📬🇨🇭📬📬📬📬 🇺🇸, lol.

Expand full comment

I think we need to guard against demoralization. I spend every morning I can watching the Sun rise over the lake. The sky goes from dark ink with spirals of stars, to a shot of light in the east that expands every moment, to light up the whole sky, over the course of 20 minutes. It is a magnificent show of Air, Earth, Water and Light. And it unfolds effortlessly. Every morning is different. This "Test" is really about fighting demoralization, because that is their biggest weapon. There are Divine Interventions going on all the time. The reason these Interventions are incremental is to give us time to fight demoralization and "fence sitting", which is essentially a lack of Faith. I am speaking from experience. These Interventions are very subtle. You will start to notice them if you "tune into" the subtle energies around you and if you guard against both demoralization and trying to control outcome.

Expand full comment

Something else to look out for: they want to delegate TSA to AI biometric companies, in the name of "privatization" ..to a crony monopoly corporation. You think censorship is bad on social media? Wait till they block you from traveling because of your low "social credit score" or "carbon credits" or vaccination status. Or maybe they'll just flat out restrict access to the lucky few and force us all to play a "lottery" like they already do with parks and our public lands while maximizing profits for the government contractor with non-refundable "lottery fees".

Project2025, UN SDG 16.9 Digital ID



Expand full comment

Very not dear tedros,

U should be shot and quartered for the harm you've caused. You fkkn terrorist tranny ghoul.

Expand full comment

Excellent.... DO The Criminal Cabal Gove A Damn?

Expand full comment

Global Health Responsibility...ugh. We have GOT to get out of the WHO and the rest of the departments will fall. UNELECTED bureaucrats!

Expand full comment

I made a shorter letter to Tedros, believing it might actually be read by him.


I also invited him for a live broadcast, just like the ones we have done, James.

I see many reasons for him to join, before the satanists throw him under the bus.

Thanks for all your work, James.

Expand full comment

How about this letter to members of parliament/government and health institutions:

Dear Sir/Madam...,

In May 2024, the WHO Health Assembly will take place, where two important projects are expected to be voted on:

the International Health Regulations (IHR)

and the pandemic treaty (WHO CA+)

You bear responsibility for the ........... population, and responsibility sometimes means having the courage to disagree. Especially when it comes to averting harm. The top priority for doctors should be Do no harm (Primum non nocere). The same applies to the government of a democratic country: Above all, it must not harm its own population.

We therefore call on you to fulfil your responsibility and reject both the proposed amendments to the IHR and the pandemic treaty.

Because these two agreements would harm the ......... population.

1. reject the amendments to the International Health Regulations and the pandemic treaty in their current form! Speak out publicly against them.

2. if the amendments to the health regulations are adopted by a simple majority at the health conference in May, declare .........(country) opposition within 10 months.

3. if the pandemic treaty is adopted, do NOT ratify it in .........(country).

Please ask yourself ...

1. why should the WHO recommendations now become binding regulations for all countries?

2. why the Director-General of the WHO alone should decide when a so-called "pandemic" or a so-called "health emergency" should be declared?

3. how open a single person in this position of power would then be to influences from politics and industry

4. what impact the declaration of a so-called "pandemic" would have on the duration of authorisation procedures and thus on the safety (!) of new drugs

5. why the head of an international institution as an individual (who has never been democratically elected) should decide on measures in ............(enter respective country) (from lockdowns to coercive medical measures) and how incompatible this would be with our constitutional state

6. why no control mechanism is provided to scrutinise these far-reaching decisions

7. why censorship is to be imposed by means of a pandemic treaty

In the following, I/we highlight some key points from the two drafts that are particularly questionable. You can check our criticism for yourself using the original texts.

The draft of the new "International Health Regulations" can be found here:


You can find the draft pandemic agreement here:


What the International Health Regulations would make possible

Article 12 (page 9ff):

The WHO Director-General (a medical layman!) could single-handedly decide when and for what reason to declare a so-called "public health emergency". Even if there is only the possibility of a so-called "health emergency" (para. 6). This could theoretically also be the next war or an arbitrarily determined CO2 level). There is no clear definition of such a health emergency. Anyone who signs this is therefore signing a blank cheque on behalf of ...........(country).

Articles 15 and 18 (pages 14 and 16):

The WHO could prescribe how we as a ...........(country) population would have to behave in such a case. It could decide which health examinations we would have to undergo and which medical treatments (e.g. drugs and toxic substances) we would have to undergo. It could demand that people's mobility be monitored and restricted as soon as they are classified as "at risk" by the WHO. But also whether and how much we are allowed to heat our homes or to what extent our industrial companies are allowed to produce and thus emit CO2 (CO2 is NOT a harmful gas, but beneficial for humans, animals, plants and the environment!) And the ............(country) government would no longer be accountable to its voters. What else is this if not the loss of our sovereignty?

Article 13A (page 12):

1. States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and untertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.

With the wording "undertake to follow", the new Article 13A transforms everything that is described in the rest of the text as a WHO recommendation into an obligation. Anyone who signs this cedes several powers and rights guaranteed by our constitution to the WHO.

The pandemic treaty calls for censorship

Article 18 (page 22):

The section on communication and public perception contains a hidden call for information control and censorship:

1. The Parties shall strengthen science, public health and pandemic literacy in the population, as well as access to information on pandemics and their effects and drivers, and combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through effective international collaboration and cooperation as referred to in Article 16 herein.

2. The Parties shall, as appropriate, conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic and trust in science and public health institutions.

An institution that is not democratically elected therefore presumes to decide which information is right and which is wrong. This not only contradicts the basic liberal and democratic understanding, it also opens the door to abuse. It is not without reason that science always consists of thesis, antithesis and control experiments. Information control prevents free science. "Trust in science" - trust in science can only be regained if science can also be free.

--He who pays, creates--

The proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations are a further indication that the WHO is increasingly committed to interests other than people's health. This can be explained by taking a closer look at its funding. The WHO is 80 per cent funded by earmarked donations, a large part of which comes from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (USD 600 million) and the vaccination association GAVI (USD 400 million), for example.

And that is a shame. After all, the idea of a World Health Organisation would be a good one if it actually worked for people who are disadvantaged in terms of health, for example because they do not have clean water or are affected by hunger and poverty. However, if earmarked donations from private donors determine the work of this organisation, then it must be examined with a critical eye.

Health is a complex, biopsychosocial matter and is the responsibility of local people.

Even apart from these conflicts of interest, the project is dangerous to health from a purely medical point of view. After all, health cannot be organised by a global authority and "imposed" on people. Especially not if it is financed by industrial lobbies. Rather, health is an individual and highly intimate matter of each individual.

Doctors have the task of recognising and treating patients as individuals in their entirety. Each illness has a different effect on the individual and must be treated differently accordingly. There is no cure that works for everyone. And most importantly: the patient decides for himself about his body. The two WHO agreements want to abolish this right to self-determination and individualised medical treatment.

Anyone who understands the biopsychosocial approach to health also knows that local conditions around the world differ so greatly that it is not even possible to issue general health regulations. The individual regions have completely different living conditions and therefore completely different health issues. Just think of the differences in population density, average age, living habits and access to clean water. Regions are therefore also affected differently by health emergencies: In a region where people live outdoors, for example, any disease will have a different impact than in a country where people spend a lot of time indoors. To prescribe a health measure for the whole world would simply be absurd. It would be just as absurd not to leave decisions about health to the people who live in that region.

All a lie?

WHO Secretary-General Tedros calls any criticism of the two agreements "lies". In his speech to the WHO Executive Board (22 January 2024), he called on the representatives of the member states to "counter these lies (sic!) by speaking up at home and telling your citizens that no sovereignty will be ceded to the WHO through this agreement and an amended IHR..." - We ask you: if these were just "recommendations" from the WHO as before, why would these two treaties be needed at all? And if you read the full text of the drafts, even if lawyers around the world fear for the sovereignty of their countries - who is lying?

Your loyalty: to whom?

In your role, you are obliged to the ...........(country) population, and not to a democratically non-legitimised, international organisation financed by industrial lobbies. We therefore call on you:

1. reject the amendments to the International Health Regulations and the pandemic treaty in their current form! Speak out publicly against them.

2. if the changes to the health regulations are adopted by a simple majority at the health conference in May, declare within 10 months a .........(Land) objection.

3. if the pandemic treaty is adopted, do NOT ratify it in .........(country).

Best regards


Expand full comment
Mar 7Liked by James Roguski

The simple faith of truth is greater than the ambitious lie of eloquence ." St. Ambrose, De Abraham 1:2 ".

Thank you James.......Love from Sydney Australia .

Expand full comment

I am sorry, but all these efforts are a waste of time and effort. Tedros is just a puppet for the the real people behind all this. Judges don't dare to touch the subject of vaccine injury, and leaders of countries will not dare to go against the long hedged plan, they know what happened to JFK who dared to cross them.

Expand full comment

Exactly. They already know all of this stuff. Now if he was a good guy and just stupid, that would be different. But I dont believe thats the case. What good is a letter they arent even gonna look at?

Expand full comment

I agree with the puppet, let us hope that the rest will surpass their cowardice.

Expand full comment

Your loss of hope is really sad.......prayers for you . Blessings from Australia .

Expand full comment

We all want the shots stopped.

Some good politicians are saying, that they simply do not have the numbers.

Are they right?

Could we stop the shots if we have the numbers?

Many more will suffer and die if we do not stop the shots.

We all need to keep on doing whatever we can.

But we need to try to think outside the box too.

We need more effective strategies.

Or divine intervention.

Expand full comment

Letter to teddy? A total waste of time since he is an indoctrinated robotic anti-human. Mail a billion letters and it won't matter. These people are pure demons that even the Devil will reject after they die.

Expand full comment

The Bottom Line, Terrorist Tedros... did not present amendments by the dedline...4 months before the IHR 2005 meeting per its rules. It should be the End of Story!

Expand full comment

Mailing now but let's be honest, these people don't care about the law. These "people" are the Luciferian elite and they are trying to do every anti-human thing possible at a global scale.

Expand full comment