Auto-Generated Transcript On May 27 of this year, the Executive Decision -Making Body of the World Health Organization will meet in Geneva for the 77th World Health Assembly to discuss, and we must assume, approve the over 300 amendments to the International Health Regulations proposed in 2022. Amendments, the contents of which we still do not know, because the WHO is keeping them secret. Regulations proposed in 2020 will meet in Geneva for the 77th World Health Regulations According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the International Health Regulations proposed in 2020 will meet in Geneva for the 77th World Health Regulations According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the International Health proposed in 2020. proposed in 2020. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the International Health Regulations to their own rules, they must at least let the assembly delegates have copies no later than January 27th. Article 55 of the WHO's rules states that they must provide copies of all items to be discussed at annual World Health Assemblies at least four months in advance so that delegates will have time to review them prior to the meeting. meeting. But there's a problem. The WHO has admitted that they will not have finalized the proposed amendments by the deadline of January 27. Will they then pass them on to next year in order to be in compliance with their own rules? Of course not. What they will do is ignore their own rules. But that may in fact be good news. news, at least for us, if not for them. James Rungusky is undoubtedly the world's leading expert on the WHO and the International Health Regulations. He's been keeping tabs on the WHO daily for at least the past two years and publishes frequently to his sub -stack on what he finds. James joins me today to reveal the ways in which the WHO is cheating, violating their own rules, and in so doing, rendering any decision they make about the proposed amendments, null and void. James, it's a pleasure to have you back on the show. Well, it was a pleasure to be back and, you know, I actually actually think I'm going to be bringing what I consider to be good news. I'm an optimist at heart. And so I want people to be aware of what's going on. And it is good news indeed. But before we get to the good news, folks, what we're going to be discussing today, as I told you in my introduction, is amendments to the international health regulations and the fact that they're running out of time and some of the monkeying they've been doing behind the scenes. But to give you a framework for that. James. James, because you're the expert in this, I'm going to ask you to first of all tell us when the international health regulations first came into being because it was a long time ago. And then the first point at which they really started monkeying around with them to turn them from health regulations into basically a political governance tool. Well, that monkeying around, I think, really started at the very beginning. And I'll ask you sort of a rhetorical question and everybody else in the audience, do you remember where you were with and the news of the day was the moonshot, you know, when they landed on the moon or it was in Hollywood soundstage or whatever the heck it was that happened in July of 1969. At that same moment in time, they were conducting the 22nd annual World Health Assembly in Boston, Massachusetts. They landed on the moon in... July 20, 1969. I remember watching Black and White TV. I was nine years old. But on the 25th of that month, they adopted the international health regulations. Now, by "they," I mean a bunch of unelected, unaccountable, pretty much unknown people that were appointed as delegates to go to the assembly. assembly. So the starting point is to understand that what they created at that point was essentially a dictatorial leadership council where the heads of state appoint a delegate to go speak for them, not for you and I. I'm pretty darn sure that back in nineteen sixty nobody pulled the public around the world and asked if they wanted this to happen, and if they wanted it to be structured the way it was. And so, personal opinion, I think the entire thing is illegitimate from the get -go, but it gets a little bit worse than that. Many people want to believe that when a bunch of other people want to believe it, they want to believe it, and they want to believe unappointed delegates go and make a decision to create an international agreement, that that international agreement would come back to all of the many nations whose delegates were participating to be either approved or ratified or in the United States, the idea is that the Senate is supposed to give their consent. Well, that's not how the internet health regulations were structured. What they said initially was, well, we've adopted it. Everybody's got nine months and any head of state could reject it just by sending a letter saying, no, no, thanks, not for us. And there was no will of the people. There was no consent of the Senate. Senate. That's not how they set this up. It was structured in a way that if you don't reject it proactively, it's assumed after a period of time that you're good with it and it's thought to be legally bind. Now I did an interview, I mentioned to you earlier with Bruce Party. And so what legally binding means depends upon you. what type of law you're talking about. So don't get stuck on that. But they also set it up so that any future amendments would be handled in that same way. People want to believe that if any changes are made, that parliament would weigh in on whatever that is. But if we're talking about the United States, that's one thing. But if we're talking... about Canada, that is a totally different situation. And let me give you a little tiny history of how I got to my understanding of it. Someone in Australia asked me to research how international agreements are handled in Australia. And as I was doing that research, I, you know, got referenced to New Zealand and Canada. And so it spread, you know, what I was digging into. And I came to understand that there is very much a similarity. And it is absolutely not what people typically want to believe. Authority flows down from, you know, the crown, from King Charles to the governor general to the executive branch of government. And it's very clear that... 100 % of the authority to make the decision to enter into an international agreement, a convention, a treaty, a framework, whatever they wanna call it, 100 % resides in the executive branch of government, prime minister, foreign minister, and so forth. Parliament has no say at all. all. Now, for many people, that hurts. They're like, well, who do we push back on? What happens is once that decision is made by the executive branch, the directive will be given to parliament to enact legislation to implement it so that the nation is in compliance with whatever those agreements may be. And so if you look into the history, unfortunately also in the United States and almost every country around the world, the people's house, if you will, where the legislature is supposed to represent the people, pretty much didn't say a word in 2005 when many amendments were made. I I can find no record that the Senate ever gave their consent. They never gave their consent in 1969. They never gave their consent in 2005. They didn't say a word in 2022. There's a lot of, you know, I would argue fraud occurred. And so the structure of even being in this agreement. Um, I-- think needs to be called into question by everybody on planet. Yeah and I would agree and you're absolutely right that these countries that are weighing into this that are opting into it are doing so without any votes to the people to ask whether or not they want to do this without virtually any debate in parliament on whether or not it should be done and yes I earlier I said that originally they were more of a health organization, but I agree with you that they have actually been a globalist organization since the beginning. They just did a better job of hiding it 70 years ago than they do now. Because we've become very obvious. You made reference to 2005 when there were some major amendments made. Well, of course, that was made subsequent to the 2003 SARS -CoV -1 outbreak, which was also a man -made virus, very similar to SARS -CoV -2. And now here we are once again, 2022. 2022, they start monkeying around again with a full bunch more amendments. And we discussed a lot of that in our last interview with you and Valerie Borek. So we don't want to get into that too much, folks. If you want to know all about that, go back and watch the last interview from last fall. What we're here today to do is discuss the good news. And there is a lot of good news. I'd like to start with article 55, which sets out the deadlines and has in it no room for wiggling around on those issues. deadlines. Um, as you know, we talked about obviously once the agreement or adoption of amendments occurs at the yearly World Health Assembly, which it did in in 2022, I'm sorry 2005 since that's almost a fetocom plea and it's been been approved and rejection would have to happen after the fact, Article 55 sets up a four -month period in advance of the yearly meeting so that nations get an opportunity to see what is going to be considered. Now it's not just the amendments that the assembly discusses while they meet for a a week at the end of May. There are dozens and dozens of documents. And so, you know, just as a matter of reality, you don't want to have a group of diplomats show up in May and have document after document after document after document that they have not seen, and then ask them to discuss, debate and vote on these many, many different, you know, resolutions and declarations. And so there's this four -month period where, according to Article 55, any nation can submit opposed amendments to the international health regulations, but they have to do it four months in advance. The assembly begins on May 27th, so January 27th would be four months in advance of that. And there's a lot of interesting circumstances. circulating around this, but I actually do want to rewind a little bit to give a run up to this so people understand the timeline. I got involved back in March of 2022 when I discovered that pretty well hidden. There was a document that the Biden administration had submitted to the WHO. So following the rules, they submitted proposed amendments on January 18th, 2022, within the four month advance notice, although they kept it very secret for quite some time. And I started raising a ruckus about it and many nations, you know, paid attention to what those documents said. And they were not happy with what the Biden administration proposed. And so it never was even considered. It was kicked to the curb, and it was known that it was going to be kicked to the curb before the assembly even started. And that's why this four -month period exists, is so that there can be that deliberative process. With Obamacare in the United States back, you know, dozen plus years ago, Nancy Pelosi very famously said, said when this thousand page bill showed up and they were calling for a vote, oh, just vote for it. You can read it later, you know, after it passes. Well, there isn't an Article 55 rule in the U .S. Congress, so she got away with that. But in the IHR, you know, that should not be allowed. Well, the plot thickens, because in October, at one of the working working groups meeting, the working group is handling these negotiations, they said very clearly that they know the rules, they know they have a deadline, and they stated that they were not going to meet their deadline. And then they proceeded, in my words, and yes, I am using the word conspiracy, it conspired to get to the bottom of it. ignore the rule. They've set up a meeting in February, they've set up meetings in April, and they stated very clearly, well, you know, we're just going to keep negotiating right up to the, you know, day of the assembly if need be to try to reach an agreement when they know very clearly that their task was to submit a final package of targeted amendments in the law. with Article 55, which means they gotta do so four months in advance. So the good news is they're having a hard time. They're having difficulty getting 196 nations to agree on several hundred amendments. And I wanna go into a little bit of depth as to why they're having a hard time, 'cause it's not what you think. All right. If you actually read the international health regulations, they're not about health. You'd be hard pressed to see anything in there that's really about health. If you read the titles and you read the annex as to what, you know, the obligations are, it really should be called the international surveillance, monitoring, reporting, emergency declaring, fear -mongering control regulations. That's what it's really all about, and the big one is surveillance. They want, you know, to search the world for the next pathogen with pandemic potential to alert, you know, the WHO and trigger in this process very much like happened over the last four years. They want people to be very afraid. And when people are afraid, they make bad choices. They get talked into doing things that maybe don't make sense for their health. But... what at the core, these negotiations are really all about, I don't think has gotten into the general awareness of the general public. And so you gotta go back to late 2021. What many of the relatively poor nations were upset that nations like Israel and the nations in the European Union and the United Kingdom, Canada, um, I believe Canada, um, had contracts for, uh, 400 million, 400 million doses. Pretty much 10 per person, you know, roughly. Um, the United States, Australia, New Zealand. And the relatively poor nations, if you suspend your awareness that the jabs were not all that they were cracked up to be, if you allow yourself to believe, as they did at the time, that these were some life -staving new technology, they were upset that the wealthier nations were hogging up all this wonderful stuff. And so what we're dealing with is an agreement that was put out on December 1st, 2021, calling for the WHO to guide negotiations to come up with some kind of international agreement and /or amending the existing IHR to ensure equitable access to pandemic -related autos. They are not debating or discussing how to help people people be healthier. They're not interviewing doctors or nurses or statisticians or epidemiologists and, you know, looking at what went right and what went wrong over the last four years. No, no, no, no, no, no. This is a trade dispute. It, I think, was aggravated when Omicron was, you know, put forth by scientists in South Africa and Botswana, where they said, "Oh, look at what we found, this new genome, it's totally different than everything else." They alerted the world as they were obligated to do under the IHR, but in violation really of the IHR, many other nations, especially Europe, put travel restrictions on that area, which hurt their... their economy. And then to just add insult to injury, Pfizer and Moderna takes that information and turns it into the boosters and makes another couple of billion dollars. And so the relatively poor nations are going, "Hey, wait a minute. They did what they were supposed to do. These companies are making all these jabs, but the nations can't get the jabs because all the wealthy nations are hogging it up. All the profit is going to the corporations in those wealthy nations. They're getting all the jabs. They felt that they were being treated inequitably. So what most people have not heard is what their proposed solution was, and it's gotten all confused in the media. So both Bangladesh and the 47 nations of the African group from that region into WHO, they proposed strikingly similar, not identical, but separately very similar proposed amendments to create a new article 13a. Now they recommended that the Director General has the authority to declare a public health emergency of international concern, P -H -E -I -C, or fake. He pretty much can declare it just because he wants to. The only thing really holding him back is if he cries wolf too many times, people stop listening. And he overrode the negative view. of his advisory committee and declared a fake with what I call moneypox, and so be it. After that, this Article 13 (a) that has been proposed, what has him be the person who makes the decision as to what products are needed, you know, as if some individual person really can make that decision, but he would be empowered to do so. Then he would set up an allocation mechanism where he would be able to tell nation A, most likely a developed nation that has the capacity to manufacture the things that he says are needed, direct them to manufacture it and give it and deliver it too. to wherever he says to deliver it to Now, I don't know about you. Well, but That sounds pretty classic totalitarian dictatorial Marxist Communists, you know control the means of production and logistics and distribution It's pretty darn classic. You know, that's not free market. That's not anything other than Set up a dictator to be in control of an emergency Which is if you go back to Roman times That's what the definition of the word dictator is the person who dictates orders in an emergency Yes, and so everything you've just said James makes it very clear that the WHO is at least in part what they are It's the marketing and distribution branch for big pharma Absolutely. Absolutely. So Bangladesh, along with the 13A, proposed changes to Article 1, the definition of the terms standing recommendation and temporary recommendation. Currently, those are defined as non -binding advice. Well, you can ask any school kid, you know, what is advice? What is a recommendation? Well, you know, you can do it if you want to, but you don't have to. By crossing out non -binding and with another amendment from Malaysia, which said, "Any recommendations shall be implemented," which means you have to. In law, "shall" means must. Your route filled all together, it would make the Director General capable of ordering nations to make and distribute products at his whip. Now all of these negotiations over the last year, since that was revealed back in December, we really don't know for sure if that concept is kicking around. Every indication is that it still is, you know, they at their last meeting said they were going to be discussing Article 13A. But in a different agreement, which I don't really want to talk about too much because it confuses people because we're primarily talking about the amendments to the international health regulations, in another agreement, which most people call the pandemic treaty, but it's really a framework convention that would set up a never -ending zombie, you know, organization, a new bureaucracy called the conference of the parties that would meet year after year after year, much like the conference of the parties for climate change. A different proposal to settle what is essentially a trade dispute became available first back in, I believe, February, where they call that a pathogen access and benefit sharing system. Well, what they want to set up with what they call the one health approach is they are of the belief that all of these infectious diseases transfer from animals to humans, and that's the problem, so they want to do surveillance on them. Thank you. and wild animals and pets and your sewage treatment system, you know, your chicken coop, your pigsty, your veterinarian's office, you know, everything that people get swabs in the nose and in the mouth or any other orifice, they want to do this enormous genomic sequencing acquisition, this huge data collection. to find any pathogens with pandemic potential. Bring that all into the lab, culture it, get that information, you know, to try to prepare drugs or jabs, even if there isn't actually a pandemic or disease outbreak, even if there's just the potential. potential. So you can see, you know, how that could lead to fear -mongering, oh, we found some new polio in your poo, or we found some new bird flu in your chicken coop, or some new antibiotic resistant something in your local hospital. Be afraid, be very afraid, but don't worry, we've got a new jab coming for you. Well, that's the pathogen axis. The benefit sharing is they would have 20 % of whatever might be manufactured with that genetic information at its core be given to the WHO to be distributed as they saw fit. So it's a perverted type of free market controlled market, not quite communism, but, you know, I see it as a venture capital investment plan to take public money. Literally, it says in their documents, developed nations must help build state -of -the -art infrastructure in developing nations, laboratories, testing, manufacturing plants, plants, what they're trying to do is get public tax money or donations from foundations wherever they can get it to build out the other fake, what I call the pharmaceutical hospital emergency industrial complex. They want all of that investment money to go into the poorer nations because they didn't have up as many people there as they would have liked the first time around. around. Maybe 25 % of developing nations got jabbed, or maybe 75 % of developed nations people got jabbed. And so, you know, they missed a business opportunity. And that's what this is about. This is about what the Indonesian Health Minister said back in November 2022 at the B20. He was talking about the the U .S. government and primarily the Defense Department was about to implement by passing the National Defense Authorization Act in December of 2022. In November, that was known, and the Indonesian House Minister said, "Look, they are working on their global health security agenda," which I think is just a fancy word for for biological warfare research. And the US government has been putting a billion dollars a year into building more laboratories around the world to do what I've been talking about. And he said to the business audience, go invest. This is a great business opportunity. If you're involved in testing and laboratories and anything to do with pandemic -related products, it's a growth industry. And so what we're looking at are negotiations that really are not designed to prevent the next pandemic. They're designed to feed the bees. Yes. And pump a bunch of money into the industry that can then be used by your local, you know, city, provincial, you know, federal government to fear monger and say, "Oh, we found some pathogen that might be dangerous. There's potential." So everybody's got to get chat. And you know, your rights are still your rights. You still have the freedoms and the control over your own body. body, but their propaganda depends on fear. And so what they're trying to do is build out the fear -generating section or sector where, oh, we found a new pathogen, you know, disease X or one of the latest reports is they're doing gain a function and they found a pangolin coronavirus and they brewed up some mutation of it and they gave it to humanized mice who were genetically altered to have receptor sites that human beings have. And oh, this witches brew caused this chimera to die from some brain problem. Well, it's like, excuse me, but could you stop? doing that? Now, I don't want to offend anybody with, you know, a religious viewpoint, but I've been advocating for the 11th commandment. "Thou shalt not alter God's work," right? Stop messing with genetic material. You're creating these Frankenstein pathogens. They're causing the problems. They're not solving any problems. If you look at these poor nations, you know relatively poor nations, if you've ever seen a Video of you know, women who have to walk miles to get a couple of jugs of water to bring back So they have some good drinking water Why aren't they spending tens of billions of dollars on pure water and healthy food and you know fundamental? health issues that are currently killing many people. Art attacks, strokes, cancer, Alzheimer's, you know, in certain areas, malaria, tuberculosis. Why are they diverting tens of billions of dollars and not giving all the attention to the things that are actually truly health issues that could be solved with, you know, I don't like to use the term lifestyle changes, that seems to me not exactly correct, but, you know, focus on upper nutrition and an awareness of the things that actually cause diseases. Well, hold on just a moment. Near the top of the list are diseases that are caused by doctors and the drugs that they give and the jams that they give, you know, Iatrogenic disease. arguably is very near the top of the list. People die because of what doctors do. And the reason they're redirecting the money is they want to set up a bureaucracy to control that money and redirect it to, you know, their cronies. What we're dealing with here is not a health issue. We're dealing with the trade dispute that opened up the opportunity for massive corruption. And the answer just simply needs to be no, what are you doing? Now, you've been letting me rant, but I got a little bit more. So I'm gonna go a little further. - Go a little further. - And thank you for the time. Okay, now I think the entire thing is a legitimate, or still opinion, you know, how nations got into the W - how they got into the IHR. In the United States, it's crystal clear that the federal government has zero authority over health and they know it. And Javier Becerra, who's our Secretary of Health and Human Services, you know, was interviewed last year and he said the, you know, one thing he wants everyone in America to know is that he's the president of the United States. and federal government as zero authority over health. They have a lot of money and people have fallen for, oh, if you sign on and you do what we tell you, you'll get all these benefits and, you know, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, all that sort of thing. But they don't actually have legitimate lawful authority. So how is it that they're even entering into these? these agreements? And so the issue really is how do people stand up for their rights in the face of not just from the top down, but from the bottom up, our local city government or in the United States County Health Commissioner or provincial Health Minister, they want this type of agreement to give the illusion that they can tell you what you have to do with your body. And so what it really comes down to is, Hedros isn't gonna knock on your door and hold you down and give you a jab. He's gonna mess with people's heads. hands. People are going to get confused as to who has the authority to do what to who. And your local officials who were all too happy to abuse you in the past are now going to have a little bit more misunderstanding, misrepresentation. Oh, well, you know, there's this treaty or there are these these amendments, so we have to abuse you because they said so. Well, it really has to come back to, I don't mean to steal your tagline, but, you know, as an individual person, do you have an iron will that, you know, gives you the fortitude to understand that they do not ever have authority over you. They have power and they use it violently or coercively or whatever, but there's a difference between power which can be used illegitimately and illegally and lawful authority. And people need to learn the difference when a big burly police officer is a big burly police officer. abusing someone, that's not necessarily the use of lawful authority. That's the abuse of power. So what we all need to understand is the laws that are on the books and the laws that they might craft are quite corrupt in many jurisdictions. In certain states, in certain provinces. provinces. There's been a little pushback where you know I know 45 minutes away from me. There's a town on Palmdale where they Got their city council to pass an ordinance that said there shall be no mask mandate or vaccine mandate by anybody in the city of Palmdale and That is what is needed around the world the push pushback from the bottom up to say, "Look, you don't have authority over my body." And in this jurisdiction, we're standing together to say, "Get out of here. Does it matter that you've got some financial deal where you're looking for pathogens that you're going to try to use to scare us? Yes, you don't have the authority over my body." authority to force us to do anything. And it's complicated, it's confusing. Yes, I'm pushing back on an international level saying they have to do, you know, the things that they're obligated to do to get this to go. But people don't necessarily have the awareness that this isn't about your health. They are not talking about the things that WHO Constitution, if you think it's legitimate, gives them the authority to do. And this is where they have failed for 76 years, and they're going to fail again. In Article 21, which is what they say they're using in their Constitution to justify these regulations, or these proposed changes to the regulations, they have the authority to defend terminology. Well, it'd be nice if there was a legal definition of a vaccine or a pandemic, but there isn't. They have the authority to define the details for cause of death. Well, you know, did people die with or from COVID? There's really no clarity on an international level. They have the authority to set standards for... diagnostic tests. Anybody who's even remotely looked into these tests realized that they're bogus. They also have the authority to set standards for purity in biological and pharmaceutical products. If you've been paying even the littlest attention you've learned that many many people have identified all kinds of contaminants in the world. the vials of the jabs and last but not least they have the authority under article 21 to set standards for advertising and labeling and labeling includes the blank inserts that were supposed to give you all of the information about the risks and the benefits and you get to make your own you know informed choice well how can you make an informed choice off a blank sheet of paper They could have written standards, you know, adopted regulations at any point in time over the last 76 years. They could be negotiating those standards right now, but they're not. So they have failed for 76 years had some of those standards been in place. The last four years would have been a little bit different. and they failed. And they're planning to fail again. They're not even discussing those things. What they're discussing is a transfer of wealth from the wealthy nations to the poor nations, but not really to the people, to whoever is going to be running the pharmaceutical hospital emergency industrial complex to essentially jab in the future. the people they missed in the first time around. And so I go on for days, but thanks for letting me, you know, let it all out. It's quite all right. And yes, I've let you rant, but there's quite a number of things that you've mentioned in the last 15 minutes. So I think need to be unpacked and examined in greater detail. And folks, we are going to get back to the good news. And there is good news here, but there's some things that we have to clarify first. Now, I want to make one quick comment on your recent comments in just the last few minutes about power versus authority, something that I used to say, still say, but I used to say back in the early days of our freedom organization, Strong and Free Canada, when I was going and speaking at rallies and demonstrations was this. Our governments have no power but what we give them and we do not give them power when we elect them, but when we choose to obey them. Remember that, folks. Yep. All you have to do to take your government's power away is refuse to comply. Now, let's move on to some things that are more relevant to this discussion. You mentioned about 10 minutes ago, this pathogens database that they're building. And you sort of skirted around this, well, James, I'm going to come right out and say it. This pathogens database is not there so that they can identify potential new dangerous pathogens. It's there so that can build them. They're collecting all of this data so that they can arm their mad scientist to build them, which brings us to disease X, which you did reference to. And folks, disease X, this is not a made up term. Okay, this is a document that is on the WEF website was put there last summer, where they say, well, we know there's some dangerous pathogen out there. We don't know what it is, but we know it's out there. there, and we're calling it disease X." Now, putting that together with the mouse study, the research that research that's being done in China, and this just came out in the last couple of weeks, where they took this new corona -like pathogen, they injected mice with it. As you said, humanized mice, I don't know in what way they were humanized. I have to assume some human genes were added to their immune systems. I don't know. I don't know. My understanding is they were given cell receptors that are found in humans. Yeah. So I imagine that they gave them ACE2 receptors, probably is what that was, I would guess. And even though it was, we have to be, I don't want to alarm anybody because there's a very small number of mice they tested this with, but it was 100 % fatal. And there was a comment made by, I believe, it was a virologist who looked at the research and said they didn't even do gain of function on this. Right. All they did was they ran it through multiple iterations until they came up with this very lethal pathogen. So they're getting around now the gain of function rules, right? And they can say, "Well, we didn't do that." So put it all together, folks. Okay, what we have here is... this globalist organization that, as James has nothing to do with health, let's get everything to do with surveillance and control, about redistribution of wealth, about coming into your country and telling you what you can and cannot do, what you must do, and that is acting as a marketing and distribution branch for Big Barma. That is what we are dealing with. with. So now that we've put all that in perspective, James, thank you for your patience while I ran it for a couple of minutes. Oh, keep going. Keep going. Let's get back to Article 55. Not because they're not going to ignore it, but because we're building to a point here, folks. So Article 55 says you have to give four months notice so that the delegates who show up in May 27th will know what is in the amendments so they will have had time to read it. them. That deadline is January 27th, and I'm not certain folks when this interview is going to come out, it might be just before that, it might be just after. But they're already saying they're not going to make it. And as you alluded to, well, they're just ignoring that. They've gone, they've set meetings for February, for March, and just going to keep on discussing it right up until, which says to me, either they're going to release the amendments. on the 27th as they should, but subject to change, or they're just not gonna release them. What do you think? - Well, they said something very bizarre or at least their lawyer did. And again, all of this is not speculation. This is evidence, this is recorded, I reported on it back in October. October. Their lawyer said, well, at our next meeting, 'cause this was October, their next meeting was in December, December 7th and 8th, he said that, well, you can submit to the director general whatever is on the screen during the meetings of December 7th and 8th. That's an odd thing. thing to say, but that's what he said and he said it a couple of times. Now, one would tend to have been more likely to say, well, whatever the working draft is at the moment, you know, share that with them. It's a work in progress. You know, it's kind of that. And you were having done with it and you turned it in, you should get a failing grade. Okay. And so that's just odd language to use. Well, we will share with the Director General whatever's on the screen during our December meeting. Well, the delegate from Monaco spoke up at that meeting and said something that kind of let a little cat out of the bag. She said, oh, well, why don't we submit the version from the summer and Nobody's ever seen that version other than maybe the insiders, you know delegates Clearly They are not reaching a final agreement to submit and there's a very simple reason and it's called money So if you understand why they're involved in this, the relatively poor nations who wanted these negotiations, they want wealthy nations to finance the build out of state -of -the -art facilities in their nations. They want access to intellectual property. They want access to manufacturing know -how beyond just patents and things like that. that, you know, just because you have a patent doesn't mean you know how to make it happen. So they want all of that technology and know -how to be built out in their nations so that they can control the production of whatever might be made in the future. And the wealthier nations and the corporations don't necessarily want to give that up because that's their cash cow. So it's not usually the case that that two wrongs make a right, but the greed on one side and the greed on the other side between, you know, as some people put it, the global north and the global south or the haves and the have nots, they're not able to reach an agreement. And so that's why they're having difficulty in presenting it on time. But that masks many of the other things. One of the things that I've been concerned about about for the longest time, this is an old school version of a vaccine passport, okay? That's found in annex six of the international health regulations. They want to dramatically expand that. If you want to learn more about that specifically, people can go to rejectdigitalenslavement .com, rejectdigitalenslavement .com. There are well over a dozen amendments, mostly from the European Union countries, but other nations as well, where the same Indonesian health minister talked about this back in November of 2022. He said, "Well, you know, we had to shut down the economy." I was like, "Well, no you didn't. You chose to do that." Then he went on to say what I think is another lie, well, you know, that or, you know, business. Well, it didn't hurt Amazon or Walmart or the big box stores. They stayed open for the most part. It hurt mom and pop really bad. So he went on to say, if you're properly jabbed or properly tested with this global digital health certification network, you'll be able to move around the planet. It was like, well, hold on. just a moment. They wouldn't have not just a vaccine certificate, but a testing certificate, a prophylaxis certificate, a recovery certificate, a traveler locator form, a passenger health declaration. They want it all tied to a QR code so that your medical records are available. You might not even be able to book a flight unless you can show the proper ID. Show us your papers will. well wait just another minute. What is a vaccine? What is a vaccine certificate? These jabs don't stop infection, they don't stop transmission. So what do you certify? You know, the tests don't really, they're not diagnosed. That's given the straight answer, James, what they're certifying is compliance. Well, you took the words out of my mouth. Absolutely. If you're compliant, they'll give you back some of the rights that they want. to take away from you. Well, that's not how unalienable rights work, but that's what they want to implement. Now, the problem is they, meaning the WHO back in July of last year, inherited, and these are my terms, they inherited the carcass of the European version of that kind of an electronic system. The European Union. Union had a digital COVID -19, you know, vaccine passport system. They tried to use it for about a year and then it fell out of favor and it kind of straggled through. It had a two -year run and when it was over and done, they handed over the protocols and the applications and the software and the WHO said, "Oh, okay, great. Thank you very much. We'll get working on it." And they're they're busy building the system. that they're purporting to be negotiating. Well, how do you think those negotiations are going to end up? Well, if they adopt it and it becomes legally binding, you know, any nation can set whatever standards they want and if you want to travel, they can infringe upon your rights because you're not a citizen of their nation. This is the trick that they're playing. Any nation can set whatever standards they want for people who are not their citizens. And a lot of people, they actually kind of like that. It's a very neat little trick that they've got going on here, where each nation can abuse the rights of everyone who's not a citizen. And if every nation does that, then we're living in a prison planet. And so if they don't get it to be the way it is, then we're living in a prison planet, where every nation can abuse the rights of everyone who's not a citizen. binding and approved, they'll just roll it out voluntarily. And unfortunately, a lot of our fellow citizens will volunteer because they are compliant and they would rather get jabbed or tested or whatever it may be so that they can do what someone will allow them to do. That's a stepping stone to what everybody knows is the Chinese social credit system. If you allow someone to take away your rights and then you comply in order to get them back, you've lost the script, right? That's not what freedom is to be at the mercy of someone else telling you what you may or may not do if you do what they demand. That's slavery. Now, for those of us who are not. compliant though, we promise people good news in this interview. We've already covered one piece, Article 55, their four months lead in that they have to submit documents prior to that, they're violating that outright, violating it out in the open, but there's other things that they've done as well. Let's go back to May 27th, 2022, Committee A presents these amendments to, and if you look, and you've got, got the video right there on your sub -stack, if you look at the image of that assembly room, it's virtually empty. They don't even have a quorum in that room. They don't even have a third, very obvious. And they take a "vote" on passing or accepting these amendments, but it wasn't even that. It was the president looking at the room and saying, "Do we have any objections?" Thank you. Thank you. No, okay, consider a past. But the rules say what? A vote of vote. - Well, let me clarify a couple of things. I wanna make sure people understand we're talking about two separate packages of amendments. All of the stuff that we've been talking about that they're trying to pass before January 27th, hundreds of amendments from 94 different countries. that's happening right now. What happened back in 2022 is Biden tried to put through amendments to 13 articles that got rejected and then in the middle of the assembly, absolutely in violation of Article 55, and off the top of my head, I believe Canada was a signatory to this, but don't hold me to that. I'm pretty sure Australia was. A number of nations, the United States, the UK, and the European Union, in the middle of the Assembly submitted a package of five amendments to essentially speed up the process and shorten the timeframe for the amendments in the future. The thing that you were talking about was the committee meeting where they didn't have a quorum, they didn't actually take a vote, they just didn't have a quorum, they didn't have a quorum, they didn't have a quorum, they what they kind of sort of call the silence procedure. Sort of like if you had a group of people over and you were going to order a pizza and they sort of kind of were giving you their attention, you go, "Hey, I'm going to order a pizza. It's got pepperoni and cheese on it. You guys all good with that? Okay, fine, book." You order it. Maybe somebody didn't hear you. Maybe somebody was outside the room. The majority of people weren't there. or you just made a decision on their behalf. That's not a vote. Well, that's only a piece of the puzzle because the next day, that was just a committee. The next day, they were supposed to have a vote with the entire assembly, and they published a document that had the changes to the five articles to shorten the time frame, pretty much cut it in half. going into effect instead of two years, one year, and 18 months to reject down to 10. They said that they had a vote on May 28th, but in the meeting that was recorded, if you watch it, they never even talked about it. They just said they voted. Which means, because their rules, and this is what they're getting to before, said they they have to have a majority a minimum Two -thirds sitting in the assembly to have a vote On the 27th there wasn't even a quorum in the room and as you pointed out we've both pointed out It wasn't a vote. It was just the president saying okay. We're gonna do this the 28th when they did have a majority in that room Possibly it kind of looked it kind of looked like a majority, but there was no It was the assembly for that year. I think we can assume that most of the delegates would have been there But the record show that there was no vote. It was not vote. They never had a vote and so on November 28th 18 months to the day after that We did manage to get a dozen members of the European Parliament to Send a letter to the WHO director Director General, Tedros, saying, "Hey, you know, we're looking over these amendments from 2022 and we can't find any evidence of a vote, which would be so kind as to provide us with evidence, and if you don't, it's all null and void." I mean, if you say you voted on something, but you didn't, that does not give it legitimacy. And so the point behind all of this is this is what what we're dealing with. We're dealing with an unaccountable group of people who think that they are God's gift to the planet and they can decide whatever they want to decide. They're not having an after -event review of what went wrong or over the last four years. They have done that sort of report and their report essentially says, "Well, you know the problem." problem was the nations didn't listen to us as much as we wanted them to. We need to strengthen the IHR, strengthen the WHO, hand over governance, you know, health in the world. Do you want someone in Geneva to be making a proclamation that gets into the mind of your local leaders, whether that's, you know, City County, Provincial State, national leaders, where they believe that they're now somehow authorized to abuse you because somebody in Geneva said it was what should be done. And, and so this needs to stop, it needs to stop right now. There is no one size fits all solution to an individual person's health. The question of whether or not more drugs and more jabs make people more healthy, in my mind, I settled that decades ago, you couldn't pay me to take pharmaceutical drugs or these injections. And everyone, you know, has their own level level of awareness and as long as the harms that those things are causing is hidden from the population, you probably could go up to the vast majority of people and ask them, "Do you even know what an iatrogenic disease is?" Most people don't even know that one of the top causes of death is the treatment that is done according to protocol kills people whether it's and I'm not talking over doubts I'm talking according to their protocols properly prescribed medications and properly done procedures is in the top tier of cause of death if you look at the government statistics from early on during the COVID era, you heard the phrase "comorbidity." Now, comorbidity essentially means people have some kind of a dis -ease, heart issues, diabetes, whatever it might be, obesity, so forth and so on. Well, what goes hand in hand with comorbidity, which was actually probably one of the best tracking tracking data points, correlating deaths from COVID and some aspect, was how many drugs was an individual person taking for those comorbidities? The more drugs for people we're taking, typically elderly, they get themselves into a rest home, they get diagnosed, they get a medication, they get side effects, they get another medication, they get side effects, they get another medication. It's just absolutely elder abuse. If you're swallowing two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten poisons a day, when you get an ailment that you should be able to withstand, but your systems are being destroyed by a daily dose of poison or previous injections, that's the best indicator of whether or not you're going to survive. whatever they do to you To treat the newest side effect of all the stuff that they gave you and until people become aware of How that system prays upon people who trust them To give you poisons to change your symptoms in the guise that it's making you healthier Until people wake up for that. They're going to continue to suffer And public money is going to be funneled into the pharmaceutical emergency industrial complex. They're not happy with Bill and Linda Gates money anymore. That's chump change. They don't want billions of dollars. They want tens of billions of dollars. And that's going to come out of my pocket, your pocket, and everybody else's pocket, either through taxes or ongoing debt. But that is, they don't care. they want their money they want it now that's what this is about it's not about your health there's nothing the WHO has ever done to improve your health that's up to you and if they want to take that freedom away that's not anything I'm ever going to do anything other than stand up against with every fiber of my business Now James, I want to get into in a minute here just how complicit both of our governments are and what's going on. I'm sure you have some stories about yours. I've got a very recent one about mine that even you might not be aware of yet. But before we do that, let's give our viewers a little summary of why all of this is good news. Article 55, they're violating their four month rule. We're catching them not actually voting when saying they're voting. And what that says to me. I'm no lawyer, I don't believe you are either, but what it says to me if come May 27th, at the next meeting, when they almost certainly accept these amendments, well, they're illegal because they did not follow their own proper due process. I agree. And part of it is just an understanding of the difference between arguing the details. and losing sight of the force because of all the trees. And so when you catch government officials not following their own procedures, it is difficult to get them to admit to it. The problem with the WHO is, who is the higher power? Well, there's something that I have to try to explain and it's... it's difficult. The WHO, the World Health Organization, is different than the World Health Assembly. World Health Assembly meets once a year. It's made up of the delegates and the delegations the United States sent like 64 people last time. So there are, you know, many, many, many bureaucrats. bureaucrats who show up at these meetings. They make decisions, and those decisions are approved by the executive branch of your government. And so the pushback needs to come against, I don't like to call these people leaders. You know, they are your public servants, heads of state, you know, unelected bureaucrats who don't appear to be accountable to the people. What is needed, number one, is the awareness of what the heck is going on. If you look back, you may or may not have been involved, but a dozen years ago or so, I forget exactly the timeframe, something similar happened with the Trans -Pacific Partnership. They were They were trying to put forth this trade deal that was very, very secretive to the point where in the United States Congress, even Congress people were not allowed to get a copy of it. They had to go into a special room. They couldn't bring cameras or phones or even write notes. They could read it, but then they had to remember whatever it was there. It was never allowed out. But word got out, and the public public uproar against it killed it it starts with awareness and it starts with after that noise people need to be vocal I encourage everyone to get out you know I very much appreciate you being informed being you know up to speed on what it is we're talking about here people need to get clear on what the heck is is going on. And so the good news is, they've been keeping this all a secret for the last year. They gave us the original versions, but the negotiated documents, they keep saying, well, you know, we're in the middle of negotiations, so we can't devolve that for whatever, you know, public policy reasons. Well, that ends on January 27th. We demand to see whatever the version is that they're going to be talking about, and as soon as the people say it, I suspect that people will shred it. Nobody wants what they're talking about. The people's responsibility is to very clearly tell everyone in their government who's a boss that that government really is. We the people are the boss. We tell our public servants what we want them to do, not the other way around. And the fact that what this is really is a financial trade dispute is the greed on one side, is butting heads with the greed on the other side, and so they're not able to reach an agreement. So they are having grudges. difficulty. Now is the time to push even harder to basically say, look, this is not addressing the fraud and the corruption and the death and destruction that these people caused over the last four years. This is only unacceptable. It is not addressing the cause of the problem. It would only multiply the same that, you know, the activities that actually really cause the problems over the last four years. People need to have an awareness and an understanding, and I thank you for yours. And share this information, you know, the task at hand number one, share this video with everybody possible, could imagine sharing it with not just your, you know, politicians, family, friends, acquaintances, family members, friends, family members, friends, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members, family members social media, go down through your phone contact listing, your email list, and just said, "Look, did you see what Will and James were talking about? Are you aware of this?" Share it with everybody. Raise their awareness. Some people won't care. Some people will be angry. Some people will think differently. That's fine. I firmly believe in you. believe that enough people will know the truth and it is the power of people being united, standing up for their own rights, that can stop anything. And I think we have every opportunity in the world to stop this dead in its tracks and regain the authority that is rightfully ours. ours. Yes. Now, before we end here, I want to get into, as I said a few minutes ago, the extent to which this whole process is being manipulated as a surveillance and control structure. And I want to give folks, I want to give you just a very quick summary of how all of this comes about because remember what James told us earlier on, that these delegates, they go under 96 members. governments, the WHO. Okay. Many of whom are captured governments right now being controlled by the WEF, the UN, whatever. So this isn't some, in most cases, this isn't some assembly of people from around the world who are all there to represent their own countries. No, no, a lot of them are there to represent their globalist masters. And to give you an idea just how far they want to go with this. And James, you're a very well -informed person, so I wouldn't be surprised if you know about this, but it only happened just last week. I only found out about them myself just last week. Canada, the Canadian federal government, Trudeau's government, is lobbying the WHO to have climate change included under their definition of a pandemic. Now, we know, and this is where I want to go with this, we know that our Canadian federal government, And we know that our Canadian federal government, government under Trudeau is heavily captured and controlled by the W .E .F. Klaus Schwab himself came right out and said it, "We have benefited as the cabinets. We own over half of Trudeau's cabinet." And so what do they do? They get their puppet Canadian liberal government to propose this, and then what will happen is other controlled leftist governments will come on board and say, "Oh yes, that's a great idea." And the WHO will turn around and say, "Oh, well, since the member governments want this, our member countries want this, we'll do it. We'll put that under there as well." And now, under this completely ridiculous climate change narrative, which has zero scientific evidence behind it, now they can declare a pandemic under that. Your thoughts, James, because I don't know how more. Orwellian things can get here. I I am aware of that having happened a week or so ago and you know, it's Unbelievable to me how it can be you know brutally cold in Canada and people are worried about you know It used to be global warming Yes, I'm it changes for a multitude of reasons So send money to some distant oligarch who's going to fix your problems for you. The scam is so unbelievable. But yet, the organized resistance to it still has yet to coalesce. But you look at farmers in Germany and previously in the Netherlands, you look at the truckers and it's in Canada a number of years ago This is an issue that I think everybody on the planet can comprehend They are not negotiating to improve your health as you put it very clearly They're trying to throw everything they can into the soup here to gain more and more control For this, you know, the flimsiest of redicking this reasons I'm What we're dealing with here is a very clear thing that I think people need to look in the mirror Have you spoken out loudly enough that you know that the people who purport to represent you Know what it is that you demand along those lines, there's been a little bit of misunderstanding of Canadian Petition .com. Canadian Petition .com will take you to a government petition, parliamentary petition, that the bottom line of it is saying these organizations are not in the best interests of Canada. We need to exit. And so I get it. I understand. Petitions get ignored. But there have already been well over 80 ,000 ,000 signatures. The point of all of this is any petition can be used by the person or persons circulating that petition to identify whether or not the people that you know are allied to your cause. Forget about what the people in government are going to do with any parliamentary petition. ask everyone you know, have you signed Canadian petition, have you gone to Canadianpetition .com and signed the petition? Probably if you do the math, maybe 80 ,000 out of 40 million is maybe one out of 500 people have signed it. Okay, you know, the entire nation. So that means maybe 499 out of 500 people you talked to don't have the thongiest idea that it even exists. It's not about just the signatures. It's about the communication and how you deal with the people that need to get organized and push back against this globalist force. Ask everybody you know to look at the potential cite it if they wish, but give you their opinion about what it is saying. Do you want outsiders to control your country or do you think that the people inside your country should have control? That discussion needs to be had with the 499 out of 500 people who don't see to have a clue at the moment that that is the point. And so whenever I hear somebody say, "Oh, there's nothing can be done. There's nothing you can do. It doesn't do any good." Well, if you accept that out of the gate, you're not even running the race. You're guaranteed to lose. But there are, I'm guaranteeing you, there's enough people. people who are, you know, at the point where they have to add it. We just need to be better organized, better connected, better networked, work together with people who want to make the future a better place, and we can and we will. But if you do nothing, you'll have to, you know, live with yourself. And so, all I can say to anybody, wake up. up in the morning, identify what it is you think you can do, do the best you can, you can always do a little bit more. But if you give up now, your future is sealed. But now is the time I think to push forward even harder, 'cause they're having trouble because they're agreed on one side and they're agreed on the other side is causing them to hit a snag in these... negotiations. Now is the time to push as hard as you possibly can and, you know, put an end to this once and for all. Yes. And canadianpetition .com or .org? .com. .com. .com. It just redirects to the government. And I believe the deadline on that is February 7th. That is correct. Yes. All right, folks. So that's a good first step. Go sign it. And it's James. Tell everybody else. Tell everybody else about it. And talk about it. to them have a discussion about why? We need to reject the WHO's governance over us James, thank you so much for all of the research you do I know you've been buried up to the eyeballs in this for the last two years You are undoubtedly the world's top expert on what the WHO and the IHR is all about So thank you for taking your time today for this interview. Thanks for having me. Take care