Behind Closed Doors, WHO Pushes Global Pandemic Accord
As reported last week, the United Nations, with the full backing of the World Health Organization (WHO), announced the “adoption” of a “landmark declaration” by member states that appeared to agree to a set of policies in order “prevent” future pandemics. But expert observers are pointing out that the declaration was not only fraudulently adopted, but also contains the blueprint for a future global governance plan that could require vaccine passports for international travel, among other highly controversial provisions.
Even after 11 nations wrote a letter to U.N. General Assembly President Dennis Francis last week declaring that they would not adopt the pandemic declaration, the U.N.’s press office later stated that the declaration had indeed been “adopted” by the General Assembly, despite the fact that no official vote had taken place.
On Monday, Jim Roguski, a member of the Law & Activism Committee at the World Council for Health, joined “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” and described what happened on September 20 during the U.N. General Assembly in New York City.
“They were trying to pull off a bit of theater — it was a theatrical production,” he contended. “If a committee of people that are members of Congress got together in a room and televised it and said that they had adopted an agreement and led people to believe that it was actually Congress that had adopted that agreement, I think most people would realize that that was a theatrical production that did not reflect reality. So, the 11 nations did their homework. They know the rules. And what they saw … being attempted was not the same as the actual General Assembly meeting, discussing, and voting on a declaration that the U.N. proper then got behind.”
Roguski went on to describe how the 11 countries “put a wrench in the works of the propaganda machine,” which didn’t stop “the media from misrepresenting it. You can see headlines that people come away with — ‘The U.N. adopted this.’ No, it was a bunch of people in a room that said they agreed to it, but they were forced to put a little caveat in their statement that said, ‘We’re adopting this subject at some later date, we’ll try to get this before the actual U.N. General Assembly.’ So, they were exposed for the shenanigans that they were attempting to propagate [through] this propaganda.”
Roguski further detailed what the WHO plans to do in light of the pandemic declaration.
“Please be aware that next week, October 2-6, the working group with the WHO’s amendments to the International Health Regulations is scheduled to have meetings where they’re going to be discussing some very important issues, [including] definitions of terms, things like the word ‘vaccine,’” he explained. “There is not a legal definition of ‘vaccine’ or ‘pandemic’ or ‘safe’ or ‘effective.’ They’re going to be talking about the scope of the amendments to the regulations, the principles — things like dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms.”
Roguski continued, “But most importantly, they’re going to be discussing what most people call a ‘vaccine passport,’ [what] they refer to as the Global Digital Health Certification Network. … [W]hat they do is they try to have all of these meetings in secret. … People need to know that last year at their World Health Assembly in May of 2022, two amendments were adopted, and the deadline to reject those amendments is coming up very rapidly: December 1. Nobody in the media, nobody in Congress or the Senate, and quite frankly, nobody in any parliamentary body around the world has spoken up, because there is still two months left for every nation.”
Roguski concluded by pleading for more attention to be paid to the WHO’s actions by world leaders, which he warned could have enormous impact on the sovereignty of nations to decide their own health care policies during future pandemics.
“I am praying on a regular basis … that national leaders around the world come to their senses and do what’s needed,” he emphasized. “Just simply write a letter to the WHO rejecting the amendments that were adopted last year. And everyone, I hope, will pay attention to the negotiations that are coming next week for over 300 more amendments. We must speak now [and] realize that they’re doing this.”
Perkins agreed. “Ultimately, this would cede authority to unelected bureaucrats,” he observed. “What I see as I dig into this more and more is that the World Health Organization really wants to be the vanguard of global governance.”
Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.