Another Perspective on the World Health Organization International Health Regulations, By Brian Simpson

While critics of the WHO international health regulations and pandemic treaty have focussed upon the threats to national sovereignty, James Roguski takes a different view, that the regulations and treaty will not need to undermine national sovereignty to be effective. Nations are going to go along with whatever WHO says anyway, because WHO has engrained itself into the psyche of the medical profession as the fountain of all health wisdom. No matter that WHO allowed communist China to get away blameless over the release of Covid-19, and that WHO pandemic policies are straight out of emperor Xi's communist little red book.

While I think Roguski underplays the threat to national sovereignty made by the international health regulations and pandemic treaty, he has a point, that even a country which pulls out of the WHO will face the problem that such countries will still need to interact with other WHO-regulated countries. Those countries will require travellers to be vaccinated with whatever the WHO requires to meet the profit-making machine of its real master, Big Pharma. Thus, the only way out is for WHO to be dismantled, starved of funds. That is not going to happen with countries like Australia, but a Trump presidency could do this. The US could undermine WHO, cutting off its financial roots at the ground, so the tyrannical giant falls.

https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/quarantine

"The proposed amendments are not about mandates, lockdowns or your relationship with your doctor.

The proposed amendments are NOT an attack on national sovereignty.

In fact, the proposed amendments are an EXTREMELY dangerous expression OF national sovereignty.

Unfortunately, requiring that foreign travelers meet national entry requirements is NOT "unconstitutional." Such requirements would NOT be over-reach by the federal government. Such requirements would NOT be a violation of the 10th amendment.

Nations have the sovereign right to control their borders. The skilled lawyers at the WHO know this and THAT is why this is such a big problem.

The WGIHR has been keeping these details hidden from view in the hopes that people would focus on various red herrings while missing these hidden details. If these details were sprung at the very last minute at the 77th World Health Assembly at the end of May, we would not have had adequate time to react.

The proposed amendments to Articles 24 and 27 will NOT be neutralized by state legislation or "state nullification" because the requirements in these amendments would fall upon foreign citizens, not state citizens.

The proposed amendments to Articles 24 and 27 would NOT be neutralized even by exiting the WHO, because if other nations agree to the proposed amendments to Articles 24 and 27 (and others), then those nations would have the national sovereign right along with the additional backing of the International Health Regulations to "compel the traveller to undergo… vaccination or other prophylaxis."

The amendments below can ONLY be stopped by massive, worldwide public outrage combined with a DEMAND TO REJECT THE AMENDMENTS."

Fully agree.