The WHO treaty ain't dead & nothing's real till it's done and there's proof
According to James Roguski/Jumping the gun about a judge/Basic verification absent
It seems to me that people who are being beaten don’t know how to fight and when a fight is still going.
It’s sort of bizarre.
Three examples of this follow.
WHO Pandemic Treaty
The WHO Pandemic Treaty was supposedly beaten down and this was a victory to be celebrated. Well, according to James Roguski, the mechanism by which it is being implemented has simply changed. Surprise, surprise.
Like supranational entities give up as a result of a vote.
Ten things everyone should know about the WHO’s “Pandemic Treaty”:
What has often been referred to as the “Pandemic Treaty” is now being referred to as the WHO CAII: Convention, Agreement or other International Instrument.
A framework convention or agreement can be adopted under Articles 19-20 and require a 2/3 vote, regulations can be adopted under Articles 21-22 and require a simple majority and recommendations can be adopted under Article 23 of the WHO constitution.
The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) is meeting Monday, July 18, 2022 to Friday July 22, 2022 to discuss the WHO CAII.
There were over 36,000 written public comments submitted back in April 2022 and the majority of those comments opposed any form of agreement.
The WHO cancelled a previously scheduled public comment period in June 2022.
The INB published a working draft document of the WHO CAII on July 13, 2022 (see below).
The WHO is focused on a concept referred to as “One Health” that seeks to control every aspect of life on earth.
People should pay specific attention to Part 4, specifically Section 13 (control of information) and Section 14 (financing) of the working draft.
Also of note is what is missing from the working draft: there is no evaluation of what went wrong over the past 2.5 years; there is no ban on gain of function research; there is very little focus on health treatments and therapies; there is no patient bill of rights; and there is no support for enabling doctors and patients to make their own decisions.
Organized opposition to the WHO is needed.
Italian judge supposedly renders a milestone judgement
According to an instalment of the never ending Corona Investigative Committee, an Italian judge has rendered a monumental judgement against the gene therapies, which also references a written statement by the EMA that denies FOI requests for ingredients due to there being “military secrets” within.
The judge has apparently temporarily overturned the suspension of a psychologist for being undosed.
Reason to celebrate? Why?
The lawsuit between the psychologist and Order will resume on September 15, 2022, but at least for now, Judge Zanda agreed with the psychologist. “The suspension of the exercise of the profession – the reasons state – risks compromising the primary assets of the individual such as the right to support and the right to work.”
So this isn’t even a settled case, and obviously the government is bent out of shape by it.
However, the most obvious thing, if available, would be to share all the court documents as evidence to back up the story and empower everyone on the basis of the case so far.
Not a single link to any source material, including the EMA statement. Perhaps this is because of the stage that the case is at, who knows? Italian lawyers, at the least.
Unless that case completes and the outcome persists in line with what’s claimed about the judge’s statements, and the court documents become available, this isn’t changing anything for anyone yet, except a psychologist.
For someone not involved in the case to know that the EMA said that there’s a “military secret” in the products means that the statement must have been accessible. Where’s a copy of that statement? Just that statement would have massive value for anyone who wants to challenge any regulator or entity on the knowledge and therefore safety of what’s in the products, because it would immediately expose that if there’s completely secret ingredients in them, no one could have exercised informed consent and the regulators and manufacturers have been lying.
Call me cynical but I think what this will turn out to be is a poor translation akin to statements already made regarding manufacturer proprietary information and commercial confidentiality, as has been made by the MHRA/UK gov. This is why some ingredients were given proprietary codes.
Jumping up and down on the sofa at this point is akin to jumping the gun.
Not a single documentary link on any of these videos or articles.
https://corona-investigative-committee.com/
https://odysee.com/@Corona-Investigative-Committee:5/s113en:b
“Trust but verify” upsets people it shouldn’t
What do you think when you get sent this “article”, unsolicited, by a contact you don’t know?
https://amg-news.com/archives/13856
Here’s what I think:
What is this website?
Who wrote this and when?
What are the sources?
What links to supporting documents/evidence are provided?
What’s in the linked/embedded videos?
How well written is the piece (language, grammar, spelling, flow, logic etc)?
Against these questions, this “article” fails the smell test in literally seconds. Its primary claim is that there’s been a frankly unbelievable Supreme Court ruling. That couldn’t exist without a publicly accessible document.
No sources, no links, no supporting evidence. Written by someone who didn’t do English at school and (probably deliberately) misspelled “Yeadon”. It is in an archive despite being published on July 10, and the entire page has right-click functionality disabled meaning you can’t copy and paste.
It took me seconds to scan the page for links and sources or direct quotes from a ruling. Zip. I didn’t need to watch the video (it contains no reference to the claims of the title.
I replied to the sender that there was zero evidence and that upset the sender.
The sender was a lawyer.