Neoliberalism implodes in a crisis of truth and trust



Since the Enlightenment, liberalism has aimed to remove politics from the political. Given that human history is largely defined by clashing worldviews and violent conflict, the impulse to tame this dynamic is understandable. Liberalism, grounded in secular neutrality and rule of law, sought to suppress the passions that drive men to war. Its answer was to distribute power widely enough so that no single leader’s rage or charisma could lead a nation into chaos.

This project has reached its apex in today’s managerial neoliberal regime, where secular humanism serves as the ruling creed and experts, housed in supposedly impartial institutions, are tasked with determining truth. But the cracks in this foundation began forming long ago.

In the liberal order, the collapse of institutional credibility marks a crisis of truth. And so far, the only answer from the ruling class has been to scream, 'Shut up!'

Our ruling class members have willingly torched the credibility of the very institutions they rely on for legitimacy — all in pursuit of temporary political advantage. That destruction has accelerated a collapse that now feels inevitable. Liberalism faced an epistemological crisis and failed to meet the challenge. Like every tradition that cannot defend its intellectual ground, it is watching its authority erode into dust.

Neutral governance comes with clear benefits. It claims to free society from bitter conflicts over religion and identity. It promises a greater scale of cooperation by stripping away regional particularities — traditions, customs, prejudices — that make governing diverse populations difficult.

Even technical differences tied to nationhood, like currency, units of measurement, or contract law, obstruct trade. But by creating institutions that claim neutrality in matters of faith, culture, and commerce, liberalism increased the scale of possible coordination. It built what amounts to a “minimum viable morality,” a lowest common denominator that allowed incompatible systems to function together.

The problem? That same minimum morality now appears insufficient to hold anything together.

Instead of serving specific peoples with particular needs, modern institutions — staffed by credentialed experts — aim to impose rational, universal standards on everyone. The promise is simple: equal treatment under a neutral system. The administrators of this system are chosen not for their biases, but for their supposed objectivity.

These institutions soon become more than arbiters — they become the final authority on truth. In the liberal order, they are the only legitimate source of knowledge. If it isn’t institutional, it isn’t real.

The economic benefits of this arrangement are obvious. Large-scale cooperation yields immense material gains. Yes, traditions and religious customs may erode in the process, but who can argue with abundance? Prosperity silences most dissent.

As long as the ruling class preserves the credibility of the institutions, the system works. Managerial liberalism turned experts into a new priestly caste — with one crucial difference: This priesthood could actually make it rain. As long as the economy grew and the promises were kept, no one questioned the myth of neutral expertise. All the boats were rising. Why complain?

Unfortunately for the liberal order, human beings are predictably flawed. The institutions were never truly neutral, and the experts were never infallible. Over time, the ruling class got greedy. They stretched their credibility to justify wars and push social engineering — even when it clearly wasn’t in the public interest.

As their grip on power tightened, they grew bolder. Those who ran the system began treating institutional trust as a political currency to be spent. They traded legitimacy for short-term advantage, eroding the very foundation that kept their authority intact.

This trend hit its apex during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Across the board — from the World Health Organization to local physicians — experts promoted obvious falsehoods to maintain power. The betrayal was staggering.

After watching that coordinated institutional collapse, the public started asking uncomfortable questions. If medical professionals — the most trusted experts in life-and-death matters — could lie, what else has the system lied about? Elections? Wars? Economics? History? Suddenly, everything is up for re-examination.

This moment terrifies the ruling class. Its members' entire strategy relied on institutional consensus to shape truth and steer public opinion. This is why disillusioned liberal voices like Sam Harris or Douglas Murray, once celebrated for challenging orthodoxy, now beg the public to get back in the box and stop asking questions.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with how we know what we know. Under managerial neoliberalism, experts — and the institutions they populate — became the foundation of knowledge itself. Truth was whatever the expert consensus declared it to be.

Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre (no relation) argued that the survival of any tradition depends on its ability to confront and resolve an epistemological crisis. In the liberal order, the collapse of institutional credibility marks just such a crisis. And so far, the only answer from the ruling class has been to scream, “Shut up!”

MacIntyre also insisted that resolving a crisis requires more than adopting a new framework. It demands understanding why the old one failed. But the current elite show no capacity for that kind of reflection. Instead of humility, we get hysteria — mockery, censorship, and cancellation from experts who should be asking how they got it so wrong.

The global neoliberal order has hit an epistemological wall, and its expert class members lack the wisdom or self-awareness to break through it. They will continue screeching and lashing out in defense of a collapsing worldview. But the truth is unavoidable: The era of rule by experts is ending.

This crisis brings danger, yes — but also opportunity. A new paradigm is emerging. And whatever comes next, it will not be governed by the priests of consensus.

World Health Organization reports adverse effects following US withdrawal



On his first day back in office, President Donald Trump resumed America's withdrawal from the scandal-plagued World Health Organization — a departure Trump initiated in his first term that was delayed for four years by the Biden administration. Days later, the administration ordered U.S. public health officials to stop working with the WHO.

Since American taxpayers will no longer be on the hook for funding over 15% of the organization's annual budget, the WHO is scrambling to adapt, laying off workers, closing clinics, and killing programs.

According to an internal WHO memo seen by Reuters, the organization — facing an income gap of $600 million in 2026 when the withdrawal takes effect — is looking to slash its budget for 2026-27 by 21%, from $5.3 billion to $4.2 billion.

"The United States' announcement, combined with recent reductions in official development assistance by some countries to fund increased defence spending, has made our situation much more acute," said the memo, which was signed by WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

"Despite our best efforts, we are now at the point where we have no choice but to reduce the scale of our work and workforce," added the memo.

'WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States.'

In his Jan. 21 executive order, Trump recalled his initial reasons for leaving the organization, namely "the organization's mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states."

Trump noted further that the "WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States, far out of proportion with other countries' assessed payments. China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO."

In early February, Ghebreyesus begged the Trump administration to reconsider, stating he would welcome the opportunity "to preserve and strengthen the historic relationship between WHO and the US."

Ghebreyesus suggested that contrary to Trump's characterization, the WHO was a reformed organization whose heavy financial reliance on the U.S. was short-term. The director-general also suggested that the WHO was not politically compromised by China and had not mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic.

'Drastic cuts to development aid by the U.S. and other countries represent a huge disruption.'

Growing increasingly desperate, Ghebreyesus pleaded again for a reversal of fortunes on Feb. 11, stating, "We regret the announcement by the United States, of its intention to withdraw, and it was also sad to see them participating less this week. I think we all felt their absence."

"We very much hope they would reconsider, and we would welcome the opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue," added Ghebreyesus.

It appears the WHO — which Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently called a "very nefarious organization" — has since accepted the fact that the U.S. and its money are not making a return.

According to the Brussels Times, the WHO is executing a hiring freeze, a ban on nonessential travel, and renegotiations of supply contracts.

Ghebreyesus noted in the internal memo, "Drastic cuts to development aid by the U.S. and other countries represent a huge disruption for countries, NGOs, and U.N. organisations, including the WHO."

The organization's executive board, composed of 34 member states, recently recommended a 20% member fee hike to cover half of the WHO's budget by 2030, reported Agence France-Presse.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

FACT CHECK: Kenya Has Not Withdrawn From The WHO

A post shared on Facebook claims Kenya withdrew from the World Health Organization (WHO). Verdict: False There is no evidence for this claim. Kenya has called for more funding for the WHO. Fact Check: The United States withdrew from the WHO on Jan. 20, with the WHO director asking the country to reconsider its decision, according to […]

Trump announces America's withdrawal from World Health Organization



President Donald Trump announced America's withdrawal from the scandal-plagued World Health Organization late in his first term, citing the organization's poor response to COVID-19, its apparent willingness to help the communist Chinese regime cover up the spread of the virus, and its refusal to adopt urgently needed reforms.

The withdrawal was set to go into effect on July 6, 2021, but former President Joe Biden swooped in to keep America's membership in the globalist outfit up to date.

Biden is gone, and Trump's withdrawal plan is back.

In his Monday executive order to sever all ties with the WHO, Trump reiterated his previous issues with the organization, then noted that the "WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States, far out of proportion with other countries' assessed payments. China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO."

Now with the shoe on the other foot, Trump revoked Biden's Jan. 20, 2021, letter to United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, wherein the elder Democrat indicated he was reversing course and remaining a member, as well as Biden's executive order 13987, the supposed purpose of which was to improve federal coordination when responding to the pandemic.

'Everybody rips off the United States.'

Trump directed Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russell Vought, the prospective director of the Office of Management and Budget, to pause the future transfer of any cash, support, or resources to the WHO at a time when American taxpayers are on the hook for funding over 15% of the organization's annual budget; recall and reassign American personnel or contractors working in any capacity with the the organization; identify American and international partners who could "assume necessary activities previously undertaken by the WHO"; and jettison the Biden administration's 2024 U.S. Global Health Security Strategy as soon as possible.

Although there is once again a great deal of pearl-clutching about breaking it off with what appears to be in some ways a wealth redistribution scheme, the WHO has repeatedly proven itself to be incompetent and in the pocket of America's adversaries.

For instance, the WHO told the nations of the world not to restrict travelers from China or close their borders, even though China had done so domestically at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic; gave Beijing a a veto over the WHO's COVID-19 origins report; endorsed vaccines that proved to be neither safe nor effective, including the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine whose developer admitted can cause deadly blood clots; and attracted criticism over its sexual abuse scandal, wasteful spending, sloppy scientific research, and corruption.

America's withdrawal is all the more timely because of the continued desire by WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and others to foist a global pandemic pact on member nations. Globalists convened at the World Health Assembly last year failed to produce a draft of the pact, which has been identified by American critics as a threat to national sovereignty. However, Ghebreyesus hinted at the likelihood of trying again while clamping down on "anti-vaxxers" in the meantime.

Trump tasked Rubio in his executive order with also ending further negotiations on the pandemic pact as well as amendments to the International Health Regulations.

"World Health ripped us off," Trump reportedly said Monday. "Everybody rips off the United States. It's not going to happen any more.”

America's withdrawal will be complete within a year of the Trump administration's official notification to the U.N. and the WHO.

"The World Health Organization regrets the announcement that the United States of America intends to withdraw from the Organization," the WHO said in a statement Tuesday. "We hope the United States will reconsider, and we look forward to engaging in constructive dialogue to maintain the partnership between the USA and WHO."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Best Way For Trump To Stick It To WHO Is To Stick With It

Trump should mold the WHO into an organization that serves countries and their populations — not profit — and replace it if he can't.

WHO’s New Tobacco Guidelines Prioritize Ideology Over Public Health

By ignoring the benefit of non-combustible nicotine products in helping smokers quit, the WHO is jeopardizing public health.

Globalists’ 3-pronged attack plan to END our sovereignty



Under the direction of the World Health Organization, the United Nations, and the European Union, the largest globalist power grab in history is currently underway.

“We have threats on multiple fronts,” Glenn Beck warns, adding, “The stakes couldn’t be any higher. Everything is under attack. Free-speech, private property, faith, liberty, children, our families, everything is at stake.”

And the time has never been more ripe, as over 60 countries are facing elections this year.

“So, what does that mean for the New World Order? Well, they have to win. They have to make their major moves now. The time to seize control or at least to have the building blocks in place is right now,” Glenn says.

Glenn believes that if you reflect on the trends of the past decade, there are “three main events” that the globalists could invoke as a crisis in order to seize the control they want — and need.

“One, a major geopolitical risk. These are things like, oh I don’t know, war with Russia, or an economic disruption. Both of those are very likely to happen,” Glenn says.

“The next one is a health emergency. This one can be several things: a pandemic, the threat of a possible pandemic, guns, the climate, you use your imagination on this, but they already have a plan in place for all of them,” he warns.

“Climate change. This is how a government will seize control of food, energy, and water. They will also force private businesses into partnerships through mechanisms like ESG, and they can pull this trigger for almost anything. Forest fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, high temperatures in the summer.”

After these crises have been set in motion, that’s when the global institutions step in to declare their power by imposing mandates.

“What we saw with COVID,” Glenn recalls, “the World Health Organization takes the leading role. We all remember how that went.”


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

US government forces abortion on poor countries; ‘threatens them with extinction’



Abortion has been a major point of contention here in America, but it’s stayed under the radar as it’s slipped into poorer, non-Western countries.

Medical doctor and researcher Dr. Calum Miller calls it “abortion colonialism.”

“It’s the idea that this is a new form of ideological colonialism, the way that Western countries go to non-Western countries, and they say, ‘You have to promote abortion, you have to legalize abortion, you have to put it in your schools,’” Miller tells Allie Beth Stuckey of "Relatable."

If they refuse, they’re threatened with the withholding of something — like aid money.

“They’re basically going into these countries and saying, ‘Your culture, your values, don’t matter. We know better, and you have to change them, or we’re not going to support you,’” Miller explains.

One of the “most sinister” examples of abortion colonialism occurs in places like the Pacific Islands, where the people generally are afraid of climate change, fearing if sea levels rise that their countries will disappear.

“It’s a genuine existential threat to these countries,” Miller says. Rich countries then go to these countries and tell them they “are going to vote for these pro-environmental policies that will save your countries, but only if you support abortion.”

“So, you get these sort of green people and pro-environment people who are so cynical, that care so little about the actual environment and climate change, that they’re willing to base their support for climate change policies or not based on whether the Pacific Islands want to kill their babies,” Miller explains.

“They’re basically threatening these countries with extinction unless they support abortion,” he adds.

Stuckey notes that they’ve done the same thing with the LGBTQ agenda.

“Democratic administrations have said to countries like Uganda, if you don’t repeal your laws against homosexuality,” she says, “we’re going to withhold our aid or XYZ unless you conform to our ideological positions.”

In order to stop this, “It’s not enough to cut Planned Parenthood International’s budget from $100 million to $50 million,” Miller says.

“If we want to preserve these countries and protect their cultural values and give them the tools and resources to do that, we have to be proactive in reaching out to these countries, providing them support, sending pro-life missionaries, giving them resources, giving them political support, giving them education.”

“Because the reality is that even if the U.S. government money stopped going to all of these countries around the world, you would still have millions from the Gates Foundation, from Soros, from Packard, and a bunch of others, and it would still massively outweigh anything that pro-lifers have.”


Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The WHO didn't get its pandemic treaty through. Critics say it still managed to consolidate 'unchecked authority.'



WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and other globalists have campaigned feverishly in recent months to promote an international pandemic agreement, lashing out at those who dared to suggest the legally binding pact would undermine American sovereignty and burden U.S. taxpayers with yet more financial obligations, as well as at those who noted that the WHO is an untrustworthy, corruption-prone, and Chinese communist-compromised organization.

Ghebreyesus, who leaned on concern-mongering about "Disease X" to move the needle, sought a successful vote on the globalist pact at the 77th meeting of World Health Assembly from May 27 to June 1 in Geneva, Switzerland. His hopes were dashed as the Assembly couldn't agree on the wording or passage of the pact.

Blaze News previously reported that the WHA did, however, manage to adopt a package of amendments to the International Health Regulations allegedly aimed at strengthening "global preparedness, surveillance and responses to public health emergencies, including pandemics."

Critics have expressed concern that the amendments, adopted by "consensus" contra an actual vote, might not be as advertised or even be legal under the WHO's own rules.

American biochemist Dr. Robert Malone claimed Monday that the "hastily approved IHR [amendments] consolidate virtually unchecked authority and power of the Director-General to declare public health emergencies and pandemics as he/she may choose to define them, and thereby to trigger and guide allocation of global resources as well as a wide range of public health actions and guidances."

'The WHO's failure during the COVID-19 pandemic was as total as it was predictable and did lasting harm to our country.'

The IHR make up a legally binding international instrument authorized under Article 21 of the WHO Constitution to which all 194 member states of the WHO, including the U.S., are parties. While amendments submitted to the WHA can be advanced by consensus, decision-making by vote "is a legally available option."

WHO member states agreed in January 2022 to consider potential amendments to the IHR. This decision was prompted, in part, by concerns over "the negative effects of discrimination, misinformation and stigmatization on public health emergency prevention, preparedness and response as well as unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade, and recognizing the need for strengthened coordination."

The amendments were negotiated parallel to the so-far unsuccessful pandemic pact but crafted in the same spirit.

According to Liberty Council, the proposed amendments took "major steps in the wake of COVID-19 to conform and integrate each nation's pandemic responses by directing them to develop 'core' capabilities in areas of Surveillance (vaccine passports/digital health certificates), Risk Communication (censoring misinformation and disinformation), Implementation of Control Measures (social distancing/lockdowns), Access to Health Services and Products (greater sharing of resources and technologies between countries), and more."

The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that the Biden administration was actively engaged in the negotiations despite the urging of Republican lawmakers, such as Sens. Dr. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), to spike the amendments, noting they would "substantially increase the WHO's health emergency powers and constitute intolerable infringements upon U.S. sovereignty."

Cassidy, Johnson, and the entire Senate Republican Conference told President Joe Biden in a May 1 letter, "The WHO's failure during the COVID-19 pandemic was as total as it was predictable and did lasting harm to our country. The United States cannot afford to ignore this latest WHO inability to perform its most basic function and must insist on comprehensive WHO reforms before even considering amendments to the International Health Regulations."

'We consider any such agreement to be a treaty requiring the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate under Article II Section 2 of the Constitution.'

Like Dr. Malone and the Heritage Foundation, the Republicans indicated that the adoption of new IHR amendments at the 77th WHA would be in violation of the WHO International Health Regulations, specifically Article 55, which states, "The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration."

"As the WHO has still not provided final amendment text to member states, we submit that IHR amendments may not be considered at next month's WHA," wrote the Republican lawmakers. "Should you ignore this advice, we state in the strongest possible terms that we consider any such agreement to be a treaty requiring the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate under Article II Section 2 of the Constitution."

Extra to facing potential congressional pushback, the Biden administration negotiated the amendments with the foreknowledge that the U.S. might not be bound by them depending on the results of the 2024 election. After all, President Donald Trump is expected to once again move to withdraw America from the WHO.

'The final version of the IHRs significantly enhances the WHO’s authority.'

The WHO said in a statement Saturday that the WHA and its 194 member countries "agreed [on] a package of critical amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), and made concrete commitments to completing negotiations on a global pandemic agreement within a year, at the latest."

"The amendments to the International Health Regulations will bolster countries' ability to detect and respond to future outbreaks and pandemics by strengthening their own national capacities, and coordination between fellow States, on disease surveillance, information sharing and response," said Ghebreyesus. "This is built on commitment to equity, an understanding that health threats do not recognize national borders, and that preparedness is a collective endeavor."

Despite the insinuation of consent among member nations, the Sovereignty Coalition suggested that roughly 30% of member states were present and Ghebreyesus declined to conduct a roll-call vote.

The amendments ultimately adopted by 77th WHA include a new definition for "pandemic emergency"; another "equity"-driven international wealth redistribution mechanism; the creation of a new bureaucracy to oversee the implementation of the other half-measures; and the creation of IHR authorities for member countries to "improve coordination of implementation of the Regulations within and among countries."

While acknowledging that the language of the amendments was weakened during the negotiations, Liberty Counsel indicated that "the final version of the IHRs significantly enhances the WHO's authority."

The U.S. State Department claimed the amendments will "make the global health security architecture stronger overall while maintaining full respect for sovereignty of individual states."

The Kaiser Family Foundation indicated that if "approved at the WHA, the [IHR] revision does not require further Congressional approval or ratification in the U.S."

The British government indicated that each member state has the right to evaluate "each and every amendment before making a sovereign choice of whether to accept or opt out of each — or all of — the amendments."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Globalists suffer big upset in Geneva; WHO chief urges aggressive crackdown on 'global pandemic agreement' skeptics



WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and other globalists were met with failure at the May 27-June 1 World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland. Rather than win over critics with reassurances ahead of the next stage of his campaign to promote the failed scheme, Ghebreyesus instead doubled down, urging a crackdown on skeptics.

Road to failure

Ghebreyesus has spent several months promoting his "global pandemic agreement."

In his Feb. 12 Dubai address, entitled, "A Pact with the Future: Why the Pandemic Agreement Is Mission-Critical for Humanity," Ghebreyesus said, "We cannot allow this historic agreement, this milestone in global health, to be sabotaged by those who spread lies, either deliberately or unknowingly."

The critics whom Ghebreyesus branded liars and conspiracy theorists include those who reckon the pact would undermine national sovereignty as well as those skeptical of the WHO's competence. In the latter case, the WHO did itself no favors in recent years, particularly during the pandemic.

After all, the organization reportedly aided the Chinese communist regime in its cover up of COVID-19's origins; told the nations of the world not to restrict travelers from China or close their borders even though China had domestically; granted Beijing a veto over the WHO's COVID-19 origins report; and it endorsed vaccines that were not nearly as safe or as effective as advertised, including the blood clot-inducing Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine whose developer now faces a class-action lawsuit over injuries in the United Kingdom as well as a recent lawsuit in Utah. Prior to the pandemic, it also courted controversy with its sexual abuse scandal, wasteful spending, and corruption.

Evidently, it was not enough for the WHO director to demean opponents of his grand scheme to see it through.

'I know that there remains among you a common will to get this done.'

"Of course, we all wish that we had been able to reach a consensus on the agreement in time for this health assembly, and cross the finish line," Ghebreyesus said in his opening remarks at the 77th World Health Assembly. "I remain confident that you still will, because where there is a will, there is a way. I know that there remains among you a common will to get this done."

In the days that followed, the assembly failed to cross the finish line or even come close. As the result, Ghebreyesus has sought to transform the race into a marathon.

New deadline for a desired result

Desperate to keep the dream alive after two years of futile negotiations, the WHO had countries agree to continue negotiating the proposed globalist pact. A package of half-measures have apparently been accepted to tide over pandemic treaty supporters in the meantime.

The WHOsaid in a statement Saturday that the World Health Assembly and its 194 member countries "agreed [on] a package of critical amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), and made concrete commitments to completing negotiations on a global pandemic agreement within a year, at the latest."

The half-measures compromise amendments to the IHR that will supposedly "strengthen global preparedness, surveillance and responses to public health emergencies, including pandemics."

These include a new definition for "pandemic emergency"; another "equity"-driven international wealth re-distribution mechanism; the creation of a new bureaucracy to oversee the implementation of the other half-measures; and the creation of IHR authorities for member countries to "improve coordination of implementation of the Regulations within and among countries."

"The amendments to the International Health Regulations will bolster countries' ability to detect and respond to future outbreaks and pandemics by strengthening their own national capacities, and coordination between fellow States, on disease surveillance, information sharing and response," said Ghebreyesus. "This is built on commitment to equity, an understanding that health threats do not recognize national borders, and that preparedness is a collective endeavor."

Clampdown on vaccine critics

After negotiators failed to produce a draft deal for approval by the WHO annual assembly, Ghebreyesus gave a speech promoting health initiatives and vaccines.

'I think they use COVID as an opportunity and, you know, all the havoc they're creating.'

Toward the end of his remarks, he noted, "You know, the serious challenge that's posed by anti-vaxxers and I think we need to strategize to really push back because vaccines work, vaccines affect adults, and we have science, evidence on our side."

"I think it's time to be more aggressive in pushing back on anti-vaxxers," continued the WHO director. "I think they use COVID as an opportunity and, you know, all the havoc they're creating. Maybe that's one of the messages I'd also like to include to whatever I have [to] say."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!