Unlock the secrets of global health governance that could reshape your basic rights and freedoms as James Roguski returns to the Medical Truth podcast, exposing the shadowy underbelly of healthcare regulations. Prepare to have your eyes opened to the World Health Organization's proposed changes that could grant unprecedented power to the Director-General, catapulting us into an era where fear could dictate governance and manipulate the masses. James Roguski expertise sheds light on the concerning ambiguity of these proposals and the potential they hold for global health dictatorship.
For Current and Previous Podcast Episodes, Show Notes, and Videos go to www.MedicalTruthPodcast.com
You can also find the Medical Truth Podcast on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Rumble, and Substack, as well as all the major podcast platforms such as Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, Amazon Music, iHeart, and Podchaser
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Intro (00:01):
Get ready to hear the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth about theUnited States healthcare system
With your host of the MedicalTruth podcast, James Egidio Hi.
James Egidio (00:16):
I'm James Egidio with the Medical Truth podcast.
Welcome to my guest, who I'vehad on several times.
I consider an expert on thistopic the World Health
Organization.
To further do to update thelisteners and viewers of the
Medical Truth podcast, I'd liketo introduce my guest, a regular
, james Rikusky, on the who andwhat's going on.
(00:41):
James, welcome, thanks forhaving me, james, I appreciate
it.
James Roguski (00:44):
My special magic, amazing superpower is that I
actually read their documentsand sometimes I feel like I'm
the only one in the theaterwatching their theatrical
production that they put on.
But it's actually quiteinteresting and intriguing and
hopefully I'll be able to bringsome accurate reporting to your
audience?
James Egidio (01:05):
Absolutely, yep, absolutely.
So recently, there was somedecisions that were made that
you can update the viewers andlisteners of the Medical Truth
podcast on.
And what was that?
James Roguski (01:15):
They've been having meetings and maybe to
give a little tiny bit ofbackground and we can certainly
dive into what you have up onthe screen there I was poking
around looking for an earlyversion of the other document
which most people talk about asthe pandemic treaty, because in
their meetings even though theydidn't put it anywhere in
(01:38):
writing they said that by March8th they were going to present
quietly amongst the inner circleof which I'm not one a new
version of the treaty.
And so I was looking for that,and, lo and behold, I stumbled
upon the Holy Grail in terms ofwhat I've been looking for,
(02:00):
which was the negotiating textfor the amendments to the
international health regulations.
Now that's it's not top secret,but it's pretty darn close.
I've put in FOIA requests and Igot an answer back from the
State Department.
They had me as number 2731 ontheir list and they might be
(02:24):
able to get to it nine monthsfrom now.
Right, that's a little bit toolate, considering that May 27th
is when the World HealthAssembly begins.
And so I found on one of theorganizations that is obviously
in the inner circle.
They got the document and theyput it up on their website.
I didn't hack anything, or itwasn't a whistleblower situation
(02:48):
or anything like that.
I just happened to hit a searchstring looking for the treaty
and I ended up on their webpage,downloaded the negotiating text
of the amendments andpublicized it, and now they've
taken it off of their website.
You can still get it onarchiveorg.
(03:09):
It's not a complete document.
There are 10 articles that arestill being negotiated, some of
the very important ones thatthey left for last because
they're having greatdisagreement.
But if you want to pop up that,that's really the summary.
I have a good friend thathelped me out.
We bounced this whole thingback and forth for two or three
(03:33):
days.
We literally read through the60 page document and I came out
with 10 issues that I think arevitally important, and so number
one on the list.
The director general of theWorld Health Organization,
tedros Gubrasius, already hasthe authority to just declare a
(03:56):
public health emergency ofinternational concern pretty
much any time he wants.
There really isn't anyrestriction, other than if you
cry wolf too many times,nobody's ever going to believe
you, and so what they want toadd to that and this really came
from the United States all theway back in 2022.
(04:18):
This was part of the very firstdocuments that I found.
They want to give him also theability to declare an early
action alert as well as, on theother end of the spectrum, not a
pandemic, but a pandemicemergency.
Now they have definitions forthese things, but they're really
so vague that, again, it'spretty much if he wants to say
(04:43):
that an early action alert isneeded, he can say so.
Now, that's not necessarilygoing to have any legally
binding impact on anyone in anycountry.
It's all part of the fearmongering quite frankly,
terrorist activity of trying tokeep people afraid all the time.
(05:05):
Their talk of disease X being20 times more deadly than COVID
is nothing other than propagandaand terrorism.
So one of their executivedirectors in this program, mike
Ryan, said in a recentdiscussion that they received
(05:27):
37,000 reports from the nationsaround the world in 2023 that
something was going on.
There was some kind of anoutbreak or an increase in this,
that or the other disease, andall of the nations are obligated
to report that to the WHO.
Arguably, they could have37,000 early action alerts and
(05:52):
bring in Bill Gates' germ teamto go do whatever local
compliant officials would bewilling to do to try to deal
with whatever kind of problemthey say they have, and so
there's no checks or balance onthe Director General's ability
to fear monger and they've doneit very well.
(06:15):
That doesn't mean nations orstates or counties or cities are
obligated to do anything, butI've often called the WHO the
World Hypnosis Organization Ifthey say, oh, you got a problem,
you should do this, you shoulddo that, you should do the other
thing.
Many compliant officials usethat as an excuse, and one of
(06:40):
the things that I uncovered acouple of years ago does the
date January 19, 2017, didn'tmean anything to you, because
what I found was that the CDCpublished in the Federal
Register a change in adefinition, amongst many other
things all having to do withquarantines and lockdowns and
(07:03):
travel and all that sort ofstuff, and they redefined the
criteria by which our Secretaryof State, who's currently Javier
Bacera, would be able todeclare, from the Health and
Human Services Department, apublic health emergency, and so
one of the criteria is not, oh,people are sick and dying, or
(07:26):
any such thing.
It's tied to the DirectorGeneral's declaration of a
public health emergency ofinternational concern PHEIC,
fake.
So if the Director General ofthe WHO declares a fake, our
Secretary of Health and HumanServices could declare a public
(07:49):
health emergency in the UnitedStates based solely on he said
so.
So I get to say so too, andthere's no way to turn that off.
So it's not an obligation, it'san opportunity to use
regulatory cover to say theSecretary of Health and Human
Services says there's anemergency that kicks in all
(08:11):
kinds of money and differentrules and regulations apply, and
people are oftenmisunderstanding and
misrepresenting this.
This just means that it opensthe door to more fear-mongering.
Yeah, yeah, now there's ninemore things.
I'll run through them.
James Egidio (08:29):
There are, but before you go any further than
that, something interesting youbrought up, I believe, in our
second interview, which was thatthis whole speculation or about
depopulation, with Bill Gatesparroting that a lot, but you
said something reallyinteresting.
I think, like you said in oursecond interview, where you
mentioned, that this is alsocreating a lot of patients,
(08:55):
future patients, and one inparticular are the turbo cancers
and the development of a lot ofdrugs cancer drugs on the
market now that they're rollingout, and also biometrics, a lot
of the technology with vaccinepassports and digital currency.
So I think that what we'relooking at is it's a
(09:18):
multi-layered cash cow for theglobalist.
So I think they're using andyou may correct me on this the
World Health Organization as anarm to.
What do you say?
Create this panic?
What's your take on that?
If?
James Roguski (09:34):
we have time to talk about the other document,
the treaty.
We'll get deep down into it.
I'll express my own personalviewpoint People who are
anti-vax have an awful lot tolearn.
I'm anti-pharma.
If you think swallowing poisonor injecting poison into your
body is a good idea to improveyour health, wow, have you got a
(09:54):
lot to learn.
And so what they're trying todo primarily in the other
document it's mentioned here alittle bit is control that
market sector.
It's a money game.
And let's get to where we talkabout the treaty.
I don't want to keep these twothings separate.
This that we're talking abouthere are the proposed amendments
(10:17):
to the international healthregulations.
So we talked about the DirectorGeneral being able to declare
either an early action alert, afake or a pandemic emergency.
That's just a declaration andthe media gets ahold of.
That fires up everybody, peoplein other nations, all the way
(10:38):
down to the state, county, city,local level.
They didn't need meaning all ofthe local officials over the
last four years.
They did not need anyamendments to the International
Health Regulations or any newtreaty to abuse everyone's
rights and freedoms.
(10:58):
So this isn't really going tochange how your local tyrant
attempts to overstep theirauthority to abuse you.
This is just going to give themmore excuses to do so.
Oh, tetra said it's a earlyaction alert.
It's reminiscent of with theterrorism watch, where they had
(11:20):
you watch the news and it wasred and orange and yellow the
terror alert level.
The same kind of idea.
Just keep that constant stateof oh my god, what's going on
now?
Yeah, the boogie man.
What's really concerning inthese proposed amendments is
that they mentioned quarantinein four separate places, two
(11:42):
different articles and twoannexes of the International
Health Regulations, and so Ithink it would be helpful to
just explain that theInternational Health Regulations
have a purpose, and the idea isto facilitate and encourage
nations to not try to hide ahealth problem that might be
(12:04):
going on in their nation.
The purpose of the IHR is toencourage nations to report as
soon as they have a problem, totell the WHO, to tell the world,
and the point is that the othernations are not supposed to put
down travel restrictions.
But that didn't work at all.
(12:25):
As soon as somebody said, oh,something's going on in China,
something's going on in SouthAfrica, boom, the travel
restrictions hit, and so forthat concept, the International
Health Regulations from 2005quite frankly failed miserably.
The nations did whatever theheck they wanted to do.
What they're looking at addingis they want infrastructure to
(12:50):
be built, ports of entry.
Now this is so crazy.
We're in the United States andyou look at the southern border
and what they're talking abouthere is for people who come in
legitimately through a port,like on a cruise boat or
airports or any other what theycall conveyances.
The language they use in hereis that all conveyance operators
(13:13):
would have to produce paperworkthat would make it clear that
no one on board is sick.
So imagine coming into port ona cruise line and maybe you've
got to take a rapid antigen test, spit test and show that you're
not contagious, or boom, you'rein quarantine.
Now here's the problem.
(13:35):
That's something that a lot ofpeople will actually support.
Oh, we don't want those dirtyforeigners coming in.
Okay, you got to think itthrough.
You're the dirty foreigner whenyou go traveling.
James Egidio (13:49):
Right.
James Roguski (13:50):
And so when you want to go to Europe or Asia or
wherever it may be, if you haveto take a test that, quite
frankly, you've got asymptomaticdisease.
What the heck is that your lifecan be turned upside down if,
by requiring you to have somekind of a test and they use the
terminology, whether you'reembarking on the trip or
(14:13):
disembarking you want to get offthe boat, you might go straight
into quarantine or yourvacation is totally messed up.
Now they also want to haveadditional paperwork.
Number three, and one of thescariest parts of it, is the WHO
would be in charge.
If a vaccine and I use thatterm loosely was not approved by
(14:33):
the devil, eitherpre-authorized or pre-approved
or emergency use authorization,then it would be considered not
valid.
They make a hundred thousanddollars to give emergency use
authorization to a vaccine.
We'll talk about a money makingprogram, and so that would
(14:55):
determine whether or not you'vegot the proper travel paperwork,
you've got the right injections, and so that is the problem
that I've been worried aboutwith these international health
regulations from the get-go,because this is an old-school
version, right?
This is what they currently use, and if you see the form and if
(15:15):
the lighting is good enough.
You can see the form there.
That is in annex six of theinternational health regulations
.
The nations have agreed for onlyone vaccine yellow fever.
Certain nations may require it.
They want to dramaticallyexpand that and this is what we
need to push back on now.
(15:35):
That's not saying that locallythis is going to be applicable.
This is for internationaltravel, and a good example is
Novak Jojkovic, the tennisplayer.
Months ago, when the UnitedStates was still requiring
vaccine certification to enterthe country, he was not allowed
(15:58):
in to play in a tennistournament and then ultimately,
months later, they changed therules and then he could come in.
United States citizens couldcome and go, jabbed or not,
because our constitutionprotects us, but each nation's
constitution allows them toabuse foreigners, and so he was
(16:20):
not allowed to come in.
I knew people who were marriedand one was a citizen and one
wasn't, and the married theperson who had US citizenship
could come and go, but theirspouse, who did not have
citizenship, could not travelwith him.
That doesn't make any sense.
You're a citizen, so there'sdifferent rules, but this is
(16:40):
what they're playing on.
It's a really sneaky trickwhere, if each nation could
restrict the travel of everyother nation's citizens.
They get away with saying we'renot violating our constitution
because we're not doing it toour people.
We're just encouraging everyother nation on the planet to
(17:02):
abuse our citizens freedoms Neattrick.
And this is why everybody hasto push back on this.
Even exiting the WHO isn't agood enough example or solution,
because even if we exit the WHO, if all of the other nations
participate in this scheme,we're trapped.
(17:23):
Now it's not a bad place to betrapped in the United States,
but this is what they're tryingto implement and we just.
This is unacceptable.
Period Now moving down to 6, 7,8, 9, and 10,.
Surveillance doesn't necessarilymean what you might think.
It means Surveillance.
Yeah, it's cameras and audioequipment and GPS in your phone
(17:47):
and all the other ways that theyspy on you and such.
But what they're really talkingabout is what they call one
health surveillance, which islooking for pathogens everywhere
you could possibly imagine, andso they want to find pathogens
with pandemic potential, becauseit triggers the whole
(18:08):
fear-mongering, turn that intoproducts, turn that into jabs,
turn that into money.
So they want to be lookingeverywhere they possibly can.
The pathogens with pandemicpotential and the proliferation
of them.
We'll talk about more in thenext document.
Hopefully you can dig up thesecond document as well.
(18:29):
Number eight is something thatprobably, until I started
getting into this a couple ofyears ago, I had no idea that in
2005, when they amended theregulations back then, every
nation was obligated to createwhat they call a national IHR
focal point, and that's anoffice in our Health and Human
(18:51):
Services Department that'sobligated to report if there's
ever any kind of an outbreak orincrease in disease or death
rates or unusual ailments orwhatever, 24-7,.
They're supposed to be incommunication with the WHO.
I can almost accept that, yes,as a good member of the
(19:11):
international community.
If each nation has some kind ofproblem going on, the
transparent nature of as soon asyou tell the WHO if it's a big
problem, they tell everybody.
Okay, fine.
But now Russia, of all nations,submitted an amendment way back
in September of 2022 to, inaddition to the focal point,
(19:32):
have it be a national IHRauthority, and it would be
required to have legislationpassed to give that office in
our government legal authorityto implement whatever might need
to be done to align with thenew amendments to the
regulations.
Now that most likely would besomething like TSA If they're
(19:57):
cracking down at the border withquarantine for people who don't
test properly.
Where they would put thisoffice remains to be seen, but
it would require a newbureaucracy in each nation to
implement all of the stuff thatwe're talking about here.
And then there's problems withthe disclosure of personal data
(20:18):
and they have a couple of linesin the annexes about miss and
disinformation, but basicallythey're kicking it to the
individual countries for eachcountry to do whatever they
decide to do to stifle honestdiscussion of all of these
(20:38):
problems.
James Egidio (20:39):
Yeah, yeah, it sounds like they're looking to
set up almost like a homelandsecurity for health oversight.
James Roguski (20:45):
I wouldn't be surprised if such an office
ended up in Homeland Security,but if I had to guess, I would
say the transportation safetyadministration.
I think that's what TSA standsfor.
Whether or not any of thishappens remains to be seen,
because there's greatdisagreement about 10 articles
(21:07):
that, quite frankly, they havebeen not talking about, which
many of the nations are veryunhappy with that.
We're not in this negotiatingtext document.
The nations in Africa and inBangladesh and elsewhere put
forth a proposal which, if youhave, do you have handy access
(21:31):
to the other top 10?
I don't, James.
We'll get everybody to go there.
If you just simply go toexitthewhoorg and scroll down
the page on exitthewhoorg, youshould be able to find the top
10 reasons why we should pushback on the treaty.
James Egidio (21:49):
Yeah, and I'll post that on the website as well
.
Wonderful yeah, and on Substack.
James Roguski (21:54):
This particular document that we're talking
about here all of the proposedamendments has been super secret
for well over a year, and somany of the things that people
have talked about are not inthis negotiating draft.
It remains to be seen, becausethey have one more week worth of
(22:16):
meetings in April 22nd to the26th.
The problem is they weresupposed to present a finished
version by January 27th and theyfailed miserably well past
almost two months past thedeadline.
What they appear to want to doand I've been reporting on this
since October is just keepnegotiating right up to the last
(22:38):
minute, drop it on the tableand expect it to be okay that
they violated their own rulesand didn't give the world four
months notice on what it isthey're going to be considering
in.
James Egidio (22:50):
May.
Let me ask you a question aboutthat though.
Do you think, in yourprofessional opinion, that
perhaps with an upcomingpresidential election here in
the United States, that there'ssome hesitancy in dragging their
feet just to see what's goingto happen and how things are
going to unfold?
James Roguski (23:08):
It's going to work to their disadvantage,
actually, because in thisparticular case, with the
amendments to the regulations,the way it works is, if they
were to adopt it, it would notgo into effect immediately, but
it would become in our awareness.
(23:29):
It's already in my awareness,but if they adopt it and it's in
concrete and we can see what itis, the period of time that
each nation has to reject itwould span into the next
administration.
So whoever may be president onoh you know what, I didn't
(23:53):
finish the punchline on myprevious story.
When the CDC changed how youconnect the WHO declaring a fake
and the health secretary usingthat to declare public health
emergency.
That was put into the record onJanuary 19, 2017, which was the
(24:14):
last full day of the Obamaadministration.
They changed the rules the daybefore Trump was inaugurated, go
figure.
And so payback being what it is, whoever may be the president
starting January 20, 2025, willhave the opportunity to just
write a letter to the WHO andreject these amendments.
(24:36):
If they do go through, my hopeis that they continue to argue
amongst themselves all the manydifferent nations, and this just
crumbles before the May 27thmeeting, but then again, I'm an
optimist, so we'll see whathappens.
James Egidio (24:52):
Yeah, something recently just was released with
Melania, the prime minister ofItaly, where she had funded or
was going to fund the WorldEconomic Forum or actually the
WHO, with this decision fromItaly's standpoint, and it was
released the article in thenewspaper in Italy and my wife's
(25:15):
from Italy and she referencedthat and it didn't match up the
article in the Italian newspaperas opposed to what was reported
on Substack.
James Roguski (25:27):
What gets reported and what is real often
doesn't add up.
Send me that information.
I've got some friends in Italy.
I'll see what I can find outabout that.
I haven't had a chance to readthat so I can't really tell you.
But, what's really going on?
I don't know.
Are you able to pull upexitthewhoorg?
Can we take a gander at theother document?
James Egidio (25:47):
I don't have that on here for some reason, I don't
know.
Why Do you have it on your end?
James Roguski (25:53):
You just go on a different window to
exitthewhoorg, you should beable to scroll down and pop up
the document.
If you don't, that's fine, wecan just talk about it, go ahead
.
And so what we've been talkingabout are amendments to an
existing agreement, whichthere's many problems with what
is in the international healthregulations.
(26:13):
But the really biggest problemcurrently is that more than a
year ago, an enormous document197 pages with over 300
amendments was made public.
Many people have spoken aboutit, but a month and a half later
, more than a year ago, onFebruary 6th, international
(26:35):
Health Regulations ReviewCommittee published a report and
basically said that a lot ofthe amendments were going to be
very problematic given the WHOConstitution.
Now I was pleasantly surpriseda little bit shocking that I
agreed with a lot of the thingsthat were in that Review
(26:58):
Committee report, but they'vekept it all secret until I found
this document a little whileago, and so what is in the
document is substantiallydifferent than what we've been
allowed to see, and that isreally the problem.
They were obligated by Article55 to give us a final copy that
(27:20):
we would have four months toreview.
We've almost gone two monthspast that and they don't have
any intention of showing us thefinal copy anytime soon,
probably won't see it untilApril or May.
That's just wrong.
That's just in violation oftheir own rules.
By rights they should have towait until 2025 to push any of
(27:44):
this through.
And if they try to shove thisthrough, man, is that going to
be a campaign issue, because thenext president will get to just
reject it.
Just write a letter and kick itout.
James Egidio (28:00):
Is Congress doing anything about any of this
clandestine activity by theWorld Health Organization there?
James Roguski (28:06):
are a handful of people in Congress who have done
some good things.
If people go to exitthewhocomyou'll see that we've got over
50 members of Congress who havesigned on as co-sponsors to Andy
Biggs's legislation HR 79,which is the WHO withdrawal act.
(28:29):
So they're basically sayingstop giving them money, give
them a one-year notice and tellthem to repeal the legislation
of 1948 that got us involved.
That's on exitthewhocom.
So there's a handful, more thana handful, 10 handfuls over 50
members of the House, but notone senator which is the House
(28:51):
that really matters has takenthe action of just telling a
staff member could you take AndyBiggs's House legislation HR 79
, and copy it and submit it inthe Senate.
Probably take about fiveminutes.
Not one senator has said yes,we should leave the WHO.
(29:12):
Now there is anotherlegislation.
People can go towwwpublicendacom where I believe
there are three senators whoare advocating to exit the UN
and the WHO and I support thatas well.
But that's a much higher barand they've only gotten a
(29:33):
handful of people to supportthat.
Why won't even one senator copyAndy Biggs's legislation HR 79,
and just submit it in the Housefor consideration?
Call your senator If you go toexitthewhocom.
There's a link there List allthe senators phone numbers.
Since it's got a little script,give them a call and go.
(29:54):
Hey, what are you doing?
We want out of thisorganization.
James Egidio (29:58):
That goes back to my question too, I think.
To me it seems like they'rejust concerned about whether
President Trump's going to getback in office or not, because
he mentioned that.
James Roguski (30:10):
I have an interesting story.
Back in I think it was October,I published an article and I
had a little fun with mysubscribers.
I put in the title that nopresidential candidate has
spoken out about HR 79 to exitthe WHO, and I knew that some of
(30:30):
my subscribers were Trumpsupporters, some were Kennedy
supporters and everybody else atthe time, and I knew that some
of them would have something tosay about it.
And so I got a bunch ofcomments that said, oh, trump
did this and Trump did that.
And my response was I know whathappened in 2020, believe me, I
know but what have they beensaying on the campaign trail?
(30:51):
And lo and behold, five dayslater there was a video from the
campaign where Trump made apretty strong statement.
He said the treaty would be ano-go, the amendments would be a
no-go and leave the WHO, don'tgive him any money.
And he actually advocated toabolish the WHO.
So OK, if you go to againexitthewhoorg and you scroll
(31:15):
down, you can watch that video.
Robert F Kennedy Jr has come outin opposition to the pandemic
treaty, but not to the WHO orthe amendments, as strongly as
Trump has Many other nationalleaders.
The prime minister of Slovakiahas said, there's no way he's
signing the treaty.
There are many various membersof the European Parliament, but
(31:38):
you got to really understandwhat is going on with this
treaty to comprehend why it'sjust, in my view, evil.
What they're trying to do isset up what I think is an
organized crime syndicate.
I've dubbed it the new OPEC.
Ok, if you're familiar withOPEC the oil producing and
(32:01):
exporting countries, saudiArabia and so forth the new OPEC
is the Organization of PandemicEmergency Corporation.
They want this cartel to be setup to profit off of the next
pandemic.
They want billions of dollarsto be funneled into looking for
(32:23):
pathogens around the world.
That's what they call onehealth surveillance.
James Egidio (32:28):
Right.
James Roguski (32:29):
Your cat, your dog, your chickens, your pigs,
your horses, your animals,whatever.
Go to the local Batcave andscrape through the guano to see
if you can find some pathogens.
Wherever there's excrementthere's pathogens, and so
they're surveilling wastewatertreatment plants.
The CDC is surveilling when anairplane comes in
(32:50):
internationally, the wastewaterfrom the bathrooms is checked to
see what kind of pathogens theycan find.
Hospitals that have antibioticresistant microbes.
All of that would funnel intowhat they would set up as the
WHO coordinated laboratorynetwork.
They want to build laboratoriesall over the world.
(33:12):
We need a Wuhan Institute ofVirology all over the place.
Have the pathogens come in, getthe genetic sequence.
Maybe they would do gain offunction.
Or maybe just keeping that in aPetri dish it goes through
repetitive cycles it could doits own gain of function.
That's something that peopledon't really talk about.
Then they would want to be ableto profit from that by having
(33:38):
the transfer of that information.
Literally, this is in thetreaty treated as a sovereign
resource.
The nations of the world viewthe pathogens that they find as
a sovereign resource.
If you think about colonialism,where nations would come in and
(33:59):
they would cut down the forestand take the hardwood or find a
goldmine, or diamonds, orgemstones, or oil or natural gas
the new gold rush.
Think about the originalsequence, little tiny data file
of the Wuhan Institute ofVirology 1 genome that became
known.
They changed the name toprotect the guilty.
(34:22):
They changed the WIV1 toSARS-CoV-2.
How many billions of dollarswas that data file worth all by
all?
What they want to do is make itso that they have a standard
material transfer agreement, acontract that would label that
(34:43):
genetic sequence as having beensupplied by Nation X.
Then, if any products are madefrom that, they want to have it
be part of a pathogen accessbenefit sharing system, habs.
The whole point of it is tomonetize so that then if a jab
is made from it and they saythere's an outbreak and the
(35:06):
local officials are compliant,the money flows through.
The WHO wants to be in chargeof a global distribution and
logistics network.
Tedros stated that they have.
In just one of their sixregions in Dubai they have a
20,000 square meter facility forfootball fields.
(35:29):
Can you imagine how manybillions of dollars of contracts
for pandemic related productsyou would have to give out to
your cronies to fill that?
James Egidio (35:40):
That's where I was going to go with this.
Next question I was going toask you is have you spent any
time looking at the money trailFollowing the money?
Have you ever laid that out?
Gates, I know, is behind a lotof that right.
James Roguski (35:55):
They don't come out and save this directly.
This is my interpretation.
I like to separate when I'vegot facts that I can back up
with evidence.
And this is just me talkingabout it.
They're looking at Bill Gates'smoney.
That's chump change.
They want to up this a wholeorder of magnitude that even
(36:15):
Bill Gates can't handle.
Their entire budget WHO in 2022, was about $4 billion.
Gates maybe gave an eighth ofthat.
The United States gave about abillion.
We only needed to obligate itto give them a couple of hundred
million.
We gave three quarters of abillion over and above our
(36:39):
obligations.
It all comes with stringsattached.
They spent 30% of their budgetover a billion dollars on
salaries.
That's why all thebureaucracies keep flourishing.
They had 8,851 employees, or anaverage of 120 grand a year.
They want to take their $4billion From the very beginning.
(37:02):
In May of 2021, they said thatthey were going to need $31
billion a year for pandemicprevention, preparedness and
response and up to $100 billionfor surge financing if something
were to happen.
Bill Gates is a popper.
He can't handle that.
(37:23):
They're looking to up theirgame in order of magnitude.
I think I know the reason.
What clued me into all of thishappened in November of 2022.
I think we've spoken about this.
The Indonesian health minister,who's not a doctor, he's a
former banker was talking to theB-20, all the business leaders.
(37:44):
He said that he knew that theUnited States Defense Department
and the US governmentno-transcript had set up and
were just about to implement,with the World Bank, the
pandemic fund.
And so he said to the audiencethis is a great business
opportunity.
Go invest meaning testingequipment, laboratory equipment,
(38:06):
all of the things that theUnited States Defense Department
was busy building out tosupport their global health
security agenda, which is afancy word for biological
weapons research, development,proliferation.
In December, next month,congress passed and Biden signed
the National DefenseAuthorization Act, and the
(38:29):
United States pledged $5 billionover the next five years to
exactly that fund.
They were hoping to get $10billion from other nations.
They only got an extra billion,so the fund is hurting a little
bit, but they still distributed$340 million in 2023 to 37
(38:50):
different nations.
So we're building out theinfrastructure all around the
world with our money to golooking for pathogens, bring
them into labs, do the geneticsequences.
I think that the WHO has fundenvy.
They want to increase that sothat they can be in control of
(39:14):
the trade in internationalpathogens.
What we're looking at isbiological warfare weapons
proliferation under the guise ofoh, in order to stop the next
pandemic, we got to build aWuhan Institute of Virology in
every nation on the planet andgo find all the pathogens and
start working on them.
James Egidio (39:33):
Sure, it's that formula of problem solution,
problem solution, and it justseems like there's so many
different layers to this interms of the taps into the
pharmaceutical industry, it tapsinto biometrics, it taps into a
lot of different industries, soyou can just create, like you
(39:55):
said, almost like an OPEC typeof organization, just from
future pandemics.
James Roguski (40:04):
If you were doing a dissertation or a similar
thing, having to do a thesis ata business school, and you laid
out what happened over the lastfour years as a business model.
Or maybe you're on Shark Tank,right, and then you go hey,
we're going to go find apathogen, we're going to bring
it into a lab, we're going tomake it more deadly, and then
(40:25):
we're going to leak it out andwe're going to scare all the
governments around the world togive us money.
Maybe they would go for it andthink it's a great business plan
, or maybe they'd laugh you offthe stage.
Nobody would ever fall for that.
But it worked magically?
Oh, it did, and so they're notdoubling down, they're going up
in order of magnitude.
(40:45):
Yeah, maybe you can't fool allof the people, but apparently
you can fool a lot of the people, and they didn't have the
capacity to do that in what'scalled the global south or the
lower income nations.
They don't have enough money tobuild the infrastructure in
poorer nations to do this.
(41:05):
They've got differentpriorities, so they essentially
want to take money from poorpeople in rich nations, either
through tax dollars or justprinting money out of thin air
and hand it over to oligarchs inpoor nations so that they can
build out the infrastructure,high paying jobs, laboratories,
(41:26):
all that sort of thing and ahighly profitable business model
that they're upset that theymissed out on, Because when
South Africa and Botswanaidentified Omicron and they
handed over the genetic sequence, Pfizer and Moderna turned that
into the boosters and made acouple of more billion dollars,
(41:47):
and in the amendments that theysubmitted they said very clearly
don't even think about pathogenaccess unless you incorporate
benefit sharing.
They essentially said we ain'tgiving you no more stinking
pathogens unless you pay up.
And so it's a shakedown that'sfailing, because the
(42:08):
pharmaceutical companies aresaying, hey, we're not going to
pay you nothing, you have togive us your pathogens and
that's the end of that.
And so I'm optimistic becausethis isn't good versus evil.
This is big greed from theglobal north dealing with a lot
of little greed from the globalsouth, arguing over pathogens
(42:31):
with pandemic potential in orderto manufacture more mRNA jabs,
as if that isn't insane.
James Egidio (42:38):
But that's what this is all about?
Yeah, it is.
And I also think, too that,regardless of what the who
decides on in terms of theseamendments, these pharmaceutical
companies, because I did alittle research recently and
found that a lot of themessenger RNA technology and a
(43:00):
lot of these companies thatmanufacture and do the R&D
research and development onthese vaccines are out of China.
And our relationship with Chinais not going to stop because
there's too many politiciansthat have their hand in the till
to stop it.
And the new and greatest andlatest technology is the RNA
technology for all vaccines.
(43:21):
I interviewed Dr William Acasand he mentioned that this is
the tall order for the day ismanufacturing all vaccines with
the messenger RNA technology.
James Roguski (43:35):
Nothing like taking a failed technology, and
the WHO published a documentquite some time ago where they
were shooting for 500 newvaccines by 2030.
And I have to admit, when Ifirst saw it I thought it had to
be a mistake, but they want tohave a vaccine for everything
and they do.
James Egidio (43:54):
But I also think the silver lining of that, too,
as well, is that I think peopleare becoming more aware of the
dangers of these vaccinesthrough alternative media
sources.
A lot of people are rejectingit a lot.
The numbers are huge.
You can't force people to takethese vaccines, and the only way
you can force them to do it isif you switch your fiat currency
(44:17):
system to a digital currencysystem where you get people on a
blockchain through whatever waythey're going to do it, which I
have my own thoughts on thatand I won't get into too much
detail on that right now butthat would be the only way I
would think that they would beable to force people to do that,
because that's what is near anddear to people, of course,
(44:37):
obviously, is their means to paytheir bills, which is their
money, and if you put people ona blockchain, you're going to
force them to get the vaccine oryou'll lose money in your
account based on your socialcredit score.
James Roguski (44:51):
Yeah, the ability to control whether or not
someone is allowed to use theirown money based on whatever
criteria somebody else gets toset, is just such an absolute
violation of personal rights andfreedoms.
It is, they get away with it inChina, and that's what you're
going to use, and so you'reright.
(45:12):
What I see coming from all ofthis is people are awakening to
the reality of what is reallygoing on here.
Yeah, they are.
If you recall, about a decadeago, hillary Clinton, when she
was Secretary of State, and thenthe Obama administration after
she was gone, tried to get usinto the Trans-Pacific
(45:35):
Partnership, and that wasessentially a trade deal to give
all kinds of power tocorporations which is the
definition of fascism governmentand corporations working
against the people.
They kept it secret.
They actually signed us into it, and then the people learned
what the heck was going on andcaused such a ruckus that the
(45:59):
election in 2016,.
It was just a toxic idea.
Nobody could support the TPPTrans-Pacific Partnership, and
it was killed by the fact thatpeople learned what was in it.
And so what I encourageeveryone to do go to
stoptotreatyorg.
Look at the information that'sthere.
(46:20):
I did a little 14 minute videothat just reads the pertinent
aspects of what's in the treaty.
Take your 14 minutes to get upto speed.
And essentially what they'redoing is trying to build out the
market sector and be in controlof the distribution of all of
(46:41):
these products.
You've got a 20,000 squaremeter distribution hub as one of
your six regions and you fillthat to the gills with pandemic
related products.
At some point you got to rotateyour stock.
You need an emergency to takeall of that out of your
(47:03):
warehouse so that you canreplace it and keep the money
flowing.
And so this is an organizedattempt to set up an organized
crime syndicate where they wouldbe motivated to find a problem
to use the products that they'vemade.
That may or may not be safe andeffective.
That's just a lie from thebeginning.
But when you understand thatthose tens of billions of
(47:27):
dollars are not going to dealingwith heart disease and stroke
and cancer and leukemia anddiabetes and malaria and
tuberculosis or good clean wateror nutritious food, do poor
nations really need to belooking for pathogens in the
(47:48):
wild, building laboratories andmanufacturing mRNA vaccines when
people are not being properlynourished and they don't have
access to good, clean water?
And what really kills peopleare the things that I just
mentioned?
Obviously, those things are notas profitable, and that's
what's driving this, becauseover the last four years, what
(48:11):
was the biggest growth industry?
Covid.
James Egidio (48:15):
Sure was, but again, it's the people who have
to make the decision and, likeyou said from the very beginning
, it's all based on fear for now, whether people make the
decision to take these vaccinesor not, or these bio weapons, as
I call them.
So what do you do when youdon't have takers?
Is you force people to have totake them with things that are
(48:36):
most important to them?
Again, like I said, they'refinances, and if you could
control that, which I knowthey're working on, then you
pretty much can control peopleany way you want.
James Roguski (48:47):
It's all interrelated and I've been
pushing back on these amendmentsand this so-called treaty slash
framework convention, whichplease understand that it's not
just a one and done treaty as aframework convention.
It's very much like theframework convention for climate
change, where they would set upa whole new bureaucracy Right
(49:09):
Every year.
Every year, have the conferenceof the parties get together,
make decisions and hand outcontracts and decide on their
budget, and the problem is itjust keeps going year after year
.
So if you like how theframework convention for climate
change has been working out,you'll probably love the
framework convention forpandemic prevention,
preparedness and response.
(49:31):
I don't think so.
Putting a bunch of unknownbureaucrats in charge of handing
out billions of dollars incontracts to fill up
distribution hubs and be able togo looking for the next
pathogen with pandemicprofiteering potential sounds
like a way to make a lot ofmoney for your friends.
(49:51):
It doesn't sound like what youwould do to stop the next
pandemic, but that's how they'representing it and I'm pretty
darn sure that the average manor woman, if they just put their
eyeballs on this, they can seeright through it.
It's ridiculous, it'sunacceptable.
We, the people, just simplyneed to say no.
James Egidio (50:13):
Yeah, and the other thing too is talking about
the climate change agenda, thiswhole thing with geoengineering
.
Just yesterday I left the housearound 930.
I live here in Florida and itwas a beautiful, clear day and
all of a sudden you see all thechemtrails across the sky, even
in a circular pattern, and by 4o'clock in the afternoon it was
(50:37):
like the whole entire sun waslike dimmed out and it looked
like almost like when there's afire, like a wildfire, and it
blocks the sun and it was realgray and orange and dark and it
was just horrible.
And that's all part of thewhole agenda with climate
changes, creating basically theclimate change.
James Roguski (50:57):
But whether it's poisons raining down from the
sky or pesticides in your foodor water or whatever industries
that are assaulting our health,the biggest violator of it is
the pharmaceutical hospitalemergency industrial complex.
As long as people believe thatswallowing one, two, three, four
(51:19):
, five or more poisons a day,pharmaceutical prescription
medications or injecting theminto your arm is the pathway to
health, we're going to continueto have these problems, because
that's not how you get healthy.
That is the system thattriggers the diseases that
(51:40):
people suffer from.
You can't tell whether it'sactually a problem that you have
or a problem due to the poisonsthat you've been convinced to
swallow every day, absolutelyand until people wake up.
It's not just anti-vax, it'santi-pharma.
Right, if you think thatswallowing poison is the path to
good health, you're part of theproblem.
James Egidio (52:02):
That's right.
That's right, absolutely.
James, thank you so much forthe work that you do.
I will continue to bring you onand update the listeners and
viewers of the Medical Truthpodcast about the World Health
Organization and these decisions.
James Roguski (52:18):
As we record this .
Now we've got a little bit morethan two months to flatten the
who, so spread the word, takethis video and share it all over
the place.
I put up an enormous activisttoolbox on exitthewhoorg.
I always try to give my phonenumber.
It's 310-619-3055.
If you have any questions, youwant to get involved, just give
(52:40):
me a call.
You've got on the screen rightthere.
James Serkowskisubstackcom iswhere all the information is.
Get informed.
The top part of exitthewhoorgis just understand what we're
dealing with.
I got a 10-minute video on theamendments, a 14-minute video on
the Framework Convention.
I have faith that every man orwoman on the planet can watch a
(53:05):
10-minute video, watch a14-minute video, understand what
these two things are, and oncethey do that, their answer is
almost universally oh, hell, no.
James Egidio (53:14):
What do they say?
Yeah, absolutely, James.
Your work is amazing.
I know, like I said earlier,the go-to guy for anything that
has to do with the World HealthOrganization.
I really appreciate the workthat you do, and I'm sure the
listeners and viewers of theMedical Truth Podcast do as well
.
Like I said, I'll continue tobring you on and update us on
(53:35):
everything that's going on.
Thanks, again.
Thanks, appreciate it, allright.
Intro (53:41):
Thanks for listening to the Medical Truth Podcast.
For the latest episode, go towwwmedicaltruthpodcastcom.
You can also find the MedicalTruth Podcast on Rumble YouTube,
as well as the major podcastplatforms like Apple Podcast,
spotify, substack and iHeart.
Get ready to hear the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth about theUnited States healthcare system
With your host of the MedicalTruth podcast, James Egidio Hi.
James Egidio (00:16):
I'm James Egidio with the Medical Truth podcast.
Welcome to my guest, who I'vehad on several times.
I consider an expert on thistopic the World Health
Organization.
To further do to update thelisteners and viewers of the
Medical Truth podcast, I'd liketo introduce my guest, a regular
, james Rikusky, on the who andwhat's going on.
(00:41):
James, welcome, thanks forhaving me, james, I appreciate
it.
James Roguski (00:44):
My special magic, amazing superpower is that I
actually read their documentsand sometimes I feel like I'm
the only one in the theaterwatching their theatrical
production that they put on.
But it's actually quiteinteresting and intriguing and
hopefully I'll be able to bringsome accurate reporting to your
audience?
James Egidio (01:05):
Absolutely, yep, absolutely.
So recently, there was somedecisions that were made that
you can update the viewers andlisteners of the Medical Truth
podcast on.
And what was that?
James Roguski (01:15):
They've been having meetings and maybe to
give a little tiny bit ofbackground and we can certainly
dive into what you have up onthe screen there I was poking
around looking for an earlyversion of the other document
which most people talk about asthe pandemic treaty, because in
their meetings even though theydidn't put it anywhere in
(01:38):
writing they said that by March8th they were going to present
quietly amongst the inner circleof which I'm not one a new
version of the treaty.
And so I was looking for that,and, lo and behold, I stumbled
upon the Holy Grail in terms ofwhat I've been looking for,
(02:00):
which was the negotiating textfor the amendments to the
international health regulations.
Now that's it's not top secret,but it's pretty darn close.
I've put in FOIA requests and Igot an answer back from the
State Department.
They had me as number 2731 ontheir list and they might be
(02:24):
able to get to it nine monthsfrom now.
Right, that's a little bit toolate, considering that May 27th
is when the World HealthAssembly begins.
And so I found on one of theorganizations that is obviously
in the inner circle.
They got the document and theyput it up on their website.
I didn't hack anything, or itwasn't a whistleblower situation
(02:48):
or anything like that.
I just happened to hit a searchstring looking for the treaty
and I ended up on their webpage,downloaded the negotiating text
of the amendments andpublicized it, and now they've
taken it off of their website.
You can still get it onarchiveorg.
(03:09):
It's not a complete document.
There are 10 articles that arestill being negotiated, some of
the very important ones thatthey left for last because
they're having greatdisagreement.
But if you want to pop up that,that's really the summary.
I have a good friend thathelped me out.
We bounced this whole thingback and forth for two or three
(03:33):
days.
We literally read through the60 page document and I came out
with 10 issues that I think arevitally important, and so number
one on the list.
The director general of theWorld Health Organization,
tedros Gubrasius, already hasthe authority to just declare a
(03:56):
public health emergency ofinternational concern pretty
much any time he wants.
There really isn't anyrestriction, other than if you
cry wolf too many times,nobody's ever going to believe
you, and so what they want toadd to that and this really came
from the United States all theway back in 2022.
(04:18):
This was part of the very firstdocuments that I found.
They want to give him also theability to declare an early
action alert as well as, on theother end of the spectrum, not a
pandemic, but a pandemicemergency.
Now they have definitions forthese things, but they're really
so vague that, again, it'spretty much if he wants to say
(04:43):
that an early action alert isneeded, he can say so.
Now, that's not necessarilygoing to have any legally
binding impact on anyone in anycountry.
It's all part of the fearmongering quite frankly,
terrorist activity of trying tokeep people afraid all the time.
(05:05):
Their talk of disease X being20 times more deadly than COVID
is nothing other than propagandaand terrorism.
So one of their executivedirectors in this program, mike
Ryan, said in a recentdiscussion that they received
(05:27):
37,000 reports from the nationsaround the world in 2023 that
something was going on.
There was some kind of anoutbreak or an increase in this,
that or the other disease, andall of the nations are obligated
to report that to the WHO.
Arguably, they could have37,000 early action alerts and
(05:52):
bring in Bill Gates' germ teamto go do whatever local
compliant officials would bewilling to do to try to deal
with whatever kind of problemthey say they have, and so
there's no checks or balance onthe Director General's ability
to fear monger and they've doneit very well.
(06:15):
That doesn't mean nations orstates or counties or cities are
obligated to do anything, butI've often called the WHO the
World Hypnosis Organization Ifthey say, oh, you got a problem,
you should do this, you shoulddo that, you should do the other
thing.
Many compliant officials usethat as an excuse, and one of
(06:40):
the things that I uncovered acouple of years ago does the
date January 19, 2017, didn'tmean anything to you, because
what I found was that the CDCpublished in the Federal
Register a change in adefinition, amongst many other
things all having to do withquarantines and lockdowns and
(07:03):
travel and all that sort ofstuff, and they redefined the
criteria by which our Secretaryof State, who's currently Javier
Bacera, would be able todeclare, from the Health and
Human Services Department, apublic health emergency, and so
one of the criteria is not, oh,people are sick and dying, or
(07:26):
any such thing.
It's tied to the DirectorGeneral's declaration of a
public health emergency ofinternational concern PHEIC,
fake.
So if the Director General ofthe WHO declares a fake, our
Secretary of Health and HumanServices could declare a public
(07:49):
health emergency in the UnitedStates based solely on he said
so.
So I get to say so too, andthere's no way to turn that off.
So it's not an obligation, it'san opportunity to use
regulatory cover to say theSecretary of Health and Human
Services says there's anemergency that kicks in all
(08:11):
kinds of money and differentrules and regulations apply, and
people are oftenmisunderstanding and
misrepresenting this.
This just means that it opensthe door to more fear-mongering.
Yeah, yeah, now there's ninemore things.
I'll run through them.
James Egidio (08:29):
There are, but before you go any further than
that, something interesting youbrought up, I believe, in our
second interview, which was thatthis whole speculation or about
depopulation, with Bill Gatesparroting that a lot, but you
said something reallyinteresting.
I think, like you said in oursecond interview, where you
mentioned, that this is alsocreating a lot of patients,
(08:55):
future patients, and one inparticular are the turbo cancers
and the development of a lot ofdrugs cancer drugs on the
market now that they're rollingout, and also biometrics, a lot
of the technology with vaccinepassports and digital currency.
So I think that what we'relooking at is it's a
(09:18):
multi-layered cash cow for theglobalist.
So I think they're using andyou may correct me on this the
World Health Organization as anarm to.
What do you say?
Create this panic?
What's your take on that?
If?
James Roguski (09:34):
we have time to talk about the other document,
the treaty.
We'll get deep down into it.
I'll express my own personalviewpoint People who are
anti-vax have an awful lot tolearn.
I'm anti-pharma.
If you think swallowing poisonor injecting poison into your
body is a good idea to improveyour health, wow, have you got a
(09:54):
lot to learn.
And so what they're trying todo primarily in the other
document it's mentioned here alittle bit is control that
market sector.
It's a money game.
And let's get to where we talkabout the treaty.
I don't want to keep these twothings separate.
This that we're talking abouthere are the proposed amendments
(10:17):
to the international healthregulations.
So we talked about the DirectorGeneral being able to declare
either an early action alert, afake or a pandemic emergency.
That's just a declaration andthe media gets ahold of.
That fires up everybody, peoplein other nations, all the way
(10:38):
down to the state, county, city,local level.
They didn't need meaning all ofthe local officials over the
last four years.
They did not need anyamendments to the International
Health Regulations or any newtreaty to abuse everyone's
rights and freedoms.
(10:58):
So this isn't really going tochange how your local tyrant
attempts to overstep theirauthority to abuse you.
This is just going to give themmore excuses to do so.
Oh, tetra said it's a earlyaction alert.
It's reminiscent of with theterrorism watch, where they had
(11:20):
you watch the news and it wasred and orange and yellow the
terror alert level.
The same kind of idea.
Just keep that constant stateof oh my god, what's going on
now?
Yeah, the boogie man.
What's really concerning inthese proposed amendments is
that they mentioned quarantinein four separate places, two
(11:42):
different articles and twoannexes of the International
Health Regulations, and so Ithink it would be helpful to
just explain that theInternational Health Regulations
have a purpose, and the idea isto facilitate and encourage
nations to not try to hide ahealth problem that might be
(12:04):
going on in their nation.
The purpose of the IHR is toencourage nations to report as
soon as they have a problem, totell the WHO, to tell the world,
and the point is that the othernations are not supposed to put
down travel restrictions.
But that didn't work at all.
(12:25):
As soon as somebody said, oh,something's going on in China,
something's going on in SouthAfrica, boom, the travel
restrictions hit, and so forthat concept, the International
Health Regulations from 2005quite frankly failed miserably.
The nations did whatever theheck they wanted to do.
What they're looking at addingis they want infrastructure to
(12:50):
be built, ports of entry.
Now this is so crazy.
We're in the United States andyou look at the southern border
and what they're talking abouthere is for people who come in
legitimately through a port,like on a cruise boat or
airports or any other what theycall conveyances.
The language they use in hereis that all conveyance operators
(13:13):
would have to produce paperworkthat would make it clear that
no one on board is sick.
So imagine coming into port ona cruise line and maybe you've
got to take a rapid antigen test, spit test and show that you're
not contagious, or boom, you'rein quarantine.
Now here's the problem.
(13:35):
That's something that a lot ofpeople will actually support.
Oh, we don't want those dirtyforeigners coming in.
Okay, you got to think itthrough.
You're the dirty foreigner whenyou go traveling.
James Egidio (13:49):
Right.
James Roguski (13:50):
And so when you want to go to Europe or Asia or
wherever it may be, if you haveto take a test that, quite
frankly, you've got asymptomaticdisease.
What the heck is that your lifecan be turned upside down if,
by requiring you to have somekind of a test and they use the
terminology, whether you'reembarking on the trip or
(14:13):
disembarking you want to get offthe boat, you might go straight
into quarantine or yourvacation is totally messed up.
Now they also want to haveadditional paperwork.
Number three, and one of thescariest parts of it, is the WHO
would be in charge.
If a vaccine and I use thatterm loosely was not approved by
(14:33):
the devil, eitherpre-authorized or pre-approved
or emergency use authorization,then it would be considered not
valid.
They make a hundred thousanddollars to give emergency use
authorization to a vaccine.
We'll talk about a money makingprogram, and so that would
(14:55):
determine whether or not you'vegot the proper travel paperwork,
you've got the right injections, and so that is the problem
that I've been worried aboutwith these international health
regulations from the get-go,because this is an old-school
version, right?
This is what they currently use, and if you see the form and if
(15:15):
the lighting is good enough.
You can see the form there.
That is in annex six of theinternational health regulations
.
The nations have agreed for onlyone vaccine yellow fever.
Certain nations may require it.
They want to dramaticallyexpand that and this is what we
need to push back on now.
(15:35):
That's not saying that locallythis is going to be applicable.
This is for internationaltravel, and a good example is
Novak Jojkovic, the tennisplayer.
Months ago, when the UnitedStates was still requiring
vaccine certification to enterthe country, he was not allowed
(15:58):
in to play in a tennistournament and then ultimately,
months later, they changed therules and then he could come in.
United States citizens couldcome and go, jabbed or not,
because our constitutionprotects us, but each nation's
constitution allows them toabuse foreigners, and so he was
(16:20):
not allowed to come in.
I knew people who were marriedand one was a citizen and one
wasn't, and the married theperson who had US citizenship
could come and go, but theirspouse, who did not have
citizenship, could not travelwith him.
That doesn't make any sense.
You're a citizen, so there'sdifferent rules, but this is
(16:40):
what they're playing on.
It's a really sneaky trickwhere, if each nation could
restrict the travel of everyother nation's citizens.
They get away with saying we'renot violating our constitution
because we're not doing it toour people.
We're just encouraging everyother nation on the planet to
(17:02):
abuse our citizens freedoms Neattrick.
And this is why everybody hasto push back on this.
Even exiting the WHO isn't agood enough example or solution,
because even if we exit the WHO, if all of the other nations
participate in this scheme,we're trapped.
(17:23):
Now it's not a bad place to betrapped in the United States,
but this is what they're tryingto implement and we just.
This is unacceptable.
Period Now moving down to 6, 7,8, 9, and 10,.
Surveillance doesn't necessarilymean what you might think.
It means Surveillance.
Yeah, it's cameras and audioequipment and GPS in your phone
(17:47):
and all the other ways that theyspy on you and such.
But what they're really talkingabout is what they call one
health surveillance, which islooking for pathogens everywhere
you could possibly imagine, andso they want to find pathogens
with pandemic potential, becauseit triggers the whole
(18:08):
fear-mongering, turn that intoproducts, turn that into jabs,
turn that into money.
So they want to be lookingeverywhere they possibly can.
The pathogens with pandemicpotential and the proliferation
of them.
We'll talk about more in thenext document.
Hopefully you can dig up thesecond document as well.
(18:29):
Number eight is something thatprobably, until I started
getting into this a couple ofyears ago, I had no idea that in
2005, when they amended theregulations back then, every
nation was obligated to createwhat they call a national IHR
focal point, and that's anoffice in our Health and Human
(18:51):
Services Department that'sobligated to report if there's
ever any kind of an outbreak orincrease in disease or death
rates or unusual ailments orwhatever, 24-7,.
They're supposed to be incommunication with the WHO.
I can almost accept that, yes,as a good member of the
(19:11):
international community.
If each nation has some kind ofproblem going on, the
transparent nature of as soon asyou tell the WHO if it's a big
problem, they tell everybody.
Okay, fine.
But now Russia, of all nations,submitted an amendment way back
in September of 2022 to, inaddition to the focal point,
(19:32):
have it be a national IHRauthority, and it would be
required to have legislationpassed to give that office in
our government legal authorityto implement whatever might need
to be done to align with thenew amendments to the
regulations.
Now that most likely would besomething like TSA If they're
(19:57):
cracking down at the border withquarantine for people who don't
test properly.
Where they would put thisoffice remains to be seen, but
it would require a newbureaucracy in each nation to
implement all of the stuff thatwe're talking about here.
And then there's problems withthe disclosure of personal data
(20:18):
and they have a couple of linesin the annexes about miss and
disinformation, but basicallythey're kicking it to the
individual countries for eachcountry to do whatever they
decide to do to stifle honestdiscussion of all of these
(20:38):
problems.
James Egidio (20:39):
Yeah, yeah, it sounds like they're looking to
set up almost like a homelandsecurity for health oversight.
James Roguski (20:45):
I wouldn't be surprised if such an office
ended up in Homeland Security,but if I had to guess, I would
say the transportation safetyadministration.
I think that's what TSA standsfor.
Whether or not any of thishappens remains to be seen,
because there's greatdisagreement about 10 articles
(21:07):
that, quite frankly, they havebeen not talking about, which
many of the nations are veryunhappy with that.
We're not in this negotiatingtext document.
The nations in Africa and inBangladesh and elsewhere put
forth a proposal which, if youhave, do you have handy access
(21:31):
to the other top 10?
I don't, James.
We'll get everybody to go there.
If you just simply go toexitthewhoorg and scroll down
the page on exitthewhoorg, youshould be able to find the top
10 reasons why we should pushback on the treaty.
James Egidio (21:49):
Yeah, and I'll post that on the website as well
.
Wonderful yeah, and on Substack.
James Roguski (21:54):
This particular document that we're talking
about here all of the proposedamendments has been super secret
for well over a year, and somany of the things that people
have talked about are not inthis negotiating draft.
It remains to be seen, becausethey have one more week worth of
(22:16):
meetings in April 22nd to the26th.
The problem is they weresupposed to present a finished
version by January 27th and theyfailed miserably well past
almost two months past thedeadline.
What they appear to want to doand I've been reporting on this
since October is just keepnegotiating right up to the last
(22:38):
minute, drop it on the tableand expect it to be okay that
they violated their own rulesand didn't give the world four
months notice on what it isthey're going to be considering
in.
James Egidio (22:50):
May.
Let me ask you a question aboutthat though.
Do you think, in yourprofessional opinion, that
perhaps with an upcomingpresidential election here in
the United States, that there'ssome hesitancy in dragging their
feet just to see what's goingto happen and how things are
going to unfold?
James Roguski (23:08):
It's going to work to their disadvantage,
actually, because in thisparticular case, with the
amendments to the regulations,the way it works is, if they
were to adopt it, it would notgo into effect immediately, but
it would become in our awareness.
(23:29):
It's already in my awareness,but if they adopt it and it's in
concrete and we can see what itis, the period of time that
each nation has to reject itwould span into the next
administration.
So whoever may be president onoh you know what, I didn't
(23:53):
finish the punchline on myprevious story.
When the CDC changed how youconnect the WHO declaring a fake
and the health secretary usingthat to declare public health
emergency.
That was put into the record onJanuary 19, 2017, which was the
(24:14):
last full day of the Obamaadministration.
They changed the rules the daybefore Trump was inaugurated, go
figure.
And so payback being what it is, whoever may be the president
starting January 20, 2025, willhave the opportunity to just
write a letter to the WHO andreject these amendments.
(24:36):
If they do go through, my hopeis that they continue to argue
amongst themselves all the manydifferent nations, and this just
crumbles before the May 27thmeeting, but then again, I'm an
optimist, so we'll see whathappens.
James Egidio (24:52):
Yeah, something recently just was released with
Melania, the prime minister ofItaly, where she had funded or
was going to fund the WorldEconomic Forum or actually the
WHO, with this decision fromItaly's standpoint, and it was
released the article in thenewspaper in Italy and my wife's
(25:15):
from Italy and she referencedthat and it didn't match up the
article in the Italian newspaperas opposed to what was reported
on Substack.
James Roguski (25:27):
What gets reported and what is real often
doesn't add up.
Send me that information.
I've got some friends in Italy.
I'll see what I can find outabout that.
I haven't had a chance to readthat so I can't really tell you.
But, what's really going on?
I don't know.
Are you able to pull upexitthewhoorg?
Can we take a gander at theother document?
James Egidio (25:47):
I don't have that on here for some reason, I don't
know.
Why Do you have it on your end?
James Roguski (25:53):
You just go on a different window to
exitthewhoorg, you should beable to scroll down and pop up
the document.
If you don't, that's fine, wecan just talk about it, go ahead
.
And so what we've been talkingabout are amendments to an
existing agreement, whichthere's many problems with what
is in the international healthregulations.
(26:13):
But the really biggest problemcurrently is that more than a
year ago, an enormous document197 pages with over 300
amendments was made public.
Many people have spoken aboutit, but a month and a half later
, more than a year ago, onFebruary 6th, international
(26:35):
Health Regulations ReviewCommittee published a report and
basically said that a lot ofthe amendments were going to be
very problematic given the WHOConstitution.
Now I was pleasantly surpriseda little bit shocking that I
agreed with a lot of the thingsthat were in that Review
(26:58):
Committee report, but they'vekept it all secret until I found
this document a little whileago, and so what is in the
document is substantiallydifferent than what we've been
allowed to see, and that isreally the problem.
They were obligated by Article55 to give us a final copy that
(27:20):
we would have four months toreview.
We've almost gone two monthspast that and they don't have
any intention of showing us thefinal copy anytime soon,
probably won't see it untilApril or May.
That's just wrong.
That's just in violation oftheir own rules.
By rights they should have towait until 2025 to push any of
(27:44):
this through.
And if they try to shove thisthrough, man, is that going to
be a campaign issue, because thenext president will get to just
reject it.
Just write a letter and kick itout.
James Egidio (28:00):
Is Congress doing anything about any of this
clandestine activity by theWorld Health Organization there?
James Roguski (28:06):
are a handful of people in Congress who have done
some good things.
If people go to exitthewhocomyou'll see that we've got over
50 members of Congress who havesigned on as co-sponsors to Andy
Biggs's legislation HR 79,which is the WHO withdrawal act.
(28:29):
So they're basically sayingstop giving them money, give
them a one-year notice and tellthem to repeal the legislation
of 1948 that got us involved.
That's on exitthewhocom.
So there's a handful, more thana handful, 10 handfuls over 50
members of the House, but notone senator which is the House
(28:51):
that really matters has takenthe action of just telling a
staff member could you take AndyBiggs's House legislation HR 79
, and copy it and submit it inthe Senate.
Probably take about fiveminutes.
Not one senator has said yes,we should leave the WHO.
(29:12):
Now there is anotherlegislation.
People can go towwwpublicendacom where I believe
there are three senators whoare advocating to exit the UN
and the WHO and I support thatas well.
But that's a much higher barand they've only gotten a
(29:33):
handful of people to supportthat.
Why won't even one senator copyAndy Biggs's legislation HR 79,
and just submit it in the Housefor consideration?
Call your senator If you go toexitthewhocom.
There's a link there List allthe senators phone numbers.
Since it's got a little script,give them a call and go.
(29:54):
Hey, what are you doing?
We want out of thisorganization.
James Egidio (29:58):
That goes back to my question too, I think.
To me it seems like they'rejust concerned about whether
President Trump's going to getback in office or not, because
he mentioned that.
James Roguski (30:10):
I have an interesting story.
Back in I think it was October,I published an article and I
had a little fun with mysubscribers.
I put in the title that nopresidential candidate has
spoken out about HR 79 to exitthe WHO, and I knew that some of
(30:30):
my subscribers were Trumpsupporters, some were Kennedy
supporters and everybody else atthe time, and I knew that some
of them would have something tosay about it.
And so I got a bunch ofcomments that said, oh, trump
did this and Trump did that.
And my response was I know whathappened in 2020, believe me, I
know but what have they beensaying on the campaign trail?
(30:51):
And lo and behold, five dayslater there was a video from the
campaign where Trump made apretty strong statement.
He said the treaty would be ano-go, the amendments would be a
no-go and leave the WHO, don'tgive him any money.
And he actually advocated toabolish the WHO.
So OK, if you go to againexitthewhoorg and you scroll
(31:15):
down, you can watch that video.
Robert F Kennedy Jr has come outin opposition to the pandemic
treaty, but not to the WHO orthe amendments, as strongly as
Trump has Many other nationalleaders.
The prime minister of Slovakiahas said, there's no way he's
signing the treaty.
There are many various membersof the European Parliament, but
(31:38):
you got to really understandwhat is going on with this
treaty to comprehend why it'sjust, in my view, evil.
What they're trying to do isset up what I think is an
organized crime syndicate.
I've dubbed it the new OPEC.
Ok, if you're familiar withOPEC the oil producing and
(32:01):
exporting countries, saudiArabia and so forth the new OPEC
is the Organization of PandemicEmergency Corporation.
They want this cartel to be setup to profit off of the next
pandemic.
They want billions of dollarsto be funneled into looking for
(32:23):
pathogens around the world.
That's what they call onehealth surveillance.
James Egidio (32:28):
Right.
James Roguski (32:29):
Your cat, your dog, your chickens, your pigs,
your horses, your animals,whatever.
Go to the local Batcave andscrape through the guano to see
if you can find some pathogens.
Wherever there's excrementthere's pathogens, and so
they're surveilling wastewatertreatment plants.
The CDC is surveilling when anairplane comes in
(32:50):
internationally, the wastewaterfrom the bathrooms is checked to
see what kind of pathogens theycan find.
Hospitals that have antibioticresistant microbes.
All of that would funnel intowhat they would set up as the
WHO coordinated laboratorynetwork.
They want to build laboratoriesall over the world.
(33:12):
We need a Wuhan Institute ofVirology all over the place.
Have the pathogens come in, getthe genetic sequence.
Maybe they would do gain offunction.
Or maybe just keeping that in aPetri dish it goes through
repetitive cycles it could doits own gain of function.
That's something that peopledon't really talk about.
Then they would want to be ableto profit from that by having
(33:38):
the transfer of that information.
Literally, this is in thetreaty treated as a sovereign
resource.
The nations of the world viewthe pathogens that they find as
a sovereign resource.
If you think about colonialism,where nations would come in and
(33:59):
they would cut down the forestand take the hardwood or find a
goldmine, or diamonds, orgemstones, or oil or natural gas
the new gold rush.
Think about the originalsequence, little tiny data file
of the Wuhan Institute ofVirology 1 genome that became
known.
They changed the name toprotect the guilty.
(34:22):
They changed the WIV1 toSARS-CoV-2.
How many billions of dollarswas that data file worth all by
all?
What they want to do is make itso that they have a standard
material transfer agreement, acontract that would label that
(34:43):
genetic sequence as having beensupplied by Nation X.
Then, if any products are madefrom that, they want to have it
be part of a pathogen accessbenefit sharing system, habs.
The whole point of it is tomonetize so that then if a jab
is made from it and they saythere's an outbreak and the
(35:06):
local officials are compliant,the money flows through.
The WHO wants to be in chargeof a global distribution and
logistics network.
Tedros stated that they have.
In just one of their sixregions in Dubai they have a
20,000 square meter facility forfootball fields.
(35:29):
Can you imagine how manybillions of dollars of contracts
for pandemic related productsyou would have to give out to
your cronies to fill that?
James Egidio (35:40):
That's where I was going to go with this.
Next question I was going toask you is have you spent any
time looking at the money trailFollowing the money?
Have you ever laid that out?
Gates, I know, is behind a lotof that right.
James Roguski (35:55):
They don't come out and save this directly.
This is my interpretation.
I like to separate when I'vegot facts that I can back up
with evidence.
And this is just me talkingabout it.
They're looking at Bill Gates'smoney.
That's chump change.
They want to up this a wholeorder of magnitude that even
(36:15):
Bill Gates can't handle.
Their entire budget WHO in 2022, was about $4 billion.
Gates maybe gave an eighth ofthat.
The United States gave about abillion.
We only needed to obligate itto give them a couple of hundred
million.
We gave three quarters of abillion over and above our
(36:39):
obligations.
It all comes with stringsattached.
They spent 30% of their budgetover a billion dollars on
salaries.
That's why all thebureaucracies keep flourishing.
They had 8,851 employees, or anaverage of 120 grand a year.
They want to take their $4billion From the very beginning.
(37:02):
In May of 2021, they said thatthey were going to need $31
billion a year for pandemicprevention, preparedness and
response and up to $100 billionfor surge financing if something
were to happen.
Bill Gates is a popper.
He can't handle that.
(37:23):
They're looking to up theirgame in order of magnitude.
I think I know the reason.
What clued me into all of thishappened in November of 2022.
I think we've spoken about this.
The Indonesian health minister,who's not a doctor, he's a
former banker was talking to theB-20, all the business leaders.
(37:44):
He said that he knew that theUnited States Defense Department
and the US governmentno-transcript had set up and
were just about to implement,with the World Bank, the
pandemic fund.
And so he said to the audiencethis is a great business
opportunity.
Go invest meaning testingequipment, laboratory equipment,
(38:06):
all of the things that theUnited States Defense Department
was busy building out tosupport their global health
security agenda, which is afancy word for biological
weapons research, development,proliferation.
In December, next month,congress passed and Biden signed
the National DefenseAuthorization Act, and the
(38:29):
United States pledged $5 billionover the next five years to
exactly that fund.
They were hoping to get $10billion from other nations.
They only got an extra billion,so the fund is hurting a little
bit, but they still distributed$340 million in 2023 to 37
(38:50):
different nations.
So we're building out theinfrastructure all around the
world with our money to golooking for pathogens, bring
them into labs, do the geneticsequences.
I think that the WHO has fundenvy.
They want to increase that sothat they can be in control of
(39:14):
the trade in internationalpathogens.
What we're looking at isbiological warfare weapons
proliferation under the guise ofoh, in order to stop the next
pandemic, we got to build aWuhan Institute of Virology in
every nation on the planet andgo find all the pathogens and
start working on them.
James Egidio (39:33):
Sure, it's that formula of problem solution,
problem solution, and it justseems like there's so many
different layers to this interms of the taps into the
pharmaceutical industry, it tapsinto biometrics, it taps into a
lot of different industries, soyou can just create, like you
(39:55):
said, almost like an OPEC typeof organization, just from
future pandemics.
James Roguski (40:04):
If you were doing a dissertation or a similar
thing, having to do a thesis ata business school, and you laid
out what happened over the lastfour years as a business model.
Or maybe you're on Shark Tank,right, and then you go hey,
we're going to go find apathogen, we're going to bring
it into a lab, we're going tomake it more deadly, and then
(40:25):
we're going to leak it out andwe're going to scare all the
governments around the world togive us money.
Maybe they would go for it andthink it's a great business plan
, or maybe they'd laugh you offthe stage.
Nobody would ever fall for that.
But it worked magically?
Oh, it did, and so they're notdoubling down, they're going up
in order of magnitude.
(40:45):
Yeah, maybe you can't fool allof the people, but apparently
you can fool a lot of the people, and they didn't have the
capacity to do that in what'scalled the global south or the
lower income nations.
They don't have enough money tobuild the infrastructure in
poorer nations to do this.
(41:05):
They've got differentpriorities, so they essentially
want to take money from poorpeople in rich nations, either
through tax dollars or justprinting money out of thin air
and hand it over to oligarchs inpoor nations so that they can
build out the infrastructure,high paying jobs, laboratories,
(41:26):
all that sort of thing and ahighly profitable business model
that they're upset that theymissed out on, Because when
South Africa and Botswanaidentified Omicron and they
handed over the genetic sequence, Pfizer and Moderna turned that
into the boosters and made acouple of more billion dollars,
(41:47):
and in the amendments that theysubmitted they said very clearly
don't even think about pathogenaccess unless you incorporate
benefit sharing.
They essentially said we ain'tgiving you no more stinking
pathogens unless you pay up.
And so it's a shakedown that'sfailing, because the
(42:08):
pharmaceutical companies aresaying, hey, we're not going to
pay you nothing, you have togive us your pathogens and
that's the end of that.
And so I'm optimistic becausethis isn't good versus evil.
This is big greed from theglobal north dealing with a lot
of little greed from the globalsouth, arguing over pathogens
(42:31):
with pandemic potential in orderto manufacture more mRNA jabs,
as if that isn't insane.
James Egidio (42:38):
But that's what this is all about?
Yeah, it is.
And I also think, too that,regardless of what the who
decides on in terms of theseamendments, these pharmaceutical
companies, because I did alittle research recently and
found that a lot of themessenger RNA technology and a
(43:00):
lot of these companies thatmanufacture and do the R&D
research and development onthese vaccines are out of China.
And our relationship with Chinais not going to stop because
there's too many politiciansthat have their hand in the till
to stop it.
And the new and greatest andlatest technology is the RNA
technology for all vaccines.
(43:21):
I interviewed Dr William Acasand he mentioned that this is
the tall order for the day ismanufacturing all vaccines with
the messenger RNA technology.
James Roguski (43:35):
Nothing like taking a failed technology, and
the WHO published a documentquite some time ago where they
were shooting for 500 newvaccines by 2030.
And I have to admit, when Ifirst saw it I thought it had to
be a mistake, but they want tohave a vaccine for everything
and they do.
James Egidio (43:54):
But I also think the silver lining of that, too,
as well, is that I think peopleare becoming more aware of the
dangers of these vaccinesthrough alternative media
sources.
A lot of people are rejectingit a lot.
The numbers are huge.
You can't force people to takethese vaccines, and the only way
you can force them to do it isif you switch your fiat currency
(44:17):
system to a digital currencysystem where you get people on a
blockchain through whatever waythey're going to do it, which I
have my own thoughts on thatand I won't get into too much
detail on that right now butthat would be the only way I
would think that they would beable to force people to do that,
because that's what is near anddear to people, of course,
(44:37):
obviously, is their means to paytheir bills, which is their
money, and if you put people ona blockchain, you're going to
force them to get the vaccine oryou'll lose money in your
account based on your socialcredit score.
James Roguski (44:51):
Yeah, the ability to control whether or not
someone is allowed to use theirown money based on whatever
criteria somebody else gets toset, is just such an absolute
violation of personal rights andfreedoms.
It is, they get away with it inChina, and that's what you're
going to use, and so you'reright.
(45:12):
What I see coming from all ofthis is people are awakening to
the reality of what is reallygoing on here.
Yeah, they are.
If you recall, about a decadeago, hillary Clinton, when she
was Secretary of State, and thenthe Obama administration after
she was gone, tried to get usinto the Trans-Pacific
(45:35):
Partnership, and that wasessentially a trade deal to give
all kinds of power tocorporations which is the
definition of fascism governmentand corporations working
against the people.
They kept it secret.
They actually signed us into it, and then the people learned
what the heck was going on andcaused such a ruckus that the
(45:59):
election in 2016,.
It was just a toxic idea.
Nobody could support the TPPTrans-Pacific Partnership, and
it was killed by the fact thatpeople learned what was in it.
And so what I encourageeveryone to do go to
stoptotreatyorg.
Look at the information that'sthere.
(46:20):
I did a little 14 minute videothat just reads the pertinent
aspects of what's in the treaty.
Take your 14 minutes to get upto speed.
And essentially what they'redoing is trying to build out the
market sector and be in controlof the distribution of all of
(46:41):
these products.
You've got a 20,000 squaremeter distribution hub as one of
your six regions and you fillthat to the gills with pandemic
related products.
At some point you got to rotateyour stock.
You need an emergency to takeall of that out of your
(47:03):
warehouse so that you canreplace it and keep the money
flowing.
And so this is an organizedattempt to set up an organized
crime syndicate where they wouldbe motivated to find a problem
to use the products that they'vemade.
That may or may not be safe andeffective.
That's just a lie from thebeginning.
But when you understand thatthose tens of billions of
(47:27):
dollars are not going to dealingwith heart disease and stroke
and cancer and leukemia anddiabetes and malaria and
tuberculosis or good clean wateror nutritious food, do poor
nations really need to belooking for pathogens in the
(47:48):
wild, building laboratories andmanufacturing mRNA vaccines when
people are not being properlynourished and they don't have
access to good, clean water?
And what really kills peopleare the things that I just
mentioned?
Obviously, those things are notas profitable, and that's
what's driving this, becauseover the last four years, what
(48:11):
was the biggest growth industry?
Covid.
James Egidio (48:15):
Sure was, but again, it's the people who have
to make the decision and, likeyou said from the very beginning
, it's all based on fear for now, whether people make the
decision to take these vaccinesor not, or these bio weapons, as
I call them.
So what do you do when youdon't have takers?
Is you force people to have totake them with things that are
(48:36):
most important to them?
Again, like I said, they'refinances, and if you could
control that, which I knowthey're working on, then you
pretty much can control peopleany way you want.
James Roguski (48:47):
It's all interrelated and I've been
pushing back on these amendmentsand this so-called treaty slash
framework convention, whichplease understand that it's not
just a one and done treaty as aframework convention.
It's very much like theframework convention for climate
change, where they would set upa whole new bureaucracy Right
(49:09):
Every year.
Every year, have the conferenceof the parties get together,
make decisions and hand outcontracts and decide on their
budget, and the problem is itjust keeps going year after year
.
So if you like how theframework convention for climate
change has been working out,you'll probably love the
framework convention forpandemic prevention,
preparedness and response.
(49:31):
I don't think so.
Putting a bunch of unknownbureaucrats in charge of handing
out billions of dollars incontracts to fill up
distribution hubs and be able togo looking for the next
pathogen with pandemicprofiteering potential sounds
like a way to make a lot ofmoney for your friends.
(49:51):
It doesn't sound like what youwould do to stop the next
pandemic, but that's how they'representing it and I'm pretty
darn sure that the average manor woman, if they just put their
eyeballs on this, they can seeright through it.
It's ridiculous, it'sunacceptable.
We, the people, just simplyneed to say no.
James Egidio (50:13):
Yeah, and the other thing too is talking about
the climate change agenda, thiswhole thing with geoengineering
.
Just yesterday I left the housearound 930.
I live here in Florida and itwas a beautiful, clear day and
all of a sudden you see all thechemtrails across the sky, even
in a circular pattern, and by 4o'clock in the afternoon it was
(50:37):
like the whole entire sun waslike dimmed out and it looked
like almost like when there's afire, like a wildfire, and it
blocks the sun and it was realgray and orange and dark and it
was just horrible.
And that's all part of thewhole agenda with climate
changes, creating basically theclimate change.
James Roguski (50:57):
But whether it's poisons raining down from the
sky or pesticides in your foodor water or whatever industries
that are assaulting our health,the biggest violator of it is
the pharmaceutical hospitalemergency industrial complex.
As long as people believe thatswallowing one, two, three, four
(51:19):
, five or more poisons a day,pharmaceutical prescription
medications or injecting theminto your arm is the pathway to
health, we're going to continueto have these problems, because
that's not how you get healthy.
That is the system thattriggers the diseases that
(51:40):
people suffer from.
You can't tell whether it'sactually a problem that you have
or a problem due to the poisonsthat you've been convinced to
swallow every day, absolutelyand until people wake up.
It's not just anti-vax, it'santi-pharma.
Right, if you think thatswallowing poison is the path to
good health, you're part of theproblem.
James Egidio (52:02):
That's right.
That's right, absolutely.
James, thank you so much forthe work that you do.
I will continue to bring you onand update the listeners and
viewers of the Medical Truthpodcast about the World Health
Organization and these decisions.
James Roguski (52:18):
As we record this .
Now we've got a little bit morethan two months to flatten the
who, so spread the word, takethis video and share it all over
the place.
I put up an enormous activisttoolbox on exitthewhoorg.
I always try to give my phonenumber.
It's 310-619-3055.
If you have any questions, youwant to get involved, just give
(52:40):
me a call.
You've got on the screen rightthere.
James Serkowskisubstackcom iswhere all the information is.
Get informed.
The top part of exitthewhoorgis just understand what we're
dealing with.
I got a 10-minute video on theamendments, a 14-minute video on
the Framework Convention.
I have faith that every man orwoman on the planet can watch a
(53:05):
10-minute video, watch a14-minute video, understand what
these two things are, and oncethey do that, their answer is
almost universally oh, hell, no.
James Egidio (53:14):
What do they say?
Yeah, absolutely, James.
Your work is amazing.
I know, like I said earlier,the go-to guy for anything that
has to do with the World HealthOrganization.
I really appreciate the workthat you do, and I'm sure the
listeners and viewers of theMedical Truth Podcast do as well
.
Like I said, I'll continue tobring you on and update us on
(53:35):
everything that's going on.
Thanks, again.
Thanks, appreciate it, allright.
Intro (53:41):
Thanks for listening to the Medical Truth Podcast.
For the latest episode, go towwwmedicaltruthpodcastcom.
You can also find the MedicalTruth Podcast on Rumble YouTube,
as well as the major podcastplatforms like Apple Podcast,
spotify, substack and iHeart.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.