Robert Malone confirms in his Substack that there was no actual vote to confirm and approve the amendments. Instead, "consensus" was agreed upon by an "unelected conclave" of insiders.
"Representatives from many WHO member nation-states were not in the room, and the ones [that] were there were encouraged to keep quiet. After the non-vote, there was giddy celebration of this achievement, clearly demonstrating the lack of somber maturity, commitment to both rules and careful diplomatic consensus, and absence of serious intent and purpose warranted by the topic. This was clearly an insider clique acting unilaterally to circumvent normal process and mirrors a similar process used to confirm the re-appointment of Tedros to the Director-General position. This unelected WHO clique of "true believers" clearly signals that it believes itself above any requirements to comply with established international norms and standards, including its own. By their actions you will know them; the giddy arrogance of these actions predict that WHO decision making will continue to be arbitrary, capricious, and politicized, and will continue to reflect the will of various insider interest groups (and nation-states) rather than anything even approximating a broad-based international consensus."
While it has yet to be legally binding via international law (we have 10 to 18 months to consent), if the U.S. chooses to enter the agreement, it will be a loss for us and a massive win for pharmaceutical companies worldwide. To be sure, states have and can put measures in place to protect their governmental sovereignty. Frankly, however, the worry is less about State sovereignty and more about bodily autonomy, control over our money, and freedom of movement.
The pandemic showed us that laws did very little to protect us from tyrannical rules and measures—you know, the ones they put in place for our own good during the pandemic. Starting in 2020 and well through 2021, few hesitated to obey unelected government bureaucrats. Instead, fear dictated the behavior of many, and all of us paid the price. Therefore, dismissing the WHO treaty as a nothing burger is foolish.
James Roguski makes some pretty sturdy arguments about why this treaty threatens our wealth and health. Roguski believes, "This is about the tail that is being wagged by the dog of the pharmaceutical hospital emergency industrial complex."
Imprecise language is the number one concern. Straight out of the gate, the sure-to-happen future "pandemic emergency" is vaguely described as a "public health emergency of international concern caused by a communicable disease." The definition continues, "Communicable disease has, or is at high risk of having, wide geographical spread to and within multiple States (countries); is exceeding, or is at high risk of exceeding, the capacity of health systems to respond; is causing or at high risk of causing, substantial social and economic disruption, including disruption to international traffic and trade; and requires rapid, equitable and enhanced coordinated international action, with whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches."
These words allow those who wrote them to dictate what constitutes an international health emergency. The treaty communicates that it is a pandemic emergency "if they say so." The National IHR authority will coordinate with the State (your country), and all will be well. "The Director-General determines that an event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern," per Article 12 below.
Roguski, who has followed the WHO amendment process closely, contends the underlying motive of the WHO is to put a worldwide governmental health agreement in place to fund the management of disease (a reactive medical model), especially during a health emergency. That emergency might include a virus or something climate-related as well. I wouldn't put it past them. There has been much discussion in the global community, the UN, WEF, etc, around the need to manage climate-related disasters. Our own White House issued an Executive Order in 2021 on the need to "tackle" climate crisis at "home and abroad."
Poor countries would benefit from your taxpayer dollars. Your hard-earned money would fund the worldwide "Medical Industrial Complex," with Big Pharma most likely benefiting the most. In addition, the principles of "equity and solidarity" are promoted at every step of the process and are pushed heavily by the treaty and its members. Equity, however, is more likely a code for spreading your wealth as good socialists require—you thought Congress had a hold on how your money is spent?? With this treaty, there will be added excuses to fund the welfare of needy and distant populations.
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and his pals (Fauci, Gates, and others) are panicked because many now fear the medical establishment. The pandemic ushered in a whole new crowd of vaccine-hesitant individuals, a reality globalists and government bureaucrats lament. Their treaty, they hope, will legitimize pushing all manner of interventions that are out of favor in the eyes of the unwashed masses. Tyrants always push policies that serve them best.
Unfortunately for all of us, these globalist types are not particularly self-reflective. It was their draconian lockdowns and mandates that caused the skepticism. An autopsy of the pandemic reveals in study after study that none of their mandates worked as promised. In far too many cases these mandates—whether it was the vaccines, the masks, or the lockdowns—caused great personal harm or even death. Nevertheless, it is full steam ahead. Tedros stated recently that it is high time to "aggressively push back on anti-vaxxers."
In Monday's interview following Saturday's adoption, Roguski spoke with Noor Bin Laden about the real threats of adopting this WHO Treaty. He believes national sovereignty is low on the list of problems we will have should we sign on to this treaty. His skepticism about the treaty stems from a belief that human beings can make their own health-related decisions and that localities should be in charge of policy.
Roguski explains that the underlying model for the retooled IHR Amendments promotes drugs and medical interventions as the primary path to health rather than maintaining a healthy lifestyle. After all, a healthy lifestyle would prevent the necessity of drugs and other invasive interventions, from which "Pharmakeia" would benefit financially. The word pharmacy, as Roguski points out, comes from the Greek word "Pharmakeia," which translates to "poison," "witchcraft," or "sorceries."
There is vague and imprecise language throughout the document. Imprecise terms could lead to implementing policies during a "pandemic emergency" that will be as draconian if not more so than COVID-19 if the globalists get their way. In other cases, the language is more specific.
Article 1 features language defining the meaning of "relevant health products." According to the amended Article 1, relevant health products will now include additional language in bold, "medicines, vaccines, diagnostics (the arguably useless PCR tests, for example) medical devices, vector control products, personal protective equipment, decontamination products, assistive products, antidotes, cell- and gene-based therapies, and other health technologies."
Roguski explains:
"It really starts at the very beginning with the definition of terms. This is all about what they call relevant health products. They used to refer to it as pandemic-related products. And I'll just name a couple of them. Medicines, meaning pharmaceuticals, vaccines, diagnostics, and they added in, at the last moment, cell and gene-based therapies and other health technologies.
Personally, I don't believe that the diagnostics (PCR) that were used throughout COVID and have continued to be used to scare people about bird flu and everything else are completely fraudulent. I do not believe, I do not see any evidence that any sequence of events, any test, any analysis, any examination can truly determine if one man, woman, or child. Is a hazard to another man, woman, or child.
I trust my immune system. I don't care what symptoms some other person has. To determine if that person is a hazard. Has to have crystal clear criteria and I don't see that anybody is capable of providing any such criteria. You're supposed to have due process. There is supposed to be a manner in which your rights are respected. And saying that, ohh, they took a PCR test and they failed, and so they go into quarantine, lockdown, or they have to be vaccinated or whatever, it is s just such a violation of fundamental human rights. It's unacceptable."
Personally, I don't believe that the diagnostics (PCR) that were used throughout COVID and have continued to be used to scare people about bird flu and everything else are completely fraudulent. I do not believe, I do not see any evidence that any sequence of events, any test, any analysis, any examination can truly determine if one man, woman, or child. Is a hazard to another man, woman, or child.
I trust my immune system. I don't care what symptoms some other person has. To determine if that person is a hazard. Has to have crystal clear criteria and I don't see that anybody is capable of providing any such criteria. You're supposed to have due process. There is supposed to be a manner in which your rights are respected. And saying that, ohh, they took a PCR test and they failed, and so they go into quarantine, lockdown, or they have to be vaccinated or whatever, it is s just such a violation of fundamental human rights. It's unacceptable."
Roguski also speaks to the use of WHO's list of medical interventions as the prescribed pathway to health. He believes the treaty is a play to acquire more "paying customers" for Big Pharma.
"I will grant that there are a couple of pharmaceutical products that I feel have benefit in the world if used appropriately, but the vast majority of drugs are just customer acquisition tools. Oh, you have a set of symptoms. Let's not identify the cause here. Swallow a poison. Come back in a few months, and we'll see what else you have. Here's another poison. If you believe in that model and you believe in the Pharmakia, you know, the spellbinding and the witchcraft and the sorcery that has fooled people into believing that swallowing poison is the path towards health, well, you know, have a wonderful day."
Roguski says this is "marketing for Big Pharma" and less about national sovereignty. He believes it is a misconception to say that Tedros or WHO "will now be your doctor." Instead, what will most likely transpire are stricter border controls, a lack of bodily autonomy, and a distribution of wealth in the interest of "equity and solidarity."
As for travel, let's take the PCR testing that occurred during COVID-19. PCR testing was largely inaccurate and ineffective in diagnosing active disease. Yet, many countries required PCR testing prior to entry. Ironically, in the U.S., many illegal aliens were allowed to cross our borders without the PCR testing that was required of U.S. citizens.
Roguski explains that this treaty will more aggressively sanction and promote solutions that coerce travelers to comply with agreed-upon medical interventions so they may move freely. Per the treaty, those same requirements will be tracked digitally, making the interventions even more invasive.
While the language in the document is generally not dogmatic, it is still strongly suggestive. And strongly suggestive will be plenty convincing for many nations and many people. There is a high likelihood that travelers will feel pressured to comply to reach their destination, just as so many did during the pandemic. What happens to business travel if an individual refuses to comply? What does it mean for that person's job security? What happens to families whose relatives live abroad? Will they be cut off from seeing them if they fail to comply? In the end, Roguski believes this treaty violates fundamental human rights.
Article 35 of the IHR reveals the requirements of these "Health Documents," a system that Malone says is "consistent with Digital IDs described by the World Economic Forum (WEF)." People will need a digital ID to access and perform almost every "aspect of civilized society," according to Dr. Malone:
As for travel, let's take the PCR testing that occurred during COVID-19. PCR testing was largely inaccurate and ineffective in diagnosing active disease. Yet, many countries required PCR testing prior to entry. Ironically, in the U.S., many illegal aliens were allowed to cross our borders without the PCR testing that was required of U.S. citizens.
Roguski explains that this treaty will more aggressively sanction and promote solutions that coerce travelers to comply with agreed-upon medical interventions so they may move freely. Per the treaty, those same requirements will be tracked digitally, making the interventions even more invasive.
While the language in the document is generally not dogmatic, it is still strongly suggestive. And strongly suggestive will be plenty convincing for many nations and many people. There is a high likelihood that travelers will feel pressured to comply to reach their destination, just as so many did during the pandemic. What happens to business travel if an individual refuses to comply? What does it mean for that person's job security? What happens to families whose relatives live abroad? Will they be cut off from seeing them if they fail to comply? In the end, Roguski believes this treaty violates fundamental human rights.
Article 35 of the IHR reveals the requirements of these "Health Documents," a system that Malone says is "consistent with Digital IDs described by the World Economic Forum (WEF)." People will need a digital ID to access and perform almost every "aspect of civilized society," according to Dr. Malone:
- Access healthcare insurance and treatment
- Open bank accounts and carry out online transactions
- Travel
- Access Humanitarian Services
- Shop and conduct business transactions
- Participate in social media
- Pay taxes, vote, collect government benefits
- Own a communication device [such as a cell phone or a computer]
Malone doesn't mince words about the consequences of the Digital ID rollout. "All of our actions, taken with the use of Digital IDs, will be tracked and traced. If we step out of line, we can be punished by, for example, being severed from our bank accounts and credit cards—similar to what happened to the Canadian Truckers. Digital IDs are a form of mass surveillance and totalitarian control. These Digital IDs are currently being rolled out by the World Health Organization in collaboration with the European Union."
Articles 24, 27, 31, and 35 cover the myriad permissions and reporting requirements IHR asks States to comply with when a pandemic emergency rears its ugly head. For example, Article 27 reads, "The competent authoring may implement additional health measures, including isolation and quarantine of the conveyances, as necessary to prevent the spread of disease. Such additional measures should be reported to the National IHR Focal Point."
Article 35 requires "Health documents under these regulations may be issued in non-digital or digital format, subject to the obligations of any State Party regarding the format of such documents deriving from other international agreements," like the WEF. These health documents "shall conform to the Annexes, referred to in Articles 36 to 39..."
Articles 24, 27, 31, and 35 cover the myriad permissions and reporting requirements IHR asks States to comply with when a pandemic emergency rears its ugly head. For example, Article 27 reads, "The competent authoring may implement additional health measures, including isolation and quarantine of the conveyances, as necessary to prevent the spread of disease. Such additional measures should be reported to the National IHR Focal Point."
Article 35 requires "Health documents under these regulations may be issued in non-digital or digital format, subject to the obligations of any State Party regarding the format of such documents deriving from other international agreements," like the WEF. These health documents "shall conform to the Annexes, referred to in Articles 36 to 39..."
If this treaty prevails, misinformation and malinformation will also be controlled more tightly. WHO, WEF, and the various "States" will define what narratives meet their approval. As with censorship, at its height during the pandemic, government bodies will control much of what you see and hear about all topics. Social and news media platforms will almost certainly carry their water for them.
According to Malone, the IHR amendments contain "troubling language" concerning censorship that is "fraught with opportunities for abuse." Malone writes:
"The IHR amendments retain troubling language regarding censorship. These provisions have been buried in Annex 1, A.2.c., which requires State Parties to "develop, strengthen and maintain core capacities . . . in relation to . . surveillance . . . and risk communication, including addressing misinformation and disinformation.
The requirement that nations "address" "misinformation and disinformation" is fraught with opportunities for abuse. None of these terms is defined in the document. Does "addressing" it means censoring it and possibly punishing those who have offered divergent opinions? We have already seen how doctors and scientists who disagreed with the WHO narrative under Covid 19 were censored for their views—views that turned out to be true. Some who offered protocols not recommended by the WHO even had their licenses to practice medicine threatened or suspended. How much worse will this censorship be if it is baked in as a requirement to the International Health Regulations?"
The requirement that nations "address" "misinformation and disinformation" is fraught with opportunities for abuse. None of these terms is defined in the document. Does "addressing" it means censoring it and possibly punishing those who have offered divergent opinions? We have already seen how doctors and scientists who disagreed with the WHO narrative under Covid 19 were censored for their views—views that turned out to be true. Some who offered protocols not recommended by the WHO even had their licenses to practice medicine threatened or suspended. How much worse will this censorship be if it is baked in as a requirement to the International Health Regulations?"
Malone also asks who and what will be surveilled. Again, the language is just vague enough to be worrisome.
And how is abortion-on-demand a health-related initiative, you ask? It's being discussed by WHO and other global entities. According to c-fam.org, "Delegates clashed with the head of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, on whether to give official status within the international health agency to the radical abortion and sexual rights lobby group, Center for Reproductive Rights(CRR)." When they clashed, he asked them to consider allowing the group to apply conditionally for a year. The article continues, "The Center for Reproductive Rights is a global law firm and lobby group dedicated to promoting abortion rights and sexual rights. They seek to overturn abortion laws, including parental consent provisions and conscience protections in national courts and through UN mechanisms. In recent years, they have become leading advocates of gender "transition" healthcare, including for minors."
A delegate from Egypt, however, spilled the beans on the push for abortion-on-demand. According to C-fam:
And how is abortion-on-demand a health-related initiative, you ask? It's being discussed by WHO and other global entities. According to c-fam.org, "Delegates clashed with the head of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, on whether to give official status within the international health agency to the radical abortion and sexual rights lobby group, Center for Reproductive Rights(CRR)." When they clashed, he asked them to consider allowing the group to apply conditionally for a year. The article continues, "The Center for Reproductive Rights is a global law firm and lobby group dedicated to promoting abortion rights and sexual rights. They seek to overturn abortion laws, including parental consent provisions and conscience protections in national courts and through UN mechanisms. In recent years, they have become leading advocates of gender "transition" healthcare, including for minors."
A delegate from Egypt, however, spilled the beans on the push for abortion-on-demand. According to C-fam:
"A delegate from Egypt specifically called out the Director-General's intervention as misleading. Tedros suggested that CRR's advocacy for abortion is in the mainstream, promoting access to abortion in the "hard cases" of incest, rape, and when the mother's life is threatened. The Egyptian delegate said CRR goes far beyond that. We are here not speaking about life-saving interventions on pregnant women. Accepted and allowed within most member states," he said, but "abortion-on-demand" and transgender identity change based on "subjective self-determination."
Dr. Malone hits the nail on the head when he explains what we need and does not need in international agreements on world health.
"Just speaking in terms of best practices, it is clearly inappropriate to rely on administrators with such a vested personal interest in the outcome to be so intimately involved in crafting sweeping international policy changes. This revision process should have been managed by an independent commission of seasoned, objective experts who were carefully vetted to minimize potential conflicts of interest. The world does not need more condescending authoritarianism from those entrusted to facilitate international cooperation in public health."
