James Roguski Substack.
Get your opinion across to the WHO inb.who.int on 16th / 17th June.
Here is a brief summary of what happened:
- On January 18, 2022, the Biden administration proposed amendments to the World Health Organization.
- On May 31, 2022 I published THIS ARTICLE to shine a bright light on this issue.
- On Friday May 20, 2022 a document filed in a United Kingdom court case revealed that the Working Group on Pandemic Response was “unable to reach consensus” regarding the amendments.
- On Tuesday May 24, 2022 a new set of amendments was submitted to the 75th World Health Assembly in complete violation of Article 55 which requires amendments to be submitted at least 4 months prior to the Assembly.
- On Friday May 27, 2022 the May 24 document was revised and published by the World Health Organization.
- On Friday May 27, 2022 the revised amendments were adopted by the World Health Assembly.
- Call me directly at 310-619-3055 if you would like to know more.
Here’s the anti-climactic ending…
SPEAKERS
Helen Clark, Board Chair, WHO, Aimee Villella McBride, CHD, Polly Tommey, Klaus Schwab, Albert Bourla, James Roguski, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus WHO Director General, Elizabeth Mumper, MD, Bill Gates
Polly Tommey 0:03
All right. Hello, every one. Well it’s Friday the 27th of May 2022. It’s Children’s Health Defence weekly Friday roundtable. And we have I think just lost our guest there he is he’s back there. Thank goodness for that. We have James Roguski. He’s also an investigative journalist. And he is a man that everybody’s talking about right now on who we are going to for advice. Now, I understand we have some breaking news around 15 minutes ago. I don’t know if James can hear me. So we’ll just wait one second. Wait. None of us here. Amy or Dr. Mumper know what this news is. But we do understand there is some breaking news. So if everyone’s just standby while we sort out our technical issues, can you hear me, James? Not yet. This is wonderful live. This is what happens when you’re live. You get all the excitement of things that go wrong. Let me know when you can hear me, James speak when you can.
Aimee Villella McBride, CHD 1:06
While he’s working out his audio?
James Roguski 1:08
Hi there. Hello, I hope you can hear me?
Polly Tommey 1:12
Yes, thank you, James. Sorry about all that technical issues. But do tell us what is this breaking news?
James Roguski 1:19
Okay, you can go to www.leavethewho.com and gain access to all of this. There’s so much but the short version of the long story is they at the World Health Assembly, they just approved what many people had don’t even know what is on the table. We’ve all been talking about amendments that the Biden administration submitted back in January. Okay. That is not what I’m talking about now. Right?
On Tuesday morning, there was published on the WHO website, a brand new set of amendments, it would have changed article 59, 55, 61, 62 and 63, which doesn’t mean anything to your viewers, [but we] will go into those details. But there’s a whole new pile of amendments that were submitted on Monday morning, which was the first day that the assembly was supposed to be discussing this. And a whole lot of nations, many African nations, Iran, Brazil, Russia, others, I wasn’t there. So you know, I wish I was a fly on the wall to see what was going on. It’s quite the soap opera. They had an objection to wait a minute, you’re dropping a whole new document on us, and you want us to discuss it and amend it and approve it this morning. And so all week long discussions have had been going on.
This morning, they published a revised version of the thing that they published on Tuesday. And that kind of gave us a clue that they wouldn’t do something like that, unless they had every intention of approving that particular document, which about between 15 minutes and 30 minutes ago, that’s exactly what they did. They don’t vote, if they can get away with it. They do all these backroom deals. And when a document comes before the assembly, they will say something like, okay, we’re talking about, and this is literally what it is. Document A75 meaning the 75th assembly, conference seven, revision one. Does anybody have any objection. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Okay, nobody objected, it has been approved. It’s been adopted. And that’s what they did about 30 minutes ago. And my analysis of what they passed was totally illegitimate, even in the document, it says, well any amendments have to have a four month advance notice. They have to be submitted four months before the assembly. So it literally says in the amendments that they just passed, that you have to do it four months in advance and they published it this morning. Okay.
On one level, it’s hilarious, because it’s just so fraudulent. It’s unbelievable. They did not address yet, and I don’t think they’re going to, the original amendments that we’ve been talking about, that [the] Biden administration submitted. So I’m not going to be like the football player who’s caught a pass and he’s running for a touchdown. and he’s like on the five yard line, and he spikes the ball, and he thinks he got a touchdown. But he blew it right? I’m not gonna do that. I am not gonna be that guy. And so until they actually close the session tomorrow, Saturday, and it’s all said and done, and all the dust has settled, and all of the analysts have said, oh, yes, they only passed this, or they adopted these few amendments, that when you actually look at them, it’s a big pile of nothing. So I am not going to claim, you know, 100 percent victory until they close the door, and they all go away from Geneva. But it sure looks really good right now.
Polly Tommey 5:43
Can you not tell us a little bit more? I mean everyone’s like what?
James Roguski 5:48
Oh, it’s mind bogglingly complex. Okay. The amendments that we’ve been talking about, that I’ve been talking about since March 31, when I published the article to begin with, appear to have been beaten into submission, and it didn’t happen. Okay. And like I said, I’m not going to claim victory until they close the door. And it’s totally done. Because they’re sneaky. They’ll do something between now and then. But what they did today, about a half an hour ago, is they didn’t talk about those at all. They crafted a new document, if you go to www.leavethewho.com those documents are there. You know, and I recognise for most people, this is just a bunch of gobbledygook.
The short version is it appears that we’ve won. Now until they close the doors Saturday, and they’re done. You know, they can still do something sneaky. But it seems like really, really, really good news, you know, Power to the people. It appears that many of the African nations, Iran, possibly Brazil, Russia, and some others, at some point, they actually read what the amendments were. And they said, what in the heck are you doing. And so there have been many, many, many different, literally within the proceedings at the assembly. They talk about how the Secretariat, which is a fancy word for Secretary, how they arrange to have a room set aside so that’s some backroom dealing could go on. And the way they want this to happen is they want it to sound like there’s unanimity, that everybody agrees that it’s all wonderful. So they go in the back room, they make whatever deals they make. And essentially, they all applauded themselves at the end of it. Oh, you know we’re so wonderful. We did such a great deal. And they approved a big pile of nothing. And I’m quite happy right now it remains to be seen when the dust settles, and we look at this, you know, Sunday morning and Monday morning, they did not get their way, As best I can tell at the moment.
Aimee Villella McBride, CHD 8:13
That is great news, James to hear that. And I know you’ve been at the forefront of this reporting on it since you said in March, we’ve been following your substack. And you know, you and a few others really have been so ahead of this, which has been amazing for people to learn from. Earlier in the week, I had heard that 12 out of the 13 amendments were withdrawn and then only article 59 was remaining, which really had to do with the allowable timing that the WHO would either reject future amendments or take them into account. So is that still what’s on the table? Or did that also get scratched and what you’re talking about now is this breaking news is something entirely different. Although it sounds like it’s kind of meaningless, that they are looking to adopt?
James Roguski 8:57
I’ll try to take what you just said and do my best to clarify it. It remains to be seen, like I said until Saturday when they totally close the session. But it’s actually very entertaining. I mean, it really is like watching a soap opera once you understand the players and what’s going on, and it appears that they just ended their third session of the day. They may be coming back to talk about some other topics, and there’s always a chance that they sneak something in. So that’s why I’m hesitating to claim sheer and total victory. Most everything that you just said was absolutely correct with a couple of tiny little nitpicky details. I’ve never said that they took 12 of the 13 off the table or retracted or withdrawn or whatever the word was.
Here’s what happened with that. There were rumours going around that last week. They were having difficulty achieving consensus on the original Biden 13. It’s not 13 amendments, it’s amendments to 13 articles in the International Health Regulations. And so Zach Cox in the UK, who I spoke with about a month or so ago, in the United Kingdom, they have a procedure whereby a citizen can ask for a judicial review. So he did back on Tuesday of last week. And, you know, what is the United Kingdom doing here, right, was essentially what he requested a judicial review regarding. He proposed that I believe, on Tuesday, a week ago, or not this past week, but before, and on Thursday, I believe, he was rejected, that they would not do a review. And he stewed overnight and I think he had to take some money out of his pocket and file an appeal. And so on Friday, the 20th, I think it was, he filed an appeal. And after the end of the day, on Friday, before that was when the World Council for Health and everyone was involved in Bath, that Friday at the end of the day he got a letter from the department, the legal department at the Ministry of Health in the UK, saying, oh, there’s no reason for a judicial review. Because they’re having problems achieving a consensus in the UK.
And that phrase, problem reaching a consensus got turned somehow by the media into, they’ve been withdrawn. And so they never really were withdrawn. Because they’ve been talking about it, it’s still on their website. The rumour prior to that it wasn’t that Zach’s appeal caused that to happen that had already happened. But Zach’s appeal, brought that into the public domain, because the department of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Health in the UK, sent that letter to him and sent it to the court. And so that letter brought somewhat into the public domain, that they were having problems over in Geneva. And then that got twisted by media, because that’s what the media does, into oh, it’s been withdrawn. And, you know, in effect, that was true. But it was actually still on the table. And it quite frankly still could be on the table and that’s why I’m not 100 percent, I’m like 99.9 [percent]. But I’m not going to spike the football five yards outside the endzone and be one of those guys. Right. When it’s over. It’s over. And we’ll celebrate when it’s over. And I hope that answers your question, I think. Okay.
Elizabeth Mumper, MD 13:04
So, James, if I could clarify. One of the things we’ve all been writing letters about and so concerned about is that this issue that the director of WHO could go to multiple sovereign nations and essentially declare a worldwide pandemic, and dictate the way that that should be handled, and that independent sovereign nations wouldn’t have their own ability to apply local solutions. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be 99.9 percent sure that that part of it is not going forth? Is that what I’m hearing?
James Roguski 13:42
I’m definitely gonna get really detailed and granular with what you said. There’s a lot of information that is in the media that’s just cross pollinating all kinds of ideas. Okay. And so the portion of that, that I’ve been talking about, is simply the Director General’s ability to declare, not a pandemic, I don’t use that word. It’s not a legally defined term. Their language is Public Health Emergency of International Concern. PHEIC and it makes you smile. It’s a fake, okay. He gets to declare a fake. If currently, if the nation where the issue is happening, agrees. And so this whole thing has always been about a very simple point. Does the nation where the issue is happening have the final say. Okay. And it’s only all I’ve ever been saying is it’s about the declaration of the PHEIC. Okay. It makes me smile every time I say it. It’s not about how the response to that emergency declaration gets implemented. Okay. The amendments don’t really have any power given to the Director General, The WHO, and now that they’ve been, just completely, it seems obliterated. It’s all a moot point at this point. But there’s been a lot of misunderstanding in terms of, oh, the power of the WHO to step into this country or that country and demand things. It’s always been a sleight of hand, hypnosis, propaganda, programming. Oh, the WHO says you should do this, WHO says you should do that? What they were trying to get was actually a more powerful form of hypnosis and propaganda. Oh, we’ve declared that there’s an emergency, right, a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern, an intermediate Health Alert. It was the trigger, they wanted to have another trigger to declare an emergency, and this is on my original article, exhibit G. I don’t know if we’ve ever talked about this. On the very last day of the Obama administration, the last full day January 19th 2017, they published a document in the Federal Register, the CDC put their final ruling on rules for quarantine for interstate and international travel. And they changed the meaning of words. And I wrote a whole article on it. It’s called Newspeak on my substack. Literally its out of 1984. They changed the definition of what would enable our health and human services secretary Javier Becerra, who conveniently and I hope he’s doing well, I don’t think he was at the event because he was diagnosed with COVID, tested positive for PCR tests or whatever. The definition in the United States of a public health emergency is now by regulatory fiat, as of December 9, I’m sorry, January 19th 2017, tied directly to the Director General of The WHO, merely making a recommendation. He could say something like, there might be some bacteria in the sewer system in Cairo. And that would be justification for us to declare a public health emergency. And that’s what makes all the money flow. That’s what sets up the emergency use authorizations. And then the state governments declare an emergency and the county and the city and its all illusion. But if that illusion is strong enough, government officials think that they have legal authority. And you guys have been dealing with, you know, that all in everything that you do government officials doing things that they’re not supposed to do, but they do it anyways. And we know that they don’t have the legal authority to do the things they’re doing. But the hypnosis is so powerful, it’s hard to get people to recognise that. And so this is a lot of smoke and mirrors. And I’m very optimistic right now, like I said, you know, we’ll wait until Sunday morning and the dust clears. And it’s like, okay, what really, really happened this week. It looks like you know, wonderful news.
Polly Tommey 18:45
Alright, so let’s just clarify a few things. Because I know that some viewers well, not many, because our viewers will be saying, oh, James says we could potentially have one fantastic so tomorrow night, we’ll all be celebrating, everyone go home, go out file your nails, do your thing. It’s all done. It’s all over. No, it’s not all done. We have the World Economic Forum meeting at the same time, shenanigans going on over there. Eyes have always got to be kept on these organisations. James, can you just reiterate what you actually mean? We haven’t won, everything is over. They’re not going to just lie down and say the people have won, and it’s done.
James Roguski 19:25
Absolutely. You know, it’s a tiny little skirmish in an ongoing battle that they’re relentless. They never stop. You know, I got a whole bunch of bad news that I saw that a bunch of the bills that are proposed in California pass the Senate or passed this or the other house here. it’s never ending and they are relentless. But you do want to celebrate the fact that people power can be organised and something that we, you know, we were not supposed to know that this was gonna happen. This was supposed to happen quietly. They presented these things in January, there was no media about these amendments. Ideally, they were gonna pop up at the floor in the committee meeting. And everybody would just be like, Yeah, okay, whatever, I’m supposed to vote for that. But the awareness has been raised. And that’s the beauty of this is when enough people are aware of all of this skullduggery, okay, and you shine the light on it, you can be victorious.
And it’s never ending vigilance. It’s never gonna be over, you know, the Constitution doesn’t protect our rights, we protect our rights, and the government is limited by the Constitution. And so please do continue with the types of things that you need people to pay attention to. But what this is, is a recognition that,if we do pay attention, and we do take action, and we do spread the word, and we are focused and organised, you can undo something that you didn’t even know was gonna happen.
Aimee Villella McBride, CHD 21:15
Right. And I think it’s important to remember that the WHO has been up to these shenanigans for a very long time, and we can just look back at their history with the swine flu, the way that was handled, and obviously, everything they did during COVID. I mean, they’re, you know, their efforts and suppressing, you know, early and effective treatments that we knew that worked and trying to, you know, make everything out to be misinformation, when the real truth, you know, we know what the real truth is, in terms of what is effective, how harmful and dangerous the COVID vaccine is. So, this is not new for them. You know, I think we’ve had an groundswell of public support in pushing back on this, and the opposition, which has been fantastic. And just as you said, it shows the power of the people, but we cannot take our eyes off of them, they have such a long history of this, and who knows what they’re up to next. And just as Polly said, listening to some of the key speakers in Davos, during the same week, hearing some of the most insidious comments come out of their mouth about, you know, I think it was the Pfizer CEO talked about creating pills with microchips so that as people take it, they can actually track compliance of [the patient taking the medication and being able to track them, you know, and so many other statements that these are, this is the agenda of the globalist and they’re not gonna stop. This is their mission, they want to capitalise on this, they see the profit, they see the commoditization of human beings and people, so we cannot keep our eyes off of the hill.
James Roguski 22:40
Oh, absolutely. And so there’s so many issues, and part of what they do is they just overwhelm people. And, you know, a month or so ago, my girlfriend, Marissa and I sat down and we said, look, we’re in the middle of this, you know, we’re just gonna put life on hold, because this is important. And, you know, I recognise that people aren’t necessarily able to do that. I’ve got to get back to my life, I’ve got to do the things that I was doing. You know, [when] this all started I was working in my garden, and mother nature has totally taken over my food forest. She’s doing great, right, we got a big harvest of apricot that I was like, oh, wow, look at that, I didn’t even pay any attention to them. And so life takes over. And people have to go to work, they have to take care of their family. And part of the game is they overwhelm you with all this information, its too much. And, you know, I think I was able to sift and sort and get the nuts, the little gems that people could run with. And the folks that have contacted me, really have lifted my spirits. And it’s just, it’s been 100 percent fantastic. I mean, I’ll do it right now, and everybody thinks I’m crazy. But it’s been a blessing. You know, Hey, everybody, my phone number, write it down. It’s 310-619-3055. If you want to get involved in this fight, give me a call and we’ll keep going.
But absolutely, everybody who’s contacted me, the people who don’t care aren’t watching your show. And the people who don’t care, won’t pick up the phone and come. Don’t call me now. I’m on my phone. So don’t do it right now. But they’ve been wonderful. I mean, it’s just, and all over the world, not just [the] United States. I’ve gotten calls from Japan and Malaysia and Singapore and Uganda and Switzerland and you know, everywhere. Ecuador, a shout out to the folks in Ecuador. You guys really need to talk about what’s going on in Ecuador. That’s crazy. The spirit of people who recognise that they absolutely have to make the stand. Oh, I can’t tell you how encouraging that has been. Its been wonderful.
Elizabeth Mumper, MD 24:59
So James, welcome to our world. We have found the same thing because some of us have been doing this work for a couple of decades now. And we’ve never met more amazing people who have such a sense of moral conviction. So you’re in a good crowd for sure. But I am ignorant about Ecuador. What is happening in Ecuador? Can you tell us about that?
James Roguski 25:20
Well, shout out to Shiloh and Rasmus and Kathlyn. One of the very first videos that I posted, was on a Monday morning, it’s probably a month or five weeks ago. And in the middle of the day, I get a phone call from Ecuador. And we had conversation, and six hours later, the video was translated into Spanish because [in] Ecuador, you know, most people speak Spanish. And so Ecuador, the last information that I know of they passed, the assembly enacted a law that may or may not have been signed yet, I don’t have up to date information on whether or not it’s been signed, that would enable the President and other Cabinet officials to sign “treaties with non government organisations, possibly even corporations without the approval of the assembly”, so the assembly kind of abdicated. And you just scratch your head and you go, wow, that’s sure looks like legalised corruption. Okay. Um, and in addition to that, there’s talk of something called Project Phoenix, which is forced vaccination using the military.
Now, I don’t want to be a scare monger and fear mongering and all that kind of stuff, I’d encourage you to get connected with me so I can get you connected with them. And we can share all of this information. You know, this is going on all around the world. I’ve been working with folks in Malaysia and Singapore and Uganda and South Africa. It’s wonderful to see that people are standing up, and realising what’s going on. And getting everybody connected as part of what I’ve been doing. Just before we got on here, it was kind of fun. You know, we had some good news. And so I made a phone call. And then, you know, I was talking to somebody that I’ve been working with, and, you know, made a three way call made a four way call made a five way call, and everybody’s talking, you know about this. Part of it is not trying to convince people who do not want to be convinced. Part of it is organising the people who are actually a huge part of it is making connections and organising people who want to work together. If you’re spending all your time trying to convince somebody who just absolutely does not want to be convinced, you could be working with people who are already there. And you know that organising is different than trying to convince somebody who just really does not want to want to know any difference.
And so I’ve been doing this since I moved to California in 1996. I wrote a book half a dozen years, more than a dozen years ago, rather, Your Doctor is a Liar. Right? Now, there’s a few exceptions. But you know, that book is more true now than it was a dozen years ago. And I’ve always given it away. Because if you’re speaking the truth, it resonates with people who want to hear the truth. And you know, but not everybody is ready to hear the truth. And so you work with the people who reach out to you, and they go, Hey, what is it you’re doing? I really liked that. Let’s work together. And that is a whole lot better use of everyone’s time than in my opinion, than trying to convince people who just don’t want to be convinced.
Now, with those people, all I do is I ask them a question. I go, Oh, you know, you’re, and I won’t even get into something that’s really sticky. I’ll just say, look, you’ve made a decision to do something. Oh, wow. I’ve got two ears. Let me be quiet. You tell me what you use in terms of science and facts and studies. Why did you make that decision? Please? You convince me? Right? Why is it that you’re doing something that I have chosen not to do? And more often than not, they’ll say something like, well, you know, so and so said to? And you realise that that’s hearsay. I heard somebody say, and the beauty with what I’ve been doing with this thing with the IHR and the amendments, is I just started with evidence. I just started with facts, shined the light on it, and said, look at the facts. Seems obvious to me, it doesn’t matter what I have to say. I didn’t hear somebody say something. I dug up the facts. And so the best way I think to approach somebody who’s doing something that maybe you think is not what you would do for yourself, is ask them to convince you about their choice. And more often than not, they’ve got nothing.
They’ve just done it because of propaganda. And you don’t have to confront them, which causes them to become defensive. You go, hey, you know, I’d like to come over to your point of view, can you send me the facts that you’re using to defend your point of view? I’d like to know what they are. And nine times out of 10, they got nothing. And it’s a much more, it leads to a more friendly conversation. You’re not telling them what to do? You’re using two ears, as opposed to one mouth. And you listen to what they have to say. And you know, anybody who’s got facts to convince me that I’m wrong about something, you will be my best buddy. Yeah, teach me something, tell me that I’m wrong. That’d be great. And if you have that attitude, you don’t have to have a confrontation. You can learn.
Polly Tommey 30:58
Alright, well, thanks for that. I’m sorry to be a Debbie Downer. But I just, you know, I just want to go back to this a second, because we’ve called this show hidden agenda. Now, what the good news is, is if you’re right, and we’ve won that little thread, then that should show everybody around the world, these people are not as big as they think they are. Or they want you to think we the people are way more powerful than them. So that I know for sure. But what is the hidden agenda because they’re not gonna give up? They’re gonna come back? They messed up, we won, they messed up, we’ll come back and do it a different way. What is the goal here? What’s the hidden agenda cos there’s so much confusion about this, from your opinion?
James Roguski 31:42
Sure, the hidden agenda is rarely hidden, actually, they usually just tell you right up front. And so in Session Three, if anybody goes and watches what happened, cos it is very entertaining. Session Three, about 30 minutes in, the American, I can’t remember his name, so I’m not going to butcher it. But there was the co chairs of the working group of the working group for pandemic response, gave a 10 or 20 minute presentation before the assembly. And they said, Well, you know, we’ve been having trouble reaching an agreement. And they are going to change the name of the working group for pandemic response to the working group for the International Health Regulations. And they’re planning to meet that group on November 15th. And they will be taking suggestions from, you know, proposals from all the nations around the world to amend the International Health Regulations, which is what this has all been about to begin with. The deadline for submitting those things will be September 30. And then they will meet November 15 to, here we go again, okay, same type of stuff.
Now, maybe in the light of day, maybe some good recommendations or proposals for changing the international health regulations will come to pass. But I doubt it. Okay, so we have to be eternally vigilant. So, you know, essentially, the bully got punched in the nose, he’s going back licking his wounds, and he’s planning to come back again in November. And so that’s not hidden. That’s what they said they’re going to do. And so, you know, I’m not going through this again, right. You know, my whole attitude at this point is www.leavetheWHO.com, hashtag #leavethewho. It’s a voluntary organisation, I mean, voluntary association. And it’s very much lik, being in an abusive relationship, where you can’t reason with the person, they just keep doing the same thing over and over and over again. And so we can leave anytime. I doubt that the Biden administration will do that. And so what I’m going to be doing, all I can say is what I’m going to be doing, and what I’m going to be doing is exposing the WHO, for who they are. This has been a wonderful awareness of what’s going on. And there are many nations in Africa, many nations around the world, who saw firsthand, at this assembly, that the power structure of the United States, United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, are trying to take even more advantage of nations that have less wealth, and more pigment in their skin.
And so, as countries wake up to what the WHO is really all about, we need to build things like the World Council for Health and Children’s Health Defence and all of the many organisations that are, you know, and I’m gonna miss out on a whole bunch of folks. We need to build an alternative, so that people see that the Titanic that is the World Health Organisation ran into an iceberg this weekend, and last weekend, they’re going down slowly. But at some point, people will go, well wait a minute, they really suck. What’s going on with these other organisations? Let’s put our faith in them, let’s put our effort behind them, let’s put our money and our time and our thought, and you create a better alternative. At some point, people will look at the choice and they’ll go, they can just wither away on the vine because they’re just not worth our time, effort and energy, we’re putting our energy into building a better way. To steal to steal a slogan from the World Council for Health, there is a better way, and that’s what we need to focus on now. You know, we punched him in the eye, they’re bruised and battered, they’ll be coming back again. But you know, by November, we’re going to be much bigger, and they’re going to be getting weaker and weaker and weaker and weaker.
Aimee Villella McBride, CHD 36:17
And I think we tried to get out of this, right. I mean, at one point, Trump had us divesting from the WHO (inaudible) on that. And right now currently, there’s a bill HR 419 that is trying to get us to remove taxpayer dollars and funding into the WHO, which is picking up a lot of co sponsors a lot of steam. So I don’t know if you want to give your perspective on how we can get out of this, and do we really see our way out? I am very doubtful [about] what happened under a Biden administration, but we’re trying to make that happen.
James Roguski 36:49
Well a lot of Congress people have sent letters to their constituents, because as part of what I’ve been doing, it was like, hey, write your congress people just to push back, however you can push back, not that they were going to Geneva to vote on these amendments or anything like that. But approximately 100,000 people came through my site to speak to their senators and congressmen. And so I don’t track that, I don’t take people’s information or anything like that. And so maybe they didn’t all actually go and do that. But you know, even if half of them did, then each senator got like 500 constituents reaching out to them on average. And I absolutely know, from the feedback that people have given me that most of the Congress people and senators are like, we don’t know what you’re talking about. This is, you know, this is we don’t know. And then what happened was absolutely in, oh I’m enraged by it. I’m a calm, cool, collected guy, but deep down inside, it really got me upset. The dynamic of what happened was 1000s of people reached out to their congressmen, women and senators, and they said, Look, you know, we’re learning about what’s going on in Geneva, we don’t like it. What are you going to do about it? Okay. Now, you know, I remember being in 10th grade government class learning how we have a representative government and our representatives are supposed to listen to the constituents and pass legislation and whatever. So in Louisiana, there was I think 14 legislators in their assembly, put forth a resolution. Now, it’s not going to change anything, but it’s a flag that they’re planting, saying, Well, you know, we resolved that we don’t want anything to do with this, this isn’t what we want. And at the very least, they did their job. They’re supposed to represent their constituents, their constituents let them know about this. And they did a little tiny something. And it’s more than most have done.
What the Congress people and especially Republican congressman, and I have written an article about this, it’s on my substack. They didn’t know what was going on. Right. Like, we have no idea. What are you talking about? What is this? Never heard of it? And then a couple of days later, they came back with a form letter that literally said, oh, we are absolutely in support of this. And you the constituent, you just don’t understand. Okay. This is, you know, this is something that the Trump administration started that they literally said in their documentation, and it’s true. These negotiations began during the Trump administration. Obviously, he was out of office. The Biden administration bears full responsibility for submitting them. But the Republican congressman who sent these letters to their constituents, said we’re in support of this. We’re in support. They clearly stated beyond any shadow of a doubt that they knew that the amendments that Biden submitted would take control away from each nation and give it to this one person the Director General of the World Health Organisation. And I’m just astonished that they could be so blind to the fact that they admitted in writing, that they were willing to break their oath of office to defend the Constitution. Because they clearly stated, they wanted to take this power away from each country and give it to one worldwide dictator. And it’s astonishing.
So, you know, going into this election season, every Congress person, there’s a few exception, I do have a naughty list. And there is a short, nice list of people who have stepped up to the plate and been on the right side, as far as I’m concerned about this, but wow, you know, this election season? Did you support this? Did you say anything against it? This is a big issue. And it’s not as big of an issue as it may have been, had these things passed and been approved or whatever. But it’s really going to be a very interesting six months before the November midterm.
Elizabeth Mumper, MD 41:20
James, Children’s Health Defence has been live streaming the World Health Assembly, and some of us who have tried to watch it have felt like there wasn’t really much going on, that there were a lot of people reading canned speeches. As you’ve analyse their work, is there anything substantive that’s actually been accomplished during the current week that you can point us to?
James Roguski 41:49
Well, part of the problem is, and it’s interesting, you know how you get accustomed to something, and you think everything is like what you’re accustomed to. Their whole situation is very different. They had a plenary session, and they have a committee A and a committee B. And then they also had roundtable discussions. Okay. So there’s like four things going on at the same time. And so, you know, I haven’t watched all of it, because there just isn’t enough time in the day. And so I was very focused on what they refer to as committee A. Okay. And so, unlike our Congress, where there’s sub committee meetings, which don’t really hold any voting capacity, the World Health Organization’s assembly is unusual in that they have three sessions going on. And each nation has three official delegates. So there’s really three things to watch all at the same time. And the only thing I’ve been watching is committee A, because that’s where the action was with the amendments, right?
The plenary, I haven’t watched the darn thing because I haven’t been able to clone myself to be three different people. Okay. And committee B didn’t have too much going on. And then there’s these whole these roundtable discussions. So it’s impossible for anybody to have watched everything. And I certainly have not watched everything. And so what I witnessed was that there’s absolutely no discussion whatsoever, there was nothing written in the amendments at all about essential medicines, nutrition, early treatments, alternative treatments, you know, there was no May a culpa or post mortem analysis of hey, how come Dr. McCulloch and doctor Zelenko and Dr. Urso and Dr. Corey, and Dr. Cole and all the other doctors that I’m not mentioning, why weren’t they presenting something? Why was GAVI and you know, all of the other? There’s a chart that I came across, that I have on www.leavethewho.com. There is 193 nations because I think possibly one of them hasn’t paid their dues. Okay. And there was 250 or so, “civil society organisations”. And so, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI and all these other organisations, they got time to speak. Okay. And so, the next thing coming just FYI, this is I hope I can enunciate clearly enough. There’s a website inb.who.int as the inter governmental negotiating body inb.who World Health Organisation.int for international. If you go there, please everybody pay very, very close attention because that is the inter governmental negotiating bodies website, they’re the ones who are going to be now talking about the “proposed pandemic treaty”. They have not yet opened up the ability to put your name in. But they soon will probably very short window on June 16, and June 17, there will be the ability to give an audio visual presentation, and the ability to write a very short written submission for everyone to voice their opinion about the proposed Pandemic Treaty, which I wrote an enormous article about, and it’s just an abomination. It’s everything under the sun that you can possibly imagine. So stay tuned for in the next week or so, they’ll be changing that page inb.who.int to take submissions from the public. And we’re just going to absolutely bury them this time. We’re all aware of it, we know it’s coming. They’re going to hear what we all have to say about their negotiations. They’re shooting for at the end of July, that their intergovernmental negotiating body will hopefully, according to them, for the first time present a draft of their proposed pandemic treaty.
Anybody who’s been talking about the pandemic treaty up until this point, has been unfortunately, misrepresenting dozens and dozens and dozens of proposals that are, you know, groups with a lot of money saying what they want. The first draft is scheduled to be submitted, August 1st. And so, June 16, June 17. Prepare your statements and prepare your your two minute presentations to give the WHO your opinion. So that’s in the next two weeks or so. that’s the next focus, I believe.
Polly Tommey 47:22
James, I want to ask you a question. Still people, many people, not our viewers, but many people who just [think] oh I can’t be bothered with all this. How bad can it get? What can the World Health Organisation do anyway? What would you say to them? Because we need all hands on deck and people to understand how bad can it get? James? How bad could it be? If we do nothing,
James Roguski 47:44
I would just say, if you don’t have an opinion, if you don’t care to speak your mind, then we don’t live in a democracy, we live in a republic, the Constitution is we gave up a certain amount of rights to form a government. And we the people have to defend our rights. And if you don’t say anything, well you’re gonna get what somebody else decides you’re gonna get. And those same people will certainly have an opinion. Right? And given the opportunity to voice one’s opinion, you ought to take it because if you don’t say anything, well then you’ve got nobody to blame but yourself. And so I think this, if what I believe has just happened, has happened. It’s abject proof that the power of the people when it’s properly organised and focused, is amazing. Right? And obviously, there will be people who say, nah whatever negative, I don’t count you as a Debbie Downer. You know, you’re like being okay, look here it’s complicated. But when you actually get focused on, right now, probably the next focus is going to be hey people, somewhere between now and June 16, there’s going to be an opportunity for you to write whatever it is you care to say, and possibly organisations like Children’s Health Defence will be able to submit their application to speak. I got to speak at the last one, and I’m just a guy, right? I mean, I’m not a big organisation. I’m just one person, but I filled out the form. I told them I wanted to speak and they were able, they didn’t have that many people. It was really very entertaining. I got to give my two minutes. And the five or six people that followed after me they made it so confusing that people didn’t show up. And for the five or ten minutes after I spoke, it was pretty funny. They showed a still video shot of my dining room, because nobody wanted to follow what I had to say. And it really made me smile, I didn’t even realise it was happening. Afterwards, when I saw the video, to their credit they published it, it’s still up on their on their site. If you go to their fourth session, I was the second speaker, and the third, fourth, fifth, six, seventh persons after me, they were a no show, right?
So, a shout out to a different topic, www.interestsofjustice.org. They found out about a listening session with the Health and Human Services on Friday the 13th. And they submitted their interest to be a speaker, and they were one of the very few people who got to speak, they actually got to speak nine times in a two hour listening session. So, you know, if you want to sit on your butt and do nothing, that’s your right, if your life is so busy that you’re just barely treading water, man I feel for you, you know, I know how that is. But if you have the time, energy and inclination to participate, we’re just trying to organise the next step of this, which will be coming soon as soon as they let everyone know how it’s going to be. And it’s all going to be on that website, inb.who.int, will certainly keep you apprised of that. Organisations like CHD and World Council for Health and others, certainly will put forth their organization’s view. But individual people will be able to say what they have to say. And power to the People. Power in numbers, participate. If you don’t participate, you got nobody to blame but yourself.
Aimee Villella McBride, CHD 51:36
Now I don’t think there could be a more important time as we approach Memorial Day weekend. And we think about what are our heroes and our veterans and people who have served before us for these very fundamental rights. People have literally put their lives on the line in order to uphold our Constitution, our bodily autonomy, our own nation sovereignty, our individual sovereignty, all of our rights. So this is such a big opportunity to give that public feedback, we cannot let it pass us by. I think back in April, there weren’t quite as many people aware of this to give public comments then. And although many did, they also gave very strict parameters in terms of how you could give commentary. And so you know, now it’s really important that people are willing and able and ready to participate on June 16th and 17th. So stay tuned for more information from us here at Children’s Health Defence, we’ll have action alerts on that. Please keep following James Roguski and his substack. James, you’ve done a phenomenal, phenomenal job of getting all this information out there. So huge shout out and kudos to you for all of your great sleuthing and reporting on this since back in March, and really galvanising the people to take this action. And we will hopefully see over the next few days some good news come forth in this, but I know we can’t count our chickens just yet. So we just want to thank you so much, James, for coming on. And being here with us today.
I also want to just make some announcements. Tomorrow, we’re actually going to be having a conference straight from Geneva, Switzerland here at CHDTV. So you’ll want to tune in for that it’s going to start at 9am Eastern time. 8pm Central Time 6am. Pacific time. So it’s gonna be all about democracy and the threat of the WHO’s centralization of power. So this is in alliance with the International Alliance for Justice and Democracy. So this will be live tomorrow here at CHD. You’re not going to want to miss this. You’re going to hear from all of the experts and people on the ground to bring full transparency to what’s been happening there in Geneva. So that’s 9am Eastern time tomorrow.
Also we have Dr. Tony’s show on tomorrow. You’re not gonna wanna miss that. That will be at 3pm Eastern time with Dr. Peter McCullough, so they’re gonna be discussing preventing hospitalisation, and death while fighting the pharmaceutical industrial complex. So you don’t want to miss that. Dr. Peter McCullough (inaudible) on Dr. Tony. And we just want to wish everyone a wonderful, safe, Happy Memorial Day. And let’s all remember why we all do what we do, why we fighting every day, why we’re passionate, putting you know all of our energy and time into defending our rights and getting the truth out there. Let’s remember that this memorial day more than ever, and have a great safe, Happy Memorial Day and we’ll see you back here next week. Thank you, everyone.
Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus WHO Director General 54:15
Unfortunately, there has been a small minority of groups making misleading statements and purposefully distorting facts. I want to be crystal clear. WHO’s agenda is public, open and transparent.
Helen Clark, Board Chair, WHO 54:33
We have to believe that it’s possible to stop a localised outbreak becoming a raging global pandemic. And that means better surveillance, more transparency, frankly by all member states. If they think something’s happened, it’s got to be reported. And the WHO needs the power to be on site with whatever teams need to be deployed. It needs to be able to publish the information at hairs?? rather than beg countries for permission to do it. It’s got to be able to take a precautionary approach in running up a flag. And it’s got to be able to declare an emergency without being kneecapped by an emergency committee. These are basic things that need to be dealt with in a review of the International Health Regulations. Otherwise, we will lose weeks again next time something happens,
Klaus Schwab 55:20
How many vaccinations do we need in the future?
Albert Bourla 55:22
That’s a very good question. And I think, first of all,I think we will need vaccinations in the future. But also I’m concerned that the compliance of the population and with the recommendations of the experts will not be very high. More people did the first dose and then less did the second and then lesser will do the third and the fourth. And so for that reason, we need to find the solution that makes it easy for people to get and I think this solution, it is, the number one priority is to have a vaccine that lasts a year. So once people know that it is once a year, and do it every autumn, for example, fall I think that will improve the amount of people that are getting the vaccine.
Klaus Schwab 56:11
And there are also secure and certain attempts to combine it with an anti flu vaccine.
Albert Bourla 56:17
That is another very good way to improve compliance. If someone thinks that I’m going to go to the doctor or to the pharmacy, but at least with one shot, I will get two, flu and that also will increase the number. So these are the things. it’s very difficult to improve the efficacy right now it’s very, very high. But what you can improve it is how convenient it is. And how can last the efficacy for a longer period of time. You vaccinate not only for yourself, you vaccinate also to protect society and particularly to protect those that you love the most because they are the ones that who are together.
Bill Gates 56:57
The vaccines have saved millions of lives, but they don’t have much in the way of duration and they’re not good at infection blocking.
Klaus Schwab 57:06
I think we were we were both targets of the anti vaccine movements and conspiracy. People know you will also target
Albert Bourla 57:19
I read one day I was arrested by FBI.
Klaus Schwab 57:23
Yeah, same happened to me
Albert Bourla 57:24
And there are pictures. Pictures of me and FBI officers I don’t know how, but I never said. That surprising thing is that the same publication, I found out because they had published the previous one that was arrested was the Pope. So ridiculous. Yeah, so we are good company. At least I was in good company.