The Corruption of the World Health Organization (WHO)

Abir Ballan, author of the June 2022 piece titled “The WHO Review and Why it Matters to You? has documented the corruption by WHO/global leaders and governments concerning Covid treatment.

In essence, Ballan’s findings are a call to action to “reassess the WHO’s candidacy as an authoritative global public health organization” and the necessary actions needed to “safeguard” people’s “health sovereignty.”

With the unending mismanagement of Covid treatment and the WHO’s influence on so many countries, it is a critical call to action.

Ballan ponders the following:

·Did the World Health Organization follow public health principles when recommending the global Covid-19 response?

  • Was the WHO-recommended response to Covid-19 in line with the WHO’s own constitution and its own pandemic preparedness plans?
  • Was the WHO guided by science or by private corporate interests?

Ultimately, is the WHO suitable as an agency and global authority when it comes to public health?

The World Health Organization’s own constitution states that “informed opinion and active co-operation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people.”

Yet, informed consent, which includes the right to say “no” to the vaccine, was essentially non-existent as companies, schools and governmental institutions coerced people into taking the jab.

Repeatedly, scientists, doctors and other health care workers who attempted to inform the public about alternative treatment options for Covid were censored, punished, and given a pariah status that still exists to this day.

Were non-pharmaceutical interventions [such as masks] deployed during the Covid-19 pandemic in line with the 2019 WHO pandemic management recommendations?

The overwhelming answer is “not even close.”

Here are some excerpts from a 2019 WHO document re: non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk of epidemic and pandemic influenza.

Home quarantine of exposed individuals to reduce transmission is NOT recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure [.]  (p. 47)

The EFFECT of reactive school closure in reducing influenza transmission varied but was generally limited. ‘In such cases, the adverse effects on the community should be considered (e.g. family burden and economic considerations) and the timing and duration should be limited to a period that is judged to be optimal.’  (p. 52)

The strength of EVIDENCE on workplace closure is very LOW because the identified studies are all simulation studies. (p. 54)

NO scientific EVIDENCE was identified for the effectiveness of travel advice against pandemic influenza; however, providing information to travelers is simple, feasible and acceptable. (p. 61)

Entry and exit screening of travelers [health declarations, visual inspections for symptoms and temperature checks] is ‘NOT recommended due to the overall ineffectiveness in reducing the introduction of infection and delaying local transmission.’ [Moreover] ‘Involuntary screening may have ethical or legal implications. (p. 64)

Nonetheless every one of the above was employed with a vengeance.  Schools were closed to the detriment of student achievement. There is now an overwhelming increase in speech delays among students because of two-plus years of social avoidance and lack of face-to-face learning.

To this day, colleges still send already jabbed students home to quarantine.  And the fact that already “vaccinated” people become sick is completely glossed over.

In fact, “The WHO played a vital role in influencing the public’s perception of the threat of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes Covid-19 in some people). Tedros A. Ghebreyesus, the WHO Director General, started his speech (March 3, 2020) by mentioning Ebola, priming the public to make an association between Ebola (a highly deadly disease) and Covid-19. This is a behavioural science technique — techniques used to modify human behaviour subconsciously — that creates an association between two events in order to transfer the characteristics of one event onto the other.”

Is this an accurate way to measure events or rather a means to create behaviors that ultimately are unwarranted and quite detrimental?

After all, despite data showing the low lethality of the virus, the World Health Organization “did not adjust its recommendations to apply the principle of proportionality throughout the pandemic.”

In addition, outright fabrications were disseminated by the WHO.  In March 2020, the WHO declared SARS-CoV-2 as an entirely novel virus.  In actuality, “SARS-CoV-2 is not entirely novel.  It is a new member of the coronavirus family, closely related to the SARS-CoV virus which caused the SARS disease in 2003.”

Yet, WHO’s public messaging was “dominated by scary discussions of not knowing much about this ‘novel’ virus or how to treat it.”  Such fear mongering led to isolation, economic ruin and social collapse.

Ballan clearly documents the flip-flopping of the WHO.

The WHO went back and forth on their position on the role of asymptomatic spread in transmission.  On the one hand, the WHO claimed that ‘asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is ‘very rare.’  Then they claimed that asymptomatic transmission is ‘a really complex question’ and ‘we don’t actually have that answer yet.’

The WHO continued to push ineffective measures such as masks, social distancing and avoiding touching surfaces throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.

Lockdowns reflect the WHO’s disregard for existing pandemic plans. In truth, “lockdowns is a term that was never used in previous pandemic plans.  They do not save lives.  They destroy lives and livelihoods.”

Assertions were made by the WHO without actual data to affirm the claims.  For example, in March 16, 2020 the WHO stated “this is a serious disease. Although the evidence we have suggests that those over 60 are at highest risk, young children, including children, have died.”  But notice the wording.

‘Young people, including children have died.’ Does the WHO specify here the percentage of children and young people who have died as a result of Covid compared to other diseases? The IFR [Infection Fatality Rate] for Covid in children is 0.0013%. More children die from diarrehoea than from Covid.

Yet, children as young as three have died from the jab and their family’s loss is incalculable.

The WHO regularly boasts about the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines while disregarding the daily news about the adverse reactions and the deaths related to the so-called vaccine, i.e.,  the COVID jabs impact male and female fertility; COVID-19 injections may damage young children’s innate immune systems; personal stories of people injured by the vaccines; COVID vaccines related to cardiac disorders; and permanent disability resulting from the jab.

While the data from the US vaccine adverse events reporting system (VAERS) reflects a clear strong signal to halt the vaccination programs, the programs still continue.

In fact, “as of June 6, 2022, the WHO website shows 3,861,047 reports of side effects following the Covid-19 vaccines since December 2021.”

Disturbingly, “[t]his is not the first time that the WHO has endorsed a vaccine that was known to be harmful. During the H1N1 2009 pandemic, the WHO endorsed the use of the Pandemrix vaccine, despite several studies . . .  linking it to a risk of developing narcolepsy as well as other adverse events before it was quickly discontinued.”

Perhaps most damning of all is that the WHO disregarded emerging evidence on potentially effective early treatments for Covid-19 and actively recommended against their use.  It “advised against the use of ivermectin to treat patients and limited its use to clinical trials despite promising evidence for its effectiveness and safety in treating Covid-19.”

How many lives would have been saved had the WHO not suppressed the use of life-saving drugs?

Equally alarming is that “[a]t least 20% of contributions come from sources linked to corporate interests and 88% of voluntary contributions are earmarked for specific projects, largely serving those corporate interests. They include donations from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI – the Vaccine Alliance, UN agencies, the World Bank and Rotary International, among others.”

It should be noted that “Bill Gates is building a GERM – Global Response and Mobilisation Team – which will be managed by the WHO to ensure that the world is ready for future, possibly incorrectly declared ‘pandemics.’  Whose interests will truly be served?

By its actions, the WHO has neutered their qualifications as a global health organization.

Abir Ballan’s study is a true public service enabling people to reflect, assess and act on the value of the WHO and what can be done to return to basic public health core principles.

Eileen can be reached at

If you experience technical problems, please write to