[00:00 - 00:48]
You are very welcome to this talk. Now, if you live in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Netherlands, New Zealand, Slovakia, Italy, Israel or the United States, this is good news. If you live anywhere else, anywhere else, it's bad news. And it's related to the international health regulations that the WHO is implementing. Now I'm going to play you a video in a minute from Secretary Robert Kennedy talking about this, who talks about the threat to national security, that these powers that the WHO is assuming could be implemented if there's only a potential risk, whether the risk is real or not, it's somewhat arbitrary based on their opinion, that it bypasses the Senate, that it bypasses democratic
[00:53 - 05:47]
Speaker 0:
To unify public messages. What this actually means of course is that truth will be what the WHO says it is. I guess existing when they say it does. Any dissenting voice will be suppressed using the power of the state, of the member state that's signed up to this. Unless of course you're in Iran, Netherlands, New Zealand, Slovakia, Italy, Israel or the United States. Brits, Kiwis, pretty bad news, I would have thought. Anyway, let's look at some of the other things that Robert Kennedy said about it. He said this would be required, these are requirements to unify public health messaging. In other words, blatant censorship. Communications would be greatly at risk. Health IDs and vaccine passports and the global systems of monitoring. I'm going to play the full video in a minute. These are really quite frightening Orwellian ideas. Global medical surveillance on every person in the world. Now he says this would be okay if the WHO was brilliant, but of course we know it's not. And he actually used, listen out for it when I play the clip, he used the word atrocities. This is pretty heavy. Stuff. He doesn't want a vision of the future where we're governed by a technocratic globally elite. introduced by a technocratic Trojan horse and I agree with Mr Kennedy of course. Surveillance at all times doesn't sound good. Now this is not to reject international cooperation but it's to reject international totalitarian control. Now I'm going to read you a few clips now from, in fact I might read most of it, this statement here, 18th of July now. This came in close to the wire to be quite honest. James Rogusky and myself, well all James's work really talked about this last week, and we were concerned that we hadn't heard anything from the presidential team in the States. Now, thank you, we have Warbeer in the nick of time, who knows, maybe our messaging and your messaging from you helped. So a joint statement by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert Kennedy, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Today the Department of State in collaboration with the Department of Health and Human Services transmitted the official U.S. Redirection of the 24 amendments to the International Health Regulations. Having done this, the United States, and today was the deadline, by the way, Saturday the 19th, of course, this means that the UK hasn't. It means that Canada hasn't. It means that Germany hasn't. It means that France hasn't. Denmark hasn't. the statement goes on this action delivers on our promise to the American people to fight for Americans in the international system. Protect our national sovereignty. Prevent international bureaucrats from shaping U.S. domestic policy. And of course the problem here is the converse applies to anyone that's not rejected these amendments. So our national sovereignty presumably is not protected. We're not preventing international bureaucrats from shaping US, well, UK in this case, domestic policy. In 2024, the World Health Assembly adopted amendments to the International Health Regulations that significantly expand the WHO organisation's authority over international public health responses. We don't want this increase. I don't want at least this increase in global control, and thankfully Mr Kennedy doesn't either. And this was developed without adequate public input. As far as I can see, there's been no public input that I'll be aware of. These amendments expand the role of the W.H.O. in public health emergencies, creating additional authorities for the W.H.O. Given these guys more power, these amendments expand the role of the W.H.O. in public health emergencies, create additional authorities for the W.H.O. for shaping pandemic declarations, and promoting W.H.O.'s ability to facilitate equitable access of health commodities. These amendments have undue influence on our domestic health response from WHO directives according to the statement. And remember I'm reading now directly from the US government site. Do check it out for yourself. It's short and completely readable and highly intelligible. Nice piece of communication actually.
[05:55 - 07:08]
Speaker 0:
Most notably from China during outbreaks. These amendments were set to become binding on the United States regardless of our WHO, our withdrawal from the WHO. So we must assume that they are now binding on other countries. Now, I believe the last state for rejecting them was today. I believe they actually come into power on the 19th of September. So from the 19th and 20th of September, WHO will have much more power over our lives as I read these problems identified by the American communication here. Set to become binding. Terminology throughout the 2020-24 amendments is vague and broad. risking WHO-coordinated international responses that focus on political issues like solidarity rather than rapid effective actions. What we want is rapid effective actions, not politicking about no power grabs, no control. The amendments also suggest that countries develop capabilities to Japanise management and dissemination controls over public health
[07:13 - 07:58]
potentially shifting, or sorry, potentially stifling valuable scientific debate. The reason we do things on this channel is for valuable scientific debate, we don't want that stifled. This would, apparently, the fear is that it would do this. For all the more of these revisions, compelled countries to adopt digital health documents. Digital health documents. Let me know if you're in favor of the WHO controlling your digital health documents. Our agencies have been and will continue to be clear we will put Americans first in all our actions and again you have to assume that the British government is not putting the British people government.
\n\n
[08:01 - 14:31]
The British government is not putting us first. It is the converse isn't it? Our agencies have been and will be and will continue to be clear. We will put Americans first in all our actions. We will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans' speech, privacy or personal liberties. So again, conversely, presumably, international policies are infringing on British American, British speech, privacy and personal liberties. This is not good. I was going to say that this is all we could expect from the dogs dinner of a government that we've got at the moment in the UK, but I don't think it is actually, I think, I think it's more coordinated than that. I don't think this is just incompetence. I think it's actually what you want. Maybe the Prime Minister will come on and clarify that. But there again, they don't speak about it, so it goes by under the radar. You don't hear anything about it on mainstream media, not that I listen to too much mainstream media anymore. These amendments risk unwarranted interference with our national sovereignty, with our national sovereign right to make health policies. We are proud to have worked jointly to ensure public health policies continue to be directed by values and the will of the American people Not unelected global actors and that was one of those statements where basically you wanted to underline everything in red Mr. Kennedy's statement is excellent. Only that's about four minutes. Let's listen to it now Hello everyone, this is your HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. I want to speak to you today about a controversial issue that could directly impact you and your family during a global health emergency. Last year, the World Health Organization's governing body made some far-reaching amendments to its international health regulations, otherwise known as the IHR regulations. These regulations establish the legal framework that gives countries rights and responsibilities for managing public health events with global impact The deadline to reject these amendments is next week, and we are rejecting them, so I'd like to explain to you why. The first reason is national sovereignty. Nations who accept the new regulations are signing over their power and health emergencies to an unelected international organization that could order lockdowns, travel restrictions, or any other measures that cease fit. In fact, it doesn't even need to declare an emergency. potential public health risks are enough for it to initiate action. If we're going to give the WHO that much power, we should at least invite a thorough public debate, especially since the agreement is an official treaty and it bypasses the U.S. Senate. which plays a key role in ensuring major international commitments receive proper democratic oversight. To make matters worse, the new regulations employ extremely broad language that gives the WHO unprecedented power. They require countries to establish systems of risk communications so that the WHO can implement unified public messaging globally. That opens the door to the kind of narrative management and propaganda and censorship that we saw during the COVID pandemic. We don't want to see that kind of system institutionalized even further. The agreement also contains provisions about global systems of health ITs, vaccine passports, An essentialized medical database. It lays the groundwork for global medical surveillance of every human being. Maybe if the WHO were an infallible authority untainted by industry influence, we would consider accepting the new regulations. Unfortunately, a COVID pandemic demonstrated otherwise. During COVID, the WHO failed to enforce the international health regulations that were already in place for generations. China withheld critical information about the outbreak for at least a month and faced no real consequences or criticism from WHO. As the 2024 Congressional Oversight Report put it, the WHO was misinformed, denied access to China, and used as a cover for the Chinese Communist Party's reckless action. These and other atrocities make one thing clear. We must strengthen national and local autonomy to hold global organizations in check and to restore a real balance of power. Underneath all the bureaucratic language, what's at stake here is a vision for our future. Are we going to be subjects to a technocratic control system that uses health risks and pandemic preparedness as a Trojan horse to curtail basic democratic freedoms? Do we want a future where every person, every movement, every transaction, every human body is under surveillance at all times? Now, I don't want to be too alarmist. The new regulations aren't in themselves medical totalitarianism. In fact, they were perhaps ridden with good intentions, but they are definitely a step in the wrong direction. That's why we're rejecting the amendments not only on behalf of our own citizens, but the whole world. After all, America could simply ignore the WHO, but few other countries are as powerful as the United States. Even though many of these amendments are phrased to be non-binding, as a practical matter, it's hard for many countries to resist them, especially when they are dependent on the WHO funding and its partnerships.
[00:00 - 01:23]
Speaker 0: That's why we're taking leadership to stop an agreement that's bad for the entire world. I want to be clear that in rejecting these amendments, President Trump and I are not rejecting international cooperation. We can cooperate with other nations without jeopardizing our civil liberties, without undermining our Constitution, and without ceding away America's. treasured sovereignty. That's my commitment to you. That's President Trump's commitment to you. Thank you and God bless you all and God bless our country. Produced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
