James Roguski: The WHO’s Upcoming Power Grab

Speaking at the World Council for Health General Assembly Meeting on April 11, James Roguski gave an excellent presentation about the WHO’s upcoming power grab through an international pandemic treaty.

Who is James Roguski?

James Roguski is an author, researcher, activist, and natural health advocate. He specializes in researching highly complex issues and translating data into simple language that is easily understood to facilitate action.

This is an edited segment from the weekly live General Assembly meeting on April 11, 2022. This presentation is also available on Rumble and on Odysee. The full General Assembly Meeting is available in the Newsroom.

A transcript of this presentation can be found below.

Here’s what WCH members, staff, & coalition partners are saying about James Roguski’s presentation:

“People’s Treaty is a great idea…” – Christof Plothe DO

“Thanks James for standing up to the WHO overreach! Hope you get called in the hearing!!!” – Interest Of Justice

“Thank you James Great to have your voice out there…” – Christof Plothe DO

[00:00:00] [00:00:30] Dr. Mark Trozzi: It’s interesting, we have a perfect followup to Jonathan’s presentation which comes from another American partner of this big family, James Roguski. [00:00:42] I have a little more details for James, just from my own organization and we’ve had the chance to have him join us in the Law and Activism Committee, but James is an author, researcher, an activist and natural health advocate. His specialty is in researching highly complex issue and translating enormous amounts of data and simple language that is easy to understand, and he will be speaking to us on something that should grasp all of our attention, including – we’ll talk later about – there’s an action that a lot of us hopefully will take in the next 48 hours, but he’s going to speak to us about the WHO’s upcoming power grab and what they’re doing right now to establish it. James we are so grateful here.. [00:01:23] James Roguski: So everyone is fine, everyone can hear me and hopefully you can see me sharing my screen. [00:01:27] I actually prefer the Socratic method and it seems like people here are full of questions and that’s going to make me really happy. So what I’m going to try to do is really go quickly through this slide presentation. [00:01:38] I made it available online. So, people can look at it at their leisure. I put a couple of links in the chat. The first thing I want to do is compartmentalize people’s thinking because it’s all jumbled up, there’s so much information. There’s two categories that I’m gonna talk about. [00:01:55] One is amendments to the international health regulations and the other is the proposed pandemic treaty. And, uh, going back to the first one, the amendments to the IHR, these were submitted by the US in January, they may be voted on in May and they could be enforced in November. And we’ll get into a little bit of the details with that. [00:02:16] The pandemic treaty is much more vague. That could go on forever. That’s quite a discussion for many, many groups. This is the call to action that, Dr. Trozzi was mentioning. The WHO opened up a time period for public comment, started on Thursday afternoon and it’s ending on Wednesday, Geneva time, 5:00 PM. [00:02:38] So not much time. And I appreciate everybody’s attention to this so that we can actually get some input. So this slide is probably too small to see it, and I’m going to expand it shortly, but there’s a crisis reaction and an opportunity. So, you know, I’m normally the calm, cool collected person who doesn’t get flustered and I’m certainly not flustered. I’m not flustered by the fact that I see a typo in my own slide, but how do you react to it? And, you know, it’s a crisis, so it’s actually an opportunity. So, what is the crisis? I already mentioned it and this is a little bit jumbled up, so, you know, try to compartmentalize when I talk about the amendments or the treaty. [00:03:20] On December 1st, the World Health Assembly had a special meeting and they approved an inter-governmental negotiating body to negotiate a treaty. Intermingled with that, there was an action taken by the U S on January 18th to submit proposed amendments to the international health regulations, which kind of jumped to the head of the line because those could be approved at the May session. But then they jumped another thing to the head of the line last Thursday, when they set up this possibility of giving public comment. [00:03:54] And so now that’s why that’s in red, you know, that’s happening as we speak right now. And we’re hoping that people take action on it, we’ll get into the details of that later. And then coming down the road in a more long-term, they’re going to draft and try to approve a pandemic treaty. So what kind of reaction might we have to the action of the WHO? Do we fight? Do we flee? Do we freeze or do we get focused? If anybody knows how to get off the planet, let me know, I’m tending to want to do that right now, but you know, we’re gonna have to fight this. Most people freeze, you know, inertia just keeps people stuck and you know, a lot of people go, oh, what can you do, there’s nothing you can do and that’s the easy path, you know, just sit there and take it. I’m trying to get people focused and you folks have been wonderfully helpful in doing that. Most people don’t even know that this is happening and you know, this crowd here thankfully has opened up their mind and you know, you are very, very much aware of it. [00:04:46] My initial response was to say, well, I don’t like what they’re doing and I don’t ever complain unless I offer an answer to what I think is a problem. And rather than just complain, I crafted ThePeoplesTreaty.com, that’s a whole discussion in and of itself, that is just a statement of 10 articles that if somebody was going to be composing a treaty, I would insist that they secure and make sure that our rights are defended. [00:05:16] The opportunity. And this is something that I would love to, you know, have many discussions with the legal activism committee, a couple of weeks or so ago, there was a question posed to our new Supreme Court justice: ‘What is the definition of a woman?’ And I wish she had said to the Senator who asked that question, well Senator my job is to interpret the law and to my knowledge, you guys haven’t ever gotten around to writing such a law. So there is no legal definition of a woman and you know, a societal definition is one thing, but I work with the law. So when you guys get around to writing a law that defines a woman, I’ll be happy to let you know what my interpretation of that law is. [00:06:01] I’m here to point out that that is what is the current situation with words like safe and effective and vaccine. You know, what is a ‘case’? You know, many doctors are on this line, you know, a ‘case’ is not just you got a positive PCR test, that’s a fallacy. ‘ Ill person’ is an unusual phrase and I picked it out because that’s actually a word that is defined in US regulations. [00:06:26] And it literally includes a person who is warm to the touch, has a headache and a stiff neck. That’s part of the definition of an ‘ill person’ who could be quarantined. I kid you not. There is no definition of an ‘infectious person’ who maybe should be quarantined. There is no definition for a pandemic and there certainly isn’t a legal definition that I’ve been able to find when somebody’s died because of a disease, rather than just having a positive PCR test. So the path forward, the WHO has actually given us some interesting clues. The IHRs are very powerful, they went to amend them. Well, I want to amend them too, but not the same way. [00:07:08] As an organization, such as the World Council for Health, the World Council for Health is not going to negotiate an international treaty that’s going to be legally binding, but you could propose a detailed framework that a lot of groups would agree to. I put together the People’s Treaty to capture the narrative because the pandemic treaty is so vague. [00:07:32] I figured if I put something in people’s hands and had their brain engage first, it’s harder to extract an idea that’s already found a home. And there’s a lot of work ahead, you know, let’s not kid each other. Coming back to this, I just want to reiterate there’s two separate things going on here: Amendments to the IHR that were proposed by the US and the urgent thing that is, whatever time zone you’re in, this is 5:00 PM Geneva time on Wednesday. The link is on my site and we can certainly talk about how to get people’s comments in. I spoke with Jennifer earlier this morning. They don’t make it easy to make it a little bit complicated. [00:08:13] And with that, I’m much more excited about answering questions, so I’ll close it up there. [00:08:23] Karen McKenna: Okay. Here’s a question coming in from Chris and Brenda, what is the WHO pandemic treaty planning to do and what are the implications for everyone? [00:08:33] James Roguski: I could talk on that for days. There are gobs and gobs of reports and papers and videos and information. What is the WHO pandemic treaty? The WHO pandemic treaty is what the WHO says it’s going to be. And, to play conspiracy theorist I think they absolutely know what this treaty is and what it will be in what they’re shooting for. [00:08:55] But to come back down to reality, the things that I know are driving forces behind the treaty are really frightening to me. One of them is this demand or focus and quite frankly, it’s getting very close to a demand, for vaccine equity. Because poor countries around the world haven’t taken enough of the COVID vaccines because the rich nations in the world got two, three or four or five or six boosters already. [00:09:28] I have one of the pages with the first article that I wrote is just, it’s too big, but all of the information that anybody might ever want to look into as to what is being proposed to be included in the treaty is on my first article. And the point of this period of public comment, is for you and I and everyone else to tell the WHO what you would want to see in their pandemic treaty. [00:09:55] Karen McKenna: Yes. Thank you. The next question comes from Costa Rica. Is the peoples treaty intended to be ratified and how is it used in the end? [00:10:04] James Roguski: I can’t subscribe to their intent, but I would imagine if they’re talking about a treaty there is a process within the WHO and oh boy do I want to pick Jonathan’s brain at some point in the future, I found something that was phenomenally interesting to me. Back in 1948 when the United States and every country is different, but when the United States joined the WHO officially and Harry Truman signed off on it, the third page of that document had a little bit of a disclaimer and it said, you know, we agree to join the WHO, but that doesn’t mean that we have to change any United States law. [00:10:43] I mean, that’s literally what it says, and when we joined, we joined, but we said, Nope, you know, if we don’t want to change our laws, we’re not changing our laws. They have changed many laws to become into alignment. And one of the interesting ones that they did was the day before oh, and Jonathan spoke to this so very well feels like I want to talk to him about it, the day before Trump was inaugurated, the Obama administration published a big 84-page document, changing definitions and regulations regarding pandemics and quarantines and travel and all that sort of stuff. And the day before Trump came into office, all these changes were made and they incorporated the WHO’s definition of an emergency into the United States definition of an emergency. [00:11:34] And so it’s really voluntarily the US is, and again, Jonathan will do much better job at explaining the legal ramifications of this, they made a regulation that really shouldn’t be seen as a law. You know, it needs to really go a further process. Some of the discussions that need to be clarified by constitutional minds, such as Johnathan’s, are, we are signatory to the international health regulations that were passed in 2005 and it appears that an amendment to that would supersede US constitutional law. I don’t know if I specifically answered the question. [00:12:16] Karen McKenna: Is the people’s treaty intended to be ratified? [00:12:19] James Roguski: Did I totally did I totally misunderstand that question? The people’s treaty is my summary, personal summary, of the rights that we have. It’s meant to grab a hold of that narrative and say, if you all in the World Health Organization, want to pass a treaty, well, this had better darn well be in it. [00:12:42] And so I boiled it down and it’s on my page open letter to the WHO, so that I submitted an abbreviated version of The People’s Treaty as 10 articles that any treaty should include. I encourage people to consider doing the same thing by all means let the WHO know what you would like, you know, to be in the treaty, they’re asking for public input and the people’s treaty is my contribution to that input. [00:13:12] Karen McKenna: Yeah. And it’s brilliant. I think we’re really interested to have a closer look at it. There’s a question from Dr. Tess Lawrie saying can you please take us briefly through the People’s Treaty, just so that we spend a little time understanding it? [00:13:25] James Roguski: I haven’t had the opportunity to meet Tess Lawrie yet, but s he just made me very happy. [00:13:32] Alright. I hope you can see my screen being shared. The second article that I wrote is The People’s Treaty and a wonderful friend of mine who does a great graphics work, put it in this format, which is too small for everyone to see, but that’s the pretty version. And I’m going to scroll down past all of this, to where you get to know your rights and article number one: governments don’t get to suspend human rights just because of an emergency. They get certain powers, but they’re abusing that emergency power. The good of the nation is the sum total of the benefits enjoyed by all of its people claiming for the common good. Yes. I believe in the common good and cooperation, but that doesn’t get you to tread all over my rights. [00:14:19] The bureaucrats do not have the right to deny potentially life saving medications to anyone. The right to refuse treatment is just absolutely inalienable. My body, my choice get away from me. Don’t even think about it. Discrimination based on medical status is wrong, no vaccine passports and such. [00:14:39] I had a very interesting experience. Yesterday I’m going to digress a little bit and tell a personal story. I went to the Los Angeles Defeat the Mandates rally. We had a wonderful time yesterday. One of my friends had a six pointed yellow star sticker that said ‘not vaccinated’. And so I put it on my shirt and I went through the crowd doing activism in that I had little flyers that I passed out to inform people about their rights. [00:15:09] And I got quite a lot of positive comments. People wanted to take a photograph of my little sticker on my shirt. Proudly stating, you know, I’m not Vaxxed, you know, if that’s a problem to you, you know I’m one of the unclean in, you know, official view. But I was very pleasantly surprised. [00:15:31] People of Jewish faith came up to me, got up in my face, pointed at my six pointed star and said I am Jewish and I approve. And it was quite the experience. I’m sure that won’t happen all the time, but it really made my day. Article number six, lockdowns or quarantines of healthy people, that’s not part of the deal. If I’m contagious- however, that is not legally defined – if I’m contagious, I have a moral obligation to, you know, lock myself up and stay away from other people, I don’t want to infect anybody. But if I’m not sick, you cannot control me. I’m sorry. [00:16:09] Article number seven, we demand complete transparency. This is an idea that, I quite frankly, you know, as a data analyst the way studies should be run, is absolutely all of the data should be exposed publicly, not private information so that a data analyst could not just look at the conclusions to cherry pick the conclusions that get published, but actually look at the data in real time as the study is being done. That’s doable with today’s technology. It’s an abomination that it isn’t done. [00:16:43] Article 9: Everyone has the right to their own opinion. This is a little bit beyond medical, but you know, if I have an opinion about a healthcare, health treatment I have a right to say that I can be wrong and you can prove me wrong, but you can’t stop me from taking it. [00:16:57] Article 10: You can’t legislate away guilt. This liability protection is an obscenity. And this is a topic that I’ve delved deeply, deeply, deeply into. Yes, I want to have an emergency powers given to leaders who take charge and make things happen when we got a hurricane or earthquake or a pandemic or something, but We The People need to tell them when that emergency is over, in our opinion, that’s a much slower process and they just won’t ever let it go. Once you take over power, they don’t ever give it up. So Dr. Lawrie, thank you for letting me do that. [00:17:36] Dr. Tess Lawrie: Thank you very much, James. Really interesting. [00:17:40] James Roguski: Oh, you know, don’t get me started, shutting me up is the hard part. [00:17:43] Karen McKenna: We have so many questions for James. I’m just going to ask Mark how many more does he want to take, but I’m going to ask this question from Shabnam Palesa Mohamed. Did you receive a reply from the world health organization? Do you know how many people received a reply as the process begins tomorrow? [00:18:02] James Roguski: The process doesn’t begin tomorrow. I’m not sure of that. If the questioner could, uh, do a follow up to clarify. [00:18:10] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: So tomorrow the 12th and 13th is when they’re apparently setting up a video representation process. [00:18:17] James Roguski: Now I understand. I wanna start off with fact, and then I’ll give my personal opinion. My understanding of the facts are that there are two separate forms that people and organizations could fill out. I think Shabnam’s question is the first form, which is for requesting to be given two minutes to speak in their public forum, which is going to be kind of like we’re doing right now. And I put my name in to that as soon as I saw it and I did get an email reply back. So I hope that’s a direct answer to your question Shabnam. [00:18:54] Now it comes to my opinion. I’m not one of the organizations that’s currently doing business with the World Health Organization and I have no belief whatsoever that I will be chosen to give my two minutes, but I’ve got my two minutes already and raring to go. It’s the shortened version of The People’s Treaty that I just went into a little bit more detail with. It’s only 180 words and I could probably rip that off in two minutes, I’m ready to do that, but I know that they’re not going to pick me because I don’t donate to the WHO. The process that we can also do, which is a second form, which I also did and, you know, I’m not sure if I got a response from them, I have to check. I know I got a response to that. It was submitted the not 250 words as they claim, but you get to put in 1,250 characters. I was able to finally submit that and that’s what I’m encouraging everyone to do. The organizations that you all folks may be involved in, take a crack at, you know, putting in your application to speak for two minutes. Don’t hold your breath. [00:19:58] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: So some good news James, one of the organizations that is a partner with the World Council for Health has received a reply and will be participating and certainly does not contribute any funding to the world health organization. So we’re exceptionally proud and excited for this opportunity to stand up essentially health, freedom. [00:20:18] James Roguski: Wow. My efforts are worth it. Somebody gets to talk. That’s awesome. For the written information, they say will be archived and made public. So don’t just vent because terrible words may be public, but please do give them a piece of your mind. That’s awesome news. That’s wonderful to hear. [00:20:41] Karen McKenna: Thank you. Next question is from Dr. Christof Plothe. ‘Thank you for your brilliant publications on this issue. Despite all the disastrous decisions in the past, the image of the World Health Organization is still very clean. What would you use to scratch this image; corruption, lack of transparency, et cetera. Any thoughts on that? [00:21:02] James Roguski: I’m not a, mudslinger, there’s plenty of mud being slung. You do a quick search for corruption and WHO and take your pick. It’s more about what do we do and by we, I mean, the collected everybody here and everything that you’re associated with, what do we do to present a better way? [00:21:23] I don’t mean to steal your tagline, everyone at the World Council for Health, but I’ve adopted it. I’m not stealing it. I try to make it a point in my personal life, that when I see something that I don’t like, I don’t say a word until I have a solution to offer. You can reject the solution. You can reject The People’s Treaty, you can say, well, that’s the starting point, we can do this, or I want to do that, but to complain and not offer a concrete proposal is just being a complainer, to point out a problem and offer a solution is being an activist. And I hope that answers the question. [00:22:04] Karen McKenna: That’s excellent. Our next question comes from Jennifer Hibbert and I think I’m going to let her ask us the question itself, it’s regarding international health regulizations and the situation in the US. Jennifer, do you want to ask your question? I think you might make it more clear. [00:22:18] Jennifer: Sure. Hi James. I wonder if you’d like to share with everybody and speak about how the US has already submitted its amendments to the international health regulations in agreement with the WHO and what that means, because that was done in January, I believe. [00:22:34] James Roguski: Yes, and the first article that I posted in the chat is an open letter to the WHO, which is what we’ve been talking about, which is submitting your ideas for the pandemic treaty. [00:22:48] The second article that I posted in the chat is my fourth article, which is Wake Up and Smell the Burning of the Constitution. So the complete answer is, go to the fourth article on my sub stack. Here’s the summary of that. [00:23:05] The World Health Assembly will be meeting May 22nd to 28th. There’s a rule in the constitution of the WHO that, if you want to propose an amendment, you got to do it four months in advance. Well, they made it right in under the deadline, they did it on the 18th and then the WHO spread it to all of the member nations by the 20th. [00:23:24] So that’s two and a half, almost three months ago. I suspect that they’ve been, you know, wheeling and dealing in back rooms, you know, trying to get everybody to agree to pass it. I believe Dr. Kat corrected me and it appears I’m trusting that what I thought initially was wrong. It appears that a simple majority will approve the amendments. [00:23:47] What I don’t know is if there’s going to be any amending of the amendments, you know, it’s like, well, here’s the amendments that the US proposed. And there’s no like line item veto kind of thing. It’s like take it or leave it and that sounds like something the United States would do. [00:24:06] Okay. You know, here’s what we want, give it to us or you’re going to have trouble. And so everybody gives it to them. And the process is in the darkness. Nobody knows about this. I’m sure I wasn’t supposed to find out about it and we’re not supposed to be talking about it. It was supposed to just pop up at the assembly, get passed through and afterwards every country has a right of refusal. And so that might be a tactic, you know, maybe there’s 40 countries that vote against it or a hundred countries or 80 countries that vote against it, something like that. Maybe we could encourage people to argue within their countries that, yeah, it’s great that they passed the amendment, but there appears to be a right of re opting out. [00:24:51] I hope I answered the question, Jennifer I’ll certainly go more… [00:24:54] Jennifer: Yeah. And just kind of an extension of that, did you find any information about what was in the amendment that they sent in? [00:25:03] James Roguski: Well, that’s what the entire article Wake Up and Smell the Burning… you know, I didn’t actually talk about any of the details of it. I’ll touch on, maybe that’s what you meant. Thank you. [00:25:10] Jennifer: Yeah. Yeah. That’s what I wanted you to share with everybody is just touch on some of the details because the way it’s presented so far, it sounds like, people don’t know what the amendments are, maybe it’s too organized, but I think it’s kind of controversial, so why don’t you share that? [00:25:25] James Roguski: Sure. Wake Up and Smell the Burning of Our Constitution ought to give you a clue. If these supersede us law they would be setting up, you know, more surveillance of pathogens. One of the big ones I believe is the, WHO would have the power to declare that there is an emergency within a country, overriding that country’s objections. And I think that this is actually crafted. This is my opinion. It’s not found in fact anywhere, this was presented in January and I think it’s anti-China. Well, there was something going on in China and the, WHO had to negotiate with the Chinese officials to be able to share this information with all the other countries. [00:26:13] And boy, careful what you ask for United States, cause that could come back to bite you, because this was all submitted before the awareness of all of the biological laboratories in the Ukraine and around the world and so forth. And so one of the things that they want to add, the amendments would add on top of what I just said, is they want to give their regional directors, which are just bureaucrats in the World Health Organization, the right to declare a regional emergency. [00:26:45] And if you look at how their regions are structured you know, with air flights, going all around the world, you know, viruses and pathogens, don’t obey geographical areas. It seems like giving that power, if somebody that we know is making a big problem in one country and the WHO wanted to crack down on that country, they could declare a pandemic in a different country in that region. [00:27:16] And that whole region now is in an emergency state and they also added an intermediate emergency declaration, which is just like, you know, panic all the time, panic people, panic, panic, panic. They also shortened the length of time with which countries have to enact the legislation to put these amendments into force from 18 months to six months. [00:27:39] And they also put in something that is part of just recommendations that they can send experts in, you know, expert teams. And there’s all kinds of movies about those kinds of invasions, where the pandemic squad comes in and takes over. Too many details to go into everyone here is smart and wise enough to read all of the details and I would welcome, you know, intelligent discussion about why do these seemingly innocuous words actually scare the crap out of me. If you choose to interpret it in a nefarious way. [00:28:12] Karen McKenna: Thanks James. There’s one more question, but I think we’re running short on time. So I’m going to put that question in the chat. If you could answer the chat, that would be great. [00:28:20] Dr. Mark Trozzi: James, thank you so much. You know, a lot of us scientists and medical types were not that interested in paperwork and legal matters until recently, but it’s certainly gotten our attention now and James, thank you so much for bringing it to our attention. We know in 2009, when they came up with their own magic version of the word pandemic, unlike the real word, it allowed the creation of the state that we’ve all been through in the last year, so their backroom deals are extremely concerning and dangerous for us. [00:28:51] I don’t know where we’d be if you hadn’t sounded the alarm on this, because there’s so much going on that I know myself, I was overlooking this until you brought it to our attention. And in a bit of a last minute scramble some of our partners around the world are putting together a site for people to upload their written submissions and recordings of what they want to say, because we’re quite confident based on decades of history, that this public input with the WHO is to create a veneer to create appearance of public involvement, so they can tell us later that we asked for whatever it is they deliver. So everyone, we both encourage you to participate and to use the link that James shared. We’ll share them again in the chat too, at this point, the submissions to speak in their deliberation have closed as of some hours ago. But it’s til Wednesday, so tomorrow’s a good day if not today. But please hang on to that because we will be getting out to you information so you can upload this to a place where we will really create a public record of what the people of the world really think and what we really do or do not want in this regard. [00:29:55]