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

a month 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

a month 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

2 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

2 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.

Many countries around the world demand that all children be vaccinated against measles. When they start school or kindergarten, their parents are asked for proof of vaccination. The state tells them the injection is beneficial and protective for their child.

What is not mentioned is that vaccination is a medical procedure that can be harmful. The damage can be caused by the active ingredient itself, or by the adjuvants (chemical agents contained in every vaccine to enhance the immune response). To date, there are hardly any comparative studies showing that vaccinated children are healthier than unvaccinated children. The studies that do exist actually show the opposite! For more on this, see the Henry Ford Birth Cohort study.

Plus a very recent McCullough Foundation study, published on 17 February 2026, concludes that the MMR vaccine has a far higher mortality rate than measles itself:

FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse)

BREAKING STUDY: MMR and MMRV Vaccines Linked to 2,657% More U.S. Deaths Than Measles Infection Since 1995

by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH…

Read more

2 months ago · 383 likes · 82 comments · Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

In order to make the best decisions for their children —and to stand up to external pressure— parents need to be armed with the relevant knowledge. For this reason, groups of medical professionals have come together to offer clear-sighted and accessible information in several countries:

Subscribe now

🇩🇪 Germany: the society Physicians and Scientists for Health, Freedom and Democracy (MWGFD) has set up a working group to campaign against compulsory measles vaccination and the existing Measles Protection Act in Germany.

To learn more, visit https://masernschutzgesetz.mwgfd.org/. And to watch their video (translated into 33 languages), visit https://www.kla.tv/39764?autoplay=true#s=en

🇨🇦 Canada: Vaccine Choice Canada has put together a Measles Vaccine Information factsheet. It can be downloaded here:

Measles Vaccine Information

236KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

To find out more, visit https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/ and https://uptoeveryone.com/products/new-parents-guide-to-understanding-vaccination.

🇺🇸 USA: Physicians for Informed Consent was established in California in 2015. Visit https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/mmr/ for information on measles, mumps, rubella, and the MMR vaccine — including downloadable PDFs.

Share World Council for Health

Treating acute measles — what current research shows

An international team, including members of the Independent Medical Alliance (IMA), has recently published a systematic review of evidence-based treatment options. It appears in the journal Antiviral Research.

Although the study’s authors do advocate vaccination, they nonetheless affirm that targeted therapies play a vital role. They stress the need for further investigations.

A press release issued by IMA summarises the main points:

• Vitamin A supplementation is consistently shown to reduce measles-related deaths, especially in populations with vitamin A deficiency.

• Ribavirin and interferon-α have shown clinical benefit, particularly where patients are immunocompromised.

• Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and antibiotics (which prevent secondary infections) can help prevent complications — as can the immune-boosting properties of vitamins C and D.

• Antivirals and monoclonal antibodies show good potential, as demonstrated in preclinical studies.

The study, by Kaur et al. (2026), is at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.antiviral.2026.106361

World Council for Health supports informed choices for all families and individuals, 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.

Part One: Germany, St Lucia, Canada and Ireland – the story unfolds

On 2nd February 2026, World Council for Health’s Better Way Today broadcast featured an international panel of remarkable doctors. All have stood up against Covid mandates: whether through issuing mask/vaccine exemptions, ivermectin — or information based on medical knowledge and sound judgement rather than top-down diktats. All have paid a heavy price.

In the case of Germany: the relentless persecution of dissident doctors, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s support for their cause, and his message to the German Health Minister —along with the Minister’s dismissive response— are well documented in this post from Dr Tess Lawrie:

A Better Way with Dr Tess Lawrie

Politically Persecuted Doctors in Germany

Germany is rapidly becoming notorious for human rights violations against lawyers and doctors who questioned the COVID policies. German doctors recently appealed to Robert F. Kennedy Jr for outside intervention. Kennedy’s welcome response can be found at the end of this article. Below is an update by persecuted German doctor Walter Weber about the situ…

Read more

3 months ago · 123 likes · 19 comments · Tess Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD​

The Better Way Today broadcast deserves to be heard in its entirety. The first-person accounts from four countries bring home the very human stories behind the witch hunts, bad-faith lawfare, and malicious attacks on these doctors’ reputations. Here is some of their testimony:

Subscribe now

Germany (i): Dr Monika Jiang

Dr Jiang was convicted, after a long legal battle, for issuing mask exemptions back in 2020 — even though this was not framed as a criminal offence at that time. Instead, an obscure law dating from 1940 was later unearthed and applied retrospectively. In January 2021, her practice was raided and patient files confiscated. In 2024, she was finally sentenced to two years’ probation and fined €46,000. The authorities also threatened to prosecute patients who had requested exemptions.

“For doing no harm… also saving children for being not tortured with masks in school, it was unbelievable… I didn’t find justice in this case because it’s political. They want to prosecute the people, they want to punish them… and almost all the other doctors were scared. So they didn’t in the beginning write the mask exemptions, and afterwards they didn’t dare to write any vaccination exemptions.”

Germany (ii): Dr Walter Weber

Dr Weber is co-founder of Doctors for Enlightenment. In early 2022, his house had a ‘visitation’ by armed police and items were confiscated. In December 2024, he was sentenced to 20 months’ probation.

“And so I’m a so-called criminal in Germany because I wrote mask exemptions… I didn’t accept that it was wrong, so I would do the same thing again.”

Germany (iii): Dr Josef Dohrenbusch

Dr Dohrenbusch, a Munich GP, was also issuing mask exemptions. In February 2021, he too was raided by armed police. This time, the raid (around 4.5 hours in total) occurred at his practice while patients were present. After a three-day tribunal in 2025 —and some disingenuous manoeuvres by prosecutors concerning whether he had seen patients in person or not— he was fined €18,000 and is currently on probation while he takes the fight to the next level.

“Patients told me of flashbacks they had when they wear these masks or saw these masks, mainly person with sexual abuse trauma… so I was prepared to make these mask exemptions…”

St. Lucia: Dr Gilberta St. Rose

Dr St. Rose had been advocating for ivermectin, and using it in her practice with excellent outcomes. When the Chief Medical Officer went on television to warn the public against ivermectin, Dr St. Rose openly challenged her. Consequently, Dr St. Rose was accused of ‘negligence’ and fined for ‘conducting a clinical trial’ (when in fact she was simply documenting patient information, as protocol required).

“Ivermectin was the solution. But their solution was really the Covid injection, and this is what was being protected. This is why ivermectin was being demonised and anybody else who wanted to use ivermectin would have been stopped. And so they proceeded to suspend my medical licence…”

In April 2025, the Medical Council threatened to strike her from their register unless she paid the fine. To this day, she has refused. The threat still looms.

“I am ready to do something to deal with them, because they have taken me through a lot of trauma, they have put doubts in my patients’ heads… the illusion that I have done something wrong, they have persecuted, they have harassed, they have bullied.”

Canada: Dr Mark Trozzi

In 2020, Dr Trozzi was an emergency doctor with 26 years of experience. He quickly realised the discrepancy between the official Covid narrative and the reality of empty hospitals, exaggerated mortality figures and inexplicably-banned treatments.

“When I realised that my neighbours, my fellow countrymen, humans all around the world were about to be coerced into a deadly genetic experiment, under false pretences which involved fraud and misrepresentation, I took the gloves off and joined the war. I resigned my privileges… I was actually warning doctors and nurses, saying ‘hey, be careful, we’re being coerced by the colleges to commit medical crimes.’”

He and others went on to issue vaccine exemptions, requiring no other reason than the person simply not wanting to be injected. This respect for personal sovereignty is the very basis of medical ethics. However:

“The college didn’t like that, they launched investigations into me, and as things deteriorated… they revoked my licence… I just stayed on mission, saving lots of lives… and I have zero regrets.”

Ireland: Dr Marcus de Brun

Dr de Brun, a GP, resigned from the Irish Medical Council in April 2020. He has confidence that history will be the great vindicator.

Share World Council for Health

Part Two: UK —the grotesque blacklisting of Dr David Cartland

In June 2025, Dr Cartland —an outspoken critic of Covid policy— was de-registered as a GP by the UK’s General Medical Council. The hearing took place in a closed panel.

On 5th Feb 2026, he posted a video message on X and subsequently on YouTube. It begins:

“You all know that I’ve been struck off as a doctor for incidents not involving any patients: no negligence, no harm. It was for Internet behaviours, calling out false information that was harmful in my opinion, and making safeguarding concerns regards pregnancy and giving the jab to children, and calling out those that said it was safe in both those cohorts. I also wrote five letters allowing people to go and visit dying relatives abroad – or sick relatives – and that led to me being struck off.”

However, it gets worse. Dr Cartland recently received a letter from the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), a body which runs criminal record checks for employers and other recruiters — including for voluntary work. The letter announces that the DBS has deemed it “wholly appropriate and proportionate” to bar him from working with children or vulnerable adults, as his “conduct poses a considerable safeguarding risk.” The reasoning behind this ruling is opaque. The penalty for breaching it is a £5,000 fine and/or custodial sentence.

Dr Cartland continues:

“Since the strike-off, my absolute passion has been to referee grass-roots football … it’s kept me fit, it’s kept me sane… I’m now unable to do that, because it’s looking likely that the FA, they’ve already said they’re suspending me being appointed to future matches while they do a ‘risk assessment’, but doesn’t look good… Because of this (letter), I can now no longer referee children’s football. I’m on a criminal list, having committed no crimes.

I think people need to know that this is what’s happened. So it’s not just the strike-off, it’s not just the anonymous contact with children’s services making anonymous complaints about me, it’s not just the anonymous police reports… it’s banning me from being employed. This will make me unemployable… wrongthink leads to complete disassembly of wrongthinkers’ life.”

Dr Cartland states that he will be pursuing an appeals process.

Meanwhile, a petition has been set up to demand accountability and justice for him. To sign the petition, add a message of support —and to learn more about the legal implications of this Kafkaesque dismissal and blacklisting— go to https://www.change.org/p/demand-justice-for-dr-david-cartland

World Council for Health supports all doctors of integrity, 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.

Another year, another Davos. The World Economic Forum’s conclave has wrapped.

The WEF’s promotional video portrays the organization as a perspective-sharing and problem-solving wonderland: one which transcends national, cultural and political divides and exists only for the good of global society.

Yet a closer look reveals a different picture. The “elite consensus” for our future is clear: a world transformed by AI, digitized medicine, a “managed” energy transition, and global governance for a period of permacrisis.

Is this really the way forward? Or is it a road to a soft-totalitarian nightmare that millions of people never signed up for?

Decoding the Davos Vision: A World Without Humans (As We Know Them)

1. Your Job is Obsolete, Your Life is Data: The WEF gleefully champions AI as the “central transformative force.” This isn’t just about productivity. It’s about the deliberate replacement of millions of jobs: not just manual, but creative and analytical. The “upskilling” narrative is a cruel joke, whether for a 50-year-old truck driver or a mid-level analyst. The real product in this new economy is you. That means your data, your attention, your biological and behavioral metrics.

2. The “Transparent Human” & Medical Panopticon: The future of healthcare is predictive, preventive, personalized. Translated: Your wearable will constantly monitor your vitals. AI will assess your genetic and behavioral “risks.” Your insurance premium —and perhaps your social privileges— will adjust in real time. This may be dressed up as wellness, but in fact it’s a pre-crime system for health, creating the perfect framework for a Social Credit System. Miss your exercise target? Eat a forbidden food? Skip a vaccine booster? Your score drops, and your world quietly contracts.

3. The Digital Leash: EMF, Control, and Constant Censorship: This always-on, sensor-filled world requires a blanket of electromagnetic frequency (EMF) radiation: 5G, 6G, and beyond. The long-term biological effects on humans and ecosystems are dismissed as fearmongering, while independent research is sidelined. Coupled with this infrastructural leash is increased censorship. “Misinformation” is the catch-all term for any dissent against the approved narrative on climate, health, or the benevolence of the Great AI. Digital ID will be the key that locks you into this system. No ID: no access to services, travel, or the economy.

4. The “Managed” Transition to an Owned World: The urgent emphasis on energy isn’t about empowering communities. It’s about replacing one centralized system (fossil fuels) with another (digital smart grids, renewable assets owned by megacorps) where your energy consumption can be micromanaged and restricted. So-called “15-minute cities” are the testing ground. The supposedly pragmatic embrace of natural gas suggests this isn’t about saving the planet; it’s about managing the decline of individual agency and consolidating control during the transition.

This is not to be dismissed as mere conspiracy theory. It is a logical extrapolation of the papers, panels and partnerships emanating from Davos. It is a future of quantified, controlled and constantly nudged existence, which heralds the death of the sovereign individual.

Subscribe now

Snapshots of Dystopia

It can be illuminating to explore not just what is being promoted, but how it is framed. This includes the language used, what is being praised, and what is sidestepped or dismissed.

Snapshot 1: Harari, AI, Humanity and the Future

Yuval Noah Harari is a familiar name at WEF forums. Over the years, many observers have concluded that his pronouncements amount to cheerleading for a post-human (i.e. anti-human) agenda; although others insist that his views on AI and transhumanism are merely speculative, analytical and even cautionary. Nevertheless, in his talk at Davos 2026, it is interesting to note where he doesn’t go. He raises the issue of AI approaching the point where it can easily outperform humans in all scholarly and imaginative tasks. Yet he says virtually nothing about the spark that enables uniquely human brilliance– or how we can and must fight back against the looming intellectual and creative redundancy which he instead presents as inescapable destiny.

The talk is titled "An Honest Conversation on AI and Humanity.” But is it a truly honest conversation? It takes only the materialist portion of the story, and omits the crucial part which would re-affirm our inalienable place in the world.

‘As far as putting words in order is concerned, AI already thinks better than many of us. Therefore, anything made of words will be taken over by AI (…) Previously all the words, all our verbal thoughts, they originated in some human mind. Either my mind I thought this, or I learned it from another human. Soon most of the words in our minds will originate in a machine. AIs will soon be the origin of maybe most of the words in our minds.’

–Yuval Noah Harari, An Honest Conversation on AI and Humanity, Davos 2026

Snapshot 2: 15-minute Cities

In this WEF article from 2022, the Covid lockdowns are lauded as a beneficent policy which forcibly transformed how we go about our lives– for the better. Note the effusive glorifying of that era:

‘But with COVID-19 and its variants keeping everyone home (or closer to home than usual), the 15-minute city went from a “nice-to-have” to a rallying cry. Meeting all of one’s needs within a walking, biking or transit distance was suddenly a matter of life and death (…) When a new framing meets its moment, something more than a fad is emerging. Prior to the pandemic, few planners would have taken seriously the idea that “home” become the central organizing factor of all urban planning (…) the 15-minute city concept is taking hold in a way that it would not have before the pandemic.’

Remember “Build Back Better”…?

And if there is any doubt as to whether another convenient “crisis” could be leveraged to further push the agenda of ghettoisation and restricted movement, this handy bullet point is included in the opening summary:

‘As climate change and global conflict cause shocks and stresses at faster intervals and increasing severity, the 15-minute city will become even more critical.’

Share World Council for Health

A Real Alternative: A Sustainable, Sovereign, and Free Future for Humanity

We must reject this dystopian “consensus” and build a tangible, life-affirming alternative. The true way forward is not hyper-technological control, but a return to fundamental principles of freedom, sovereignty, and ecological harmony.

1. Distributed & Human-Scale Technology. We need technology that serves humans, not vice versa. This means:

• Open-Source & Decentralized Platforms: Tools for communication, currency (like decentralized cryptocurrencies with privacy features) and community governance that are resistant to censorship and corporate capture.

• Appropriate Tech: Environmentally-friendly energy systems owned by households and communities, not mega-corporations. Regenerative agriculture that rebuilds soil and feeds localities. Technology that increases resilience and self-sufficiency at the family and town level.

2. Medicine That Heals, Not Monitors. True healthcare is:

• Holistic & Empowered: Focusing on nutrition, clean environment, community, and spiritual health. These are factors which Big Tech and Big Pharma can’t patent.

• Privacy-Preserving: Your medical data belongs to you, on your own encrypted device. The doctor-patient relationship is sacred and confidential, not a data stream for AI analysis.

3. An Economy of Regeneration & Sovereignty.

• Local Circular Economies: Rebuilding local production of food, goods and energy. Shortening supply chains empowers communities and devastates the globalist control model.

• Property Rights & Self-Ownership: The bedrock of freedom. This includes ownership of your data, your body, your home, and the fruits of your labor. Fight digital ID schemes relentlessly.

4. The Foundation: Uncompromising Freedom of Speech & Thought. All else fails without this. We must:

• Build and use parallel information networks.

• Support dissident writers, journalists and scientists.

• Teach our children critical and creative thinking, not compliance.

• Reject the notion that safety (from “misinformation,” from “risks”) is worth the exchange for liberty.

We are at a fork in the road. One path leads to the digitized cage; while the other leads to a free, sustainable and truly human world. It is time to choose, and to build.

The Davos “Elite” are building a world for themselves: a technocratic world of managers in a human zoo. They fear free and sovereign humans living in alignment with nature. Our mission is to render their system obsolete by building an alternative: a world not of transhumanist fusion with the machine, but of a profound reconnection— to our own humanity, to our communities, and to the living planet that sustains us.

In solidarity for a free future and a Better Way,

World Council for Health

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.

For decades, a silent, slow-motion public health catastrophe has unfolded on our grocery store shelves and in our kitchens. The culprits? Ultra-processed foods (UPFs). These are engineered substances of industrial ingredients, often laden with additives, unhealthy fats, refined sugars, and salt: designed to be hyper-palatable, cheap, and endlessly shelf-stable.

In December 2025, a significant shift occurred. The San Francisco City Attorney’s Office filed a groundbreaking lawsuit against the titans of the UPF industry: Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestlé USA, Kellogg, Mars, ConAgra, and Post Holdings (San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, 2025).

In the words of SF City Attorney David Chiu:

“They took food and made it unrecognizable and harmful to the human body. We must be clear that this is not about consumers making better choices. Recent surveys show Americans want to avoid ultra-processed foods, but we are inundated by them. These companies engineered a public health crisis, they profited handsomely, and now they need to take responsibility for the harm they have caused.”

Subscribe now

Let’s break down why this is a watershed moment.

The Legal Case: Deception, Addiction, and Disease

The lawsuit frames UPFs not as mere “junk food,” but as defective and unreasonably dangerous products. The core allegations read like a corporate malfeasance playbook:

• Deceptive Advertising: Marketing sugary cereals, snack packs, and sodas as “fun,” “wholesome” or even “healthy,” normalizing them as part of a regular diet.

• Failure to Warn: Withholding from consumers the well-established scientific evidence linking high UPF consumption to chronic disease.

• Targeting the Vulnerable: Designing marketing campaigns that disproportionately impact children, low-income families, and communities of color.

• Negligence & Breach of Warranty: Selling products that are fundamentally unfit for their ordinary intended use – i.e. of sustaining human health.

The goal is not just financial penalties, but structural change. This would mean clear warnings, an end to deceptive marketing, and accountability for the true cost of these products.

N.B. At the time of writing, the case is still at an early procedural stage. Therefore, as yet, no substantive court rulings have been made public.

The Unavoidable Science: UPFs and the Wave of Chronic Disease

This lawsuit is possible because the science linking UPFs to chronic disease is now overwhelming. These are not just empty calories, but biologically disruptive substances.

• Landmark Studies: A seminal 2019 controlled trial by Hall et al. provided causal evidence. Participants on a UPF diet consumed around 500 more calories per day and gained weight compared to those on a minimally processed diet, despite the menus being matched for presented energy, macronutrients, sugar, fat, and fiber. The findings suggest that the body processes these engineered foods differently.

• Epidemiological Evidence: Large-scale observational studies consistently find associations between high UPF consumption and cardiovascular disease (Srour et al., 2019), as well as higher overall cancer incidence and cancer mortality (Chang et al., 2023). Elsewhere, there have been reported connections with obesity, type 2 diabetes, depression, and all-cause mortality. A 2024 review in The BMJ linked higher UPF intake with 32 harmful health outcomes: this includes cardiovascular death, with relative risks up to ~50% higher in high-exposure groups (Lane et al., 2024).

• The Mechanism: UPFs are designed to override our natural satiety signals. Their physical structure (soft, low-chew) and chemical makeup (flavor enhancers, emulsifiers) drive overconsumption (Monteiro et al., 2019). Furthermore, additives and processing byproducts may promote inflammation (Zinöcker & Lindseth, 2018) and disrupt gut microbiota (Chassaing et al., 2017).

The lawsuit rightly identifies the result: a colossal man-made health crisis. Rates of childhood obesity, type 2 diabetes (once called “adult-onset”) and fatty liver disease have skyrocketed, setting our youth on a trajectory of lifelong illness.

Beyond the Courtroom: The Case for Regenerative, Decentralized Food Systems

Holding corporations accountable is a critical first step. But the second, more profound step is to rebuild our relationship with food at its source. To truly heal our bodies and our planet, we must transition from the kind of industrial agriculture which relies on synthetic pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers to grow the corn, soy and wheat that become UPFs, and move towards a decentralized, chemical-free, regenerative model.

Why This Matters for Human Health

Our basic micronutrient needs —vitamins, minerals, antioxidants— are met not by fortified, processed substances, but by nutrient-dense whole foods grown in healthy soil. Synthetic chemicals deplete soil microbiology, which in turn reduces the nutrient content of our crops (Montgomery & Biklé, 2022). Supporting local, organic and regenerative farmers is the direct path to supplying people with the foundational nutrition required for immune function, cognitive health and metabolic resilience.

Why This Matters for Our Living Planet

Industrial monoculture is a war on biodiversity. Synthetic pesticides and herbicides are indiscriminate killers, devastating populations of insects (including vital pollinators like bees), reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals that rely on diverse plant life. They contaminate waterways and degrade topsoil.

A decentralized, chemical-free agricultural system does the opposite:

• It supports insects. By eliminating neonicotinoids and other pesticides, we allow pollinator and beneficial insect populations to recover.

• It protects wildlife. Hedgerows, diverse crop rotations and healthy soil create habitat for birds, small mammals and reptiles.

• It nourishes plants and soil. Regenerative practices are proposed to sequester carbon, improve water retention, and create a resilient, living ecosystem (Rhodes, 2017).

Share World Council for Health

What You Can Do: Vote with Your Fork and Your Voice

1. Support the lawsuit. Follow the case and talk about it. Public pressure matters.

2. Boycott the defendants’ products. This is the most direct economic signal. Read labels and avoid brands owned by these conglomerates.

3. Invest in real food. Prioritize your food budget towards:

   • Local farmers’ markets & community-supported agriculture (CSAs). Build a direct relationship with those who grow your food.

   • Organic & regenerative organic certified. Support farming that rebuilds soil and bans synthetic inputs.

   • Whole, minimally processed foods. Cook at home, for this is the ultimate act of food sovereignty.

4. Advocate. Demand better school lunches, honest food labeling, and agricultural policies that support small-scale, sustainable farmers over industrial conglomerates.

The San Francisco lawsuit is a crack in the dam. It is a long-overdue attempt to hold powerful actors accountable for profiting from the destruction of public and planetary health. But the real power to build a better system lies in our daily choices. Let’s choose food that heals our bodies, nurtures our children, and protects the intricate web of life we all depend on.

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

Chang, K., Gunter, M. J., Rauber, F., Levy, R. B., Huybrechts, I., Kliemann, N., Millett, C., & Vamos, E. P. (2023). Ultra-processed food consumption, cancer risk and cancer mortality: a large-scale prospective analysis within the UK Biobank. eClinicalMedicine, *56*, 101840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101840

Chassaing, B., Koren, O., Goodrich, J. K., Poole, A. C., Srinivasan, S., Ley, R. E., & Gewirtz, A. T. (2015). Dietary emulsifiers impact the mouse gut microbiota promoting colitis and metabolic syndrome. Nature, 519(7541), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14232

Hall, K. D., Ayuketah, A., Brychta, R., Cai, H., Cassimatis, T., Chen, K. Y., Chung, S. T., Costa, E., Courville, A., Darcey, V., Fletcher, L. A., Forde, C. G., Gharib, A. M., Guo, J., Howard, R., Joseph, P. V., McGehee, S., Ouwerkerk, R., Raisinger, K., … Zhou, M. (2019). Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake. Cell Metabolism, 30(1), 67-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008

Lane, M. M., Gamage, E., Du, S., Ashtree, D. N., McGuinness, A. J., Gauci, S., Baker, P., Lawrence, M., Rebholz, C. M., Srour, B., Touvier, M., Jacka, F. N., O’Neil, A., Segasby, T., & Marx, W. (2024). Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: Umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses. BMJ, 384, e077310. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-077310

Monteiro, C. A., Cannon, G., Levy, R. B., Moubarac, J.-C., Louzada, M. L. C., Rauber, F., Khandpur, N., Cediel, G., Neri, D., Martinez-Steele, E., Baraldi, L. G., & Jaime, P. C. (2019). Ultra-processed foods: What they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutrition, 22(5), 936–941. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018003762

Montgomery, D. R., & Biklé, A. (2022). What your food ate: How to heal our land and reclaim our health. W. W. Norton & Company.

People of the State of California, acting by and through the San Francisco City Attorney (Plaintiff). (2025, December 2). Complaint for violation of California Unfair Competition Law and public nuisance: San Francisco v. The Kraft Heinz Company, Mondelez International, Inc., Post Holdings, Inc., The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestlé USA, Inc., Kellanova; WK Kellogg Co.; Mars Incorporated; Conagra Brands, Inc. (Complaint No. —) [Legal complaint]. San Francisco Superior Court. https://sfcityattorney.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/CCSF-UPF-Complaint-2025.12.02.pdf

Rhodes, C. J. (2017). The imperative for regenerative agriculture. Science Progress, 100(1), 80–129. https://doi.org/10.3184/003685017X14876775256165

San Francisco City Attorney’s Office. (2025, December 2). San Francisco City Attorney Chiu sues largest manufacturers of ultra-processed foods [Press release]. City Attorney of San Francisco. https://sfcityattorney.org/san-francisco-city-attorney-chiu-sues-largest-manufacturers-of-ultra-processed-foods/

Srour, B., Fezeu, L. K., Kesse-Guyot, E., Allès, B., Méjean, C., Andrianasolo, R. M., Chazelas, E., Deschasaux, M., Hercberg, S., Galan, P., Monteiro, C. A., Julia, C., & Touvier, M. (2019). Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: Prospective cohort study (NutriNet-Santé). BMJ, 365, l1451. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l1451

Zinöcker, M. K., & Lindseth, I. A. (2018). The Western diet–microbiome–host interaction and its role in metabolic disease. Nutrients, 10(3), 365. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10030365

Happy Birthday, Wikipedia!

The digital encyclopedia that promised to put the sum of all human knowledge into every home turned 25 this month. Born from a radical vision of decentralization —written by the people, for the people, free from corporate or state control— its anniversary is a poignant moment to reflect on how far it has strayed from its founding ideals.

For a while, Wikipedia was a miracle. It demonstrated the power of collective, good-faith curation; its "neutral point of view" policy was a beacon in a complex world. But today, that beacon has dimmed under the heavy hand of new orthodoxies.

The platform, like so many media sources and “fact-checking” operations funded by opaque industry interests, has become a powerful vector for a specific kind of misinformation: that which is sanctioned by prevailing institutional narratives. Dissent is not presented and debated, but instead pathologized, smeared, deleted.

Subscribe now

A stark case study is the treatment of the World Council for Health (WCH). Established by experienced doctors, scientists, lawyers and activists to offer science-based critiques of the global Covid-19 response, the WCH found itself not engaged with on the merits of its arguments, but defamed on its Wikipedia page. The entry dedicates minimal space to the organization’s actual work, goals, or global coalition, while disproportionately focusing on attempting to discredit it through guilt-by-association tactics.

Far from being an isolated incident, this is part of a broader, post-2020 pattern of historical revisionism on the platform. Examine the dramatic “hero-to-zero” rewrites of pages for figures like Dr. Robert Malone, whose entry explicitly downgrades his foundational role in mRNA technology and labels him a spreader of “misinformation.” Or Dr. Vernon Coleman, whose entry transformed from that of a prolific author to a “conspiracy theorist” almost overnight. These are serious digital erasures that reshape public history.

The WCH’s own attempt to provide a full, factual account of its mission and activities —which you can read on the website and in our previous article— stands in stark contrast to the shallow, dismissive skeleton that remains on Wikipedia. This discrepancy reveals the core issue: editing for true accuracy against a cemented narrative is now a Herculean, often impossible, task for those outside the platform’s inner sanctum of trusted editors. The promise of a decentralized information commons has, in many key areas, been compromised into a tool of centralized narrative control.

Share World Council for Health

But the story doesn’t end here. The very human desire for open, peer-produced knowledge that gave birth to Wikipedia is now seeking new outlets. As trust in legacy digital platforms erodes, new, purpose-built encyclopedias are emerging from the grassroots. Platforms like Vetopedia (”the free encyclopedia of dissenting voices”) are rising to fill the void, built on the principle that knowledge curation should not have a gatekeeper’s veto.

And a special mention should be given to Grokipedia, whose detailed entry on WCH is a lesson in how to do things with attention to fairness and balance. It does not shy away from the thorny areas (see the “Controversies and Debates” section). But crucially, it frames the accusations levelled at WCH as precisely that: accusations. It goes on to recount how WCH has responded to the attacks – and finishes with a section on its achievements, legacy and ongoing developments.

When compared with the Wikipedia entry, the latter is shown up as a ludicrously crude hit piece.

Taking a broader perspective, it is worth remembering that Grokipedia is AI-generated. This leads into delicate philosophical areas regarding algorithmic versus human judgement, where the limits are, the extent to which the two can work together – and who ultimately arbitrates.

So Wikipedia’s 25th birthday raises some uncomfortable yet unavoidable questions. It asks us: Who gets to write history? Who decides what “reliable sources” are? And when a platform founded to democratize knowledge becomes a tool for silencing debate, is it still serving its purpose?

The quest for a real people’s encyclopedia is alive. It’s just increasingly happening elsewhere.

World Council for Health stands for a Better Way.

References

Grokipedia. (n.d.). World Council for Health. In Grokipedia. Retrieved January 24, 2026, from https://grokipedia.com/page/World_Council_for_Health

Vetopedia. (2025). Vetopedia: The free encyclopedia of dissenting voices. https://vetopedia.org/en/startpage

World Council for Health. (n.d.). Wikipedia overview. https://www.worldcouncilforhealth.org/wikipedia/

World Council for Health. (2024, January 6). Wikipedia’s smear piece on WCH represents a badge of honour. World Council for Health Substack. https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/wikipedia-smear-piece-wch

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.

A remarkable timeline

Readers of the World Council for Health Substack may be aware of a landmark report published by the McCullough Foundation in Autumn 2025. In an analysis of 136 studies, the authors concluded that 79% of these pointed to a link between vaccine components and neuroimmune dysfunction – including Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The sequence of events demonstrates that in the US at least, meaningful change is occurring at the highest levels of policy-making:

• 27 Oct 2025: McCullough Foundation’s Report was sent to the CDC

• 19 Nov 2025: CDC (quietly and delicately) changed its stance on the vaccine/autism issue

• 5 Jan 2026: CDC announced that the US childhood vaccine schedule would be significantly reduced

Subscribe now

Snapshot of events

1. McCullough Foundation report

The Foundation’s official Press Release, on 27 October 2025, states the following:

‘The report concludes that autism arises from the intersection of genetic, environmental, and iatrogenic factors— but notably combination routine childhood vaccination early in life constitutes the most significant modifiable risk factor, supported by convergent clinical, mechanistic, and epidemiologic evidence.’

It can be downloaded here:

Press Release Mccullough Foundation Report

190KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

In addition, the key findings are described in this short interview from early November with Peter McCullough and Nic Hulscher, who led the study.

2. CDC’s change of stance

As pointed out by investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi in her succinct assessment of the rewritten guidance:

“This is a change that could reshape one of the most politically charged and emotionally fraught debates in modern medicine.

In a website update published on 19 November 2025, the agency now states that the long-standing claim “vaccines do not cause autism” is “not an evidence-based claim” because scientific studies “have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.”

The page also acknowledges that “studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.”

It’s difficult to overstate the significance of these statements. For nearly two decades, they would have been unthinkable for a federal public health agency.”

3. Trimming of US childhood vaccine schedule

On 5th December 2025, a Presidential memorandum requested that the US childhood vaccine schedule be compared with the schedules of other, similarly developed countries.

On 5th January 2026, the findings and subsequent policy changes were announced in a press release by the US Department of Health and Human Services. It noted:

“The assessment reviewed 20 peer, developed nations and found that the U.S. is a global outlier among developed nations in both the number of diseases addressed in its routine childhood vaccination schedule and the total number of recommended doses (…) For example, in 2024, the U.S. recommended more childhood vaccines than any peer nation, and more than twice as many doses as some European nations. At the lower end is Denmark, which immunizes children against 10 diseases compared to a total number of 18 diseases for which protection was provided in 2024 in the U.S.”

To align with international norms, therefore, the CDC significantly narrowed the core childhood vaccine schedule. The vaccines were then categorised into three tiers: (i) recommended for all children; (ii) recommended for certain high-risk groups; (iii) recommended based on shared clinical decision-making.

It is important to note that all the vaccines remain available and covered by insurance. Furthermore, HHS’s accompanying fact sheet states that “the CDC will continue to recommend that all children are immunized against 10 diseases for which there is international consensus, as well as varicella (chickenpox).”

The changes do not, therefore, indicate a wholesale rejection of vaccines. Rather, they emphasise an individualised approach instead of a one-size-fits-all.

Share World Council for Health

Not far enough… or too far?

Some might argue that in light of increasing evidence surrounding vaccine harms, this policy change does not go far enough. But what must be recognised is that this is a massively important step – especially when considering the vehement pushback against anything that is considered “anti-vax”.

For example, take this article by bioethicist Arthur Caplan in MedPage Today (published on 6 Jan 2026). In his condemnation of the CDC’s new approach, the language is noticeably absolutist: “outrage from vaccine experts… outrage that is absolutely justified… this dangerous shift in guidance… The existing data unquestionably support the disease-preventing and life-saving efficacy of the current childhood schedule… a despicable moral choice… inevitably lead to greater morbidity and mortality… To some, illness and deaths are the price of freedom.”

This is followed by an outright rejection of individual agency in vaccine matters, framing trust in authority as a moral imperative which must be upheld:

“But, in the name of ethics and public health, choices that lead to preventable childhood deaths ought to be curbed. And a choice is not really a choice if parents are swamped with vaccine disinformation.”

Whether this kind of rhetoric is self-defeating is another matter. But it does serve to highlight how individuals and institutions who are working towards positive transformation are operating within a broader public health environment: one in which hostile attitudes towards even moderate, evidence-based vaccine scepticism can be deeply entrenched. To face such resistance with commitment and integrity is laudable.

A promising outlook

The new CDC vaccine guidelines –marking a shift to individualisation, informed consent and parental empowerment– together with the fact that it is no longer dismissing the possibility of an autism link, are major developments. This is how medicine’s sacred cows and taboos begin to be questioned within the mainstream, and truths exposed. It encapsulates how the sheer hard work and persistence of organisations such as the McCullough Foundation –as well as World Council for Health and our partners around the globe– can make a real 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

Caplan, A. (2026, January 6). What morbidity hath Secretary Kennedy wrought? MedPage Today. https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/119304?trw=no

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025, November 19). Autism and vaccines. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/autism.html

Demasi, M. (2025, November 20). BREAKING: CDC quietly rewrites its vaccine–autism guidance (crossposted on World Council for Health). Substack. https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/cp/179464555

Hulscher, N., Leake, J. S., Troupe, S., Rogers, C., Cosgrove, K., Mead, M. N., Craven, B., Radetich, M., Wakefield, A., & McCullough, P. A. (2025). McCullough Foundation Report: Determinants of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17451259

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2026, January 5). CDC acts on presidential memorandum to update childhood immunization schedule. HHS.gov. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/cdc-acts-presidential-memorandum-update-childhood-immunization-schedule.html

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2026, January 5). Fact sheet: CDC childhood immunization recommendations. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/fact-sheet-cdc-childhood-immunization-recommendations.html

World Council for Health. (2025, November 5). SAFER TO WAIT: Dr Peter McCullough and Nic Hulscher announce a new ground-breaking childhood vaccine study with implications for the future of the immunisation schedule. Substack. https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/safer-to-wait-dr-peter-mccullough

Guernsey, a small island in the English Channel with a population of 66,000 people suffered hugely during the Covid era with lockdown policies and mass vaccination campaigns.

In March 2020 the island closed its borders tightly, enforcing mandatory quarantine. Throughout 2020 and into early 2021, Guernsey recorded extremely low Covid-19 case numbers, at times, among the lowest per capita in Europe. There were long periods with zero community transmission and hospitalisations. Deaths attributed to Covid remained minimal and the healthcare system was under little pressure.

In 2021, Guernsey’s Civil Contingencies Authority (CCA), was established as a statutory emergency decision-making body. It was responsible for leading the Covid response, including border controls, enforced lockdown measures, testing and contact tracing regimes, self-isolation rules and masking policies.

During this time, the Channel Islands Integrative Health Alliance (CIIHA) wrote weekly emails to deputies and to the local press, raising concerns and advocating for vitamin D supplementation and early treatment options including ivermectin. These emails were consistently ignored. Islanders were repeatedly told that the only accurate and acceptable source of information was the local government website. When it was pointed out that this website was not up to date on known vaccine side effects, including those acknowledged by Pfizer itself, those concerns were dismissed.

Vaccine Uptake Reaches 93 Percent of the Island Population

At the time, Guernsey was widely portrayed as a public health success story. The Public Health Director Dr Nicola Brink was publicly praised for leadership, latterly with an award of an MBE as the vaccine rollout uptake soared to 93% of the island population – and Guernsey became one of the most highly vaccinated populations in the world. Unvaccinated islanders were separated from their families across borders for extended periods; they were unable to attend funerals, births, or care for relatives abroad.

Following reopening and the vaccine roll-out, Guernsey experienced a sharp and sustained rise in Covid-19 cases throughout late 2021 and into 2022. At various points, the island recorded some of the highest case numbers per capita.

Was it Safe, Was it Effective?

Since the roll-out, a growing number of individuals reported serious and persistent health problems consistent with vaccine injury. Many affected islanders had difficulty accessing diagnosis, recognition and treatment. People began to report being unable to work due to ongoing health conditions, diagnosis of cancers and chronic illnesses became more common.

Various reports of illness and death began to creep into the mainstream media. During this time, hundreds of suspected adverse drug reactions were reported from Guernsey to the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Yellow Card Scheme. In September last year, CIIHA wrote to the President of the Committee for Health and Social Care advising:

‘The MHRA has received 429 spontaneous suspected Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) reports for COVID-19 vaccinations from Guernsey between Jan 2020 and Nov 2024 of which 269 are classified as serious.’

The response included trotting out of the, by now, familiar tired quote: ‘Serious adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines are rare.’

A mortality report commissioned by the States of Guernsey in 2024 revealed that in 2022 Guernsey had the highest level of excess deaths in the last 15 years.

Former MP Andrew Bridgen said in a 2024 webinar titled: Covid Vaccines - The Devastating Health Crisis in the Channel Islands & Around the World:

‘The Channel Islands have no access to vaccine damage compensation…’

It’s clear, the population of Guernsey urgently needs to be heard and healed.

Healing Beyond Covid - 8th February St Pierre Park, Guernsey

World Council for Health is supporting Healing Beyond Covid on 8^th February, featuring Dr Peter McCullough, Dr Tess Lawrie, Del Bigtree, Prof Angus Dalgleish, Dr Chris Flowers and others including GB news presenter Neil Oliver. This is a one-day conference to discuss impacts and support for people who have been affected by the Covid injections with free tickets made available for the vaccine-injured community.

The conference is being held in Guernsey recognising that the island has one of the highest vaccination rates worldwide and it is therefore a very appropriate place to start supporting and recognising vaccine injuries and injured people.

Buy Tickets: Healing Beyond Covid

https://www.worldcouncilforhealth.org/event/healing-beyond-covid-hosted-by-gb-news-presenter-neil-oliver/

Subscribe now

Resources:

Buy Tickets: Healing Beyond Covid
https://www.worldcouncilforhealth.org/event/healing-beyond-covid-hosted-by-gb-news-presenter-neil-oliver/

CIIHA
https://ciiha.com/

Covid Vaccines - The Devastating Health Crisis in the Channel Islands & Around the World featuring Dr Dean Patterson, Dr Peter McCullough, Prof Angus Dalgleish and others
https://rumble.com/v4ryjyt-covid-vaccines-the-devastating-health-crisis-in-the-channel-islands-and-aro.html

Guernsey Mortality Report
https://wchweb.b-cdn.net/Multimedia/Guernsey_Mortality_Report_2024_FINAL.pdf

29 Year Old Guernsey Man Diagnosed with Myocarditis
https://guernseypress.com/news/2022/01/14/im-young-and-healthy-i-didnt-expect-to-have-a-reaction

World Council for Health Safe and Effective Campaign
https://www.worldcouncilforhealth.org/safeandeffective/

Share World Council for Health

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.