Update on the September 20, 2023 WHO and UN General Assembly Meeting- Interview with James Roguski

Intro: 0:00

Get ready to hear the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the United States healthcare system with your host of the medical truth podcast, James Egidio.

James Egidio: 0:16

Hi, I’m James Egidio, your host of the medical truth podcast, the podcast that tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the American healthcare system three months ago to the day I interviewed a gentleman by the name of James Roguski a diligent substacker who reported on the WHO Pandemic Treaty CA+ and we got into a little bit of a conversation and quite actually extensive conversation about the nefarious motive of the World Health Organization and. So here to update that is James Roguski about the meeting that took place yesterday at the World Health Organization. James, thank you so much. It’s a pleasure to have you on the Medical Truth podcast again for the update on this. Thank

James Roguski: 1:02

you for having me back. Truth waits for no one. And in three months, a lot of things have changed, but, the general theme is the same. There’s a cartoon, I never really used to watch it, but it’s called Pinky and the Brain. And, they had a little shtick in there where they said what are we going to do today, Pinky? Oh, what are we going to do today, Brain? Oh, same thing we do every day, try to take over the world. And that’s pretty much, the summary of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth coming from the UN and the WHO. But I’m sure you want to go into a little more detail than that.

James Egidio: 1:32

I do. And what I’d like to talk about is the I believe there was a meeting yesterday in regard to the decision that they were making. I actually have a little bit of a screenshot here to show the audience this, what was the outcome of this?

James Roguski: 1:50

Oh, it was a fancy bit of theater. And I’ve published a couple of articles about it because what you’re looking at right here is misinformation and it is very skillfully done. And, I’m glad you’re given the time, to dig into it for a little bit. So they pretended to. Reach an agreement, but it was no different than a bunch of guys getting in a room, agreeing to do something and then saying that, oh the company that they work for. Agreed to it. I’ll cut to the chase. This was not an official General Assembly full on UN meeting. This was a bunch of folks in a room talking smack. And according to Francis Boyle, who is a constitutional lawyer, And has, been deeply involved in this. This was actually a massive defeat for them because they were trying to perform a bit of theater where, get a bunch of people in a room and make a declaration. And as you can see from this, most people who will read this report will come away believing. That the United Nations had some official declaration, right? But this was not an official, formal UN General Assembly, put them in the big hall, vote yay or nay, pass a declaration. And what happened over the weekend, I believe it was on Sunday the 17th a group of nations wrote a letter to the relatively brandy new president. of the General Assembly, not the Secretary General of the UN, but the President of the General Assembly. And he said, hey or these 11 nations said to him, hey there’s rules here. And I was very pleased to see that they actually used the word pretend. They essentially said, we don’t appreciate y’all setting up this pretend adoption. of this document. Now, they have been working on this for a year. They set this meeting up, they scheduled it September 2nd of last year is the date that they scheduled it for yesterday, September 20th of 2023. So all year long, and they proudly proclaimed that they were negotiating this they set up two nations to lead the charge, Morocco and Israel. And they’ve been negotiating and negotiating and negotiating. And these 11 nations said, they’re not really happy with the way this was all done and crafted. And it was basically stage craft. And so one last little thing, one last little thing what they did. And I was even surprised that they did it so quickly. They do this and it catches you off guard and you’re like, Oh my God, I can’t believe they just did that. They opened the meeting first thing in the morning. And this is something that is when it’s done with the proper intent is legitimate, right? If you think everybody’s already in agreement and you’re just trying to double check, you’re ordering a pizza and you say to all your friends, Hey, I’m going to order a couple of pepperoni mushroom pizzas. You guys all good. Okay, great. You go do it. Unanimous consent, that kind of stuff. Sure. When it’s done with the proper intent and everybody is in agreement and you’re just double checking at the end, that’s fine. But what he did at the beginning was he said, Oh, okay. We sent you this document back on September 1st and he said a couple of more words. And then he goes, okay, it’s approved. And, they have all day long meetings. Most people would think we’re going to get here. We’re going to discuss what’s going on. And somewhere near the end of the day, after having heard all this discussion, you vote and if it’s, yay or nay, whatever it may be, that’s not how they played this game. Because what these nations argued was that was theater and it was, and what they demanded, and we’ll see if it happens. This is fake. If you want to present this declaration, you’re going to have to do it at the full meeting of the general assembly. And then we’ll have something to say about it. And man, everybody is going to be following the theatrical production and the propaganda and the misinformation that you’re going to see from their press. It wasn’t. Adopted by the General Assembly of the UN. It was approved by one guy. That one guy is the president of the General Assembly. And this is, part of how, they blame, regular people for putting out misinformation, but, everybody knows that the source of misinformation are all these government bodies and, big foundations who are putting out propaganda. And claiming that anybody who points out that their propaganda is really bs. Oh that’s misinformation. If you define misinformation as pointing out the lies that are being told to you, okay, great. Then that’s misinformation. Just all depends on how you define the word,

James Egidio: 7:07

but share with the viewers and listeners who some of these attendant. Who were in attendance? Some of the people that were in attendance for

James Roguski: 7:14

this meeting. It was actually a glorious failure, to paraphrase Francis Boyle. They were billing this that they wanted to have. A they want to set up a global council of leaders, right? They want to have this health threats council on the level of national leaders. And so they were hoping to have, whatever, 193. leaders of all the nations come together and, put the stamp of approval on, yeah, this is what we want to do going into the future. And they had a smattering of, leaders, but it was a disappointment. They were hoping to like, bring the whole world together in support. Of what the WHO is doing. And so I actually just published an article a moment before, we got together here. There’s one group that is been pushing for these negotiations, whether you want to call it the amendments to the international health regulations or. You said it properly, the WHO CA+ most people mistakenly called that the pandemic treaty. It’s really a framework convention. They’ve been pushing for this for a couple of years now. And one of the women who’s the chairperson of one of the many groups that are proposing all this Dame. Barbara Stocker. She’s a Dame Commander of the United Kingdom. Okay. She published an article, a guest blog on the Geneva files and said we know these negotiations really aren’t going very well. Okay. And she put out a call and she actually put out her email. And so I sent her an email this morning and I said I could, I think I can tell you why they’re going wrong. Nobody wants what you’re doing. What we, the people want is an honest assessment, evaluation, critique, review, investigation into, what was done wrong. Quite frankly, crimes were committed. What mistakes were made? There were some things that worked over the last four years. There were some doctors who saved a lot of lives by doing what made sense to them. The lies that we have dealt with for the past four years, they have no intention of addressing that. They’re incapable of admitting they’re wrong about things. They made mistakes and if they truly. wanted to protect the world from the next pandemic. They would be doing things very differently. And the people in the room are the people who want to control your life, right? They don’t want to hear what you have to say. We weren’t invited To go speak.

James Egidio: 9:58

No. So again, the, some of the people that were involved with this meeting that they were actually physically there, I take it were I believe Gavin Newsom was there and wasn’t Joe Biden

James Roguski: 10:10

there I my weak point is remembering names. And so that is probably the most traumatic question you could ask me, because I can’t remember names for crap. The main, one of the main speakers was Tedros Ghebreyesus. He’s the director general. of WHO. They also had a press conference with Mike Ryan, who is, I believe, I don’t know his exact title, but he’s like the executive who’s in charge of, emergencies around the world. And the body language on their press conference was astonishing. It was clear that they had just had their butts whooped. Okay. But I have to admit they are skilled propagandists because what they’re doing at the moment is they’re using our language. They are saying things that if you said them, or I said them, or many other people that we know, if they said these things, you would agree with it. And the hypocrisy, and I encourage everybody to watch the press conference that the UN had, or the WHO members had at this meeting. They are so crafty in how they spin the language so that. The person who’s just coming in and watching this soap opera, if you were you hadn’t seen a TV series, like for the first couple of years, anybody who walks into this soap opera, you got to get to know the characters and their history and their play, and it’s like watching a TV show that you had never watched before.

James Egidio: 11:48

Yeah, I got a video clip of Tedrose. If a lot of people will be familiar with who he is, as soon as they see this video clip, this is what he said can

James Roguski: 11:57

down the road. If we do not make the changes that must be made, then who will? And if we do not make them now and when the next pandemic comes knocking and it will, we must be ready to answer decisively, collectively and equitably. Thank you. And for enhanced international cooperation, the pandemic accord a generational commitment that we will not go back to the old cycle of panic and neglect that left our world vulnerable, but move forward with a shared commitment to meet shared threats with a shared response. That’s why we say the pandemic accord is a generational agreement. A commitment from this generation is important because it’s this generation that experiences how awful a small virus.

James Egidio: 12:57

Could be There you

James Roguski: 13:00

go. I wasn’t aware of the fact that you were gonna play that clip. We didn’t talk about it beforehand, and I’m pretty sure that was not from yesterday. That was from the No, that was three

James Egidio: 13:09

months. That was actually three

James Roguski: 13:10

months ago. And that’s actually a perfect example. No argument with those words unless you understand. what it means in his mind when he says those words. Of course, all of that stuff is true. And to read underneath and behind and, in between the lines of what he had to said, had to say they haven’t actually learned any lessons, right? What if they had learned things that they would be having meetings talking about. Masks didn’t work and social distancing didn’t work and lockdowns and curfews and quarantines and travel restrictions at didn’t work. Oh, people like Dr. Shankarachetty in South Africa, he saved tens of thousands of people. Not one of his patients even went to the hospital. He published a paper in September of 2020 explaining something totally different that. I wrote an article about this on my sub stack. It’s the first one I ever wrote. He saved tens of thousands of lives, published that information in September of 2020, and they just bury it and attack him. And the jabs, Oh, what a glorious success, right? Just everybody was just, as soon as those jabs were in everybody’s arm, this whole thing just stopped right. And nobody’s having any problems with them. The drugs that they use, the Paxlovid and Molnupiravir and, God forbid, Remdesivir and Midazolam and ventilators. The mistakes, arguably crimes against humanity. Trillions, oh, wait a minute, trillions of dollars. Is that what these negotiations are really all about? What the lesson that they learned? Is that they didn’t get everybody last time, quarter of the population. Maybe, was a little skeptical of what’s going on, but they probably got about 75%. So they’re not doubling down. They want to go up by an order of magnitude. They want one of the things that was discussed. It wasn’t discussed. It was just gaveled, right? Five minutes and hit the gavel. Okay. We’re good. But in the document, they want 30 billion a year. To do more of what they did to us over the past four years. And the answer is no, and so I put together the the people’s declaration. You can find it on my sub stack. So if you go on my substack, it’s, it’s a free subscription. I don’t put anything behind the paywall, so just go and subscribe and read and learn. But if you scroll down a couple of weeks, I did the people’s declaration and. What these documents have in them is not what people think it is. If you’ve been watching the news or even alternative media at this moment in time, since we talked last, it’s gotten even worse. By worse, what I mean is there’s many tracks. Okay. One of the tracks is amendments. There’s 300 amendments that they’re talking about to the international health regulations. Back in December, almost a year, it’s pushing, it’s nine months now 10 months. They allowed us to see what the original submissions were of the proposed amendments to the international health regulations. They’ve been having secret negotiations this whole time. They’re having another set of meetings the first week of October, and they have never once published any updated, revised version. Working draft, second draft, third draft, whatever. We have no idea what the status of those documents are. So quite frankly, at this point, the only thing to talk about is the secrecy. They’re not letting the cat out of the bag on that one. And that’s where the dangerous stuff is because they’re keeping it such a secret. You got to worry about that. We can get into the details.

James Egidio: 17:08

So what it sounds like to me is that you have them staging and with all this theatrics on the front side for the public to, to see. And create and gin up the anxiety and stuff, but what they really are working on in the back room is basically going to put the final nail in the coffin for all the nations, all the countries that they want to involve with this. Correct.

James Roguski: 17:33

In a certain sense, yes. And so being that they are keeping and to keep this clear, let me start off by saying there are multiple tracks, there are multiple documents. And what happens is a lot of people get them all confused. What I’ve been calling the first track, was what happened yesterday. And so this political declaration to maybe put the nail in the coffin on that one. They were trying to do theater yesterday to make everybody believe. That the official United Nations General Assembly had voted this declaration. Okay. They got their butts kicked. They got exposed. Thank you to the 11 nations and everybody else. So their first train going down that track just got derailed yesterday. Right now, they’re going to try to put it back on the track and maybe they’ll submit it to the General Assembly and, maybe they’ll vote it in, but, hopefully people wake up and go, Hey, we kicked that sucker off the rail, that one went astray. So kudos to everybody, who. Participated in that. Let’s move on to track number two.

James Egidio: 18:46

Before you go on any further, though, I was reading the list of some of those nations that pushed back. And

James Roguski: 18:52

I know it’s an interesting list. It’s an

James Egidio: 18:53

interest. It is to me. It just seems Cuba was in there. Venezuela was in there. It just seems to me they’re just using that as a smoke screen as well. I don’t trust any of these people in anything that they do anymore. They list these nations. Maybe these nations participated. And I’m not looking to speculate on anything, but it just. I don’t trust any of these institutions anymore.

James Roguski: 19:15

trust no one, get all your evidence. And so the 11 nations, they. Collectively wrote a letter to the president of the General Assembly and they said, look, you’re trying to pull a fast one. We’re not having it. They weren’t happy. Now they have their national desires, whatever it is they want to do on other levels in other negotiations. There are nations who are saying, we told you this and that will get into some of the details. But the whole point of it is they’re trying to bring 194 nations together into what is essentially a financial venture capital contract. And so to wrap up what happened on Wednesday, September 20th at the United Nations, they were trying to make it seem. Like the entire world, every member of the United Nations was on board with this, quite frankly, meaningless declaration. The folks who were doing the negotiations know that they’re not going well, that there is not universal agreement. And they were trying to, I think you used the phrase, they’re trying to gin up support in the United Nations to put this facade on it. Oh, everyone is behind this. Let’s just keep going. And they failed. So track number one is off the rails. They might, get a crane and put the train back on the track and, try to submit this to the general assembly and. And maybe they’ll get it passed, hopefully we all can use this as a motivating factor for people to get up off your butt and pay attention and read these documents and see what they’re trying to do and push back against it. So let me move on to track number two, just because people get these all mixed up. So that was the United Nations, unbeknownst to most people. Last May 27th, 2022 the World Health Assembly, which is 194 nations, the WHO, they did adopt amendments. to the international health regulations. Now, most people are probably completely unaware that even happened. It didn’t make the nightly news. They didn’t give you a, text message alert or an email notification or whatever. Amendments to the international health regulations were adopted. last year. And the way the amendments work, give everybody some sort of brain freeze, right? Some sort of cognitive dissonance because most people would, there’s no reason why you would be aware of the process. In 1969, we adopted the international health regulations. In 2005, they were amended. And the process is if the delegates to the WHO get together and they agree to change it, if they have an agreement for amendments, it’s assumed. That every nation is on board, they do not send that those amendments back to the Senate for advice and consent. That is not the process. The process is under article 61. The president can write a letter and say thank you very much for these amendments, but we reject them. Okay. There’s an 18 month period where any nation on the planet could just write a letter. and reject them. If they keep it on the down low for 18 months, too late. You missed your chance, right? I don’t see anybody. I don’t see, I have not seen a single person in the world raise this issue in any official capacity or On the media, it’s like they passed amendments last year and it’s wow. So we still have a little bit more than two months. The deadline is December 1st. I highly doubt that, anybody is going to reject them. I would love it if, one leader in one nation somewhere said, nope, screw you. WHO we’re not doing it. But people should know that is the process and that anyone who says, Oh, the Senate would never authorize these amendments. I got news for you. They don’t have the power to do they gave that power up in 1948, 69 in 2005. It’s a done deal. If these amendments are not rejected and the Senate does not have the power to reject them. And this makes everybody’s brain freeze. They go, Oh, the constitution. Oh, the constitution. I agree. What should be. is what the founding fathers wrote in the constitution, but it has been shredded. And so the reason for talking about track two, which is what happened last year, and the deadline is December 1st to reject it around the world, is what’s in track three, because track three is the same idea, but this time there’s 300 plus amendments that are barreling forward and they’re keeping them completely secret. Now the timeline on that is they were submitted September 30th. Of last year, they were kept secret until December, and they have not given us an update, even though they’ve had meeting after meeting all year long. And so they’re having another meeting on October 2nd, 3, 4, 5, and 6 that week, 1st week of October, having another meeting a little bit before Christmas in December, they’re going to submit it on December 15th to the December 15th. International Health Regulations Review Committee, who’s going to review it for a month, hand it over to the WHO in Tedros in mid January. We’ve got no time whatsoever to discuss these. And once they’re submitted to the WHO, they’re going to be, they have to do it four months in advance of their May assembly. If they adopt them, they are not coming back to the Senate for advice and consent. It’s not going to happen. Okay, and so there’s a little bit of hope. in this track because there would be 10 months because they’re trying to change that date. There would be 10 months, even if they do adopt him in May of 2024 10 months later to reject them would bring you to March of 2025. So my effort and my work and my hope is the following. Andy Biggs has submitted HR 79, which is House Resolution 79 in Congress, the WHO Withdrawal Act. You can get all of that information on ExitTheWho.Com. So far, I’ve been promoting it since he’s sponsored it we’ve gotten 52 members of Congress to sign on, which is not bad, but there’s a lot of work to do. The latest push that I’ve been trying to do is to get people to reach out to their senators and get one senator to copy. Andy Biggs’s legislation. It’s literally a page and a half. Copy that legislation and submit it into the Senate as a companion measure. Same exact bill, but in the Senate, right? And so I can explain the bill in less than 30 seconds because it’s only a page and a half long. It would instruct the president to tell the WHO to go take a hike. We’re leaving. It would stop giving him money and it would repeal the legislation that got us into the WHO. in the first place. That’s it. And so for the next 14 months and I encourage everybody to give me a call. My phone number is 310-619-3055. What I’m working to get people to understand is that there are 50 members of Congress who are on board with the Leaving the WHO. So maybe they’re not globalists, right? How about the other 380? Whatever, right? So we have an election period coming, not to mention the 100 senators. I was just gonna ask you that. Yeah. And so here’s a really simple question that you can ask. There’s two separate parts to it. You could ask your member of Congress. I don’t see your name listed. As a co sponsor for Andy Biggs is HR 79. So that leads me to assume that you’re not listening to the people. You’re a globalist listening to the world economic forum or your lobbyist or your donor. I want you to co sponsor this legislation. How come I don’t see your name there now, if their name is there, if you’re, if you live in one of the 52 districts, call up your congressman, you’ll get their staff, but call them up and go, thank you. Thank you. You’ve got my support. How do I help you? You’re doing the right thing, at least on this issue, right? Oh, but by the way could you contact, the other Congress people in the state and the senators and ask them why they’re asleep at the wheel. And so anyone who’s running for Senate, why haven’t you taken this bill and co sponsored it into the Senate? It’d probably take you five minutes. Copy. Paste and submit, it’s not a big deal.

James Egidio: 29:22

Yeah, let me ask you for the viewers and listeners, I guess a lot of people that are listening and watching this, they want to know what it is, what actual changes would take place if hypothetically this did go through. Because I, this is a monumental task on their part and you’re going to see a lot of pushback. I think people are at the, at a tipping point now in this country when it comes to pandemics, mask and vaccines. There are some takers that are going to go back and get boosters and whatnot, but because I, from what I understand, this is going to affect the whole climate change agenda where they may even do lockdowns for climate change. It’s going to enforce, mandatory vaccine passports to travel both domestically and internationally. There’s going to be a lot of changes are going to take place that can have a personal effect on people’s lives again. So for the viewers and listeners, if this gets pushed through, what’s going to

James Roguski: 30:20

happen? The very things that you mentioned are the things that are of greatest concern in these amendments to the international health regulations. And I’m glad you framed it correctly because many people talk about these things and then they say, Oh, the treaty. Okay. We haven’t even gotten close to talking about what people call the treaty yet. We’ll hope, hopefully we’ll have time to do that. The third track, as I discuss it, and you can get all of these on stoptheglobalagenda. com. The third track is these 300 amendments. And there’s a subset of a number of amendments that I’ve collected and I’ve put together on reject digital enslavement. And so there are many nations mostly coming from the European Union. There’s a lot of misinformation, just an ungodly amount of misinformation about this, but essentially they want to put together, it’s a software system that would be a global digital health certification network. Now that’s what I went to school for a century ago. is, computer science. And so I, I get it. They want to have a system where if you go to book a flight or a train or, whatever cruise and you want to go from, like my girlfriend and I, would like to go traveling, would love to go to Spain, right? So in the United States, in California, we want to book a flight to Spain. They want to have a system where the airlines and such could query their trusted network and say, okay, these people want to travel, get some encrypted key, right? Okay. What’s all their health information? Let’s go ask Spain what Spain requires. Put that all together and give you a red light or a green light, right? That’s bad enough, but here’s where I’m focused, right? Hold on just a moment. The amendments would have not just a vaccine certificate. And I’ve got an old school one here. My girlfriend traveled back in the seventies and she kept her vaccine passport. It’s got a little This paper version is in annex six of the international health regulations. The only one that they require anywhere is yellow fever, right? A vaccine for yellow fever. You get one, you’re good for life. They want to expand that dramatically with a testing certificate, a prophylaxis certificate, a recovery certificate, a traveler locator form. and a passenger health declaration, and they want to tie it all to a QR code. And so here’s where my focus is. Hold on just a moment. Those things that you call vaccines they don’t seem to stop infection. They actually seem to increase the likelihood and they never studied anything that it prevents transmission. So maybe, and I’m just joking now, maybe people who got a lot of jabs should not be allowed to travel. Maybe only the people who are not more likely to get sick should be allowed to travel. That’s not what they’re thinking. The testing, I got to tell you everybody, if you don’t already know it, the use of the PCR process to diagnose people with any kind of illness is a fraud. If they’re going to approve a testing certificate that is fraudulent in my computer, training world, there’s a concept called garbage in and garbage out. If the data that you put into a system is garbage, you’re going to get really stupid answers. And so they can build their trusted global digital health certification network software system, but the certificates are bullshit. What is a vaccine certificate? It’s these are not health certificates. These are certificates of compliance, right? You, if you have all this paperwork, it means that you’re a nice compliant little man, woman, boy, girl, and we’ll let you travel because you’re obeying Gus. It’s a beginnings of a social credit system. Oh, you’re not complying with what we, and what in the world is a prophylaxis certificate? And what in the world is a recovery certificate? And despite what many people said way back in the day, two, three years ago natural immunity, And, having had COVID, there are many people, go back five or six years, people got the common cold. year after year. I never get cold because I do things that, don’t cause me to get this kinds of problems. The general population. Oh, I got the common cold and then I got it again and got it again and again. That type of immunity doesn’t work. And so What the heck would be a recovery certificate? It actually would probably mean in today’s world, Oh, you got jabbed. You were more likely to get sick. Your immune system is screwed. And, even though you’ve recovered, it really would be wait a minute. This person’s damaged. They’re more likely to be sick, and they’re more likely to transmit ailments. So this is what they want out of

James Egidio: 36:02

you. Yeah, that’s if you live long enough after all these jabs. I they talked about depopulation and we can, we can go there. But the other thing too is, they’re really pushing the narrative now with the climate change lockdowns. They’re talking about that. And, that, that’s all part of limiting your travel.

James Roguski: 36:20

I’ll dive into that. And that also is in the amendments. So again, we’re staying on point here. What they are doing. And this does bleed over into track number four. But what they’re trying to do is change the language. And the language is very vague. Okay, there is no legal definition of the word vaccine. There’s a definition on the CDC blog But that’s not a legal definition. You can’t go look in the United States code of federal regulations and find a definition for a vaccine. It’s whatever they say it is, and that needs to change. Okay. So article one of the international health regulations is all definition of terms. I’m scratching my head going, I don’t see a definition for the word vaccine. So when you tell me that somebody has to have a vaccine, I go, what is it? What’s the def? Oh if you go to annex six and approved vaccine is whatever the heck the WHO says it is. Now I’m a stickler for detail. And so in the WHO is constitution. Not the United States Constitution, but the WHO constitution that our Congress, accepted back in 1948. And that’s why we want to repeal that legislation under Article 21. There are five enumerated authorities that the WHO was given when they were put together and they have the authority to write regulations on these five separate issues, things like nomenclature, naming of diseases, how you determine whether or not somebody is properly diagnosed or, maybe what would be on a death certificate. or product labeling and product quality. There’s, there’s a legitimate need for making things regular. That’s what regulations are supposed to be. Here’s how we define a vaccine, right? The regulation they have is it’s whatever they say it is. And so if any of the regulations should be amended. It should be a discussion of what would qualify something to be a valid diagnostic test? Or what would the qualifications be to define what a vaccine is that actually, does what a vaccine is intended to do. What is the requirements or what are the requirements for a public health emergency of international concern? I think we’ve learned that a public health emergency of international concern is whatever Tedros wants it to be. Okay. Now, if there was a criteria and they have, four questions in their current criteria, if it’s this, or this, the nations are supposed to tell the WHO. We might have a problem, but ultimately, WHO’s director general is a dictator general. And if he says it’s a public health emergency of international concern, it’s a public health emergency of international concern, but they want to take it a step further. They want to change the language where that the wording says, not that it’s an emergency, but that there’s something out there. That has the potential to be an emergency. That’s called life.

James Egidio: 39:57

It’s interesting you say that because just recently the governor of New Mexico declared a public health emergency with an incident of a child being murdered. And she says we, we gotta put a 30 day hold on carrying guns on, on your hip, open carry. More or less, it was to me, it seemed like it was a beta test for gun control. 2nd amendment to go after the 2nd amendment on a state level, just to see how far she could push the envelope. And of course,

James Roguski: 40:33

back in. Back in the day before my time, okay, if something like that happened, the governor or the sheriff would get everybody together, did round up all their guns and then go on a manhunt looking for the perpetrator of the crime, right? They wouldn’t bring everybody in town together and say, hey, someone was murdered. Give me all your guns. Wow, the logic there is, really brilliant. And so this ties in and maybe transition into the fourth, right? But to close up what we’re talking about in this third track, these, this big pile of amendments wants to just make it so that they can track and trace people and get a, convince us that we need to get more fake certificates. And so my pushback is on wait a minute, you’re not defining. the word safe. You’re not defining the word effective. You’re not defining the word pandemic or public health emergency of international concern is whatever they want it to be. If you don’t define these terms, it’s all void for vagueness. It’s all meaningless. And a testing certificate a vaccine certificate, a prophylaxis certificate and a recovery certificate. If somebody is so utterly brilliant that they could actually write criteria or regulations to make that process regular, where people and doctors and experts and scientists could say yes. If we examined a person and we determined such and such a thing, maybe that would be a valid certificate. But, oh, wait a minute. You walk out into the world and you shake somebody’s hand, the certificate’s null and void. How do you even determine whether or not someone is a danger to humanity because they harbor some illness, right? That’s not how it works. You can’t do that, right? The way disease really occurs is an individual person has a pile of things going on in their life. They’re exposed to this. They’re We’re exposed to that. They’re deficient in this. They have habits and, health issues. It’s the terrain, versus the pathogen concept. You cannot certify that. It’s inordinately complicated. And so to say that someone would be given the authority to tell another man or woman that they are not allowed to travel across an imaginary border on the planet, right? Animals get to fly from country to country. Fish get to swim across the ocean, go wherever they want to go. But we have to stop at an imaginary line. Now, granted, nations have borders and they have rules. You have passports, you have all that sort of stuff. But for you to tell me that I have to stick something of unknown, an unknown substance under my skin in order to cross an imaginary line. Control your borders, first off, but to control them by telling people that they have to poison themselves and, Oh, we want to make sure you’re dumb enough to poison yourself. So we’ll let you into the country. Quite frankly, it should be the other way around. Are you unjabbed? And, are you a pure blood? Are you healthy or have you been damaged? So it’s completely backwards and they want to institute it globally.

James Egidio: 44:17

Yeah. And it’s interesting because I did a little research on quantum tattoos and that was something that was researched and done several years ago back when I did my research On it and dove into it about, oh gosh, 2002, 2003 at the Rice University in Texas, where Dr. McHugh, he’s a bioengineer, was doing some research on quantum tattoos. And the article that he and the paper that he submitted was in 2019 and alluded to vaccine passports for children and vaccine certificates for children. So it’s a tattoo that goes under the skin, and then they can scan it. And now we’re. They’re talking about ushering in quantum computing to keep up with all this. So they have an agenda for, I guess you could, we call it transhumanism. And, I interviewed Dr. Maria Mahelcia and she talks about the components that are in. The vaccine as well as Karen Kingston and how it’s even tied into 5g. So these things are not, they sound very far fetched to the person that may be listening and watching this, but it’s not far fetched. These things are, this technology is right around the corner.

James Roguski: 45:38

Yep, absolutely. And all of this stuff that we’ve been talking about, the first track was the United Nations. Declaration, a bunch of hot air theater. Okay. The second track were amendments that we’ve only got until December 1st to raise awareness about. Then there’s this big pile of amendments that are likely to be polished up by December 15th. Handful of months to raise awareness of that, and that’s primarily the concern is this global digital health certification network. The one thing I haven’t said about that yet is there’s been a lot of misinformation about that, but here’s where again, you look at it in the normal person makes a certain set of assumptions and they’re not correct. If you do a search for Global Digital Health Certification Network in WHO, you’ll find that they’re busy building it. They inherited the carcass, the digital carcass of the software system that the European Union had been using. The European Union’s system was started in June or July of 2021, ran for two years, and then it terminated and the EU handed over the software that they were using for the WHO to build off of. And so they are busy building the system. And the first week in October, they’re supposed to go over the negotiations about the details of the system that they’re building. Do you think they know where those negotiations are heading? They’re spending millions of dollars to build this thing. Do you think that, they’re just going to go now? No, thanks. Appreciate you building it. We want, of course they know that this is coming in, operation.

James Egidio: 47:26

And so they’re talking about the CBDCs, the central bank digital currency. And then what they’re doing to here is they’re printing and fast tracking the destruction of this country’s economy so that it crashes and then they’re like, oh geez, we got to go with this central bank, digital currency. That makes total sense as to why they’re doing

James Roguski: 47:48

this. And, there are pieces of legislation out there that people should be supporting that are, pass a law that says, no, that’s not the money we want and stop that. That’s not anywhere in the WHO’s purview. That’s quite frankly, a much bigger problem and people definitely need to be paying attention to that, but to be clear. There’s no mention of any of that in the amendments to the international health regulations or moving on to the 4th track, which almost everybody is completely confused about. Most people refer to it as. The pandemic treaty. I don’t like that term. They don’t call it that. You called it properly when we started this interview. The WHO CA+ and C. A. stands for convention agreement. And it’s really what they call a framework convention. They had a panel, the independent panels, what they call it for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Back in two years ago in May, they came out and they said here’s what we’ve decided after putting our heads together, we want a framework convention. And 30 billion. But we want a framework convention. And so most people, go what’s a framework convention? How is that different from a treaty? It makes all of the difference in the world. And it’s probably all that you need to know about what they’re doing. In chapter three of the latest version, which is soon going to be out of date. They talk about how this would be structured and the best analogy is if you were going to sign a contract and somebody stuck two, three, four, five pages, blank pages in the contract and said, don’t worry. We’ll have our friends fill in the details later. Just sign here. Okay. Just agree to a framework convention that would set up, and this is in the third chapter of the current agreement or document, and we’ll set up a conference of the parties. Who are those people going to be? It would be the delegates from the nations who sign on to the agreement. It would be. Corporate members, the companies that make pandemic response products, drugs, jabs, personal protective equipment, laboratory equipment, whatever the United Nations agencies, which donate a lot of money to the WHO and all of the foundations that you could imagine. I was at the grocery store a week and a half or so ago, and there was a little mini Cooper parked in the parking lot and it had a rotary international sign on it. If you can envision the gear that is the rotary clubs, right? It was emblazoned with get your polio vaccine. And you got to understand if you’re a member of the Rotary Club, they have given hundreds of millions of dollars to the WHO. So there’s organizations involved here that you go. I had no idea. What’s going on with this conference of the parties is that essentially, if you want to pay to play, if you’re a donor, Then you might be accepted into the club. George Carlin, talked about it’s right. I think he got it wrong. It’s a small club and you ain’t in it. He said it’s a big club and you ain’t in it. There’s this small circle of about 400 organizations that are referred to as stakeholders, relevant stakeholders. What’s the stakeholder? You have a stake in the company. You’ve got a financial interest in what they’re doing. And so if you donate money and you’re real nice to them and you play ball, you might get a seat at the table at the conference of the parties. Article 38 in the current draft. Says they would get to make the protocols. All of the detailed protocols that would fill in those blank pieces of paper in the contract that you signed. Now, this sounds crazy. And it is. But in 1992, the 193 nations in the UN agreed to the Framework Convention for Climate Change. And so year after year after year, they have the conference of the parties, COP 27, COP 28, whatever it may be. And they make decisions that we have no say over. Whatever they decide doesn’t come back to the Congress. It filters through back channels. and people in your local government are told these folks have decided that this is what they want you to do. You will do it because somebody agreed to that process back in 1992. Please. people don’t make that mistake again with the WHO and pandemic prevention preparedness response and recovery. You got to keep reading their phraseology is they want to talk about pandemic prevention preparedness response and recovery of healthcare systems, right? Not men and women. right? They want billions of dollars to build out health care systems. Now they make it sound good. Oh, everybody should have health care. We need more nurses in this that and the other thing. But what they really want to do is build out a laboratory network to do genomic sequencing. I came across some information the other day where they were all happy. Oh, Somalia before COVID did not have any bio labs. They did not have any labs that could do genomic sequencing. Now the person said they have 11 of them. Oh, great. Thank you. Defense department for passing the national defense authorization act at December of last year. Where the U. S. pledged a billion dollars a year into the World Bank pandemic fund and the pandemic fund has started disbursing money. A couple of 100 million dollars. I think 37, 37 different nations are getting money to do surveillance what they want and what is in this framework convention and their health care systems is not really what you and I think of as something that would make people healthier. Clean water, good food, no toxics in the environment. Now, what they want to do is build out laboratory networks that would search the countryside under their one health agenda. And what that really means is. Oh everything has an impact on your health. So we get to be in control of everything and they want to go looking, everybody’s not me because I never did it. But if somebody, got tested by getting a swab stuck up your nose or Some other orifice or imagine taking your pet to the veterinarian’s office and they stick something up your dog or cat’s nose or their stool sample or your chicken coop or your pig sty or your goat enclosure or your septic system or your sewage treatment plant or your hospital or your local bat cave or, penguin enclosure, they want to look everywhere. find pathogens with pandemic potential, right? They have what they call a pathogen access benefit sharing system. Sounds really nice. Pabs, right? And they want to share. these pathogens with all of these laboratories around the world and basically turn it into money. That’s what the benefit is. You get some genomic sequence and you make a drug or you make some jab and you go, Oh, we found something, in the local bat cave that has pandemic potential. So you all in this area, or maybe, and I did an interview with somebody from North Dakota. This is real stuff. And I did a total takedown of the craziness going on in New York City. They’re doing wastewater surveillance. So if they pull some water out of your septic system or your sewage treatment plant and they go, Oh, we found some polio. Okay. Oh where did we find it? Oh, let’s go upstream or backstream up in the sewage system. Oh, somebody maybe, on the East side of Manhattan has got polio. So everybody’s got to get jacked. I don’t think so. But that’s what the, that’s what this document is negotiating. Now imagine the money involved in building biological laboratories and to do all of the testing to surveil the world under the masquerade That you’re going to find a pathogen, send it to a lab, do some gain of function on it. See that it’s a pathogen with pandemic potential. Make the countermeasure, which is a biological weapons terminology. This is all coming from the defense department in the United States. It’s not people’s health. It’s the global health security agenda, right? They want to create a pathogen. And then sell you the vaccine for the pathogen that they dug up out of the countryside and turned into something, deadly. This insanity is beyond belief, but that’s what they’re doing. So I put together the PeoplesDeclaration.Com the PeoplesDeclaration.Com, which basically says you guys are negotiating all this stuff. You know what? You’re not negotiating. You’re not negotiating an end. to gain of function research. How about you do that? How about you shut down all of these negotiations and we have it real simple. Make an 11th commandment. I don’t mean to offend anybody’s religion. How about the 11th commandment is don’t mess with God’s creation. There you go. Don’t do gain of function. How about we have a no gain of function treaty and everybody says, stop creating the next pandemic.

James Egidio: 58:29

Yeah, it makes too much sense. That’s why. And you can see why they want to depopulate so that they can have less people to keep track of because this is a monumental task for the globalist. And thank goodness that they are up in age, guys like Schwab and all these, and I don’t know who their predecessors are gonna

James Roguski: 58:48

be. They’re training the next generation with all, they are young leaders, so they’ll be someone to step into his, shoes. Yeah. But if

James Egidio: 58:55

they’re snowflakes, they’re gonna cave into us old timers,

James Roguski: 58:57

I’ll push back a little bit on that. Yes. Okay. I actually work very closely with Dr. Rima Labo and we put together preventgenocide2030. org. So yes, many people are dying, but I have a little bit of a different view. I know, I know many of these things, 500 million people by 2030 or whatever it is, but on another level, okay. In the in the path to that dystopian, genocidal world, I’ve been saying for probably 20, 25 years that drugs and jabs are really customer acquisition tools for the pharmaceutical industry. Think about all of the healthy people who were tricked into believing, Oh, you’re at risk. Even though the statistics, little tiny babies were not at risk of COVID. But their parents were convinced that they had to protect them. So they injected some unknown substance into their body. And now they’re lifelong customers for the pharmaceutical industry. If you just understand that pharmaceutical drugs primarily. are poisons that only change your symptom pattern. You walk in with a certain set of symptoms, they give you a poison. It neutralizes some of the symptoms you had gives you a whole nother problem. Oh, you got to come back for tests and scans and, checkups or whatever. Drugs and jabs make, turn healthy people. into lifelong customers. And if you die too soon, they don’t make enough money off of you. They want your whole estate. They want to drain you until you’re at a point where, there’s no more money to be taken. And then at that point you die early. And then ideally you die early before you start collecting your pension. And so it’s not, if young people just boom die, okay, great that you chalk that up for the depopulation agenda. But from their perspective, ultimately, if that healthy young person can be turned into a ward of the state where they’re dependent upon the state, they’re easily controlled. If you’re disabled and you can’t work and you’ve got to get money from the government, then you’ve got to do what they tell you to do. Yeah, so it’s much more complex than just depopulation.

James Egidio: 1:01:26

Oh, yeah, you’re absolutely right. I interviewed a friend of mine He’s a pediatric, cardiologist, which is a very narrow field specialty Yeah, and it should be. And we discussed that. In fact, I’m having him come back on. We discussed multi system inflammatory disease versus Kawasaki disease. And we’re talking about this whole post covid flare up of these 2. what were at 1 time uncommon, diseases in young pediatric patients are now becoming very prevalent and more common, and we talked about that. We, he mentioned that, and he also, we’re going to actually talk about myocarditis and pericarditis as well.

James Roguski: 1:02:10

Yeah those should not be. On the rise and now, the amazing mystery to me is how people, have not awakened to the fact that the very people that you go to for care. Are the ones who cause, the third leading cause of death is not mistakes in the medical industry. It’s deaths caused by properly, meaning legally prescribed medications, not overdoses, not mistakes, not, they, they give you something and it kills you. It’s the, it was, it’s probably higher now it was, for decades, it’s been the third leading cause of death. And there’s a big awakening coming. I’m working to try to organize people, around the world to realize, with clarity and documentation and evidence, what is going on, but I’m actually optimistic. When you look at what happened yesterday. They got their butts whooped, they were trying to pull a fast one and they’re still spreading their propaganda misinformation about what this agreement was at the UN yesterday. It wasn’t what people thought it was. They’re currently negotiating in secret. And so to keep it really simple, what’s with the secrecy, we need to be able to see what’s going on. We need to have a public discussion. Of what you guys are doing. And what you’re not doing is you’re not putting an end to gain a function because that is biological warfare. And if you truly want to stop the next pandemic. You would outlaw that, shut down the vast majority, if not all of these biological weapons research laboratories, and bring back some sanity to the world.

James Egidio: 1:04:02

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And they talk about the next pandemic when I showed you that When I showed the audience this, the clip of Ted Rose, he’s talking about predicting the next. And if there is going to be one, which there will be these people are so sure that they’re going to just continue this narrative and that they’re just going to continue to push these poisons. And I just don’t think it’s going to happen. I read a lot of comments from articles from different sources and I could see the comments and the people that are saying, Hey, I, I didn’t participate this in this at the beginning and I’m not going to participate in it now. And I think just people are at a tipping point, there’s just a lot of tension in the air right now. And especially in this country, I think this country is really what the globalists know is the last beacon of hope for freedom and for Yeah. For freedom.

James Roguski: 1:04:54

Yeah. I would like to close on a very simple something. Okay, sure. One of the many things that I’ve done and I know I’m rattling off a whole bunch of stuff. Let me give everybody my phone number again. It’s 310 619 3055. And I think I might be able to wrap this up into a very simple something. If somebody tells you that you have to do something the reason I’m mentioning this is because I got word from a local hospital here in the Los Angeles area, Children’s Hospital, Los Angeles, that they have told their employees that they have to get vaccinated for the flu and COVID 19. If you go and you dig, Boy, I certainly cannot find the law or the regulation or any type of thing backs up that statement. And it’s really very simple. If someone says you have to do something, it’s our responsibility, push back and say, show me where you have the lawful authority and command over what I do to my body. Now, what Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles is trying to pull is to say, Oh, the county says you have to have it, or the state says you have to have it, or the federal government says you have to have it. If you go and you dig, no, they don’t, right? If you fall victim to that bluff, right? We’re saying that you have to do it. Oh, it’s not us. They’re telling us that we have to tell you to do it. You have to push back and say no, you have to show me where you have that authority. Authority to make me injure myself, right? And so I think that the problem is that what we have had over the past four years, if you recall the last line of the first version of the star spangled banner, right? Or the land of the free and the home of the brave. We have had an overabundance of fearmongering. Sure. And so there is an abundance of fear in many people when we live up to our reputation as the home of the free and the land of the brave. When we find the courage on a human to human level, person to person level, saying, you’re telling me that you have authority over me. No, you don’t know. No, you don’t know. And when we push back and we say, you show me the law that gives you authority over me. Now, there could be some,

James Egidio: 1:08:05

you don’t even have to do that. You don’t even have to do that. You have a God given right to refuse that a God given, right? That’s it. Period. End of story. You don’t even own an explanation to these people.

James Roguski: 1:08:15

And so I used to manage for about 15 years, I managed an urban nutrition and homeopathic aromatherapy store. And I’m couched in the idea of if you have too much of something, you’ve got to stop it. If you’re deficient in something, you supplement it, you get that balance. Individually. If someone says you have to wear a mask, right? I have a whole website mask charade dot com. Oh, you got to wear a mask. My response is, hey brother, what are you so afraid of? Is my breath that bad? I’m sorry, let me get a mentors. What are you afraid if you’re wearing a mask and you’re afraid of me breathing something, dangerous on you. Then you wear your mask. You’re good. Why? Why are you living in fear? Find the courage to take off the mask and trust your immune system, right? If you’ve gotten jabbed, why are you saying that I have to get jabbed? Are you afraid that your jab didn’t work because that’s what you’re really saying? Okay. Now, if you’re living in fear let me help you come out of that fear based life because that’s a horrible place to be what we’re really dealing with. Is a deficiency of courage. Now, it’s not necessarily courage to take on the WHO and the United Nations and the federal government and the FDA and all that sort of stuff. It’s courage to walk out into the world not being afraid that some boogeyman virus or whatever’s gonna get you, and that you gotta wear a mask and you gotta stick poison in your skin and swallow poison to be protected from whatever the heck it is. They’ve convinced you to be afraid of fine. Some courage so that you deserve to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

James Egidio: 1:10:12

I’m going to interview you. We’ll get caught back up again in three months in December, right after December 15th. We’ll, I’ll get you back on and we can discuss this again. I really appreciate your time, James. I know you’re pretty busy and again, yeah, absolutely. And I’ve been posting the, at the bottom there, the your sub stack. Cause I know that’s one of the main sources to get a lot of your information and your content.

James Roguski: 1:10:37

I know that months ago, I can’t tell you how many people have told me, Oh, Jim, you got to dumb it down. You got to make it simple. People can’t read all the time. And I have rejected that. I do make actions very simple for people to do, but I treat everybody that they have the capacity to comprehend even the most difficult things because, many of the most difficult things are really very simple. Hey guys, masks don’t work. The thing they call tests are fraudulent. The jabs actually make you worse. Lockdowns, lockdowns, quarantine and travel restrictions clearly did not work. Find the truth, speak the truth, back it up with evidence. But more importantly, we have an imbalance. between fear and courage. Yeah, absolutely. If you’re afraid of something, and you need somebody to help bolster your courage, give me a phone call. 310 619 3055.

James Egidio: 1:11:38

Thanks, James. I really appreciate your time. Thank you so much. Have a good

James Roguski: 1:11:43

day. Take care.

Outro: 1:11:46

Thanks for listening to the Medical Truth Podcast. For the latest episodes, go to www. medicaltruthpodcast. com. You can also find the Medical Truth Podcast on Rumble, as well as all the major podcast platforms like Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, and iHeart.