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 two of this two part in-depth interview, James and Valerie reveal the threats represented by the amendments, the unprecedented speed and level of secrecy with which they are being implemented, and why they are pushing so hard to adopt these amendments as quickly as possible. Will Dove 1:45 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 as 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? James Roguski 2:29 One of the things that I like to do is to separate talking about evidence that I can point to, and then getting onto what I call speculation island, right? So at least at the beginning of this conversation, I'm going to stay in the realm of evidence that's very easily documented. There's a thing, and I believe Valerie mentioned it, there's a concept there's an idea called the Global Health Security Agenda. Now, when people hear that a normal person thinks, [unintelligible] health, right, but global health security is a totally different thing, relatively, you know, ill defined. But if you go into US law, in almost a year ago, now in December of 2022, the US Congress passed yet another version of the National Defense Authorization Act, 1000 plus pages and buried there in the middle of it somewhere, is the authority to basically donate or pledge a billion dollars a year to the World Bank operated pandemic fund. Now, most people are like, never heard of that, you know, what are we talking about? Well, you know, that's not going to, to WHO this is an extra billion dollars a year that they've promised and the criteria for that is, you know, out of our hands, right? We don't we don't get to say where that money goes. That money goes to the World Bank. And it's called a financial intermediary fund. They abbreviate it FIF. Right. So if you hear somebody talking about a FIF, what do they do? Well, we give money to the World Bank, the World Bank gives money to the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank, the World Health Organization, and they accept ideas from various nations, you know, they gave grants or loans or whatever it might be. Earlier in the year, they doled out several 100 million dollars, to a lot of relatively small nations to start building the thing that they're negotiating in these treaties. And so you ask yourself, Now, wait a minute, why do they even need to negotiate the treaty? When the US is going a sideways path through the World Bank through this fund that they created to build out the pharmaceutical hospital emergency industrial complex? Well, bringing it back to the WHO, somebody asked me and I ended up you know, getting down into the weeds with the documents of how much the nations actually spent, to be a member of the WHO they're assessed payments, and I came across the Central African Republic, and even I was surprised they're assessed dues were $4,750. That's a pretty easy membership into a worldwide organization. If on the receiving ends, you're getting, you know, $50 million contracts to build out laboratories that the United States Defense Department really wants. And so the game that's being played here is what's in it for us. Last year, when it was known that the African nations stood up against the United States who were trying to push through, you know, more requirements. It's my opinion, I'll get off onto speculation island now, everything I just said is easily documented. What I believe happened last year, was the United States tried to ram through law requirements for, you know, surveillance and monitoring, and all that sort of stuff. And the African nations realized, hey, that's gonna cost us money, we're gonna have to do all this [unintelligible], they stopped it so that they can come back now and say, We want equity. What's in it for us? What? What are these wealthy nations who are demanding that we search through the countryside? Now, if you if you think about this, as a bio weapons minded person, you know, Dr. Evil, let's put a whole bunch of money, and have people go out under the guise of trying to save people from catching the next, you know, pathogen, from the animals that they're raising for food or whatever. And let's stick our noses in there and see if we can find some good pathogens that we can bring into the lab, do some gain of function research on it, send it off to pharmaceutical companies to turn that into money? Well, one of the things that they're fighting back for goes all the way back to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. The relatively developing nations, back then they said, Well, you know, we have this ethnobotany, where, you know, our healers have learned about this plant or that plant and of pharmacopoeia in nature that we've learned, and they wanted to protect themselves from pharmaceutical companies coming in taking that knowledge, turning it into drugs, and not giving them any money back. Well, that that convention really isn't working very well. But that idea is it, it really comes out of what happened in South Africa. Around the time were they in Botswana said hey, we found this new genome, it's really different. And they ended up calling it omicron, they alerted the world the way they were supposed to, according to all the agreements and so forth. And what they were greeted with was not praise and value for their information, they were greeted with travel restrictions, which hurt their economy. And then Pfizer and Moderna take that information, turn it into a jab that turned into billions of dollars. And the African nations are going, Hey, whoa, wait a minute. You're taking our pathogen, we found it, and you're turning it into money. So they want to create a pathogen access benefit sharing agreement. Now, that's not about health, that's not about health at all. That's about a trade dispute that if it should be anywhere, it should be in the World Trade Organization. It's like, well, you know, we're scouring the countryside, we're looking in your toilet and your septic system and your chicken coop and your goat enclosure and your you know, rhino zoo enclosure and your hospitals where they have all kinds of, you know, antibiotic resistant problems. And that local bat cave or wherever, to find a pathogen with pandemic potential. So we can bring it into the lab, identify it, share it, which dramatically increases the risk, and then turn that into a jab, and then say to the population, well, nobody's really getting sick from this. But potentially they might, if somebody in one of these labs turned it into a weapon. So you got to take this [unintelligible] and the money flows. That is what I see going on in these negotiations. And I have to admit, I forget the original question, but that's what I see. This really is. It's a venture capital prospectus. And the Indonesian Health Minister back in November of 2022, when he was talking to the B20, he said there's this multi million dollar multi billion dollar fund, and this is a great business opportunity. Go invest. So what we're dealing with is pandemic profiteering. They want to reward the companies that are making all of the products that are viewed as pandemic response products or personal protective equipment, or laboratory equipment or testing equipment. It's a great business, go invest. And as long as that is the mindset, they're going to be pushing, you know, the next pandemic, they don't really want to stop the next pandemic. They want this gravy train to keep going. Will Dove 10:30 Right. And you did, did, even though you forgot the original question, you did a very good job of answering it. Valerie, I'm going to ask for your input. The reminder on the original question was What does the US government get out of their involvement in the globalist agenda? Valerie Borek 10:40 I thought, that was different than I thought we were talking about the military funding, and that was different. The original question was, why did... Will Dove 10:49 I did involve the DoD in that question as well and the 40 billion that they spent on developing and distributing vaccines. But I'm just wanting to know if you have anything to add to James' comments, before we move back to talking about the IHR amendments and... Okay, all right, James, are going to come back to you, because I think now we can get back to that timeline leading up to December first, and walk us through this, and what people can do, individual viewers can do to push back against this. James Roguski 11:17 You know, really, spreading the word is the most important thing, because I would venture to guess that 99.99 99% of everybody on the planet is just totally, they have no idea. Why would they they're trying to keep it a secret. And so the awareness raising about the amendments that were adopted last year, is to get people to understand that decades ago, when we joined the WHO, we did it improperly. Now, every nation is different. But in the United States, what in my view should have happened if we wanted to accept the WHO as the authority for health around the world, and put ourselves under their constitution, that would have required a constitutional amendment, not an act of Congress. And so the federal government here in the United States, very clearly, Xavier Becerra was interviewed a couple of months ago, and he was asked, you know, what, what would you like the people of America to know about the department that he runs, Health and Human Services? And he said, Well, I wish everybody knew that we don't have authority over health in the United States, that goes to the states and to the people. And so if the federal government doesn't have authority over health, how could they give that to WHO, it's fraudulent from the foundation. And so that's what I want everybody to know. So I'm an advocate of exiting the WHO, there is a piece of legislation that is in the United States, HR 79, has got 52 house rep- members that are co-sponsors on it, and I can summarize it in about 20 seconds, it would tell the president to alert the WHO that we're leaving, it would stop giving them money, and it would repeal the legislation, which in my mind, was unconstitutional to begin with. Now, I'm not naive to think that, you know, President Biden is going to sign that and all of the Democrats and everybody else who really want these globalist organizations to have power. It is sort of a litmus test at this point, we've got elections coming up over the next 13 months. And if a person's name is not listed as a sponsor to exit the WHO, that's a de facto admission that they want our rights to be handed over to this international organization, who in their constitution, it says that they're in charge of health around the world. And somewhere else in their constitution it says they can do whatever they need to do to accomplish those goals. Well, they're not even writing the regulations that they're obligated to do. They're failing at their mission. They're trying to change it with some of the amendments that they've proposed to be more than just an advisory organization. They're saying they want it to be, you know, a command central sort of thing. And so that makes the entire agreement null and void. They're changing the entire character, even their International Health Regulations Review Committee said very clearly, that if you're going to agree to change, recommendations to obligations, that's changing the whole nature of the agreement, and when you change the whole nature of the agreement, that's a good time to take stock. And you know, if you were if you knew somebody who was involved in an abusive relationship, and the abuser was trying to get legal authority to control the other person's life, would you advise them to negotiate for better terms, or would you just say get out of there. That's an abusive relationship that you need to leave. And so I'm an advocate for exitthewho.com. And around the world, I've been talking to several dozen groups of people around the world. There's a group in Australia, and it's been almost a year now, australiaexitsthewho.com. But if you go to exitthewho.org, you can see all of the different nations, I've been working with people in Canada. And we're, I'll drop a little bit of a psychic awareness news bit, because I'm pretty sure this is coming soon, working with folks in Canada who are preparing a petition to exit the WHO. And so if you're in Canada, give me a phone call, my number is 310-619-3055, I'll get you connected back to Canada with people who are coming soon, I do hope I got my fingers crossed, that this is going to happen, that there'll be an official parliamentary petition to exit the WHO because, you know, you can negotiate with terrorists, or, you know, if you're part of that organization, if you have any idea of all of the horrors that the WHO has committed through the decades, if you're a part of that organization, you're part of the problems that they've caused. And yeah, you know, you can try to negotiate with them and fix them from within. But I don't believe that they can be fixed at this point. Will Dove 16:35 Right. So... Valerie Borek 16:36 I'm on a, also we have an action that people can take for HR 79. And that is I agree with everything that James just said, it's a litmus test at this point, you know, I've talked to my lawmaker in my state about, you know, he hasn't signed on, and I'm not very happy with him. But he's also involved in the appropriation process right now. And he is of the mindset that, you know, signing on HR 79, is an exercise in futility, because it's never going to happen, as James said, and so, you know, we we have an awareness that in the structure right now, and the, you know, the balance of powers, that this is not something that's going to move forward right now. But that being said, it is still important to stand in solidarity. And even more important is to educate our lawmakers, because they have no clue. They have no clue what's going on here. They're completing the treaty with the IHR. I think most of them aren't aware that there's even this process going on with the IHR. And what is the IHR, and how that's potentially even more dangerous, because it's a document that's already in place. And we already have precedent here where it's been amended without any input at all. And then we've got, you know, this Yeti at the wall approach where we've got, like James said, the National Defense Authorization Act had language thrown in it at the last moment, which was about giving, you know, Congress gives their approval to this process that's going on there. So the President when he's making these executive agreements, which are separate from treaties, it's within that treaty power. So like James was saying that this might not have been the constitutional approach to things. But one of the problems here is that once it stands, it will become the law of the land. So the fact that we didn't stand up before the Congress didn't stand up before, it's like, hey, this was not what we agreed to in 1948. This was not the plan. We didn't want this in our living rooms and in our communities. This was not what this organization was supposed to be in the responsibilities that we had. So the President will rely on things like the NDAA to say that he has [unintelligible] authorization to make these agreements outside of that, you know, constitutional treaty process that the Senate has to go through, you know, advice and consent, and two thirds approval. And of course, this is just specific to the United States. But I think it's important that we just we have to educate our lawmakers. So I guess that means first we have to educate ourselves. And I will say on Stand For Health Freedom we've done a lot of work to put out a lot of resources there. There's Dr. Meryl Nass who's also creating an organization called Door To Freedom with our tons and tons of resources. They're focused on this. So the thing that we can do right now is basically educate ourselves, educate our lawmakers, and then speak to people in our communities. Yeah, so come down to little, not little but individual decisions that happen on a day to day basis when your grocery store at this point is telling you mask up again, we have to just stand up and have non compliance, just be a peaceful non compliance here because this is the way that it's going to fall it's going to fall either way. Either we're going to end up, you know, a part of this Global Health Security Architecture, and that's their terminology. And that terminology by the way, it has been around for decades as well, the Health Security Act was the failed Clinton Health Plan. Biden had a piece of legislation with the that language in it as well, when he was a senator that he put forth that didn't go through the Obama administration, you have signed on to this new newly created Global Health Security agenda that's still out there. So you know, to go way back to one of your first questions, you know, has this been in the works for a while? Yeah, we can see these different threads that are all coming together that led us to the point that we're at now. So you know, there are actions that people can take by just simply on a day to day basis, standing up for what is right for your own health, standing in communities, building these community connections, all of those are really, really important. Will Dove 17:12 Right. And you've made reference, of course, to what Dr. Nass is doing, we've got exitthewho, we've got a quite a long list of websites that James had listed on his substack. And as always, folks, we have all of those links directly beneath this interview when they're on the site, so you can access all of that information. And Valerie, you were talking about having to educate our lawmakers. And just to back up to give a little bit of a timeline here. As you mentioned early on in the interview, James right now the working committee of the IHR. From the second to the sixth, as we're recording this they're meeting, I believe it's specifically to discuss the Global Digital Health Certificate Network. Their recommendations will be handed off to the committee on the 15th of December, but the deadline for governments to object to this is December 1, and you have a letter on your substack that people can send to their politicians and their lawmakers to say we object to this. So there is something... James Roguski 21:41 very very very clearly, if I may, that kind of merged together to two separate piles of the amendments. Okay. So the amendments that were adopted last year on on May 27 2022, there were amendments to the five articles 18 months from that will bring you to December 1. So the time for our national leaders to speak up because they're being pressured is December 1, to reject what was adopted last year. At the same time, these 300 amendments are being negotiated completely in secret. And it looks like they're not going to make their deadline to submit them to the next assembly. But I'm just gonna say it looks like they want to cheat. They want to say, well, you know, we didn't meet the deadline, but just don't worry about that, we're just going to keep going. And what we need to speak up about right now is both of those things, because they're two separate things. What I'm hopeful is going to happen is that out of the 194 member nations plus Liechtenstein and the Holy See, I'm not necessarily counting on the Pope to push back against the WHO, but some of those nations need to have their leaders be aware. And I think some of them are because they've exhibited their awareness in the past. They have the opportunity to protect the rights of their citizens, of their nation. So imagine, I'm here in the United States, I know Canada, and the United States, Thanksgiving is a little bit different in terms of the date. But at the end of November, most of America is in a food coma, from watching too much football and eating too much turkey and mashed potatoes, and everything else. And so at the end of November, some of these nations I believe, are going to craft a letter to the WHO, and at the last minute before the deadline, say, Well, you know what, those amendments that you did last year? No thanks. We reject them. Article 61 of the regulations gives every nation the right to reject the amendments that were adopted. Now, I don't hold out hope that your Prime Minister is going to be one of the ones who does that. And so the people need to realize that there are some wise, savvy nations supporting leaders who will step up for their nation and say no to the globalist WHO, our leader, your leader, probably not going to do that. Because, you know, the United States was one of the ones pushing these amendments in the first place. And so what's going to happen on December 2, is, you know, everything's going to fall where it falls. And I think some national leaders are going to look and be made to be seen as either stupid, or globalist, because if you have the opportunity to allow a globalist organization to restrict your freedoms, and you have the right to say no, and you don't, but your people see that other national leaders took advantage of that rule. And they were smart and savvy enough to say no, it's going to be very apparent on December 2, maybe you know who's a globalist and who isn't. And I... Valerie Borek 25:02 Back up just a little bit because we I don't think we've addressed the nature of what these amendments are that are going to go in force by the end of this year, approximately. So, yeah Will Dove 25:12 Sure. I wanted to get to that as my next question. I want to get into details of those amendments. So I just I just wanted to bring us up to date before we did that, but now's a perfect time. Why don't you go ahead, Valerie, and fill us in? We've already talked about the fact that they're discussing a lot of this in secret, they're making changes in secret. So of course, we can't know what those might be. But we do know some of the amendments. And could you please fill us in on the ones that are special concern that we really need to be aware of? Valerie Borek 25:37 Yeah, so while the first special concern is the one that's about to go into force, so in 2022, with the World Health Assembly, the United States led a group of countries to submitting amendments, and there were approximately a dozen of them. And this is what kicked off this process to begin with, which again, is separate from the treaty. So in the midst of all of that the US and about 40 Other countries go to the World Health Assembly, and by the rules that are already there, in the International Health Regulations, they needed to submit them four months in advance. The general public didn't get to see them four months in advance of the World Health Assembly, it was a couple of weeks, I think, maybe. And they submitted about a dozen amendments, the World Health Assembly, many of the countries said no, no, we didn't have enough time for our own input here. So interestingly enough, they didn't have enough time, there wasn't enough transparency. The one amendment that was accepted that year was an amendment to speed up the timeline for making changes to the International Health Regulations. So the way they are right now, is that you have a it's a two year process from the time that the amendment is made, there's 18 months to either reject it, as James said, or you can take reservation, a country can put on the record that then is added as an appendix to the health regulations. That, you know, for example, the United States took a reservation in 2005. And said, Yes, we are all on board with these amendments to the 2005. No International Health Regulations, up until the point where it clashes with federalism. So they specifically put on record that we were not going to impose the will of the World Health Organization on to the States, because in our constitutional structure, that is the realm of the state. And so actually, we have a petition on our website that educates more about that, and also urges the United States to retain or resubmit that because you know, we're in these unprecedented times of amendments. So yeah, I think for this upcoming amendment, it will probably stand. But once the IHR changes much more, it would need to be resubmitted. So we need our government to recommit to that. So there, the rest of the amendments were not withdrawn. And that leads us into the process that we're at now, where James has been talking about, at this point, there's not going to be a time because after that one was adopted, which that of course took the two year period before it would be in force. And now the States don't object to that they'll be committing to a shorter timeline. And then in addition to that, we've got the rest of the amendments, which exploded from a dozen to about 300 amendments. And so this is what that working group on the International Health Regulations is trying to manipulate and to finagle into a document that can be presented, but again, by what they say in the IHR now, they would need to submit that four months before the World Health Assembly, which is in May, at the end of May, I believe, May 27, that starts this coming year in 2024. They're not going to be able to make that deadline. And so they announced that, at these this meeting this week that they're having with the World Health Organization Council on end with his statement, which was absolutely absurd, because within his statement he cites the document where the group was tasked with having this timeline and submitting their, you know, condensed regulations for consideration and approval at the next World Health Assembly in 2024. But he then, as James said, just totally bulldozed that and said, Well, you know, we've never applied this to let them before the International Health Regulations. They don't apply to committees, subcommittees of the Health Assembly, even though he quoted it, like right there that said, in that document that even their mandate, you will abide by article 55 of the International Health Regulation. So it'll be really interesting to see how this pans out. But I think the most important thing is that we keep making noise about it. And I think, James, you're absolutely right. We're going to need to work on our global network, to call on those countries that we can connect with, to say you need to stand up, if you're able now you need to stand up against this, you need to make noise again, 'cause this will happen. And in fact, we have a UN ambassador to the UN, at one point during the process of the high level, pandemic preparedness response declaration, political declaration that they wanted to create the additional political will with early in that process. He stood up I believe his name is Dan Fogarty, and he said, this wasn't transparent, we need more time. Oh, it's really interesting thing to me that they keep pushing this along. And there's there is pushback that's bubbling to the surface, even from one of the leaders in the process saying, we need to slow this down. Will Dove 30:54 So your thoughts on the amendments, at least the ones that we know about? James Roguski 30:58 Okay, so the amendments that were adopted last year, there's just, there's really no reason for them at all. If there's an emergency, and you feel that you're going to fix this emergency by changing the rules in a year, rather than in two years, if it's a change that you want to make, you can just make the change. So these rules are absurd. And they really come from the Biden administration's attempt to shorten them even tighter, they wanted to shorten it to six months, which would have made it be that the final answer would have still been within the Biden administration. And the negotiations pushed them out to 10 months, which is in the United States means that the next president, whoever that may be, and the next Congress will have an opportunity until April 1 2025, to reject all of these amendments that they're they're talking about now. And so, the 300 Plus amendments that were revealed, that were first submitted a year ago, the thing that I am mostly concerned about so much to the point that I put up a whole webpage, in response to it, RejectDigitalEnslavement.com, are things that would take this, which is an old school vaccine passport, some people who've traveled various places, may have had to fill out, you know, a form like those having gotten an injection, because certain nations require it, the only one that really fits that now is yellow fever. They want to dramatically expand that. And these are the things that they're probably negotiating this week, many, many different nations submitted many, many different changes. But most of it was coming from European Union. They wanted to have not just a vaccine, they call it a certificate, but a testing certificate, a prophylaxis certificate, and a recovery certificate. And I think everybody on the planet should stop. And not just question, you know, the the network, that would be checking that and tracking and tracing and all that sort of thing. But question the validity of certifying those things. If you have an injection, that changes your DNA, and damages your immune system and causes it to be that you're more likely to have all of these other ailments, and even disabilities and deaths, but it doesn't prevent you from becoming infected, or being diagnosed with the disease. And it doesn't stop transmissibility. What kind of the certificate could that possibly be. Well, you know, in the Article 21, WHO should be trying to set standards and regulations for well, what would a valid vaccine be? I don't even have a definition of the word. So if they were negotiating things like, well, you should have to do you know, carcinogen carcinogenic testing and and, you know, long term safety testing and testing and pregnancy, and, and children and different age groups and all that sort of stuff. And you have to have 10,000, or 20,000 or 100,000 people in the study, and you could only meet this criteria, the risk can only be this small. If they were defining those qualifications that would enable someone to say, well, you know, what, it looks like that injection does perform the function that we attribute to a vaccine. That would be one thing. They're not having those negotiations, they're letting it be that in Annex six and I know you know this because we talked about it, in Annex six, it simply says, if the WHO approves it, then It's approved. That's not a regulation. That's the transfer of power to a dictator. Oh, you get to say whatever it is you want to say, well take that over to a testing certificate. The Indonesian health minister at that same B 20 meeting in November in Bali said, Well, you know, we had to lock down the world in early 2020. No, you didn't. That was a choice. And you didn't have any right to do it, but you did it anyways. Then he said, Well, you know, that hurt the economy. Well, it didn't hurt Amazon, or the big box stores, it just hurt little mom and pops. Then he told the biggest lie and said, well, for the next pandemic, if you're properly vaccinated, or properly tested, then you'll be able to move around. Well, you know, what is the proper diagnostic test when the PCR process is not. And if you use it for that function, it could be 97% false positive. So the concept, even just even the concept, that you can have a health certificate that you have to obtain, from some authority figure, that if you don't have it, you're not allowed to live your life. That concept is absurd. And and so the only thing they're certifying, is that people are compliant. I got my papers, here are my papers, I'm a good little man or woman, boy or girl, you know, I'm not arguing with your authority. So maybe you'll let me live my life? Well, that's not how a free people operate. A free people understand that they do not have the authority to require me to certify that I'm not dangerous to you. Right? That is just a blatant attack, a troll. And so what they're doing this week is supposed to be negotiating that, but from the body language in the room, and the fact that the air completely went out of it, they're going to have a hard time with these negotiations. And we need to make it even more difficult for them, because they're not addressing the core things, that there are amendments that should be made. There are changes that should be made. But since they're not going to even consider them, the only answer is, and I have a website with this name, ScrewTheWHO.com. As far as my opinion is, go to ScrewTheWHO.com, and see what other people have had to say about this whole process. The WHO has gone sour. And I don't think they can recover from it. It is time to realize that individual rights as Valerie's website and organization are, standforhealthfreedom.com, we have to stand up for our rights to have individual control over our own health. Nobody in Geneva can tell me what's best for me. And I just reject the idea that they should ever have any such authority. Will Dove 38:17 I think he said something very important there. James, in your comments that answers a question that would be going through people's heads. Why do they keep shortening deadlines? Why are they rushing this through? And you made the point 13 months from now you're in an election in the US. Well, right now, the globalists have controlled governments around the world, I mean Biden, Trudeau I mean, there's no question they're completely on board with these people, a lot of other federal governments are as well. So I would say that the reason that they're pushing it through is because they want to get all of this approved, while they still have their control puppets in place to approve it. James Roguski 38:50 You know, I'll make a really bad joke. You're talking about a conspiracy of people who are Russian, you know, they're in a hurry. They're trying to push this through. And you know, interestingly enough, one of the amendments from the Russian Federation to Article four, says that the National IHR Focal Point, that office in every government, they're proposed amendment says that, that every nation would have to enact legislation, authorizing and getting the authority to that office in their government to implement all of the other amendments. So in that regard, it's a power play. And they're very sneaky about it, not to give them direct authority to give you a dictate to tell you what to do, but to trick every nation into legally in their own nation structure, giving its authority to this organization within their government that reports directly to the WHO, gives them the authority to enforce all of these other amendments, and many laws like that have been attempted to put into place in places like New York State, you know that, as far as I know, that case is still awaiting final decision, bills passed in Western Australia that give authorities to their local government to just abuse people mercilessly. Many org many nations and states and provinces and governments around the world already have these laws in place, just waiting to be put into force. And you know, we have to be vigilant on local bases, as well as internationally. Will Dove 40:32 Valerie, do you have anything to add to James' comments? Valerie Borek 40:34 Yeah, I think that's a great segue to talk about another concern with the potential amendments, these, you know, laws that have already been put into place, one that comes to mind, James, I know, you and I have talked about a lot about it, the 2017 regulation that the CDC passed through at the last moment in the Obama administration, which basically hooked the declaration of the faith by the World Health Organization to their own claim to authority in the United States, regardless of whether there is any declaration here in the United States. And so that's concerning enough on its own. And yet that's not yet been used. But we could imagine that it could be used moving forward, but the amendments that have been proposed would greatly expand the authority given under in the name of this faith. So it would be solely at the discretion of the director general, they would be able to declare intermediate public health emergencies, regional public health emergencies, so just expands like an accordion yet again, where just the amount and type and status of the public health emergency of international concern that would just just grow rapidly, and it's at the sole discretion of one person. That's, that's insanity, basically, and that we could see, we already had basically a law that would trigger, you know, CDC claiming more authority, as they did in the previous years. I mean, we saw what they did this, you know, in the past three years, you know, how much they overstep their bounds, like one of the most obvious things that come to mind, it's where they got slapped back by the Supreme Court when they claimed power over stopping evictions. You know, that's nowhere in any kind of regulation, or law or anything that we ever contemplated for our our CDC, basically. So the Public Health International Emergency of International Concern is a big problem in the potential amendment. Will Dove 42:40 Valerie, you you are very knowledgeable about the WHO, you know, their history right from their start. Have you ever seen this kind of behavior before? Where they're rushing things through? They're being very, very secretive? Is this a pattern with them? Or is this something new? Valerie Borek 42:57 Now, so definitely, the speed at which they're working is unprecedented. I can't think of any other time in their history where they have had a ticking clock basically on getting these regulations through. And in fact, it's usually the opposite, like the last time that the International Health Regulations were expanded. Again, it took a global emergency and environment of fear, it was a process that was proposed, I believe, in 1995, the there was already there were calls for amendments to update the regulations. And so for years, they held meetings, had committees, consulted with public partnerships, or private partnerships, and then, you know, they got the momentum they needed, after the world changed with the 911 events, and then what transpired afterward. And in that environment of fear, no, this is not, I mean, things happening in secret is not a new thing. I mean, that that just standard operating procedure, and in fact, they got so much worse [unintelligible] during the declared pandemic, because of this, you know, in the UN, for example, they instituted the silence procedure. So, you know, things became even less transparent over these last three years, which is the trajectory we're on, you know, it's just going to exponentially get less transparent, and, you know, more authoritarian unless we continue to talk about it and make noise and educate the people that have the ability to say no to these agreements and things like that. Will Dove 44:26 Because in short, what we're moving towards is a world health dictatorship with no input from the people who were being governed by it. Valerie Borek 44:37 Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I would say that we're looking more at a UN dictatorship because they're pulling the strings through the World Health Organization, and that's my perception as to why they're giving political will to this situation. Again, it's an arm of the UN. And so you know, when you look at the resources that the UN has, you know, and then we look at what happened over the last three years and how we saw. You know, they keep saying that Sustainable Development Goals were derailed during the pandemic, and you know, maybe certain things, you know, targets were not hit in the way that they wanted to. But in fact, it's kind of the opposite in that they're using this as a trajectory, a way to just propel that forward. And again, like this is the World Health, everything in the United Nations is existing, to get this sustainable development, 'cause that's their game plan. This is the the way they want the world to look. And it's, you know, all of that language. Again, it's tied through everything. So I think, yeah, it's just there's an opportunity here, if you are being the villain, basically, to see that fear, when you have this state of constant fear, constant confusion, you know, people are very, very vulnerable and susceptible. And this is when you can change things and grab more control, and that the exact thing we saw after 911. Will Dove 46:00 Now, James, you made reference to the fact that this committee may not be able to get the amendments ready in time within the four month deadline prior to the May 24, 77th World Health Assembly. But that might not matter. Because you've made some comments on your substack about the fact and you were alluding to this earlier with your vaccine passport there, that they're already pushing through ways to restrict travel. Can you give us more details on that, please? James Roguski 46:30 Well, you know, back in April, they publish a bunch of documents and a run up to the assembly. And the way this got all confused in the media was in Europe, they had instituted a COVID-19 like, you know, electronic digital passport. And that had a two year run. So it went from like June or July of 2021. And actually expired on June 30 of this year of 2023. And so, you know, they had sort of a funeral for it, I guess, you know, the European Union made a big deal about handing over the digital carcass of their digital system, to the WHO who are building, you know, this quote unquote, trust network, right? They use propaganda words very skillfully. And and so what they announced back in April, was that they were busy building the global digital health certification network. While you're negotiating it, hold on a moment. Okay, normal people think that while you're having negotiations, and then when you sign the document, you agree, then you go and build what it is you think you're going to do. Well, I, you know, I'm actually very much an optimist. And, you know, my whole answer to everything that they're trying to do that I disagree with, is a very simple, no, you don't have the authority to concoct, you know, certificates of health. That's not a thing. They're not doing the work that they need to do to, you know, make the regulations that would justify that. And what it comes down to is an educational process that we the people have to do with We the People, if you assume that because somebody says you have to do something. The first question is always Well, number one, who are you? Who do you think you are? Where do you get the lawful authority over me, because I'm not fringing upon your rights, or your freedoms, or your safety in any way, shape, or form. And so what I see around the world and very specially in Canada, I mean, the people in Canada have come together in an organized way, unlike anywhere else on the planet, everybody involved in the movement for freedom and rights in Canada, you know, still has a lot of work to do, but should be so proud for all that you have done. It is astonishing. And so, what what we see is the war organized people are, the more ridiculous their, you know, Prime Minister or they're other authorities are, and it's just becoming so obvious that even people who've been asleep this whole time, you know, look at what is, you know, looking at what just recently happened in, you know, Canadian Parliament, if you can look at that, and not see that something is wrong with the people that are involved in running, you know, your government. You know, I don't know what it would take to get people to wake up. But I think people are waking up. They are standing up for their rights. They are realizing that you have to stand for your health freedoms against bureaucrats who have no knowledge of what it actually takes to keep someone healthy and regain that health, if they lose it. That's something that has to be an individual decision. And so, you know, one last little tiny thing that bothers me is that I hear people say, Oh, well, they didn't give us informed consent. That phrase needs to be extracted from people's use of the language. That's not what this is. They're obligated to provide you with all of the information. And regardless of what that information may or may not say, you always have the right to say, no, they use the language in a manipulative way. Well, we gave you informed consent, so people think, Oh, I gotta get the jab. Now, it doesn't matter what the information says, you get to make a determination that is unique to you. You look at whatever information you have. And you say, I see that there are possibly some benefits. And there are possibly some risks. And for you, as an individual, you make that benefit to risk analysis. And if you think it's not safe for you, then it's not safe. There is no legal definition of the word safe. Nothing in the world is safe 100%, you could trip down a flight of stairs, doesn't mean that the stairs are unsafe. It's a situational thing that you get to determine, you have the right to dissent. And no one has the right to force you to do anything. And so that whole idea has been twisted to the point where people just really understand where the power lies. It's your body, it's your decision. And when somebody says it's safe and effective, you have to realize that safe is not defined. You determine whether or not you believe it's safe. And the benefits outweigh the risks for you. And even if the benefits seem to outweigh the risks, if it doesn't feel safe, you have every right in the world to say no. And, you know, that's the Nuremberg codes. And and so people got all confused. Oh, well, you know, somebody said, it's safe and effective a million times, so it must be safe and effective. Well, effective, that words not defined either. And what you didn't catch was that when they first started, and they cooked all the books and the original studies, and they came out, say, Oh, it's 95% efficacious, it's a different word. Then they said, Oh, it's 90% effective, 80% effective. And then they stopped putting a number in front of it. And then they just said, it's effective. Well, you know, things can be negatively effective. And that's what the jabs now are. There. I've seen some data where, in certain categories, it's, you know, minus 50,000% effective , meaning you're like 500 times more likely to have a problem. And so, the propaganda is really, really powerful. And so I'll leave it with this. It's a visual, and it's overstated. But if I wanted to manipulate the language, if you're familiar with the ridiculous thought of having a revolver, and putting one bullet in one chamber and spinning the chamber, and playing Russian roulette, well, if there's one bullet out of six, that's 84%, safe. But if you're that one person who's harmed by that jab, it wasn't safe for you. Now, if you're not paying attention, and you accept all of the lies that they say, and you go, Well, you know, I don't think it's risky. I think it's going to be okay for me, I'm going to make that decision, that decision is on you. But if they didn't give you all of the information that was available, which clearly they have not done, well, that's is an must be looked at as a crime against the person and at the scope that this is going on, it's a crime against humanity. But it all it falls apart. If individual people don't stand for their own health freedom. And you know, that's what Valerie has been working on for years and myself as well. But it it's a personal decision. You have to take a stand. I can't do it for you. Will Dove 54:48 Valerie is a lawyer. Anything to add to that? Valerie Borek 54:52 [unintelligible] I would say just to observe I loved the way you put all of that, James, and I think you're doing a really good job of illustrating the difference between public health and individual health, that's important for us to keep our eye on right now, because they're specifically being merged in ways we're talking, we're talking a lot more in our own government and that we see yet again, I have to go back to the Sustainable Development Goal, this idea of the primary health provider being a hub, or, you know, pushing through all of this agenda for the One Health where, you know, the vaccines, most people understand that the well visit check is the vaccine schedule. And, you know, things like that. And so and then now we can see, this growing scope of school based health centers that are just being funded hundreds of millions of dollars for the grant money are just flowing all of a sudden from the Biden administration to set these up in the United States and just grow them. So we have, you know, this, this situation where we're hearing more and more the idea of your primary care happening in what really is the public health context. And the way you're talking about, you know, these terms, say, and, you know, effective, those are public health considerations. You know, we've been talking a long time. So I'm not going to get into the weeds about like, the scandal and the the immunization agenda, 2030, and whatnot. But, I mean, when you look at congressional testimony, or just hearings for these committees that are happening in our federal government, in the US, you're, you'll see them talking about the economics of this, and I, you know, there was a in the 1980s, when they're discussing the, you know, the safety of the schedule. And, you know, we didn't talk about the fact that liability, it was, you know, being removed from these manufacturers. And that's part of the global process, too. I think that's a part of the treaty, not the International Health Regulations, they want to basically also expand what we have here in the States, which is the, you know, the 1986 Act, which removed liability from the manufacturers, we, they want to put that on a global level as well. So, you know, this is the, we want to just keep an eye out for those sorts of things as watching this merging of, you know, basically erasing the individual and the individuals informed consent and their rights. When we're talking about public health, we're talking about economic decisions on a public policy level. So again, those words safe don't mean the same thing. Like you said, it's not about, you know, Is this safe for one individual person. And that's why we have to retain our ability to have the right and to have informed consent and be able to assert our religious exempt exemptions and objections to certain medical treatments and whatnot. Because when you talk about safety on a public health scale, you're talking about safety on a population level, where it's acknowledged, yeah, that some products are unavoidably unsafe, for example. So safety in a public health context does not mean the same thing it means when you go to your individual doctor or health practitioner, Will Dove 57:57 I have here with me, undoubtedly two of the top experts in the world on the WHO and their machinations. And it's been made very clear through this interview, as you've always said, what they're doing has nothing to do with protecting people's health. What this is, is a global surveillance control and profiteering mechanism. And you've made some comments about what we as people can do to push back against that. But I think I would like to hear from you both sort of a broader context of your views of this of how did we even get to this point, where we have allowed this globalist organization to have this kind of threatening control over us? Valerie, I'm going to ask you to start. Valerie Borek 58:41 I think, yeah, a lot of it just comes from overwhelm and then withdrawal. And this was done by design, you know, we had, we go back to look at the work of Edward Bernays. I mean, look at what our government did, and not just our government, but other governments with propaganda, you know, these are manipulations of our thought processes designed to make citizens acquiesce to government operations or engagements that they wouldn't otherwise. And, you know, so starting from the early 1900s, and the wars that we were in, to begin with, you know, we had this technique that was used by our government to mollify us basically into, you know, joining into World War One joining into World War Two, and, you know, other other aspects of, you know, policy that we didn't necessarily want pushed forward. So, you know, at this point, you know, we're generations into overwhelm, and confusion and you know, this propaganda without us being really aware of it, you know, when when we had screens enter our lives, and you know, the 50s 60s 70s and all of a sudden now we've got not just the radio where we're getting our information, we're now getting information from the screens, which your body processes in a totally different way. And so we've got a population that's just got heightened anxiety, and isn't always aware of how critically they should be thinking about the messages that they're getting. And then we get, you know, the button pushed about, for example, the greater good. And, you know, you're you need to be a good citizen, and you react, we talked a little bit about the military earlier, but um, you know, vaccines have always been a huge part of military culture in the military and a military asset, you know, so you go back to, again, World War One and looking at the creation of the influenza vaccine, for example, that was needed for the military, because there were more casualties in the war, by the deed. And then we rolled right into, you know, the, the first, you know, the Spanish flu, so to speak. So the influenza vaccine was the military. But endeavor because it was needed as a military asset to make sure that our soldiers would be healthy enough to be able to fight the wars that we wanted them to fight, so to speak, and then that rolled out into the general public, and you'd see that with, with other vaccines, and you know, that kind of thing as well. So I mean, I don't want people to get down on themselves, because this is generations in the making, of trying to kind of pull the wool over our eyes. And it's been done, you know, behind the scenes, it's been done with literal mind manipulation. And, you know, once you I know that might set well, maybe not to your audience, but yeah, it's like, it's just somebody who's just waking up right now. I probably, you know, you're crawling tinfoil hats on me right now. But when you really start to dive into the information, they start with Bernays, start with that, and look at what he was teaching. And, you know, look at the commission that was created by Wilson's administration to be able to basically propagandize all the media and whatnot about World War One. So, you know, it's very similar to what's going on right now, with disinformation and misinformation where we're in this Orwellian situation where, you know, anything that's truth at this point, or anything that's questioning, the stories that we're being told, is being labeled as misinformation and disinformation, because it's not what they want us to talk about. So, you know, it's the way that we got here. It was, I guess, a long game. Will Dove 1:02:18 James James Roguski 1:02:21 I would just summarize it as false evidence appearing real, fear. And people listen to whatever it is they listen to. They got to the point where they were afraid of invisible Boogeyman. And they believed people who profit from them having that fear. And in that fear, making a decision that was not up based on evidence was based on propaganda. And then I've always, always, for decades now said that drugs and jabs are not things that make you healthier, they're poisons. And the dynamic of the medical establishment is to give you those things under the guise that they're going to help you. But they're actually customer acquisition tools. They take healthy people, and say you've got to get a test. They run a fake test. And they convince the person that they have a disease that can only be treated by some type of poison. They use their propaganda, their manipulation, their false evidence, to get healthy people to do things that are actually bad for their health, damage their immune system, you know, are toxic in nature, harm their little would harm their kidneys, and create a pattern break, you don't know what the heck is going on. You don't know if you're sick, or if you're being poisoned. And you are being poisoned if you're taking pharmaceutical meds or jabs. At that point. If it's bad enough, you've now become a customer for life. And it's astonishing to me, that the very people who have been harmed by the jabs go right back into that same system, looking for treatment, from the people who gave them the treatment that caused the problem in the first place. And so, what we need is an awakening of people to the reality that many not all, but many of the people who are indoctrinated into, in-doctor-inated into the system by going into med school, and thinking that the only solution to every problem is a [unintelligible] jab. If you don't realize that that business model profits, the more they do to you. If you are operating in a system and you could recognize that ask yourself a simple question: Who profits when you're healthy? I haven't been to a medical doctor since I was an 19 years old, I'm 63. I'm not good for their business. If you learn how to be healthy, that flies in the face of their business model, but if you keep showing up in their world, asking for what they're giving, you're going to need more and more and more. Because that's how they make their money. If you could go to any doctor and ask them, if I'm healthy, how does that benefit you? They will not have an answer. The only time they make money is when you require them to either test, or treat or do surgery or chemo or radiation or whatever. Why is it that when you get tested for something, it's positive when it's bad for you, but it's negative when it's good for you. Because from their perspective in their world, you're a commodity, and they don't want to kill you, I don't believe they want to make you think your die, so that you keep coming back for more of whatever their salad. It's a business. And for the United States perspective, you know, I think if you look at our $33 trillion national debt, I think if you do the math on the amount of taxes that had been collected for health, and the amount of money that our nation has pumped into the pharmaceutical hospital emergency industrial complex, you'll see really where that deficit or that debt came from. [unintelligible] money out of our life, our economy, our you know, individual wealth, they would love to have it be that you die just as you spend your last bit of everything you've worked for your entire life. And it's a business. There are good people wedged into the middle of it, just to make it look like there's a human face to it. But you are responsible for your health, and you are the person who benefits when you are healthy. And until you realize that all of the medical health practitioners don't benefit. It's designed to harm you, and then profit from that harm. And you know, maybe that's, you know, crazy. But there's a lot of people who've learned how to step out of that system. And the longer they stay away from jugs drugs and jumps, the healthier they are. And ideally, right? I think I'm living proof of that. Will Dove 1:07:33 Yes, as I'm I'm not. I'm a few years behind you. I'm 58. But I haven't been to a doctor in many years, either. There's nothing wrong with me, as you said, learn how to keep yourself healthy and just don't be part of that system. James, Valerie, I want to thank you so much for all the hard work you've put in to keep tabs on the WHO, for the time you've given up today to inform my audience, and especially from the most important message that we need to be pressuring our existing politicians or replacing them with new politicians who will exit the WHO and get us out from underneath that surveillance control and profiteering structure. Valerie Borek 1:08:09 Thank you so much. James Roguski 1:08:09 Thank you