The United Nation's World Health Organization (WHO) is attempting a global coup by amending existing international law, as per the alarm bells of researcher James Roguski.
Roguski has been closely following the actions of the WHO as it moves to strengthen its mandate in a ‘post COVID’ world.
He is sounding the alarm on the secret, back-door meetings underway this week (January 9 – 13) in Geneva, that will focus on proposed amendments to existing international law through a Working Group on the Amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).
The amendments are being overseen by a special IHR expert Review Committee (RC), comprised of appointed, unelected ‘health experts’ and bureaucrats who operate primarily in secret.
“They are sworn to confidentiality. The IHR RC answers only to the Director General [of the WHO, Tedros],” Roguski states, hinting further at the clandestine way these committees operate.
The WHO can already impose a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) whenever they deem there to be a health threat.
Roguski cynically renamed the acronym to be the ‘Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex,’ which he suspects will essentially usher in a surveillance state in the future.
It’s all under the guise of "maintaining preparedness.” For instance, Article 1 amendments include one that would enforce member states to share resources readily at the directive of the WHO to ensure ‘equitable access.’
“These are more international surveillance recommendations,” says Roguski. Budi Gunadi Sadikin, Indonesia’s Health Minister, submitted a proposal to impose a global health certificate:
“This is all about tracking, tracing, compliance and governance. It has nothing at all to do with health,” Roguski reiterates.
In addition to Roguski’s top 100 reasons [to oppose the IHR amendments], a primary concern is in proposed changes to Article 3. Put forward by the delegation of India, it will strike out that the regulations must be enacted with “respect for dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms” and replace it with regulations enforced “on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities of the States Parties, taking into consideration their social and economic development.”
The amendments will also cross out the words “non-binding” to ensure that the IHR will be legally binding moving forward. Recommendations “will now be seen as legally binding orders and that is fundamentally different than the situation that we are in right now. That wipes out sovereignty, fundamental freedoms, human rights and quite frankly bureaucrats would be empowered to tell everybody what they have to do. We cannot allow that to happen.”
Roguski equates this to an abusive relationship. He believes that member states who are having their legal authority and sovereignty undermined by this global health governance need to leave the WHO.
“What it requires is the political will,” he says, “that will come from the rule of the people being impressed upon.”