Unmasking the WHO Collaborating Centres: The Dangerous Ties to Australia’s Pandemic Response

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, a global reckoning is taking place on many fronts, and one of the most pressing issues is the increasing concentration of power and influence in global health organisations, particularly the World Health Organization (WHO). Among the various arms and entities within the WHO network, there are WHO Collaborating Centres, Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN) centres, and newly formed structures like the Global Health Emergency Corps (GHEC), all of which play a central role in managing and responding to global health crises.

Australia, a key player in the WHO system, has many of these centres operating within its borders. These centres are critical nodes in the WHO’s vast global network, facilitating the coordination of responses to public health emergencies, monitoring outbreaks, conducting research, and providing technical expertise. However, their increasing influence, especially in the wake of the pandemic, raises significant concerns about accountability, transparency, and the potential for conflicts of interest.

This article delves into the WHO Collaborating Centres, GOARN, and GHEC centres in Australia, analysing their operations, their potential conflicts of interest, and the risks they pose to public health governance, particularly in light of the damage caused by the pandemic response.

---

The WHO's Expanding Global Health Infrastructure

To understand the significance of these centres, it is crucial to first grasp the scope and mission of the WHO itself. The World Health Organization, founded in 1948, is the primary global health agency, responsible for setting international health standards, monitoring health trends, and coordinating emergency responses to pandemics and other health crises. The WHO is tasked to promote the highest attainable level of health for all people, yet it has faced increasing scrutiny for its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Allegations of inefficiency, mismanagement, conflicts of interest, and unethical practices during the global response have been raised by public health experts, governments, and civil society organisations, including the World Council for Health.

The WHO operates through a network of specialised centres, known as Collaborating Centres, which provide research, surveillance, and policy guidance in a variety of health-related fields. Similarly, the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN) is a WHO-led network of collaborating institutions, including academic and governmental bodies, tasked with coordinating rapid responses to emerging public health emergencies. These centres, though designed to strengthen global health infrastructure, often operate with minimal oversight, raising questions about their accountability and their influence over national and international health policies.

WHO Collaborating Centres in Australia: A Cause for Concern

WHO Collaborating Centres are institutions or subunits that have been designated by the Director General (currently Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus) to support the WHO as part of its global network.

Australia hosts a number of WHO Collaborating Centres, which play an integral role in the WHO's global health strategy. These centres collaborate on everything from infectious disease surveillance to vaccine development and public health emergency preparedness. While Australia’s participation in these global initiatives may seem on the surface a positive step toward better global health, the specific activities and affiliations of these centres raise alarm bells.

Several of Australia’s WHO Collaborating Centres have been closely linked to the pandemic response, and their influence over Australia’s national policies has become a matter of concern. For example, some of these centres were involved in the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines, the promotion of mRNA technology, and the management of pandemic-related data, all of which had significant implications for public health. There have been numerous criticisms regarding the safety, transparency, and effectiveness of these “vaccines”, yet these centres were at the forefront of the WHO’s public health messaging.

In Australia, some of the WHO Collaborating Centres include critical regulatory organisations such as the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth). These bodies are responsible for overseeing the safety, efficacy, and ethical standards of medical treatments and the healthcare professions within the country.

By serving as both WHO Collaborating Centres and regulatory authorities, the TGA, VicHealth and AHPRA face significant conflicts of interest. Their dual role raises concerns about whether their decisions are shaped by International Agendas dictated by the WHO, rather than being grounded in independent, evidence-based assessments focused solely on the health and safety of the Australian public.

Similarly, in the United States, the CDC (17), FDA (1), and NIH (2)—all of which play host to WHO Collaborating Centres—are tasked with regulating public health and medical standards. These agencies have come under scrutiny during the pandemic for their close relationships with pharmaceutical industries and for implementing policies that may prioritise global strategies or corporate interests over public health. The convergence of regulatory authority and international collaboration raises critical questions about the integrity and accountability of these institutions in their decision-making processes.

The centralisation of power in these centres is also troubling. They are often staffed by a combination of WHO “experts” and representatives from pharmaceutical companies, government agencies, and international health bodies, creating vast potential for conflict of interest. Was the heavy reliance on pharmaceutical solutions during the pandemic, which disproportionately benefited companies like Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca, orchestrated through these WHO collaborating centres? The centres often played a pivotal role in coordinating global vaccination campaigns, despite the growing body of evidence raising alarm bells about the safety and efficacy of the “vaccines”.

Who funds the WHO?

The World Health Organization (WHO) is primarily funded through two main sources: assessed contributions from member states and voluntary contributions from various donors. Assessed contributions, which are mandatory dues based on a country's gross domestic product, typically cover less than 20% of WHO's total budget, while the remaining funding comes from contributions which include significant donations from private entities like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI Alliance, Rotary International and the Bloomberg Family Foundation.

GOARN Centres and Their Role in Australia's Pandemic Response

The Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), which includes several centres in Australia, is another critical component of the WHO’s global response infrastructure. GOARN centres are tasked with coordinating responses to emerging health threats and outbreaks, providing technical assistance to countries in need, and sharing vital health information.

While the GOARN network is designed to enhance global preparedness and ensure rapid intervention in health crises, its operations have come under scrutiny, particularly regarding its role during the COVID-19 pandemic. The network’s emphasis on global control over national health policies—such as the recommendation for lockdowns, mask mandates, and other restrictive measures—has raised questions about sovereignty and the right of governments to make independent decisions in the face of public health threats.

In Australia, the GOARN network’s influence was felt in the strict implementation of WHO-backed pandemic measures, such as prolonged lockdowns, widespread testing protocols, and the promotion of unproven therapies. Was the WHO’s advice adopted wholesale by Australian health authorities, without the necessary scrutiny or independent review?

Millions of Australians were subjected to life-altering restrictions, with devastating effects on their physical health, mental health, education, and economic stability, livelihood and their lives. Was it the World Health Organization directing Australia’s vaccination policies, particularly the rapid roll-out of experimental vaccines?.

The WHO’s guidelines and strategies were central to Australia’s decision-making, yet, as has been widely acknowledged, these strategies have faced growing criticism for their lack of transparency and lack of rigorous scientific validation. Alternative treatments, such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, were largely dismissed by the WHO, despite early evidence supporting their efficacy, in favour of pharmaceutical interventions with unknown long-term effects.

The Global Health Emergency Corps (GHEC): A New Layer of Influence

The newly formed Global Health Emergency Corps (GHEC) is another important development in the WHO’s growing influence over global health crises. Launched in 2022, the GHEC is designed to provide a rapid-response workforce for health emergencies, drawing on experts from around the world to mobilise resources and personnel quickly.

While the concept of a global emergency response force might seem like a necessary tool for tackling future pandemics, the formation of the GHEC is troubling for several reasons. Firstly, it consolidates even more power within the WHO’s bureaucratic infrastructure, further centralising control over health emergencies and potentially diminishing the sovereignty of individual nations in making decisions about public health. The GHEC, which operates with little public oversight, has the potential to bypass national health systems and exert undue influence over how countries respond to health crises, often promoting policies aligned with corporate interests rather than public welfare.

Secondly, in the case of Australia, the GHEC’s presence and influence could extend the WHO’s pandemic response strategies beyond the initial COVID-19 outbreak, including future health threats, whether they be pandemics or other public health emergencies. The GHEC’s focus on rapid mobilisation could prioritise global coordination over the careful consideration of the best interests of individual countries, potentially undermining local expertise and healthcare systems.

Why This Matters: The Need for Transparency and Accountability

The rise of these WHO collaborating centres, GOARN, and the GHEC in Australia is concerning for several reasons:

1. Lack of Accountability: These centres operate with minimal public oversight, and their decision-making processes are often opaque. The WHO’s role in the pandemic response, especially its backing of unproven “vaccines” and questionable policies, has already led to devastating consequences. Without transparent mechanisms for accountability, these centres remain unanswerable for the damage they cause.

2. Conflicts of Interest: The intertwining of global health institutions with powerful pharmaceutical companies raises serious ethical concerns. Many of the WHO’s policies, such as the promotion of the mRNA vaccines, have been criticised for prioritising the interests of the pharmaceutical industry over the health and safety of populations.

3. Sovereignty and Autonomy: Australia, like many nations, is increasingly ceding control over its public health decisions to global bodies like the WHO. This loss of sovereignty could lead to one-size-fits-all policies that do not take into account local needs, priorities, or alternative solutions.

4. Erosion of Trust: The public’s trust in health institutions has already been severely damaged by the WHO’s pandemic response. The lack of transparency in decision-making, the suppression of alternative treatments, and the failure to prioritise voluntary informed consent and Human Rights during the pandemic have left many people questioning the motives and integrity of global health authorities.

Legal Accountability

In response to the growing concerns about the WHO's actions during the COVID-19 pandemic and its ongoing influence through various collaborative initiatives, several groups, including the World Council for Health, have taken a stand by serving Notices of Liability (NOLs) on key WHO officials. These notices, directed at individuals such as Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Janet Diaz, Maria van Kerkhove, and Jeremy Farrar, explicitly hold them personally accountable for actions that, according to the World Council for Health, led to significant harm during the pandemic. The NOLs cite the WHO's role in falsely declaring a global pandemic, promoting unproven and harmful health measures, and recommending experimental treatments that were later linked to adverse outcomes, including deaths and injuries. Furthermore, these legal notices question the WHO’s adherence to its constitutional mandate, accusing it of gross negligence, misconduct, and failing to uphold the basic rights of individuals around the world. These actions were accompanied by a Notice and Declaration to the United Nations, urging an independent investigation into the WHO’s actions and advocating for reparations for those affected by its policies. These efforts underscore the mounting demand for transparency, accountability, and an urgent reassessment of the WHO’s role in global health governance. By holding WHO officials legally accountable, advocates are making it clear that the public will no longer tolerate the unchecked influence of such powerful organisations without a thorough investigation into their actions and decisions.

Moreover, the Notice and Declaration to the United Nations has called for an independent investigation into the WHO’s role in global health decision-making, underscoring the growing demand for a comprehensive inquiry into the organization’s policies.

Conclusion: A Call for Action

As the influence of the WHO and its various arms expands, the concerns surrounding the WHO’s Collaborating Centres, GOARN network, and the Global Health Emergency Corps in Australia must be addressed. Without urgent calls for greater transparency, accountability, and oversight, the risks of further erosion of public trust, government autonomy, and the safety of global populations will continue to grow.

Australia, as a key member of the WHO and a prominent player in the global health landscape, has a responsibility to ensure that the influence of these global health organisations does not compromise its citizens’ well-being. The need for an independent review of the operations, affiliations, and decision-making processes of these collaborating centres is clear.

A critical examination is required to determine whether these centres are acting in the best interests of the public or whether they are unduly influenced by external political, commercial, or ideological agendas that do not align with the needs of the Australian people.

The situation demands accountability at every level, from global health organizations down to national health regulators - this should include a transparent investigation into the relationships between the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), VicHealth, SA Health and the WHO, as well as the regulatory practices that have been adopted during the pandemic.

The stakes are high. A failure to act will not only continue to jeopardize the safety of individuals but will also undermine democratic processes and the autonomy of national governments. It is time to demand accountability, safeguard public trust, and ensure that health policies are grounded in sound science and in service to the people—not to the interests of global entities or private corporations. The future of public health depends on it.

Sources:

World Council For Health Uncovers WHO Collaborating Centres Worldwide

WHO Collaborating Centres

WHO GOARN Centres

WHO GHEC

Subscribe to our Substack for Free or Contribute to our Mission of Health Freedom and Sovereignty for all by becoming a paid Subscriber