• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

New president signs executive order to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization - January 20, 2025, formal withdrawal January 22, 2026

Hat tip to Lance

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 22, 2026

Contact: HHS Press Office

202-690-6343
Submit a Request for Comment

Joint Statement by Secretary of State Rubio and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kennedy on the Termination of U.S. Membership in the World Health Organization (WHO)

Today, the United States withdrew from the World Health Organization (WHO), freeing itself from its constraints, as President Trump promised on his first day in office by signing E.O. 14155. This action responds to the WHO’s failures during the COVID-19 pandemic and seeks to rectify the harm from those failures inflicted on the American people. Promises made, promises kept.

Like many international organizations, the WHO abandoned its core mission and acted repeatedly against the interests of the United States. Although the United States was a founding member and the WHO’s largest financial contributor, the organization pursued a politicized, bureaucratic agenda driven by nations hostile to American interests. In doing so, the WHO obstructed the timely and accurate sharing of critical information that could have saved American lives and then concealed those failures under the pretext of acting “in the interest of public health.”

Even on our way out of the organization, the WHO tarnished and trashed everything that America has done for it. The WHO refuses to hand over the American flag that hung in front of it, arguing it has not approved our withdrawal and, in fact, claims that we owe it compensation. From our days as its primary founder, primary financial backer, and primary champion until now, our final day, the insults to America continue.

Going forward, U.S. engagement with the WHO will be limited strictly to effectuate our withdrawal and to safeguard the health and safety of the American people. All U.S. funding for, and staffing of, WHO initiatives has ceased. The United States will continue to lead the world in public health, saving millions of lives and protecting Americans at home by preventing infectious disease threats from reaching our shores while advancing global health security through direct, bilateral, and results-driven partnerships. We will continue to work with countries and trusted health institutions to share best practices, strengthen preparedness, and protect our communities through a more focused, transparent, and effective model which delivers real outcomes rather than the bloated and inefficient bureaucracy of the WHO.

Today, we right these injustices and bring an end to the bureaucratic inertia, entrenched paradigms, conflicts of interest, and international politics that have rendered the organization beyond repair. We will get our flag back for the Americans who died alone in nursing homes, the small businesses devastated by WHO-driven restrictions, and the American lives shattered by this organization’s inactivity. Our withdrawal is for them.
###​

https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/join...hip-in-the-world-health-organization-who.html
 
​Screenshot:

image.png

7:59 AM · Jan 24, 2026

----------------------------------------------------
Please see:


Taiwan releases December email to WHO showing unheeded warning about coronavirus
https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum...o-showing-unheeded-warning-about-coronavirus​

 
WHO statement on notification of withdrawal of the United States

24 January 2026
Statement


As a founding member of the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States of America has contributed significantly to many of WHO’s greatest achievements, including the eradication of smallpox, and progress against many other public health threats including polio, HIV, Ebola, influenza, tuberculosis, malaria, neglected tropical diseases, antimicrobial resistance, food safety and more.

WHO therefore regrets the United States’ notification of withdrawal from WHO – a decision that makes both the United States and the world less safe. The notification of withdrawal raises issues that will be considered by the WHO Executive Board at its regular meeting starting on 2 February and by the World Health Assembly at its annual meeting in May 2026.

WHO takes note of statements from the government of the United States that say WHO has “trashed and tarnished” and insulted it, and compromised its independence. The reverse is true. As we do with every Member State, WHO has always sought to engage with the United States in good faith, with full respect for its sovereignty.

In its statements, the United States cited as one of the reasons for its decision, “WHO failures during the COVID-19 pandemic”, including “obstructing the timely and accurate sharing of critical information” and that WHO “concealed those failures”. While no organization or government got everything right, WHO stands by its response to this unprecedented global health crisis. Throughout the pandemic, WHO acted quickly, shared all information it had rapidly and transparently with the world, and advised Member States on the basis of the best available evidence. WHO recommended the use of masks, vaccines and physical distancing, but at no stage recommended mask mandates, vaccine mandates or lockdowns. We supported sovereign governments to make decisions they believed were in the best interests of their people, but the decisions were theirs.

Immediately after receiving the first reports of a cluster of cases of “pneumonia of unknown cause” in Wuhan, China on 31 December 2019, WHO asked China for more information and activated its emergency incident management system. By the time the first death was reported from China on 11 January 2020, WHO had already alerted the world through formal channels, public statements and social media, convened global experts, and published comprehensive guidance for countries on how to protect their populations and health systems. When the WHO Director-General declared COVID-19 a public health emergency of international concern under the International Health Regulations on 30 January 2020 – the highest level of alarm under international health law – outside of China there were fewer than 100 reported cases, and no reported deaths.

In the first weeks and months of the pandemic, the Director-General urged all countries repeatedly to take immediate action to protect their populations, warning that “the window of opportunity is closing”, “this is not a drill” and describing COVID-19 as “public enemy number one”.

In response to the multiple reviews of the COVID-19 pandemic, including of WHO’s performance, WHO has taken steps to strengthen its own work, and to support countries to bolster their own pandemic preparedness and response capacities. The systems we developed and managed before, during and after the emergency phase of the pandemic, and which run 24/7, have contributed to keeping all countries safe, including the United States.

The United States also said in its statements that WHO has “pursued a politicized, bureaucratic agenda driven by nations hostile to American interests”. This is untrue. As a specialized agency of the United Nations, governed by 194 Member States, WHO has always been and remains impartial and exists to serve all countries, with respect for their sovereignty, and without fear or favour.

WHO appreciates the support and continued engagement of all its Member States, which continue to work within the framework of WHO to pursue solutions to the world’s biggest health threats, both communicable and noncommunicable. Most notably, WHO Member States last year adopted the WHO Pandemic Agreement, which once ratified will become a landmark instrument of international law to keep the world safer from future pandemics. Member States are now negotiating an annex to the WHO Pandemic Agreement, the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing system, which if adopted will promote rapid detection and sharing of pathogens with pandemic potential, and equitable and timely access to vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics.

We hope that in the future, the United States will return to active participation in WHO. Meanwhile, WHO remains steadfastly committed to working with all countries in pursuit of its core mission and constitutional mandate: the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right for all people.​

https://www.who.int/news/item/24-01...tification-of-withdrawal-of-the-united-states
 
Screenshots:

image.png

image.png

8:14 AM · Jan 24, 2026

image.png

image.png
​​
9:05 AM · Jan 24, 2026
·​
​--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hat tip to Shiloh:

Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) 16-24 February 2020

https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum...rus-disease-2019-covid-19-16-24-february-2020

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpts from the report:
...

III. Assessment

The Joint Mission drew four major conclusions from its work in China and four major conclusions from its knowledge of the broader global response to COVID-19. Recommendations are offered in five major areas to inform the ongoing response globally and in China.

The China Response & Next Steps

1. In the face of a previously unknown virus, China has rolled out perhaps the most ambitious, agile and aggressive disease containment effort in history. The strategy that underpinned this containment effort was initially a national approach that promoted universal temperature monitoring, masking, and hand washing. However, as the outbreak evolved, and knowledge was gained, a science and risk-based approach was taken to tailor implementation. Specific containment measures were adjusted to the provincial, county and even community context, the capacity of the setting, and the nature of novel coronavirus transmission there.

While the fundamental principles of this strategy have been consistent since its launch, there has been constant refinement of specific aspects to incorporate new knowledge on the novel coronavirus, the COVID-19 disease, and COVID-19 containment, as rapidly as that knowledge has emerged. The remarkable speedwith which Chinese scientists and public health experts isolated the causative virus, established diagnostic tools, and determined key transmission parameters, such as the route of spread and incubation period, provided the vital evidence base for China’s strategy, gaining invaluable time for the response.

...
2. Achieving China’s exceptional coverage with and adherence to these containment measureshas only been possible due to the deep commitment of the Chinese people to collective action in the face of this common threat. At a community level this is reflected in the remarkable solidarity of provinces and cities in support of the most vulnerable populations and communities. Despite ongoing outbreaks in their own areas, Governors and Mayors have continued to send thousands of health care workers and tons of vital PPE supplies into Hubei province and Wuhan city.
...
3. China’s bold approach to contain the rapid spread of this new respiratory pathogen has changed the course of a rapidly escalating and deadly epidemic. A particularly compelling statistic is that on the first day of the advance team’s work there were 2478 newly confirmed cases of COVID-19 reported in China. Two weeks later, on the final day of this Mission, China reported 409 newly confirmed cases. This decline in COVID-19 cases across China is real.
...
4. China is already, and rightfully, working to bolster its economy, reopen its schools and return to a more normal semblance of its society, even as it works to contain the remaining chains of COVID-19 transmission. Appropriately, a science-based, riskinformed and phased approach is being taken, with a clear recognition and readiness of the need to immediately react to any new COVID-19 cases or clusters as key elements of the containment strategy are lifted.
...

The Global Response & Next Steps

1. The COVID-19 virus is a new pathogen that is highly contagious, can spread quickly, and must be considered capable of causing enormous health, economic and societal impacts in any setting. It is not SARS and it is not influenza. Building scenarios and strategies only on the basis of well-known pathogens risks failing to exploit all possible measures to slow transmission of the COVID-19 virus, reduce disease and save lives.
​...
2. China’s uncompromising and rigorous use of non-pharmaceutical measures to contain transmission of the COVID-19 virus in multiple settings provides vital lessons for the global response. This rather unique and unprecedented public health response in China reversed the escalating cases in both Hubei, where there has been widespread community transmission, and in the importation provinces, where family clusters appear to have driven the outbreak.
...
3. Much of the global community is not yet ready, in mindset and materially, to implement the measures that have been employed to contain COVID-19 in China. These are the only measures that are currently proven to interrupt or minimize transmission chains in humans. Fundamental to these measures is extremely proactive surveillance to immediately detect cases, very rapid diagnosis and immediate case isolation, rigorous tracking and quarantine of close contacts, and an exceptionally high degree of population understanding and acceptance of these measures.
...
4. The time gained by rigorously applying COVID-19 containment measures must be used more effectively to urgently enhance global readiness and rapidly develop the specific tools that are needed to ultimately stop this virus.
...


https://www.who.int/docs/default-so...na-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf
 
Now there is arguing online again about the origin of COVID-19 - by some of the same participants above.

Here is our thread of the timeline. Basically we were the only media publishing factual support for the possibility of a lab created virus. We stressed POSSIBILITY. Even so, we were criticized. I was warned that I was going to greatly discredit this site by allowing this discussion. Twitter, and other social media were banning participants for this topic. We did not get suspended or banned, however. We had scientific participants on this site who were afraid in real life about posting facts that did not align with the natural creation of COVID-19 mantra. No one has influence on this site so we continued to objectively search for the truth.

Again, we are a discussion forum. We try to ascertain the facts and this requires considering inconvenient facts. Believe me, personally, I would much rather believe in a natural creation for the pandemic origins. It is very hard to think that a lab error, or series of lab errors resulted in the pandemic with the horrendous loss of life and injuries. But - sometimes facts are not comforting.

There is no purpose to arguing about the past. It is history now with much documentation. The discussions should revolve around how can we do better the next time.

Discussion: Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in Wuhan has been working with bats and coronavirus for many years - DNA manipulations, cloning....- started January 23, 2020​
 
The column entitled "scale of assessments" is the percentage of WHO's budget charged to each country.

The US is in the #1 spot at 22.0% of the total budget and China is in the #2 spot at 15.2550%.

These two countries are assessed multiple times more than the next closest payors at about 3-8% of the budget - which is some of Europe + UK + Japan.
.

Click image for larger version  Name:	Screenshot 2026-01-27 132048.png Views:	1 Size:	2.9 KB ID:	1028464
 
image.png - Click image for larger version  Name:	image.png Views:	1 Size:	28.8 KB ID:	1028482

...
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Guo Jiakun’s Regular Press Conference on January 26, 2026

Updated: January 26, 2026 18:54

image.png - Click image for larger version  Name:	image.png Views:	1 Size:	28.8 KB ID:	1028482

...
Shenzhen TV: On January 23, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. announced in a joint statement the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO). The Department of Health and Human Services said that during the early stages of COVID-19, China underreported and refused to provide to WHO genetic sequences from individuals infected early in the pandemic. What’s China’s comment?

Guo Jiakun: After the outbreak of COVID-19, China has put people and their lives front and center, worked with other countries to fight the pandemic together, and made important contributions to international cooperation against COVID-19. China’s record of COVID-19 response has a clear timeline and solid data. It’s widely recognized by the international community and brooks no distortion or smearing. China firmly opposes politicizing the virus. To use COVID-19 as a pretext for political manipulation and shift blame to China will find no support and will not succeed.

WHO is the authoritative and professional international agency on global public health. We noted that WHO regrets the U.S.’s notification of withdrawal. Multilateralism is the cornerstone of the current international order and is the prevailing trend and what the people want. China has all along supported WHO in fulfilling its duty, deepened international cooperation on public health, strengthened global governance on public health, and promoted the building of a global community of health for all.
...

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/fyrbt/lxjzh/202601/t20260126_11845427.html
 
The statement above is exactly why we do not publish China's monthly disease report. It is a work of fiction and everyone knows it.

This comment does not include Hong Kong CHP who has been very reliable (in the past).
 
Hat tip to Lance

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 22, 2026

Contact: HHS Press Office

202-690-6343
Submit a Request for Comment

Joint Statement by Secretary of State Rubio and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kennedy on the Termination of U.S. Membership in the World Health Organization (WHO)
...
Even on our way out of the organization, the WHO tarnished and trashed everything that America has done for it. The WHO refuses to hand over the American flag thathung in front of it, arguing it has not approved our withdrawal and, in fact, claims that we owe it compensation. From our days as its primary founder, primary financial backer, and primary champion until now, our final day, the insults to America continue.
...​
https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/join...hip-in-the-world-health-organization-who.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
image.png - Click image for larger version  Name:	image.png Views:	1 Size:	429.0 KB ID:	1028498

12:55 PM · Jan 26, 2026
 
I find the above picture heartwarming and very sad at the same time.

FluTrackers has always "supported" WHO and the related offices. Overall these entities have been a lifesaver to poorer nations. They have done so many great things that it is hard to mention all but for a few: investigations, clinics, vaccine distributions, on the ground assistance in outbreaks.... the list is really endless. In addition, we have always had a good "working" relationship with WHO and their personnel over the years starting when Gregory Hartl let me interview him a few times on live radio! link Imagine...live radio. FluTrackers has always been very respectful and we do not play stupid games..

But, the WHO response was delayed in the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no other way to describe it. Maybe it was procedures that required certain protocols to be followed?

It was very clear to pandemic observers that COVID-19 had "the triad" of pandemic potential in the first couple of weeks:

1. Contagious via droplets, and/or airborne,
2. Exponential case growth,
3. Infected healthcare workers.

WHO did not declare a pandemic until March 11, 2020 after there were "118,000 (known) cases in 114 countries, and 4,291 people have lost their lives" link (The link to the actual page on the WHO site appears to be broken so I have linked our copy of the declaration. h/t Pathfinder)

Nevertheless, I would like to thank all of the WHO representatives who have dedicated their lives to public health. Hopefully a compromise will be made someday.

I think all US citizens would like the US to contribute personnel and financial support for a global health effort.
 
Last edited:
screenshot:
image.png - Click image for larger version  Name:	image.png Views:	1 Size:	30.1 KB ID:	1028567

image.png - Click image for larger version  Name:	image.png Views:	1 Size:	1.63 MB ID:	1028568
1:44 PM · Mar 28, 2020

------------------------------------------------------

Hat tip Mary Wilson

Why the WHO took two years to say COVID is airborne


April 7, 2022, 09:53 PM

Early in the pandemic, the World Health Organization stated that SARS-CoV-2 was not transmitted through the air. That mistake and the prolonged process of correcting it sowed confusion and raises questions about what will happen in the next pandemic.
...
https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/the-pandemic-discussion-forum/945491-why-the-who-took-two-years-to-say-covid-is-airborne​

------------------------------------------------------------
WHO’s departing chief scientist regrets errors in debate over whether SARS-CoV-2 spreads through air

Soumya Swaminathan says the agency should have acknowledged aerosol transmission “much earlier” but is proud of work on vaccine equity

23 Nov 2022 2:45 PM ET By Kai Kupferschmidt
...
ScienceInsider caught up with Swaminathan to talk about her time at WHO, her plans for the future, and the advice she would give to her successor. Questions and answers have been edited for brevity and clarity.
...
Q: Was that your biggest mistake as chief scientist—not calling SARS-CoV-2 airborne?

A: We should have done it much earlier, based on the available evidence, and it is something that has cost the organization. You can argue that [the criticism of WHO] is unfair, because when it comes to mitigation, we did talk about all the methods, including ventilation and masking. But at the same time, we were not forcefully saying: “This is an airborne virus.” I regret that we didn't do this much, much earlier.

Q: Why didn’t you? What went wrong?

A: I think it's a mixture of things. I was very new in the role of chief scientist, and it had not been defined; what does the chief scientist do during a pandemic? I tried to do what I thought was best. What happens at WHO is that the technical departments do the guidelines, at the science division we just set the norms of how to do guidelines. So it was not my role and neither did anyone ask me to get involved at that stage. … The existing paradigm is based around flu, because most of our pandemic preparedness is flu. And similarly, SARS-1 was very different as a pathogen, so we couldn't fully extrapolate from that. But in the beginning, we had to base it on some things. So, I think what I would say to the next chief scientist: If there's any situation where there's new evidence emerging, particularly from other disciplines, that’s challenging our understanding, get involved early on!
...
https://www.science.org/content/art...errors-debate-over-whether-sars-cov-2-spreads

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Journal Article

Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Airborne Transmission: Science Rejected, Lives Lost. Can Society Do Better? Open Access


Lidia Morawska ,
William Bahnfleth ,
Philomena M Bluyssen ,
Atze Boerstra ,
Giorgio Buonanno ,
Stephanie J Dancer ,
Andres Floto ,
Francesco Franchimon ,
Charles Haworth ,
Jaap Hogeling
... Show more
Author Notes
Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 76, Issue 10, 15 May 2023, Pages 1854–1859, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciad068

Published:
10 February 2023
...
Abstract

This is an account that should be heard of an important struggle: the struggle of a large group of experts who came together at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to warn the world about the risk of airborne transmission and the consequences of ignoring it. We alerted the World Health Organization about the potential significance of the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the urgent need to control it, but our concerns were dismissed. Here we describe how this happened and the consequences. We hope that by reporting this story we can raise awareness of the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and the need to be open to new evidence, and to prevent it from happening again. Acknowledgement of an issue, and the emergence of new evidence related to it, is the first necessary step towards finding effective mitigation solutions.​

​​​...
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/76/10/1854/7034152
 
Has the U.S. Actually Withdrawn from the World Health Organization?

​By Jean Galbraith and Laurence Helfer
Published on January 29, 2026
...​
What Happens Now?

Practically speaking, the United States is unlikely to be involved in future WHO activities—a point recently emphasized in a bombastic joint statement by the U.S. Secretaries of State and Health and Human Service. Disengagement by a member state that even these officials recognize as the WHO’s “primary founder, primary financial backer, and primary champion” is major setback for multilateral efforts to improve the health of the world’s populations.

Yet it is also important to consider the international law implications of these events. The United States is not the first WHO member to fall behind on its financial contributions. Over several decades, the organization has developed a consistent practice to pressure these countries to pay up. If a member’s arrears equal or exceed the amount due for the preceding two full years, the World Health Assembly or the Executive Board can suspend that state’s voting privileges. Suspended countries are encouraged to negotiate a “special arrangement” with the WHO Director-General—essentially, a repayment plan—to provide at least a portion of the dues owed and to have their voting rights restored. Suspensions in recent years have included Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Venezuela, and Yemen.

The purported withdrawal of seven Soviet-bloc nations in the late 1940s and early 1950s (and later several other states) is also relevant. Most of these states declared that they no longer considered themselves as WHO members; a few claimed a legal right to withdraw. However, because the WHO Constitution lacks a general withdrawal clause, the organization treated these states as “inactive members.” When the countries sought to resume active participation a few years later, the World Health Assembly allowed them to submit a fraction of their unpaid dues without the need for a formal re-accession process.

These two lines of practice may be discussed as the WHO Executive Board and World Health Assembly decide the membership status of the United States. In particular, we expect these bodies to reach two conclusions. First, that as a matter of international law the United States remains a state party to the WHO Constitution so long as its financial obligations for the current fiscal year (likely 2025) are unpaid. Second, that the United States is an inactive member given its nonpayment. This second determination, which might be made at a later date, would mean that the United States will be unable to vote on any WHO initiatives and will lack meaningful voice within the organization.

Since the United States remains a party to the WHO Constitution, we do not consider the legality of the purported withdrawal as a matter of U.S. domestic law—although we note that it is questionable. Nor do we explore what steps under international or domestic law would be necessary for the United States to rejoin if the WHO later recognizes the country as having formally exited.
​...

https://www.justsecurity.org/129914/us-withdrawal-world-health-organization/
 
Back
Top