WHO Expert Explains Health Regulaions and Pandemic Treaty – Interview mit James Roguski

07.06.2023 | www.kla.tv/26254

Interviewer: Today I have the honour to be speaking with James Roguski. James Roguski is a researcher, author and activist who has been tracking the W.H.O. for quite some time now and he has basically literally taken apart the W.H.O. pandemic treaty as well as the International Health Regulations that they've been working on for the past years. He has literally broken it down to each sentence and explains the details, the implications and the point is these two treaties or documents really impact all of humanity. So it's important for us to understand it and most of us haven't even heard that they exist. Many of us get them confused, even politicians. I think most many politicians don't see through all of this. So James I'm really glad that you joined us today. Now the first question of mine would be, you've explained to me that it's two documents that are being debated at the moment or being negotiated on in the W.H.O. One is the International Health Regulations, the other one is a kind of a treaty. Can you like give us a basic overview for starters? What are these two documents and what was the history until now? Part of it has already been adopted. What is the current status of both of these documents? James Roguski: The honor is mine. Thanks for having me and the opportunity to pass all this information on to the people. For what it's worth, a little bit more than a year ago, I had no idea about any of this. And so I can certainly understand how everybody who's just coming to find out about it now is just overwhelmed by the amount of information. So there's actually three things and there are many versions of the treaty. And so I'll try to give the quick summary and we can go into any additional details that you want. And even the quick summary is kind of tough because there's just so much. All right. So the W.H.O. started in 1948 and they have a constitution. And that constitution under Articles 19 and 20 gives them the ability to create or negotiate and adopt what's called a convention or an agreement. And so one of the things that they're pursuing is a framework convention for pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. Okay. A lot of words. They call it the CA+, the convention agreement plus. Right. And so that's what most people call the proposed pandemic treaty. Okay. Under Articles 21 and 22 of the constitution of the W.H.O., they have the authority to put forth regulations. And way back in 1969, they adopted the international health regulations. That is an existing legally binding document that all of the member nations have agreed to, you know, for as long as most people have been alive. Interviewer: Is it legally binding at the moment? James Roguski: The international health regulations are a legally binding international instrument, but it doesn't have many harsh requirements. Okay. I personally think that it's improperly named. It really should be called the international surveillance, monitoring, reporting, emergency declaring, fear-mongering, control regulations. If people understood that that's what it's all about. But the requirements in the current state of affairs with the international health regulations, which is an agreement that exists and it's legally binding - the only requirements are that nations pay attention to what's going on in their country. And if they notice an outbreak of some sort of disease, that's, you know, abnormal and potentially problematic - they're obligated. There's an office in every nation, I'm sure nobody knows this, called the international health regulations focal point. There's somebody who's supposed to be in direct communications from each nation to the W.H.O. And if something's going on, you know, if there's an outbreak of some strange disease, boom, they tell the W.H.O. That's the primary obligation. And I'm okay with that. You know, it's just communication and, you know, letting the world know that maybe there's a problem. If the director general determines all by himself, really there's nobody to stop him from doing it, that it's a public health emergency of international concern, a PHEIC or fake [P.H.E.I.C. = Public Health Emergency of International Concern, spoken like “fake”]. He can say to the world, we've got a fake going on. You better do whatever it is, you know, your nation wants to do. Okay. And so many amendments were made to the 1969 version in 2005. And for the last 18 years or so, that's what we've been operating under. Well, what happened last year, the way I got started in this was I discovered a document on March 28th. And I realized, you know, that it was very important. And it was the Biden administration had proposed amending 13 of the articles in the International Health Regulations. Now, there was a meeting in Geneva last year, every year, they have a World Health Assembly, where all of the 194 nations get together and, you know, discuss health in the world. And the actual proposal that the Biden administration had put forth was completely kicked to the curb. It was not even discussed. What did happen, and I personally think it was an illegitimate action, but what did happen was the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and a handful of other nations, in the middle of the assembly, proposed different sets of amendments, one of them overlapped. And those were adopted a little bit more than a year ago, on May 29th, 2022, amendments to the international health regulations were adopted. Now, I'm going to bet you didn't get the memo. I'm going to bet you didn't hear anything on the news. Interviewer: Did any government get the memo? James Roguski: Oh, sure. I'm sure they got the memo. Interviewer: But did they have anything to say about that? James Roguski: As of today, as far as I know, not a single member of any government anywhere has said anything about the fact that international law was changed last year. Now, here's what the problem is. The delegates are not elected by we, the people. So, the people who are there making these decisions have no obligation to listen to the people. They're appointed. They're unaccountable. They're unelected. They're largely unknown. Most people have no idea who is representing them. The United States actually sent 64 or 65 different people to represent us this year. Okay. And I have an article that I wrote. You can see who represents you from whatever country you might be in. The problem is, back in 1969 when the international health regulations were agreed to, the process that happens is these unelected, unaccountable delegates get together and make a decision. And whatever they decide becomes international law. We don't vote on it. Our Congress or Senate or Parliament don't vote on it. Our Prime Minister or President don't have to sign it. These unelected people make the decision. And it is assumed that if the individual nations do not reject those amendments, as they have the right to do under Article 61 of the regulations, if you remain silent, if your nation remains silent for 18 months, too late. You have 18 months to just say, well, you know, we see that you adopted these amendments, but no thank you. We reject them. So, every nation on the planet has already wasted 12 of those 18 months. Now, this is where people get confused, because mostly these things are considered to be a treaty, right? People think, oh, well, you know, Parliament or the Senate would have to give their advice and consent or the President would have to sign it. But that's not how the amendments to the international health regulations work. Now, moving forward with this, last year, in addition to passing those amendments, they also adopted an ongoing system where they set up what's called the Working Group for the International Health Regulations. And pretty much what happened is the nation saw that the United States was trying to change the rules. And I think it woke everybody up. It opened up Pandora's box. And they said, well, look, if you're going to try to change the rules, we all want to change the rules. And so, they put out a directive to all of the nations of the world, if you all want to change the world, the international health regulations, please submit your proposed amendments by September 30th, 2022. Which, 94 nations did. And the currently, secretly being negotiated proposed amendments, as opposed to the ones that were passed last year, the new batch came from 94 different nations. They've submitted 197 pages of proposed amendments. And there are 307 proposed changes. And so, the new batch now, from September 30th, they kept that completely secret until mid-December. They published that in mid-December. They've had a number of meetings and a number of very secret drafting sessions where they've been negotiating about these amendments. But they have never, to my knowledge, at this point, and I keep checking everywhere I can check, published any amended version. So, all we have is the proposed amendments that were made public in December. Now, there's 307. We don't have time to go through all 307. I've written many articles about it. I'll give you the top three. It's hard to pick. Okay. But we'll just go one, two, three in terms of the articles of the existing international health regulations. People need to just realize, I mean, I know I've said it, but the international health regulations are an existing document. If you go to stopthewho.com, you can see all of the documents. And, you know, it's just a PDF. You can read it. And Article 1 are just definition of terms. And one of the terms, or actually two of the terms that Bangladesh proposed changing the definition of the terms are standing recommendation and temporary recommendation. The current definition of a recommendation in the IHR is non-binding advice. Now, that shouldn't come as a shock to anybody. That's what a recommendation is. Okay. Bangladesh proposed crossing out the term non-binding along with changes made by Malaysia and Africa and a number of other nations. They would change recommendations to be something that were obligations. And so it's not me saying what I'm about to say. It's the 20-member expert panel called the International Health Regulations Review Committee, who examined all these documents and published a final report, I think on February 1st. They said: “well, you know, wait a minute. The WHO is an advisory organization. They make recommendations. If you change the definition of a recommendation and it becomes an order, that changes everything.” Okay. Now see, here's what happens is people learn that. And many people in the media have learned that. But then they mistakenly in error, say that that is in the treaty. And that's not correct. That is in the proposed amendments to the regulations. And so that gets the fact checkers to go, you know, crazy on you, because that change is the proposed change for Article 1 of the amendment. It's an amendment to the international health regulations. You're not going to see that in the treaty. We'll get to that in a minute. Interviewer: Speaking about this first article, does this mean basically the member states have to enact what is put in these IHR and these health regulations have to enact it into law? James Roguski: You're going to make me have to give you four. So I'll jump from number one. I'll jump to number four. Very, very astute question. Russia has proposed an amendment to Article 4 of the regulations, which says exactly what you just said, that they would have to enact legislation, which could be like a parliament or Congress, you know, enacting legislation or a regulatory agency having some regulation or maybe an executive order. But essentially, you're exactly correct. One of the amendments says that nations would have to enact legislation that would empower or authorize the International Health Regulations Focal Point, which is the office that communicates with the WHO, to have the authority to enforce and implement the obligations under the agreed amendments. So I'll rewind back to number two, which is an amendment put forth on the scope of the IHR. Now, currently, the director general can declare a fake public health emergency of international concern when there's an emergency. They would change that language to expand it to whenever there was the potential for an emergency. Wow. Well, my goodness, that could be anything. Interviewer: Wow! James Roguski: Well, my goodness, that could be anything. Interviewer: And at that point, just to get it clear, when there's a potential for a fake public health emergency James Roguski: … of international concern, right, Interviewer: of international concern, right, the director general can by himself declare, here it is, a public health emergency. Now, these international health regulations have to be implemented in all our member states. James Roguski: Right. Well, whatever he would recommend. Okay. And they also want to give that power to their regional directors. They have six regions, you know, the Americas, Europe, Asia, Middle East, you know, Africa, so forth. And they would declare a public health emergency of regional concern or a PHERC [P.H.E.R.C. = Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern]. All right. And so moving on to number three, when I first read the international health regulations, and I got to article number three, and it currently says, I mean, this is the current situation, that all of the regulations must be implemented with full respect for the dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of people. In December, when I read the amendments, my jaw was left hanging open because India proposed crossing that out, crossing out, implementing the regulations with full respect for the dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of people. Now, I was shocked. I was shocked when I read it. And that should be all that anybody needs to know to get them to want to pay attention to what the heck is going on. But I actually saw it as a blessing, because that is just so absurd. If you are from the UK, AUSTRALIA or OTHER NATIONS: Please check this website and support the official petitions to your Parliament to stop these amendments: http://WORLDWIDE.ExitTheWHO.com Interview: Well, thank you, James, for this great summary of the most crucial points to the international health regulations. Is there anything you want to add to that still, before we move on to the pandemic treaty? James Roguski: Just to reiterate, you know, with clarity, that there were amendments passed or adopted last year. There are currently amendments being negotiated, 307 of them, very secretively, no updates since December, even though many, many negotiations have been happening, many meetings. And many people get all of the information that is in those amendments confused with what we're going to talk about now, which is the proposed convention agreement. And so going back to last year, and years, years before that, go all the way back to 2020, was when they first started talking about the proposed treaty. At the World Health Assembly in 2021, they decided to have a special assembly in December of 2021. And they decided there that they should work towards having a treaty. Many, many, many proposals have been put out there. Back on March 24 of 2022, I published an enormous article with all of the many proposals. And so it wasn't until July of last year, 2022, that the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, the INB, finally came out with their first rough draft or working draft of a treaty. Then in November, they proposed an updated version, which is the conceptual zero draft of the treaty. Then in February, they came up with the zero draft. So it went from working draft to conceptual zero draft to zero draft. And they were hoping, I believe, to have a new draft proposed at this May World Health Assembly, which is occurring from the 21st to the 30th of May, 2023. They wanted to have a first draft so they can say, look at all of the progress that we've made and go forward. But quite frankly, they have failed. And what they ended up doing was in a meeting that they had at the beginning of April, they said, OK, look, all of the nations, please submit any additional text that you would like to add to the current zero draft. And what they promised to provide by one week ago, it was May 22nd, they promised to provide a bureau's text. They refer to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body and the secretariat that supports them as the bureau. And so then they said, well, they were only going to circulate that bureau's text amongst the drafting groups in secret. Well, somebody posted it on the internet, a blog in Geneva got access to it. And so it has leaked out. So I have published a week or so ago. Interviewer: Yeah, I got it from your website. So this basically is the current draft of this pandemic treaty. I think the title is, wait, let me see. I wrote it down. “The WHO Convention Agreement or Other International Instrument on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response”, something like that is the title. I got it from you. So they publish it a day before they negotiate about it? James Roguski: No, no, no, no. They have not published it. It has been quietly circulated amongst whomever. Okay. Interestingly, at the roundtable that they had a meeting on Monday, the 22nd, the Israeli delegate spoke up and said, you know, that they had not received this latest bureau's text of the proposed treaty. And so later that day, I got my hands on it, published it and showed the world what is in there. And so here's what's really going on. Okay. Everyone in the media, just about everyone in the media has been looking at the information in the proposed amendments that we talked about. But when they talk or write about it, they attribute it to the treaty. Or maybe they've read the working draft or the conceptual zero draft or the zero draft. And they talk about those versions. But the new version is completely different. They shuffled all of the numbers of the articles. They added a whole bunch of things. They changed many, many, many, many, many, many things. I encourage everybody to go to my substack and read it. I'll try to give a summary of what's in there because the language that they use is very well crafted in that if you just glance at it, it sounds wonderful. Okay. If you try to read it, it puts you to sleep. Interviewer: Yeah, I've experienced that. James Roguski: Yeah. I've used it as a sedative many evenings. Let me tell you. If you really get into it and really comprehend what it is, I will give my analysis and my opinion of it right now. So you can agree or disagree. Anybody can agree or disagree with me. It's got nothing to do with health. Very similarly to how the international health regulations really should be called the international surveillance, monitoring, reporting, emergency declaring, fear-mongering, control regulations. The treaty is it really could be seen, in my opinion, as a venture capital prospectus. They are working to build out the pharmaceutical hospital emergency industrial complex so that what they did to us over the last four years, which is take the RT-PCR process, claim that it's a test and go looking for pathogens everywhere. They want to be able to test humans. They want to be able to test wastewater treatment plants and farms. And even at your veterinarian, when you bring, they don't call them pets. They call them companion animals. They want to be testing for genomic sequences that could be used to fear-monger and say, oh, we've found yet another variant or yet another pathogen or some new disease or disease, you know, causing pathogen. They refer to them as pathogens with pandemic potential. Interviewer: And is this during an ongoing emergency or is that like all the time? James Roguski: Really says both during, they created a new phrase, both during a pandemic and inter-pandemic times. Interviewer: …is that like all the time? James Roguski: So basically all of the time, they want to build out a network of laboratories, mostly where they currently don't have them because they were unable to, you know, put fear into certain nations because they didn't have the testing equipment. They didn't have the laboratory capacity. They didn't have the genomic sequencing capabilities, you know, to test for all these variants and, and, and manufacture what they call pandemic response products, which are just drugs and jabs. Okay. So they want control of intellectual property to be handed down free of charge from whomever may have it. They have set up a hub in Geneva, I'm sorry, not in Geneva, in Switzerland, where all of the samples and all of the genomic information would be sent to this centralized hub. And they want to create a pathogen access and benefits sharing system, PABS, P-A-B-S, [P.A.B.S: Pathogen Access and Benefits Sharing System] where if you think about it from a venture capital standpoint, from an investment money-making standpoint, what are the benefits of a pathogen with pandemic potential? Well, the benefits are you turn that somehow into a drug or an injection and, and market it as the prevention for the pathogen that you went out and either discovered or created in a lab. And so combined with the logistics network to distribute this, they would then want the manufacturers to donate 10% of all of the products manufactured to the WHO and also donate an additional 10% at pretty much at cost at an affordable price so that the WHO would essentially be the drug pusher for the world. And they want to start up community health organizations, essentially to dispense all of that in the various communities. Now, all of that would tie back in to the international health regulations. There's one amendment that we didn't talk about, which if the director general declared a public health emergency of international concern, because they found a pathogen and there's the potential for a problem, he would then be able to set up an allocation mechanism and literally tell nation A, that they had to manufacture whatever products he said and give them to nation B. And so it's a clear command and control of the means of production, directing the world economy for pandemic response products. And so I see this as a transfer of wealth, money laundering and racketeering on an enormous level, because they're talking about tens of billions of dollars. And what they really, really want is to build out the pharmaceutical industry in the nations where they didn't successfully get the people living there to fall for the story about the dangers of a disease and the proposed benefits of the pharmaceutical treatments. This has got nothing to do with actually helping people, you know, boost their immune system and be healthier. It's all about taking their one health approach to have control of every single aspect of life, keep everybody in a state of fear and stick drugs and jabs into everybody. Interviewer: Wow. That's, that's crazy. And James speaking about tens of billions of dollars. Isn't that also a big portion of that is coming from the taxpayers of all the different member states? James Roguski: Well, you know, it's really very interesting because they've shuffled how they hope to get all this money together. The latest version is, you know, nations would, you know, put in money into the fund. But as one of the things that I want to make sure that I make very, very clear, it has a similar something going on with the international health regulations. But the biggest problem that I see with the current version of the treaty is that it would create an entirely separate bureaucracy on top of the WHO, sort of within it in one of the committees, but they would create what they call a conference of the parties, COP, Conference Of the Parties. It would have three committees and a panel of experts. And essentially, they would be so far removed from the will of the people, they would be kind of a council of dictators to operate the treaty, however they saw fit. And in article 34, I believe it is, and this is the danger of something that people call a treaty, but it's most likely to take the form of what they call a framework convention. The words in the actual body of the document are crafted in a way that if you look at it, you'll read it one way. If I look at it, I'll interpret it another way. Someone else in the pharmaceutical industry would see, you know, a totally different thing. And all of the attention on those details is important, but it hides the fact that that's just the framework. The details would get worked out by the conference of the parties, which would include all of the non-governmental organizations, things like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and so forth. They could become part of the Conference Of the Parties. And if the member nations voted to add protocols to the framework, there's nothing anybody can do about it in the manner that it is currently written. Currently in the language, there is no language that requires it then to go back to a parliament or Senate or Congress or anyone for approval. But it also does not have any language that would ever enable us to reject the protocols. Interviewer: Or get rid of them again? James Roguski: You would have to wait two years before you could start a one-year process to exit your membership in the treaty or agreement, whatever they want to call it. You would have to wait two years before you could start a one-year process to exit your membership in the treaty or agreement, whatever they want to call it. And so it's a 42-page document that I encourage everyone to read it, but I caution you, you really have to understand the legal ease language, because if you only glance at it, it will sound wonderful. But when you realize that what it's really doing is taking the surveillance network. You know what, I left out one thing from the amendments in our discussion, so I hope we have time for me to add to that. In the treaty, when they talk about surveillance, they're really talking about the surveillance of proposed, you know, purported pathogens. They want to be testing wastewater and farm animals and your pet and humans and whatever. So the surveillance in the treaty and many times the surveillance in the proposed amendments is talking about all of these tests to see if they can get the genomic sequences and, you know, name a new variant or whatever it may be. In the proposed amendments, there are changes that are headed towards a global digital health certification network, which most people think as a vaccine passport or a testing certificate or a recovery certificate. And so one of the dangers, because we only named four in the amendments, I think the biggest concern in the amendments is that, you know, what they want to do is take this old style vaccine passport. I mean, this is literally a vaccine passport that my girlfriend has from the 70s. And, you know, this is actually in annex six of the international health regulations. They want to dramatically expand that and digitize it so that every nation can control the movement of people. And so there's a lot going on here. Boy, I know I just gave everybody an enormous pile of information. I have a couple of simple answers, OK? If you can remember three words, I talked to you earlier and I'm pretty sure you wrote them down. Do you remember the three words? Interviewer: You have stop, screw and exit the WHO, right? James Roguski: So on stopthewho.com, you can get all of the documents, all of the evidences there. I've actually done a Cliff Notes version, you know, a short summary of all of this. I even did a child, a brochure for children on stopthewho.com. Not that I want you to teach your children about this, but I made it look like it was for children because it brought it down to a level that I think even a member of parliament could understand. OK, it's very, very simple. And so I did a couple of videos and actually did a movie. And down at the bottom of the website, it's translated into like 18 different languages for all around the world. On screwthewho.com, there are several hundred videos of people who have done what I asked and requested of people around the world to do, which is to become the media, to be the media. The media has been, you know, mostly silent on what's been going on with the amendments. If you record your opinion about this and put it out on whatever platform you want, you could then share your video with your member of parliament or Congress or local official, whatever it might be, share it with all your friends, put it everywhere on social media. Say whatever it is you want to say, right? Please get your facts straight, but then say whatever it is you want your opinion to be. And the next one is exitthewho.com, which is for people who want to take action. Now, when you get to exitthewho.com, I'm in the United States. So that particular page is mostly for people in the United States. But if you pay attention and you scroll down just a little tiny bit, there's a link for worldwide action where there are many nations and you'll see all the different flags of all different nations. And there's also a link where you can access a list of all of the delegates. I see a world, you know, I see a future for myself where, you know, all of my freedoms are respected because enough people around the world are standing up for the freedoms that we are born with. We have the right to travel and not have to do something to our body in order to go here or go there. We have a right to choose whatever health we want, you know, whatever health treatments we want or don't want. We have a right to refuse them. And, you know, we have a right. I didn't even mention Article 18 in the treaty. They want to have the power to tackle myths and disinformation. Well, you know, my opinion and my analysis of facts, just because you may disagree with them, doesn't mean that I'm putting out misinformation or disinformation. More than likely, the official national groups and groups like the WHO are the ones who got it all wrong. And so censorship in any way, shape or form, hey, let's have a good scientific and political debate. If you prove me to be wrong, you'll be my best friend. OK, but if you just want to quiet my voice because you disagree, that is unacceptable on every level imaginable. And so everyone who is in media, alternative media or regular media, y'all better read Article 18 in the proposed pandemic treaty because they're coming for you and they want to give billions of dollars to the WHO to tackle misinformation and disinformation. They're going to have to tackle themselves because they're the biggest purveyors of misinformation. But that's not how they see it. And, you know, they hope to have billion dollars, billions of dollars behind them to put out the information that they want to put out. So, you know, I'll leave it there. There's an enormous amount of info. I am at everyone's service. If you have questions, I'm happy to do everything I can to try to clarify it because they're doing everything they can to try to confuse us. But I'll leave it with just this simple thing. Their system is structured so that if you're silent, they assume that that means you're giving your consent. So speak up. Interviewer: Perfect. Great point to leave it at. Thank you for helping us educate. I mean, it's really what you said. We have to educate ourselves, our politicians, the people around us. That's where it begins. And so thank you for your great efforts on clarifying things, on untangling the confusion. And it was great talking to you. James Roguski: It ties your head up in knots, that is for sure. But thank you for the opportunity to do so. I greatly appreciate it. Interviewer: Thank you very much. And talk to you soon again, I hope. Take care. Have a good day.

from dg

Sources/Links: International Health Regulations with Amendments Status of February 2023 https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr2/A_WGIHR2_7-en.pdf
The WHO CA+ (WHO Convention Agreement) Status May 22, 2023: https://healthpolicy-watch.news/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/DRAFT_INB_Bureau-text_22-May.pdf
Australian Petition against International Health Regulations: https://australiaexitsthewho.com/
British Petition against International Health Regulations: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/635904
US Petition for politicians on this topic, also HR79, Draft to get the US out of the WHO: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/community-forum/stop-the-who-power-grab/
More petitions: http://WORLDWIDE.ExitTheWHO.com
James Roguski's website: https://jamesroguski.substack.com/
Further important websites on this topic: www.stopthewho.com
www.screwthewho.com
www.exitthewho.com