The WHO has just published the 33,884 public comments that they received back in April 2022. Please download the comments and help us expose and analyze what "We the People" said.
The comment below to me applies regardless of time (last century, this century) as well as a local and international impact
Comment #27838
"The only pandemics are those caused by malnutrition - lack of sanitation, improper food intake, taking drugs both legal and illegal and other poisons such as alcohol, tobacco, etc. Covid so-called is nothing more than any other acute or chronic dis ease - a body initiated and conducted process of elimination. In other words, RIGHT ACTION and should be allowed to run its course and return itself to homeostasis. The only medical interventions that are warranted are for traumacare, birth defects and some corrective surgeries, that's it.
I believe the following should be considered for pandemic preparedness and response:
An independent committee, not affiliated or aligned with the WHO past, present or future, in any form should be commissioned to review the existing pandemic preparedness and response to determine if a new policy is necessary and made transparent to the general public in a timely manner.
Investigative verification of an emergency pandemic and its origins should be discovered / disclosed with great transparency to the public in a timely manner.
Bio-labs should be scheduled for regular inspections for safety and security measures to create a leak-proof facility and deter the ability to utilize facility for gain-of-function experimentation. Also, if investigations are necessary they should not be denied and interference should not be permitted.
A review of the outcome of what has occurred in the past two plus years in terms of lock-downs, business and school closures, isolation, quarantining healthy people, unavailable early treatment, absence of informed consent for experimental injections without long-term clinical studies and its impact on humanity. How could the pandemic have been managed differently?
Elected officials in states who did well during the pandemic should be invited to provide their insight in the decision-making process.
Health-care professionals of all levels, medical scientists and researchers, virologists, epidemiologist, should also be invited.
Transparency about changes that have the potential to impact humanity should always be in place as well as regular updates in a timely manner to the general public.
To each of you who have been actively engaged in helping to examine the dataset of public comments that the WHO recently revealed (and others who may just be observing).
I have some powerful information that I would like to discuss via zoom. If you see this comment, please reply as to whether or not you would be willing/available to participate in a zoom meeting in slightly less than three hours from now.
The zoom will be noon Pacific time, 3pm eastern.
Here is the powerful info to be discussed:
Exactly 4 months ago, on June 1, 2022, the WHO published an executive summary of the public comment data set that we have been exploring for the past few days. I immediately recognized it as disingenuous bullshit and published my opinion:
It has been gratifying to see that such a large percentage of comments are opposed to granting more power and authority to the WHO.
At this point, I do think that the suggestion to seek out the small percentage of comments that are in support of the Pandemic Treaty or the WHO makes sense.
Thanks to gatochapinmuertodehambre for a starting list of comments that are in support of the Pandemic Treaty and/or the WHO.
Here is the list of "Pro-WHO" comments.
98 comments at this point
980
981
1053
1202
6296
6313
6370
6362
6383
6384
6478
6614
7131
7132
7133
7308
7481
7807
7894
8089
8191
8216
8290
9081
9246
9497
9498
9635
10062
10778
11754
12465
15086
17053
17081 (maybe)
18058
18710
18711
19439
20649
21592
22255
22570
22571
22572
22607
23170
23568
23597
23778
23911
23924
23955
24004
24008
24009
24045
24076
27458
27493
27508
27537
27545
27558
27559
27571
27636
27768
27774
27819
27898
27905
27967
27976
28219
28220
28225
28347
28353
28502
29187
29188
29190
29238
29344
30744
31145
31198
31199
31827
31231
31232
32098
32404
32441
32953
32974
33670
If you find any additional positive comments, just add them in a reply below this post and I will try to copy them into this list.
I have begun to transcribe/copy/format/ the selected comments that you all have pulled out of the Excel spreadsheet and started adding them to the body of the article above. Thank you for your efforts in doing that. I will continue to go through the already long list of selected comments until I finish copying all that you have already extracted. We already probably have more than the average person will take the time to read although, I must admit, it is very addictive.
It has been gratifying to see that such a large percentage of comments are opposed to granting more power and authority to the WHO.
At this point, I do think that the suggestion to seek out the small percentage of comments that are in support of the Pandemic Treaty or the WHO makes sense.
Thanks to gatochapinmuertodehambre for a starting list of comments that are in support of the Pandemic Treaty and/or the WHO.
Has the mission changed? Or should I resume at #31783 and continue up the list, posting every comment? Or are we now only looking for something specific ?
Now that Mr. Roguski has broken the code on the pro comments, we should just compile a list of those comment "ID's" and see what proportion of the total body of comments they compose. To get a handle on further search terms to employ, see the pro comments featuring "equity":
I strongly oppose the WHO extending its power to determine the response of sovereign countries in the event of a future pandemic. There should obviously be cooperation and openness between countries in sharing data but the power to impose globally the type of lockdowns seen in China or vaccine mandates must never be granted to the WHO. The funding model of the WHO gives too much influence to parties that may have agendas that are not compatible with individuals rights regarding health.
I strongly oppose any WHO interference in any pandemic. Recomendations and educating people on the matter can be provided by WHO, but any active interference meaning giving governments obligatory actions to be done on citizents, that is by no means acceptable.
I sincerely believe a real and effective intrument on pandemic response must at all cost be democratic and trasparent, made out of a council of every nation's specially appointed health experts, following a thorugh national pandemic plan, and every discussion should be streamed and made availabe. The WHO can't and shouldn't be the sole body in charge of a global respose as, beside obvious conflicts of interests due to its funding, WHO alone can't ever understand the differences between nation states. The failure of lockdowns, that wreak havoc in poor countries, are an example. For this reason there must also be an independent body capable of investigating the process and another, separated, to held legislators and helath experts to account in case of bad management, bad practices and corruption. "The only means to fight the plague is honesty" said Camus, and that tha way forward to restore and preserve trust by the public in the WHO.
You and most western governments were wrong with your guidelines for COVID-19. I do not trust the you or these governments with the authority to set guidelines for future global outbreaks.
I say NO to any legally binding global pandemic treaty. NO to anyone, any entity, any proposal to use an emergency to gain control over any person or persons.
#15106 "I reject any international organization that simultaneously covers industry advocacy, in the case of the pandemic, the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. I reject any publicly decreed interference with human integrity and therefore also any restriction of freedom over health, life and death. Human dignity is inviolable!
ich lehne jede internationale Organisation ab, die gleichzeitig Interessensvertretung der Industrie abdeckt, im Falle der Pandemie die Interessen der Pharmaindustrie. Ich lehne jeden von öffentlicher Hand verordneten Eingriff in die Unversehrtheit des Menschen ab und somit auch jede Einschränkung der Freiheit, über die Gesundheit, Leben und Tod. Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar!
The comment below to me applies regardless of time (last century, this century) as well as a local and international impact
Comment #27838
"The only pandemics are those caused by malnutrition - lack of sanitation, improper food intake, taking drugs both legal and illegal and other poisons such as alcohol, tobacco, etc. Covid so-called is nothing more than any other acute or chronic dis ease - a body initiated and conducted process of elimination. In other words, RIGHT ACTION and should be allowed to run its course and return itself to homeostasis. The only medical interventions that are warranted are for traumacare, birth defects and some corrective surgeries, that's it.
I believe the following should be considered for pandemic preparedness and response:
An independent committee, not affiliated or aligned with the WHO past, present or future, in any form should be commissioned to review the existing pandemic preparedness and response to determine if a new policy is necessary and made transparent to the general public in a timely manner.
Investigative verification of an emergency pandemic and its origins should be discovered / disclosed with great transparency to the public in a timely manner.
Bio-labs should be scheduled for regular inspections for safety and security measures to create a leak-proof facility and deter the ability to utilize facility for gain-of-function experimentation. Also, if investigations are necessary they should not be denied and interference should not be permitted.
A review of the outcome of what has occurred in the past two plus years in terms of lock-downs, business and school closures, isolation, quarantining healthy people, unavailable early treatment, absence of informed consent for experimental injections without long-term clinical studies and its impact on humanity. How could the pandemic have been managed differently?
Elected officials in states who did well during the pandemic should be invited to provide their insight in the decision-making process.
Health-care professionals of all levels, medical scientists and researchers, virologists, epidemiologist, should also be invited.
Transparency about changes that have the potential to impact humanity should always be in place as well as regular updates in a timely manner to the general public.
Comment 12746
A searchable version of this spreadsheet is now available for download at:
https://app.box.com/s/pw3g2yvuc8b9hm4tjluw41aj3oylve4f
I overlaid the Jabs Administered / 100 over Daily Deaths "from covid" in Australia. Look and draw your own conclusions.
https://0x0.st/o4U5.png
Curves are scaled to conveniently match; so e.g. 200 jabs / 100 people aligns with 200 deaths per day.
NOTICE:
To each of you who have been actively engaged in helping to examine the dataset of public comments that the WHO recently revealed (and others who may just be observing).
I have some powerful information that I would like to discuss via zoom. If you see this comment, please reply as to whether or not you would be willing/available to participate in a zoom meeting in slightly less than three hours from now.
The zoom will be noon Pacific time, 3pm eastern.
Here is the powerful info to be discussed:
Exactly 4 months ago, on June 1, 2022, the WHO published an executive summary of the public comment data set that we have been exploring for the past few days. I immediately recognized it as disingenuous bullshit and published my opinion:
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/i-am-so-pissed-off-
Please review my June 1 article and be sure to read the 20 points that I listed in the article.
I would welcome the opportunity to meet in 2 hours, 45 minutes to discuss this via zoom.
Is anyone interested/available?
It has been gratifying to see that such a large percentage of comments are opposed to granting more power and authority to the WHO.
At this point, I do think that the suggestion to seek out the small percentage of comments that are in support of the Pandemic Treaty or the WHO makes sense.
Thanks to gatochapinmuertodehambre for a starting list of comments that are in support of the Pandemic Treaty and/or the WHO.
Here is the list of "Pro-WHO" comments.
98 comments at this point
980
981
1053
1202
6296
6313
6370
6362
6383
6384
6478
6614
7131
7132
7133
7308
7481
7807
7894
8089
8191
8216
8290
9081
9246
9497
9498
9635
10062
10778
11754
12465
15086
17053
17081 (maybe)
18058
18710
18711
19439
20649
21592
22255
22570
22571
22572
22607
23170
23568
23597
23778
23911
23924
23955
24004
24008
24009
24045
24076
27458
27493
27508
27537
27545
27558
27559
27571
27636
27768
27774
27819
27898
27905
27967
27976
28219
28220
28225
28347
28353
28502
29187
29188
29190
29238
29344
30744
31145
31198
31199
31827
31231
31232
32098
32404
32441
32953
32974
33670
If you find any additional positive comments, just add them in a reply below this post and I will try to copy them into this list.
Perplexed:
Would this comment be deemed For, .... Or Against ?
00012 "- - - - - - - - -
1. National and local leadership retain full autonomy, reserving the right to make decisions based on what is best for their own people.
2. The ability of nations and local municipalities to opt out of any and all portions of the agreement as they see fit, without consequence."
It seems to me it is FOR the pandemic treaty. Am I the only one seeing it this way?
I have begun to transcribe/copy/format/ the selected comments that you all have pulled out of the Excel spreadsheet and started adding them to the body of the article above. Thank you for your efforts in doing that. I will continue to go through the already long list of selected comments until I finish copying all that you have already extracted. We already probably have more than the average person will take the time to read although, I must admit, it is very addictive.
It has been gratifying to see that such a large percentage of comments are opposed to granting more power and authority to the WHO.
At this point, I do think that the suggestion to seek out the small percentage of comments that are in support of the Pandemic Treaty or the WHO makes sense.
Thanks to gatochapinmuertodehambre for a starting list of comments that are in support of the Pandemic Treaty and/or the WHO.
980, 981, 1053, 6313, 6370, 7807, 7894, 8216, 9246, 11754, 18058, 18710, 18711, 22572, 23170, 23778, 23911, 24004, 24009, 24076, 27537, 27545, 27558, 27559, 27571, 27636, 27768, 27774, 27898, 27905, 27967, 28225, 28347, 28353, 29190, 29238, 31145, 31198, 31199, 31827, 32404, 32441, 32953, 32974
PLUS...
15086,
27976,
32098,
6362, 7133, 8191, 9081, 10062, 10778, 17053, 21592, 22255, 22571, 23924, 28502, 29187, 29188, 30744, 33670
1202, 6383, 7308, 12465, 17081 (maybe), 20649, 23955
22607, 29344
6478, 7481, 9635, 19439, 22570, 24008, 24045, 27508, 27458, 28219, 28220, 31231, 31232
6296, 6614, 7131, 7132, 8089.
6384
8290, 9497, 9498, 23568, 23597, 27493, 27819
If you find any additional positive comments, just add them in a reply below this post and I will try to copy them into this list.
Has the mission changed? Or should I resume at #31783 and continue up the list, posting every comment? Or are we now only looking for something specific ?
Now that Mr. Roguski has broken the code on the pro comments, we should just compile a list of those comment "ID's" and see what proportion of the total body of comments they compose. To get a handle on further search terms to employ, see the pro comments featuring "equity":
980, 981, 1053, 6313, 6370, 7807, 7894, 8216, 9246, 11754, 18058, 18710, 18711, 22572, 23170, 23778, 23911, 24004, 24009, 24076, 27537, 27545, 27558, 27559, 27571, 27636, 27768, 27774, 27898, 27905, 27967, 28225, 28347, 28353, 29190, 29238, 31145, 31198, 31199, 31827, 32404, 32441, 32953, 32974
This is a repeat of the list posted below.
#15599
I strongly oppose the WHO extending its power to determine the response of sovereign countries in the event of a future pandemic. There should obviously be cooperation and openness between countries in sharing data but the power to impose globally the type of lockdowns seen in China or vaccine mandates must never be granted to the WHO. The funding model of the WHO gives too much influence to parties that may have agendas that are not compatible with individuals rights regarding health.
#15570
I strongly oppose any WHO interference in any pandemic. Recomendations and educating people on the matter can be provided by WHO, but any active interference meaning giving governments obligatory actions to be done on citizents, that is by no means acceptable.
#15324
I sincerely believe a real and effective intrument on pandemic response must at all cost be democratic and trasparent, made out of a council of every nation's specially appointed health experts, following a thorugh national pandemic plan, and every discussion should be streamed and made availabe. The WHO can't and shouldn't be the sole body in charge of a global respose as, beside obvious conflicts of interests due to its funding, WHO alone can't ever understand the differences between nation states. The failure of lockdowns, that wreak havoc in poor countries, are an example. For this reason there must also be an independent body capable of investigating the process and another, separated, to held legislators and helath experts to account in case of bad management, bad practices and corruption. "The only means to fight the plague is honesty" said Camus, and that tha way forward to restore and preserve trust by the public in the WHO.
#15305
"I say no to the treaty.
You and most western governments were wrong with your guidelines for COVID-19. I do not trust the you or these governments with the authority to set guidelines for future global outbreaks.
Thank you for your time."
#15297
I say NO to any legally binding global pandemic treaty. NO to anyone, any entity, any proposal to use an emergency to gain control over any person or persons.
#15106 "I reject any international organization that simultaneously covers industry advocacy, in the case of the pandemic, the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. I reject any publicly decreed interference with human integrity and therefore also any restriction of freedom over health, life and death. Human dignity is inviolable!
ich lehne jede internationale Organisation ab, die gleichzeitig Interessensvertretung der Industrie abdeckt, im Falle der Pandemie die Interessen der Pharmaindustrie. Ich lehne jeden von öffentlicher Hand verordneten Eingriff in die Unversehrtheit des Menschen ab und somit auch jede Einschränkung der Freiheit, über die Gesundheit, Leben und Tod. Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar!
"