General Assembly Meeting | April 11, 2022
Rewatch the full April 11, 2022, World Council for Health General Assembly Meeting with guest speakers Jonathan W. Emord and James Roguski! We were also be joined by Marco Albertazzi from Costa Rice who introduced Movimiento por la Salud y la Libertad.
Jonathan W. Emord is an AV rated attorney who has practiced constitutional and administrative law for 37 years. He has defeated the FDA eight times in federal court—more times than any other attorney in American history.
James Roguski is an author, researcher, activist, and natural health advocate. He specializes in researching highly complex issues and translating data into simple language that is easily understood to facilitate action.
Marco Albertazzi is an an activist from Costa Rica and founder of Movimiento por la Saludy la Libertad, Movement For Health Freedom.
[00:00:52] Dr. Mark Trozzi: Welcome all, It’s beautiful to have you here with us, and we’ve got a few little opening announcements to make that’s Marco Albertazzi we see on the screen who will be our new affiliate presenting his program to us. And I wonder Em, if we can start our introductory slides.
[00:01:09] Here we go. All right, here we are Monday, April the 11th. Welcome all from all around the world.
[00:01:14] So friendly reminders: Keep yourself on mute during the meeting, please adhere to our code of conduct, which is just basically about respectful and open discussion. For questions for the speakers, if you could type those in the chat and put a capital Q at the beginning, so they can be identified by my fellow steering committee member, Karen McKenna, who we’ll be keeping an eye on that.
[00:01:35] And please remember we will never ask for remote control of your screen. Be very cautious security wise with your camera, because we have had problems before for revealing important facts and realities that not everyone wants revealed.
[00:01:48] So our mission statement, the World Council for Health is a non-profit organization. We exist for the people. We are informed and funded by the people. Our global coalition of health focused organizations and civil society groups seeks to broaden public health knowledge, and sense-making through science and shared wisdom.
[00:02:08] We are dedicated to safeguarding human rights and free will while empowering people to take control of their health and their wellbeing. There is a better way than what we’ve been experiencing, and we are here to create it together with you.
[00:02:21] All right, we won’t go through all of these, but; our values; we believe in freedom. We believe in community and here we are a community together. We believe in integrity, transparency and empowerment of individuals.
[00:02:36] There are more of us than we can fit on one screen, but I believe now more than 50 nations, I’m not sure the exact count, I think more than 150 different organizations, we’re coming together and making our world a better place, getting us back on track.
[00:02:53] Okay. So we have our first in-person conference coming up. It can be attended both in person and virtually. It’s being held in Bath in the United Kingdom and it’s on may 20 to 22nd. You can find more details as well as early bird tickets will be coming soon on the website World Council For Health.org.
[00:03:15] Once again, our Health Mind Committee treats us to, more tips. David Charalambous, who I’m sure we all know from now, we’ve been very grateful for his insights and presentations. He will be talking and presenting the subject of top tips for challenging the narrative, and that will be in the connection room on Telegram and that is in two days on Wednesday. And the times as you can see there, 4:00 PM, EDT.
[00:03:41] These are upcoming events Thursday, April 14th at 8:00 PM. So that’s this Thursday. We’re going to have experts, including Dr. Pri Bandera and Karen Churchill, and the effects of 5G on our health.
[00:03:55] So for today’s meeting, we have a special lineup, we have Jonathan W. Emord, a USA constitutional attorney with a breathtaking record of defending freedom, who will be speaking about the global rise in authoritarianism that we’re seeing. Following that James Roguski , who’s done profound research also of the USA into the WHO’s upcoming power grab. You will not want to miss either of these.
[00:04:22] And then we’ll be blessed to have an intro by Marco Albertazzi of Costa Rica and his organization is Movimiento por la Salud y la Libertad, and if I interpret correctly, the movement for health and freedom. And then we’ll have time for matters arising and a few announcements before we depart our company for another week.
[00:04:42] Oh, here’s something beautiful. ‘You were born with potential. You were born with goodness and trust. You were born with ideals and dreams and you were born with greatness. You were born with wings. You are not meant for crawling, so don’t. You have wings. Learn to use them and fly’. From the poet Rumi.
[00:05:03] So again, a little thank you for being here. Here’s lots of resources to follow us and link with us. We’re across multiple platforms. On our website, you can sign up for our newsletter to be the first to hear about new resources, which are coming out all the time, including our constantly updated health advice during these turbulent times from our science committee at the H and H committee.
[00:05:26] We were publicly funded by grassroots donations. We have not, will not, and we do not intend to dip into the taxpayer’s wallets. And so we thank you for your contributions to support the work that we’re all doing here together.
[00:05:37] Well, I think we’re ready for our first presenter. I may have to be a little short because I don’t have the signal open at the moment, but our first presenter, I believe now is attorney Jonathan Emord from the United States. He’s a constitutional lawyer whose impressive history and resume include the historical record. So with no further ado Jonathan, you’d be so kind as to grace us and enlighten us on the global rise of authoritarianism.
[00:06:04] Jonathan Emord: Oh, yes. Thank you so much, Dr. Trozzi I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you all today. And it’s an honor. I thank you very much for the chance.
[00:06:13] My topic is the global rise of authoritarianism and we have witnessed within the last few years during the fog of COVID and the trials and tribulations associated with this horrific disease, a manipulation by those in power to violate individual rights to achieve what they perceive to be the correct social ends, so that the individual liberty has been sacrificed in exchange for achievement of public health goals and more than that to advance without dissent the messages of various nations in the west and to even co-opt media to achieve a near universal message without dissent, in favor of vaccination, in favor of a political regime that is actually quite far to the left and is founded on essentially Hegelian conceptions of collectivism, rather than on Lockean principles of individual liberty.
[00:07:22] Just take a look across the map. We can see all examples of authoritarianism in the west and they’re striking. So for example, in France, we see Emmanuel Macron using executive power to insist upon mandatory vaccination, to push for the adoption of the French Pass, to ensure that those who work are vaccinated, those who basically live are vaccinated and to ignore in large measure all of the adverse effects associated with vaccination consistent with the rest of the nations of the west.
[00:08:02] It is the case that any serious discussion of the adverse events associated with vaccination or alternatives to vaccination are suppressed. And we see that in France. We see that in Italy. We see that in Germany and we see that in Australia and we see that a lso, even in Spain where there’s a little more tolerance perhaps and in Austria and elsewhere throughout Europe, we see the same pattern.
[00:08:32] There are particularly noteworthy instances of the authoritarian movement. We not only see the use of police force against protesters who are dissenting from vaccination, but we’ve also seen extraordinarily draconian measures akin to what has happened with those people who are not vaccinated in the communist countries, in China, particularly. And that is mandatory lockdowns.
[00:08:59] So for example, in Austria, for a time, people were confined to their homes if they were not vaccinated. We see a routine efforts to deny people access to even grocery stores or other institutions. So what does this mean when you take into account that there is a deprivation, not only of individual freedom of travel, rights to communicate information and opinion but also really to make basic life effecting decisions such as whether your own family, whether you will have a drug injected into you or not. Coercion is really the order of the day.
[00:09:42] So while we see these things happening, we also see that the disease itself because of the Omicron variance has largely resulted in a reduction in hospitalizations and deaths throughout the world. There’ve been slight up ticks here and there, but by and large, we’ve moved from the pandemic stage into the endemic stage. This, not as a consequence of vaccination but as a consequence of the normal evolution of the disease. We find that in nations where there have been lockdowns, where there have been restrictions on travel, where people have been denied access to locations, where they have been forced to be masked and so forth, there’s been virtually no difference in the degree of spread of the pandemic.
[00:10:34] Then in instances where individuals like in Florida, for example, in the United States were largely left to their own devices and largely allowed to choose which methods they wish to reduce transmission. We also see that despite the fact that there are many treatments for COVID and early treatments, which have been highly successful worldwide, that there has been a virtual stranglehold by the pharmaceutical industry in favor of keeping out of the marketplace information about treatments as well as government efforts to ensure maximization of vaccination, to the exclusion of treatments. So much so that physicians worldwide are complaining in the west of restraints. Uh, some more than others. For example, there are serious restraints in the United States on access to ivermectin, hydroxy chloroquine, and Paxlovid as well as monoclonal antibodies, both through restricting their availability by not emphasizing treatment, but also as a result of medical board action and other direct action by public health authorities against physicians who make these substances available.
[00:11:57] This in the end portends a shift in the nature of power between the states in the west and the individual, such that the individual is losing sovereignty, is losing the ability to protect his or her own interests and rights, and the state is acquiring even greater control over the individual – controls that may have been previously limited to commerce in most of the west largely limited to commerce have now been breached to the point of really restricting personal activity. And now we have the ability even of a nanny state being able to prescribe what is and what is not fair in the marketplace of ideas and information.
[00:12:44] So fundamentally this spells a change in the nature of our governance from democracies in Europe and a Republic in the United States, to more authoritarian rule, largely in the bureaucracy, the extension of power coming through the bureaucracy, creating bureaucratic oligarchies that increasingly view themselves not as nationalistic, but as global and as having an integrated role to play in assuring that populations abide by a centralized edict or command. While there are differences and there are dissenting governments around the world to certain aspects of this, there is quite a bit now of more harmony and uniform interest in controlling populations worldwide.
[00:13:38] And so, for example when you take the instance of Justin Trudeau in Canada, who was condemned recently by members of parliament from Germany and from Croatia and from other parts of Europe, particularly Eastern Europe, where they have more recently experienced the bite of authoritarianism from communism, you nevertheless have the United States and the president of the United States not mentioning a negative word, not a single negative word about Justin Trudeau and his activities to clamp down on the freedoms of the Canadians.
[00:14:18] There’s an extreme contrast here and it tends to show us the extremes when we look at the neighbors, the United States and Canada. For example, in the United States, and I’ll explain the ultimate root principle that distinguishes United States from Canada on rights, but in the United States, when the president of the United States acted unilaterally to impose a employer mandate through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Supreme Court of the United States struck that down. Unfortunately, in inconsistent decisions in the federal courts in the United States, the Supreme Court, and also the lower federal courts have upheld the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services mandate that public health employees be vaccinated as well as the requirement that public employees be vaccinated.
[00:15:14] This is inconsistent in logic and in law, and really begs an ultimate question that may have to be answered or will have to be answered down the line. And that is, how is it that when there is a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, as a result of the president acting unilaterally without a legislative foundation, when he imposes an unemployed mandate, how is it that that differs fundamentally from when the president acts against healthcare workers who are publicly employed or on the CMS payroll and public employees, when likewise, the president has acted without a statutory foundation, again with just raw executive power, how then is that not a violation of the separation of powers, when in the United States, under Article One of The Constitution, all laws must originate in the Congress.
[00:16:15] Now if we look more fundamentally, we see that at least in this instance there was some movement to protect rights, but through the use of the separation of powers, the courts in the United States have not addressed the ultimate question which is, does a vaccine mandate violate individual rights? On that, we need to recur to more fundamental law and there, I would say, when you look at the second paragraph of the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, you come back with a full understanding of those, in an understanding that we in the United States founded our country on the notion of pre political rights, which are variously, termed Natural Rights.
[00:17:05] And that is to say that, as the declaration puts it in the second paragraph, ‘all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. Well, what are the se rights conveyed by the creator?
[00:17:25] They’re pre political. They exist and afford individuals sovereignty over their rights and we are further told in the declaration, the governments are instituted among men for the purpose of protecting the rights of the governed. That then is the very purpose of creating government. We’re further told, in The Declaration that ‘just governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed’.
[00:17:53] These bedrock principles then define a nation that is based on the sovereignty of the individual. Not on collectivism, not on the notion that government is the source of rights and not on the notion that rights are alienable by government. But rather that rights are unalienable, pre political, exist with us from birth and are the proof and the foundation of our sovereignty as individuals.
[00:18:25] Now when we proceed from that, it becomes impossible to maintain the argument that the state may take over the autonomy of a person and force them to be injected or otherwise abused, so as to achieve a public end. Again, there are no collective rights in a system of this sort, so there is no foundation for the argument that individual rights may be violated. The Bill of Rights to the United States constitution compliments this very notion in the second paragraph of the declaration of independence, that individuals are sovereign and that is because The Bill of Rights affords individuals rights against the state.
[00:19:09] These are not affirmative rights of government. These are negative in the sense that government shall not, so for example the first amendment of the constitution prohibits the government of the United States from violating individual rights to speech and press. And the second amendment, as to private gun ownership for example and so on.
[00:19:34] We have rights to a trial by jury, we have rights against a violation of due process, we have rights against the use of general warrants and so forth. Now these have not been honored in many respects, largely due to the development of the progressive era administrative state, which has through the food and drug administration and the federal trade commission and other agencies over 200 of them, have routinely violated the rights of individuals and have been able to get away with it due to a lessening in the degree of constitutional scrutiny afforded the actions of those agencies.
[00:20:14] Now the comparison to Canada. So in Canada, like in Europe at large, rights are not deemed pre political, in the sense of the legal status of those rights. Rights are deemed to be subject to limitation by parliament, by government, in the event of an emergency, such as the emergencies act in Canada, such as the Charter of Rights in Canada, which in itself includes provisions that allow for the deprivation of right at the ruling of parliament, so the parliaments, typically our most powerful, parliaments have delegated authority over the determination of the existence of emergencies to the executives in Europe, efforts of comparable nature have happened in the United States, but are of dubious constitutionality here because again of the nature of the difference of rights.
[00:21:13] In the two minutes that I believe I have left, before my time is up, I would like to mention that we, as a people of the world are vested, I believe, with rights at birth. Those rights include over our autonomy and individual integrity, the state may not violate our rights of autonomy and integrity and our persons.
[00:21:38] We have a right to freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech. We have a right to determine our own destiny. We have a right to, I believe a free market we have a right to take over property, such that we have rights to property. And as James Madison put it in his essay on property, we have a property in our thoughts and in our words, as well as in those things that we mix with labor to produce or innovate or create things.
[00:22:08] And when the state becomes confiscatory, when it assumes control over the idea and information marketplace, when it assumes control over your body, such that it may dictate what life you may live based on the kinds of drugs that you must receive, or based on the relationships that you can have, or whether you may assemble or whether you may protest or whether you may worship in a location, these are tyrannical. And these are the greatest threat. If there is an existential threat in the world, it is not climate change, I would argue, it is rather authoritarianism. It is the deprivation of liberty. Our existential threat in the world is that very thing right now. And so what is what must be done?
[00:23:02] We as a people have to fight against these instances of abuse of our rights, or we will lose them. Once lost, they’re very difficult to re acquire, as we know from the history of the world. Once nations fall into the abyss of socialism and communism, it is frequently very difficult for them to get out.
[00:23:23] We need only look to instances in the United States of the administrative state in Europe of the actual acquisition of property by the state and of control over the individual by the state, to see just how profound those losses can be. The hope for the world lies in the, I think the fact that, the quest towards freedom is a natural quest for all people.
[00:23:51] None of us wishes to be a slave. We don’t wish to be a slave to another person. We don’t wish to be a slave to the state. We want to have control over our lives. We don’t want an individual in government to be telling us how we must live. And we want to be able to raise our own children and live under our own jurisdiction, to the full extent necessary to achieve our life’s ambitions, to pursue that happiness.
[00:24:22] There is a definition for liberty, which I’m going to give you from Thomas Jefferson. I think it is the ideal definition of liberty, and it is the thing that just governments should protect and any violation of it should raise alarm bells. And it goes this way. Thomas Jefferson wrote to the attorney, Isaac Tiffany on April 4th, 1819, the following definition of liberty, and it is really the heart and soul of American Liberty even when it’s not honored. It is, and I’ll quote; ‘Of liberty, in the whole plenitude of its extent is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law”, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual’.
[00:25:29] And those precious, brilliant words of Thomas Jefferson, I think aptly describe what that liberty is that we all over the world want.
[00:25:41] We want it for ourselves, we want it for our families and not ever be denied, particularly on the basis of some excuse that arises from an alleged emergency, such as the presence of a virus or the presence of a political circumstance of one kind or another. In the United States, there is no emergency exception to The Bill of R ights. There is no emergency exception to allow the government to take away rights, allegedly for the purpose of protecting us from ourselves. We are best left to protect ourselves and left fully informed, we can do that. The government today around the world denies us the information we need, as well as the freedom we have to have, in order to overcome this – and any other profound difficulty or problem.
[00:26:38] And so I leave that with you and thank you for the opportunity to speak,
[00:26:41] Dr. Mark Trozzi: Jonathan, thank you so much for sharing that and those insights. I’m sure others join me in each of our own unique ways and from our different cultures, praying, supporting meditating upon really great blessings for you and your work. We hope that we get to see more of you. We have a legal activism committee on which I sit as one of the scientific supporters, and we would similarly be enchanted both to have your support and to support you in whatever way we can.
[00:27:10] I find the most fascinating that when you distill it all down, you come to the golden rule, you know, and that’s across all our cultures. So I’d be very grateful if my partner Karen could, not my personal partner, my partner within the steering committee, I don’t want to upset others. We’ve got some questions for you. I’m sure if there’s more then we’ll be able to get to right away, but please Karen.
[00:27:31] Karen McKenna: The first question comes from Dr. Catlin Lee, she’s saying Mr. Emord as a physician, I hear a lot about the Nuremberg Code, but how does that apply to our laws and constitution? And she saying she’s a practicing physician in Texas. So she’s asking from a USA perspective.
[00:27:48] Jonathan Emord: Well, there are references made to the Nuremberg Code and regulations inside the United States and I suspect elsewhere in the world, but fundamentally it’s not the Nuremberg Code, but the constitution of the United States that protects our rights. And when you’re talking about the United States and likewise in the rest of Europe, it is either your charters of rights or it is your statutory law, but sadly really, if there is no recognition of pre political rights of unalienable rights, it becomes increasingly difficult as a matter of law to prevail against the state, when the state argues that facts and circumstances justify an act of parliament or emergency measure by an executive. But I believe that the United States can join, if it were a leader in this area, could join in rather than blocking the dissemination of information and opinion and rather than standing back and not supporting individual rights all over the world, if it were instead a leader and were to open the channels of information to everyone in the world and defend the rights of individuals and condemn prime minister Trudeau for his authoritarianism and his tyranny, for example, then we could set an example that we should set and put our, might behind it and tell the west, the rest of the west, that if you wish to be in the brotherhood of nations with the United States, you should be respecting and defending the rights of your people.
[00:29:33] So it’s a hard call because in the end when bad people are in office, good law is meaningless. So we need good people in elective office.
[00:29:45] Karen McKenna: Yeah, thank you for sure. There’s a question from our newsroom. Mike Austin asked, ‘What part can common law or law of the land, natural law play in this situation and how can the general public they made aware of it?’
[00:30:00] Jonathan Emord: Well, Natural Law is really, as John Locke understood it to be, the state of us, when we are in a pre political condition and the degree to which, when we enter society, we are forced to accept limitations, are ones with regard to the extent of our rights only limited by the extent of others’ rights, such that we’re no longer capable of taking another’s property with a club, we cannot use a club because the other person has a right of self-defense, furthermore, they have a right to their own property. So, these natural rights define freedom to its maximum, really. And that should be the goal because the history of the world tells us that when people are free, they’re most productive and they’re also best able to innovate and improve the standard of living, not only of themselves, but of others.
[00:31:01] And that redounds to our benefit across the board in every way. And conversely, the history of the world tells us that when natural rights are deprived, such as in North Korea or in China or in Russia, people are miserable because they’re slaves and slavery has never been popular with a slave, despite what Hegel said about slavery, he was an advocate of slavery. Collectivist like slavery, they consider that to be evidence that a superior race or population is dominating an inferior race or population, and they argue as did John C. Calhoun in the antebellum south, that slavery is a moral good because it enables an inferior culture to improve its standing and its understanding by being related to a superior culture, and serving that culture. This was barbarism, this is in humanity and it violates fundamentally the rights of people, and we should justly stand against it. And we should justly defend natural rights against violation from the state wherever we see it.
[00:32:13] Karen McKenna: Yeah, definitely. Thank you very much for that.
[00:32:15] We’ve got quite a few questions here. So the next one is from Dr. Christof Plothe. He’s saying thank you for your voice and he’s also saying ‘Vaccine producers are exempt from liability, but what if the publication of the Pfizer trial shows clear signs of fraud? As they have sponsored the vaccines, can this lead to criminal charges with compensation? Excellent question.
[00:32:36] Yes. I think that that’s the way to look at it and I think that there’s hope there because, if exemptions were predicated upon the information that was underlying, was available publicly and not available to the legislatures, a vast amount of information showing adverse effects and injuries, then that would have necessarily been a material factor that was deprived of them and indeed it was an evidence of a fraud, right. So to the extent it can be proven that the drug companies withheld information from government sources and withheld information from say the Congress of the United States or parliaments around the world, that would be to me, strong evidence that there was fraud afoot, and I think it should be criminally investigated, but it also justifies a reconsideration of these laws, both by the legislative branches and by the courts as to whether someone in a category, where they were injured, but that information concerning that injury was then available to the pharmaceutical companies, but not given to Congress or the other decision-makers in government, why then should the exemption be said to reach those instances? So it’s a good question. And it should be put before a court.
[00:34:01] Thank you for that. Dr. Tess Lawrie has a question for you. She’s saying she’s recently learned that the World Health Organization international health regulations may override and supersede the US Constitution and the amendments are to be agreed upon in May 2022, and they will hand over even more power to the World Health Organization. Are you aware of any actions to prevent these amendments being agreed on behalf of the US citizens? And then a secondary question, do you know who the individuals are that have the power to agree them on behalf of the citizens?
[00:34:34] Jonathan Emord: So the treaty making power is a power that is most peculiar under the United States Constitution and it has been alleged variously by scholars that when the treaty making power is used, the president could effectively violate individual rights. For example, he could commit the United States to a global treaty of this sort and accept a international standard in lieu of standards that are applicable under American law.
[00:35:04] While this is certainly the case in the European union with the European health agencies, European food safety administration agency, for member states, this is not the case in the United States, at least from an arguable constitutional position, which is that the treaty making power cannot amend the Constitution of the United States or violate the Bill of Rights.
[00:35:31] There will be however, first moves by this administration, the Biden administration to achieve that end, by not only in their history, they have done end- runs around constitutional liberties through executive orders. For example, orders to eliminate border protection in the Southern border and as I mentioned, these mandates vaccine mandates and masking mandates, but they will also try to achieve the same ends, that is again, a government control over individual freedom of choice through the world health organization and through other international bodies and to do that allegedly in pursuance of the treaty making power.
[00:36:14] But those things I suspect will be challenged. I know they will, if it is undertaken by the administration and causes individuals or companies to be forced to lose property or rights, it will be challenged. And I’m not confident at all that they will win. They have a poor track record on these fundamental shifts in power and a majority of the justice of the Supreme Court are in agreement with the construction of the constitution that I’ve given you, which is to defend individual rights against authoritarian measures through the executive branch.
[00:36:50] Karen McKenna: Thank you so much. This is such an important conversation. I know I’m certainly learning a lot here. We’ve got a question from James Roguski, could you please comment on the difference between laws that are enacted and are referred to as legal, but are actually unconstitutional, due to the fact that they have not faced a challenge in the courts?
[00:37:09] Once the laws passed by Congress, it is legal. There are two kinds of laws in the United States, essentially, well, we could say more, but the primary laws that exist in the United States are the civil and criminal laws, which are adopted by statute and the so-called civil laws, which are adopted by regulation.
[00:37:33] Regulation comes from independent agencies that do not have elected individuals at the head of them. They are unelected and the regulatory state is really at root unconstitutional. It has survived, constitutional challenge, but it is wholly inconsistent with the constitution of the United States.
[00:37:56] Laws have facial validity until they are challenged. And then the question arises, is the law constitutional. Under the constitution, there is a thing called federal judicial review, which arises from Marbury versus Madison, a primary case in the early 1800s, that gave the court the power to fulfill what was Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists wish for the court, that is the power to review legislation passed by Congress to determine its constitutionality.
[00:38:31] When a law is passed, it has legal force and effect, but it is essentially until it is challenged, vulnerable and once challenged, a court, ultimately the Supreme court will determine whether it is legal or not, the Supreme court doesn’t presume to be infallible, in fact, justice Potter Stewart famously said, we are not final because we’re infallible, we are infallible because we are final.
[00:39:00] Thank you so much for that. Okay. We’ve got a few more and we’re just learning, learning as we go along. what is your view on how we fight for our rights effectively without a legal system that does not appear keen to uphold these rights and our liberty? This is from Melanie in Aldridge.
[00:39:16] Jonathan Emord: So the best way to fight for your rights is to be a member of an organization that is willing to put a number of people together to have a political impact on institutions that can affect your rights. So we see that with protests throughout Europe, we see that with Alliance for Natural Health International Alliance for Natural Health USA and numerous other organizations and groups, this group included, so that when you put people together and they recognize in the first instance that their rights are being violated and then they commit to action and then they act in ways that are lawful to impress upon those in government, their angst and dissatisfaction, that is the beginning of a movement then to correct the problems. We then advance beyond that. We change the composition of those who are in the government, in elected positions and in the parliaments and in the legislatures.
[00:40:12] And we put people in who are reflective of our opinions and we advocate there a nomination election. We use the courts. These organizations can help finance efforts to sue the government in the courts and argue for rights. And while it may in one instance be ineffectual because it is first brought, there are numerous instances where repeat action against the government on specific legal issues, ultimately causes judicial action, which then limits or eliminates the rights violation.
[00:40:47] And in short, we cannot be a silent majority. We have to be a vocal majority. We have to translate our thoughts into actions, and we have to insist relentlessly on defense of our liberties. And while I do not contemplate the need for revolution, certainly in the declaration of independence, our founding fathers in the United States understood there to be a right to revolution when they said in the declaration that if that the law is not respected, that is to say, if our rights are, are continuously violated, despite all efforts short of revolution, then in the end, if we’re going to be slaves, we have one option, which is to revolt. So in the end, we have to respect that we really are sovereigns and all power, regardless of whether the state recognizes it, is in the people.
[00:41:47] And if we believe in our rights, we should be willing to fight for them and if we’re willing to fight for them and die for them, then we might be taken seriously.
[00:41:58] Karen McKenna: That’s a great comment about, we need to be the vocal majority. Perfect. I think we could probably be asking you questions all day, but we’re going to finish with this last one. And that’s just from Emma and it’s; ‘What is being done in the US to restore the rights under the constitution?’
[00:42:14] Quite a bit. There is general revulsion over the Biden administration, not just in Europe, but of course at home and you would say, well, how is it that a majority of Americans could vote that buffoon into office? And the answer is, many people were deceived actually, because they were not told that Joe Biden would be an advocate of socialism and would advocate violating their rights and would force them to be vaccinated and all of this was not explained to them. So when they voted for Joe Biden, they voted for someone on the wish and the hope that he would be actually a moderate. And so what they got was a socialist well, surprise, surprise. And then they also got a man who is dead set on violating their rights, taking away their freedoms, forcing them to be vaccinated – mandates are extraordinarily unpopular here.
[00:43:06] So the midterm elections are coming up in 2022, congressional elections House and Senate and we believe very strongly based on the polling data, that the House of Representatives is going to flip from Democrat control to Republican control. The Senate, likewise may well flip to strong Republican control too, with number of members, but the House is going to have a whole bunch of probably Republican members and these new members who are coming in are reflective of this desire for defensive individual liberty that I’m talking about.
[00:43:41] And so, you will see an example in 2022 come November just around the corner, the world will see an example of what people, whose rights have been violated in a free country that has a constitution and respects unalienable rights, what happens. Are we going to embrace socialism and a headlong rush to become the new Venezuela?
[00:44:08] Or are we going to reject it and reassert individual sovereignty and individual liberty. And I think we are going to reject it and assert individual Liberty and individual sovereignty again. And I have every reason to believe that. And I speak around the country in the United States and I get very strong reactions in favor of these opinions from audiences that are not just, comprised of Republicans. So I think we are going to see it happen.
[00:44:36] Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you very much. That’s a very profound words.
[00:44:40] Dr. Mark Trozzi: Thank you so much, Jonathan. Again, I hope we see lots more of you. You’ve reminded us of why we named our legal committee Law and Activism because of the important symbiotic relation between a knowledge of the law and doing something to ensure that it is our reality.
[00:44:58] So, can’t thank you enough. We’d love to keep you here and ask you questions all day, so you have to come back.
[00:45:02] Jonathan Emord: Well, thank you. I’d be glad to, and it’s an honor again. Thank you so much.
[00:45:06] Dr. Mark Trozzi: Thank you, Jonathan.
[00:45:07] It’s interesting, we have a perfect followup to Jonathan’s presentation which comes from another American partner of this big family, James Roguski.
[00:45:19] I have a little more details for James, just from my own organization and we’ve had the chance to have him join us in the Law and Activism Committee, but James is an author, researcher, an activist and natural health advocate. His specialty is in researching highly complex issue and translating enormous amounts of data and simple language that is easy to understand, and he will be speaking to us on something that should grasp all of our attention, including – we’ll talk later about – there’s an action that a lot of us hopefully will take in the next 48 hours, but he’s going to speak to us about the WHO’s upcoming power grab and what they’re doing right now to establish it. James we are so grateful here..
[00:46:00] James Roguski: So everyone is fine, everyone can hear me and hopefully you can see me sharing my screen.
[00:46:03] I actually prefer the Socratic method and it seems like people here are full of questions and that’s going to make me really happy. So what I’m going to try to do is really go quickly through this slide presentation.
[00:46:15] I made it available online. So, people can look at it at their leisure. I put a couple of links in the chat. The first thing I want to do is compartmentalize people’s thinking because it’s all jumbled up, there’s so much information. There’s two categories that I’m gonna talk about.
[00:46:32] One is amendments to the international health regulations and the other is the proposed pandemic treaty. And, uh, going back to the first one, the amendments to the IHR, these were submitted by the US in January, they may be voted on in May and they could be enforced in November. And we’ll get into a little bit of the details with that.
[00:46:53] The pandemic treaty is much more vague. That could go on forever. That’s quite a discussion for many, many groups. This is the call to action that, Dr. Trozzi was mentioning. The WHO opened up a time period for public comment, started on Thursday afternoon and it’s ending on Wednesday, Geneva time, 5:00 PM.
[00:47:15] So not much time. And I appreciate everybody’s attention to this so that we can actually get some input. So this slide is probably too small to see it, and I’m going to expand it shortly, but there’s a crisis reaction and an opportunity. So, you know, I’m normally the calm, cool collected person who doesn’t get flustered and I’m certainly not flustered. I’m not flustered by the fact that I see a typo in my own slide, but how do you react to it? And, you know, it’s a crisis, so it’s actually an opportunity. So, what is the crisis? I already mentioned it and this is a little bit jumbled up, so, you know, try to compartmentalize when I talk about the amendments or the treaty.
[00:47:57] On December 1st, the World Health Assembly had a special meeting and they approved an inter-governmental negotiating body to negotiate a treaty. Intermingled with that, there was an action taken by the U S on January 18th to submit proposed amendments to the international health regulations, which kind of jumped to the head of the line because those could be approved at the May session. But then they jumped another thing to the head of the line last Thursday, when they set up this possibility of giving public comment.
[00:48:31] And so now that’s why that’s in red, you know, that’s happening as we speak right now. And we’re hoping that people take action on it, we’ll get into the details of that later. And then coming down the road in a more long-term, they’re going to draft and try to approve a pandemic treaty. So what kind of reaction might we have to the action of the WHO? Do we fight? Do we flee? Do we freeze or do we get focused? If anybody knows how to get off the planet, let me know, I’m tending to want to do that right now, but you know, we’re gonna have to fight this. Most people freeze, you know, inertia just keeps people stuck and you know, a lot of people go, oh, what can you do, there’s nothing you can do and that’s the easy path, you know, just sit there and take it. I’m trying to get people focused and you folks have been wonderfully helpful in doing that. Most people don’t even know that this is happening and you know, this crowd here thankfully has opened up their mind and you know, you are very, very much aware of it.
[00:49:23] My initial response was to say, well, I don’t like what they’re doing and I don’t ever complain unless I offer an answer to what I think is a problem. And rather than just complain, I crafted ThePeoplesTreaty.com, that’s a whole discussion in and of itself, that is just a statement of 10 articles that if somebody was going to be composing a treaty, I would insist that they secure and make sure that our rights are defended.
[00:49:53] The opportunity. And this is something that I would love to, you know, have many discussions with the legal activism committee, a couple of weeks or so ago, there was a question posed to our new Supreme Court justice: ‘What is the definition of a woman?’ And I wish she had said to the Senator who asked that question, well Senator my job is to interpret the law and to my knowledge, you guys haven’t ever gotten around to writing such a law. So there is no legal definition of a woman and you know, a societal definition is one thing, but I work with the law. So when you guys get around to writing a law that defines a woman, I’ll be happy to let you know what my interpretation of that law is.
[00:50:38] I’m here to point out that that is what is the current situation with words like safe and effective and vaccine. You know, what is a ‘case’? You know, many doctors are on this line, you know, a ‘case’ is not just you got a positive PCR test, that’s a fallacy. ‘ Ill person’ is an unusual phrase and I picked it out because that’s actually a word that is defined in US regulations.
[00:51:03] And it literally includes a person who is warm to the touch, has a headache and a stiff neck. That’s part of the definition of an ‘ill person’ who could be quarantined. I kid you not. There is no definition of an ‘infectious person’ who maybe should be quarantined. There is no definition for a pandemic and there certainly isn’t a legal definition that I’ve been able to find when somebody’s died because of a disease, rather than just having a positive PCR test. So the path forward, the WHO has actually given us some interesting clues. The IHRs are very powerful, they went to amend them. Well, I want to amend them too, but not the same way.
[00:51:45] As an organization, such as the World Council for Health, the World Council for Health is not going to negotiate an international treaty that’s going to be legally binding, but you could propose a detailed framework that a lot of groups would agree to. I put together the People’s Treaty to capture the narrative because the pandemic treaty is so vague.
[00:52:09] I figured if I put something in people’s hands and had their brain engage first, it’s harder to extract an idea that’s already found a home. And there’s a lot of work ahead, you know, let’s not kid each other. Coming back to this, I just want to reiterate there’s two separate things going on here: Amendments to the IHR that were proposed by the US and the urgent thing that is, whatever time zone you’re in, this is 5:00 PM Geneva time on Wednesday. The link is on my site and we can certainly talk about how to get people’s comments in. I spoke with Jennifer earlier this morning. They don’t make it easy to make it a little bit complicated.
[00:52:50] And with that, I’m much more excited about answering questions, so I’ll close it up there.
[00:53:00] Karen McKenna: Okay. Here’s a question coming in from Chris and Brenda, what is the WHO pandemic treaty planning to do and what are the implications for everyone?
[00:53:10] James Roguski: I could talk on that for days. There are gobs and gobs of reports and papers and videos and information. What is the WHO pandemic treaty? The WHO pandemic treaty is what the WHO says it’s going to be. And, to play conspiracy theorist I think they absolutely know what this treaty is and what it will be in what they’re shooting for.
[00:53:32] But to come back down to reality, the things that I know are driving forces behind the treaty are really frightening to me. One of them is this demand or focus and quite frankly, it’s getting very close to a demand, for vaccine equity. Because poor countries around the world haven’t taken enough of the COVID vaccines because the rich nations in the world got two, three or four or five or six boosters already.
[00:54:05] I have one of the pages with the first article that I wrote is just, it’s too big, but all of the information that anybody might ever want to look into as to what is being proposed to be included in the treaty is on my first article. And the point of this period of public comment, is for you and I and everyone else to tell the WHO what you would want to see in their pandemic treaty.
[00:54:32] Karen McKenna: Yes. Thank you. The next question comes from Costa Rica. Is the peoples treaty intended to be ratified and how is it used in the end?
[00:54:41] James Roguski: I can’t subscribe to their intent, but I would imagine if they’re talking about a treaty there is a process within the WHO and oh boy do I want to pick Jonathan’s brain at some point in the future, I found something that was phenomenally interesting to me. Back in 1948 when the United States and every country is different, but when the United States joined the WHO officially and Harry Truman signed off on it, the third page of that document had a little bit of a disclaimer and it said, you know, we agree to join the WHO, but that doesn’t mean that we have to change any United States law.
[00:55:20] I mean, that’s literally what it says, and when we joined, we joined, but we said, Nope, you know, if we don’t want to change our laws, we’re not changing our laws. They have changed many laws to become into alignment. And one of the interesting ones that they did was the day before oh, and Jonathan spoke to this so very well feels like I want to talk to him about it, the day before Trump was inaugurated, the Obama administration published a big 84-page document, changing definitions and regulations regarding pandemics and quarantines and travel and all that sort of stuff. And the day before Trump came into office, all these changes were made and they incorporated the WHO’s definition of an emergency into the United States definition of an emergency.
[00:56:11] And so it’s really voluntarily the US is, and again, Jonathan will do much better job at explaining the legal ramifications of this, they made a regulation that really shouldn’t be seen as a law. You know, it needs to really go a further process. Some of the discussions that need to be clarified by constitutional minds, such as Johnathan’s, are, we are signatory to the international health regulations that were passed in 2005 and it appears that an amendment to that would supersede US constitutional law. I don’t know if I specifically answered the question.
[00:56:53] Karen McKenna: Is the people’s treaty intended to be ratified?
[00:56:56] James Roguski: Did I totally did I totally misunderstand that question? The people’s treaty is my summary, personal summary, of the rights that we have. It’s meant to grab a hold of that narrative and say, if you all in the World Health Organization, want to pass a treaty, well, this had better darn well be in it.
[00:57:19] And so I boiled it down and it’s on my page open letter to the WHO, so that I submitted an abbreviated version of The People’s Treaty as 10 articles that any treaty should include. I encourage people to consider doing the same thing by all means let the WHO know what you would like, you know, to be in the treaty, they’re asking for public input and the people’s treaty is my contribution to that input.
[00:57:49] Karen McKenna: Yeah. And it’s brilliant. I think we’re really interested to have a closer look at it. There’s a question from Dr. Tess Lawrie saying can you please take us briefly through the People’s Treaty, just so that we spend a little time understanding it?
[00:58:02] James Roguski: I haven’t had the opportunity to meet Tess Lawrie yet, but s he just made me very happy.
[00:58:09] Alright. I hope you can see my screen being shared. The second article that I wrote is The People’s Treaty and a wonderful friend of mine who does a great graphics work, put it in this format, which is too small for everyone to see, but that’s the pretty version. And I’m going to scroll down past all of this, to where you get to know your rights and article number one: governments don’t get to suspend human rights just because of an emergency. They get certain powers, but they’re abusing that emergency power. The good of the nation is the sum total of the benefits enjoyed by all of its people claiming for the common good. Yes. I believe in the common good and cooperation, but that doesn’t get you to tread all over my rights.
[00:58:56] The bureaucrats do not have the right to deny potentially life saving medications to anyone. The right to refuse treatment is just absolutely inalienable. My body, my choice get away from me. Don’t even think about it. Discrimination based on medical status is wrong, no vaccine passports and such.
[00:59:16] I had a very interesting experience. Yesterday I’m going to digress a little bit and tell a personal story. I went to the Los Angeles Defeat the Mandates rally. We had a wonderful time yesterday. One of my friends had a six pointed yellow star sticker that said ‘not vaccinated’. And so I put it on my shirt and I went through the crowd doing activism in that I had little flyers that I passed out to inform people about their rights.
[00:59:46] And I got quite a lot of positive comments. People wanted to take a photograph of my little sticker on my shirt. Proudly stating, you know, I’m not Vaxxed, you know, if that’s a problem to you, you know I’m one of the unclean in, you know, official view. But I was very pleasantly surprised.
[01:00:08] People of Jewish faith came up to me, got up in my face, pointed at my six pointed star and said I am Jewish and I approve. And it was quite the experience. I’m sure that won’t happen all the time, but it really made my day. Article number six, lockdowns or quarantines of healthy people, that’s not part of the deal. If I’m contagious- however, that is not legally defined – if I’m contagious, I have a moral obligation to, you know, lock myself up and stay away from other people, I don’t want to infect anybody. But if I’m not sick, you cannot control me. I’m sorry.
[01:00:46] Article number seven, we demand complete transparency. This is an idea that, I quite frankly, you know, as a data analyst the way studies should be run, is absolutely all of the data should be exposed publicly, not private information so that a data analyst could not just look at the conclusions to cherry pick the conclusions that get published, but actually look at the data in real time as the study is being done. That’s doable with today’s technology. It’s an abomination that it isn’t done.
[01:01:20] Article 9: Everyone has the right to their own opinion. This is a little bit beyond medical, but you know, if I have an opinion about a healthcare, health treatment I have a right to say that I can be wrong and you can prove me wrong, but you can’t stop me from taking it.
[01:01:34] Article 10: You can’t legislate away guilt. This liability protection is an obscenity. And this is a topic that I’ve delved deeply, deeply, deeply into. Yes, I want to have an emergency powers given to leaders who take charge and make things happen when we got a hurricane or earthquake or a pandemic or something, but We The People need to tell them when that emergency is over, in our opinion, that’s a much slower process and they just won’t ever let it go. Once you take over power, they don’t ever give it up. So Dr. Lawrie, thank you for letting me do that.
[01:02:13] Dr. Tess Lawrie: Thank you very much, James. Really interesting.
[01:02:17] James Roguski: Oh, you know, don’t get me started, shutting me up is the hard part.
[01:02:20] Karen McKenna: We have so many questions for James. I’m just going to ask Mark how many more does he want to take, but I’m going to ask this question from Shabnam Palesa Mohamed. Did you receive a reply from the world health organization? Do you know how many people received a reply as the process begins tomorrow?
[01:02:39] James Roguski: The process doesn’t begin tomorrow. I’m not sure of that. If the questioner could, uh, do a follow up to clarify.
[01:02:47] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: So tomorrow the 12th and 13th is when they’re apparently setting up a video representation process.
[01:02:54] James Roguski: Now I understand. I wanna start off with fact, and then I’ll give my personal opinion. My understanding of the facts are that there are two separate forms that people and organizations could fill out. I think Shabnam’s question is the first form, which is for requesting to be given two minutes to speak in their public forum, which is going to be kind of like we’re doing right now. And I put my name in to that as soon as I saw it and I did get an email reply back. So I hope that’s a direct answer to your question Shabnam.
[01:03:30] Now it comes to my opinion. I’m not one of the organizations that’s currently doing business with the World Health Organization and I have no belief whatsoever that I will be chosen to give my two minutes, but I’ve got my two minutes already and raring to go. It’s the shortened version of The People’s Treaty that I just went into a little bit more detail with. It’s only 180 words and I could probably rip that off in two minutes, I’m ready to do that, but I know that they’re not going to pick me because I don’t donate to the WHO. The process that we can also do, which is a second form, which I also did and, you know, I’m not sure if I got a response from them, I have to check. I know I got a response to that. It was submitted the not 250 words as they claim, but you get to put in 1,250 characters. I was able to finally submit that and that’s what I’m encouraging everyone to do. The organizations that you all folks may be involved in, take a crack at, you know, putting in your application to speak for two minutes. Don’t hold your breath.
[01:04:35] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: So some good news James, one of the organizations that is a partner with the World Council for Health has received a reply and will be participating and certainly does not contribute any funding to the world health organization. So we’re exceptionally proud and excited for this opportunity to stand up essentially health, freedom.
[01:04:55] James Roguski: Wow. My efforts are worth it. Somebody gets to talk. That’s awesome. For the written information, they say will be archived and made public. So don’t just vent because terrible words may be public, but please do give them a piece of your mind. That’s awesome news. That’s wonderful to hear.
[01:05:18] Karen McKenna: Thank you. Next question is from Dr. Christof Plothe. ‘Thank you for your brilliant publications on this issue. Despite all the disastrous decisions in the past, the image of the World Health Organization is still very clean. What would you use to scratch this image; corruption, lack of transparency, et cetera. Any thoughts on that?
[01:05:39] James Roguski: I’m not a, mudslinger, there’s plenty of mud being slung. You do a quick search for corruption and WHO and take your pick. It’s more about what do we do and by we, I mean, the collected everybody here and everything that you’re associated with, what do we do to present a better way?
[01:06:00] I don’t mean to steal your tagline, everyone at the World Council for Health, but I’ve adopted it. I’m not stealing it. I try to make it a point in my personal life, that when I see something that I don’t like, I don’t say a word until I have a solution to offer. You can reject the solution. You can reject The People’s Treaty, you can say, well, that’s the starting point, we can do this, or I want to do that, but to complain and not offer a concrete proposal is just being a complainer, to point out a problem and offer a solution is being an activist. And I hope that answers the question.
[01:06:41] Karen McKenna: That’s excellent. Our next question comes from Jennifer Hibbert and I think I’m going to let her ask us the question itself, it’s regarding international health regulizations and the situation in the US. Jennifer, do you want to ask your question? I think you might make it more clear.
[01:06:55] Jennifer: Sure. Hi James. I wonder if you’d like to share with everybody and speak about how the US has already submitted its amendments to the international health regulations in agreement with the WHO and what that means, because that was done in January, I believe.
[01:07:11] James Roguski: Yes, and the first article that I posted in the chat is an open letter to the WHO, which is what we’ve been talking about, which is submitting your ideas for the pandemic treaty.
[01:07:25] The second article that I posted in the chat is my fourth article, which is Wake Up and Smell the Burning of the Constitution. So the complete answer is, go to the fourth article on my sub stack. Here’s the summary of that.
[01:07:42] The World Health Assembly will be meeting May 22nd to 28th. There’s a rule in the constitution of the WHO that, if you want to propose an amendment, you got to do it four months in advance. Well, they made it right in under the deadline, they did it on the 18th and then the WHO spread it to all of the member nations by the 20th.
[01:08:01] So that’s two and a half, almost three months ago. I suspect that they’ve been, you know, wheeling and dealing in back rooms, you know, trying to get everybody to agree to pass it. I believe Dr. Kat corrected me and it appears I’m trusting that what I thought initially was wrong. It appears that a simple majority will approve the amendments.
[01:08:24] What I don’t know is if there’s going to be any amending of the amendments, you know, it’s like, well, here’s the amendments that the US proposed. And there’s no like line item veto kind of thing. It’s like take it or leave it and that sounds like something the United States would do.
[01:08:42] Okay. You know, here’s what we want, give it to us or you’re going to have trouble. And so everybody gives it to them. And the process is in the darkness. Nobody knows about this. I’m sure I wasn’t supposed to find out about it and we’re not supposed to be talking about it. It was supposed to just pop up at the assembly, get passed through and afterwards every country has a right of refusal. And so that might be a tactic, you know, maybe there’s 40 countries that vote against it or a hundred countries or 80 countries that vote against it, something like that. Maybe we could encourage people to argue within their countries that, yeah, it’s great that they passed the amendment, but there appears to be a right of re opting out.
[01:09:28] I hope I answered the question, Jennifer I’ll certainly go more…
[01:09:31] Jennifer: Yeah. And just kind of an extension of that, did you find any information about what was in the amendment that they sent in?
[01:09:39] James Roguski: Well, that’s what the entire article Wake Up and Smell the Burning… you know, I didn’t actually talk about any of the details of it. I’ll touch on, maybe that’s what you meant. Thank you.
[01:09:47] Jennifer: Yeah. Yeah. That’s what I wanted you to share with everybody is just touch on some of the details because the way it’s presented so far, it sounds like, people don’t know what the amendments are, maybe it’s too organized, but I think it’s kind of controversial, so why don’t you share that?
[01:10:02] James Roguski: Sure. Wake Up and Smell the Burning of Our Constitution ought to give you a clue. If these supersede us law they would be setting up, you know, more surveillance of pathogens. One of the big ones I believe is the, WHO would have the power to declare that there is an emergency within a country, overriding that country’s objections. And I think that this is actually crafted. This is my opinion. It’s not found in fact anywhere, this was presented in January and I think it’s anti-China. Well, there was something going on in China and the, WHO had to negotiate with the Chinese officials to be able to share this information with all the other countries.
[01:10:50] And boy, careful what you ask for United States, cause that could come back to bite you, because this was all submitted before the awareness of all of the biological laboratories in the Ukraine and around the world and so forth. And so one of the things that they want to add, the amendments would add on top of what I just said, is they want to give their regional directors, which are just bureaucrats in the World Health Organization, the right to declare a regional emergency.
[01:11:22] And if you look at how their regions are structured you know, with air flights, going all around the world, you know, viruses and pathogens, don’t obey geographical areas. It seems like giving that power, if somebody that we know is making a big problem in one country and the WHO wanted to crack down on that country, they could declare a pandemic in a different country in that region.
[01:11:53] And that whole region now is in an emergency state and they also added an intermediate emergency declaration, which is just like, you know, panic all the time, panic people, panic, panic, panic. They also shortened the length of time with which countries have to enact the legislation to put these amendments into force from 18 months to six months.
[01:12:16] And they also put in something that is part of just recommendations that they can send experts in, you know, expert teams. And there’s all kinds of movies about those kinds of invasions, where the pandemic squad comes in and takes over. Too many details to go into everyone here is smart and wise enough to read all of the details and I would welcome, you know, intelligent discussion about why do these seemingly innocuous words actually scare the crap out of me. If you choose to interpret it in a nefarious way.
[01:12:49] Karen McKenna: Thanks James. There’s one more question, but I think we’re running short on time. So I’m going to put that question in the chat. If you could answer the chat, that would be great.
[01:12:57] Dr. Mark Trozzi: James, thank you so much. You know, a lot of us scientists and medical types were not that interested in paperwork and legal matters until recently, but it’s certainly gotten our attention now and James, thank you so much for bringing it to our attention. We know in 2009, when they came up with their own magic version of the word pandemic, unlike the real word, it allowed the creation of the state that we’ve all been through in the last year, so their backroom deals are extremely concerning and dangerous for us.
[01:13:28] I don’t know where we’d be if you hadn’t sounded the alarm on this, because there’s so much going on that I know myself, I was overlooking this until you brought it to our attention. And in a bit of a last minute scramble some of our partners around the world are putting together a site for people to upload their written submissions and recordings of what they want to say, because we’re quite confident based on decades of history, that this public input with the WHO is to create a veneer to create appearance of public involvement, so they can tell us later that we asked for whatever it is they deliver. So everyone, we both encourage you to participate and to use the link that James shared. We’ll share them again in the chat too, at this point, the submissions to speak in their deliberation have closed as of some hours ago. But it’s til Wednesday, so tomorrow’s a good day if not today. But please hang on to that because we will be getting out to you information so you can upload this to a place where we will really create a public record of what the people of the world really think and what we really do or do not want in this regard.
[01:14:32] So, I’d be honored at this point to introduce, we have a partner organisation to present and Marco Albertazzi from Costa Rica and he’s with the Movimiento por la Saludy la Libertad, for health freedom. Marco I’d be grateful if you could take the floor.
[01:14:50] Marco Albertazzi: Hello. How are you everyone? We prepared a statement that I would like to read and that I would like to share with all of you. Members of the steering committee of the World Council for Health, esteemed colleagues and partners, and dear friends around the world, since the declaration of the pandemic, primarily by the World Health Organization and then by the Costa Rican health authorities, we have faced governmental policies through the excuse of a health emergency based, not on technical, medical or scientific criteria, but on capricious and senseless regulations, that violated citizens rights characterized by the abuse of power by the government against the people which included; the indiscriminate confinement and isolation by lockdowns, and also absurd vehicular restrictions preventing people from traveling in their personal vehicles, while buses, trains, and other means of mass transportation were packed. Access to parks, beaches, and rivers, where people could have sunbathed, exercised and breathed fresh air to strengthen their general health, was prohibited. While the prolonged and useless use of masks that exacerbated allergic asthmatic and respiratory disorders, mainly in developing children and our elders, also affecting them emotionally, that was imposed. The use of wrong and generalized procedures and protocols for the treatment of patients inside and outside hospitals without taking into account their personal and individual characteristics certainly increased the number of deaths.
[01:16:31] They created fear propaganda that our frightened population had to endure, which included images of refrigerated containers and body bags. Billboards with images of dead bodies or with messages advising distancing from our elderly, as well as roadside messages demanding that chronically ill patients stay at home, causing panic and anxiety attacks.
[01:16:56] We can not fail to mention that constant harassment of the press that acted as government propaganda agencies, broadcasting the press conferences of the government on a daily basis, presenting many related epidemiological data and the political measures taken without technical, scientific or medical criteria – all without questioning the narrative..
[01:17:20] The country’s health authorities ignored, excluded, silenced, and denied other available effective, safe, and proven prophylactic and therapeutic treatments aimed at strengthening people’s health, especially those at risk when exposed to and facing the COVID-19 disease. The treatment of other pathologies in the population was neglected and abandoned, and patients were treated by telephone, worsening their chronic pathologies and affecting the condition of public health.
[01:17:53] In the same way, hospitalized patients have been isolated and forbidden contact with their relatives, practically kidnapping them and limiting them to a mere phone call, affecting their emotional health and the patient’s recovery. The counting of cases and deaths was not done using a proper statistical analysis of data that would allow comparing the epidemiologic situation both nationally and among different countries and regions, turning isolated data into manipulable figures.
[01:18:24] The epidemiological links were included as real cases, PCR tests, which are not useful for diagnosis were used and furthermore were conducted at high cycles, which resulted in false positives. There wasn’t a differentiation made between dying from COVID and dying with COVID. No autopsys were performed and the protocols for handling corpses implemented by the health authorities, did not allow for that verification of the real causes of death. Inhumanely and without medical scientific support, people have been prevented from attending the funerals of their deceased loved ones, with the excuse of avoiding contagion.
[01:19:08] In our opinion, health is a state of bio psycho social wellbeing. And if by privileging, one aspect of health, the other two are harmed. This would be contrary to the health model implemented worldwide. Health is a much broader and complex concept than simply COVID-19 and an injection called a vaccine.
[01:19:32] Furthermore, as a consequence of the irresponsible mandate of mass innoculation including people from five years old and above embodied in the executive order of the president of Costa Rica, Carlos Alvarado, and the minister of health, Daniel Salas with an illogical excuse of dealing with a virus that has a lower lethality rate than the common flu, the national legal framework, our political constitution and the international treaties that protect our civil and individual rights and even the privacy of our personal data, have been violated, through abuses, restrictions and impositions that have transgressed the warranties and liberties of the natural and legal persons of Costa Rica. Evidentaly, this has had a huge impact on the economy, tourism and the entire national socioeconomic fabric, costing alarming rates of trade restrictions and business closures resulting in unemployment and increased poverty.
[01:20:33] Consequently, there has been a decline in the living standards and an exacerbation in diagnosis of chronic depression since employers, infringed workers’ labor rights with the approval of the government. This has empowered employers to persecute, coerce, suspend and terminate workers, which created in our opinion, a new underhand form of slavery and a sanitary apartheid by some businesses against those who did not want to accept the imposition to be inoculated with this experimental substance.
[01:21:08] All of this has put at risk the life, health, jobs and businesses of hundreds of thousands of Costa Rican citizens, and discriminated against a large part of the population through the implementation of the QR code, which has now been surprisingly eliminated, after people were coerced by the need to have their green pass. Therefore, this has fostered fear, uncertainty, insecurity, finger-pointing, persecution, social isolation, distress, and even suicidal ideations, because of the fear of losing their job or actually losing their jobs, compromising the possibility of providing for their family.
[01:21:51] The mental, emotional and physical health of our society has been put at risk when we take into consideration that these injections are not effective, because it has been seen that inoculated people are not immunized, but are capable of developing the disease, as well as transmitting it to others and even dying from it. In addition, the efficacy rates reported by pharmaceutical companies, authorities, and the media are not real since they presented the relative efficacy.
[01:22:24] Efficacy rates which are ambiguous, instead of the absolute efficacy rate, which is actually more accurate. They are also not necessary, because the survival rates to the virus exceeded the effectiveness rates of the injections, regardless of the pharmaceutical company that produces them. There are other proven, effective, safe, and long standing treatments that allow patients to be treated effectively.
[01:22:49] Particularly if early care is provided. Therefore, in no way, none of the policies and mandates that Costa Rica and the world have undertaken are justified. Above all, it is illogical to think that pediatric inoculations should be forced, when, for instance, people under 19 years of age have a natural survival rate to COVID-19 of 99.997%.
[01:23:16] Also, these injections are not safe since these so-called vaccines have never been previously used in human beings, as they’ve been developed using new technological platforms. And according to what the pharmaceutical companies themselves indicate, the clinical studies and trials of these experimental gene therapies have not yet ended, and are still in place.
[01:23:41] Moreover, serious and even fatal adverse effects have been reported in the national population. However, due to the lack of a correct and timely pharmacovigilance policy in Costa Rica, it has not been possible to evaluate and warranty the safety of these substances, to those who have opted in or have been coerced or even forced to be inoculated with them.
[01:24:05] In the sense we have had to resort to the pharmacovigilance systems of international governments, such as VAERS of the United States of America, Yellow Card of the United Kingdom and EudraVigilance of the European Union in order to have data and alert the public about the adverse events that these substances are producing in people of all ages, regardless of their physical complexion, level of physical activity or other individual characteristics.
[01:24:37] Also, the government has failed to disclose a number of important details, such as the contents of these injections, taking into account that every person who is being inoculated should have the right to know and understand what is being administered to their body, to know the potential risks, to which they could be exposed so that they have the capacity to consent or reject this inoculation.
[01:25:05] What we know as informed consent, which has been absolutely omitted, contrary to what is required by law and rather than informed consent, it has been manipulation, coercion and obligation and who is to be liable for these eventual, subsequent damages. With these measures, the provisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its judgment of November 30th, 2016, in the case of I.V. against Bolivia, are being violated when it stated: States have the international obligation to ensure that informed consent is obtained prior to the performance of any medical act. Since this is based primarily on the autonomy and self-determination of the individual as part of the respect and warranty of the dignity of every human being, as well as her right to freedom. In turn, this implies that individual may act in accordance with her wishes, her ability to consider options, make decisions and act without arbitrary interfering from third parties, all within the limits established in the convention’.
[01:26:23] In accordance with the above, the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights has established in his Resolution 1/2021 of April 6th, 2021, that any COVID-19 vaccine to be provided by the state, must have the prior, free and informed consent of the person receiving it. This implies that every person has the right to be given by the healthcare providers, information about the COVID-19 vaccines they may receive. Such information must be timely, complete, understandable, clear, non-technical, reliable, culturally appropriate, and take into account the particularities of, and the specific needs of that individual. On the other hand, the contractual information between the pharmaceutical companies and the administration has been handled with absolute secrecy due to its suspicious privacy clauses, contrary to the provisions of the same resolution just mentioned by that Inter-American commission on human rights.
[01:27:38] It is for all of these reasons that we, a group of citizens and professionals from various specialties, including doctors, public health professionals, pharmacists, biologists, psychologists, nurses, social workers, lawyers, communicators, economists, business administrators among others, that based on science, official documents, clinical studies and verifiable data, have joined together and formed the Movimiento por La Saludy la Libertad (Movement for Health and Freedom), a non-profit organization that defends the life, health, rights and freedom of our Costa Rican brothers and sisters, raising our voices in defense of those who are ignored and whose rights have been infringed. Taking a stand against abuses restrictions and government impositions.
[01:28:32] So far, our movement, along with other groups with whom we have strategic alliances, numbers over 130 people involved in different committees, such as medical, scientific, legal, communication, research, logistics, activism, entrepreneurial support, marketing, and design among others, who contribute to the movement pro bono.
[01:28:58] During this time we have called for peaceful demonstrations and protests where thousands of us have gathered in different parts of the country, such as the ombudsman’s office, where we had a meeting with the ombudsman, which by the way, the president of Costa Rica and the minister of health declined to attend.
[01:29:18] Also, we went to the Congress of Costa Rica on several occasions where we also had meetings with some congressmen of the Republic. We have been to the Supreme Court of Justice, the constitutional court, the national stadium media headquarters, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the presidential offices.
[01:29:39] We have had also meetings with businessmen, municipal and community leaders, and even defended patients and their families when their rights were violated in hospitals. As the movement for health and freedom in Costa Rica, we make a strong call to all physicians, scientists, social, personal health authorities, scientific journals, the World Health Organization, and all professionals in the health sciences to remember and honor their Hippocratic Oath.
[01:30:13] We call on the media, professionals associations, universities, public and private employers, churches, and government authorities, to respect free expression and to encourage the debate of ideas without censorship, to observe international treaties on bioethics, human rights, civil liberties, the legal framework and sovereignty of each country that protects its citizens from abuses as well as to reject the pandemic treaty being proposed by the World Health Organization, and therefore to honor the dignity and freedom of every human being in the world.
[01:30:51] Finally, on behalf of the Movement for Health and Freedom, it’s coordinators, teams and members, I would like to thank the World Council for Health for accepting us as members of this prestigious organization. This without a doubt is a great honor and at the same time, it reaffirms our commitment to Costa Rica, to continue fighting with ethics, dedication, and love for our fellow men in defense of truth, justice, rights, health, life and freedom of every Costa Rican, as well as our brothers and sisters around the world.
[01:31:30] To conclude, we would like to share this brief video with you that shows some of the actions we have taken, up to today. Thank you very much.
[01:31:40] Karen McKenna: Thank you very much.
[01:31:41] Jennifer: Yes, we’ll get it going. We’re just gonna play it now.
[01:31:43] Karen McKenna: Thank you very much, Marco. I really appreciate all your dedication and that’s an honor to share your country.
[01:31:49] Marco Albertazzi: At the end, the quote was saying that liberty has never been given by the oppressor, it must be taken by the oppressed, which is from Martin Luther king, Jr. So, thank you very much.
[01:35:09] Dr. Mark Trozzi: Wow. Thank you. Thank you Don Marco. That is such a concise, detailed summary of the situation of the strategy. You know, it’s one thing to sit in one’s living room watching the TV, but what you and your group have done is, is detailed and meticulous. I know personally and in Canada and I encourage all of us around the world to, we will have these videos edited soon, we’ve had such important messages to including Marco’s message to get to the world because really we are all in very similar situations and as you said Marco, we are all brothers and sisters in this and we must take back our rights. They will not be handed to us.
[01:35:51] It’s interesting in a conversation last week, along the lines of what you said, Marco, in your quote from the great Martin Luther King, you know, when our American brothers and sisters centuries ago sought independence, they did not ask. They declared. So thank you so much. I hope we see lots more of you and that we can support you and that you can support us. Phenomenal work.
[01:36:18] What an amazing meeting and lightening it has been. We certainly live in interesting times and we’re certainly among a special group of people, all of us who’ve risen up to form this big group.
[01:36:31] I would like to ask at this point, if there are any matters, arising of importance before I have a little positive announcement to share as well. So I’d like to open the floor to matters arising, perhaps by raising hands and reactions. If you can. I think we’re all speechless.
[01:36:48] Marco Albertazzi: If I may someone was writing here in the chat, that what happened in Costa Rica has been the same that has happened elsewhere. So I think if they coordinated their efforts to violate human dignity, our rights, then what the previous presenter was saying, we need to coordinate as well. Groups that defend people around the world and present The People’s Treaty and push on Bills in our legislatures to have our rights protected.
[01:37:26] So I think that we need to coordinate that and we need to, to work as a coalition worldwide and prepare something so that we can be heard and we can take a stand altogether.
[01:37:41] Dr. Mark Trozzi: So true, Don Marco, you know, and for some reason I find myself thinking of when you live in a big house, we’re all a family, the world is our house. And if you have rats in the house, you can chase them from room to room, it doesn’t get rid of them. We all need to do our part so that the rats have no room from which to keep jumping to the other rooms, because we were all in this together.
[01:38:06] I have a little uh, you know, sometimes positive news is such a great thing. We’ve all been working so hard to try to turn this ship from its insane direction, to a sane direction. And we should not give up vigilance. We should stay focused and continue because there’s a long way to go. But, we received news that we have a second government behaving quite sanely on planet earth, following Iceland. Apparently government of Norway, has announced that these injections, which I’d like to remind everyone are not vaccines. If you’re looking for a vaccine for COVID, they don’t exist in my opinion. But they’ve announced that the injections called vaccines don’t work and for people to take off their masks and build real immunity.
[01:38:53] So, keep up the work team, we are getting there. We’re getting there. God bless you all.
[01:38:59] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: Thank you everyone. It’s just been such a brilliant general assembly in so many ways.
[01:39:04] So this is a poem by, Albert Camus and he said: ‘In the midst of hate, I found there was within me an invincible love. In the midst of tears, I found there was within me, an invincible smile. In the midst of chaos, I found there was within me, an invincible calm. I realized through it all, that in the midst of winter, I found there was within me an invincible summer. And that makes me happy. For it says that no matter how hard the world pushes against me, within me, there’s something stronger, something better pushing right back’. Thank you everyone.
[01:39:47] Dr. Mark Trozzi: Thank you, Shabnam. Well, we’ll certainly miss each other. Let’s all go out into the world and continue doing great things and to build a future that our children and our grandchildren can enjoy, and I think at some point I hope to make a bronze statue of our three speakers today, and a bunch of you in beautiful parks somewhere.
[01:40:09] Karen McKenna: Thank you, everyone for joining us today.