James Roguski - World Health Organization: Two Months to Flatten the WHO

Show notes and Transcript

James Roguski has been calling out lies and propaganda for decades.
He believes it is every person's responsibility to question their most cherished beliefs, challenge claims of authority and disobey unjust laws and that is how we grow while remaining free and maintaining our integrity.
In February 2022 the company that had hosted James's websites for over a decade deleted his account and tens of thousands of hours of his work. 
They gave no reason other than the content violated their “Terms of Service.”
They may of deleted many of James's websites, but they ignited his passion to burn even brighter.
If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then this interview and James's Substack are the places to be.

Connect with James...
Substack             jamesroguski.substack.com
Website               exitthewho.org
X                          twitter.com/jamesroguski

Interview recorded  29.3.24

Connect with Hearts of Oak...
WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/
PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/
SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/
SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/

TRANSCRIPT

(Hearts of Oak)

And I'm delighted to be joined by James Roguski today. James, thank you so much for your time today.

(James Roguski)

Oh, any time. I'm honoured that you'll have me share this information with you and your audience. And so thank you very much for having me.

Well, we're going to delve into all things WHO.

And people obviously can find you @JamesRoguski on, that is your Twitter handle.

And obviously Substack, it is again the same, just .substack.com.

On the end of your name all the links are in the description and I know that our audience will be interested and hungry for that information so you're an awesome source of information and thanks to Noor for actually connecting us when she said I know someone who knows all things WHO you need to have them on so although I don't really know Noor yet the answer is yes and then I delved into and found out, she was completely accurate.

So thank you to Noor for the introduction and connection.

But James, before we get into the topic WHO, can I just ask you to take a moment and introduce yourself to our guests?

Well, you know, you mentioned my Twitter handle, and I don't honestly really spend a lot of time on Twitter.

But if anybody goes to my Twitter account, you'll see that right at the top, I have my phone number and I encourage everybody to give me a phone call.

310-619-3055.

I'm in California. So, you know, wherever you may be, I'm that serious about what's going on with the WHO that if anybody out there, you know, wants to have a conversation, happy to do so, you know, reach out on telegram or signal or WhatsApp or phone call or text message or whatever it might be.

You know, we got connected through Noor, but I'm readily available because this is complicated. It's confusing. And what I have observed is that almost everybody gets a little tiny piece of information that's been mangled.

You know, the game of telephone, right?

You know, you tell somebody who tells somebody who tells somebody who tells somebody.

I just want people to get the facts. Don't believe anything I say.

All I've been doing is pointing to the WHO's documents and their video recordings of their meetings and going, hey, did you see that? Did you see what they said?

Now, I obviously have opinions and happy to share my opinions with you.

But what I encourage everybody to do is to go to the source.

Read the darn documents don't listen to hear, you know hearsay, it's funny I hear I have a lot of people reach out to me and they go, oh did you hear what so-and-so said I'm like okay that might be a clue but by definition that is hearsay if you hear somebody say something interesting and you dig in and you find the source, man, 99 times out of 100 the source is a little bit different than what what you heard somebody say about the source.

So don't trust me, right? I think I'm trustworthy, but don't trust me.

Don't take my word for it.

The problem that we're dealing with is people hear something, they accept it, and then when they're greeted with the actual source, factual documents, it conflicts with the confusing thing they heard somebody say, and they don't wanna let go of their initial understanding, one of the hardest things in the world to do is to unlearn something that you thought you knew but maybe where you got that information was a little bit mangled.

So be careful out there

I agree too often our feelings are to accept things and to assume things and I always whenever I see someone posting something I, with so many memes you kind of think think, okay, is that accurate?

And delve into it. And you're right. Then you find out whether it's true and you're not repeating hearsay, which can be extremely dangerous.

But James, WHO, how did you, before we get into kind of what it is, and I do want to give that kind of overview to the audience, because I think it's important to put together the piece of the jigsaw.

And I know you delve deeply into many different parts of it on your Substack, but how on earth did the WHO come on your radar and how did you decide that I tell you what I think I want to delve into this and make this a large part of my life to understand it and expose it?

I'll have to thank some invisible sensor out in the world. I have been talking about natural health for 30 years and written a number of books and you know had many many many many websites.

And in 2022, I learned that the FDA on, if my memory is correct, I believe it was January 21st, 2022, that the FDA approved outpatient injections for infants to receive Remdesivir.

And my head exploded. And I wrote a couple of articles on websites that I had.

And a couple of days later, I got an email from my website hosting provider that I had been with for like a decade and everything was gone.

And I was like, Oh, must've been right over the target with that one. Okay.

And I, I have to say, I was a little bit happy with myself because I was like, Oh, all right.

I guess this is one of those midlife crisis change of, you know, direction things that the universe is trying to tell me something.

And so, I ended up, I had many, many websites and they were all gone and rather than rebuild them, I'm like, okay, fine.

What should I be doing? And I ended up on Substack. So jamesrugoski.substack.com.

And I started writing on Substack and I got to give credit where credit is due.

I bumped into an article by Shabnam Palaisa Muhammad, who's connected to many, many things, but she's also with World Council for Health.

And she had started started talking about something that had happened really on December 1st, 2021.

So this was February 2022.

And I ended up doing about a month's worth of research.

And on March 24th, so slightly more than a year, two years ago, I published a big article about what was going on with the proposed pandemic treaty.

And I thought I was done with it. And four days later, would have been two years ago yesterday, I woke up at four in the morning and I was compelled to go searching for something.

And I found a website that had a document and it said, we've obtained this document.

And the document was hyperlinked. So I clicked on it and I went down the rabbit hole and I started reading the document and I just got a massive shiver down my spine.

I'm like, wait a minute, what is this?

It wasn't anything to do with the treaty. It was amendments to another existing document called the International Health Regulations.

It had been submitted to the WHO more than two months prior in January.

And it was to be discussed in May, which was, a month and pretty much two months away.

And I'm like, nobody's talking about this. What the heck is this?

And it was the Biden administration trying to do many things.

They had a number of different amendments, but what they were mainly trying to do was shorten the time period through which any future amendments might be put into effect.

Currently that's two years, they wanted to shorten it to six months.

And I'm like, okay, what does that mean? what's coming?

And down the rabbit hole I went and I haven't gotten out of the WHO rabbit hole since.

I've got a slogan for myself. I want to get out of the WHO and on with the new, but we've got two months to flatten the WHO they're shooting to, they're hoping to adopt amendments to the international health regulations and a new pandemic treaty, two separate things. And it's really important to keep those things separate.

May 27th to June 1st is their yearly world health assembly.

And so for the next two months, just trying to raise everyone's awareness of what it is they're trying to do.

Well we'll get on to the pandemic treaty and a lot has been made out of it, I think it was the World Council for Health had that petition in the UK and we'll maybe touch on some of that but we, I mean you've got this organization, a massive power grab and I don't think many people will have had any idea of this and the role this played, I mean it's 75 year history probably most people don't even know it's a UN organization and the power it had I think maybe the WEF is higher on people's radar where the WHO seems to have been much under it and I mean just give us a little bit of a snapshot and I know you've looked into the the current proposals.

But there's 75 years of history of this organization, but it seems to be having a massive power grab, certainly COVID time.

But what about the organization itself? Because we're told it's just a benign organization, but it doesn't seem so.

I don't know if anything in life is benign. It all depends on what is going on with it.

So you've really got to go back almost to the Civil War in the United States and the 1800s where –, If you think about living in a world where you ride a horse, okay, and you don't have a toilet that goes into a wastewater sewage treatment system, okay, you know, manure everywhere.

People who lived in cities would have a chamber pot, maybe throw it out the window in the gutter.

I can only imagine, I've heard stories about the stench, you know, of the River Seine in Paris.

Getting control in large cities of everyone's excrement is what really cleaned up a lot of infectious disease.

Okay. And so from the 1800s, early 1900s, all the way through World War II, after World War II, when the WHO was brought into being, and in 1951, they sort of organized the sanitary regulations.

We kind of take a lot of things for granted right now, but the pathogens found in excrement from animals and humans are a problem.

Well, we don't really deal with that so much anymore.

And the fallacy of all of the many childhood diseases that just plummeted in the 1800s, 1900s, you know, after World War II, they were primarily gone.

And then started jabbing people and they gave credit to the jabs for what sanitation actually did.

And so fast forward to 1969, I don't know how old you are, so I'll have a little fun with you.

Where were you and what were you doing when the moon landing happened in July of 1969?

I was just a thought somewhere. I wasn't around. 77 is my birthday.

Okay. I was a nine-year-old boy. I was born in 1960.

And I was watching, you know, black and white feed from maybe it was the moon, maybe it was the Hollywood soundstage, whatever.

At that same time in July of 1969, the 22nd World Health Assembly was going on in Boston.

And five days after the moon shot, or the moon landing, they agreed to the international health regulations.

That was sort of an update on the sanitary regulations.

Nobody was paying attention. Nobody read them. Nobody ever ratified them.

What they put in there, all of the diplomats who met said, okay, you know, we've agreed to all of this.

And if nobody objects, it'll be international law.

So it wasn't the case that the UK parliament or the Senate of the United States or any other body around the world considered it and voted to, you know.

What they put in there was, we'll give everybody nine months to object to it.

And if nobody objects, then we're good.

So on the first day of January 1971, it went into legally binding effect.

Everybody's kind of default, ignored it, and it was now international law.

Fast forward to 2005, after 9-11, after the anthrax scare, after SARS-1, they made a whole bunch of changes in 2005.

And that went into effect in 2007. So for 17 years or so, we've been under the international health regulations.

Raise your hand, everybody, if you've read them. Okay.

Why would you, who, you know, two and a half years ago, I had no idea.

Okay. So I can, understand why that's just mysterious.

Well, the idea behind the 2005 regulations was they wanted nations to feel comfortable, not just seeing if someone who was traveling at the border was bringing in leprosy or smallpox or whatever, checking ships to see if they're infested with with rats or, you know, other vectors that might bring some kind of disease.

They also wanted nations to set up an office in their nation to surveil their health system.

To say, you know, if something's going on, you know, I've talked to many people in the UK and where all the mussel beds and oyster shells and all the many seafood areas around the coast, with the sewage not being as well processed as it might be, you get E. Coli infections and things like that.

So they want the nations to immediately notify the WHO if something is going on, not just at a border crossing, but inside the country.

And on one level, you go, you know, that's just, okay, we got a problem.

As a good member of the international community, you tell the WHO, if it's deemed to be a public health emergency of international concern, P-H-E-I-C, or fake, the director general can alert the world that you've got a problem.

On a certain level, much of that makes sense.

And we've been operating under that rule, those rules since 2007.

When COVID hit, it all went out the window. Everybody panicked, right?

Oh, you know, something's going on in China.

And everybody went nuts. They threw their plans out the window.

They started making rules out of thin air to do lockdowns and social distancing.

Just an absolute mess.

Okay. And so there was a call to strengthen the international health regulations because everybody ignored them.

Right. And the, one of the biggest issues that triggered these negotiations, it didn't trigger it necessarily, but it certainly is embedded deeply into it.

If you can recall when South Africa and Botswana said that they had found a very different variant called Omicron, and they publicly quickly said, hey, look what we found.

And Europe, and I think the UK, I'm not 100% sure about the UK, but European Union, you know, travel lockdowns. Oh, you know, no more travel to South Africa.

Well, that's what the international health regulations were supposed to prevent.

Don't punish nations for being honest.

But that's what happened. And then the real kick in the balls, quite frankly, from their point of view, was Pfizer and Moderna put that into the boosters and made a couple of billions of dollars.

And so what we're dealing with here is not what people think it is.

What we're dealing with here is a trade dispute.

We're dealing with an understanding that, wait a minute, the international health regulations are supposed to encourage transparency.

Hey, we got a problem.

But what's being negotiated is not, how do you deal with that problem?

How do you give someone good early treatment? How do you let doctors be doctors and deal with the patient in front of them?

You know, there's all these many, many issues.

And so the confusion has been enormous because there's, on one hand, amendments to the international health regulations.

But on the other hand, there's a whole new agreement that they would like to have passed, two separate related but separate tracks.

And almost everybody's getting them all co-mingled and confused.

And so I'll stop right there for that.

That's the setup, right? The reason why these negotiations are happening is because the relatively poor nations like South Africa and Botswana said, hey, we identified something. We turned it over to you.

You put travel restrictions to hurt our economy and then you took that information and made billions of dollars off of it.

Oh, hell no. That ain't happening again.

Okay. That is what these negotiations are really all about. And then it gets worse from there.

It's not about your health or, you know, what you should do to maintain or optimize or regain your health.

This is a business deal and it's an evil, evil business deal.

Well, I can, I want to get to the session they've just had and you have titled it, the spirit of Geneva, which I know is a reference used many times in it, and that's on your latest sub-stack.

But looking at the WHO, it seems to be, I think we've learned a lot, the relationship the governments have with Big Pharma, with the mass lobby power of Big Pharma, I think has been exposed to many people during the COVID tyranny.

And I'm guessing the WHO is no different and very much part of that collusion with Big Pharma to assist in making money.

Because in the West, obviously, this is the opposite of your thinking, your background.

The thinking we're told now is you've got a problem. Don't worry, there are drugs to treat it manufactured by a mass company that will make a ton of money from you.

No conversation about health, style, lifestyle, diet, anything like that.

So it does seem as if the WHO are very much part of that big pharma global entity.

I have dubbed what's going on with this negotiations for the new treaty, and maybe we'll talk about that first, as the new OPEC.

OPEC currently stands for the oil producing and exporting countries, Saudi Arabia and so forth.

Well, the new OPEC, in my view, is the Organization of Pandemic Emergency Corporations.

If you think about this from a business perspective, if you were doing some sort of thesis or something at a business school, or I don't know if people in your audience are familiar with United States television program called Shark Tank, where entrepreneurs pitch their business idea, right?

If 10 years ago you said, hey, I got this business idea, we'll put a bunch of letters in a data file, and we'll say that that's the genetic sequence of a deadly pathogen.

And we'll then wrap that up in a lipid nanoparticle and say that if we get your body to make that pathogenic compound, to get your immune system to attack your own body, to trigger immunity to this deadly pathogen, we can scare everybody, get governments to put billions of dollars into our business model, and we'll be billionaires.

You'd have probably gotten laughed off stage. You probably would have failed your business school course.

But wait a minute. That's what just happened.

Well, that's a really good business model. And I got clued in to great detail in November of 2022.

I was actually waiting and trying to find, I had put in freedom of information requests and they were being denied.

By that time, the treaty had first come out in July and then again in November.

But the amendments that were not the ones Biden proposed, but a whole new batch of amendments had been submitted, but they were being kept secret.

So I was looking all over the place to try to find information.

And I watched the Indonesian health minister speak before the B20 meeting, not the G20, the 20 biggest countries, but the business leaders from the 20 biggest countries.

And he had advanced information about something that was going to be happening the next month in December.

And what he told the audience was, hey, United States and a whole bunch of other nations, they're about to implement through the World Bank, the pandemic fund, got a multi-billion dollar fund.

And this is a great business opportunity. Go invest.

Well, invest in what?

Pandemic-related products and the industry that surrounds them.

Testing, laboratory, genetic analysis, anything related to pandemic-related products was viewed as a potential growth industry because the nations were putting together this multi-billion dollar fund and contracts were going to have to be dished out.

The next month, the Congress of the U.S. passed and President Biden signed the National Defense Authorization Act.

Well, that pledged $5 billion a year from the U.S. Defense Department to oversee the global health security agenda, which is a build out of, you know, bio labs and the one health approach, which is predicated on the, I think, misguided belief.

Oh, well, you know what happened in Wuhan is, you know, a bat and a pangolin got together and somebody had some soup in a wet market in Wuhan.

And that's why we got a pandemic as opposed to, Hey, wait a minute.

People were going to bat caves in some other part of China, bringing the guano or whatever they use to get the pathogens. And they're messing with them in the lab.

Maybe that's where the problem started. Who the heck knows at this point, right?

But what they want to do is shut down, you know, animal, trade with wild animal meats or domestic animal, you know, oh, you're going to get sick because you're eating meat and there's going to be some pathogen in there and it's going to transfer to humans and we're all going to die.

So the solution is let's go find those pathogens and bring them into a whole WHO coordinated laboratory network where if we identify a pathogen, we'll put that into the pathogen access and benefit sharing system, stamp it with our information so that if anybody turns that into a product, we get to share the benefits.

And we'll put the WHO in charge of a global distribution and logistics network to distribute the products.

Well, if you've ever worked retail, you know that if you have a lot of products in storage, you've got to rotate your stock.

So if you've got pandemic related products sitting in a big old warehouse, they proudly talk about their 20,000 square meter distribution hub in Dubai.

That's four football fields.

Okay. How many contracts could you disperse amongst your cronies to fill four football fields with pandemic related products?

Well, that's not good enough. You got to rotate that stock.

You need an emergency here and an early action alert and a pandemic and this and that and the other to move those products, get them either jabbed into people's arms or, or use the gloves, or use the tests, or whatever it might be.

What we're dealing with here is organized crime and racketeering and a business model that needs another pandemic.

Let's go look for it. They call it a pathogen with pandemic potential.

Whenever I hear that phrase, my mind says, well, that's a pathogen with pandemic profiteering potential.

Let's go find something scary.

Scare the people who will be scared by that kind of thing. People will line up to get jabbed or take drugs or whatever it might be.

What it's really predicated on is an argument from the relatively poor nations who, when the jabs rolled out in 2021, they couldn't afford to get contracts to buy the jabs.

Canada bought 400 million jabs for 40 million people.

European Union did a few text messages and cut a deal and bought up gobs and gobs. So the smaller nations, while they gave the information about Omicron, they couldn't beg, borrow, or buy, get a contract for any of the jams.

They should be down on their knees praising God that they were so lucky that they missed out.

But they also missed out on the profits.

And that's what these negotiations are about. Nobody, nobody has had the guts to go, excuse me, the jabs didn't work.

They didn't stop infection. They didn't stop transmission.

They deranged people's immune system. Now we've got, you know, disease, disability, and death, excess deaths, sudden deaths.

Why are we arguing that we want investment to build out mRNA manufacturing plants?

You know, send a container from Germany to build a manufacturing plant, you know, in Rwanda or wherever they're setting this up.

They're not questioning the flaws in the treatment, right?

They want more ventilators and more midazolam and more, you know, Paxlovid and Molnupiravir or whatever the next drug, you know, Remdesivir, whatever it might be.

They missed out on the the profit of being able to produce that and poison their own people with it, but they don't seem to understand what probably most of your audience understands, that they did quite better than the nations who did all of the pharmaceutical treatments.

On the WHO's own website, site, if you look at the stats, on a population basis, there's about a billion people in North and South America.

There's about a half a billion in Europe, and there's over a billion in Africa.

16 times as many people in North and South America died and their deaths were attributed to COVID when compared to Africa.

And in Europe, it's like 30 times.

We should be exporting whatever they did into our systems, but that's not profitable.

So they're trying to export what killed many, many more people into their nations so that they can profit from it.

And the cognitive dissonance and the just bias in their thinking were if you stood up in one of the rooms where they're having these meetings and you said, excuse me, are you people absolutely insane?

Why do you want the thing that doesn't work and causes health problems?

Oh, wait a minute. It's very profitable.

What they want is the wealthy nations, United States, UK, Canada, European Union, Australia, the global north, which is not a geographical thing.

It's a line of of wealthy versus poor.

They want the global north to put a bunch of money into a big fund.

I actually think the WHO has fund envy.

They're looking at the United States and the WHO pandemic fund, and they want to have a bigger fund, you know, $30 billion a year that they can distribute to oligarchs in poor nations to build out what I call the other fake.

You know, they talk about the Public Health Emergency of International Concern, PHEIC, and I talk about the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex.

They want poor people in rich nations to either take their tax dollars or debt money, put it into a fund that they control to give to oligarchs in poor nations under the premise that looking for pathogens, bringing them into the laboratory and turning them into pandemic-related products is how you would stop the next pandemic.

Well, how about good, clean water and healthy food and essential medications and nutrition and maybe herbs and some vitamins? How about that?

Well, that's just nowhere near as profitable.

There are lots I'd like to pick up on you, but I will hold myself back.

And I will ask you for what's been happening the last number of days.

And that is the ninth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, which most of the public will not know this group has ever met once, never mind nine times or whatever it is.

And that's, I think, how a lot of these organizations wanted to be.

But that was going to finish on the 28th.

So we record this Good Friday, so yesterday.

And they don't seem to have come to an agreement. So I think you're saying it's going to resume again end of April for another 10, 12 days.

What exactly was the international governmental negotiating body negotiating and what exactly did they not, were they not able to agree on?

Pretty much what I was just talking about. They were negotiating the new agreement.

Many people call it a treaty, but it's really not properly called a treaty.

It's a framework convention, think framework convention for climate change.

That was an agreement that was reached in 1992.

And year after year after year, unelected, unaccountable, unknown bureaucrats get together.

They have a conference of the parties and they would decide how to dish out all this money, have all the contracts to fill up the distribution hubs with whatever they think they need for whatever pandemic they're looking for.

And so the problem that they're having are many. I'll try to summarize it this way.

They keep saying that it's a member nation-led series of negotiations.

Well, what they've been doing is they get together, they talk, they submit for two years now, whatever their input would be.

And then the six members of the the Bureau, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Bodies Bureau, one from each region of the WHO, would then craft a new version of the treaty.

Well, that was the wrong way to do it if they were really trying to reach an honest agreement, because what has consistently happened is when they came back with each new version, all of the member nations said, well, did you not hear what what we told you we wanted in that treaty, you ignored us, right?

Back in April, they did this, and there was a 208-page compilation text that was everything that all the nation said they wanted.

And rather than make that public, they kept that hidden forever.

They came out with a 43-page Bureau's text.

Well, you can't eliminate 200, you know, take 208 pages and boil it down to 43 and keep everybody happy.

So all summer long in 2023, they were arguing about that. They came out with another one in October.

Same thing. They came out with another one in February. Same thing.

In these past couple of weeks of negotiations, it was the first time that they took the Bureau's draft submission and treated it as a negotiating text.

And so in these past two weeks, they started with a 29-page document that looked all nice nice and clean, you know, here's what it is.

But it didn't reflect what the nations actually said that they wanted.

It was all sugar-coated and sweet looking, but it didn't actually say what the nations had been telling them they wanted.

So in the last two weeks, that ballooned up to 140 pages with over 5,000 text edits.

It's the first time the nations actually got to have them, you know, put that in and they're going to go back and do the same dumb thing.

They're going to have the Bureau take that 140 page document and have them try to winnow it down to probably even smaller than 30 pages because they're desperate to just get any agreement.

Because if they get any agreement and it's a framework convention, then next year they can add whatever they want to add.

It's like signing a blank check or an empty contract.

If you were contracting with somebody to do something, and at the last minute they said, hey, you know what?

Let's just sign on the dotted line. I've got all these blank pieces of paper.

We'll figure this out next year. Just agree, and we'll have other people work out the details later.

That's insane. But that's what they're trying to ram through.

And tell us how there has been some pushback on this WHO power grab in the UK media.

We had that petition. And I know there's a pandemic treaty, there's international health regulations.

And I know, I don't want to confuse them, but also want to simplify them.

Maybe another time we can delve even deeper into this.

But there is a slow awareness, but yet governments seem to be very willing.

And I guess the government doesn't want to be left behind.

It has to join in the club and agree.

It doesn't want to have any punishments or any negative response from Big Pharma.

You know, if they don't sign this, then I can imagine the UK being told by Pfizer, well, you may not get the drug at that cheap price.

It may be double the price for you. So I'm sure there's pushing behind the scenes.

But how does it, I think I've watched some of your videos talking about, and you've mentioned the beginning, this automatically comes in, that it's not that governments opt into it, it's kind of they need to opt out of it.

And if they don't put up their hand, disagree, it automatically becomes part of the laws of each country.

To clarify all of that, again, it is important to start with the awareness that there's two separate negotiations, okay?

And so in the UK, very specifically, it's a little bit unique in how international agreements are concluded and agreed upon and put into force.

And so in other countries, it's very, very different. So everybody needs to take this with the proverbial grain of salt, depending upon where you live.

In the UK, what is supposed to happen is the executive branch of government, the foreign minister, the health minister, the prime minister, whoever is given the authority from the crown to approve or adopt any international agreement is supposed to then have the foreign development and Trade Office, submit it for 21 days to Parliament, not to be approved, but to be reviewed and potentially rejected.

If they just sit on their butt for 21 days and don't do anything, you missed your chance too late.

Okay, so that's for any new agreement. With the international health regulations, it's cooked into the IHR from 1969 and 2005.

If your nation and your executive branch sends a delegate to the yearly World Health Assembly and they agree to regulation changes or amendments to the international health regulations, it's assumed that you're good with it unless the executive, you know, head head of state, writes a letter to the WHO and says, nope, we reject them.

And so in 2022, they tried to pull a fast one.

They submitted amendments in violation of Article 55, which says you've got to give four months notice.

They submitted amendments to five articles on May 24th, 2022, four days later, they concocted a fake document saying that they adopted them, but they never voted.

And nobody, with the exception of Rob Roos and 11 other members of the European Parliament, on November 28th, 2023, they wrote a letter to Tedros and they said, said, hey, you guys purportedly adopted these amendments in May of 2022, but there's no record that you ever voted.

Silence. November. So what is that? Four, five months now, four months, five months.

They don't really seem to care because the propaganda and the hypnosis, they just keep saying, well, we adopted these amendments. No, you didn't.

Not by any proper voting means that anybody's been able to find.

And so they don't really seem to care about rules.

Article 55 said that they should have submitted a final package of amendments by January 27th, 2024, four months in advance of their May meeting.

Well, they just blew that off and they're still negotiating.

So to wrap this up and let everybody know what's coming in April, from April 22nd to the 26th, they're supposed to have the last week of negotiations about the amendments, which we we haven't really spent too, too much time talking about.

And what's of great concern to me in the amendments is they want to make it easier to quarantine people when they're traveling internationally.

Look at article 24 and 27 and articles 35, 36, 37, and annexes, you know, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight, they want the WHO to be the one to determine which vaccines can be required.

They're not requiring them.

They would be the ones who decide if the nation you're traveling to, when you disembark, if they say, well, you got to take a rapid antigen test, or you got to show that you've gotten this jab, or boom, you're in quarantine.

The WHO's international health regulations have almost always been about restricting international travel, and now they want to add quarantine to the language that was not there before.

Now, that's not your doctor and you.

Whatever people are talking about in terms of mandates and mask mandates and any kind of lockdowns or social distancing, no one in the UK, no one in the United States, no one in any nation around the world needed any amendments or a new treaty to abuse your rights and freedoms over the last four years.

So the concern about that is local.

What is your local health official doing? What is your local city council or mayor or school board or medical review board?

What is your hospital making their doctors do, the NHS or whatever it might be? Those issues are very, very local.

The amendments are about international travel and quarantining.

You know, you get off the cruise boat and your vacation might go to crap in a heartbeat because you didn't pass the test that the WHO authorized and the nation you're visiting requires.

The treaty is a big money game.

It's just corruption. Let's get rich nations to put billions of dollars to build out the infrastructure in poor nations so all our cronies can make a bunch of money because they missed out the first time.

And so in the end of April, from the 29th of April to I believe May 10th, they've scheduled a new additional two weeks worth of negotiations on the treaty because they're having a hell of a time, meaning the greed on both sides is causing great difficulty in reaching an agreement on how to distribute all of the billions of dollars that they want to collect to run this criminal operation.

So we've got two months to flatten the WHO, and I have every faith that people around the world can see through this.

They're not addressing the real issues of what it is that people need to do to be healthy.

They're just trying to redistribute the wealth under the guise of preventing the next pandemic.

But I'm pretty sure that going out looking for pathogens and bringing them into laboratories to do gain of function and then create more biological weapon mRNA jabs that local people can manufacture and profit from.

I think that's how you profiteer from the next pandemic, not how you prevent it.

100% and can I just remind people of James Substack, jamesroguski.substack.com, piece every day and it is, when I looked into it I thought this is good and then as I've looked into it further I think it's probably the go-to place to understand what exactly is happening with the World Health Organization.

So to our viewers and listeners, make sure, sign up and make that your go-to place for understanding the WHO.

Jim, just as we finish, as the viewers, the listeners go and make use of your Substack and read it.

And I'm amazed at the, always at the time that people put into those articles, I've gotten into doing videos, actually writing, that is a whole other skill.

And the work, the effort, the research that you put in on each individual article is phenomenal.

But what do you want the viewers, the listeners, how do they respond?

What is your point in that? It's educating, and then they take that information.

And what can they do with it? Where do they go with that then?

Well, step number one is to understand what the heck is going on.

And, I think we gave a pretty decent summary.

And so the easy answer for the people watching this video is take the link to this video and share it like you've never shared anything in your life.

OK, what's going on is all of these many documents are getting confused and people are talking about all kinds of different things.

The documents are changing, you know, on an ongoing basis.

They've got amendments and treaties last year and this year.

If you just share this video and I don't mean just post it on Facebook and walk away and think that Facebook is gonna knock on everybody's door and go, Hey did you see this okay, If you have a phone and you have a contact list, take the link and start with a, Ann and Bob and Carol and Doug and Emily and Fred and on down the list, if there's a person that you don't share this video with you're censoring this information.

They're not going to find it on the mainstream news. They're probably not going to find it on most alternative news. They're probably going to get it wrong.

Now, I've put all of this information in exitthewho.org.

I've been working with people in dozens of countries around the world.

So if you want the mother load, right, Go to exitthewho.org.

But what we've just done here is a reasonable summary of what the heck is going on.

For most people, this is enough to alert them, hey, you ought to pay attention.

You got two months from about now to when they're meeting.

Spread the word. Take this video, share it. Take that video, share it. Share it, share it, share it.

I'll leave you with a math problem. Okay. If you tell a hundred people and they do the same and they do the same through five levels of referral, five degrees of separation, a hundred to the fifth power is 10 billion.

So if you share this and other people share this, it could go viral overnight.

And so you could be sharing a TikTok video of your cat doing something funny.

OK, or you could be sharing this with everybody, you know, go from A to Z, send them a text message, then go to your email account and send this video to everybody that, you know, via email.

And then if you have a social media account, you can post it on there, but go to your direct messages and direct messages to everybody that you've got a friend or a follower or whatever it might be.

And then call up everybody you've got a phone number for and go, hey, I texted you, I emailed you, I DM'd you, are you okay?

You know, what do you think about this video that I just sent you?

And if they don't care, that's okay.

You can spend your time trying to convince them, right? Or you can blame me for not being able to convince them.

Take the easy road. And there will be some people who go, oh my God, I had no idea this was going on. Thank you so very much.

Work with the willing, organize your actions.

There's on exitthewho.org. It's an activist toolbox. There's an endless list of things you can do.

And my phone number is in every article. If you have a question, I'm in California.

So you got to use whatever codes you need to use or signal or telegram or WhatsApp, send me a text message, whatever it might be if you have any questions be more than happy to help you but it starts with awareness.

And so you can do your part just by making as many people as you possibly can aware of this discussion that we just had.

Well James once again thank you for giving us your time expanding on that and all those links will be in the description for the viewers and listeners to make use of and to pass on to share and to encourage friends family colleagues to actually delve into the subject and understand what we all face worldwide.

So thank you, James, for your time.

Thank you, Peter.