World Council for Health – Bias and Credibility

World Council for Health - Conspiracy - Right Bias - Conservative - Not credible or reliableWorld Council for Health - Pseudoscience - Right Bias - Not Credible or ReliableFactual Reporting: Very Low - Biased - Not Credible - Fake News


Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information; therefore, fact-checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

  • Overall, we rate the World Council for Health a right-biased quackery level pseudoscience and conspiracy organization based on promoting unproven and false claims regarding vaccines, Covid-19, and general health.

Detailed Report

Factual Reporting: VERY LOW
Country: United Kingdom
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY


Founded in 2021, the World Council for Health is a coalition of partners worldwide that promote Covid-19 misinformation and anti-vaccine propaganda. According to their about page, “The World Council for Health brings to the table the world’s best health advocates, doctors, innovators, and activists fighting to achieve good health for all. We work collaboratively with 130+ organizations in 40 countries to advance public health knowledge and sensemaking.”

Read our profile on United Kingdom media and government.

Funded by / Ownership

EbMCsquared, a not-for-profit company, owns and manages the World Council for Health. The current CEO is Dr. Tess Lawrie, who frequently promotes covid-19 misinformation. The organization generates revenue through donations. The website discloses its donors, but it requires giving them an email address to view it. Sorry, but I have no interest in providing this group with my email address.

Analysis / Bias

The World Council for Health website publishes news related to their organization and information on Covid-19 and other diseases. Almost all stories reviewed are either based on pseudoscience or false. For example, they promote the dangers of 5G World Council for Health General Assembly Meeting on 5G Health Impacts Disrupted. In this article, they claim that a presentation on the risks of 5G was hacked to prevent their message from being heard. There is no evidence to support the dangers of 5g.

The majority of articles focus on medical freedom and negative reporting on the World Health Organization (WHO), where they claim “World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed a global pandemic agreement that will give it undemocratic rights over sovereign people.” This statement is false as ‘WHO Has No Authority to Dictate U.S. Health Policy.’

Other articles focus on unproven alternative treatments for Covid-19, such as the use of Ivermectin. As of this writing, there is no consensus evidence that Ivermectin is effective in treating Covid-19. Finally, with the increase in Monkeypox cases, they have begun promoting baseless conspiracy theories such as this “The World Council for Health notes that non-scientific speculation on recent monkeypox cases by the WHO is being used to justify further human rights violations together with a roll-out of new and experimental smallpox vaccines.” In general, they are right-leaning pseudoscience and health conspiracy website

Failed Fact Checks

  • A third party has not fact-checked the World Council of Health; however, the people associated with the website, such as Tess Lawrie, frequently fail fact checks. Further, we provide evidence above that indicates they make false claims.

Overall, we rate the World Council for Health a right-biased quackery level pseudoscience and conspiracy organization based on promoting unproven and false claims regarding vaccines, Covid-19, and general health. (D. Van Zandt 05/30/2022)


Last Updated on July 1, 2023 by Media Bias Fact Check

Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

MBFC Ad-Free 


MBFC Donation

Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources

Found this insightful? Please consider sharing on your Social Media: