← Redacted News
Loading summary
Transcript40 lines
- [00:02]
Lowe's Advertiser
Lowes knows July 4th savings are worth celebrating right now. Get up to 40% off. Select major appliances and get an additional 10% off two or more. Select major appliances plus get three Scott's Naturescapes 1.5 cubic foot mulch bags for just $10. These deals are coming in hot. Lowes, we help you Save. Valid through 7.
- [00:25]
James Roski
9.
- [00:25]
Lowe's Advertiser
Selection varies by location while supplies last. See Lowe's.com for more details. Excludes Alaska and Hawaii.
- [00:30]
IPVanish Advertiser
Did you know using your browser in incognito mode doesn't actually protect your privacy? Take back your privacy with IPVanish VPN. Just one tap and all your data, passwords, communications, browsing history and more will be instantly protected. Ipvanish makes you virtually Invisible Online. Use IPVanish on all your devices, anytime you go online, at home, and especially on public wi fi. Get ipvanish now for 70% off a yearly plan with this exclusive offer@ipvanish.com audio.
- [01:01]
Clayton
So what do you think you know about the World Health Organization? The who? What is the who? Do you think it has your best interests at heart? Our next guest has been researching this for decades. James Roski is a researcher, author, natural health proponent, and an activist. For more than three decades, he's focused on exposing the lies that have been spewed by the government, the media, and the pharmaceutical hospital emergency industrial complex, which he calls it FHEIC Big Pharma. So James joins us now to do a deep dive on the who. James, welcome back to the show. Great to see you.
- [01:37]
James Roski
Well, thank you very much for having me. I appreciate the opportunity.
- [01:40]
Clayton
So, James, when did you first realize the World Health Organization wasn't what it claimed to be?
- [01:47]
James Roski
Well, you know, my research into health started when I moved out to California almost 30 years ago in 1996, and I started managing a mom and pop urban nutrition store and fell deep down the rabbit of natural health. And it really came about with the who with COVID Like many people, I, for the most part, didn't give them much attention until I found documents that were submitted by the Bush administration to amend the international health regulations. And that's when I really started paying attention to the WHO because. Because those were different than what everybody else was talking about. And you know, interestingly enough, it all started with the Republican Party and a minority report during the first Trump administration. So when you look into what the WHO is and, and what they were designed to be, people can go all the way back to 1946 when they started talking about it, and June 14, 1948, when the United States and President Harry Truman signed us in. And if you want to give them the benefit of the doubt that a lot of good people have worked for the WHO through the years, you know, you can say that they have done some good things. But maybe 20 years ago, when the flow of money shifted from the nations that were member states to the who, they didn't really want to pay any more money, and the WHO wanted more money. So they opened up their financing to, you can call it by many different names, civil society, non government organizations, NGOs, nonprofits, foundations, what have you. And what ultimately happened was that source of funding took control and it's, you know, it's a basic rule, you know, follow the money. What they've allowed to happen to the World Health Organization is to allow funders from these various groups to give money with strings attached. And so if you, if you look at what happened with DOGE and USAID and you see how all of this money has gone into all kinds of organizations to do whatever it is those organizations do, governments have outsourced many activities to organizations that are uncontrollable. And then it has a feedback loop where they support decisions and then they take public money, run it through organizations like the who, which then, you know, has programs that feed the beast of what I call I, I call it the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex. Because I woke up one morning and I had been, you know, researching the Director General's authority to declare a public health emergency of international concern. The acronyms are the same. P H E I C or fake. And so if in, in summary, my opinion, and you know, people are welcome to debate this with me at any time, is that their goal is to serve their donors, not to serve the people of the world and improve our health. It's to transfer wealth to an industry that I've been fighting against for 30 years. You know, once you realize an again, in my view, when you look at the testing and the screening and the drugs that are used, and obviously jabs, you know, the quote unquote vaccines. I've realized that what Big Pharma does with all of those activities, those are all just customer acquisition tools. They take healthy people who don't really realize that the testing is designed to keep looking for a problem that they can then use as a sale skills tool to convince people that they have some ailment that can be repaired or adjusted or the symptoms can be treated by swallowing or injecting a poison. And you know, 20, 25 years or so, 30 years ago or so When I realized that was the business model, that it's not about actually identifying the cause of someone's health problem. That has to be done individually. You certainly can't do that, you know, with state mandates or federal mandates or certainly not universal international mandates. This idea of, you know, some bureaucrat who's making an average of 100 plus thousand dollars a year writing papers in Geneva can identify the best way to treat, you know, an emerging health problem in an individual human being. It's absolutely absurd.
- [07:07]
Clayton
I spoke yesterday to Congressman Ron Paul, Dr. Ron Paul, and he said, Clayton, we spoke like 30 minutes and he said, clayton, he said, I'm telling you, the US dollar is collapsing. He said, well, we're not gonna be having this conversation in 10 years. We're not gonna be having the same conversation in 10 years. The US dollar is on a path that is basically irretrievable at this point. And he's like, I hope you're telling your audience, please make sure that they are investing in gold and silver, that, that they are owning precious metals because the US dollar is on an unsustainable path. The rise of the BRICs, currencies, the amount of debt that the United States is sitting right now, this isn't a scare tactic. This is a wake up call. And the thing with Congressman Ron Paul is that people retroactively love to point. They'll be like, hey, did you see what he said on the floor of Congress 10 years ago? And then it all came to pass. He sees it as unsustainable, I see it as unsustainable. So we are big believers and please just get on the phone and give our friends at Lear Capital a phone call. Have a conversation with them, talk to them about how you could actually start investing in precious metals in your family. Like, if you've got US Dollars, you know your family's future is tied to US Dollars. You've got a savings account. Have a conversation with them seriously about converting it maybe to a self directed IRA where you can invest in actual tangible things. Real estate, gold, silver, all of it. You can do that. But anyway, have a conversation with these guys. Stop sitting on your hands. I'm telling you that this is happening and we've been trying to warn you about it. Congressman Ron Paul warning people about what's happening to the US dollar. He said, if you want to get a sort of a glimpse of what's going to happen to the US Dollar, look at Zimbabwe. If you want to understand how we go bankrupt, what happens to the devaluing of Our currency. That's where we're headed right now. So anyway, give them a call, have a conversation with them. Even if it's like a little bit in your, you know, in your portfolio that you're trying to protect your family with. Converting US Dollars into gold or silver, just, you know, heck, even real estate at this point, just be smart about it. 1-800-613-3557 talk to them or go to learredacted.com that's the place to go. Learedacted.com.
- [09:23]
Lowe's Advertiser
Lowe's nose July 4th savings are worth celebrating right now. Get up to 40% off, select major appliances and get an additional 10% off two or more select major appliances. Plus get three Scott's Naturescapes 1.5 cubic foot mulch bags for just $10. These deals are coming in hot. Lowes we help you Save valid through 7.
- [09:46]
James Roski
9.
- [09:46]
Lowe's Advertiser
Selection varies by location while supplies last. See Lowes.com for more details. Excludes Alaska and Hawaii.
- [09:51]
IPVanish Advertiser
Did you know using your browser in incognito mode doesn't actually protect your privacy. Take back your privacy with IPVAN vpn. Just one tap and all your data, passwords, communications, browsing history and more will be instantly protected. IPVanish makes you virtually invisible online. Use IPVanish on all your devices anytime you go online at home, and especially on public wi fi. Get IPVanish now for 70% off a yearly plan with this exclusive offer@ipvanish.com audio.
- [10:22]
Clayton
So maybe we can go back to the beginning of the whole and its foundations you talked about in the 1940s. I believe that's when it started. Like, what was the gestational process? What did it look like? Who were the donors? Who were the people in the room where it happened? I'm always fascinated about that because when you look at, like the Bretton Wood Accords and who was in the room sort of setting monetary policy, who was in the room in 1913, 1912, convincing Woodrow Wilson to go along with the implementation of the Federal Reserve. You know, these things that have been so detrimental to our society. So who was in the room? How did this thing start?
- [11:01]
James Roski
Well, you mentioned that I was actually going to say, you got to go back to Jekyll island and, you know, where did all of the financing happen? You really have to go back to France in the 1800s. And, you know, think of the time when, you know, sewage ran in the street, you know, and horses were everywhere and there was excrement all over the, you know, the place because of the means of transportation. Originally, it started with sanitary regulations. And if you can think of a time when, you know, your mode of travel was primarily horse and there weren't, you know, there wasn't indoor plumbing, there wasn't, you know, clean running, you know, water, indoor plumbing and all that sort of thing. Sanitation was a big, big important issue. And so those regulations, over a hundred years ended, are really the starting point for the purpose of the who. If you can imagine after World War II, a lot of nations were in ruin. You know, a lot of disease happens because of poor sanitation. And at that time, you know, indoor plumbing, and still to this day, indoor plumbing is not available throughout the world. So the reduction in contagion or contagious diseases, infectious diseases, if anybody looks at any of the information, they see that it, you know, it just dropped, it plummeted in the early 1900s due to sanitation. And so when the WHO started after World War II, there's a lot of people who talk about, you know, the philosophical or political views of the founders. It's hard to know what someone's intent was, okay? But basically their philosophy was not individual rights and freedoms, but a collective view of how to treat the world. You can look at the United nations and the WHO and say, well, it's a, you know, communist view, it's a collective view. But, you know, if you give them the benefit of the doubt, one of the first things that they adopted were the international sanitation regulations in the 50s. And then I think probably, I don't know your age, Clayton, but probably older than you. In 1969 when everybody was looking up at the moon because, you know, maybe men were landing there, literally In July of 1969, the World Health assembly met in Boston, Massachusetts, of all places, and adopted the international health regulations. And that is thing that I think people are forgetting. You know, certainly before we end the show, I want to talk about the importance of the timing. On July 19, that is the deadline for every nation on the planet to have their leader send a letter to the WHO to reject the amendments that were adopted on June 1, 2024. The, the 10 month period for most of the nations on the planet to reject the amendments that they adopted is fast approaching. And most people have absolutely no idea that the international health regulations even exist. And some of the things that are in there are absolute abominations. And so, you know, where did those start?
- [14:32]
Clayton
Did that, did that start in 1969, the International Health regulations?
- [14:38]
James Roski
It was adopted, I believe officially about five days after the moon landing. And, you know, it's been Amended numerous times. And, you know, I remembered the first time I read them, about half of it was like, oh, well, this, you know, this sounds pretty good. It's reasonable. It makes sense. And the other half of it was just an absolute abominations. Like how in the world. I'll. I'll point people first off to Article 31 in the International Health Regulations. It is the classic piece of double speak. It starts off by saying that, you know, nations should not require paperwork for people who are traveling. And then it goes on to say in section two, unless the nations want to. And then it goes on to say that when you leave your home nation, you have to realize that when you set foot on another nation's territory, your protections from the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and all that, throw them out the window because you're not in your native land anymore. And when people travel, in Article 31, section or paragraph 2, it says that, that the nation to where you are traveling can do whatever they want to you. They can require you to go through tests, they can require you to take treatments, they can require you to be vaccinated. And, you know, most people think that this is, you know, brand new information, but certainly that addition of the International Health Regulations has been around since 2005 and went into force in 2007. So there are things in there that are good, but there are things in there that are absolutely atrocious. And, and so one of the things that they added was, you know, the, the trout. When, when people are traveling, they can spray insecticides inside the cabin. Yeah. You can go on YouTube and find plenty of videos where people who are taking a flight to wherever they may be going, the flight attendants just walk up and down the aisles spraying insecticide. Absolutely. Be cautious and ask ahead and make sure. Now it doesn't happen in most flights. So people don't really think about it. Catches everybody by surprise. It's basically part of the International Health regulations that have been agreed upon for decades, since 1969.
- [17:17]
Clayton
So who's running before we get into. Because I definitely want to get into the WHO Pandemic Treaty and everything that's coming up on July for people to vote on this. But before that, who's running? The who. Who are the main donors? I know we've covered, like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, big piece of this. So you said at the very beginning here that the WHO is, is not in service of the United States of America. It's not in service of me. It's in service of these donors, all to Placate and take care of these donors. So who's running the World Health Organization and WHO are its biggest donors?
- [18:00]
James Roski
That's a complicated answer. And let me see if I can summarize it as best I can. In the WHO Constitution, right? It's, you know, we have our United States constitution, but in 1946 and in the US in 1948, we agreed to the WHO Constitution. I encourage people to look it up online. You can find the WHO's basic documents and you can see what they're supposed to be doing. And, you know, it's supposed to be for the health of everyone on the planet. WHO is officially supposed to be the governing body of the World Health Organization is the World Health Assembly. Now, the World Health assembly, you know, think your state assembly, you know, think Congress or Senate or Parliament. Every nation that's a member, there's 194 officially. But maybe the United States and Argentina are leaving. They send delegates once a year to meet at the World Health assembly, and they decide on the policies that the World Health Organization is supposed to be following through with, you know, for the remainder of the year. Because the World Health assembly typically only meets once a year. So the official constitutional answer is the World Health assembly, meaning, you know, the. All the member states, delegates are supposed to be setting policy. Well, what's happened to the WHO is kind of what has happened to every government, I think you could imagine, is that the legislative body that is supposed to represent the will of every nation, just like the legislative body in every state or province or country is supposed to represent the will of the people they meet once a year. And then the deep state of the who, all of these many bureaucrats that are part of the World Health Organization, the bureaucracy, the executive branch, if you will, they have, you know, wonderful cushy jobs pushing paper, writing reports, and, you know, dictating to the world what they believe is the appropriate thing to do. And in order to keep that running, they're not getting enough money from direct contributions, you know, the assessed payments, the dues, if you will, that the nations, you know, agreed to pay. So they're bringing money in from Bill and Linda Gates and Gavi and even things like the European Commission and, and various organizations. People noted that there's a Lego foundation and an Ikea foundation, and even the Rotary International donates hundreds of millions of dollars with strings attached. So in, you know, in general, the director general, Tedros Gabrias, is the titular head of, of the World Health Organization. But the vast majority of the money that they have to operate with has strings attached. So it's donated, but it's designated for certain programs. Now even nations like the United States, we've been the biggest additional donor. Right. So a lot of the numbers confuse people because we have our assessed payments and they're relatively small. It's really in the grand scheme of a $37 billion or trillion dollar debt that we have. The payments were assessed were tiny. But in order to influence the policy, nations like the United States, we, you know, gave average a half a billion dollars a year with strings attached. And, and so, you know, money, money talks. And for the most part, the people who donate the money, Bill and Melinda Gates being one of the biggest, along with Gavi and the European Commission, they set the policy. And it doesn't reflect what is actually best for people. It, I believe it reflects the needs, desires and wants of the pharmaceutical lobby in the countries that are donating that money. And effectively, you know, this may raise some skepticism by people, but I think what we're really dealing with is fascism with the 21st century upgrade. Benito Mussolini defined fascism as corporatism where corporations work hand in hand with government to take advantage of the people. Well, 21st century upgrade is this third leg, which is all of these foundations and non profits and NGOs and civil society. 400 organizations were listed as having access to all of these negotiations that have been going on with the amendments and the treaty. All of these groups that I just mentioned, they actually have a seat at the table. You and I don't get to have any input, you know.
- [23:15]
Clayton
And so to be clear, like these 400 NGOs, are they probably receiving like my tax dollars as well, like sort of like USAID? Many of these NGOs are incredibly corrupt and dirty. They were receiving my tax dollars funneled through usaid. So they have a seat at the table. And these are sort interest NGOs, special interest.
- [23:38]
James Roski
Lobbying is, you know, probably really the best term to use. I absolutely agree with that. The short answer is yes. But in the amendments that were adopted on June 1, 2024, and the deadline to reject them, we don't, we don't get to vote on them. The, the, the way it is at this point right now, they voted back in 2024 and they were adopted. They have a strange procedure and they broke their own rules. And there's a whole argument about that. We could take a day on, but the deadline to reject them requires the head of state or possibly the international relations or foreign minister, you know, our State Department, possibly Marco Rubio has authority to write a letter to the whole and just say, no, thank you, we reject these amendments. In the amendments. And this is one of the things that I am, you know, trying to get people to pay attention to. There is an article that was snuck in, article 44 bis. It's weird nomenclature that they use, added on behind Article 44, which they added financing into the regulations. Now I actually have something that I'm going to pull up just so I can read it and make sure that I'm crystal clear here. Article 21 of the Constitution lists of the WHO Constitution lists five things, five categories that the Health assembly has authority to adopt. Regulations concerning sanitary and quarantine requirements is A, names of diseases. Is B, standards for diagnostic procedures. Is C, D is standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological pharmaceutical and other products. Moving in international commerce. And E is advertising and labeling of biological pharmaceutical products. Well, they didn't make any amendments for the things that they really should be doing. And even their own expert committee that reported on the proposed amendments way back on February 6, 2023 said, hold on just a moment. You're not. We don't have constitutional authority to make regulations about financing. So that entire category should not be in the regulations. They have violated their own constitutional authority. They haven't made the changes that they should be making. It would be lovely if they had, you know, labeling requirements rather than all these blank inserts on the biological weapons that they spread around the world. But the point of it is, one of the lines in 44 biscuits is that money will be directed to organizations and entities. So the reason why all of these groups wanted the amendments and they wanted the treaty because very similar language is in the proposed treaty, which is, you know, still further down the road, is they want money to flow. They want public money to flow through the international health regulations, flow through the whole. Flow through the pandemic agreement to be distributed. I would call it WHO aid. You're familiar with USAID and all the corruption and all that sort of thing. When, when government wants to hide what they're doing, they get their cronies in some organization to do their dirty work for them and they make it look like, oh, you know, we're injecting babies in Africa with, you know, quote, unquote, vaccines. Don't, don't mind, you know, this, the sterility implications of that, and don't mind all the side effects and all that sort of thing. But they get money flowing through these organizations in such a twisted loop. That it's very difficult to, you know, extract out the conflicts of interest, you know, shout out to a group in Australia, the Australian Medical Practitioners Group. I published an article just yesterday. I think I shared it with your producers of all of the conflicts of interest and how they're violating their own rules getting money from organizations and handing out contracts all along the way. The last time I checked, about 30% of the money that the WHO spends is on salaries for bureaucrats. So, you know, they have the same type of deep state organization that pushes paper, makes reports, you know, tells the world what they believe they should do. And that's money that would, you know, in my view, be better spent actually working to improve the natural health of people around the world rather than the wealth of bureaucrats and organizations that, you know, siphon it all back to the pharmaceutical industry.
- [28:53]
Clayton
You know that most coffee out there is weak, it's acidic, it doesn't taste good, it's mass produced by corporations, it's sits on shelves for so long that they don't even care what goes into your body. But 1775's Peaberry coffee is totally different. This stuff is fantastic. I'm a huge coffee fan and this is a must have in our coffee every morning in our house. So less than 5% of all beans qualify as peaberry. They grow alone at high altitudes in Bolivia. They're hand picked and to have maximum strength, clarity and antioxidant power, it delivers better focus, clean energy and smooth flavor without the crash or that chemical like aftertaste that so many bad coffees, not this one, not from 1775. And like everything that 1775 does, it's organic. They make small batches of it and it's sourced from real farmers and not Factory Farms. So visit 1775 Coffee.com and use the code redacted. Get 15% off. Drink coffee that actually makes sense and is actually good for you. Drink coffee that's actually telling the truth. Go to 1775 Coffee.com and use the code redacted to get 15% off. Thanks 1775. We love you guys.
- [30:18]
Lowe's Advertiser
Lowe's nose July 4th savings are worth celebrating right now. Get up to 40% off. Select major appliances and get an additional 10% off two or more select major appliances. Plus get three Scott's naturescapes 1.5 cubic foot mulch bags for just $10. These deals are coming in hot. Lowes we help you Save. Valid through 7, 9. Selection varies by location while supplies last. Seeloes.com for more details. Excludes Alaska and Hawaii.
- [30:46]
IPVanish Advertiser
Did you know using your browser in incognito mode doesn't actually protect your privacy? Take back your privacy with IPVanish VPN. Just one tap and all your data, password, communications, browsing history and more will be instantly protected. IPVanish makes you virtually invisible online. Use IPVanish on all your devices, anytime you go online, at home, and especially on public wi fi. Get IPVanish now for 70% off a yearly plan. With this exclusive offer@ipvanish.com audio maybe you.
- [31:17]
Clayton
Can talk about where things stand right now as we head into July. We have this WHO pandemic treaty and we've been covering it for years on the show. They, I mean, I think part of the big sales, the side that really frustrated us, I think is that we, that the United States in many ways was going to give up its sovereignty to the World Health Organization. But maybe that's not entirely accurate or maybe that's sort of, you know, muddied the message here. But that's the way that a lot of us read it, that the United States or other countries was going to give over during an emergency, during a pandemic, whatever they called a pandemic, sort of emergency powers to an unelected group of globalists who were going to implement lockdown policy, vaccine policy, biometric scanning, all of that. And maybe that's fear mongering, I don't know. Then a couple of countries like in Africa stood up and said no. And so they've been going through this like review process now on this pandemic treaty for it feels like two, two years. So now we're heading into July where these countries now have an opportunity to sort of redline certain things in this pandemic treaty. Can you kind of set the stage like where are we? How bad is this pandemic treaty? What does it mean for the United States of America?
- [32:41]
James Roski
Well, you know, let me say thank you first for this long form discussion because you know, these things don't lend themselves to sound bites. So let me try to actually really explain what has confused the living daylights out of people. If you go all the way back to 2020 and all of the insanity that happened, okay, the international health regulations do not give the WHO the authority to go busting into a nation like China and say we're here to inspect your facilities, we're here to inspect your wet market. We're here to see the heck is really going on. The ihr, you know, is, is very complicated but it basically does respect nations sovereignty. And so what happened in early 2020 is that people were upset that China was not fully forthcoming with information about what happened. And we're never, I don't think, ever really going to know. And so at the time, the Republican Party in the United States put forth a minority report and they called for giving the WHO more authority. And it blew people's minds back in. In 2022, when I got a lot of people to write articles, I'm sorry, write letters to their congresspeople, and Republican congressmen were supporting Biden's amendments from 2022, which would have given more authority to the WHO to inspect and do all these sort of things. And so it was confusing because what happened was at some point in 2020, Trump just said, oh, screw it, right? We're just going to leave the who. And he started a year long process, put that all in the, in the rearview mirror.
- [34:55]
Clayton
To be clear, that didn't go anywhere, Right. It got stopped.
- [34:59]
James Roski
Well, and I think what happened, he.
- [35:02]
Clayton
Just, he just put it back in again. Right? So now we're. So at the beginning of 2025, in.
- [35:07]
James Roski
2020, Trump started a process that was simply because when Harry Truman signed the joint resolution passed by Congress on June 14, 1948, we held a reservation in our joint resolution when we joined the who, and we said, if we reserve the right to leave, if we ever leave, will give you one year's notice and we'll pay whatever, you know, we agreed to pay. But it also said in there that nothing that the WHO ever does requires the United States to change any law. Now counter that with the law in a nation like Malta. I've got good friends in Malta. They did their homework in Malta. Malta has a law on their books which says, whatever recommendations the WHO makes those count as Maltese regulations. We don't have to do anything if they say, so it's law in Malta. In the United States, our joint resolution from 1948 says, you know, you can't tell us to do anything. We can leave anytime we want. So every nation has a slightly different situation. Now, Fast forward to 2022, when I really started paying attention to this and I identified that the Biden administration had submitted amendments to the international health regulations, you know, proposed for the May 2022 assembly. Everybody was talking about the pandemic treaty, and I realized, hey, wait a minute, the international health regulation, that's a totally different thing. And, and so the confusion between these two has been, you know, the source of problems for everyone. What happened in 2022 is 12 of the 13amendments that the Biden administration had proposed were kicked to the curb. The African nations did push back against that. They say, we're not having it. But that wasn't the pandemic treaty. That wasn't the amendments that we're dealing with now. Those were a very different set of amendments. One of them did make it through and was adopted. The Biden administration wanted to shorten the time frame for nations to reject future amendments. It had been 18 months. If they passed an amendment, nations would have 18 months to just write a letter and say, no, thank you, we reject them. Biden wanted to shorten that down to six months, which is just nowhere near enough time. And it got negotiated and haggled, and it ended up at 10 months. So the period of time that nations have to reject amendments was shortened by the Biden administration ultimately getting this to be adopted in 2022 from 18 months down to 10, and then it goes into effect two months later at one year, rather than 24 months or two years. Now, in December 1st of 2023, the deadline came around, and four nations did send a letter and rejected the 2022amendments. Iran, Slovakia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands. Their deadline to reject the 2024amendments is not July 19th of this year. They have an additional eight months. So, you know, they. They have shown that national leaders can be convinced to just write a single, you know, simple letter to the WHO and say, take your amendments and shove them where the sun don't shine. Not for our nation. So there. There's a separate column. You know, they're operating on a different set of rules, because now the IHR has two different sets of nations and two different rules for it. The amendments that were adopted in 2024 are up for rejection by July 19, coming up very shortly by the other 190 nations. And this still applies to the United States. Trump, in what way?
- [39:35]
Clayton
So what's in. He started the process of removing ourselves from what's in these amendments specifically that still apply to the United States.
- [39:45]
James Roski
The most egregious one is the financing, okay? They want all of these billions of dollars to flow through, and that financing should not be in the regulations. That is a violation of the WHO Constitution. It just absolutely should not be there. The other thing I mentioned is they added quarantine. I think it was Article 27. Off the top of my head. People can go to reject the amendments.com rejecttheamendments.com and see all of the details. I've detailed the top 10 reasons they added the ability to quarantine they call them conveyances. You know, airplanes, boats, you know, any. Any people traveling. The definition of the term quarantine, does it mean what most people assume it to mean? They have their own lingo in the international health regulations. One of the words is the word suspect. So if you're on a cruise ship, if you're on an airplane and someone is ill and they are determined, oh, maybe they have some contagion, you're suspect just because you're on the vehicle and you can be quarantined even if you are not ill. So they added that in these recent things. And they also added that they want, what I mentioned earlier, the application of procedures by, you know, airlines or cruise ship operators. They want people who are embarking or disembarking to be treated with things like, you know, insecticides. Those are things that have been added in very, very quietly. They started talking about, you know, digitizing all of the paperwork. They didn't go as far as some people feared because quite frankly, they can't. The issue really is that the, the nations themselves, whether it's on a state or a federal level, are the ones who have enacted emergency legislation to align with whatever they may have agreed with the who. So it's, it's subtle, but it makes all the difference in the world. The WHO does not have the authority, authority to mandate lockdowns or travel restrictions or, you know, forced vaccinations or anything like that. They've set policy. They make recommendations. The problem is local. It's always local. Your mayor in your municipality, your, your business owner, quite frankly, or, or your county health department, your state health department. They are the ones who didn't need any international health regulation amendments. They didn't need no stinking pandemic treaty to, you know, violate all your rights and freedoms over the last five, five and a half years. There are laws on the books around the world. You know, Western Australia, British Columbia come to mind. Things like Malta, where the local laws are just absolutely, you know, violating people's rights and freedoms. And if you just look at what happened, it's all happening locally. So to try to summarize this for people, because I know it's a lot of information. It's like drinking from a fire hose. The international health regulations were designed to facilitate trade and travel, but they have all kinds of double speak in them, and they allow nations to do whatever the heck they want and abuse your rights and freedoms, especially when you're traveling. And so for anybody who's traveling, you know, pay attention to, you know, where you're going and realize that if you leave the United States and go somewhere else, you're under their rules. And the international health regulations give them all the authority to do, you know, whatever the heck it is they want to do in their country to someone who's traveling. The deadline for the heads of states, president, prime minister, even the Pope, because the Holy See is part of this, they simply have to write a letter rejecting the international health regulations for their nation. The way they have it set up is laziness and procrastination. You know, if they just waste enough time and don't do anything and that time passes, then it's assumed that, hey, you didn't say anything. It's kind of like at a wedding, you know, when the minister says, anybody here who objects to this matrimony, you know, speak now or forever hold your peace. This also applies to the United States because even though Trump started the year long process to get us out of the who, he has not written that letter rejecting the amendments to the international health regulations. The deadline applies and he hasn't said, oh, we're leaving the international health regulations. Now, when he came into office, he did sign an executive order and he gave 180 days to the State Department to review all of our international entanglements. Well, the deadline is for that report to come back from the State Department is July 22nd a little bit too late. So, you know, I would love to call out Marco Rubio, Secretary of State and President Donald Trump, address the issue of the international health regulations and the amendments before July 19, 2025, do the right thing, reject the amendments and make the decision as to whether or not the United States is also going to continue to participate in the international health regulations, the pandemic treaty, if we can transition. Because you asked about this whole different set of confusion. Suffice it to say they did a wonderful psyop this past World Health Assembly. They adopted the pandemic agreement. But in the pandemic agreement, there are details and they made it very clear, even though the media presented it in a very different way, that, well, we've adopted it and we're going to keep working on it, but no nation can sign it until they actually finish the negotiations. They pulled a really slick move. They failed to completely reach an agreement. We talked about this last time you had me on. There's an Annex for article 12, that is the pathogen access and benefit sharing system. They just, they couldn't reach an agreement. And this is the most ridiculous concept in the world. Go looking for pathogens, whether or not they're actually causing any ailments. If they have pandemic potential, bring them into the WHO coordinated laboratory network so they can share those pathogens all around the world with all of the companies that want to make diagnostic tests and drugs and jabs and whatever insane idea and give access to those pathogens with pandemic potential to everybody on the planet and then decide how to share the benefits from whatever, you know, very profitable products might get made from those pathogens. The confusing nature of the desire of the African nations is that they actually want this. They want the, the benefit part of it. They want the investment to be able to manufacture their own pharmaceutical products in their own nations and profit from them. And there's a history behind this that goes into, you know, biological diversity, where pharmaceutical companies would come into relatively poor nations, get their early herbal knowledge and wisdom from the healers and shamans and natural medicine, turn those chemical compounds, alter them slightly, turn them into patentable products, pharmaceutical drugs, and then make billions of dollars, but not share that with the nation that had that indigenous knowledge. Well, back in 1992, there was a convention on biological diversity and they had what they call access and benefit sharing. If the corporations, pharmaceutical companies, were given access to that wisdom, they had to share some of the benefits. Well, put a P for pathogen in front of that system. Pathogen access and benefit sharing system. They want to be able to profit from whatever kind of pathogens they can find. Well, if you incentivize looking for problems, you're going to find more problems. So the concept behind the pathogen access and benefit sharing system is, you know, relatively poor nations, whether they still have, you know, jungles or savannas or, you know, people are living in close proximity to their herds and all that sort of thing, there's an untold amount of biological diversity that the pharmaceutical industry wants to turn into fraudulent PCR tests. Oh, we found some bird flu or some Marburg or some Ebola or whatever. Everybody's got to get tested. Got to get tested, got to get tested. But the testing is a billion, maybe even trillion dollar fraud. I have a whole webpage put together for that PCR fraud dot com. I'm sure you're very much aware that, you know, how in the world you get tested positive for Covid and have an asymptomatic respiratory disease that can cause you to be locked down because you're suspect, okay, It's a racket. And if you actually look at what the WHO is set up to do, they charge companies to get their products approved. And it's a multi million dollar money making venture for them. They want in the pandemic agreement for this, you know, regulations to be sped up so that they can get products through their funnel faster. And they want nations to alter their regulatory structure so that if the WHO approves of it, then, you know, everybody just by default also approves of it. And there is a parallel to the military industrial complex. We're not going to get into talking about war, but if you understand how militaries purchase all kinds of equipment and the contracts go out even in times of peace, and you make more money when you blow up all of the missiles and bombs and everything else and you need to replenish, if you use that as a parallel to what the WHO is trying to do in the pharmaceutical hospital industrial complex, emergency industrial complex, they have contracts that go out to put products in the stockpile. The United States, through the PREP act and other acts, spends three and a half billion dollars a year putting products into their strategic stockpile for, you know, vaccines and drugs and antidotes and things like that. The money flows even faster when you can claim, just because the Director General has the authority to declare a public health emergency of international concern, if you can convince the local governments to pull from that stockpile and distribute, you know, inject people with these biological weapons, poisons, you know, people call them vaccines, well then you got to replenish them. So there's more money to be made. If you can get people to believe that there's an emergency. But there's still money to be made just by looking for problems that aren't causing pandemics, just in case, because there's the potential. And so this is the game that they're playing. It's very similar to the military industrial complex. They want to have stockpiles, they want to be in charge of the logistics and distribution and, you know, warehousing of all this. They want to be in charge of the regulations and approval of all of this. And so it's not about the whole mandating these things. It's about the WHO laying the groundwork, putting in the infrastructure. And all of the poor nations around the world want a piece of this very profitable pie. I've referred to it as the new opec. It's not the oil producing and exporting countries, it's the organization of pandemic emergency corporations. Every corporation who could profit from finding a new pathogen to make tests or drugs or gems, they want in on the deal. And even though the United States, according to Trump is leaving the WHO and is not going to sign the pandemic agreement. That doesn't stop all of the pharmaceutical companies and all of the relevant stakeholder nonprofit, ngo, you know, civil society organizations from participating in the pathogen access and benefit sharing system they're written in to. They changed it to Article 18. All of the finances. They, they stated back in May of 2021 that they felt that there should be a framework convention for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, and that they thought at the time they needed $31 billion a year to make this happen with surge capacity of up to $100 billion a year. It's corrupt crony capitalism. It's a racketeering mafioso attempt to set up a framework convention that parallels the Framework Convention for Climate Change, which is now a trillion dollar industry. Oh, be afraid, you know, of global boiling and send money and, you know, give it to a bunch of bureaucrats who are nameless, you know, faceless, unelected, unaccountable to distribute money to their cronies to save the planet. Well, you know, they look at that, you know, with greed in their eyes. You know, they keep saying nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. And the only thing that held up the pandemic agreement from being completed is they haven't figured out how to manage greed from the pharmaceutical companies and greed from the oligarchs in poor nations who want that money to flow through so they can build out the infrastructure. They want public money to build out private infrastructure so they can profit from claiming that they found some new pathogen with pandemic potential. And. Thanks for letting me rant, Clayton. I, you know, I appreciate it.
- [56:03]
Clayton
No, it's, I didn't want to say a word. I want to sit back and learn about this and, you know, building out this infrastructure so they can continue to find problems and they can continue to make money fueling this beast, taxpayer funded, all of it. I mean, it's, it's, it's.
- [56:21]
James Roski
You're exactly right, it is, it's disgusting, it's evil. You know, it's, it's greed with the veneer of, oh, we're the World Health Organization and, you know, we want what's best for everybody. Here's your next, you know, injection of poison. One last thing that I forgot. So if I may just rewind a little tiny bit going back to the amendments. You asked me what is in the amendments that I, I thought was bad. They define relevant health products and you will not see listed there herbs or vitamins or minerals or nutrients or organic food or, you know, good clean water, any of that sort of stuff. It's all pharmaceutical products, including gene altering therapies. Now, how in the world gene altering therapies have been accepted by so many people as, you know, the solution to every problem. And so when you look at the wording in the pandemic agreement, they refer to the definition in the international health regulations, they don't give you a link. So most people don't realize it's essentially just being the marketing and promotion arm for Big Pharma. It's nothing natural, nothing that's truly health building. It's just a transfer of wealth. And the WHO is essentially become the marketing and promotion arm of the Big Pharma. Their budget is actually relatively tiny, maybe $4 billion a year. But they parlay that into control mechanisms through propaganda. They don't have the authority to tell anybody that you have to do this or you have to do that. They make recommendations, but they do it in a way where, you know, it's just human nature. When somebody speaks with authority, other people assume that they have to comply. Well, you know, the answer is no. The answer should be no for every country on the planet. No to the amendments, no to the treaty, no to the who, and most importantly, no to Big Pharma and trying to improve your health by swallowing or injecting poisons while being influenced by diagnostic tests that are fraudulent from the get go. And so I've been pushing back on this for 30 years. And you know, I know you guys have been pushing back on it for as long as you've been doing what you do. You know, thank you so much for the time. And before I forget, I always give my phone number whenever I do an interview. Everybody, I'm so serious about this. You can call me directly at 310-619-3055. If you're outside of the United States, you can get me on Telegram Signal, WhatsApp, same information, 310-619-3055. Text me, you know, send me a message. We've all got to come together and realize that our health is our responsibility. Mother Nature's given us everything. God has given us everything that we need. We don't need no stinking treaty, we don't need no stinking international health regulations or amendments. And we don't need Big Pharma to be telling us, you know, this is the only way. Trust the science. Do not trust the science. Trust your gut, trust your instinct, trust your heart. You know, trust in God. Trust in each other. But we got to push back against this attempt to funnel money into an industry that's designed to harm people under the guise of protecting their health.
- [60:17]
Clayton
Well said, James. Thank you so much for this. Really appreciate it.
- [60:22]
James Roski
Well, Clayton, thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. I appreciate it so much. Thank you so much.
- [60:28]
Clayton
Thanks, James.
- [60:31]
Lowe's Advertiser
Lowe's nose July 4th savings are worth celebrating right now. Get up to 40% off select major appliances and get an additional 10% off. Two or more select major appliances plus get three Scott's Naturescapes 1.5 cubic foot mulch bags for just $10. These deals are coming in hot. Lowes we help you Save. Valid through 7 9. Selection varies by location while supplies last. Seeloes.com for more details. Excludes Alaska and Hawaii.
- [60:59]
IPVanish Advertiser
Did you know using your browser in incognito mode doesn't actually protect your privacy? Take back your privacy with IPVanish VPN. Just one tap and all your data, passwords, communications, browsing history and more will be instantly protected. IPVanish makes you virt invisible online. Use IPVanish on all your devices anytime you go online, at home and especially on public wi fi. Get IPVanish now for 70% off a yearly plan with this exclusive offer@ipvanish.com Audio.
- [61:31]
Lowe's Advertiser
Lowe's knows July 4th savings are worth celebrating right now. Get up to 40% off, select major appliances and get an additional 10% off two or more select major appliances fences plus get three Scott's Naturescapes 1.5 cubic foot mulch bags for just ten dollars. These deals are coming in hot. Lowe's we help you Save. Valid through 79. Selection varies by location while supplies last. See lowe's.com for more details. Excludes Alaska and Hawaii.