WHO Furthers Effort To Establish Global Health Authority

The World Health Organization (WHO) has released the latest draft of its controversial International Health Regulations, with the purported aim to eventually establish a global accord on how to handle future pandemics. Expert observers are continuing to express concern with the regulations, saying that they are covertly designed to take away sovereignty from countries and push contentious issues such as abortion.

Jim Roguski, a member of the Law & Activism Committee at the World Council for Health, has been closely monitoring the WHO's activities in the wake of the "serious failures" that the organization made since the COVID pandemic broke out in 2020. On Tuesday, he joined "Washington Watch with Tony Perkins" to provide an update on where the accord currently stands.

"The fact that it's not referred to as a treaty is actually very important," he explained. "What they are setting up is an ongoing series of what they call 'the Conference of the Parties' that would meet pretty much forever. And the idea is they're trying to hash out an agreement just to have an agreement so that they can pat themselves on the back and say, 'Look what great work we did.'"

Roguski continued, "I was actually a little bit surprised that from the last version, this version got smaller by about 12 pages. And so what they're doing is trying to reach a basic, fundamental agreement to set up a bureaucracy that would meet on an ongoing basis, year after year after year, to impose protocols that we wouldn't have any say over the matter, much like the Framework Convention for Climate Change that was agreed to by the United Nations back in 1992 -- that ongoing system of forever unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats making decisions on our behalf without our input. It's something that's just absolutely not acceptable."

Roguski went on to contend that the WHO's true goal with the global accord is to force countries to make substantial financial investments into experimental and unproven vaccines.

"The thing to realize ... is that it doesn't have any resemblance to what people would think of as health," he pointed out. "It's really a financial venture capital prospectus to literally get developed nations to invest money in infrastructure, in developing nations, to build out more laboratories, more testing facilities, more mRNA manufacturing facilities. ... The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board put out a report ... tracking the mRNA manufacturing plants in Africa. What they're really looking for is not an evaluation of the mistakes that happened over the last three or four years. They're more than doubling down. They want to build the infrastructure to do more of what they did to us over the past four years."

As the WHO considers amendments to the accord at its planned meeting in Geneva, Switzerland next week, Roguski strongly encouraged the public to contact their representatives and urge them to reject the amendments.

"There's an 18-month period for every nation on the planet to reject the amendments that the Biden administration shoved through on May 27, 2022," he explained. "We put together a page, which is rejecttheamendments.com, where people can download a letter, sign it, and just mail it to your congressmen and your senators. ... I really want the Senate to pay attention and submit H.R. 79, or at least a copy of it in the Senate, so those amendments can still be rejected."

"I certainly feel that the senators and members of Congress should come together, understand this issue, and realize that they need to take action because their silence is viewed as consent," Roguski underscored. "And that is just absolutely not acceptable."

Former congresswoman Michele Bachmann previously sounded the alarm about developments coming out of the World Health Assembly and has suggested that the World Health Organization is intent on establishing "a platform for global governance through health care" in the wake of the COVID pandemic.

Bachmann warns the current World Health Assembly is poised to increase the WHO's mandate over the health care decisions of sovereign nations.

"There's a dual track process that they're following," she explained during an on the ground report from Geneva during the previous WHO gathering. "One is through a global pandemic treaty that they're calling an 'accord.' The second is through a package of about 300 amendments to the international health rules. Both lead to the same result. Both lead to the creation of a platform for global governance through health care. And it is a web that locks us in ... the likes of which we've never seen before."

As Bachmann went on to observe, the potentially massive ramifications of the decisions being made at the World Health Assembly are happening with surprisingly little fanfare.

"There were no members of Congress here," she pointed out. "I was actually shocked because this has been a big issue that a lot of their constituents have rightfully been very concerned about. ... There was no American press here. So how would anyone even know what was going on unless they tuned in and they watched for themselves?"

Bachmann, who currently serves as dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University, further noted that the WHO's view of COVID appears to be exactly the same now as it was at the beginning of the pandemic. "We've learned a lot of things in the last three years, haven't we? And the World Health Organization bungled almost everything, whether it was masks or vaccines or lockdowns, but yet they acted like nothing happened. There was no review. They acted like everything was just normal."

Bachmann then laid out the WHO's plans going forward. They'll go over the progress that they're going to make in January. They'll give a final completed package of the 300 amendments, together with a global pandemic treaty, to the World Health Organization and the U.N. And then they'll meet again in Geneva next February. Next year they will take a vote. And so they intend to vote for a platform for global government and to give themselves the power that no one has ever seen before."

The former congresswoman from Minnesota also described the U.S. government's involvement in the WHO's agenda.

"I heard from Secretary Xavier Becerra, the head of our Health and Human Services who said he wants more 'bio surveillance,' in other words, surveillance of our bodies. And then they want to share that data with everyone else in the world. This is highly invasive. They were very clear today. They want very bold language. They intend to have surveillance over every citizen on earth, and they intend to ... control us through health care."

Bachmann further detailed how the WHO's agenda goes well beyond pandemics.

"They've got this concept they talked about today called 'One Health' -- they've got graphics on it that show humans, animals, the earth -- 'One Health.' So when decisions are made about health care, they have to take into account the earth and what the impact would be on climate change. ... So what it boils down to is, 'Humans = cockroaches = a clump of dirt.' ... That's why you don't want to give up decision-making authority to someone like the director general of the WHO. They have a very different agenda at hand."

At the same time, she underscored, the WHO's emphasis seems to be on "equity" rather than innovations in medicine.

"The number one word that they use besides 'urgent' was 'equity.' They want to have equal outcomes for everyone on earth with universal health care. ... And for those countries that are producing health products, they need to produce more health products and give them away to the world. So one thing they didn't do was focus on any new breakthroughs in medicine. ... There was nothing about breakthroughs or cures. Everything was about giving themselves more power and more authority control."

Bachmann called on Congress to start confronting concerns over the WHO's attempted power grab sooner rather than later.

"We need our senators to wake up, hold hearings, pull these documents in, and start to review them. If they're thinking they'll wait until January, that's pretty late, because the next meeting will be in in Geneva in February. The final vote will take place in May... there is not a lot of time left to stop this and by the time many Americans wake up it will be too late.

Originally published at The Washington Stand - reposted with permission.