World Health Organization Director General Tedros Has a Cure for Earth's Humanity - Cartoon by Ed Newmann April 2024
As 196 member countries prepare for the World Health Organization's (WHO) unveiling of its finalized proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), much controversy and resistance is percolating. The WHO eventually hopes to add these new amendments to the IHR, negotiated from more than 300 amendments submitted by member countries, then implement them via the pending Pandemic Preparedness and Response Treaty also currently being negotiated as a separate agreement.
This Pandemic Treaty with newly adopted amendments was originally scheduled for member countries' vote to approve or reject it on May 27, 2024, as part of this year's World Health Summit. However, this vote has been postponed due to the probability that it would not pass in its current iteration. Consensus among member countries has been elusive due to the unprecedented discretionary and virtually unaccountable authority given to the WHO for all global health emergencies, ceding national and individual sovereignty for health decisions to a foreign entity. Both Iowa governor Reynolds and Illinois governor Pritzker relied heavily on and cited the WHO's pandemic declarations in 2020 when both issued statewide emergency declarations regarding COVID-19.
Recognizing that core objections to the Pandemic Treaty are likely not overcome-able, the WHO has now rationalized that member countries should individually sign on to a bare bones structural and more ideological Pandemic Treaty beginning in June 2024. Once participation has reached 60 member countries' signatures, the WHO will start separately releasing the specific details of each of the Pandemic Treaty's provisions/components developed and completed secretly behind closed doors.
Full implementation of the WHO's approved Pandemic Treaty, containing all newly incorporated amendments, has been rescheduled for May 2026. The adoption of this arbitrary, anti-transparency “Pelosi process,” where something must first be approved before learning its contents, alone speaks volumes as to why the WHO should not be in charge of a first-aid stand, let alone given expansive global authority to manage planetary health emergencies.
The proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations include unacceptable new authorities that will be implemented via the Pandemic Treaty, also referred to as the Pandemic Agreement, so all eyes must remain fixed on negotiations of the proposed 300 plus amendments first and foremost. The assigned Working Group in charge of negotiating these proposed amendments is comprised of only a few hand-picked delegates from favored and/or generous member countries, including the top brass at the United States Health and Human Services (HHS). These hive-minded individuals work in strict secrecy, with no outside collaboration or input from the rest of the member countries. (RCReader.com/commentary/all-eyes-on-international-health-regulations-proposed-amendments)
It is important to note that negotiating all IHR amendments is considered administrative because the process involves amending a body of regulations that already exists, in this case the IHR. Therefore, only a majority of the Working Group delegates is required to approve and adopt them for incorporation into the existing regulations. This means that only a handful of cherry-picked dedicated globalists, including our own United States HHS leadership, is needed to impose secretly developed one-size-fits-the-planet protocols for all health emergencies, whether pandemic, climate, animal, plant, or ecosystem related.
The IHR amendments give newly binding legal authority to the WHO, a Switzerland organization financed largely by China, Bill Gates, and the United States, that utterly failed to effectively manage anything COVID. This is why it is more critical than ever to express our individual and collective refusal to be subject to the WHO's authority for any matter whatsoever, whether by treaty or special agreement. Nor will we, as U.S. citizens, be legally bound by any amended International Health Regulations, originally created as a guidance tool and not legally binding to any member country belonging to the WHO.
Thanks to James Roguski's and Dr. Meryl Nass' vigilance, we can know the context of a slate of unacceptable proposed amendments without having to read through the mountains of eye-glazing documentation (unless, like me, it's your idea of a good time). Roguski connects dots with provable precision, then transparently shares all his tireless work with the public, constantly highlighting, revisiting and updating what bears review.
Below is Roguski's 2023 list of the top 10 issues he discovered relative to particular proposed amendments that render them unacceptable, followed by his 2024 top 10 issues based upon the current revised version of proposed amendments that he has also flagged as “UNACCEPTABLE.”
“2023 Top 10 Issues That Are UNACCEPTABLE in the Proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations,” by James Roguski
JamesRoguski.substack.com/p/50-really-bad-amendments
1) CHANGE FROM ADVISORY TO MANDATORY: Change the overall nature of the World Health Organization from an advisory organization that merely makes recommendations to a governing body whose proclamations would be legally binding. (Article 1 and Article 42)
2) POTENTIAL RATHER THAN ACTUAL EMERGENCIES: Greatly expand the scope of the International Health Regulations to include scenarios that merely have a “potential to impact public health.” (Article 2)
3) DISREGARD FOR DIGNITY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS: Seek to remove “respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.” (Article 3)
4) ALLOCATION PLAN: Give the Director General of the WHO control over the means of production through an “allocation plan for health products” to require developed states parties to supply pandemic response products as directed. (Article 13A)
5) MANDATORY MEDICAL TREATMENTS: Give the WHO the authority to require medical examinations, proof of prophylaxis, proof of vaccine and to implement contact tracing, quarantine, and TREATMENT. (Article 18)
6) GLOBAL HEALTH CERTIFICATES: Institute a system of global health certificates in digital or paper format, including test certificates, vaccine certificates, prophylaxis certificates, recovery certificates, passenger locator forms and a traveler's health declaration. (Articles 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36, and 44 and Annexes 6 and 8)
7) LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY: Would empower the Emergency Committee to override decisions made by sovereign nations regarding health measures and would make the Emergency Committee's decisions final. (Article 43)
8) UNSPECIFIED, POTENTIALLY ENORMOUS FINANCIAL COSTS: Redirect unspecified billions of dollars to the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex with no accountability. (Article 44A)
9) CENSORSHIP: Greatly expand the World Health Organization's capacity to censor what they consider to be misinformation and disinformation. (Annex 1, page 36)
10) OBLIGATION OF DUTY TO COOPERATE: Creates an obligation to build, provide, and maintain IHR infrastructure at points of entry. (Annex 10)
“2024 Updated Top 10 Issues That Are UNACCEPTABLE in the Proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations,” by James Roguski
1) THREE LEVELS OF FEAR-MONGERING: (Articles l, 5, 8 and 12) Giving the WHO Director General the authority to unilaterally declare an Early Action Alert (EAA) and a Pandemic Emergency (PE) in addition to a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), with absolutely no oversight and no checks or balances on his power is UNACCEPTABLE.
2) QUARANTINE: (Articles 24, 27 and Annexes 4 and 8) Adding additional threats of quarantine to people who are traveling is UNACCEPTABLE.
3) DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR TRAVEL: (Articles 35, 36, 37 and Annexes 3 and 8)
Requiring additional health documents, such as test certificates, in order to restrict one's ability to travel freely is UNACCEPT ABLE.
4) VACCINES AUTHORIZED BY THE WHO FOR EMERGENCY USE: (Annex 6)
Requiring ''vaccines," especially those that are authorized for emergency use is UNACCEPTABLE.
5) MAKING NON-STATE ACTORS COMPLY WITH PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURES: (Article 42) Coercing "non-state actors" to comply with government dictates is UNACCEPTABLE.
6) SURVEILLANCE: (Annex 1-c-i) The ongoing and ever-increasing invasion of our privacy is UNACCEPTABLE.
7) PROLIFERATION OF PATHOGENS WITH PANDEMIC POTENTIAL: (Article 44 and Annex 1) Facilitating the proliferation of pathogens with pandemic potential and their genetic sequence data through a Pathogen Access and Benefits Sharing system is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE.
8) NATIONAL IHR AUTHORITY: (Article 4 and Article 44-e) Requiring that we allocate human and financial resources and adjust our national laws by creating a National International Health Regulations Authority is UNACCEPTABLE.
9) DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL DATA: (Article 45) Allowing the public disclosure of private data is UNACCEPTABLE.
10) CENSORSHIP: (Annex 1-c-vi and Annex 1-5-vii) Attempting to limit freedom of speech and freedom of expression under the guise of countering misinformation and disinformation is UNACCEPTABLE.
To keep current on this looming threat to both American and individual sovereignty, visit James Roguski at JmesRoguski.com or JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive for his invaluable information as the result of his relentless pursuit vetting the WHO's subterfuge in maneuvering itself as the premiere authority for global emergencies with sole discretion for declaring and executing emergency protocols as it sees fit.
In other words, emergency declarations that instantly open largely unaccountable massive funding spigots from which trillions flow. In the WHO's case, it would have access to trillions of other countries' tax dollars and indebtedness to spend at will – because all government “emergency” funding is quintessential easy money that more often goes poof, with precious little of it ever meaningfully contributing to easing emergencies. After which such gargantuan perversity disappears from collective memory every time.
A couple of pandemics, depending on their severity, two or three climate crises per year, and animal, plant, and ecosystem calamities that have yet to be thunk up, and “Voila!” The latest greatest formula for further enriching the already obscenely rich, not to mention the engorged money-laundering capacity to accomplish the more sinister conspiracy theories, such as cultural identity dilution with thousands of cross “appropriations;” insulating and protecting crimes against humanity that include the obscene proliferation of human trafficking for sexual exploitation, child labor, all forms of slavery we claim to despise yet continue to tolerate regardless of our color, creed, ancestry, or political bias.
And don't forget the increasing lawlessness. I am referring to politicians who blatantly ignore the people's interests with contrary votes, bureaucracies over their skis with adverse enforcement authorities, and especially courts whose judges are no longer fit to serve after violating their oaths of office due to off-limits political biases; and Central banks, banks-too-big-to-fail, and insanely concentrated fund managers, all systematically corralling the planet's wealth and resources to eventually either completely control or eliminate entire populations. Its the same old song and dance of all megalomaniacs that surface approximately every 100 years since the dawn of man. We 21st-century humans aren't special, just accommodatingly incurious.
For the curious, however, another tremendous source of need-to-know information relative to the looming WHO coup is Dr. Meryl Nass, an internal medicine physician from Maine. Dr Nass is considered an expert in Anthrax bioterrorism, Gulf War Syndrome, and Ebola outbreaks. She has testified in seven congressional hearings as a biomedical expert, whose breadth and depth of experience and exceptional credentials mark her worldwide as one of the most highly regarded physicians in her field. She has taken up the mantle of exposing the considerable downside of the “WHO Coup” on humanity's behalf. Yet despite her epic accomplishments, honorable intent, and unassailable evidence that informs her professional conduct, reporting, and the positions she holds, Dr. Nass continues to suffer powerful forces trying to derail her after standing against public health authorities relative to COVID-19 treatments.
It is maddening, really. How is possible we have so many dishonorable individuals in positions of real influence, such as Maine's State Medical Board, who use the color of law to harass, interfere, financially disrupt even bankrupt, and execute unconstitutional orders. These include its suspension of Dr. Nass's medical license over her resolute defense of Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin to successfully treat three COVID-19 patients, during a hearing where she and her lawyer were not allowed to speak in her defense! Could it be because the Board's objections to Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are not based on any provable medical rationale, but instead are imposed based on political biases that have no legitimate authority in governing medical licenses? It begs the question: Has the administrative function of professional licensing outlived its usefulness if it is no longer restricted to its own statutory rules by which these quasi-judicial boards are governed? In other words, have professional licensing boards gone rogue and need to be dismantled, especially if there is no accountability to the rules of the road? Meanwhile Dr. Nass is suing Maine's Medical Board for multiple violations of her rights, their abuse of authority, et al.
As for her crusade to fully inform the public relative to the WHO coup, Dr. Nass has a uniquely cerebral way of analyzing data visually. Her work drills down with equal precision on the more salient data in making her case for an issue. She is every bit as prolific and inspiring as James Roguski. And she is a true honey badger for the sheer volume of data she disseminates weekly. A feat made more impressive knowing she is in the midst of tangling legally with the long crooked arm of a corrupt bureaucracy, Maine's state medical board, who suspended her license. Visit Dr Nass at MerylNass.substack.com or DoorToFreedom.org/who-resource-page/ and buckle up because she assumes you can think.
P.S. Don't be shy about supporting both James Roguski's and Dr. Meryl Nass' work by donating if you are able. You would be hard-pressed to find two more worthy recipients.
Links to Documents, Web Sites, Legislation, Etc., Discussed by Roguski and Nass
U.S. Government Global Health Security Strategy 2024
WhiteHouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Global-Health-Security-Strategy-2024-1.pdf
Current Proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations
WHO.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr8/WGIHR8_Proposed_Bureau_text-en.pdf
No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act (S.444) sponsored by Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) with 49 co-sponsors, including Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Joni Ernst (R-IA). There is no Illinois Senatorial support to date.
Congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/444/cosponsors
One Health Participants
WHO.int/health-topics/one-health#tab=tab_1
FAO.org/one-health/overview/one-health-overview/en
EPA.gov/one-health/learn-about-one-health
AVMA.org/resources-tools/one-health
OneHealthInitiative.com/about/
