We were told the US-WHO relationship was over. We were lied to.
Lucinda van Buuren of the World Council for Health joins us to expose a vast network of WHO Collaborating Centers embedded inside universities, regulators, public health agencies, and medical institutions across the world, including dozens in the United States.
The deeper issue isn’t the WHO itself.
It’s what remains after governments say they’ve walked away...
Lucinda’s journey didn’t begin in a research lab or policy office. It began inside a hospital.
She had spent nearly 30 years working as a registered nurse in Australia, including time on an ethics and values committee. Then COVID mandates arrived, and the questions she believed healthcare professionals were supposed to ask suddenly became unwelcome.
While reviewing documents from both the FDA and Australia’s TGA, she noticed a gap between what the public was being told and what the documents themselves appeared to acknowledge. In her words, one TGA document “literally states eight weeks data on new technology not used in humans before.”
For Lucinda, that immediately raised a basic question.
Where was the risk assessment?
“I asked for the risk assessment three times in writing from my hospital employment and that question was never even acknowledged.”
The concern wasn’t simply about disagreeing with a policy. It was that a nurse asking for information she believed was necessary for informed decision-making says she received no answer at all.
Her contract was eventually terminated. She said her sister, who served as the patient safety officer at the same hospital, was also terminated after raising concerns about reported deaths in Australia’s adverse event reporting system.
That remains difficult for many people to reconcile. Healthcare workers were told to follow the science, yet some who asked for the underlying documents, risk assessments, and informed consent framework say they found themselves pushed out of the system instead.
But the story didn’t end with her termination. The unanswered questions kept leading somewhere else.
What began as concerns about one mandate gradually became an investigation into the institutions shaping public health policy itself. She described finding Australia’s Country Cooperation Strategy with the WHO, signed in 2017, and then discovering that the TGA itself operated WHO Collaborating Centers.
This was no longer about one hospital, one mandate, or even one regulator.
It became a question of whether public health agencies were operating independently, or whether a much larger network was shaping policy behind the scenes.
“There is a huge problem here with public-private partnerships, and it just really seems like the private is actually leading the show the whole way.”
#ad: You are not powerless.
For 5,000 years, gold and silver have acted as a financial safe haven through every major crisis. They can’t be printed, diluted, or frozen — and in a storm like this, that matters.
That’s why Genesis Gold Group just released a brand-new Financial Storm Survival Guide, breaking down what’s happening in the economy and what you can do right now to protect yourself.
Arm yourself with knowledge and get your free Financial Storm Survival Guide right now at DailyPulseGold.com.
DISCLOSURE: This ad was paid for by Genesis Gold Group. We may earn a small commission when you shop through our sponsors. Thank you for your support.
The deeper Lucinda looked into the WHO Collaborating Center network, the farther its reach seemed to extend.
These are not obscure organizations operating on the margins of public health. According to the material she presented, they are embedded throughout universities, health agencies, regulatory bodies, research institutions, and medical organizations around the world.
At first glance, the term “collaborating center” sounds harmless. Lucinda argued the real significance of the structure emerges when you examine who carries responsibility for the work being done.
“One thing too that’s really clear is the WHO CC is, is not the legal entity. The legal entity that controls and responsible for the WHO CC is the designated institution.”
That distinction raises an obvious question.
If a WHO-linked center helps shape guidance, training, regulation, public health programs, or data systems, where does accountability ultimately sit? With the WHO itself, or with the university, agency, or institution carrying out the work?
Maria described it as “a real hands-off liability approach.”
The accountability question was only part of the story. The scale of the network was equally striking.
Lucinda said WHO Collaborating Centers span fields ranging from nursing, medicine, and bioethics to epidemiology, health legislation, digital health, biolabs, influenza research, and global health security.
“They have over 857 active WHO Collaborating Centers at this time worldwide.”
The implications became especially significant when the focus shifted to the United States.
Many Americans believe the country has severed its relationship with the WHO. Lucinda argued that the institutional infrastructure tells a different story. She said there were still roughly 70 WHO Collaborating Centers operating across the United States, including links to the CDC, NIH, and FDA.
She also raised questions about potential conflicts of interest, patents, and whether directors of WHO Collaborating Centers should face greater public scrutiny.
If government agencies, universities, regulators, and research centers continue operating inside WHO-linked structures, then a country’s public declaration of separation may not tell the whole story.
On paper, a government can walk away.
The institutions, partnerships, and networks behind it may never leave.
The network wasn’t confined to the United States.
Lucinda pointed to organizations in Japan, Finland, South Korea, Brazil, Canada, the UK, Pakistan, Sudan, the US, and elsewhere. The list included universities, nursing organizations, research centers, and public health institutions spread across multiple continents.
The nursing component stood out in particular.
Nurses make up one of the largest healthcare workforces on the planet. Lucinda said they account for roughly 60% of the global health workforce, which means any strategy aimed at nursing has the potential to influence an enormous number of healthcare professionals.
That matters because decisions made at the institutional level eventually reach patients.
If these networks help shape how nurses are trained, how healthcare guidance is distributed, how professional standards are developed, and how public health priorities are implemented, then their influence extends far beyond policy documents. It reaches hospitals, clinics, universities, licensing bodies, and ultimately the people receiving care.
Lucinda described a WHO Collaborating Centre nursing network that connects nursing, public health, and midwifery organizations at local, regional, and global levels under the broader goal of achieving “health for all.”
Maria immediately connected that framework to concerns many critics have raised about the future direction of healthcare.
“Or in other words, One Health. In other words, you have no individual health. We’re applying this AI algorithm to you.”
The network Lucinda highlighted included organizations such as the University of Technology Sydney, the International Confederation of Midwives, the International Council of Nurses, Johns Hopkins-linked entities, and numerous other partners.
The focus then shifted toward Agenda 2030 and the broader goals attached to many of these initiatives.
Lucinda pointed to references involving Sustainable Development Goals, universal health coverage, online learning systems, nursing implementation programs, and global strategic frameworks. Maria added that terms such as digital health, sustainable cities, AI integration, and universal systems often sound uncontroversial on the surface, but take on a different meaning depending on how they are ultimately implemented.
“When they say sustainable cities and communities, they mean less people physically going to work, right? They mean AI replacing you.”
One of Lucinda’s most striking observations came when she said many healthcare workers have “absolutely no idea” how these networks operate or how extensive they have become.
That may be what’s most troubling about it.
The people carrying out the policies often do not fully understand the larger systems.
#ad: Want protection from surveillance, hacking, and even electromagnetic threats?
Escape Zone’s elite Faraday bags block GPS, Bluetooth, RFID skimming, and EMF—perfect for phones, laptops, wallets, and more.
Their premium ballistic backpack even combines Faraday shielding with Kevlar armor, giving you the upper hand in an unpredictable world.
Want to shield your body, too? Try their EMF-blocking beanies and blankets—because protection shouldn’t stop with your phone.
Whether it’s for you, your family, or someone you love—don’t leave it to chance.
Shop now at escapezone.com/pulse and protect what matters most.
DISCLOSURE: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase through them, we may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps keep our work independent. Thank you for your support.
The conversation ultimately returned to a question at the center of growing public distrust: transparency.
Lucinda said the World Council for Health had contacted hundreds of WHO Collaborating Centers requesting access to their work plans, documents that can reveal funding sources, partnerships, intellectual property arrangements, and potential conflicts of interest.
She said only a few responded.
If these organizations play such an influential role in shaping health policy, research, education, and professional standards, why is it so difficult to see how they operate?
The issue becomes even more complicated when those networks appear deeply embedded inside major institutions.
Maria pointed to examples across the United States, including the Mayo Clinic, Georgetown, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, the University of Washington, and many others.
“The list goes on and on and on.”
That was the point.
The network wasn’t confined to a single agency or policy area. It stretched across universities, research centers, medical institutions, and public health organizations that millions of Americans already trust.
That reality complicated one of the biggest political questions raised throughout the episode. Many supporters of RFK Jr. and the Trump administration hoped reform would come from Washington. But if these relationships remain embedded throughout hundreds of institutions, meaningful change may require far more than a policy announcement or a change in leadership.
Lucinda repeatedly returned to personal responsibility.
“We’ve got to stop waiting for one person to be a hero, and we’ve got to become our own heroes and protect our own families, and in a peaceful way, by asking questions like where’s the funding?”
The deeper problem extends beyond pharmaceutical companies alone. Public institutions increasingly appear to serve private interests while continuing to operate with public authority and public funding.
“This public-private partnership, it’s not public-private at the moment, it’s actually private-public, and the private’s running the show on the public’s purse strings.”
If trust in existing systems continues to erode, many people will begin looking elsewhere for answers. Independent doctors, informed consent, open debate, decentralized health networks, and parallel institutions are increasingly being viewed not simply as alternatives, but as necessities.
That is why Maria and Lucinda framed the Better Way Conference (grab a virtual ticket and watch online TOMORROW) as an effort to build solutions rather than wait for institutions to reform themselves.
Lucinda’s final message was directed at healthcare workers who may feel caught in the middle.
“We can’t actually make informed decisions unless we hear all the sides, otherwise it’s not informed.”
The larger question isn’t only whether institutions are being transparent.
It’s whether doctors, nurses, and patients can make informed decisions when important information never reaches them in the first place.
#ad: Health insurance in America is broken.
Over 200,000 Americans go bankrupt because of medical bills every year—and many of them already had insurance. On average, 20% of claims are denied, leaving families stuck paying massive out-of-pocket costs after spending thousands on premiums.
But there’s an alternative.
CrowdHealth is a community-powered model helping members fund nearly 100% of their medical bills at a fraction of the cost.
More than 28,000 members have been helped so far, with a 99.9% funding success rate and over $56 million in medical bills saved.
CrowdHealth isn’t insurance. It’s a way to step outside the broken system and take control of your healthcare.
Get started today for $99 per member per month for the first three months.
Go to joincrowdhealth.com/pulse and use code PULSE.
DISCLOSURE: This ad was paid for by CrowdHealth. Thank you for supporting our sponsors.
We want to thank Lucinda van Buuren for joining us today—and more importantly, we want to thank you for watching and doing your duty to be informed when so many others choose not to.
Follow us (@ZeeeMedia and @VigilantFox) for stories that matter—stories the media doesn’t want you to see.
We’ll be back with another show on Monday. See you then.
Watch the full interview below:
For more information on the Better Way Conference, watch this clip:
