Our colleagues at SafeBlood headquarters recently released an international update that deserves careful attention, particularly here in the United States. While much of the newsletter addressed European developments and internal SafeBlood projects, one issue stands out for Americans: the United States’ decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization.
Let us discuss what that means, what it does not mean, and why it matters.
The United States and the WHO: A Structural Shift
Historically, the United States has been the largest single contributor to the World Health Organization. According to the WHO’s program budget documentation, the United States has accounted for approximately 15 percent of assessed and voluntary contributions in recent funding cycles (WHO Programme Budget 2022–2023).
With the US out, the WHO’s largest financial backers are no longer sovereign governments. The top two funders now are the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the GAVI the Vaccine Alliance, followed by the European Commission, the UK, and the World Bank. (The controlling funders and interests of GAVI the Vaccine Alliance are, the WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.)
Of the top five funders of the WHO, only one, the UK is a state actor.
We may now expect the WHO to reflect the priories of these private entities even more aggressively than before. The good news is that the US just removed 14% of the WHO budget and will not be bound by WHO decisions.
The less than good news is that in spite of RFK Jr.’s withdrawing all US funding from GAVI in 2025, the House passed HR 7006 on January 14, eight days ahead of the US exit from the WHO. The bill allocates over $3.5 billion for global disease outbreaks and preparedness, and it sidesteps HHS with a $300 million contribution to GAVI. The bill awaits passage in the Senate.
The update points out, while funds may be redirected away from the WHO, large-scale investments in pandemic preparedness and vaccine infrastructure remain robust.
The U.S. withdrawal from the WHO is therefore symbolically significant. It signals dissatisfaction with centralized global health governance. It reflects an assertion of national autonomy.
It doesn’t free us from the responsibility of vigilance or the influence of the pharma-industrial complex.
Why This Matters for SafeBlood
At the same time, SafeBlood has members in over fifty-five countries around the world. We may expect that whatever restraining influence the US previously had, if any, in the WHO is now completely absent. In the immediate and medium-term future, we expect expect centralized health policy in the EU and Asia to reflect the priorities of these private entities rather than scientific reality and transparency.
These private entities are also vaccine funders. Health policy in Europe and Asia will continue to be shaped by institutions heavily influenced by these private interests.
As the SafeBlood headquarters update wisely cautions, US withdrawal lessens the power of the WHO, but does not resolve these deeper concerns.
Since 2024, there has been increasingly open recognition of the misguided nature of the COVID-19 responses, with WHO guidance, from lockdown policy, to emergency regulatory frameworks worldwide, to the harms of the vaccine rollout, all of which appear more aligned with vaccine-funder interest than genuine public health.
Even the question of directed blood donations was indirectly affected by this global policy climate. After 2020, regulatory bodies increasingly relied on broad assurances that mRNA vaccines posed no transfusion-related concerns, despite emerging scientific literature documenting circulating spike protein and vaccine-related components in some recipients (Ogata et al., Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2022; Bansal et al., Journal of Immunology, 2021).
With this climate of influence now persisting, SafeBlood will be as vigilant as ever to track how the new distribution of influence at the WHO affects our worldwide members in our fight for health freedom.
The headquarters update also announces that ANIMAP, the platform originally created to help individuals navigate certificate-based restrictions (e.g., digital vaccine IDs) during COVID, has been preserved at SafeBlood’s initiative, should we need it again in the future.
More to Be Done
SafeBlood strongly supports the progress made at HHS under RFK, Jr. and at the FDA under Dr. Marty Makary, and welcomes the announcement of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya’s appointment as head of the CDC in addition to NIH.
More remains to be done:
Are we willing to abandon the dangerous mRNA platform.
Are we willing to restore decentralized medical decision making.
Are we willing to defend informed consent at the state level.
Are we willing to protect directed and autologous blood donation rights.
Are we willing to track mRNA-vaccinated vs unvaccinated donor blood and make it available for emergency medicine.
Those battles are being fought in state legislatures right now.
The sooner we win them, the sooner we restore true medical freedom and human autonomy.
The U.S. SafeBlood Substack and Growing Momentum
Our most widely read article to date highlights Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi’s early warnings regarding mRNA technology. A recent large-scale South Korean population study examining myocarditis and other cardiovascular outcomes following mRNA vaccination has renewed scientific discussion about long-term safety signals (Kim et al., European Heart Journal, 2023).
Science evolves through inquiry, predictive reasoning, and real world confirmation. Increasingly, that inquiry, prediction, and confirmation is proving to be at odds with Big Pharma corporate interests.
A Time for Clarity, Not Hysteria
The U.S. withdrawal from the WHO has generated enthusiasm in many circles. Enthusiasm is understandable. But clarity is more important.
Global health governance is not a single switch that can be flipped off. It is a network of funding streams, advisory committees, and interlocking public-private partnerships.
The work of SafeBlood does not depend on geopolitical swings. It depends on something more fundamental.
Informed consent.
Patient autonomy.
Scientific transparency.
Those principles must be defended at the local and state level, regardless of what happens in Geneva.
A Personal Note
As Georg Della Pietra wrote in the closing line of the headquarters newsletter: “we can either wait for someone else to act, or we can act ourselves.”
In the United States, that means supporting state-level legislation that protects directed and autologous donations. It means building donor networks before emergencies arise. It means asking questions calmly and insisting on answers grounded in evidence.
And it means sustaining the work financially.
Join the Mission
If you believe that patient choice in transfusion medicine must be preserved.
If you believe that informed consent requires full transparency.
If you believe that public health institutions must be accountable to the people they serve.
Then I invite you to upgrade to a paid subscription on our Substack and become a SafeBlood member.
Paid members receive full access to our research analysis, legislative tracking updates, and directed donor network coordination tools. More importantly, your membership directly funds the defense of medical freedom in the United States.
This is not about fear.
It is about preparation.
And preparation is the most rational form of health policy we have.
Dr. R. Clinton Ohlers, PhD is Vice President and Director of Media Relations for SafeBlood Donation. He holds a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania and taught and conducted research at the University of Hong Kong, returning to the US in the early COVID outbreak. His work focuses on blood safety, medical ethics, and informed consent, with an emphasis on restoring transparency and patient choice in transfusion medicine.
About SafeBlood
SafeBlood Donation is a global initiative dedicated to protecting informed consent in blood transfusions.
Our core principle is simple:
If you cannot choose your donor, you do not have informed consent.
Dr Bhakdi ,,,was asked by King & Queen of Thailand to look after their daughter in a coma Vx Injured ,,, Thai study on males found 80% of young boys had peri , endo , myocarditis post JibJab
Does your organization also secure non-tainted blood in case of an emergency?