Will Dove 0:00 The deadline for countries around the world to opt out of the WHO’s International Health Regulations and the coming extensive amendments to them is December 1st of this year. The WHO established the International Health Regulations shortly after the second world war. At the time, it is possible that they had good intent. But in the past few decades, the WHO has been co-opted as an integral part of the globalist power grab, and has become an essential tool in their agenda to exert totalitarian control over us all. Many of you will know of James Roguski, who has been blogging frequently on the threats to our freedoms that these amendments to the IHR represent. Perhaps lesser known, but equally knowledgeable and active in the fight, is Valerie Borek, who has degrees in both law and biochemistry. Valerie currently serves as the Associate Director and Legal Analyst at StandForHealthFreedom.com, and for years specialized in health and parenting rights at her boutique law firm, especially surrounding birth and vaccine rights. It is safe to say that they are two of the most qualified people in the world to discuss what the WHO is up to today, and reveal the truth, that the WHO is in no way a health organization, but rather an arm of the globalist cabal dedicated to surveillance, control and profitmongering for their partners in Big Pharma. In this, part one of two of this in-depth interview Valerie and James reveal beyond a doubt what the WHO is really up to, and how we, the people, can push back against their agenda, to protect both ourselves and our children. Will Dove 1:51 James, Valerie, it's a pleasure to have you on the show. Valerie Borek 1:55 Thanks for having us. James Roguski 1:56 Thank you. Will Dove 1:56 I think what we need to do first, because what I have here is undoubtedly two of the top experts in the world on what the WHO is up to, have been for a long time. Just exactly what we're discussing today because there's all these different measures that the WHO is trying to put in place, they're labeling it under different things. We've got the WHO CA+, we've got the International Health Regulations amendments, please clarify exactly what we're discussing today. James, I'll let you take that one first. James Roguski 2:25 As you said, there are many things, okay. The issue today is I'll say what it's not going to be okay. It's not going to be the WHO CA+, which most people call the pandemic treaty. But CA stands for convention agreement. And a convention is a very, very different thing. And it actually I do want to talk just a smidge about it because what what they're trying to set up with that document is a whole new bureaucracy that would meet on an ongoing basis off into the future very similar to the framework convention for climate change that was adopted in 1992. And that's like signing a blank contract that you let somebody fill in later. So we're not talking about the WHO CA+ pandemic treaty. And there's a good reason, because a couple of weeks ago, you know, the negotiations are not going all that smoothly. And so the intergovernmental negotiating body said, we're going to throw away the versions that we've been having, and by mid October, quietly, will circulate a new version. And by the end of October, they'll have whole new negotiating text. So maybe we'll come back at some point in November to see what they're doing with the WHO CA+, we're also not probably going to talk too much about a week or so ago, the United Nations after a year's worth of negotiations tried to pretend that they were having the General Assembly adopt all of these political declarations. But on Sunday, the 17th. At the very last minute before the week of all of these meetings. 11 nations wrote a letter to the President of the General Assembly, and they said, you know, we don't really appreciate you pretending that this meeting is actually the General Assembly and speaking for the whole United Nations. So they threw a wrench in the gears of that propaganda fest. And so, those two things are important. But what we're really focusing on are two separate batches of amendments to the International Health Regulations. Now the International Health Regulations are an existing body of law, international agreements that were adopted in 1969. They went through some small amendments through the 80s and the 90s. But in 2005, a large number of amendments were, were adopted to that last year and so this is one of the two things we're going to be talking about. Last year, a small batch of amendments were adopted. And the deadline to reject those amendments is coming up quickly on December 1. The other large batch of amendments were actually submitted more than a year ago, September 30, of 2022. And they've been negotiated pretty much in secret. We have the originally submitted almost 200 pages, but there's no version 2.0. There's no, you know, working draft, first draft, second draft, total secrecy. And the bombshell that just was released yesterday, their meeting this week, as we're recording us, October 2 through the sixth. They said in their meeting, that they don't think they're going to meet the deadline, which is middle of January, because they have to submit it four months before they meet in May. They said that they don't think they're going to reach an agreement and be able to submit it before January, which is good news from my point of view. But then they went on to say how they think that they can manipulate that rule, get around it and just keep going. And you know, my answer to that says, Oh, hell no. Will Dove 6:20 Right. Now, you were just talking, and Valerie, I'm gonna get to you in just a minute, but you were just talking about that original health amendments document, if I recall, correctly from reading on your substack, you've got a copy on your substack for download, but you said it's disappeared from the WHO website. And this gets into that secrecy where it's looking like they're just taking that first document, that's one that's been publicly released, that people know about. And they're just gonna shove that under the table, and they're gonna replace it with something else. But they're not telling us what the something else is. James Roguski 6:49 You know, it could be that, you know, I've gone blind and their website is huge, and it may very well be there. But where I went looking for it, I was not able to find it, I have a record of it. And the reason why that one was important is it differentiated between here's what the original 2005 regulations were in bold, highlighted font, you can see what the changes were, what you can access in there, 200 and some page final document is the new version. That could be rejected, but you can't compare to what it was. And so all that being said, you know, we have the documents, we know what, what it was, we know what the changes were, we know what they want it to be. And the bottom line is, we only have until December 1 for each leader of each nation, on the planet to reject. So right now time is of the essence. Will Dove 7:43 And we will get into what those amendments are, what the timeline is, what people can do. Valerie, you are not just a lawyer, you're also got a degree in biochemistry, you've been heavily involved with standforhealthfreedom.com, since some time, but as we were discussing, prior to the interview, you've been following what the WHO has been up to for decades. And I think we should back up a little bit and give people a bit more of a framework. Because as I understand it, the International Health Regulations were not originally a bad thing. But now they're trying to bring in all these amendments, and they don't want us to know what they are. So could you give us a little bit of a history of getting getting us up to this point? Valerie Borek 8:16 Sure. Yeah. So before the International Health Regulations, there was something called the International Sanitary Conference. And those were compiled into what would basically be regulations that the organization used. So when the World Health Organization was founded, you know, we're talking about the end of World War Two, talking about the UN. And then this is the basically the health public health branch, just like the CDC is the public health branch of our government and our federal government, this is the same kind of structure there in a way. So that was in 1948, I believe, is one of the joint resolution passed in our Congress to join. And at that point, no, it was it was more of a standards organization. I mean, there's there's a lot of different history that we could talk about here, because we're still we're talking about the Cold War as well. So a lot of the history of the World Health Organization is kind of a history of the Cold War. And it's these two, what I'm gonna use very broad term like very, you know, sweeping ends of the spectrum on, you know, capitalism, which at this point is basically a technocratic state. And then, you know, socialism over here and all of its various forms, and you see that play out in the World Health Organization, in the sense that is it a better approach for a country to use these kind of socialist ideologies. Do you get a better result with your health, which then is tied to your economy because a lot of this is all about health, and the people being more I'm gonna say, like a commodity, because healthy people can work and be more productive. So the more healthier society is, you know, of course, everybody's happy but then you're also able to make more money as a country so you're when you look at the history of the World Health Organization, it is this battle between is this capitalist kind of pop down linear a one size fits all, you know, silver bullet approach going to work? Or do we need to look more towards this communal way of approaching health, which sounds really lovely. And it's really interesting when you look at what's going on in the world. Now you see bits and pieces of that war kind of bubbling to the surface and things like, right now we have this big push in the United States for collecting data about social determinants of health. And those are really, when you go back to what they're they're looking at this is looking at the social conditions, that would be potential stressors that are associated with bad health outcomes. And then the approach that we're going to take is this more communal kind of approach. And at this point, we're calling it a One Health approach where everything is connected. So that's a little bit of the background. And of course, everything that's going on right now also trickled down from the Sustainable Development Goals, which is, you know, back to Agenda 2030, Agenda 21. This is all, you know, at the root of everything here, and I think we're at a point in history where they've realized that they've had this really big fulcrum to use the fear of disease, to get a lot of things passed through and to really start to move down the line on the Sustainable Development Goal plans, because all of that language completely permeate every one of these documents, and it does as well in the United States, especially through the administration that we have now. Because we also see that our current president has a history of bolstering the United Nations and then the World Health Organization and the Global Health Security architecture. Will Dove 11:45 Are you talking about the One Health approach and how they're trying to make World Health a communal thing for the supposedly purpose of creating healthier people, create better economies. But we've already seen back in 1992, that they, as James was mentioning, they brought in the climate treaty. And we've seen where that led to this completely unscientific push to go green and which is having a crippling effect upon economies. And of course, my viewers will know that anybody who's willing to look at the evidence for five minutes, we can see that we can easily disprove the whole myth of manmade global warming, it's absolutely not happening. My point here, getting back to 1982, for that one, and they've been pushing that ever since. Do you think that this whole health thing has been in the works for that long as well? Valerie Borek 12:30 Though I would say that there has been something in motion for decades, because there is an underlying foundation of looking at technology and science, as you know, less valuable than human, something that we can rely on, something that's going to also, when we want to look at the more nefarious potential for it, allow us to assert control. And so we look back at things like the the climate agenda, and now that being encompassed into One Health, which this approach of One Health is basically this idea of looking at climate and food, so it's about or the animals and the earth and, and how that's all one big system that will create or destroy health. And frankly, when you look at things from another lens, you look at, you know, what is sustainable development, because One Health is a response to sustainable development, it's supposed to be an approach, a framework that will allow sustainable development to continue on and for those goals to be met. And so really, it's a reaction to the idea that the sustainable development, it needs to be sustained. And inherent in that is the recognition that it's not sustainable, the way that you're pushing things down the line, because we've got, you know, in order to poorer countries to be considered developed, they need to be in this global economy, and they need to be giving their resources to other countries. And yeah, there's, there's a lot of disruption that happens with this, you know, when we go into countries, and we take their resources that actually keep them impoverished, because we're taking what they could have used on their own and trying to assert that they're not able to keep up with capitalism, because they're not hooked into this structure. So in order for this whole approach to work with the Sustainable Development Goals, we need to have a system where we can sustain it, because the way we're trying to reach these goals isn't sustainable unless we have this control. And then, you know, there's other different ways that you can look at it where there have been many times where we've seen our government or private organizations talk about things like depopulization or depopulation, sorry. And you know, you go back to like the Kissinger report where it talks about in plain sight about how we can achieve better outcomes on the globe about health and if there are less people around and there's, you know, they'd discuss strategies on how to do that. And so I think that there is definitely a way you can look at this and say, Yeah, this has been in the works for a long, long time. But that being said, the technologies weren't there at all. But you can go back and see kinds of footprints were placeholders, or the technology, just like right now, maybe the best example would be AI. We didn't have this expansive use of AI a decade ago. But we did start setting up databases that that AI is going home now. So in a sense, yes, it's been around for a while. Will Dove 15:32 Okay, James, I want to get back to you, because we've got this deadline coming up December 1. And of course, all of this started back in January of 2022, when Biden, the Biden administration got involved. And this was a, as I understand it, part of the trigger, what they're doing now, is the Biden administration threw in a bunch of amendments that they wanted put in, can you walk us forward from that point, to where we are now with this December 1 deadline approaching, and what people, our view- own viewers can do to push back against this? Speaker 2 16:06 You know, I hit the rewind button just a little further. Okay, go back, go back to 2020. Right, a year of COVID. You know, everybody filled with fear, and a lot of mistakes, a lot of misinformation, all that sort of thing. And some point in 2020, people got this idea, oh, we're going to have these, you know, highly technologically advanced injectables that are going to save the day, they're going to bring back the way things used to be. And at the end of 2020, beginning of 2021, it's like, Oh, if we can just get these jabs in everybody's arm, then we're all going to come out of this okay. That was the belief, the propaganda that was put out. Well, you get into the middle of 2021. And the original plan was, you know, people who are working in medical fields, you know, hospitals, emergency, people who are on the front line with people who are sick, what you know, they're in a vulnerable position, so they should get jabbed up first, I spoke to nurses who to jab, and they had no idea that it was an mRNA jab. They just, they never got the memo. They just thought it was a vaccine, okay, great. They accepted in order to keep their job and keep going, was also supposed to be elderly around the world. But that's not how it played out. The wealthy nations bought up, you know, signed up all kinds of contracts, to get 10 times what they needed. And other nations around the world felt that they were not being treated equitably, from a world trade perspective, that, you know, these wonderful life saving things, which have proven to not be quite even close to that, were being hogged up by the wealthy nations. And so they called for a special second session. They usually only have the World Health Assembly once a year. But in November, December of 2021, they had another assembly, and they essentially said, Look, we need a we need a treaty, we need a international agreement, convention agreement or other international instrument. They used to call it the CAII. Invention agreement, or other international instrument. And what people have lost sight of is it's not about health. Yes, it's the World Health Organization. And yes, they're talking about the International Health Regulations. But they're not really talking about health. They're having a trade dispute. They're arguing about intellectual property, they're talking about investment, money coming from developed nations, developed nations going to investment in developing nations. And so they're talking about things. Now, again, we're getting a little bit off because this bleeds over into the treaty, because that's how it started. And so that document is, in my view, a venture capital prospectus. It's a group of oligarchs who want to set up a cabal, to have a cartel to build out all of these laboratories, you know, biological laboratories all around the world, to use the One Health approach to seek pathogens with pandemic potential so they could bring them back to the lab, which you know, maybe they're more likely to leak from or be released from and cause the next pandemic. I put together a whole webpage, The People's Declaration, if you were to be negotiating a international treaty, to prevent the next pandemic. I would love to see them negotiate an end to gain a function and an outlawing of the collection of pathogens to bring into laboratories, to see if you could make them, you know, more deadly or more transmissible, so that you can create a military countermeasure. You know, so that if somebody used that as a weapon, you could inoculate the troops, you know, so that you could go to war, using this sort of thing. A lot of these things are funded by the Defense Department. And so, to me, that's crazy. And that should be a, you know, anti biological laboratory weapons research stop data function. But they're negotiating exactly the opposite. They want to fund that with billions of dollars and put it in the hands of an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy. Right, exactly the opposite of what normal people are thinking they should be negotiating. Now, I'm going to get into maybe a little bit of the weeds, but we have time here. And coming back into the amendments that along with that, they said, Well, we're going to have two tracks, we're going to have this treaty, and we're going to have amendments to the existing International Health Regulations. Well, if you read the International Health Regulations, when I first read it, I was like, you know, these things aren't all that bad. Right? They say some things in there that I agree with, or some things I don't like. But one of the things that is not in the International Health Regulations, is actually in the WHO constitution. In Article 21. They list five things just like the United States Constitution in the sense that the nations who agreed to it agreed to give authority to, you know, the states gave authority to the federal government 18 enumerated powers, and WHO, the nations that joined said, well, we'll give the WHO's assembly, not the director general, and not the Secretariat or the bureaucracy. But the delegates that meet once a year will give the Health Assembly, I'll read it from my notes, the Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning five things. And so there are regulations that I would support if they were actually talking about them, but they're not. Because the IHR isn't about health. The current document, if you read it, it really should be called the International Surveillance, Monitoring, Reporting, Emergency-Declaring, Fearmongering Control Regulations. They're not talking about treatments and medications and herbs and vitamins. And you know, what did you know doctors do that worked? And let's have them come in and testify and learn from their experience? No, no, no, no, no, no, no. This is about surveillance and compliance and declaring emergencies and, you know, monitoring what's going on in the world. And all those things may have their place. But I want to read a couple of things that I wish they were doing. But they're not as far as I can tell. They have the power to adopt regulations concerning advertising and labeling of biological, pharmaceutical and other products moving in international congress. I would like to see a regulation saying, you can't tell me I have to get a jab when the insert is blank. That's not acceptable. Where's the regulation, preventing companies from doing that? I'll move up one. standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce. Are there testing standards to make sure that there isn't a lot of unlabeled ingredients in batch after batch after batch of the things that are getting injected into people's arms? I think it'd be great if there were standards that were being adhered to. Move up one more, standards with respect to diagnostic procedures, the PCR process as per ocured Kary Mullis, who won a Nobel Prize for it, he said very clearly, this is not to be used to diagnose disease. Well, the WHO has the, the house assembly has the authority to set the standards. Well, they can even set a standard for, you know, even though you're using this fraudulently, the higher you set the cycle threshold, the more you run this process, the more lousy the results are, the more inaccurate they are. They can't even say Oh, well, you should do this because it's less bad than that. And last on the list, which is what they're supposed to be negotiating this week, is they should have the authority to adopt regulations concerning nomenclature with respect to diseases, causes of death, and public health practices. Well, you know, what is COVID-19 if you look down most of the symptoms, I got to give a shout out to a friend of mine who raised my awareness, but what they've managed to do is rebrand the common colds and the seasonal flu and other respiratory ailments. Now it's all everybody's oh my god, I got COVID. Well, how- maybe you do, maybe you don't, how do you tell, the symptoms are all kind of sort of the same. And the test that they use to distinguish it, you know, they're not doing a PCR process for 1000 different possible genomes to see which one, maybe you got more of, because maybe you got five or six going on. Okay, they've rebranded it all, scary, scary, scary COVID-19. And so, you know, what is it that you should do, because maybe you're just detoxing, and maybe you're stressed out, maybe you're breathing dirty indoor air, right, maybe you're wearing a mask, and you're getting a bacterial infection, because you're re breathing all this stuff, and you're not able to get it out. They're not setting any standards for how you claim someone has a disease, or whether or not they died because of it. And so the process of evaluating regulations, I'm not against that, but they're not doing the things that they should be doing. And they're doing all these other things that essentially give themselves more power, more authority, more money, transfer wealth, from wealthy nations, to poor nations, to build out, I'm trying to steal their acronym. They have, you know, the authority in these documents to declare not a pandemic, because that's not a defined term, but a public health emergency of international concern, a fake. And so I'm stealing that acronym, because what they're really doing is negotiating a transfer of wealth to the pharmaceutical hospital emergency industrial complex, which is a bigger fake. And, and so their lack of transparency in what has been negotiated for a year now, is appalling. And so as far as I'm concerned, all of these negotiations should be shut down and terminated, because they're just not talking about the things that we the people know have been used to screw up our lives over the last four years. They're not really learning anything. They're just erasing all of that and saying, you know, it kind of made a lot of money for us last time, let's go do it again. But let's throw more money at it. Will Dove 27:33 Before we move on to that timeline, I want to kind of summarize what you've said. It's very, very important. You talked about early on, when you were answering this question, you talked about countries that ordered 10 times as many shots as they actually needed. I don't know what the numbers were in the US, here in Canada, the original round of vaccines, Trudeau ordered 400 million doses for a population of 40 million people. You talked... James Roguski 27:56 That that's where I got that 10 times from Yeah. Will Dove 27:58 Right. And you've talked about, none of these regulations are talking about protecting people's health. It's all a control mechanism. And so from what I'm hearing here, is that these health regulations, they have to just be very blunt, they have nothing to do with health. They have everything to do with control. And as you said, profiteering for Big Pharma. James Roguski 28:17 {unintelligible] a short Yes, answer. Yeah. Will Dove 28:21 Okay. So now, Valerie, that leads to a question for you, because you talked earlier about how they said they had to have this scientific approach. And you said, people are fallible, but science is not. But for what I'm seeing science in the way they're using it, it's just a buzzword. It's science is whatever they say it is, it's not actually science. And so as a scientist yourself, do you see any validity to what they're doing? And because you've been heavily involved with protecting children, raising awareness for vaccines for a long time now, Is there any validity at all in what they're doing? Or is this very, as James was saying, to you, very clearly, nothing but a control mechanism? Valerie Borek 29:02 Well, it depends on what your view is of what they're doing. So if you want to go with the public facing communication, about you know, this is going to prevent the next pandemic, and you know, all of that kind of thing, then absolutely not. This is like, I would agree with everything that James has already said, there's no transparency, this is not at all evidence based. But I guess when I when I'm saying science in this term, in this context, it's fine. I'm saying and in my head, I've got a capital S, because it's more like a religion than it is actual objective, observing, gathering evidence, learning from that, you know, all of that is out the window here because this is about the Sustainable Development Goals. This is about achieving those ends. And this is where it's like, you need a glossary for the globalists because the way they use words is not the same way that we use words. So that's why I wanted to talk a little bit about what it means when it's sustainable development. Development meant, it doesn't just mean that we're going to go into, first of all, we're going to invite ourselves into your country. And we're going to help you achieve better wealth and health and things of this nature. But it's all by the design that we have not necessarily taken into account your goals, your values, your relationships with other countries and whatnot, there's a set way that we are going to achieve development. So that's what we're talking about the UN or the World Health Organization, development is along their lines of getting everyone hooked in to a globalist financial and security state, basically, and the word sustainable there, when you look at what they're doing, and you look at the way that things are panning out, like I said, a lot of the way that they develop countries, it can cause a lot of harm. So the way, like James' example about looking for these pathogens with pandemic potential, you know, so this is development, it's because we're going to get out ahead of this curve, and we're going to look for these things, but you always find something you're looking for, or you create it. So the state of boldness here is that we have to be able to just work ourselves right to the edge of not destroying the planet so much that we can no longer get what we want from it or not destroying the health of a population, you know, when we put in things like these manufacturing plants that they're going to need all over the world, and especially now they're targeting Africa for these new mRNA vaccine plants and whatnot. There's destruction that happens with that, you know, when you have these plants, there's runoff in the water, there's, you know, the the impact on the land, and that affects the health of the population. So there's this balance, and that's the sustainability part is, we need to make sure that we get these goals ahead. But we can't do it so fast, or in such a way that it kind of crumbles the system from the inside. And I also wanted to go back a little bit to the International Health Regulations. Again, James, as you were talking, you know, I wanted to point out, I remember watching the World Health Assembly this past year, and there was a strategic roundtable on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. And the co chair of the IHR working group, the man from Saudi Arabia, he, I wrote this down, he specifically had said, the major failings during the pandemic were already covered by the existing IHR. And when you watch that session, so this is the man co chairing this whole process here, and he's saying, basically, the my interpretation of what he said, and then other comments throughout that meeting, I don't think he believes that this is a necessary process for us to go through. And in fact, then, you know, we're getting a little ahead, because I don't think we've covered enough of what the IHR does right now. But these amendments, you know, James said, these are not going to be ready. I mean, we all had seen that writing on the wall, but the train was moving forward, and no one seemed to know how to put the brakes on it. But it looks like something that's happened today, or yesterday, whichever day we're on. But, you know, at this plate now, it's this public experiment, I guess, to see how far they can push the authority that they don't have to begin with they're asserting to have. So I think first maybe it might be helpful for people, I don't think we gave a very good overview yet of what the IHR actually is, and what it does at this point. So Will Dove 33:49 Please, please go ahead and give us that James Roguski 33:51 I will [unintelligible] if I may dive in, um, one of the things that, you know, I think is important, and I'll give it back to Valerie. The word surveillance is often used. And so part of what the IHRs are, is that they created in 2005, something called a National IHR Focal Point, it's an office in every nation's government structure. And so I view that as the way the WHO to a certain degree, infiltrated each nation. Now, the National IHR Focal Point, if you type in that and you look for whatever nation you're in, you should be able to find an office that does that function, may have a slightly different name depending upon your country, but their job is to surveil the health goings on in your nation, so that if there's an outbreak of polio or measles or this any other thing, or if there's an increase in disease or death, they're supposed to immediately report to the WHO. Now on a certain level, you can look at that and say, well, yes If there's something crazy happening, you want to be able to alert the world. And it might be a public health emergency of international concern. Well, you know, I'm I was thinking about this today, when Fukushima happened. Boy that should have looked like an international emergency public health emergency of international concern, but WHO was nowhere to be found. Alright, tanker truck [unintelligible] is, you know, burned in Northeast Ohio, which is where I actually grew up, and the plume of smoke is going over into Canada, and then Canada returned the favor later in the year. And you've got all kinds of forest fires and smokes coming back to United States. Those were actually public health emergencies of international concern that they were completely silent on. And so you have to ask yourself, we have this structure, but they use it when they feel like using it in the way in which they feel it, use it. Will Dove 35:56 Now, back to Valerie, can you just give me one moment because James had something very, very important to our Canadian audience, something that you guys wouldn't know about being Americans, you know that we have a socialized health care system in Canada. And the way it works is that the provinces pay money and they give money to Ottawa and then Ottawa redistributes that money to the provinces to pay for health care. Now, something that's been bothering people lately, is for about the last year, Justin Trudeau or prime minister has been trying to basically blackmail the provincial governments into handing over the health records of every single citizen in the province with the threat of cutting off health funding, if he does not do so. And you were just talking about the IHR focal points and reporting back to the WHO, I think you've just given us the explanation for why Trudeau is pushing down. Because he can't handle the information over if he doesn't have it. Right. Okay. All right, Valerie, we cut you off, please continue. You were filling us in on IHR as we are right now. Valerie Borek 36:57 But I think James got it got the ball rolling, they're talking about the focal point, because that was something new that was added in the 2005 amendments. So in 2005 this should have been, in my opinion, gone through our Senate for advice and consent and a vote, because the changes in 2005 expanded the purported authority of the World Health Organization immensely. So in 1969, for example, they were tasked with like James said, there's a little bit of a parallel in the way that there's a structure like our Constitution, where we are the sovereign, we associated into states, and then the states chose to associate into the United States with this contract of the Constitution and every step of the way, there are enumerated powers, you can't give it if it's not yours to begin with. And so this is how, you know, we've formed it. So in the initial health regulations in 1969, that came from those Sanitary Conventions, the WHO could only monitor five different diseases, the only time that they were even looked to. And it also was much more of a standards organization. So yes, there was some surveillance, but any of the surveillance was 100% voluntary, and they would not be going boots on the ground, unless they were requested. And mostly they were requested for technical assistance, or, you know, they had to have a library, a repository of experts. Yeah, they, the WHO is actually the source, if anybody's familiar with the, you know, when you go to that [unintelligible], your medical code, but you get that, you know, bill or whatnot, there's something called the International Classification of Diseases. So this comes from the World Health Organization, and this is a basis for a lot of what's going on with electronic health records. And then, you know, so something we can sink our teeth into, in this past year, our CDC, and our Health Human Services Department decided that we should start tracking basically, through these codes, they're called Z codes, because the International Classification of Diseases is basically kind of like an accordion one of those, like file folders throughout the alphabet. And so then you can, you know, each category has a major category, and then you can kind of fill in in the center. So it's meant to be able to expand and you know, so that's why you get like, Z 10 point 3.07. You know, you look at these codes, and they all mean something very specific. So, the Z codes are reserved, not necessarily for billing. They hadn't been yet but they were used for tracking more of the things like social determinants of health, for example. And so, this past year, our government decided to add codes which by the way, we have to get permission from the World Health Organization to do because they own the copyright. On the ICD nine were, well, there was nine and then we're in 10. And now we're looking to move towards 11. Without there are specific Z codes for tracking, people who are not up to date with the current recommendations for, you know, whatever that means, because they change all the time. And in fact, the CDCs advisory committee in their last emergency session that they had before their regular session that's coming up in October, they had a kind of a voice commitment, vote to instead of going with their annual update of the childhood immunization schedule that's recommended that that, of course triggers different things in state laws, some states actually tie their state mandates for education and whatnot, to what the CDC does, and some states will differentiate it. But at this point, they joked basically about how often they're updating this schedule now. So it's not appropriate for them anymore to just do it once a year, because then there are billing implications. On the other side, you know, we have access to these vaccines. And so if we don't update our schedule, then insurance or Medicaid is not going to pay for this new RSV shot, they're not going to pay for the next, well, they're always paying for COVID because they've got this bridge program. And this, you know, this is the whole math, but you know, I'm getting appealed from the World Health Organization, but you see how it trickles down? Like, this is where, you know, I know, I'm totally in the weeds right now. But yeah, we'd say like, how is what these unelected bureaucrats when they're sitting in this, you know, on another continent, how is that going to affect me today, you know, in my home, or when I'm sending my kid to school, and here's one of the ways just because we're using the codes that they come up with. So now here I was saying, I'm going to talk about what the IHR is, and I'm already talking about in the CDC vaccine schedule. Now, Will Dove 41:40 that's quite alright, because we're talking about the Z codes, what you're doing is you're confirming what James has been talking about, those Z codes are nothing but a method of fine grained surveillance surveillance control. So they know down to the individual, whose had shots, how many they had, when did they have it. So getting back to the IHR, then. Valerie Borek 41:57 So then in the amendments that happened in 2005, which were in a work, were in the works for almost a decade, and it took the national and international tragedies of what happened in 911. And then the fallout from that with Anthrax, and then we saw a round of SARS and whatnot. So this was finally the impetus that got that IHR amended in 2005. With that, you know, global collective kind of fear and look out, we need to do something because bioterrorism it could happen. And so we need to be able to respond to that on a global level now. So they added the [unintelligible] that James was talking about that was new in 2005. And you know, we'll talk about that a little bit more, because that's now something that we want to amend and expand is the the proposal, it also allowed the World Health Organization to act without verification for member states. So it's this is a whole different world, then we need to go to your state [unintelligible] or your your state being your nation or your country, meaning you know, somebody that are an entity that's evolved with the World Health Organization. So they can act without verification, meaning they could declare a bait even if the US says, No, we're fine over here, that created the Compliance Committee. And so these are the things that expanded the power of the World Health Organization in 2005. And now we're here we are, the playbook is the same, we're looking at yet another global fearfest centered around, we might end up you know, centered around fear of disease, and ill health and things of this nature, which just puts everybody's defenses down. And that's when we see these like huge onslaughts of huge bills that will get pushed through Congress here. And now we're seeing it on the global level now, because the this speed of this process is insanity. And the fact that they're doing these two processes now, how much time have we spent just on this call, trying to talk about the two different processes, it's intentional, for a number of reasons that keeps people confused. And when you're in a confused state, you're more susceptible to, you know, trying to find solid ground that you can like, hang on to like, Okay, this is a rule and I can I can go with this now. So we've got you know, these, even the diplomats that are at these meetings, when you watch them, some of them will stand up and say, why are we doing these both at the same time? And why does this have to be done by 2024. And even the you know, we talked a little bit about this treaty. Now the person who is a co chair of called the INB, the international negotiating body to create what we're calling the treaty, he last year also said, it wasn't necessarily feasible. I think the way that he put it was I don't have confidence that this is something that is doable by 2024. So but instead, we're doing both of these processes at the same time being led by men who say that it's too fast, and one who said says that it's not even necessary, because we've got a document that works. We just need to adhere to it. And then we throw the UN into the mix saying that we need more political will to get this done. I mean, the, you know, trillion dollar question is Why did this have to go so fast, basically. Will Dove 45:19 Right. And I'm folks that want to digress for just a minute, we will get back to the IHR timeline in a minute, because Valerie said something that's going to be of very great interest, I think, to our Canadian audience. We talk about the globalists. And when we talk about the globalists people think WEF, WHO, Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, et cetera, et cetera. But what often gets swept under the rug, and James, you made reference to this earlier, is the degree to which the US government and especially the Department of Defense has been involved in all of this, that the DOD, the figure I have is they funded the vaccine development distribution to the degree of $40 billion. So now that I've got two captive Americans here on my show, why do you think that the US government is so heavily involved in this agenda? What are they getting out of it?