From ... in History — Oct 23, 2023

UN Moves to Advance Pandemic Treaty and Regulations, Signaling Urgent Need for Public Intervention

UK Column attended a virtual World Health Organization press conference on 20 September to document what even the New York Times, America’s illustrious “newspaper of record”, evidently failed to report, including in its editions of 21–22 September: the WHO’s announcement that the United Nations’ 193 member states have approved a “high-level political declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”.

"The declaration is a strong signal from countries that they are committed to learning the lessons of the COVID–19 pandemic, and to strengthening the world’s defenses against pandemics,” stated WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus at the beginning of that midday press conference, immediately after the UN General Assembly discussed and green-lighted the “declaration”.

Curiously, the Times reported on different UN General Assembly matters at the very same time, concerning “climate change” and Ukraine, with not a word on the relentless UN-WHO movement toward a pandemic treaty and updated International Health Regulations, both of which are on a parallel track. The treaty—referred to as an “accord” or “instrument” by the UN and WHO, apparently to downplay the matter in the eyes of the U.S. Senate, which is constitutionally tasked with consenting to treaties—is targeted for completion in May of 2024. This high-level declaration is a major step toward that goal.

UK Column also tuned into the General Assembly’s morning deliberations on 20 September. There, scores of delegates all sang from the same hymnsheet on how the UN, via its WHO component in what’s known as the UN System, must heed key “lessons learned” from the 2020–21 “pandemic” by arranging for universal healthcare coverage on a worldwide basis, while making sure that Covid injections and various vaccinations are readily available for even the poorest countries; that would be done largely by making richer nations’ taxpayers shoulder the bill.

Alignment in New York

Apparently, there were no statements at the General Assembly that the pandemic’s “lessons learned” also should include the clear hazards, some of them fatal, of receiving experimental mRNA covid injections, erroneously defined as traditional “vaccines”, that were rushed to market with little in the way of carefully administered experimental trials based on honest science.

Typical General Assembly statements came from representatives of Haiti and Thailand. Haiti’s spokesman remarked that “Covid exposed the inequities and injustice of our world” and that “technology transfers” are needed to help poorer nations keep pace with richer ones, along with “dependable finances” and “universal access to vaccines, medications and diagnostic tools”. Thailand’s delegate, in a thinly veiled reference to the pending treaty, stressed that “a new paradigm of cooperation” is needed worldwide, to enhance “pandemic preparedness” en route to a “digital health system.”

Moreover, Malta’s spokesman noted, “What happens anywhere, happens everywhere,” and all the General Assembly delegates that UK Column heard concurred that the next worldwide pandemic is only a matter of time.

At the above-noted press conference, the WHO director-general stressed the supposed need for a highly collaborative “shared response to shared threats” (read: monolithic vaccine-based medical ethos) as a means of peddling the treaty idea:

We owe it to those we have lost to learn the painful lessons Covid–19 has taught us, and to make the changes that will keep our children and grandchildren safer from the pandemics of the future. Because we know that the next pandemic is a question of when, not if. In the declaration approved today, Member States have demonstrated that even at this time of division and polarization, it’s still possible for countries to come together to agree on a shared response to shared threats. It is that same spirit of collaboration that we urge countries to demonstrate as they continue their negotiations on the Pandemic Accord [treaty] and the amendments to the International Health Regulations.

Disturbingly, although UK Column, connected by a WebEx platform, signaled to ask a question at the press conference on matters of “disinformation”, Ghebreyesus and the other panelists who briefly fielded press questions made it clear that the new UN declaration includes measures to combat medical “disinformation" via social media platforms. The issue was presented as if any contrarian or dissenting information or remarks on social media against the UN-WHO health crusade, no matter their source or veracity, will be promptly dismissed as “conspiracy theory”-based misinformation.

Thus, these anti-free speech UN wonks have an exceedingly rigid worldview and seem to lack the humility to consider the possibility that having stricter anti-pandemic measures in the future will result in even greater tyranny, coupled with riskier vaccines rushed to market to address various alleged “inequities.”

Get involved

So, with the WHO stealthily finalizing a World Pandemic Treaty and the International Health Regulations (IHR)—both of which have a strong potential to erode or overturn national and personal autonomy on medical choice, including choice pertaining to vaccination policies—Los Angeles-based independent researcher James Roguski has been on top of the treaty negotiations among the 194 WHO member states that are taking place at WHO headquarters in Geneva.

Roguski recently established that there are four parallel tracks being pursued by the WHO:

The already-approved United Nations high-level “political declaration” on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, by the General Assembly. Its 20 September adoption reported above was right on schedule;
The particular IHR amendments were adopted on 27 May 2022. The deadline for concerned citizens to encourage their representatives to reject those particular amendments is not far off—1 December 2023;
Public input on over 300 new amendments to the IHR, which, according to Roguski, are being negotiated in secret, must be submitted no later than mid-January 2024; and
The WHO CA+ framework convention, alias “Pandemic Treaty”, and those 300-plus new amendments are currently scheduled to be finalized and adopted in May 2024.

However, “the Working Group for Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) admitted [on October 2] that they believe they may not be able to complete their work before the deadline set by Article 55 of the International Health Regulations,” Roguski noted, referring to a requirement that WHO member states get at least four months to review the amendments before they are given final approval.

Notably, Article 55, part 2, reads (emphasis added):

The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration.

In this video link, Roguski further explains the manner in which Working Group members are attempting to “bend the rules to the point of breaking them” in order to throw overboard the four-month requirement—which can only be achieved if the IHR regulations are ready for review in January 2024, four months before the May 2024 (77th) World Health Assembly.

Roguski stated:

The answer is NO! [. . .] You are going to miss your deadline; you will not be allowed to break the rules. That four month period (between January and May 2024) is for public comment and comprehension.

Roguski’s video post shows Working Group member Dr. Abdulla Asiri (Saudi Arabia), who stated the following:

Dear colleagues,

We have been operating with the understanding that the package of the proposed amendments resulting from the work of this group would be finalized by January 2024 to meet the four month deadline stated in Article 55. However, we believe that we all share the same sentiment that, realistically, the whole package of amendments will probably not be ready by January 2024. We would like to ask the Secretariat whether procedurally we could continue working until the [. . .] World Health Assembly in May 2024. I’d like to ask the Secretariat to provide some guidance in this matter.

The following excerpt of the remarks by Stephen Solomon (WHO Secretariat legal counsel), who is also featured in the above-noted video, further clarify what the Working Group is doing to manipulate the rules:

Article 55 of the IHR, including this four month requirement, has never been applied to amendments submitted collectively by a sub-division of the Health Assembly, which is exactly what the WGIHR is. The WGIHR is a subdivision of the Health Assembly under [. . .] the Rules of Procedure of the Health Assembly. That is to say, Article 55 has been applied to amendments proposed by a state party or by the Director-General, but never by a sub-division of the Health Assembly. Indeed [. . .] it has not been applied with respect to any sub-division. This is a first. Thus, there are no precedents to rely on with respect to the manner in which the four month requirement set out in Article 55 should be satisfied.

On that basis, Solomon suggested that perhaps the rules could be bent a little. The record shows that he proposed that the Working Group continue to negotiate and modify the amendments right during the fourth month period (from January until May of 2024) even while claiming that, on the basis of his reasoning, Article 55 could still be satisfied.

Contact information

At StoptheAmendments.com, Roguski has posted several items to aid UK Column readers and viewers who want to make their voices heard regarding the amendments and the proposed pandemic treaty. That web page includes:

The 19-page People’s Guide to the Proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations, which is a PDF that can be downloaded. It covers a gamut of information about maintaining personal consent for all medical treatments, the dangers of vaccines, maintaining at all times the right of free speech, a detailed listing of specific proposed IHR amendments “that must be stopped before they’re submitted to the WHO” and much more.
And, among other things, this video link, pertaining to a letter that Roguski issued to national leaders, including the Pope.

This Open Letter To World Leaders notes:

December 1, 2023 is the deadline to REJECT the amendments that were adopted on May 27, 2022. Your SILENCE on this issue IS your CONSENT.

The letter continues:

This notice is directed to the individual leaders (Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings, Queens and yes the Pope) of each and every one of the 194 nations that are members of the World Health Organization, as well as Liechtenstein and the Holy See, which are observer nations that have also chosen to be legally bound by the International Health Regulations.

Please be aware that December 1, 2023 is the deadline for each and every one of you to reject the amendments to the International Health Regulations that were adopted by the 75th World Health Assembly on May 27, 2022.

Under Article 61 of the current International Health Regulations, each of you has the authority to send a simple notification to the World Health Organization informing them of your decision to reject the amendments for YOUR nation.

The amendments in question were submitted on May 24, 2022 by the following nations: Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, the European Union and its Member States, Japan, Monaco, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

The amendments were adopted just three days later on May 27, 2022, without any opportunity for public discussion, debate or comment.

Quite frankly, I wonder if the delegates from your nation have properly informed you of the ramifications of their actions.

I also wonder if you’ve been made aware of the existence of these amendments and the authority that you have to reject them.

I wish to remind you that, under Article 61 of the current International Health Regulations, you have the authority to reject the amendments that were adopted on May 27, 2022, but the deadline for you to take that official action is December 1, 2023.

I pray to God that you will receive this information and that you will possess the wisdom and exhibit the courage required to stand up to the World Health Organization in order to protect the rights and freedoms of the people of your nation.

I urge you to invoke your authority under Article 61 of the International Health Regulations and send an official letter to the World Health Organization informing them of your decision to reject the amendments that were adopted on May 27, 2022, and I urge you to take this action before the deadline on December 1, 2023.

I encourage everyone else in the world, especially those who speak languages other than English, to record this exact same message in your own voice and in your own language and post your video wherever you possibly can.

I also encourage everyone to share this video far and wide.

I believe that we, the people of the world can, and must unite in order to protect our unalienable rights and freedoms.

At the website StoptheGlobalAgenda.com, Roguski lists “public servant” contacts in the U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. The two U.S. links lead to official listings with contact information for all House of Representatives members and members of the Senate, which must constitutionally consent to all treaties. The other links lead to contact information for members of parliaments.

The British Parliament itself has posted this information on the treaty, dated 2 June 2023, wherein it states that the UK Government supports its adoption, although the posting adds:

The UK’s position on the exact substance of the treaty remains to be seen as negotiations continue.

Roguski’s Stop the Global Agenda site also includes the aforementioned six-page PDF “Letter to Public Servants Around the World”, which all visitors are invited to download and apply to public servants at the local, regional and national levels. (The UK Column writer of this article took this issue to a local village council in Michigan on 5 September, where it was rather well-received. The argument presented was that the UN and its WHO arm lack the authority to bind all nations into a treaty, regardless of what one may think of vaccines, because the UN is a supranational government unto itself that the citizens of the separate nations did not consent to join. Readers anywhere can do something similar, at the town, city, village, township, county and state levels).

Contacted by UK Column, Roguski remarked:

While they are negotiating all these things, they’re telling the nations, via the first ‘standing recommendations’ the WHO has ever issued, to implement these measures.

He added that WHO representatives are throwing billions of dollars into surveillance, a “One Health” scheme and increased vaccine coverage:

They figure they don’t necessarily need a legally binding agreement to get nations to pour billions into the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex. They want the poor nations to establish the medical surveillance infrastructure that the rich nations already have, but they want the richer nations to pay for it. The Global Digital Health Certification Network is already being built out.

The question remains whether the WHO is trying to make the treaty a foregone conclusion.

“Yes,” Roguski replied. “They’ve never allowed public input on the IHR ever. And with the treaty, they hid the tens of thousands of mostly negative public comments that they began gathering in April 2022.”

For additional guidance and information on how to get involved, Roguski can be reached via his U.S. number at (310) 619–3055 (from European countries: 00 1 310 619 3055), where he is in the Pacific Standard Time zone (GMT –8). His website is JamesRoguski.Substack.com. E-mail him at James.Roguski@gmail.com.

Main article image: WHO World Health Organization website | licence CC BY 4.0

Read the full article at the original website

References:

Search Results

Bookmarks

UN Moves to Advance Pandemic Treaty and Regulations, Signaling Urgent Need for Public Intervention

Alignment in New York

Get involved

Contact information

Search Results

Bookmarks

Alignment in New York

Get involved

Contact information

Subscribe to The Article Feed