Podcast Summary
International Health Regulations vs. WHO Treaty: The speaker opposes the recent IHR amendments, believing they'll expand the pharmaceutical industry and contribute to ongoing pandemics. He encourages listeners to be informed and not be deceived by misinformation.
The speaker is a doctor and content creator who emphasizes the importance of overall wellness - body, mind, and spirit. He encourages careful listening and personal responsibility for interpreting his educational content. He discussed his personal situation, where his wife's long work hours led him to prioritize his podcast over family time. He then spoke about being a "globalist" and the ongoing confusion between the WHO Treaty and the IHR. The speaker strongly opposes the recent adoption of the IHR amendments, believing they will contribute to the expansion of the pharmaceutical industry and potential ongoing pandemics. He encourages listeners not to be deceived by misinformation and to understand the significance of these international regulations.
IHR and WHO's role in public health emergencies: The IHR is a binding treaty for international cooperation in public health emergencies, primarily focused on surveillance, monitoring, reporting, and emergency declaration, not health improvement. The WHO facilitates cooperation but doesn't have the power to enforce regulations directly.
The International Health Regulations (IHR) are a binding treaty aimed at ensuring international cooperation in public health emergencies. However, the name is misleading as it primarily focuses on surveillance, monitoring, reporting, and emergency declaration rather than health improvement. The IHR does not grant the WHO the power to enforce its regulations directly, but rather relies on nations to report health events and cooperate in response efforts. The recent amendments to the IHR, proposed by 94 countries and not the WHO, aimed to address equitable access to pandemic-related products. The negotiations resulted in a coordinating financial mechanism instead of an allocation mechanism, focusing on building up the pharmaceutical industries of developing nations. Despite common beliefs, the WHO is not trying to take over the world or become people's doctors, but rather facilitating international cooperation in public health crises.
IHR and WHO regulations: The IHR, a WHO-facilitated treaty, grants authority to set health regulations, but its failure to enforce on diagnostic tests, cause of death reporting, and product purity has been criticized. Negotiations for a pathogen access and benefit sharing system aim for fair compensation, but lack of transparency raises concerns.
The ongoing debate surrounding the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Health Regulations (IHR) involves complex issues such as treaty interpretations, regulatory oversight, and access to genetic information. The speaker shared their experience of discovering an updated version of the amendments to the IHR, which revealed changes in the language regarding human rights and cross-out clauses. However, their efforts to disseminate this information were met with indifference. The IHR, an agreement among nations facilitated by the WHO, grants the organization authority to set standards and regulations for various health-related areas. The WHO's failure to enforce regulations on diagnostic tests, cause of death reporting, and the purity of pharmaceutical and biological products has been a source of criticism. Additionally, negotiations surrounding the IHR include discussions on a pathogen access and benefit sharing system, which aims to ensure that nations are fairly compensated for providing genetic sequence information. The treaty signing ceremony for this system took place at the World Intellectual Property Organization before the World Health Assembly met, raising questions about transparency and effective communication within these international organizations.
International Health Regulations negotiations: Countries discussed and adopted amendments to the IHR, focusing on funding, coordination, and collaboration to prevent and respond to global health threats, while a new WHO treaty is being negotiated for financing and distribution of pharmaceutical products during health emergencies.
During the World Health Assembly, 195 countries discussed and adopted amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). The negotiations were challenging, but they managed to reach an agreement. The primary goal of the IHR regulations is to ensure countries work together to prevent and respond to global health threats. Meanwhile, a new WHO treaty is still being negotiated, focusing on creating a financing coordination mechanism for pharmaceutical products and a global distribution network for health emergencies. This treaty is not about mandates or jabs but a significant financial and trade agreement. The key takeaway is that these international health discussions are about funding, coordination, and collaboration to address global health crises.
IHR and national sovereignty: The IHR under the WHO allows nations to protect their sovereignty by implementing health measures on travelers, but critics argue it infringes on travelers' rights and potential conflicts of interest exist due to external funding
The International Health Regulations (IHR) under the World Health Organization (WHO) have been a subject of controversy regarding national sovereignty, digital and vaccine passports, and potential corruption. The IHR, which dates back to 2005, allows nations to implement medical examinations, vaccinations, isolation, or quarantine on travelers entering their country. However, it is not an attack on national sovereignty but rather an expression of it that can infringe on travelers' rights to bodily autonomy and freedom of travel. The WHO and UN have been criticized for being heavily funded by external organizations, foundations, and individuals, leading to potential conflicts of interest and perverse incentives. The confusion surrounding the WHO Treaty and the IHR has fueled misinformation, with some claims of a one-world government agenda being debunked. The focus should be on the practical implications of these regulations, such as the validity and effectiveness of tests and vaccines, rather than conspiracy theories.
WHO and Big Pharma: The WHO has prioritized the interests of big pharma over public health, leading to the expansion of the pharmaceutical industry and the distribution of drugs, tests, and vaccines, rather than addressing the root causes of health issues.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has been primarily driven by the interests of big pharma, rather than public health. The WHO has facilitated the expansion of the pharmaceutical industry worldwide, pushing for restrictions, lockdowns, and the distribution of drugs, tests, and vaccines. This approach, according to the speaker, did not address the root cause of health issues and instead harmed many people. The African nations, which did better without these interventions, are now being exported pharmaceutical products. The negotiations for the financing mechanism within the WHO aim to facilitate the flow of money from various sources to the organization, benefiting those who build out the infrastructure in these nations. The WHO, described as a country club for countries, requires surprisingly small dues from members, making it an attractive investment for nations seeking influence and financial gains. The implementation of the new regulations is more about financing the industry sector than improving health. The speaker encourages reading the adopted articles, particularly articles 1344, 44 BIS, and 54 BIS, for further insight.
WHO IP negotiations: The WHO IP negotiations have prioritized funding and contracts for nations and organizations over the health and wellbeing of the global population, leading to a lack of transparency and accountability.
The negotiations surrounding the World Health Organization (WHO) Intellectual Property (IP) regulations have been more about securing funding and contracts for various nations and organizations, rather than prioritizing the health and wellbeing of the global population. The discussions, as highlighted in Article 44 BIS, have been primarily focused on financing for big pharma and manufacturing health technologies, rather than providing access to essential vitamins, minerals, or natural remedies. The WHO's role in these negotiations has led to a "gravy train" situation, where countries and organizations stay involved to secure their piece of the pie, often at the expense of the people they represent. The lack of transparency and accountability in the delegation process further exacerbates the issue. Ultimately, the WHO's actions raise questions about its true intentions and whether it is effectively serving the needs of the global population.
International health organizations corruption: Allegations of corruption, racketeering, deceit, and lack of transparency within international health organizations and pandemic response efforts raise concerns about prioritization of money and power over community health and well-being.
The discussion raises concerns about the prioritization of money and power over community health and well-being within international health organizations and pandemic response efforts. Allegations of corruption, racketeering, and deceit were made regarding the handling of funds, the manufacture and distribution of pandemic-related products, and the role of certain foundations and organizations. The use of symbols like the caduceus, which has historical ties to Satan worship, was criticized as a means of confusing and deceiving the public. The proposed international pandemic prevention treaty was also criticized for its lack of transparency and potential for wealth transfer from wealthy nations to pharmaceutical industries. The speaker encouraged listeners to question the intentions and motivations behind health initiatives and to be aware of the potential for deceit and manipulation.
COVID-19 pandemic transparency: Individuals must investigate information directly and question sources due to potential conflicts of interest in global organizations' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent responses from global organizations like the WHO have raised concerns about transparency and potential conflicts of interest. A man who spent decades in the natural health industry and became an advocate for alternative COVID-19 treatments discovered fraudulent actions regarding pandemic treaty amendments. He uncovered that the United States and other powerful nations were pushing for changes that could limit sovereignty and potentially benefit big pharmaceutical companies. This situation highlights the importance of individuals investigating information directly and questioning the sources of information they receive.
Wealth extraction in public health discussions: The ongoing pandemic conversation involves not only health and sovereignty issues but also wealth theft and extraction for the benefit of big pharma and involved parties. It's crucial to look beyond the surface and consider underlying motivations.
Learning from our conversation with James Rogoski is that the ongoing pandemic discussion is not just about health and sovereignty, but also about wealth theft and extraction for the benefit of big pharma and involved parties. It's essential to look beyond the surface and consider the underlying motivations. As for personal advice, Rogoski emphasized following one's heart and passions. He encouraged listeners to seize opportunities that ignite passion and not let fear or doubt hold them back. Rogoski's phone number, 310-619-3055, was shared for those interested in connecting further. In essence, this conversation highlighted the importance of questioning the true intentions behind public health discussions and embracing personal passions to live a fulfilling life.