usually self-limiting. Bacterial meningitis is rarer but more serious.

Overall risk is to the public is low

• Total meningitis deaths (from all causes combined) are typically in the low hundreds per year. The meningococcal form —which is most associated with outbreaks among young people— accounts for only a small fraction of these. In England in 2023-4, there were 8 recorded deaths from meningococcal disease, compared with around 30 deaths in adjacent years. The case fatality rate may appear to fluctuate a lot, but that is a normal statistical volatility owing to the small numbers overall.

Many people carry the bacteria harmlessly

• Around 1 in 10 people may carry meningococcal bacteria without symptoms.

Early symptoms are non-specific

• These include common symptoms such as headache, fever and nausea. But severe cases can deteriorate very quickly.

Donate

What happened in the Kent outbreak?

In a post (23 March) on the Where are the Numbers Substack, statistician Martin Neil uses AI number-crunching to explain the striking drop in cases.

Where are the numbers? by Norman Fenton and Martin Neil

Is the UK meningitis 'outbreak' diagnosing hangovers?

UK news has been chock full of scare stories about the meningitis ‘outbreak’ in Kent, accompanied by the vaccination of students and with high strength antibiotics handed out like sweets…

Read more

2 months ago · 67 likes · 24 comments · Martin Neil

Early “case numbers” can expand rapidly. This is because the testing process is not only capturing reality, but also uncertainty. The key takeaway from Neil’s analysis is that early “suspected” cases were frequently misclassified — and only after further testing were they downgraded. Here’s a summary of his main points:

• The broad range of non-specific symptoms overlaps with other, more benign conditions (such as a general malaise, fever — or even the common hangover).

• Initial screening often uses single-target rapid PCR, which is prone to yielding false positives.

• A test might detect harmless “carriage” of the bacteria, rather than actual invasive disease. As mentioned earlier, around 10% of the population are carriers: according to Neil, this makes carriage “100,000× more common than invasive disease”.

Neil applies Bayes’ Theorem to demonstrate that “Only ~0.5% of positive PCRs represent true invasive meningococcal disease.” So while an increase in relative risk might look dramatic, absolute risk remains very low.

The downgrading of cases has also been noted by Tom Jefferson (clinical epidemiologist) and Carl Heneghan (Professor of Evidence-based Medicine), in their Trust the Evidence Substack. They even show “confirmed” cases as being quietly downgraded!

They consider the UKHSA’s text explaining the reasons behind such reclassification as being “disturbingly vague.”

Share

The medical conundrum — erring on the side of caution

There is of course a dilemma for doctors and medical authorities, in knowing when and how to take appropriate measures without overreacting. This was well summarised in one of the Comment threads below Martin Neil’s post.

Share World Council for Health

So when is there cause for concern?

The website https://www.meningitis.org gives clear advice about the set of symptoms which indicate possible meningitis. In these circumstances, seek medical help immediately:

• Confusion and disorientation

• Seizures

• Rash that doesn’t fade when pressed with a glass

• Severe neck stiffness

• Fever

• Severe headache

• Sensitivity to light

• Vomiting

• Unusual drowsiness and being hard to wake

Meningitis.org also refers to limb pain and cold hands and feet as symptoms of sepsis, which is caused by the same bacteria as meningitis.

Conclusion: maintaining a perspective

Outbreaks are alarming, and fear is exacerbated by media reporting. But although meningitis spreads via close, prolonged contact (which is why when cases occur, they tend to cluster round young people living and socialising together), it is not highly contagious. It can be summarised as common carriage: rare disease, and year-on-year fatality numbers do remain low.

It is of course important to know which symptoms are not just a “mere headache” and require urgent medical attention. But it’s also important not to panic, to look beyond the headlines, and to always be aware of the statistical and classificatory confusion that can lead to a “case-demic”.

World Council for Health stands for a Better Way.

Disclaimer:

This article is not intended to be used in place of individual medical advice. It cannot be used to diagnose illness or access treatment. Individuals may use the materials provided by World Council for Health to complement the care provided by their qualified, trusted health professionals. All information provided by World Council for Health or in connection with its website is offered to promote consideration by individuals and their trained healthcare providers of various evidence-based prevention and treatment options. The information on this website is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for medical advice. Errors and omissions may occur.

References

BBC News. (2026). Meningitis outbreak passes peak, says health agency. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgwrxdldmzo

Bratcher, H. B., Rodrigues, C. M. C., Finn, A., Wootton, M., Cameron, J. C., Smith, A., Heath, P. T., Ladhani, S., Snape, M. D., Pollard, A. J., Cunningham, R., Borrow, R., Trotter, C., Gray, S. J., Maiden, M. C. J., & MacLennan, J. M. (2019). UKMenCar4: A cross-sectional survey of asymptomatic meningococcal carriage amongst UK adolescents at a period of low invasive meningococcal disease incidence (Version 2). Wellcome Open Research, 4, 118. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15362.2

Daily Mail. (2026, March 22). Meningitis cases fall as health officials reveal people were wrongly told they had the disease. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15669271/Meningitis-cases-fall-health-officials-reveal-people-wrongly-told-disease.html

Guardian. (2026, March 18). What is behind the UK’s meningitis outbreak and how serious is it? https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/mar/18/what-caused-uk-meningitis-outbreak-how-serious-is-it

Guardian. (2026, March 20). Kent meningitis outbreak may have peaked as UKHSA reports slowdown in cases. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/mar/20/kent-meningitis-outbreak-may-have-peaked

Heneghan, C., & Jefferson, T. (2026, March 25). Canterbury tales revisited. Trust the Evidence. https://substack.com/@trusttheevidence/p-192098129

Meningitis Research Foundation. (n.d.). Meningitis and sepsis symptoms. https://www.meningitis.org/about-meningitis/symptoms/

Meningitis Research Foundation. (n.d.). What’s the difference between bacterial and viral meningitis? https://www.meningitis.org/news-and-blogs/whats-the-difference-between-bacterial-and-viral-meningitis/

National Health Service / ONS dataset. (2023). Deaths by week of occurrence, age group, cause and sex, England (31 May 2014 to 24 November 2023). https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/adhocs/2029deathsbyweekofoccurrenceagegroupcauseandsexengland31may2014to24november2023

Neil, M. (2026, March 23). Is the UK meningitis “outbreak” diagnosing hangovers? Using AI to calculate relative & absolute risk of meningitis given symptoms and test. Where Are the Numbers? https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/is-the-uk-meningitis-outbreak-diagnosing

Nomis. (2023). Deaths dataset (linked ONS data). https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/livelinks/18933.xlsx

Reuters. (2026, March 18). UK races to contain meningitis outbreak in Kent after two deaths. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/uk-races-contain-meningitis-outbreak-kent-after-two-deaths-2026-03-18/

Telegraph Media Group. (2026, March 18). The deadly delays in tackling meningitis outbreak. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/18/france-delay-britain-kent-meningitis-case-48-hours-ukhsa/

UK Health Security Agency. (2024). Invasive meningococcal disease in England: Annual laboratory-confirmed reports for epidemiological year 2023 to 2024. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/meningococcal-disease-laboratory-confirmed-cases-in-england-2023-to-2024/invasive-meningococcal-disease-in-england-annual-laboratory-confirmed-reports-for-epidemiological-year-2023-to-2024

UK Health Security Agency. (2025). Invasive meningococcal disease in England: Annual laboratory-confirmed reports for epidemiological year 2024 to 2025. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/meningococcal-disease-laboratory-confirmed-cases-in-england-2024-to-2025/invasive-meningococcal-disease-in-england-annual-laboratory-confirmed-reports-for-epidemiological-year-2024-to-2025

UK Health Security Agency. (2026, March 16). Cases of invasive meningococcal disease notified in Kent. Updated March 25, 2026. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cases-of-invasive-meningococcal-disease-confirmed-in-kent?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications-topic&utm_source=b770f85f-cbb2-4a64-abb7-6fe7bdc8e4a0&utm_content=immediately

If you follow the mainstream narrative, vaccine hesitancy is often characterised as a problem of misinformation — whether that portrayal is focused on the “Global South” or among “fringe” political groups in the West. But if you look at the data from the last five years, a fascinating and far more complex picture emerges: one centred in the heart of Europe.

There is a paradox in Eastern Europe that challenges the simplistic “pro-vax vs. anti-vax” binary. On one hand, countries like Bulgaria, Romania, and Croatia recorded some of the lowest COVID-19 vaccine uptake rates on the continent. On the other hand, nations like Hungary enforce some of the strictest mandatory vaccination policies for childhood diseases, backed by the full force of the law.

This isn’t just a statistical anomaly, but a cultural and historical flashpoint. And in light of recent revelations —from the reanalysis of the Henry Ford Health study to emerging evidence on adverse event reporting, and the controversial rollout of the HPV vaccine in Croatia— we have to ask: what gives?

European Countries with Legal Mandatory Vaccination Regimes

Before examining Eastern Europe, let’s take a snapshot of Europe more broadly. These countries have national laws requiring at least some vaccines for children:

• Italy – 10 mandatory vaccines (measles, mumps, rubella, polio, hepatitis B, pertussis, diphtheria, tetanus, varicella, and Haemophilus influenzae type b). Non-compliance leads to school exclusion or fines.

• France – 11 mandatory vaccines for children under two.

• Hungary – Vaccination is obligatory for children, and refusal can result in fines.

• Czech Republic – Mandatory child immunizations; unvaccinated children cannot attend preschool.

• Slovakia – Vaccination is mandatory for children, with penalties for parents who refuse.

• Poland – Nationally enforced vaccination schedule with fines for noncompliance.

• Bulgaria – Mandatory vaccines for children, enforced through penalties.

• Croatia – Vaccinations are legally required.

• Latvia – Some vaccines are tied to school or childcare requirements.

• Slovenia – Obligatory vaccines for diseases like polio, tetanus, and measles.

Subscribe now

The Numbers Don’t Lie: The Eastern European Vaccine Gap

According to real-world data published in The Lancet Regional Health – Europe in late 2024, the divide between Western and Eastern Europe regarding COVID-19 shots was stark. While countries like Spain and Portugal pushed toward 90% coverage, the eastern part of the WHO European region told a different story.

Using data reported to the WHO, here is a snapshot of uptake with a complete vaccine series (as of late 2023) :

• Bulgaria: 30.4%

• Georgia: 31.6%

• North Macedonia: 39.9%

• Romania: 42.8%

• Croatia: 58.2%

Contrast this with the EU average at the time, which hovered around or somewhat above 70%. The gap is undeniable. The paper notes that vaccine refusals and hesitancy are highest among former communist countries, mentioning the theory that distrust towards governments and health authorities plays a major role. When the state has spent decades telling you what to do, skepticism becomes a survival instinct.

The Hungarian Anomaly: Strict Sticks for Different Carrots

This is where the paradox tightens. You might assume that low COVID uptake correlates with a lax attitude toward vaccines in general. Yet we have shown above how this is not the case. A compelling example is Hungary.

Hungary is a fortress of mandatory vaccination. According to a 2024 presentation on the Hungarian National Immunization Program (NIP), the country has maintained a mandatory schedule since the 1950s. Exemptions are “only tolerated for medical reasons” . Coverage for obligatory vaccines like diphtheria, tetanus, and polio is nearly 100% .

The Immunization Requirements webpage for the International Christian School of Budapest shows this strict approach in action. In Hungary, vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella are not just recommended: they are mandatory, often administered in school-based programs.

Yet during the COVID-19 era, the acceptance of mRNA vaccines among eligible children (age 5+) in Hungary fell to below 30%. Parents may have accepted the MMR vaccine for their child through genuine belief, the coercive pressure of the mandate, or in some cases a mixture of both. But those same parents rejected the COVID shot.

So why the disconnect?

It appears that the refusal isn’t a rejection of “science” or “medicine.” It is a rejection of a suspicious newness, of perceived political expediency — and of a vaccine that was developed, tested, and rolled out in a way that reminded many Eastern Europeans of the top-down decrees of the past.

The Henry Ford Health Study

Much of the global conversation around vaccine safety has been electrified by references to a suppressed Henry Ford Health study by the NIH (Oller et al., 2025). Figures like Del Bigtree have highlighted that this study proves the unvaccinated are far healthier than the vaccinated. The largest vaccinated vs. unvaccinated birth cohort study in U.S. history (n=18,468) tracked children for 10 years — and revealed staggering increases in chronic disease among the vaccinated. Compared to unvaccinated children, those who received one or more vaccines had dramatically higher rates of chronic illness:

• 553% more asthma

• 386% more atopic disease

• 1,120% more autoimmune disease

• 1,254% more neurodevelopmental disorders
    • including 412% more developmental delays
    • and 803% more speech disorders

The study adds to more and more investigation into the comparison of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

In a recent publication, the MMR and MMRV Vaccines were linked to 2,657% more U.S. deaths than measles infection since 1995. For the past 30 YEARS, the vaccine has been far more deadly than the disease — inducing SIDS and cardiac arrests among children (Hulscher, 2026). So how can these products be mandated? The ethical, medically coherent response to the mounting body of evidence would surely be to stop mandatory vaccination programs and have all the data independently researched.

Share World Council for Health

The Placebo Problem and Dr. Tomljenović’s Warning

This brings us to the foundational question of vaccine science: How do we really know they work?

A recent article in EMBO Reports tackled the statements made by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who stated that aside from the COVID vaccine: “none of the others have any kind of long-term testing or even any testing” against a placebo .

The article pushes back, arguing that placebo-controlled trials are often ”unethical“ when an effective vaccine already exists: in their eyes you can’t give a placebo and let someone contract a preventable disease.

But here is where Dr. Tomljenović’s recent interview (embedded below) becomes essential viewing, specifically regarding the push for mandatory HPV vaccines in Croatia. Dr. Tomljenović is arguably the most the most competent researcher on the HPV vaccine in our times.

Interview with Dr. Tomljenović on HPV Mandates in Croatia

The historical narrative we are sold is that vaccines defeated diseases like smallpox. But as historical records from the Wellcome Library show, mortality from diseases like smallpox was already declining due to improved sanitation and nutrition before vaccination was introduced .

While EMBO Reports argues that HPV vaccines went through proper placebo trials, Dr. Tomljenovic’s work has often highlighted the lack of long-term safety data regarding neurological and autoimmune outcomes in the post-licensure phase. The debate is no longer simply about efficacy, i.e. whether the vaccine prevents infection (as rates of cervical cancer have gone up in certain age groups of the vaccinated population), but about the risk-benefit ratio for the individual when mandates are introduced.

If we are going to mandate a vaccine for 12-year-olds (as Hungary does for girls and boys on a “voluntary-based approach” for HPV, but with strong state pressure), we need absolute certainty on safety. The Croatian proposal to make HPV mandatory has reignited this fire, because once a vaccine is mandated, the burden of proof shifts. It is no longer a personal choice, but a state requirement.

Donate

The State and Your Body: Estonia’s Proposed Vaccine Mandate Fines

While much of the Western world debates vaccine policies through the lens of public health campaigns and workplace rules, one Baltic nation is proposing a significant legal shift that raises profound questions about bodily autonomy and the power of the state. In Estonia, a new draft of the Infectious Diseases Prevention and Control Act has been sent for coordination, proposing fines that would make it one of the strictest regimes in Europe for non-compliance with compulsory vaccination.

The draft law, submitted by the Ministry of Social Affairs in early February 2026, outlines clear penalties for individuals who fail to meet immunization deadlines. According to the proposal, a person who violates the requirements for preventing the spread of dangerous infectious diseases —including failing to comply with a compulsory vaccination order— could face a fine of up to 300 fine units. With the current value of a fine unit in Estonia, this translates to a potential penalty of up to 2,400 euros for an individual (Sotsiaalministeerium, 2026). For legal entities, the proposed fine is even more staggering, reaching up to 400,000 euros.

This proposal escalates existing legal frameworks. The current Infectious Diseases Prevention and Control Act already includes penalties for non-compliance, with a fine of up to 300 fine units, as noted in the public discourse surrounding the stance of Estonia’s Reform Party. However, the 2026 draft reinforces and specifies this penalty structure within a broader update of the country’s infectious disease control laws.

For critics, this is more than just a public health measure; it represents a fundamental shift in the relationship between the citizen and the state. The message, they argue, is clear: in the name of preventing epidemics, individual bodily autonomy can be subordinated to governmental mandate, enforced by the threat of significant financial penalty. The debate in Estonia serves as a potent case study for a question many nations are quietly grappling with: in a post-’Pandemic’ world, to whom does our body truly belong?

Why should we trust, if they don‘t verify?

The Eastern European paradox teaches us a valuable lesson. Low vaccine uptake does not equate to ignorance. Sometimes it is the echo of history. In countries where the state was once an instrument of oppression, a mandate from the state triggers a biological alarm.

We now live in an era where scientific information is more and more censored; where “inconvenient” papers are not even allowed through the peer review-to-publication process (or publication is followed by a forced retraction); where mainstream-questioning authors are discredited and punished — and a pharma, industrial, political, media and military complex has been established which claims to be “the science“.

The didactic tone of some published papers is so intense that one can almost see the finger-wagging. The EMBO Reports paper, cited earlier, maintains that placebo testing for vaccines is “not only scientifically unsound but also ethically indefensible”, that existing vaccines are “proven to be safe and effective” — and that Secretary Kennedy and the HHS are “undermining trust in vaccines and science.” Another paper, exploring reasons behind the underreporting of Covid vaccine injury among Polish healthcare professionals, repeatedly emphasises the vital importance of reducing vaccine hesitancy. The skewing of priorities and forfeiting of objectivity in scientific journals is quite phenomenal.

As Eastern Europeans have shown us by resisting the rush for Covid injections, skepticism is not the opposite of science. It is the engine of it.

The Unbreakable Law

To finish, let’s take a journey back in time to a courtroom in Nuremberg. In the aftermath of World War II, the world sat in judgment of doctors who had committed horrific acts in the name of “science.” Out of those trials came a single, shining truth that would become the shield for humanity: the Nuremberg Code.

Think about that. The idea that your body belongs to you, along with custodianship of the tiny bodies of your children, is not a political talking point. It is a post-war legal mandate written in the blood of history. To allow mandatory medical procedures is to take a wrecking ball to that legacy. It is to treat a human being as a means to an end, a cog in a machine, rather than an end in themselves.

This is where informed consent comes in, and it is the most thrilling legal concept you own. It’s the key to the castle: the legal recognition that you are the sovereign ruler of your own skin. No one gets to touch the castle without your permission.

And for parents? You are the guardians of the throne. Until your children are old enough to rule their own kingdom, you hold the sacred duty to protect their bodily integrity against anyone —no matter how white the coat or how official the letterhead— who tries to breach the walls.

The good news is that, according to a recent survey of US citizens across the political divide, the overwhelming majority agree that “every individual has the right to informed consent for prescription medication, vaccinations and all medical interventions.”

At the end of the day, the law and fundamental human ethics make it clear: we are not property. We are persons. And that makes all the difference.

World Council for Health stands for a Better Way.

Disclaimer:

This article is not intended to be used in place of individual medical advice. It cannot be used to diagnose illness or access treatment. Individuals may use the materials provided by World Council for Health to complement the care provided by their qualified, trusted health professionals. All information provided by World Council for Health or in connection with its website is offered to promote consideration by individuals and their trained healthcare providers of various evidence-based prevention and treatment options. The information on this website is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for medical advice. Errors and omissions may occur.

References

Begovac, J. (2024). First real-life data on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation and severe disease from the eastern part of the WHO European Region. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, 47, 101130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.101130

Caplan, A., Pasadyn, F. L., & Mamo, N. (2025). Fool’s-gold science: The ethical and scientific perils of testing most vaccines using placebo-controlled randomized trials. EMBO Reports, 26, 3979–3981. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44319-025-00530-5

Grabowski, J., Niebrzydowska, A., Brzozowska, A., Waszak, P., Zagożdżon, P., Ali, S., Brancewicz, T., Wolff, M., Macul-Sanewska, A., & Bidzan, L. (2025). Underreporting of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare professionals in Poland: Potential implications for vaccine hesitancy. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease, 10(11), 320. https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed10110320

Hulscher, N. (2025, December 11). BREAKING: Peer-reviewed reanalysis of the Henry Ford birth cohort study finds vaccinated children sicker across all 22 chronic disease categories. The Focal Points. https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/breaking-peer-reviewed-reanalysis

Hulscher, N. (2026, February 17). Breaking study: MMR and MMRV vaccines. The Focal Points. https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/breaking-study-mmr-and-mmrv-vaccines

International Christian School of Budapest. (n.d.). Immunization requirements. https://www.icsbudapest.org/apply/immunization-requirements

Meszner, Z. (2024). Immunization issues in Hungary – past and present. BMJ Paediatrics Open, 8(Suppl 5), A10.2. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2024-EPAC.24

Oller, J. W. Jr., Broudy, D., & Hulscher, N. (2025). A peer-review of the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study discussed at the Senate hearing on September 9, 2025. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research , 4(1), 1609-1646. https://doi.org/10.56098/vse7qq65

Siri, A. (2026, March 6). 80% of Americans believe in the right to refuse vaccines. Aaron Siri: Injecting Freedom. https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/80-of-americans-believe-in-the-right

SLOBODNI podcast. (2026, February 22). SLOBODNI podcast #141 — Dr. Lucija Tomljenović: HPV vaccines do more harm than good [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJbDw0OMN-4

Sotsiaalministeerium (Estonia). (2026, February 4). Nakkushaiguste ennetamise ja tõrje seadus [Infectious Diseases Prevention and Control Act] (Draft document No. 26-0163/01). Eelnõude Infosüsteem (Estonian Draft Legislation Information System). https://eelnoud.valitsus.ee/main/mount/docList/6cb755e1-4b44-4375-9fb5-083c46472fce

Wellcome Collection. (n.d.). London’s Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848–1972 [Database]. https://wellcomelibrary.org/moh/

In the sterile meeting rooms of Geneva, a coup is being plotted. It’s not a coup with tanks and soldiers, but with legal clauses, technocratic jargon, and a mountain of pharmaceutical money. The World Health Organization and its globalist backers are in a frantic, final push to erect a central command for global health. The vehicle for this power seizure is an innocuous-sounding piece of text called the PABS Annex.

Put aside for a moment the main Pandemic Agreement you might have heard about. That document has been hollowed out, stripped of its most potent provisions by public and political pressure (ADF International, 2025). The real power —the ability to control the world’s most dangerous pathogens, dictate the distribution of vaccines, and overrule national sovereignty— is being smuggled through the back door in the fine print of PABS: the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System.

This is not a transparent, member-led process. It is a masterclass in psychological manipulation: a rigged game where the outcome has been pre-ordained by unelected bureaucrats and the private interests that fund them. The clock is ticking. The final negotiations are slated to conclude by end of March 2026, with the rubber-stamping expected in May. If we don’t act now, we will wake up in a world where a non-elected, unsupervised international organization —financed 80% by the very industry bodies and interests it is meant to regulate— holds the keys to our most fundamental freedoms.

Subscribe now

The Trojan Horse Called PABS

What exactly is PABS? On paper, it sounds almost noble: a system to ensure that when poor countries share samples of a dangerous new pathogen, they get a fair share of the vaccines and treatments developed from it (World Health Organization, 2025b). The devil, as always, is in the detail. In this case, the details would make Machiavelli blush.

The PABS Annex would create a legally binding, centralized system where:

1. Nations must cede control of their “pathogens with pandemic potential” to a WHO-coordinated laboratory network (Roguski, 2025a).

2. All genetic sequence data of these pathogens must be deposited in a WHO-managed database (Roguski, 2025a), stripping nations of the ability to negotiate bilateral access and terms.

3. Pharmaceutical companies that want access to this goldmine of viral data and samples must sign “legally binding contracts” with the WHO, agreeing to set aside a percentage of their real-time production (20% during a pandemic, at least half of which is a “donation”) for the WHO to distribute (World Health Organization, 2025a).

Proponents frame this as “equity.” But as James Roguski (2025a) brilliantly articulates, PABS is not a public health measure; it is a cartel. It’s the “Organization of Pandemic Emergency Corporations”: a new OPEC for biological weapons-grade material, designed to centralize power and profit in the hands of a few.

The Delphi Deception: How They Rig the Game

If this were a legitimate negotiation, you would expect open debate, dissenting voices, and a genuine effort to find consensus. Instead, as Roguski (2025b) exposes, the process is a textbook application of the “Delphi Technique”—a psychological operation developed by the RAND Corporation in the 1950s to manufacture consensus.

Watch the recorded meetings. You’ll see low-energy, compliant “negotiators” robotically chanting mantras like “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” and “COVID-19 must be the last pandemic” (Roguski, 2025b). They are not actually negotiating, but participating in a theatrical production. The facilitator controls the flow of information, filters out dissenting opinions, and creates a false sense of urgency to stampede the group toward a pre-determined conclusion. They are being led to believe their input matters, all while the WHO Secretariat and its favored stakeholders draft the text behind closed doors. This is not so much diplomacy, as a hostile takeover disguised as multilateralism.

Share World Council for Health

The Peril of Private Power

This brings us to the truth of the entire charade: the WHO is in no position to be anyone’s global health authority. It is a deeply conflicted organization, structurally dependent on the very entities that stand to profit most from a centralized, panic-driven medical system.

The Funding Folly: The WHO is not primarily funded by the “assessed contributions” from its member states. Approximately 80% of its financing comes from voluntary contributions from private organizations and wealthy nations, often earmarked for specific programs (Statista, 2026a). The Gates Foundation has become the largest donor (Statista, 2026b), creating a fundamental conflict of interest. The push for global health centralization —and mass vaccination in particular— is something of a raison d’etre for Bill Gates. This is the same Bill Gates who, according to a draft email among the Epstein court documents, allegedly attempted to medicate his own wife without her knowledge (U.S. Department of Justice (n.d.). Would you trust him to respect your bodily autonomy?

The Accountability Void: This is a non-elected body. You cannot vote out the Director-General. You cannot fire the bureaucrats in Geneva who would be empowered to declare a “pandemic emergency,” triggering the automatic override of your national laws and enabling direct control of 20% of the world’s vaccine supply. A centralized, one-size-fits-all approach to medicine crafted by an unaccountable organization funded by pharmaceutical fortunes is a recipe for medical tyranny.

The Fatal Flaw: One World, One Need?

The entire premise of the PABS system —and the Pandemic Agreement itself— is built on a lie: that a centralized, top-down medical approach can work for a global population. It cannot.

Human beings are not interchangeable cogs. We have decentralized, individual needs and challenges. For a person in a remote village in the Global South, the priority is likely to be clean water and basic nutrition — not a genetically modified mRNA shot. A patient with underlying health conditions may need an early, personalized treatment protocol, not a one-size-fits-all product from a WHO stockpile. Moreover, the “Cobra Effect” is real. The WHO’s single-minded focus on pharmaceutical solutions during COVID-19, while ignoring early treatment and natural immunity, caused immense harm. The people in nations without “equitable access” to these dangerous products often fared better, suffering fewer adverse events than those in the Global North (Roguski, 2025b).

By centralizing pathogen samples and data in a WHO “Bio-Hub” in Switzerland, we are not preventing the next pandemic. On the contrary, as Roguski (2025b) points out, we are incentivizing the hunt for the next Pathogen with Profiteering Potential. We are creating a global surveillance state where unelected officials in Geneva decide what constitutes a health emergency and how the “cure” is allotted.

Donate

The WCH Reports: A Network of Influence

This power grab is not happening in a vacuum, but is being facilitated by a sprawling, opaque network of institutions. Currently, World Council for Health Australia is meticulously preparing an overview report on Australia’s WHO Collaborating Centres. These centres are presented as independent academic or research bodies, but in reality, they act as long arms of the WHO, extending its influence and shaping national policies from within. Similar reports of the USA and UK paint a disturbing picture of how the WHO’s tentacles have already burrowed deep into national infrastructures. These Collaborating Centres are the advance guard, the fifth column preparing the ground for the PABS takeover. They legitimize the WHO’s agenda and provide the “expert” cover for policies that would otherwise be rejected as extreme.

For further insights into WHO Collaborating Centres, you may be interested in the following five articles:

Jeanne A. Rungby

WHO controls whom?

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

Read more

2 months ago · 5 likes · Jeanne A. Rungby

World Council for Health Australia

WHO Is Really Governing Australia’s Health System? The Hidden Network Inside Our Institutions — and Why Leaving the WHO Is Only Half the Answer

There are moments in an interview when something is said that stops you cold. When the pieces of a puzzle you have been assembling for years suddenly lock into place, and the picture that emerges is both undeniable and deeply alarming…

Read more

3 months ago · 63 likes · 8 comments · WCH Australia

A Better Way with Dr Tess Lawrie

What does it mean to Exit the WHO?

Today we have released 2 groundbreaking reports on the USA and UK W.H.O. collaborating centres. These reports outline the extent of influence the USA and the UK institutions have on the WHO’s global ‘health security’ agenda, and vice versa…

Read more

3 months ago · 42 likes · 5 comments · Tess Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD​

What’s in the articles…?

• WHO controls whom? examines WHO’s extensive yet stealthy takeover of regulatory bodies.

• WHO Is Really Governing Australia’s Health System? features an interview with Lucinda van Buuren (WCH Nursing and Midwifery Coordinator; WCH Australia), who has conducted extensive research into the Collaborating Centres.

• What does it mean to Exit the WHO? and Exposing the WHO Collaborating Centres both include the USA and UK reports for download.

• Collaborating Centres, Pathogen Labs and Digital ID includes an eight-minute video clip in which Dr Tess Lawrie explains PABS, dubbing it a “racket of pathogens and pandemics.”

Conclusion: A Prescription for Resistance

What is being prepared in Geneva is not a public health treaty. It is a global governance instrument designed to lock in the emergency powers of the COVID era permanently. It seeks to transform the temporary suspensions of our rights into a permanent “new normal,” all under the benevolent guise of pandemic “preparedness.”

A non-elected organization, overwhelmingly financed by the industry it is meant to oversee, has no legitimacy to create a centralized medical approach for a decentralized world. The individual needs and challenges of people from different cultures, climates, and genetic backgrounds can never be managed by a one-size-fits-all diktat from Geneva.

However, the globalists may well have miscalculated. Public and political pressure has already delayed and hollowed out their grand plan once. We can do it again. The window of opportunity is closing, but it is not yet shut. The world is waking up to the fact that health freedom is the final frontier of human liberty; and the fight against PABS is about whether we will be citizens with rights, or subjects in a global health cartel.

The choice, for now, is still ours.

World Council for Health stands for a Better Way.

Disclaimer:

This article is not intended to be used in place of individual medical advice. It cannot be used to diagnose illness or access treatment. Individuals may use the materials provided by World Council for Health to complement the care provided by their qualified, trusted health professionals. All information provided by World Council for Health or in connection with its website is offered to promote consideration by individuals and their trained healthcare providers of various evidence-based prevention and treatment options. The information on this website is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for medical advice. Errors and omissions may occur.

References

ADF International. (2025, May 19). WHO adopts pandemic treaty without censorship provisions. https://adfinternational.org/news/who-adopts-pandemic-treaty-without-censorship-provisions

Lawrie, T. (2026, February 17). What does it mean to exit the WHO? Substack. https://drtesslawrie.substack.com/p/what-does-it-mean-to-exit-the-who

Roguski, J. (2025a, August 24). Stop the PABS negotiations. Substack. https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/stop-the-pabs-negotiations

Roguski, J. (2025b, September 7). The PABS negotiations are a devious psychological operation. Substack. https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/the-pabs-negotiations-are-a-devious

Rungby, J. A., & van Buuren, L. (2026). WHO controls whom? Substack. https://jeannerungby.substack.com/p/who-controls-whom

Statista. (2026a, March 3). Distribution of contributions to the World Health Organization (WHO) by type. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1552324/distribution-contributions-to-who-by-type/ (Retrieved 13 March 2026)

Statista. (2026b, March 3). Largest donors to the World Health Organization (WHO). https://www.statista.com/statistics/1456464/largest-donors-who/ (Retrieved 13 March 2026)

U.S. Department of Justice. (n.d.). EFTA00965766. In Epstein disclosure files. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00965766.pdf

World Council for Health. (2025, December 3). Collaborating centres, pathogen labs and digital ID: The WHO’s reach goes far deeper than you think. Substack. https://open.substack.com/pub/worldcouncilforhealth/p/collaborating-centres-pathogen-labs

World Council for Health. (2026, February 17). Exposing the WHO collaborating centres: New reports reveal institutional encroachment — on an international scale. Substack. https://open.substack.com/pub/worldcouncilforhealth/p/exposing-the-who-collaborating-centres

World Council for Health Australia. (2026, March 6). WHO is really governing Australia’s health? Substack. https://open.substack.com/pub/wchaustralia/p/who-is-really-governing-australias

World Health Organization. (2025a, May 20). *WHO pandemic agreement: Article 12 (Pathogen access and benefit-sharing system)*. https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA78/A78_R1-en.pdf

World Health Organization. (2025b, November 7). Countries make progress on WHO pandemic agreement annex on pathogen access and benefit-sharing system [Press release]. https://www.who.int/news/item/07-11-2025-countries-make-progress-on-who-pandemic-agreement-annex-on-pathogen-access-and-benefit-sharing-system

Many of us have been there. You try and engage in a frank discussion with friends, family, colleagues and other acquaintances who believe the Covid vaccine was —and still is— a public good. Perhaps they’ve been advised to receive further boosters, or to arrange jabs for those in their care, and you’re desperately trying to get them to reconsider. Your intentions are honourable. You want for everyone to be aware of the falsehoods, corruption and cover-ups; of the subsequent deaths and life-changing injuries that have occurred worldwide.

Yet the response is frequently disheartening: a look of stunned confusion, dismissal, a speedy change of subject or —at worst— outright antagonism. The warnings remain unheeded, and all that’s accomplished is a fractured relationship. It’s demoralising, and can make even the bravest think twice before broaching the topic in future.

Yet there is a beautifully simple way forward. What it requires is an adjustment in how we frame the discussion.

Subscribe now

The psychological barriers

When a person feels they are being challenged outright, this can trigger a strong defensive reflex. It may be the case that for many years, throughout the Covid era but probably starting long before, they have been broadly on board with public health messaging and perceived little reason to mistrust what multiple bodies (health authorities, governments, media, respected medical and other public figures) have been united in conveying to us. To be suddenly hit with an alternative story regarding Covid —that the “vaccine as saviour” message was an orchestrated consensus built on a house of cards— is plain intolerable.

This kind of bombshell is not only destabilising for a person’s worldview, and their relationship with the rules and institutions which were supposed to serve us all, but can seem like an attack on their very self: their intelligence, discernment and moral fibre. Hence the conversational shutdown, or the lashing out.

Furthermore, no two people have an identical experience and there may be multiple factors at play. For some, they may have harboured initial scepticism about the vaccine but felt they had no choice other than to take it, whether through extrinsic coercion or an intrinsic sense of social responsibility. In other instances, they may have more recently begun to see the reality behind the propaganda: perhaps they or their loved ones have shown signs of vaccine injury, and to have their worst suspicions confirmed is too great a blow. And in some cases, there might be lingering guilt or shame about their actions (whether real or perceived) back when vaccine-hysteria was at its height, and how they might have behaved towards others.

The old adage about shooting the messenger is as relevant as ever. The blunt denial of damning evidence, the resort to ridicule, or the sheer unbridled fury that we sometimes encounter in people’s responses are all very natural protective mechanisms. They are the means by which we as humans try and shield ourselves from a potentially shattering emotional fallout. When considered in that light, it all seems less infuriatingly irrational.

But how to counter it?

Share World Council for Health

Using Socratic dialogue to overcome the barriers

Socratic dialogue is an elegant, ethical and highly effective way of breaking down taboos and opening up uncomfortable topics. At its root, it is about calmly asking questions which invite thinking and reflection. This is very different to telling the other person what to think, pushing them to arrive at a particular conclusion before they’re ready, and triggering a defensive reaction.

When we desperately want to be heard, and to "win" the battle of minds, it is easy to assume this is achievable by sheer force of logic, argument and evidence-dumping. But for the reasons outlined earlier, this can be counterproductive.

Below are some tips for taking the Socratic approach:

1. Don’t treat it like a winner-takes-all debate

Expressing shared values/ common ground can be a good starting point: “During Covid, I think ultimately people wanted the same thing – to have sound information and to stay healthy.” Or offering a first-hand experience and personal curiosity: “I’ve been reading into different perspectives, and still have quite a few questions about the safety data. Have you looked into any of that?”

Follow-up questions could then include:

• “How confident do you feel now about the information we were given in 2021?”

• “In retrospect, is there anything you wish had been discussed more transparently?”

• “Was there anything in particular that helped you decide whether to take the vaccine?”

• “Do you think the public discussion around vaccine safety and effectiveness was open enough?”

Notice the use of questions, not assertions. This keeps the tone exploratory and good-faith, not adversarial. Open-ended questions (rather than the yes/no kind) encourage the other person to consider more deeply and articulate their reasoning.

Also:

• Listen more than you speak, and sometimes mirror back (paraphrase) what the other person says before you move to a follow-up question. This way, they feel genuinely heard and respected rather than railroaded.

• After mirroring, use the anchoring step. This is about expanding an idea instead of contradicting. For example, imagine the other person says: “The vaccines were safety-tested before being rolled out to the public.” Your anchoring response could be: “Yes, they did go through certain trials, and the declared emergency meant that entire process was extraordinarily fast. This raises interesting questions about how regulators manage the sheer speed of rollout while still ensuring safety.” A subtle point here is the use of ‘and’ instead of ‘but’: it avoids creating the impression that the other person’s view is being dismissed or negated.

• Avoid rapid-fire questions, as this can feel like an interrogation. Best to ask one question at a time, letting the other person respond, and introducing an example if appropriate.

• ‘How’ and ‘what’ questions are less accusatory than ‘why’. “What information influenced your decision the most?” is more constructive than “Why did you believe the government?”

• Use questions about how decisions were made, not on whether these decisions were right or wrong. “Do you think emergency situations change how much debate is allowed?”

2. Dealing with “anti-vaxxer / conspiracy theorist” labels

There are strategies for handling this:

• Shift the discussion so it’s not about defending a particular claim, but examining how we assess the value of information. “I like to explore a range of sources. I’m curious how we decide which ones are trustworthy in our era of information overload.”

• Invite reflection on standards of evidence and media biases. “Do you think media outlets ever make errors, or sometimes suppress dissident viewpoints on purpose?”

3. Dealing with hostility

Covid —and the vaccines— remains a loaded and emotionally-charged topic. It touches many fundamental aspects of the human psyche, including trust, fear, identity, self-image and status. When a person’s decisions on such a fraught issue are brought into question, the implications are tremendous. “Was I lied to? Did I make a catastrophic choice? Did I unintentionally pressure others to put themselves in danger?” This can manifest as palpable anger. To mitigate this, we recommend that you:

• Focus on questions, not conclusions.

• Allow space for processing ambivalence and uncertainty. “Absolutely, a lot of people are still trying to get their head around what happened during Covid…”

• Introduce information gradually; don’t overwhelm.

• Recognise the limits. If the tone becomes aggressive and about re-asserting status, pause the conversation. Once conflict starts, it is common for people to instinctively double down as a face-saving mechanism — and this is where it gets extremely hard to continue with the topic and diffuse the rising tension. Leave the door open for revisiting the theme later. Sometimes people simply need time and distance to recalibrate and reconsider their perspectives, particularly when they feel under threat.

The next step: WCH’s Safe and Effective campaign

Launched at the beginning of March 2026, this campaign uses QR-coded stickers which link to a page of helpful information regarding the Covid vaccines…

Our blog post explains:

“As we continue to raise awareness of the harms of the Covid injections, this campaign is a fun and easy way to take action, create visibility, raise awareness and stand together against the harms using stickers.

The campaign uses Socratic questioning to encourage people to analyse, evaluate, and justify a claim rather than simply just accepting it – crucially – it doesn’t tell them what to think. It encourages critical thinking, demands evidence, and encourages deeper reasoning.

Why Should I Support?

When you display a WCH Safe and Effective sticker, you’re helping to:
-Raise awareness
-Start important conversations
-Show people how to get help
-Show solidarity
-Spread the message far and wide

Your small action can make a big impression, imagine if thousands of us all over the world placed stickers to raise awareness – it would make a huge impact!”

To buy your stickers, go to:
https://shop.worldcouncilforhealth.org/products/was-it-safe-was-it-effective-sticker?variant=56857920209278

To read about the campaign:
https://www.worldcouncilforhealth.org/safeandeffective/

World Council for Health stands for a Better Way.

Disclaimer:

This article is not intended to be used in place of individual medical advice. It cannot be used to diagnose illness or access treatment. Individuals may use the materials provided by World Council for Health to complement the care provided by their qualified, trusted health professionals. All information provided by World Council for Health or in connection with its website is offered to promote consideration by individuals and their trained healthcare providers of various evidence-based prevention and treatment options. The information on this website is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for medical advice. Errors and omissions may occur.

The origins of homeopathy — and its ostracism

Homeopathy (also spelt homoeopathy) was developed in the late 18th century by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann. Its core principle is that substances which would normally produce symptoms of illness may —when administered in a highly diluted and shaken form— stimulate the body to recover from such symptoms. The word literally means ‘similar suffering’, reflecting the concept that ‘like cures like’.

Although homeopathy has been a part of complementary medicine worldwide for more than 200 years, it is now common to see it dismissed as ‘pseudoscience’, ‘snake oil’ or —at best— ‘just the placebo effect.’ In the UK, for example, the National Health Service stopped offering homeopathic treatment in 2018. On its website, the NHS repeatedly claims there is “no evidence to show homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition.” This is all the more striking when we consider that for more than 160 years, up until its renaming in September 2010, the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine was the Homeopathic Hospital!

Subscribe now

Homeopathy for childhood illnesses

Despite the NHS’s insistence that “extensive investigation” shows no evidence to support homeopathy, there are a number of studies which suggest otherwise. Focusing here on young children and infants, the following reports provide a sense of the sheer range of diseases where homeopathic treatment has led to favourable outcomes:

• Varanasi et al (2025). This study compares homeopathic and allopathic treatments for middle ear inflammation (acute otitis media) in 222 children, aged two to twelve years. Children in the homeopathy group showed an earlier improvement in the severity of their symptoms than those in the conventional group. Even more remarkably, none of the children treated with homeopathy required antibiotics, whereas 14 children (12.4 %) in the conventional group did. This was a randomised controlled trial, although open-label (i.e. both researchers and participants were aware of which group they were in). The authors state “further blinded studies are warranted.”

• Raak et al (2019). This study examined homeopathy as a treatment for infantile colic: specifically comparing the homeopathic remedy Enterokind against the conventional treatment simethicone. Data was taken from 125 infants of 6 months or under. The outcomes showed a statistically significant reduction in complaints and symptom scores in the homeopathic group, and no safety issues emerging. (Again, this was an open-label rather than a double-blinded trial.)

• Witt et al (2009). This was an observational study of 225 children, investigating homeopathy as a treatment for atopic eczema (AE). Because this was not a blinded, randomised trial with a control group, the authors are cautious about asserting any conclusions about homeopathy’s effectiveness. However, they acknowledge that “the strongest improvement in diagnoses and medical complaints was seen in the first 3 months, and it continued during the full observation period. […] After 24 months, the AE as well as the other baseline diagnoses were considerably relieved, while reductions in use of conventional medicines were observed." (Emphasis mine.)

• Jacobs et al (1994). This randomised double-blind clinical trial, in Nicaragua, investigated homeopathy as a treatment for acute childhood diarrhoea. It involved 81 children from 6 months to 5 years of age. The authors concluded: “The statistically significant decrease in the duration of diarrhea in the treatment group suggests that homeopathic treatment might be useful in acute childhood diarrhea. Further study of this treatment deserves consideration.”

Share World Council for Health

Babies, toddlers and homeopathy: remarkable new findings — but forced to retract

In October 2024, a paper by Oberbaum et al. was published in the European Journal of Pediatrics. It was titled ‘Homoeopathy vs. conventional primary care in children during the first 24 months of life—a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.’ The study involved 108 infants in India, who were randomly allocated to either the conventional care or homeopathic group for any acute illnesses that arose. (N.B. Conventional treatment was a safety backup for the homeopathic group when medically indicated.)

The trial was pragmatic, i.e. focused on real-world clinical practice. Furthermore, the authors stated that their aim was to assess homeopathy “as a therapeutic system rather than comparing the effectiveness for a single indication.”

The outcomes showed that the homeopathic group experienced significantly fewer sick days and sickness episodes than the conventional group. The total treatment costs of the former group were less than half that of the latter. And antibiotics were only needed for 14 sickness episodes in the former group, compared with 141 in the latter. It is little wonder that the authors concluded:

“Homoeopathy, using conventional medicine as a safety backdrop, was more effective than conventional treatment in preventing sick days, sickness episodes, and respiratory illnesses in the first 24 months of life. It necessitated fewer antibiotics and its overall cost was lower. This study supports homoeopathy, using conventional medicine as a safety backdrop, as a safe and cost-effective primary care modality during the first 2 years of life.”

However: on 27th October 2025, one year after publication, an Editor’s Note was issued:

“Readers are alerted that concerns have been raised about the methodology of this study. Editorial action will be taken if appropriate once all parties have had an opportunity to respond and our investigation has been completed.”

On 13th December 2025, the paper was retracted.

The retraction notice reads as follows:

“The Editor has retracted this article. Concerns were raised regarding the methodology as described in this article. Postpublication review confirmed concerns regarding the absence of blinding and placebo controls, which in the view of the Editor may introduce significant bias in the interpretation of the data, results and conclusions, which cannot be rectified by an erratum. The Editor therefore no longer has confidence in the reliability of this article. The authors have been invited to submit a revised manuscript that addresses these concerns.”

And significantly:

“Menachem Oberbaum has stated on behalf of the authors that they do not agree to this retraction.”

One has to wonder why the paper was pulled —against the authors’ wishes— fourteen months after undergoing review and publication. Who exactly raised “concerns” about the methodology? And why did “the absence of blinding and placebo controls” retrospectively become such a deal-breaker, long after the paper’s authors had clearly set out their rationale for conducting a pragmatic trial? One could argue that this is a convenient justification for slamming the door against studies whose conclusions fail to fit approved paradigms.

The retracted paper is still available online (at the time of writing).

Where next?

Despite the obdurate gatekeeping, there is cause for hope.

As Oberbaum et al. indicated in the quote above, the “unexplained biological mechanism” is a stumbling block for many who adopt the logic that if something cannot be readily explained by science, then it is not science.

However, this is about to be overturned.

🎥 In the next Homeopathy article from World Council for Health, we present to you an astonishing video interview with Dr Iris Bell.

Dr Bell is a former NIH-funded researcher and professor emeritus at the University of Arizona, with over 150 peer-reviewed publications. In this interview, she presents the hardcore evidence for homeopathy: the rigorous, cross-disciplinary, nanoscale science.

The video is coming soon. Stay tuned…

World Council for Health stands for a Better Way.

Disclaimer:

This article is not intended to be used in place of individual medical advice. It cannot be used to diagnose illness or access treatment. Individuals may use the materials provided by World Council for Health to complement the care provided by their qualified, trusted health professionals. All information provided by World Council for Health or in connection with its website is offered to promote consideration by individuals and their trained healthcare providers of various evidence-based prevention and treatment options. The information on this website is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for medical advice. Errors and omissions may occur.

References

Jacobs J, Jiménez LM, Gloyd SS, Gale JL, Crothers D (1994). Treatment of acute childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine: a randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua. Pediatrics. 1994 May;93(5):719-25. PMID: 8165068. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8165068/

NHS. (2024, April 30). Homeopathy. https://www.nhs.uk/tests-and-treatments/homeopathy/

Oberbaum, M., Chaudhary, A., Ponnam, H. B., Krishnan, R., Kumar, D. V., Irfan, M., Nayak, D., Pandey, S., Archana, A., Bhargavi, S., Taneja, D., Datta, M., Pawaskar, N., Pandey, R. M., Khurana, A., Singer, S. R., & Manchanda, R. K. (2024). Homoeopathy vs. conventional primary care in children during the first 24 months of life—A pragmatic randomised controlled trial [Retraction of original article published 2024]. European Journal of Pediatrics, 183(12), 5455–5465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-024-05791-1

Raak C, Krueger P, Klement P, De Jaegere S, Weber S, Keller T, Ilyenko L, Martin D, Ostermann T. (2019). Effectiveness of a homeopathic complex medicine in infantile colic: A randomized multicenter study. Complement Ther Med. 2019 Aug;45:136-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2019.05.026. Epub 2019 Jun 1. PMID: 31331550.

University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. (n.d.). History of the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine. UCLH. Retrieved March 2, 2026, from https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/our-services/our-hospitals/royal-london-hospital-integrated-medicine/history-royal-london-hospital-integrated-medicine

Varanasi R, Bhalerao R, Sumithran P, Rompicherla KG, Singh P, Ramteke SS, Karthikeyan D, Ramesh D, Subbarayalu B, Chauhan S, Venugopal J, Kampilli S, Meena A, Kumar A, Siddiqui VA, Oberai P, Manchanda RK. (2025). A Comparative Randomized Controlled Trial of Homeopathy versus Allopathy in Acute Otitis Media and Its Recurrence in Children. Complement Med Res. 2025;32(2):110-121. English. https://doi.org/10.1159/000542800. Epub 2025 Jan 24. PMID: 39864417.

Witt, C. M., Lüdtke, R., & Willich, S. N. (2009). Homeopathic treatment of children with atopic eczema: A prospective observational study with two years follow-up. Acta Dermato-Venereologica, 89(2), 182–183. https://doi.org/10.2340/00015555-0580

The decline of Wikipedia as a robust, comprehensive and impartial font of information is not new. This conspicuous shift away from its original role, and its repurposing as a channel for narrative-propagation, has been well documented in previous World Council for Health articles:

and more recently:

What is novel, however, is first-hand e-mail correspondence between a powerful figure and his associate regarding their manipulation of Wikipedia — and of search engines too. Enter Jeffery Epstein and Al Seckel.

Subscribe now

Reputational whitewashing

The Epstein/Seckel emails have been made available as part of a congressional evidence release from the U.S. House Oversight Committee.

According to these emails, Seckel was commissioned by Epstein to smother online information regarding Epstein’s criminality. This involved aggressive manipulation of his Wikipedia entry and search engine algorithms. At this stage, Epstein had already served a prison sentence in 2008-9 for solicitation of prostitution and for solicitation of prostitution with a minor.

On 6th November 2010, Seckel sent Epstein this summary of his work-in-progress:

On 15th-16th December 2010, the correspondence continued — going into further detail about what had been accomplished. These emails are available at https://media-cdn.rollcall.com/epstein-files/House_Oversight_022219-022221.pdf.

To get a fuller picture of how Wikipedia was purportedly parasitised in the interests of reputation management, consider this segment by Seckel from the December thread (quoted verbatim including spelling; emphasis mine):

“Wikipedia was an important victory, as it will always be at the top of the search engine results. ow the head lines do not mention convicted sex offender or pedophile. Instead, Philanthropic work, Epstein Foundation, Promotion of Scientists. […] Your wiki entry now is pretty tame, and bad stuff has been muted, bowlerized, and pused to the bottom. Careful editing and wording has muted the effect immensely […] now has an entirely different photo and caption. This was a big success.”

Likewise with search engines:

“You have only one negative article left on front page of google […] we managed to push it down the page, as it used to be at the top.”

“Toxic suggested search engine terms that popped up automatically when you typed in your name are also now removed.”

“We pushed the Edge [an intellectual forum financially backed by Epstein] all the way up to the front page, where it was previously buried on page 5 of google search.”

“We also helped with you images, and the first images that come of you on a google search are not of your mug shot, etc.”

And the keystone that makes the search manipulations possible:

“I gained access to information that standard seo companies don’t have.”

He emphasises:

“This needs to be contrasted with what we started with, which was a search on your name, which had nine/10 very toxic prominent stories, and toxic Wiki article and headline.”

Donate

Interference and control: the unsettling implications

Beyond Epstein and Seckel, these emails exemplify something highly disturbing. They demonstrate that on a wider level, search outcomes can be brutally corrupted by those with money, influence, and the necessary connections. And even if Wikipedia still followed through on its early idealistic principles, the Epstein/Seckel correspondence highlights the platform’s vulnerability to powerful bad-faith actors.

Staying alert: tracking Wikipedia edits

For an outsider, it is no small task to monitor the esoteric behind-the-scenes workings of search engines and SEO. But on Wikipedia, changes are recorded and available for inspection. It can be illuminating for a visitor to see what revisions were made, when, by whom, and any ‘edit wars’ that may have ensued.

The following applies to any Wikipedia article. On the toolbar below the subject heading:

• Clicking ‘View history’ will show

  • each revision

  • who made the revision (although bad actors, and those who act on their behalf, will surely endeavour to hide their tracks)

  • what was added (in green)

  • what was removed (in red)

• Clicking ‘Talk’ will show the back-and-forth debates between editors. These can be highly revealing.

Administrators sometimes implement ’Page Protection’, meaning they freeze the page against further editing.

Share World Council for Health

When truth is ambushed

To this day, Wikipedia holds a huge influence over search algorithms. Look up someone or something by name, and their Wikipedia entry will likely be either at the top of the search results or extremely close. It has also become a central node in the generating of AI responses. This is far from reassuring, as Wikipedia’s early declaration of objectivity has long been undermined. The Epstein/Seckel emails provide stark first-hand acknowledgement of how readily truth can be ambushed. Although they pertain to a specific context, aim, method and outcome, this does not draw a line under the wider issues at stake.

The story of ‘authoritative’ information sources being compromised or corrupted by potent and shadowy agents is not in itself surprising. Targeted smear campaigns are a notorious tactic— and World Council for Health has certainly been at the receiving end of vicious online slurs. On being labelled by Wikipedia as “a pseudo-medical organisation dedicated to spreading misinformation”, WCH issued a robust rebuttal. Nevertheless, the wording remains.

One month ago, to coincide with Wikipedia’s 25th birthday, WCH published an article exploring that platform’s disconnect and drift from its stated purpose. The article also considers what alternatives might be out there, noting that Grokipedia’s entry on WCH is appreciably more comprehensive, rigorous and balanced.

World Council for Health encourages all who seek facts rather than parroted narratives or convenient cover-ups, and stands for a Better Way.

Disclaimer:

This article is not intended to be used in place of individual medical advice. It cannot be used to diagnose illness or access treatment. Individuals may use the materials provided by World Council for Health to complement the care provided by their qualified, trusted health professionals. All information provided by World Council for Health or in connection with its website is offered to promote consideration by individuals and their trained healthcare providers of various evidence-based prevention and treatment options. The information on this website is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for medical advice. Errors and omissions may occur.

In December 2025, World Council for Health published an introduction to the WHO Collaborating Centres (CCs): what they are, where they are, what they do — and why their proliferation gives tremendous cause for concern.

Since then, World Council for Health has produced two detailed country-specific reports: USA and UK. These unique reports provide vital insights into the issues surrounding WHO Collaborating Centres: issues which are of grave significance yet up until now have been largely ignored. Both documents can be downloaded here.

Usa Who Ccs Overview Report 26th Jan 2026

629KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Uk Who Ccs Overview Report 23rd Jan 2026

541KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Various kinds of organisation can be designated as WHO Collaborating Centres. This includes governmental and public health agencies (such as the CDC and UKHSA), research institutes, hospitals and universities. Notable examples include —among many others— the UK’s Francis Crick Institute, and the US’s Harvard Medical School and Stanford University.

The two reports document which US and UK bodies have WHO Collaborating Centre status (at the time of writing), as well as their terms of reference and scope of activities. CC subject areas span a mind-bogglingly broad spectrum: from cancer to climate change, malaria to mental health.

WHO’s where? Current state of play

At the time of writing (16th February 2026), WHO’s database shows the US has 63 active Collaborating Centres — despite having technically exited the WHO on 22nd January. The UK has 62.

Furthermore, in terms of sheer CC numbers, the US and UK are clearly in the lead. China is a close third, followed by India, then Australia. These top five comprise 35% of the world’s 813 CCs. And it shows how massively influential the US and UK are in terms of WHO-disseminated output — which of course includes pandemic policy and products.

Therefore, the US exit from WHO is rendered seemingly meaningless — unless all of its remaining Collaborating Centre contracts are terminated. But as Section 1.13 of the US report tells us, the situation has not been made clear:

“Given that the contracts are between the WHO and the institutions designated as CCs, whether this extensive and reciprocally influential relationship will be impacted (by the US’s departure) has yet to be elucidated. Of the four CCs designated in 2025, three were designated after the US issued its notice of withdrawal.”

Subscribe now

Expansion by stealth: how WHO’s influence is deepened and strengthened by the Collaborating Centre model

The two reports highlight some troubling features in this system of ‘partnerships’. It may be a cliché to say so, but the devil truly is in the detail.

1. The number of new WHO Collaborating Centres accelerated in the Covid and post-Covid era.

In the UK, an astonishing half of its active CCs were designated since 2021. In the US, more than a third were designated from 2020 onwards. This may well arouse suspicion as it begs the question: why the surge?

2. Contracts are dominated by ‘WHO Request’ and ‘Support WHO’.

This suggests that WHO is deploying these institutions in order to implement its required agendas. In other words, this is policy outsourcing in disguise.

It is important to note the reciprocal relationship between WHO and its Collaborating Centres. However, this is far from being an assuredly wholesome ‘partnership’ in which objective, independent expertise and best practice is shared for the good of humanity. Instead, there is a huge question mark surrounding the convoluted layers of funding, influence, and the behind-the-scenes involvement of sketchy but powerful bodies.

3. Subject areas are heavily dominated by two macro-areas.

These are Communicable diseases/infection/pandemic and General health systems/policy.

One might raise an eyebrow at the overwhelming emphasis on communicable diseases and global systems/policy. For this dual fixation maps neatly onto two of WHO’s most cherished projects: the Pandemic Agreement and the Amended International Health Regulations.

4. Certain activity types are prevalent.

Both reports note that ‘training and development’ and ‘product development’ are the predominant activity types. It is worth noting that ‘product development’ refers not only to tangible items such as biological products and equipment, but also to guidelines, diagnostics and methodologies.

Why does this matter? Because these activities shape professional and regulatory norms. Coupled with the heavy emphasis on global systems and policy as outlined above, this becomes a subtle means of generating widespread policy alignment.

5. The system is convoluted, and transparency is missing.

Contracts are between WHO and the ‘partner’ institutions. Hence they can fly under the radar for years, bypassing any kind of public scrutiny or accountability.

It is interesting when institutions do not explicitly acknowledge their WHO Collaborating Centre status on their websites. One example is the US’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) — as noted in Section 5.6 of the US report. After considerable searching on the NIOSH website, it seems the only mention of its Collaborating Centre status is tucked away on a remote page referring to a 2016 publication. Yet it remains an active CC. Why would NIOSH —along with other institutions— sooner downplay its connection with WHO, rather than emblazon it proudly?

To complicate matters further, as well as ‘straightforward’ CC status, there are additional organisational strata baked into the WHO model. In the Americas, the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) adds an extra regional layer — i.e. it serves as another channel by which WHO can operate. And let’s not forget GOARN (WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network). Several key WHO Collaborating Centres are also GOARN partners: this includes the CDC, John Hopkins University and the University of Texas Medical Branch.

Share World Council for Health

And those that were discontinued…?

The ~800 active WHO Collaborating Centres are just one part of the story. There are many others which are no longer active. It is important not to overlook these, as their scope, subjects and types of activity can cast considerable light on WHO’s evolving operations and priorities.

One to note is SWI-61, the WHO Collaborating Centre for e-Health, based at Hôpitaux universitaires de Genève in Switzerland. This CC was designated for fifteen years, finally terminating on 5th January 2025. Included in its General Scope is: “Support WHO activities for the implementation of the global strategy on digital health.” The available evidence indicates that SWI-61 was an original and leading CC on digital health worldwide.

The tentacles of ‘public health’ — and questions to keep asking

There are many reasons to be concerned about WHO overreach and the Covid-style public health tyranny which, by now, we are all too familiar with. The two reports substantiate such concerns.

For example, this is from Section 1.7 of the UK report:

“The UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) has contracts for 9 (15%) of the CCs. Other UK government institutions are involved in another 9 contracts (15%), including Public Health Scotland and Public Health Wales (2 contracts each).”

And from Section 1.7 of the US report:

“The oldest of the CCs still operating, the WHO CC for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Control of Influenza … began in 1956. The responsible institution is the Influenza Division of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This WHO CC played a significant role in COVID-19 surveillance, tests and vaccines.” (Emphasis mine.)

If we are to counter the encroaching overreach, we need to keep investigating and shining a light where there is shadiness and obfuscation. Here are some questions to keep in mind:

1. How are these WHO Collaborating Centre ‘partnerships’ authorised and regulated — and by whom?

2. How are they funded?

3. What exactly are the deliverables which are created ‘at WHO request’?

4. How do these deliverables feed into wider policy, systems or training?

5. Is the public-facing database transparent and trustworthy?

To access the WHO Collaborating Centres Database, go to https://who.my.site.com/ecc/s/

World Council for Health will continue shining a light and searching for answers, and stands for a Better Way.

To read our introduction to WHO Collaborating Centres:

Acknowledgements:

The World Council for Health reports cited in this article were prepared by volunteers David Abbott and Fiona Wood CA, based on extensive groundwork by Lucinda van Buuren (WCH Nursing and Midwifery Coordinator), with input from Dr Tess Lawrie (Director, EbMC2 CIC).

Please watch this important video message from Dr Tess Lawrie:

Disclaimer:

This article is not intended to be used in place of individual medical advice. It cannot be used to diagnose illness or access treatment. Individuals may use the materials provided by World Council for Health to complement the care provided by their qualified, trusted health professionals. All information provided by World Council for Health or in connection with its website is offered to promote consideration by individuals and their trained healthcare providers of various evidence-based prevention and treatment options. The information on this website is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for medical advice. Errors and omissions may occur.