World Health Organization (WHO) Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland

World Health Organization (WHO) Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland

It took nearly three years for the COVID pandemic to reveal itself as less lethal to humans than almost all influenzas, as 99.97 percent of all humans survive a COVID infection. Additionally COVID is characterized as nonlethal to human children, unlike influenza that, according to the CDC, takes the lives of hundreds of children every year. To date, there is not a single childhood death that can be conclusively attributed to COVID-19.

It is apparent that a cartel of misguided public health authorities, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. National Health Institute (NIH), Center for Disease Control (CDC), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), unleashed provably detrimental extreme mitigations that had planetary negative consequences, resulting in far more death and destruction than COVID-19 ever could.

Contributing mightily to the lost trust for public health authorities worldwide are the experimental injections that have been largely forced on panicked populations, driven to hysteria by media's relentless fear-mongering and maniacal messaging on behalf of public health authorities that promoted these injections as safe and effective vaccines and boosters, even though there is no persuasive proof that such claims are true, then or now.

And sadly, these reapers are not finished, having just approved COVID-19 experimental injections for inclusion on the childhood immunization schedule with zero clinical trials proving safety or efficacy for this age cohort, especially long term! The only logical explanation for such an unjustified action against children at statistical zero risk from COVID is securing for Pfizer and Moderna full indemnity from liability for harm caused by the jabs, including harm to adults, if the jabs are listed on the childhood immunization schedule per the National Childhood Vaccine Safety Act of 1986.

Since 2013, once the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act was repealed, it was no longer illegal to propagandize U.S. citizens. The 2013 Smith-Mundt Modernization Act enabled the Fourth Estate, the people's watchdog, to become the instrument of unbridled government propaganda. Media now broadcasts and publishes whatever government sanctioned narratives (whether fact or fiction or both), scripted messaging, and political protection is ordered under a blanket of feigned national security.

In addition, unconstitutional criminal conduct by an array of government agents colluding with mainstream and social-media co-conspirators to surveil, target, and suppress need-to-know information from public consumption, including the censorship and deliberate discrediting of Americans who disseminate it, regardless of how credentialed, is going un-prosecuted, thereby contributing to a flagrant lawlessness that is dangerously destabilizing.

Still, the universe has rules and truth will always out. Always. The authorities' aggressive suppression of alternative information, its overt lack of transparency, its adamant refusal to publicly debate the controversies plaguing most things COVID, and the contributory corruption of high impact medical and science journals, is an indictment of public health and the medical industrial leadership, globally.

Extreme mitigations, such as shuttering Main Street businesses, combined with an aggressive covert collaboration of suppression, with its callous injustice and absurd politicization of something as apolitical as a global pandemic, targeted small-to-medium-sized businesses for closure. This unjust burden provided an effective economic bulldozer, initiating a predictable chain reaction of supply shortages and production incapacities for critical needs such as food, energy, fuel, and basic needs that continues to escalate while most Americans do precious little to intervene.

Lockdowns, quarantines, and isolation mitigations denied children their education for nearly two years, with heartbreaking consequences The emotional damage continues to present with increased drug use, overdoses, confusion, and fear, leading to depression and suicides amid growing mental and physical health issues, not to mention the profound insecurities triggered from observing adults severing lifelong relationships, or the sudden social/political divisions among family, friends, and schoolmates that weren't there before.

Meanwhile, mainstream media and big tech embraced an enhanced and lucrative role as disseminate of government propaganda like never before. Drenching audiences 24/7 in combined torrents of debilitating fear and incoherent politicization effectively anchored pandemic propaganda, successfully influencing acceptance of extreme mitigations that included tyrannical bio-medical compliance that had the additional destabilizing benefit of societal fissures that can now be exploited.

The only positive to come from such a focused campaign of behavior manipulation is that social-media platforms have finally been exposed for the hyper-partisan, suppressive frauds they are, manufacturing accounts' pretend followers, likes, posts, dislikes, and trends to create twisted fictions that so many rely on for their identity and sense of social acceptance.

Health Emergency Management Is Negotiating Global Governance Unless We Prevent It Now

The political fallout from COVID mismanagement has also resulted in politiopaths wishing to offload the responsibilities for health emergencies to the World Health Organization (WHO) in an all-too-familiar cowardly dodge, not unlike our Ukraine engagement (and many more conflicts before it) with no congressional “Declaration of War” as dictated in the U.S. Constitution.

To that end, the WHO is meeting with specific delegates chosen from the 196-member countries to discuss the 300-plus proposed amendments submitted throughout 2022 to significantly upgrade the International Health Regulations (IHR) and WHO's role in managing health emergencies, globally. The amendments would purportedly transform the IHR from mere guidance to legally binding governance authority using a loophole that would permit adoption of the amendments on a “provisional basis.”

The net result would be to relinquish U.S. sovereignty whenever a “potential health emergency” is declared by the WHO's director general. Unless aggressively challenged by member countries not wishing for a foreign centralized authority managing health emergencies by proxy, U.S. citizens need to expressly declare their refusal to comply with such an unconstitutional usurpation by a foreign organization, asserting their own constitutionally protected authority and insisting congress issue the necessary challenges and legislation to prevent its adoption.

The amendments are a direct assault on every country's sovereignty and self-determination, therefore must be summarily rejected by its citizens, including the U.S., regardless of political affiliation. For once, leave partisanship out of it. This is far too important for a political squabble that requires a resolute national stand.

The February/March 2023 IHR working group delegates include participation by our own U.S. delegates: Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Beccera, HHS Deputy Director of Global Affairs Colin McIff, and HHS Assistant Secretary of Global Affairs Loyce Pace. Secretary of State Antony Blinken also named Pamela Hamamoto (former EU Ambassador under Obama and current Chief of Mission to the United Nations) to the IHR negotiating team, and also to the working group for the Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Treaty of 2024, a separate document altogether that requires our vigilance, as well.

The clever work-around strategy for the U.S. Constitution, an otherwise formidable obstacle to ceding sovereignty to foreigners, is to adopt the final amendments with a simple majority vote of the select delegates present. This adoption would immediately give the new IHR the force of law, legally binding member countries to its new charter on a provisional basis. Normally such substantial revisions would require each member county's legislative approval before official adoption becomes legally binding. The 'provisional basis' clause allows an immediate enactment and enforcement of the new regulations until individual countries sort it out for themselves later … if they sort it out.

Most countries will likely remain unaware of the sea change, let alone its impact, until the first time the WHO declares an emergency, or a potential emergency, whichever will justify the most funding on demand from member countries on the hook for supplying such funds.

Imagine the WHO, under the dictatorial control of current Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, declaring a “potential emergency” and commandeering U.S. resources to redirect “supplies” to countries of Tedros' choosing. Or mandating additional COVID experimental jabs manufactured in China, for which the CDC and FDA no longer require clinical trials for safety or efficacy.

Thanks to the herculean efforts of James Roguski, below is a list of 10 entirely unacceptable amendments currently on the table for negotiation in Geneva. Mr Roguski has followed this mostly secretive, often confusing usurpation of emergency health management by the WHO, endorsed by the World Bank, the World Economic Forum (WEF), to name a few global stakeholders.

Again, these IHR amendments would cede total authority to the World Health Organization, a centralized global organization in Geneva, Switzerland, that failed miserably in managing the COVID pandemic. That said, Roguski's robust body of work has made it possible to review the International Health Regulation amendments so that we can decide for ourselves what we consider unacceptable. Americans should not, and I do not, consent to WHO authority over any medical decisions, personal or otherwise.


The Top 10 Amendments to the International Health Regulations That Need to Be Opposed

By James Roguski

1) CHANGE FROM ADVISORY TO MANDATORY: Change the overall nature of the World Health Organization from an advisory organization that merely makes recommendations to a governing body whose proclamations would be legally binding. (Article 1 and Article 42)

2) POTENTIAL RATHER THAN ACTUAL EMERGENCIES: Greatly expand the scope of the International Health Regulations to include scenarios that merely have a “potential to impact public health.” (Article 2)

3) DISREGARD FOR DIGNITY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS: Seek to remove “respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.” (Article 3)

4) ALLOCATION PLAN: Give the Director General of the WHO control over the means of production through an “allocation plan for health products” to require developed states parties to supply pandemic response products as directed. (Article 13A)

5) MANDATORY MEDICAL TREATMENTS: Give the WHO the authority to require medical examinations, proof of prophylaxis, proof of vaccine and to implement contact tracing, quarantine, and TREATMENT. (Article 18)

6) GLOBAL HEALTH CERTIFICATES: Institute a system of global health certificates in digital or paper format, including test certificates, vaccine certificates, prophylaxis certificates, recovery certificates, passenger locator forms and a traveller's health declaration. (Articles 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36, and 44 and Annexes 6 and 8)

7) LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY: Would empower the Emergency Committee to override decisions made by sovereign nations regarding health measures and would make the Emergency Committee's decisions final. (Article 43)

8) UNSPECIFIED, POTENTIALLY ENORMOUS FINANCIAL COSTS: Redirect unspecified billions of dollars to the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex with no accountability. (Article 44A)

9) CENSORSHIP: Greatly expand the World Health Organization's capacity to censor what they consider to be mis-information and dis-information. (Annex 1, page 36)

10) OBLIGATION OF DUTY TO COOPERATE: Creates an obligation to build, provide, and maintain IHR infrastructure at points of entry. (Annex 10)


Readers can find a wealth of information on all the proposed amendments, with a country-by-country review of the International Health Regulations. Roguski also covers the pending proposed new Pandemic Protection Preparedness and Response Treaty of 2024. These are two separate international documents and should not be confused.

James Roguski's work can be found at His Web sites include:,,, and


Patients' Dignity, Human Right,s and Freedoms Are Internationally Recognized and Legally Upheld

The WHO, in cooperation with government and public health authorities in the U.S. and around the world, violated patient dignity, human rights, privacy, freedoms, and self-determination as defined in various international treaties, accords and documents, based on a corona viral disease that posed no threat to 99.97 percent of Earth's human population. These violations were made more egregious as mandated experimental injections ignored established legally binding international rules for experimentation on human subjects, including non-negotiable “Informed Consent” as provided for in the Nuremberg Code of Conduct (1947) and Geneva Convention (1948).

In furtherance of individual medical protections, the Declaration of Helsinki provides ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. It was adopted by the 18th Assembly of the World Medical Association in Helsinki, Finland, 1964. Ten of the original principles come from the Nuremberg Code of Conduct, with other principles were culled from the Declaration of Geneva. Below are several of the paragraphs from the Helsinki Declaration that appropriately deserve attention, if just for proper perspective. The Helsinki Declaration in its entirety can be found at


World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (1964)


1) The World Medical Association (WMA) has developed the Declaration of Helsinki as a statement of ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, including research on identifiable human material and data. The Declaration is intended to be read as a whole and each of its constituent paragraphs should be applied with consideration of all other relevant paragraphs.

2) Consistent with the mandate of the WMA, the Declaration is addressed primarily to physicians. The WMA encourages others who are involved in medical research involving human subjects to adopt these principles

General Principles

3) The Declaration of Geneva of the WMA binds the physician with the words, “The health of my patient will be my first consideration,” and the International Code of Medical Ethics declares that, “A physician shall act in the patient’s best interest when providing medical care.”

4) It is the duty of the physician to promote and safeguard the health, well-being and rights of patients, including those who are involved in medical research. The physician’s knowledge and conscience are dedicated to the fulfillment of this duty.

5) Medical progress is based on research that ultimately must include studies involving human subjects.

6) The primary purpose of medical research involving human subjects is to understand the causes, development and effects of diseases and improve preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions (methods, procedures and treatments). Even the best proven interventions must be evaluated continually through research for their safety, effectiveness, efficiency, accessibility and quality.

7) Medical research is subject to ethical standards that promote and ensure respect for all human subjects and protect their health and rights.

8) While the primary purpose of medical research is to generate new knowledge, this goal can never take precedence over the rights and interests of individual research subjects.

9) It is the duty of physicians who are involved in medical research to protect the life, health, dignity, integrity, right to self-determination, privacy, and confidentiality of personal information of research subjects. The responsibility for the protection of research subjects must always rest with the physician or other health care professionals and never with the research subjects, even though they have given consent.

10) Physicians must consider the ethical, legal and regulatory norms and standards for research involving human subjects in their own countries as well as applicable international norms and standards. No national or international ethical, legal or regulatory requirement should reduce or eliminate any of the protections for research subjects set forth in this Declaration.

11) Medical research should be conducted in a manner that minimizes possible harm to the environment.

12) Medical research involving human subjects must be conducted only by individuals with the appropriate ethics and scientific education, training and qualifications. Research on patients or healthy volunteers requires the supervision of a competent and appropriately qualified physician or other health care professional.

13) Groups that are underrepresented in medical research should be provided appropriate access to participation in research.

14) Physicians who combine medical research with medical care should involve their patients in research only to the extent that this is justified by its potential preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic value and if the physician has good reason to believe that participation in the research study will not adversely affect the health of the patients who serve as research subjects.

15) Appropriate compensation and treatment for subjects who are harmed as a result of participating in research must be ensured.

Risks, Burdens, and Benefits

16) In medical practice and in medical research, most interventions involve risks and burdens. Medical research involving human subjects may only be conducted if the importance of the objective outweighs the risks and burdens to the research subjects.

17) All medical research involving human subjects must be preceded by careful assessment of predictable risks and burdens to the individuals and groups involved in the research in comparison with foreseeable benefits to them and to other individuals or groups affected by the condition under investigation. Measures to minimize the risks must be implemented. The risks must be continuously monitored, assessed and documented by the researcher.

18) Physicians may not be involved in a research study involving human subjects unless they are confident that the risks have been adequately assessed and can be satisfactorily managed. When the risks are found to outweigh the potential benefits or when there is conclusive proof of definitive outcomes, physicians must assess whether to continue, modify or immediately stop the study.

Vulnerable Groups and Individuals

19) Some groups and individuals are particularly vulnerable and may have an increased likelihood of being wronged or of incurring additional harm. All vulnerable groups and individuals should receive specifically considered protection.

Scientific Requirements and Research Protocols

21) Medical research involving human subjects must conform to generally accepted scientific principles, be based on a thorough knowledge of the scientific literature, other relevant sources of information, and adequate laboratory and, as appropriate, animal experimentation. The welfare of animals used for research must be respected.

22) The design and performance of each research study involving human subjects must be clearly described and justified in a research protocol.

Research Ethics Committees

23) The research protocol must be submitted for consideration, comment, guidance and approval to the concerned research ethics committee before the study begins. This committee must be transparent in its functioning, must be independent of the researcher, the sponsor and any other undue influence and must be duly qualified. It must take into consideration the laws and regulations of the country or countries in which the research is to be performed as well as applicable international norms and standards but these must not be allowed to reduce or eliminate any of the protections for research subjects set forth in this Declaration.

The committee must have the right to monitor ongoing studies. The researcher must provide monitoring information to the committee, especially information about any serious adverse events. No amendment to the protocol may be made without consideration and approval by the committee. After the end of the study, the researchers must submit a final report to the committee containing a summary of the study’s findings and conclusions.

Privacy and Confidentiality

24) Every precaution must be taken to protect the privacy of research subjects and the confidentiality of their personal information.

Informed Consent

25) Participation by individuals capable of giving informed consent as subjects in medical research must be voluntary. Although it may be appropriate to consult family members or community leaders, no individual capable of giving informed consent may be enrolled in a research study unless he or she freely agrees.

26) In medical research involving human subjects capable of giving informed consent, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of the researcher, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study and the discomfort it may entail, post-study provisions and any other relevant aspects of the study. The potential subject must be informed of the right to refuse to participate in the study or to withdraw consent to participate at any time without reprisal. Special attention should be given to the specific information needs of individual potential subjects as well as to the methods used to deliver the information.

After ensuring that the potential subject has understood the information, the physician or another appropriately qualified individual must then seek the potential subject’s freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing. If the consent cannot be expressed in writing, the non-written consent must be formally documented and witnessed.

All medical research subjects should be given the option of being informed about the general outcome and results of the study.

Use of Placebo

33) The benefits, risks, burdens and effectiveness of a new intervention must be tested against those of the best proven intervention(s), except in the following circumstances:

Where no proven intervention exists, the use of placebo, or no intervention, is acceptable; or

Where for compelling and scientifically sound methodological reasons the use of any intervention less effective than the best proven one, the use of placebo, or no intervention is necessary to determine the efficacy or safety of an intervention.

And the patients who receive any intervention less effective than the best proven one, placebo, or no intervention will not be subject to additional risks of serious or irreversible harm as a result of not receiving the best proven intervention. Extreme care must be taken to avoid abuse of this option.

Post-Trial Provisions

34) In advance of a clinical trial, sponsors, researchers and host country governments should make provisions for post-trial access for all participants who still need an intervention identified as beneficial in the trial. This information must also be disclosed to participants during the informed consent process.

Research Registration and Publication and Dissemination of Results

36) Researchers, authors, sponsors, editors and publishers all have ethical obligations with regard to the publication and dissemination of the results of research. Researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects and are accountable for the completeness and accuracy of their reports. All parties should adhere to accepted guidelines for ethical reporting. Negative and inconclusive as well as positive results must be published or otherwise made publicly available. Sources of funding, institutional affiliations and conflicts of interest must be declared in the publication. Reports of research not in accordance with the principles of this Declaration should not be accepted for publication.

Unproven Interventions in Clinical Practice

37) In the treatment of an individual patient, where proven interventions do not exist or other known interventions have been ineffective, the physician, after seeking expert advice, with informed consent from the patient or a legally authorized representative, may use an unproven intervention if in the physician’s judgment it offers hope of saving life, re-establishing health or alleviating suffering. This intervention should subsequently be made the object of research, designed to evaluate its safety and efficacy. In all cases, new information must be recorded and, where appropriate, made publicly available.

[Editor's Note: Appreciation goes to Dr. Robert Malone for providing this 1964 Helsinki Declaration to his subscribers.]

Support the River Cities' Reader

Get 12 Reader issues mailed monthly for $48/year.

Old School Subscription for Your Support

Get the printed Reader edition mailed to you (or anyone you want) first-class for 12 months for $48.
$24 goes to postage and handling, $24 goes to keeping the doors open!

Click this link to Old School Subscribe now.

Help Keep the Reader Alive and Free Since '93!


"We're the River Cities' Reader, and we've kept the Quad Cities' only independently owned newspaper alive and free since 1993.

So please help the Reader keep going with your one-time, monthly, or annual support. With your financial support the Reader can continue providing uncensored, non-scripted, and independent journalism alongside the Quad Cities' area's most comprehensive cultural coverage." - Todd McGreevy, Publisher