Today is Sunday, January 25, 2026—a fitting moment to reflect on recent developments that closely align with long-standing concerns about a centralized global health authority. Just days ago, on January 22, 2026, the United States formally completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), fulfilling an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on his first day back in office, January 20, 2025. This marks the effective end of a process that began with the required one-year notice period, severing U.S. membership, participation in governance, and funding contributions to the agency.

This step represents a significant victory for those who have argued against entangling American sovereignty—and taxpayer dollars—with an organization heavily influenced by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The withdrawal addresses core issues of accountability, national independence in health policy, and the dangers of ceding control over life-and-death matters to supranational entities.

The WHO’s role during COVID-19 exemplified the perils of centralized authority. Critics, including the Trump administration, pointed to the organization’s delayed declaration of a global pandemic, its initial downplaying of human-to-human transmission (echoing early Chinese government statements), and its perceived deference to Beijing. Funding dynamics further underscored the imbalance: Historically, the U.S. was the largest contributor to the WHO, providing hundreds of millions annually (often around 15-20% of the agency’s budget in assessed and voluntary contributions). In contrast, China’s contributions were far smaller relative to its economic size, yet its influence appeared outsized—particularly in shaping narratives around the virus’s origins.

Investigations and reports have raised concerns that U.S. taxpayer funds, through entities such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and subawards to groups such as EcoHealth Alliance, supported research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology involving bat coronaviruses. While debates persist over definitions of “gain-of-function” research (experiments that enhance a pathogen’s transmissibility or virulence), congressional inquiries and declassified intelligence have raised questions about biosafety lapses and potential links to the pandemic’s emergence. The lab-leak hypothesis—once dismissed as a conspiracy theory—gained traction in official assessments, with some U.S. government reports concluding it as a plausible or even likely origin scenario.

This pattern of influence extended to domestic responses. In Ohio, former State Health Director Dr. Amy Acton (often dubbed the “lockdown lady” by critics) implemented strict measures in early 2020, including stay-at-home orders that shuttered businesses and restricted freedoms. These aligned closely with federal guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which, in turn, drew heavily on WHO recommendations and modeling. Acton’s approach mirrored that of Dr. Anthony Fauci and national figures who emphasized lockdowns, masking, and social distancing—policies now widely debated for their economic devastation, mental health impacts, and questionable long-term efficacy against a respiratory virus.

The broader historical narrative reveals a recurring theme: those who promise—or appear to deliver—healing and protection from death wield immense power. Jesus Christ’s ministry, as recorded in the Gospels, centered on miracles of healing: restoring sight to the blind, curing leprosy, raising the dead (e.g., Lazarus in John 11), and casting out demons. These acts were not mere side notes; they built followership. People flocked to Him not solely for philosophical teachings but because He demonstrated tangible power over affliction and mortality. Without these demonstrations, the message might have lacked the visceral appeal that drew crowds and disciples.

Similar dynamics appear in modern contexts. L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics and Scientology emphasize auditing to eliminate “engrams”—traumatic imprints causing spiritual and physical harm—promising a path to “clear” status and optimal health. Followers are drawn by the promise of liberation from pain and dysfunction, much like ancient shamans, medicine men, or tribal healers who gained authority by curing ailments or communing with spirits.

Governments and institutions have long mimicked this model. Control over health equates to control over life itself. From ancient rulers who monopolized food distribution to modern states tying insurance to employment (ensuring dependency on employers for coverage), the pattern persists: promise extended survival, and loyalty follows. The WHO, during COVID-19, amplified this through global coordination of lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and fear-based messaging—mechanisms that centralized power under the guise of public good. Critics argue this facilitated socialist-leaning policies, with China (a major geopolitical player) benefiting from economic advantages while the West endured restrictions.

Big Pharma’s role compounds the issue. The industry profits enormously from chronic illness management rather than cures. Historical examples abound: suppression of alternative treatments, prioritization of patentable drugs over natural or regenerative approaches, and lobbying for policies that funnel patients into dependency. Stem cell research, regenerative medicine, and activation of the body’s innate healing mechanisms (evident in infants’ rapid recovery) offer pathways to true autonomy—yet these face regulatory hurdles, funding biases, and corporate resistance.

The U.S. exit from the WHO opens the door to decentralized, competitive models. States can innovate without federal or international mandates—perhaps by emphasizing prevention, personal responsibility, nutrition, and emerging therapies such as those harnessing autologous stem cells or immune modulation. Data points support skepticism of centralized authority: Lockdowns correlated with massive economic losses (trillions globally), spikes in suicides, delayed cancer screenings, and educational setbacks. Excess mortality analyses continue to question whether benefits outweigh harms.

In essence, health freedom requires rejecting the scam of dependency. Governments, corporations, and global bodies thrive when people fear death and seek “miracles” from authority. True progress lies in empowering individuals to heal themselves, free from top-down control.

This withdrawal is a step toward reclaiming that sovereignty. It’s about time.

Bibliography and Further Reading

1.  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Fact Sheet: U.S. Withdrawal from the World Health Organization.” January 22, 2026. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/fact-sheet-us-withdrawal-from-the-world-health-organization.html

2.  The White House. “Withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization.” Executive Order, January 20, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-the-worldhealth-organization

3.  USA Today. “US officially withdraws from the World Health Organization.” January 23, 2026.

4.  House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “Final Report: COVID Select Concludes 2-Year Investigation.” December 2024 (includes sections on gain-of-function research and origins).

5.  The Intercept. “NIH Documents Provide New Evidence U.S. Funded Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan.” September 2021 (updated context in later reports).

6.  Bible (New International Version): Gospel accounts of Jesus’ healings (e.g., Matthew 8-9, John 11).

7.  Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. 1950.

8.  Various congressional hearings on COVID origins (2023-2025 transcripts, e.g., involving Dr. Robert Redfield and EcoHealth Alliance).

9.  Think Global Health. “U.S. WHO Exit Could Expand China’s Influence.” (Analysis of funding and geopolitical dynamics).

10.  Historical analyses of public health centralization: e.g., works on the Rockefeller Foundation’s role in modern medicine, or critiques in books like Rockefeller Medicine Men by E. Richard Brown.

Footnotes

¹ U.S. funding historically dominated WHO budgets; see annual WHO financial reports pre-2025.

² For Acton’s Ohio policies: See 2020 executive orders and media coverage of protests/resignation.

³ On Jesus’ miracles as basis for authority: Theological commentaries, e.g., N.T. Wright’s works on the historical Jesus.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707