Xavier Azalbert, France-Soir
W.H.O.
The World Health Organization (WHO) is facing a major crisis following the threat of withdrawal from the United States, which is financing 16% of its budget, a departure that could reduce its resources by 20%. This threat, announced on February 6, 2025 by Mario Nawfal on X which quoted a statement by Donald Trump, is part of a context of sharp criticism of the WHO's politicized management of the COVID-19 crisis. The organization is at the center of a controversy over the delay in the use of corticosteroids, despite evidence of their effectiveness in ARDS, and of having marginalized early treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, while rapidly promoting experimental vaccines. These decisions, marked by suspicions of conflicts of interest and politicization, have eroded international trust, as evidenced by the virulent reactions on X. The mainstream media, far from criticizing, have often amplified the WHO's mistakes by failing to verify its recommendations. The appointment of Jay Bhattacharya as head of the NIH, with his desire to restore a science independent of politics, signals a real turning point. The WHO, faced with a crisis of legitimacy and finances, risks seeing its days numbered if it does not reform, making way for more transparent and rigorous science.The WHO is going through an unprecedented crisis. 𝕏 On February 6, 2025, Mario Nawfal revealed on X a shock proposal from the Trump administration: a radical reform of the WHO, accompanied by a threat of withdrawal from the United States if major changes are not implemented (𝕏 Mario Nawfal, February 6, 2025). The United States, which accounts for a significant portion of the WHO's budget, could plunge the organization into a financial abyss if it leaves, jeopardizing its global health initiatives. But behind this threat lies a deeper criticism: the WHO's controversial and politicized handling of the COVID-19 crisis, marked by contested medical decisions, including on corticosteroids, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, which have eroded international trust.
ANALYSIS: Medical Management Under Fire
Corticosteroids: a delay with tragic consequences
In the early months of the pandemic, WHO published interim guidelines for the clinical management of COVID-19. On January 12, 2020, it recommended not to systematically administer corticosteroids to treat viral pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) outside of clinical trials, unless otherwise indicated (analysis by the citizen collective of France-Soir with the help of experts in scientific analysis). This position was based on previous observational studies on SARS and MERS, which showed a lack of efficacy of corticosteroids and potential risks, such as delayed viral elimination or serious side effects (avascular necrosis, psychosis, diabetes). However, the conclusions of the France-Soir citizens' collective (29 March 2021) highlight a major flaw: Stockman's systematic review, cited by the WHO, did not conclude that there was a "lack of effectiveness", but rather an inability to determine whether treatments, including corticosteroids, were beneficial or harmful (WHO Interim Guidance 12/1/2020, section 7.1.8).
This initial recommendation from the WHO has been questioned by experts. Villar and colleagues, in an analysis published in 2020, argued for the prolonged use of corticosteroids in COVID-19-related ARDS, arguing that the dysregulated inflammation observed, or "cytokine storm," was similar to that of non-viral ARDS, where corticosteroids have demonstrated benefits. Villar et al. criticized the WHO's approach, saying its findings were based on incomplete evidence and ignored the potential of corticosteroids to reduce inflammation and speed up disease resolution.
The WHO's reversal came later, with the results of the RECOVERY trial. On June 17, 2020, Professor Peter Horby, co-investigator of the trial and non-WHO advisor to the organization, told CBS News, "Our jaws dropped when we saw the results... If we had known this four or five months ago, we would have saved tens of thousands of lives." This trial demonstrated that dexamethasone, a corticosteroid, reduced mortality in severely ill COVID-19 patients. But this statement was surprising because Horby was one of the experts who helped withdraw the corticosteroid recommendation in January 2020, while he himself had added, as early as March 2020, in the RECOVERY protocol, that data suggested benefits of corticosteroids: "A growing volume of clinical trial data suggests benefits in terms of mortality and length of hospital stay" Why this surprise, when the evidence was already accumulating? According to the analysis report of the citizens' collective, this inconsistency reveals an "unsuitable" approach of the WHO to the crisis with many questions about the more than opaque role of each other.
The numbers speak for themselves: when the RECOVERY trial published its results, the WHO counted 440,290 COVID-19-related deaths worldwide. How many lives could have been saved if corticosteroids had been recommended earlier, or had not been taken out of the recommendations with proper research on dosage and timing? The analysis of the citizen collective asks the question directly, highlighting the absence of mention of corticosteroids for dysregulated hyperinflammatory syndromes in the first WHO guidelines. This information will not fail to interest the investigators.
Ivermectin: a controversial suppression
Corticosteroid management is not the only one that has attracted criticism. Ivermectin, a parasitic drug known for its safety, has been at the center of another controversy. Despite promising initial studies on its effectiveness as an early treatment for COVID-19, the WHO recommended against using it outside of clinical trials, a position that fueled suspicions of bias. A real-time meta-analysis lists 277 studies on ivermectin for Covid-19, including 217 peer-reviewed and 105 comparing treatment and control groups. This analysis shows positive results in many settings, including reduced mortality and efficacy in prophylaxis, with ivermectin having been adopted in 24 countries (40 including non-governmental medical organizations). Yet, the WHO ignored the data, relying on disputed analyses, including those of Andrew Hill, a researcher affiliated with the University of Liverpool.
Hill revealed in The Guardian (2021) that he received death threats after exposing fraud in ivermectin trials, but questions persist about his findings and the pressure he allegedly faced. Complaints are pending against Hill and Dominique Costagliola, an influential French epidemiologist, as well as others for their role in marginalizing ivermectin. Although an initial investigation has been closed, key documents have disappeared, and funding of the University of Liverpool by Unitaid and the Gates Foundation – which have close ties to the WHO and interests in vaccines – raises suspicions of conflicts of interest and actions contrary to the interests of patients. In addition, independent studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of ivermectin when administered early. However, the WHO has preferred to rely on large-scale clinical trials, often unsuited to the urgency of the situation, with many analytical biases and double standards not applied to other treatments such as gene therapies.
Hydroxychloroquine: a blatant double standard
Hydroxychloroquine, which has been used for 70 years without any deaths reported in the medical literature, has also been marginalized by the WHO. The real-time meta-analysis c19hcq.org lists 611 studies on hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, including 488 peer-reviewed and 422 comparing treatment and control groups, showing benefits, especially when given early in the course of the disease. However, the WHO and other authorities, such as the FDA, have warned against its use outside of hospitals or clinical trials, citing risks of heart rhythm disorders.
An international meta-analysis published in Nature Communications even associated hydroxychloroquine with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, although these findings have been criticized for their methodology. This contrast between the more than positive data (58% reduction in hospitalization and mortality), early studies such as the study on the cohort of 30,423 patients treated at the IHU Méditerranée and the WHO's restrictive recommendations illustrates a double standard: while hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were ruled out, the WHO approved the experimental vaccines against covid-19 with much less rigorous standards, despite limited data on their long-term safety.
A poll by France-Soir et BonSens.org (March 27, 2025) on a representative sample of 1200 French people revealed that up to 4.5 million side effects related to vaccination could have been recorded in France, fueling mistrust of health authorities. This unequal treatment of treatment options has reinforced criticism that the WHO has prioritized political and financial agendas to the detriment of public health.
Politicization denounced on social networks
On X, criticism rains down. A doctor calls for "𝕏 letting the WHO die", calling it "too corrupt to be reformed". Some denounce an "𝕏 anti-American, anti-Israeli" organization bought to cover China and the Gates Foundation. Or go further, such as describing the WHO as a "𝕏 terrorist organization disguised as a public health agency", aiming to establish global control via the concept of "One Health". These reactions reflect a widespread loss of trust, exacerbated by suspicions of conflicts of interest. The analysis by the citizen collective of France-Soir notes that many of the experts involved in the WHO guidelines, such as Peter Horby and Kenneth Baillie, were also linked to clinical trials funded by the Gates Foundation, the EU and the UK government, with no clear mention of conflicts of interest.
The complicit role of the traditional media
The traditional media, which are supposed to play a role of counter-power, have largely failed in their mission during the COVID-19 crisis. Far from criticizing the WHO's decisions, they often endorsed its recommendations without rigorous verification, thus amplifying its scientific errors and shortcomings. In France, they did not give credence to the voice of 30,423 patients successfully treated by the IHU Méditerranée, a center of expertise in infectious diseases that the world envies France. In addition, disputed studies on hydroxychloroquine, such as the one published in Nature Communications and relayed without nuance, have contributed to discrediting this treatment, despite positive meta-analyses ( c19hcq.org).
Or the relay of the fraudulent Pradelle-Lega study which tried to show that there would be 17000 deaths in the world of hydroxychloroquine. Contested from the beginning by France-Soir and associations such as BonSens.org which wrote a letter of concern to the publisher Elsevier, this study was retracted in August 2024 without the media talking about this retraction. Similarly, the media has largely ignored promising data on ivermectin, preferring to relay the WHO's warnings ( c19ivm.org).
This lack of investigative journalism has not only reinforced misinformation, but also deprived the public of a balanced debate about treatment options, contributing to distrust in health institutions. Unparalleled informational pollution denounced by France-Soir: " when the media and so-called fact-checkers alter the quality of information".
The financial consequences of a crisis of legitimacy
A US withdrawal would be a blow to the WHO. According to the WHO's official website, the organization draws its funding from two main sources : mandatory contributions from member states (calculated according to their wealth and population) and voluntary contributions from various partners, including states, intergovernmental organizations, philanthropic foundations, and the private sector.
The United States, as the largest contributor, plays a crucial role: $7.8 billion in 2023, 16% of the WHO's total budget – its announced withdrawal could force the organization to cut its budget by 20%. This estimate is consistent with an analysis by Johns Hopkins, which estimates the U.S. contribution to be between 12 and 15 percent of the budget, a loss that would jeopardize crucial programs such as reducing child deaths or distributing vaccines.
Beyond finances, it is the legitimacy of the WHO that is at stake. @dogeai_gov sees Trump's proposal as a "wake-up call," demanding that the WHO stop "playing political games" and focus on health. The proposed reform includes demands for transparency, an end to ties with the Chinese Communist Party, and the inclusion of Taiwan – demands that, while geopolitical, are based on legitimate criticism of the WHO's management.
Jay Bhattacharya: a hope for independent science in the United States. A model for other countries?
A wind of change is blowing with the appointment of Jay Bhattacharya as head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in January 2025 ( STAT News, January 15, 2025). Bhattacharya, co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, became known for his criticisms of lockdown policies and uniform approaches during the COVID-19 crisis, advocating for data-driven, not policy-driven science.
His appointment, welcomed by many independent scientists, aims to restore medical research to its former glory. Bhattacharya said he wants to "restore trust in science by freeing it from political influences and conflicts of interest," a mission that could influence the overall reforms of institutions like the WHO, with a focus on transparency and scientific rigor.
Mass layoffs in the United States health agencies
On April 1, 2025 (1), at the instigation of the Trump administration and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vast wave of layoffs of 10,000 people affected American health agencies. The FDA lost about 3,500 employees (19% of its workforce), the NIH about 1,200 (6%) and 2,400 at the CDC (Center of Disease Control). Human & Health Services (HHS) is expected to see its staff cut from 82,000 to 62,000 (24%) by combining its cuts with voluntary departures of 10,000 people. These cuts, aimed at cutting bureaucracy and spending, have affected key departments such as drug regulation, scientific research and public health programs.
Backed by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, the measures are part of a controversial restructuring that has been criticized for its risks to health security and research, but has been advocated as a necessary reform by Kennedy and his allies. Change is underway.
Towards reform or dissolution? An uncertain future for the W.H.O.
In the face of this crisis, the WHO is at a turning point. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, accused of «misconductby Ethiopia, is under pressure. Trump's proposal to appoint an American to head the WHO in 2027 could redefine his leadership, but many doubt its feasibility. Tom Renz believes that «the WHO is beyond repair» without radical measures, such as the indictment of Tedros and his team. RenzTom, February 6, 2025). Others, such as call for "Abandon" the organization, an idea illustrated by a viral image on X with the slogan "Ditch it" ( reerob2247, February 6, 2025).
The WHO is now paying the price for its controversial choices during the COVID-19 crisis. By delaying the use of corticosteroids and marginalizing early treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, while rapidly promoting experimental vaccines, it has fueled global distrust. If it does not meet the reform requirements, a US withdrawal could precipitate its financial and operational downfall, with an estimated 20% budget cut. The days of the WHO, as we have known it, are probably numbered. Science and scientific truth, led by figures such as Jay Bhattacharya, will take precedence over institutionalized lies, paving the way for a new era of public health based on transparency, rigor and efficiency.
The patient will benefit.
1)Note on the US layoffs
On April 1, 2025, a massive wave of layoffs began in the United States across several federal health agencies—namely the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), NIH (National Institutes of Health), and HHS (Department of Health and Human Services)—as part of a restructuring effort led by the Trump administration under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. These layoffs are part of a broader plan to shrink the federal government and reorganize public health infrastructure, with the stated goal of reducing what Kennedy has called "sprawling bureaucracy" and refocusing priorities on chronic disease prevention.
These layoffs align with a broader Trump administration initiative, backed by Elon Musk's "Department of Government Efficiency," to slash federal spending. Kennedy has pledged to "do more with less" despite the HHS's $1.7 trillion annual budget, which he deems inefficient at improving American health. The restructuring also involves eliminating redundant programs and centralizing certain functions.
Details of the Layoffs by agencies
- Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Approximately 3,500 jobs were cut, representing nearly 19% of its pre-layoff workforce (around 18,000 employees).The cuts affected various departments, including those overseeing drug regulation, medical devices, tobacco products, and food safety. For instance, the entire office responsible for drafting new e-cigarette regulations was eliminated.
- Key figures like Peter Marks (vaccine chief) and Brian King (head of the Center for Tobacco Products) were sidelined or fired. However, HHS assured that drug, device, and food review teams would remain intact, though doubts linger about maintaining these functions with such steep reductions.
- National Institutes of Health (NIH): Around 1,200 positions were eliminated, roughly 6% of its staff. The layoffs targeted researchers, scientists, doctors, and support staff, particularly in communications, IT, and management. Several institute directors, such as Jeanne Marrazzo (who succeeded Anthony Fauci at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), were placed on administrative leave or reassigned to remote posts like the Indian Health Service. These cuts coincided with the appointment of the new NIH director, Jay Bhattacharya, chosen by Kennedy.
- Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): The HHS, which oversees the FDA, NIH, CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), and other agencies, will see its workforce drop from 82,000 to 62,000 employees, a reduction of about 24%. This includes 10,000 direct layoffs and 10,000 early or voluntary departures in recent months.
- Cuts impacted various divisions, including those working on HIV, minority health, injury prevention (e.g., gun violence), and lesser-known programs like child safety initiatives. Entire agencies, such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), are being merged into a new entity called the Administration for Healthy America.
Reactions and Potential Consequences:
Experts, former officials (like ex-FDA Commissioner Robert Califf), and senators (such as Bernie Sanders and Bill Cassidy) have voiced concerns, calling the cuts a "massacre" or "bloodletting." They warn of irreplaceable expertise loss, weakened epidemic oversight, delays in drug approvals, and setbacks in biomedical research.
Laid-off employees often learned of their fate via morning emails or were denied building access. Some predict heightened health risks, like outbreaks or food safety issues, though HHS insists essential functions will be preserved.
Kennedy and his support celebrated the changes on social media with the slogan "The revolution starts today!" alongside the onboarding of new appointees like Martin Makary at the FDA.