In an unprecedented act of political courage, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., current U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, has openly challenged the World Health Organization (WHO), describing it as “dying” and accusing it of being riddled with corruption and influenced by political interests—particularly those of China.
In a recorded message delivered during the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Kennedy called on other countries to follow the United States’ lead and withdraw from the organization. According to Kennedy, the WHO mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic by concealing information about human transmission of the virus and promoting false theories about its origin.
He also criticized the new pandemic treaty adopted by the WHO, calling it a perpetuation of systemic dysfunction. In response, the Trump administration has begun forming a new global health alliance with countries such as Argentina, Italy, and Israel.
RFK Jr.’s Well-Grounded Critique of the WHO.
Kennedy’s criticisms of the WHO are not baseless. Since its founding, Children’s Health Defense (CHD)—the organization he led before taking public office—has questioned vaccine safety and denounced what it sees as collusion between governments and the pharmaceutical industry.
Kennedy has claimed that mercury in vaccines, specifically thimerosal, is responsible for neurological disorders in children, despite the fact that scientific studies have refuted this connection.
Moreover, his views on immunization have sparked controversy. In a Senate hearing, he suggested that Black people may have stronger immune systems than white people, which could justify a different vaccination schedule. This claim has been labeled “unscientific and frightening” by health experts.
International Response and Public Health Implications.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s stance has generated diverse reactions internationally, particularly among established entities such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
These institutions have consistently defended the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, dismissing the concerns raised by Kennedy without allowing space for the pluralistic scientific debate that should characterize any democratic public health policy.
Despite the consensus promoted by these bodies, a growing number of doctors, scientists, and citizens see it as both legitimate and necessary to question the financial and political ties influencing the agenda of institutions like the WHO.
Kennedy has raised important questions about transparency, independence, and accountability in global health management—especially in light of the clear failures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The narrative that any criticism of vaccines constitutes “disinformation” is a troubling strategy that dismisses the right to dissent and to openly discuss issues in free societies.
Even more concerning is that any attempt to rethink the global health system—such as the one Kennedy proposes through a more sovereign and decentralized health alliance—is preemptively dismissed out of fear of “fragmenting” international cooperation, which in many cases has served corporate interests more than the real well-being of populations.
Contrary to what some sectors claim, a critical reorganization of international bodies does not mean abandoning cooperation, but rather the possibility of building a more ethical, transparent, and results-driven collaboration.
Centralization in questioned institutions like the WHO has proven insufficient to effectively respond to global threats, which are often shaped by interests external to public health.
In conclusion, RFK Jr.’s position should not be seen as an irresponsible attack, but as an urgent call to rethink the current model of global health governance.
The real risk to global health does not come from voices demanding reform, but from an international structure that operates without real oversight and has lost credibility among millions.
Science must not be subordinated to a single narrative—it must be open to debate, scrutiny, and the possibility of change. Only then can public trust be restored and a healthier, more just future be built for all.
About The Author
Read the full article here