While the U.S. and Israel Reject WHO Overreach, Canada Remains Quiet
With major democracies pushing back on WHO’s pandemic power grab, Canadians must demand transparency—starting with public servants.
Headline of the Week:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) | www.hhs.gov, Jul 18, 2025
"The proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations open the door to the kind of narrative management, propaganda, and censorship that we saw during the COVID pandemic. The United States can cooperate with other nations without jeopardizing our civil liberties, without undermining our Constitution, and without ceding away America’s treasured sovereignty." - Secretary Kennedy
Full transcript of Secretary Kennedy’s public address is provided in Appendix.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, July 18, 2025 :
Joint Statement by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio on International Health Regulations Amendments from. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/secretary-kennedy-rubio-reject-ihr-amendments-joint-statement.html
In a week that saw both the United States and Israel take decisive action to reject controversial international health regulations proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO), Canada remains disturbingly quiet. No headlines, no debates, no public statements. And yet, the implications of these agreements—crafted largely outside public scrutiny—could redefine the role of international agencies in managing health crises inside our borders.
This article is especially directed at public servants. While bound by professional obligations not to speak on government decisions once enacted, you—like all Canadians—retain full democratic rights to express concerns about decisions still under consideration. Now is that moment.
Three Headlines That Demand a National Conversation
Let’s start with what happened this week in countries that value transparency and sovereignty:
The United States withdraws $1.2 billion from GAVI
In a powerful statement, U.S. Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called out the vaccine alliance GAVI for prioritizing public relations over safety, especially during the COVID-19 era. He highlighted GAVI’s role in censoring dissent and pushing pharmaceutical agendas, declaring, “Business as usual is over.” Read full articleThe PREP Repeal Act hits Congress
Representative Thomas Massie introduced the PREP Repeal Act to eliminate blanket legal immunity for vaccine manufacturers. The bill restores the public’s right to seek justice for injuries caused by emergency countermeasures—a long-overdue measure of accountability. Read full articleIsrael formally withdraws from WHO health treaty negotiations
After months of review, Israeli Health Minister Uriel Bosso announced that Israel will not join the WHO’s revised health regulations. He cited national sovereignty and the need to protect Israel’s education, economic, and security interests. Read full article (Hebrew)
And What of Canada?
We have seen no formal discussion in Parliament, no televised interviews, and no open forum addressing what these international health regulations would mean for Canadian citizens—or the Canadian state.
But we do have one tool left: discussion. And that begins with you.
Public servants are uniquely positioned to ask informed, critical questions—inside boardrooms, breakrooms, or even quietly around the dinner table. You don’t need to oppose your government. You only need to uphold your role as a citizen: to inform yourself, to think critically, and—if you feel compelled—to act.
Signing a petition is not a protest. It’s an expression of democratic participation, especially vital when mainstream discourse is absent. It’s also a tool to ignite discussion within our professional and social circles—an invitation for others to do the same.
One Simple Action
If you believe Canadians deserve a say in whether WHO should have authority over future national health emergencies, then take this moment to read, reflect, and—if you agree— you can sign the petition.
👉 [Link to petition]
Whether or not this petition changes Canada’s ultimate decision, it creates something far more powerful: the space to speak freely, before silence becomes policy.
References
The Vaccine Reaction. “U.S. Withdraws Financial Support from Pharma’s Arm GAVI.” July 2025. https://thevaccinereaction.org/2025/07/u-s-withdraws-financial-support-from-pharmas-arm-gavi/
The Focal Points. “Rep. Massie Files Bill to Repeal PREP Act.”
Channel 14 (Israel). “Israel Withdraws from WHO Treaty.” https://www.c14.co.il/article/1266005
Additional Details and References:
U.S. Rejection of WHO IHR Amendments
The U.S. has officially rejected the 2024 WHO IHR amendments, citing overbroad provisions that could facilitate censorship, erode sovereignty, and prioritize “political solidarity” over civil liberties (Facebook, jamesroguski.substack.com, Reuters).Israel Formally Withdraws
Israel’s Health Minister announced withdrawal from the updated regulations, citing risks to national security, economic autonomy, and educational sovereignty (Reuters).Expert Warning from James Roguski
Substack investigative journalist James Roguski urges all nations to act—warning that allowing these IHR amendments to stand could enable “global control” over quarantine, surveillance, and medical mandates (jamesroguski.substack.com).
RFK Jr. Speaks Out
In a recent address urging stronger national pushback against WHO overreach, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated on YouTube:
“I urge the world’s health ministers and the WHO to take our withdrawal from the organisation as a wake‑up call.” (HHS.gov, substack.com, YouTube, YouTube)
His words reflect the sentiment echoed by the U.S. and Israel: this is not mere policy nuance—it’s a sovereignty bell ringing.
Ideas to Stimulate Discussion Among Public Servants and Other Canadians
Informal Forums: Host ethical roundtable chats in break rooms or virtual “brown bag” debates—no decisions necessary, just exploration.
Policy Q&A: Ask supervisors or policy leads: “Has Canada conducted a public consultation on these IHR amendments? What channels are open for public input?”
Internal Briefings: Use available research (like Roguski’s or RFK Jr.’s public addresses) to craft a 5-minute info brief for colleagues.
Collective Civic Action: Signing and sharing the petition alongside team members can underscore democratic solidarity — not protest, but civic engagement.
Acknowledgment
This article is written with assistance from ChatGPT using the prompt:
"Let’s write a WA-format article highlighting Canada’s silence on WHO international health regulations, contrasting it with recent actions by the U.S. and Israel, and inviting public servants to engage in democratic discussion using news headlines and a petition."
Based on approximately 550 words and 6 minutes of conversation with the author.
Support This Work Across All Channels
If you believe in open dialogue, informed choice, and challenging censorship, help keep the conversation alive—share this article with friends, family, and colleagues across your networks.
I write these articles on my own time as a contribution to my community—especially for fellow public servants who value transparency, science, and sovereignty. Your support—through follows, shares, and discussions—makes a real difference.
You can follow me and share this work on:
My articles are, and will always remain, free to read.
Let’s ensure our silence isn’t mistaken for agreement.
Appendix: Transcript of the Secretary Kennedy’s public address (Punctuated and Cleaned by ChatGPT):
Suggested Titles (YouTube or Article):
“Why We're Rejecting the WHO’s Global Health Treaty — Before It’s Too Late”
“The WHO Wants Control Over Your Health Choices. We Say No.”
“Pandemic Treaty or Power Grab? The Fight for National Sovereignty”
“WHO Amendments Threaten American Freedom — Here’s What You Need to Know”
“Health Emergencies as Trojan Horse: WHO’s Quiet Move Toward Global Control”
I want to speak to you today about a controversial issue that could directly impact you and your family during a global health emergency.
Last year, the World Health Organization's governing body made some far-reaching amendments to its International Health Regulations—otherwise known as the “IHR regulations.” These regulations establish the legal framework that gives countries rights and responsibilities for managing public health events with global impact.
The deadline to reject these amendments is next week—and we are rejecting them, so I would like to explain to you why.
The first reason is national sovereignty. Nations who accept the new regulations are signing over their power in health emergencies to an unelected international organization that could order lockdowns, travel restrictions, or any other measures it sees fit. In fact, it doesn't even need to declare an emergency—“potential public health risks” are enough for it to initiate action.
If we're going to give the WHO that much power, we should at least invite a thorough public debate, especially since the agreement isn't an official treaty and it bypasses the U.S. Senate, which plays a key role in ensuring major international commitments receive proper democratic oversight.
To make matters worse, the new regulations employ extremely broad language that gives the WHO unprecedented power. They require countries to establish systems of “risk communication” so that the WHO can implement unified public messaging globally. That opens the door to the kind of narrative management, propaganda, and censorship that we saw during the COVID pandemic.
We don't want to see that kind of system institutionalized even further.
The agreement also contains provisions about global systems of health IDs, vaccine passports, and a centralized medical database. It lays the groundwork for global medical surveillance of every human being.
Maybe if the WHO were an infallible authority, untainted by industry influence, we would consider accepting the new regulations. Unfortunately, the COVID pandemic demonstrated otherwise.
During COVID, the WHO failed to enforce the International Health Regulations that were already in place for generations. China withheld critical information about the outbreak for at least a month—and faced no real consequences or criticisms from the WHO.
As the 2024 Congressional Oversight Report put it:
“The WHO was misinformed, denied access to China, and used as a cover for the Chinese Communist Party's reckless action.”
These and other atrocities make one thing clear: we must strengthen national and local autonomy to hold global organizations in check and to restore a real balance of power.
Underneath all the bureaucratic language, what's at stake here is a vision for our future:
Are we going to be subjects to a technocratic control system that uses “health risks” and “pandemic preparedness” as a Trojan Horse to curtail basic democratic freedoms?
Do we want a future where every person, every movement, every transaction, and every human body is under surveillance at all times?
Now, I don't want to be too alarmist. The new regulations aren't in themselves medical totalitarianism. In fact, they were perhaps written with good intentions. But they are definitely a step in the wrong direction.
That's why we are rejecting the amendments, not only on behalf of our own citizens, but the whole world.
After all, America could simply ignore the WHO. But few other countries are as powerful as the United States. Even though many of these amendments are phrased to be “non-binding,” as a practical matter, it's hard for many countries to resist them—especially when they are dependent on WHO funding and its partnerships.
That's why we’re taking leadership to stop an agreement that’s bad for the entire world.
I want to be clear that in rejecting these amendments, President Trump and I are not rejecting international cooperation.
We can cooperate with other nations without jeopardizing our civil liberties, without undermining our Constitution, and without ceding away America’s treasured sovereignty.
That’s my commitment to you.
That's President Trump's commitment to you.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
And God bless our country.