Who’s on First at the WHO
The CCP Runs It – and We Must Leave It
March 7, 2023
Dede Laugesen: Hello, everyone. Thanks for joining us today. I'm Dede Laugesen, executive Secretary for the Committee on the Present Danger China. We appreciate your interest in our weekly webinars in which we expose and analyze the Chinese Communist Party's unrestricted warfare against America and the help being provided to the CCP in waging that warfare by captured US elites. We encourage you to visit present Danger China.org for information on new programs, access to videos of our past webinars, and tons of other very valuable content. Our moderator today is Frank Gaffney. Frank is the Executive chairman for the Center for Security Policy and Vice Chair for the Committee on the Present Danger China.
Frank Gaffney: Thank you, Judy. Welcome, everyone, to this edition of the webinar series sponsored by our Committee on the Present Danger. China focused on the unrestricted warfare that the Chinese Communist Party has been waging against our country for decades for the purpose of destroying it, and also focused on the help they are getting from Americans in waging that war.
We are going to be talking today about a vehicle for the Chinese Communist Party's take down of our constitutional republic through the vehicle of an international organization. As it happens, they have become dominant forces in most of the world's international organizations, especially those under the sponsorship of the United Nations. That is the case for sure. With respect to the World Health Organization, better known by its acronym, W.H.O.
We're going to be talking at some length about the nature of the World Health Organization. And the degree to which when one asks the question, who's on first at the WHO? The answer is the Chinese Communist Party. We're going to talk about what that dominant force in the W.H.O. has translated into in terms of the response by that organization to the first pandemic launched by the Chinese, came to be called COVID 19. The Wuhan virus is preferred by some of us or simply the CCP virus, for that matter.
We're also going to talk about what the consequences of the adoption of the China model. As a response to that virus has translated into in terms of loss of life, in terms of horrific. Disruption and damage to our economy and arguably to political outcomes as well, including the defeat of Donald J. Trump for re-election as President of the United States. We're at most especially, however, going to be focused on what are the lessons to be taken away? From how the WHO performed back in the early days of the pandemic and subsequently and the advisability or extreme inadvisability, more accurately, of entrusting more power to Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus, a Chinese Communist Party puppet, who is the director general of the W.H.O., and to his organization in ways that we will be discussing with our distinguished panel today and, specifically, what negotiations that have been underway in a concerted fashion for the past several weeks will mean for you and your loved ones, for our country and for our constitutional republic, if allowed to become binding upon our nation, which is the object and purpose, not only, unfortunately, of the Chinese Communist Party and its puppets at the World Health Organization, but also, incredibly, of the Biden administration.
To begin, we're going to talk about a man who saw the problems with the World Health Organization when he was president of the United States and decided to appropriately with respect to those problems, namely by withdrawing our country from that organization. That would be, of course, former President Donald J. Trump. We have a very brief clips from comments that he made, extended comments that he made at the Conservative Political Action Conference in the Washington, D.C. area on Saturday of last weekend. And it sets the stage for the conversation we'll be having with the rest of our distinguished panels. Let's go to that video.
Donald Trump's clip: ...I will again withdraw from the W.H.O., which stands for We Hide Outbreaks. We Hide Outbreaks. The United States was paying, I think this is important because, again, it's so much common sense involved. The United States was paying the World Health Organization $450 million a year. Now, in terms of money and the kind of trillions and trillions we're talking about, it's not that much, but it's still $450 million a year. And I took them out. That's what it was. The price was 450, and that's for 350 million people. China was paying $39 Billion a year for 1.4 billion people. It doesn't sound too right. And they had total control, by the way. We had no control. They literally own it. China controls W.H.O. So that's what it does. W.H.O. is totally controlled by China. We could have saved $400 million a year. It's a lot of money. And now they're asking for even more dictatorial power and more and more and more of our money. But they're getting nothing more from China.
Frank Gaffney: Those remarks, I think, captured the concern clearly that President Trump had both about the enormous costs of being a member of the World Health Organization, expected to pick up the bulk of the tab of its annual budget, and specifically the degree to which the Chinese Communist Party is controlling what the organization does, what it tells others to do as well. To talk a little bit about how that works or would if the existing international health regulations are modified as is now being actively considered by the World Health Organization, and or if there is yet another agreement for pandemics that is adopted also now under active consideration by the W.H.O. and what it means specifically in terms of our sovereignty and our freedoms and indeed our constitutional republic.
Should authoritarians at the World Health Organization be called globalists? You can call them supra nationalists. You can call them Chinese Communist Party puppets, whatever term you wish to use. The question of what that might mean for us has to be topic A and certainly is for our panel, including our next presenter. His name is Jonathan Emord. He is a constitutional attorney by training and practice. He formerly was a lawyer for the Federal Communications Commission. He is the author of an important book, very relevant to this topic, entitled “The Authoritarians: Their Assault on Individual Liberty, the Constitution and Free Enterprise from the 19th century to the present”. We have him by videotape. Let's go to Jonathan Edwards program. By the way, he is also a candidate for the United States Senate from Virginia. I will hand over to Jonathan now.
Jonathan Emord: Well, one of the most unfortunate occurrences in our history are these occasional incursions into sovereignty that have been characteristic of the Biden administration and of the Democrat leadership in the Senate. We have an opportunity by blocking the president through the budget process to achieve our objectives. And there are innumerable ways in which Republicans should be standing up and fighting against this president and his attempt to wet us to a World Health Organization agenda that is largely dictated by our enemy, by the communist Chinese. If we fail to protect our Constitution and our national sovereignty, as well as our individual sovereignty, the game is up. And whether that is done by turning over power to the World Health Organization or just by Biden adhering to the World Health Organization's dictates, as are themselves largely the byproduct of a complicity with the communist Chinese.
We are effectively losing our liberty, and there can be no more precious liberty than your liberty over your own body, over what is done to your body in the course of a pandemic or any other disease in which the nation must rally around our Constitution. The purpose of the Bill of Rights, for example, and of our constitutional separation of powers is designed to have resiliency in the midst of a crisis. It's not meant to be forfeited in a crisis. And a crisis is no justification for a denial of your civil liberties. Nowhere in the Constitution does it provide an escape clause for authoritarianism, where suddenly an authoritarian state can be erected whenever there is a Rahm Emanuel-style crisis identified. This is but one instance, but a profound one in which our freedom is once again at stake. We have the duty as a people who love liberty and who believe in the Constitution of the United States to not allow a president of the United States who has abdicated his role under the Constitution to take this country and draw it down into a situation in which we become serfs or slaves to the dictates of an international organization like W.H.O.
That is even made more profound when we understand just how heavy the influence of communist China is over W.H.O. and our recent experience with the pandemic response. We saw our own country through the CDC and the FDA fall in lockstep by the by the president's dictates, the CDC's direction on how to deal with the pandemic. That response was disastrous. We had a one size fits all approach, which was a vaccine that was oversold, that resulted in injury to a significant percentage of the population and for which information was suppressed. We had no criticism of the vaccine allowed through the big tech and media platforms as a result of collusion identified most recently in the Twitter files whereby you have the White House dictating censorship of specific individuals and organizations that were trying to articulate what now we know to be very valid criticisms of the government's approach, authoritarian approach to this.
Imagine a different world. Imagine the world that the founding Fathers created. Imagine a world in which free and wide open and robust scientific debate took place, as our Constitution requires. What would you have had different? Well, you would have had the opportunity for critics of the vaccine who said from the very start and oftentimes throughout the whole pandemic that the vaccine would not be a foolproof system of protection against acquiring COVID. And indeed, we know that people did acquire COVID, that the vaccine was not an assurance that you could not transmit the disease, that you could carry and transmit it even if you were vaccinated. That this othering of unvaccinated and condemnation of them was wholly unjustified scientifically because there was no difference between who could carry the disease and who could not. Based on vaccination, there was no difference in who could acquire the disease and who could not, based on vaccination.
They lied to us repeatedly. They told us that this mask, this masking mandate, which is a tremendous control mechanism, that this masking mandate was essential for our health. We now know that transmission of COVID, a nanoparticle, flies right through cotton strands of thread and is simply incapable of being stopped by a mask. The whole notion that somehow the population could be deluded into a system that would be to the great advantage of some of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world and to the state in controlling people is not an answer in a free country to a pandemic or any other situation.
We had the opportunity instead to have wide open, robust debate, early treatment that was suppressed and denied criticism of the approach that was taken that would have allowed novel introduction of different approaches. This is how free people protect themselves. This is how we protect ourselves from a weaponized virus. And let there be no mistake, this is a weaponized virus from communist China because at a minimum, at a minimum, I say even with the information we have, which is not complete, we know that at the time they locked down the province of Wuhan against travel within their own country, that they purposefully left international flights open to allow the virus to go all over the world as a bioweapon.
So, this is when we talk about the World Health Organization, we talk about an entity that is largely a captive of our enemies. We should not be a part or funding or participating in this entity, or any entity that is a proxy for the authoritarian will of our enemies. We should instead be honest with the American people, tell them what this is, and ensure that we get out of it as fast as we possibly can. Every means necessary needs to be done to do that, and so any attempt to do the contrary should be viewed by freedom loving people as a direct threat to their sovereignty. Let there be no mistake about this.
If this goes through, and it looks like the signature is imminent from this White House, if this goes through and they achieve their objectives, what this will mean is that you as a patient will not have the control over the doctor patient relationship and the physician will be obliged bureaucratically to ensure that the one size fits all demands of this of this World Health Organization override his or her independent professional judgment.
Frank Gaffney: Thank you, Jonathan Emord. A splendid opening characterization of the problem, the challenges that we're facing in contending with it and the necessity for acting to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization, an idea that we're going to hear more about momentarily before we get too much into the weeds of the domestic questions of dealing with this supranational entity. We want to characterize a bit more fully its performance to date. And specifically, whether it warrants vastly expanded powers and the essentially unchecked, certainly unaccountable opportunity to exercise them.
To do that, I'm very pleased to say we have one of the. Truly courageous and, well, leading front line resistors in the medical community to both these vaccinations and what has been the official narrative about their effect and indeed to the larger China model of responding to the pandemic emanating from Wuhan. That in part at least, has involved these vaccine mandates and digital passports and so on. His name is Dr. Robert Malone.
He has been with us on a number of these programs, both those of the Committee on the Present Danger China and the task force that the committee co-sponsors with our friend Reggie Littlejohn, from whom we'll be hearing shortly from Women's Rights Without Frontiers. He is the author, as it happens, Jonathan spoke about the lies we've gotten from our government about so much of this. It is the title, in fact, of Dr. Malone's bestselling book, “Lies My Government Told Me and the Better Future Coming” is its full title. We are delighted to have him with us always. Among other things, he has the insights, perspective and authority of a man who essentially invented the RNA technology. So, as they used to say about E.F. Hutton when Robert Malone speaks. People listen. We're happy to do that now and to have them with us here live. In fact, Doctor Malone, thank you for joining us. The floor is yours, sir.
Dr. Robert Malone: Thanks, Frank. I'm blushing right now. I really enjoyed the prior presentation. I think that was dead on. What we have here is a situation of an organization, a non-governmental organization, really. It poses as if it has the authorization of the world government. And it executes treaties with other entities. But the World Health Organization, as you have correctly identified, has largely been captured by the CCP, as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who has provided substantial funding. And it has long been an arm of American diplomacy traditionally and frankly has been seen as having an intelligence component to its activities in terms of the American intelligence infrastructure. But now in its current embodiment, it's a deeply corrupted organization.
It went through a period a few years ago of a relative deficit of funding. And one of the consequences of that was that it had to restructure its activities. And I can tell you personally from my own experience, as well as from what I've learned from many others, the W.H.O. has decided on a business model in which it solicits donations from Pharma. And those donations can come in the form of direct capital or full-time employees that are subsidized by Pharma and placed in positions of influence and directorships. Et cetera. Within the World Health Organization. So, they're relying on capital from the CCP, from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and from Pharma to support their ongoing activities. I once had a client back when we were advancing an Ebola vaccine that was a very small biotech based in Ames, Iowa, that I saw directly getting shaken down by the director general of the World Health Organization in a play in which it was asserted that, well, since this small company with its candidate vaccine (which, by the way, eventually became the Merck Ebola vaccine) was now being considered seriously as one of the main candidates for the world for Ebola vaccination, they had an obligation to provide capital to the World Health Organization. That's kind of the way this game is played.
So, the WHO organization has been corrupted for a number of years now, and the CCP as is its wont, is very good at exploiting these types of cracks in organizations to its own end. We've seen this again and again, for instance, with American universities with the infiltration of CCP interests through the sponsorship of programs and giving of donations. Et cetera.
Now you're speaking specifically about the international health regulations modification to the 2005 IHRs that were endorsed previously. And this is an initiative that has absolutely come up through the Biden administration, particularly through the Department of Health and Human Services, as a series of recommended modifications to the international health regulations. And it appears to be advanced in a way that to the eyes of Ron Johnson and I think 17 or 18 other senators is an intentional play to circumvent the approval process in the Senate for treaties. So, they appear to be trying to backdoor major changes in US policy that, as was mentioned in the prior, would concede American sovereignty, US sovereignty, as well as that of other member nation states to this global transnational organization which as you're correctly identifying, is largely been co-opted by the CCP and which we've seen in practice how it does business over the last three years.
So just to put a pin on these international health regulations, they were forwarded for consideration last February, as I recall. So, a full year ago, and they proposed a structure in which the World Health Organization would have the global authority to determine public health policy and this authority would be vested with the director general currently, Mr. Tedros. That it could determine a world health emergency for virtually any cause. So, there's no restrictions on what would be the criteria determining a world health emergency. It could be an emergency of abortions. It could be an emergency of gun violence. It could be a public health emergency. It's whatever the director general would determine to be a global health emergency or a national health emergency. And then the director general and the W.H.O. could then have the authority to impose policies to mitigate that public health emergency that would be required of individual member states.
This also had clauses in it that would authorize the W.H.O. to basically have surveillance monitors, what some might call spies, located within these independent nation states to identify potential public health risks and to act as the eyes and ears of the World Health Organization.
Now, a valid question is what enforcement capabilities does W.H.O. have? The answer is none. So, it would seem on the surface that this is all a paper exercise. But in fact, the modifications propose that the World Trade Organization be authorized as the enforcement arm for the World Health Organization. And so if a nation state were to fail to implement the policies that the W.H.O. would recommend, then potentially the World Trade Organization would implement sanctions. And we've seen how those kinds of international sanctions are deployed in many other contexts.
So what happened is that a prior initiative and discussion was based on these IHR that we (the Biden administration) promoted for discussion. As independent nation states became aware of this, there were huge objections raised mostly in African nations as well as Brazil under Bolsonaro. And they were able to cause the W.H.O. to stand down on approval and implementation in that prior round of negotiations and defer the subsequent discussion to a follow up meeting, which just occurred a few days ago. And my understanding is that the documents that have come out of that meeting now have incorporated vague language about the importance of respecting sovereignty of individual member states and some very kind of soft, squishy language about the role of the W.H.O. and the primacy of the sovereignty of individual nation states. And then that revised language has been kicked back for further review.
So, my understanding is that we have managed to bypass this immediate threat of implementation, but I'm not positive that all of this is being handled this time under much more of a layer of secrecy, and the transparency that I think most of us would want now is absent.
Is there a risk that the W.H.O. would act in an arbitrary and capricious manner in the in the context of declaring a public health emergency? I argue that we've seen an example of that with the monkeypox in which there was the declaration of a global health emergency, which I don't think very many would advocate is truly a global health emergency. The numbers are relatively modest. The numbers of deaths are even more modest. It's (Monkeypox) primarily restricted to a few more Western nation states. The extent that there is a threat with monkeypox is restricted to a particular population, basically men who have sex with men. But the practice of the W.H.O. is revealed by what transpired here.
There was an advisory committee meeting called by Mr. Tedros in which there was a determination that this was not a global public health threat and it should not be named as such. And then Mr. Tedros revised the composition of that committee to be more ostensibly knowledgeable about monkeypox and more representative of the Sociologic group that was experiencing monkeypox primarily. And then he reconvened another meeting to determine whether or not this was a public health a global public health crisis. And the committee voted nine against and six for that declaration, which Mr. Tedros then declared was a tie, which he had to break. So, he unilaterally declared that this was a public health emergency. That series of events clearly illustrates the willingness of Mr. Tedros and the W.H.O. to act in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. And I think that illustrates what we're likely to encounter going forward if they if our executive branch succeeds in bypassing the will of the Senate and unilaterally executing a global agreement in which we would concede our sovereignty to manage our own public health and for our physicians to be able to act independently.
As was mentioned in the prior last point, I want to make, look at what's happened over the last three years. Look at the flip flops and gross mismanagement that's characterized the World Health Organization's response to this outbreak. Look at the gross overreaction that they have promoted. Look at their willingness to engage with tech and big media and the trusted news initiative to reinforce and brand any information other than their official party line as mis or disinformation. And in this way, to suppress any meaningful scientific discourse or medical discourse, as well as the development of early treatment strategies that could have saved millions and millions of lives. This is an example of what we've seen over the last three years of the of, as I mentioned, the arbitrary, capricious and grossly incompetent level of management that we've come to expect from this corrupted organization that we call the World Health Organization. And all over the world, we're seeing the starting of various initiatives to create an alternative structure to replace this corrupted and incompetent organization.
Frank Gaffney: Thank you very much, Dr. Malone. We'll be coming back to you on all of these with a few questions in a moment or two before we do. We're going to take stock of these amendments that you've referred to with one of your distinguished colleagues, a man who was unfortunately unable to be with us today in person or to provide a videotape for this purpose. But hopefully he appeared in a webinar that the Stop Vaccine Passports Task Force convened on the 27th of February that focused in on the what we called “Every Breath you Take” of looking at the W.H.O. as a vehicle for this now surveillance state digital gulag that is of such great concern to many of us. His name is Dr. David Bell. He formerly worked at the World Health Organization and is intimately familiar with some of the sorts of things that Dr. Malone spoke of the corruption, this mismanagement, the sheer malfeasance, and also the ways in which it conducted itself in the course of this initial pandemic. He is these days a senior scholar at the highly regarded Brownstone Institute, and we are delighted to have him with us, bringing his expertise as a public health medical officer and a biotech consultant in global health to bear, as he did in this program. On the topic of the amendments to the World Health Organization's international health regulations and attempt to implement an existential change in sovereign rights and international relations.
Let's go to Dr. Bell's video now.
Dr. David Bell: People need to understand the background to what is going on and the current amendments to the international health regulations, the treaty, as it is called, or instrument that is going alongside the Derbyshire developing are the result of a few decades of big changes in the global health. So, the World Health Organization was set up originally after the Second World War. As a country-based organization, there is a lot of emphasis on decolonization and removal of central authority and emphasis on communities coming out of the colonialist eras of the 1930 and fascism, etcetera. And the WHO was one of many organizations that was set up to try to stop that happening again. So that ran pretty much in that way for a long time. It was almost solely funded by countries. Countries have a say in what happens.
This has changed over the last couple of decades in two ways. One, the there's been an increase in private funding, corporate and private individuals. And these have now become one of the biggest funders of W.H.O. And secondly, the funding is very much directed. So rather than core funding, the funders decide what their funding will be used for.
It's fair to movement from disease burden-based emphasis of the World Health Organization has shifted to an emphasis on profit. So, there are two instruments here, the International Health Regulations (IHR) and this core of the pandemic treaty or it's called the Plus and its recent zero draft. And they do slightly different things, but they complement each other.
The International Health regulations have been around for 20 years. They have the force or international law, but they are considered to be recommendations of the WHO. And what the amendments will do in their current form, is that they will go through a few more committee meetings before May this year when they are voted on by countries.
These amendments greatly expand the definition of health emergencies, including a sort of one health definition which really includes anything that could potentially impact well-being or health. And it includes potential threats rather than real threats. And there's a bureaucracy, a bureaucracy of surveillance that's being set up. We will find many potential threats.
The DG, the Director-General of WHO as an individual will have sole power to declare an emergency and to stop an emergency later.
And the other important thing is that the amendments in their current form change recommendation to be binding. So, when countries sign this, if the wording is not changed, they will be signing up to a binding agreement to do what the W.H.O. does in any health threat.
Another important aspect of this is the way it addresses human rights and the original language of the international health regulations from 20 years ago or so, includes very similar language to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. This is being changed to equity coherence and inclusivity, which are really meaningless terms. And importantly, it is also basing these on the social and economic context. So, this is taking the whole basis of individual sovereignty, sovereignty and all people equal and turning this into all people are not equal, but someone who decides based on economic and social assessment of that person will decide what rights they have. And these rights are very, very powerful.
The international health regulations at the moment include recommendations from the WHO and the DG to do things like closing borders, forced quarantine, confinement of individuals, forced medical examinations, requiring injection, etcetera. But in changing these from recommendations to a binding agreement, what this means is that WHO can tell a person in the United States or Malawi or Vietnam to be injected with a vaccine, for instance, or to have a medical examination or to be confined at home, and rather than having someone even in a country to do this or in a local community, assessing public health risks, this is someone in a completely different part of the world giving broad. Orders on how people should be treated. So, this is completely undoing the whole idea of individual sovereignty and community-based care that who was based on.
The treaty mechanism, which will be voted on next year and this is what the IMB committee at WHO is looking at, is in some ways a softer in the wording because it seems to assume that the amendments to the IFR will get through. So, the treaty essentially provides money. It talks about 5% at least, of global health of health budgets going to emergencies. It sets up a mechanism for supply that WHO will control. And the global governing board for the treaty and for this whole pandemic or emergency preparedness agenda, which will be within WHO it appears. So, it's really putting the bureaucracy there to support the changes, quite egregious changes that are proposed in the international health regulations.
We need to stop both of these. They are both a vast overreach in terms of public health, as we've seen from COVID and the COVID response, which these are planning to, you know, very clearly will replicate and intensify. They are bad for public health. They impoverished people. There's a vast increase in other infectious diseases, in malnutrition, etcetera, directly as a result of what has been done. And it was all predictable. So, and the concentration of this has been very much to the very people who are promoting this agenda and who have been increasingly funding W.H.O. It's really using taxpayers’ money to concentrate wealth, to impoverish the majority, reduce health, and to concentrate the wealth in the hands of these sponsors. I think we do need some sort of international health mechanism.
We need coordination between countries. We need a network that will support countries when they need it and when they ask for it. And when communities ask for it. But this is going very much in the opposite direction. This is a danger to health, is a danger to individual sovereignty and national sovereignty. It's also it's just unravelling the whole decolonization and the strength of the human rights agenda that we've developed over really 100 years.
So how do we combat this? Firstly, we need people to understand what is there, and we need the general public to understand and we need legislators to understand, and not just in the United States. We need this globally. This affects all countries. And what when we damage other countries, we damage humanity, but we also damage the United States. So, this is a fundamentally different approach to human rights. People need to understand that. They need to understand that this is unravelling what was fought for in the Second World War, in other wars in this country, the fight against slavery, the fight against discrimination, etcetera. This is unravelling the whole concepts that drove those so people need to understand this. They need to put pressure on legislators and legislators need to stop this from happening. There are different ways of doing that. But non-compliance once is in place, is going to be very difficult.
The WHO either needs to know that this is completely unacceptable and the countries that are pushing this and the people that are pushing this need to know is completely unacceptable and has to be completely withdrawn or we need to stop paying attention to these institutions that are doing this, including the WHO, etcetera. So that could mean in the end, the WHO needs funding from countries.
It doesn't make sense to fund something that is a net harm. In that case, we would need to completely replace it with an organization that is completely different, that doesn't have conflicts of interest, that responds to people and not for profit. There are different ways that legislators can deal with this, but they need to feel the pressure from the people to stop this.
We really need to stop the amendments from going through, but they very likely will, at least in a different form than now, because nobody needs to 50% vote. The second part needs a two-thirds vote of the World Health Organization because it's a new treaty. But in either case, if they do go through, they need to be completely undone. And this and other countries need to make it very clear that they're not going to comply with any of their provisions.
Frank Gaffney: Thank you very much, Dr. Bell, for that extraordinarily important testimony borne of your own firsthand experience inside the belly of the beast of the World Health Organization, a warning that should be heard, it seems to me, by everyone worldwide, especially your indictment of the attack on fundamental human rights that is at the core of this effort. We'll talk more about that in the Q&A momentarily. We're going to turn next, however, to a woman I've mentioned already who is a co-founder of this. Committee on the present danger China, one of its leading lights. Also, the co-sponsor with me of the Stop Vaccine Passports Task Force. Her name is Reggie Littlejohn, and she is a frequent contributor to these programs, I'm very happy to say, as well as an inspiration for the most important of them. We're very happy to have her with us to talk about this piece of the overall picture that's been touched on by previous speakers, namely the. Effort to obtain information and control through digital technology. Identity cards, passports, whatever you wish to call them that are now going to be promulgated by the World Health Organization if it obtains these global powers truly worldwide, to the great detriment of not only nation, national sovereignty, but also individual freedoms.
So, Reggie Littlejohn, welcome once again to these webinars. It's good to have you over to you.
Reggie Littlejohn: Thank you so much, Frank. I'm glad to be here. So, we are in the battle of our lives, and most of us don't even know it. The current status right now, as I understand it, is the World Health Organization has been negotiating the international health regulations. A couple of weeks ago, they finished their big meeting of their working group on that. And then just last week, their working group on the pandemic treaty, which they're calling an accord so that they can subvert the treaty process that ended just last Friday.
And so, my understanding is that these two separate working groups are now going to come up with additional drafts which are going to be presented at the World Health Assembly. Now, The International Health Regulation amendments, I believe may very well be voted on as early as this May 2nd months from now. The Pandemic Treaty Agreement, Accord Instrument, whatever is slated to be voted on at the World Health Assembly in 2024. But I would not put it past them to say, you know what, we're done discussing this. Let's just pass it in 2023. We don't know what they're going to do.
The third instrument that we need to be worried about is that in the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, it was pointed out to me by Dr. Francis Boyle, a panelist on our previous webinar, that there is language in that act, which passed on December 23rd, 2020 to the very end of the last Congress. It's 1,772 pages long. And on page 950, there is to be found something called the International Pandemic Preparedness Act of 2022, which contains in it language that Dr. Boyle argues (and I agree), language that would pre-approve whatever agreements come out of the W.H.O. So, we need to alert people to this and it needs to be rescinded or amended. So that's the first thing. Now, Frank has asked me to talk about some of the terrible provisions in these two things now and the proposed amendments to the international health regulations. As Dr. Bell mentioned, the word non-binding has been deleted because they want to make this binding, which is an invasion of our sovereignty as a nation. You know, it's one thing for them to recommend stuff for us to do, and then we'll say yes or no. It's another thing for them to tell us how to manage our health care. In other words, you have to have lockdowns, you have to have quarantines, you have to have vaccine mandates. That is an invasion of our sovereignty.
Then also something else is that that if these international health regulation amendments are approved, it will give the director general the power to declare not only public health risks, but potential public health risks, which could be anything. It gives him way too much power to do that. And then as Dr. Bell mentioned, the language that was in the previous the current international health recommendations has been or regulations has been stricken. This language that these regulations shall be with the full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons. Why are they striking that that's concerning.
Now, in terms of the zero-draft treaty, the agreement states, quote, the parties commit to strengthen multi-sectoral coordinated, interoperable and integrated one health surveillance systems. So, this is this is a surveillance system. And I'll tell you what, when health is in a minute, but coordinated, interoperable and integrated. Interoperable. Interoperable. Integrated with what? With the systems. The surveillance systems worldwide, including China. Right.
So, this is going to establish a Chinese Communist Party style surveillance system on the entire world. And so, what does that mean? Okay, these surveillance systems will give them give the whole world the ability to support something like the Chinese social credit system, where every single part of your existence is not only tracked but integrated, to come up with a score about how compliant of a of a citizen that you are.
So currently in China and then under this this integrated interoperable system. They will track facial recognition real time geolocation, your entire medical history. Your entire criminal history. Your social media posts, your internet search history. Your Internet spending history. And then also combine those with connecting them to your bank account and your credit card so that if you are deemed to be a non-compliant citizen, which I would say that I probably would be deemed that way.
And I think a lot of people in this webinar are counter-narrative to what the WHO wants to do. We are we are in danger of being deemed as non-compliant. They can do things like not changing our health status from a green to a red on our cell phones. We can't travel. We won't be able to borrow money, our kids won't be able to go to a good school and they can ultimately shut us off from our credit cards and our bank accounts and even disappear us, which happens frequently in China to dissidents. We have to stop this. And by the way, the World Health Organization has already engaged Deutsche Telekom to create these interoperable international, you know, basically vaccine passports or digital IDs.
Now, beyond that, also in the treaty, Article 17, page 23, the draft that they were just negotiating. So, again, they have they may have changed this. I doubt that they will change this in the next draft. It states the parties commit to increase pandemic literacy in the population and tackle false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation. Each party (and a party is a country or a state) is encouraged to conduct regular “social listening and analysis” to identify the prevalence and profiles of misinformation and to counteract misinformation, disinformation and false news, thereby strengthening public trust.
What does that mean? It means that they that whatever the W.H.O. says and we know how much false information talk about misinformation, disinformation, mean they were the main source of it coming down through the Chinese Communist Party to the world, causing millions of deaths. And there were doctors who disagreed with what they were saying. But if you disagree with what they're saying, then you will be charged with misinformation or disinformation through social listening, meaning that they are going to be monitoring our social media accounts.
And then all of this is going to go into our social credit score to persecute us. What this basically does is it sets up a global ministry of truth, similar to the Biden administration's disinformation governance board that they tried to set up. So now I want to talk about the one health approach. So, all of this is not going to just apply to human pandemic health. One, health is defined by the CDC as the interconnection between people, animals, plants and their shared environments. So, under the one health approach, basically there could be a health risk that would apply to people or animals or plants or the environment. Could be anything, could be climate change, could be gun violence, could be anything else that they choose to characterize as a public health, a potential public health risk, enabling them to move into the country without that country's consent.
That's another amendment to the international health regulations that enables them to do that. So that would certainly destroy our national sovereignty. And then there's another one that people don't talk about much, which is called the whole of government and the whole of society approach. This is paragraph 16 on page eight of the proposed pandemic treaty, which states that a whole of government and whole of society approach for pandemic preparedness and response is required. So, what is whole of government? What is whole of society? This could possibly bring in CCP style lockdowns, quarantines, forced vaccinations, as Dr. Bell mentioned.
And does the WHO envisage envision commandeering the media, education, transportation, banking, the military all to force compliance? So, this is a completely this is a nightmare. What it does is it sets up a global biomass vehicle, totalitarian surveillance state. It must be stopped. And what I believe is our best chance of stopping it is by conditioning the raising of the debt ceiling to withdrawal from the World Health Organization. Thank you.
Frank Gaffney: Thank you, Reggie, very much. James Roguski is another frequent contributor to our programs in this well, world health environment in particular. He is an activist. He is a blogger. He is an author on Substack, among other places, and an irrepressible champion for freedom. In the face of the concerted efforts we've been discussing on the part of the Chinese Communist Party and their puppets at the World Health Organization, other globalists, the World Education, World Economic Forum, rather, as well as, of course, the Biden administration. We're always happy to have him visit with us on this occasion. He has produced a PowerPoint presentation that we're going to take aboard quickly. It's fairly short and we'll turn to it at this point. James Roguski.
James Roguski: In mid-December of 2022, the Working Group on Amendments for the International Health Regulations first published a 197-page document, which included over 300 proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations. They republished that document on February 6th, 2023. For nearly three months, the mainstream, the alternative media and politicians around the world have either mischaracterized, misrepresented or completely ignored the proposed amendments from a number of nations around the world that are designed to enslave humanity in a digital prison. Let me review just some of these proposed amendments. On page 29 of the 197-page document, the Czech Republic on behalf of the 27 member nations of the European Union, proposed the institution of digital passenger locator forms, which would essentially institute contact tracing for all travelers around the world. In addition to these proposed amendments to Article 23, the Czech Republic, on behalf of the 27 member nations of the European Union, pretty much doubled down and repeated that under Article 35. In Article 36, they expanded on the idea to include test certificates, recovery certificates, vaccination and prophylaxis certificates. In their proposed amendments to Annex six, they made it clear that these certificates would be issued in digital or paper form and in their most egregiously horrible, unconscionable proposed amendment, they proposed that signatures by the parent for a child or by the Guardian or witness for an illiterate person would not be required in the digital format. I will leave it to the viewer to comprehend the ramifications of a global digital health certificate that would not require a parent or guardian signature.
On page 67, the proposed amendment from India would include documents containing information for a laboratory test in digital or physical format. On page 83, Indonesia also specified that these new certificates would be in digital or. Format and would require a QR code. On page 169, the Russian Federation, on behalf of the Member States of the Eurasian Economic Union, mirrored India's proposed amendments to include laboratory tests. And finally, on pages 194 and 195, Uruguay, on behalf of the Member States of the Southern Common Market, proposed a new Travelers health declaration that would provide better information about travel itinerary in order to facilitate contact tracing. In addition, Uruguay also proposed, and I quote, when a public health emergency of international concern has been declared for the purposes of entry and exit of international travelers in a scenario of voluntary vaccination using products still at the research phase or subject to very limited availability.
Vaccination certificates should be considered approved, and they also proposed two scenarios the maximum scenario being a certification of vaccination history via QR code in digital or paper format that directs to the official site of the country of origin to retrieve the vaccination information in what is absolutely a clear attack on privacy and health freedom. We, the people around the world, must stand up against these proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.
Please be aware that anyone who mentions the word treaty is talking about a different document. These proposed amendments are nowhere to be found in the proposed pandemic treaty. These are found in the 197-page document published by the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations. These amendments can be adopted during the World Health Assembly via the consensus feature often used at the Assembly, whereby a document is submitted for consideration and can be adopted by the simple silence of all of the delegates at the Assembly. Anyone who insists on engaging in a theoretical argument about the proper means by which the Senate would give its advice and consent in regards to a treaty is clearly misunderstanding the situation that is very, very different regarding the means by which proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations are to be adopted at the 75th World Health Assembly in May of 2022. Amendments were adopted in this manner.
No signature by a Prime Minister or president was required and no advice and consent from the Senate or any other parliamentary body was sought. This type of adoption of proposed amendments happened last year. It could happen again this year or it could happen next year.
Silence equals consent. We must speak up loudly against these proposed amendments that seek to enslave humanity in a digital prison. For more information, please visit Reject Digital enslavement.com.
Frank Gaffney: James Roguski, thank you for this very helpfully expands the specifics of the case that Reggie Littlejohn just made and does so in a way, especially on the procedural side that I think is vital for. Both our understanding of where we are at the moment and what may be coming very quickly next. Finally, we're going to wrap up with a pre-recorded message from Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, now retired from the Congress. She is these days the dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University, a very actively engaged in this particular effort to expose, challenge and ultimately defeat. These sorts of trends or supranational organizations diminishing of our sovereignty, if not crushing it outright. We're delighted to have her with us. And we will go to the videotape with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann now.
Michele Bachmann: Well, thank you so much for having me on with you today. I am so grateful because this to me is the number one front burner issue of the moment. It seems like every week there's another disaster that we read about. This one really is a disaster. And you may have heard about this last year. We were dealing with this last year when the Biden administration under the radar was trying to push 29 different amendments to the World Health Assembly that was scheduled to meet in Geneva, Switzerland, at the end of May in 2022. People were outraged when they heard what the Biden administration attempted to do with what they wanted to do.
Bottom line is to turn the World Health Organization, which is the health care arm of the United Nations. There are 194 nations that are a part of the World Health Organization. Virtually all the nations on Earth and the Biden administration wanted to change the function, the bottom-line function of the World Health Organization from being an advisory body without mandatory powers or controls into a fully authoritative mandatory body. So, think of Dr. Fauci and the CDC here in the United States during the 2 to 3 years that we lived under the draconian COVID mandates. But the Biden administration wanted to do last year was then empower the World Health Organization with the same level of draconian powers that were wielded by Dr. Fauci and the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control. He wanted to give that level of power to an international body.
So, in other words, what this would mean is we would have no place of appeal. We couldn't go to our local mayor or to our local county. We couldn't go to our local state legislators or to our governor to appeal any mandates that were put upon us for perhaps another pandemic that would break out. We couldn't even go to our United States representatives or United States senators or even to the president of the United States, nor would we have access to our court system. We wouldn't be able to file claims because under what the Biden administration wanted to do last year and thankfully it was defeated by Botswana, an African nation who objected and said, we're not going to go along with this, The World Health Assembly. And in Geneva, Switzerland, that's the governing body that controls the World Health Organization.
So, because of that, I really, truly believe that the prayers of many Americans were answered and we were saved for a year. We were given a one-year reprieve. Well, the Biden administration is back this year not just on one track, but on a dual track. So, they are trying to pass both a treaty which they call an accord. So, they want to pass a treaty to achieve the same goal that would be achieved through the World Health Organization that's going to meet in the end of May.
Now, this treaty is bizarre. There's probably 30 some pages worth of amendments that the Biden administration is putting forward, things like allowing the UN or World Health Organization to take into consideration things like racism and climate change if they decide to declare a public health emergency. Now, the Biden administration is saying that the treaty or accord wouldn't require US Senate approval. So, this is what people have been very upset about, this idea of a treaty because this has been talked about and a lot of different venues where it is actually more likely to pass is on this second track, and that's at the World Health Assembly that will be meeting. It's scheduled to meet in Geneva, Switzerland, the last week of May. That's not very long from now. So, it's the end of February when we're recording this. Then you have the end of March, the end of April, the end of May. So, we're a little more than three months out at this point for the time that we have left. Not a lot of time, but we need to understand what these amendments want to do.
The EU is keen on passing these amendments and what is it the EU wants to achieve. They want to ensure that global digital health care. Passports are passed in the World Health Assembly. So that would include track and trace. Each one of us on our phone or on a sheet of paper, we would have a QR code. We would be surveilled not by our own government, but by an international body controlled by the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the executive director, a man named Tedros, who's just been re-upped for another five years, would essentially become a global dictator, not just in the area of health care. He would have dictatorial powers where he could declare a public health emergency of international concern, and then he would have the power to send monitors into any nation he so chooses. And the nation would be forced because their powers would be mandatory under the World Health Organization to comply with mandates from the World Health Organization.
Well, you might say, well, we can push back here in the United States. So, what if this passes in Geneva, Switzerland? We don't have to comply. How would the World Health Organization possibly enforce these mandates here in the United States? It's very simple. It is. How willing are the politicians who are in charge? The politicians who are in charge are the Joe Biden administration. This effort is being pushed by Joe Biden. He wants to give away US sovereignty and health care to the World Health Organization. So, he would effectively be the enforcement arm for the World Health Organization, just like the EU, who wants to give away European sovereignty to the World Health Organization, they would be the enforcers in Europe, just like Australia and New Zealand who seek to give up this power. This is bizarre. Think of this.
So, you have the greatest democratic nations in the world seeking to give up the sovereign right of the people. In a definitive way. It could never be pulled back. That power. They would give away the national sovereignty of the nation on decision making to the UN and international health care body. We would not be able to get out of this once it is mandated, because then the World Health Organization would even have the power to order that our nation would spend money to meet the demands of the World Health Organization. We would be mandated to hand over health supplies or to pay for more health supplies or to create equity, quote, where it's a redistribution of wealth through health care. This is an extremely bizarre effort that the Biden administration is seeking to give away global authority, national authority to the UN.
But this is what we need to understand. Once this happens, this would create a perch for one world government. Administered through the World Health Organization, the health care arm of the UN. This is extremely serious and we have to stop it now in the next three months.
Two ways that we could go about doing this. Here's the first; Representative Chip Roy of Texas is seeking to get the attention of Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy to attach the United States, leaving the World Health Organization and defunding the World Health Organization as a part of the debt ceiling bill. This is a very good thing, and I urge everyone, contact your local representative to have them get on board with what Chip Roy is trying to do. Here's the second; Andy Biggs, a representative from Arizona, has a bill called H.R. 79 to demand that the United States exit the World Health Organization and to stop paying money to the World Health Organization. Both of these are very good tracks, and I encourage you to get on board.
We also need to find a Senate sponsor for the companion bill to exit the World Health Organization. So, contact your senator and ask them to do that as well. And remember, there's always time for prayer. So, I encourage everyone to continue to pray, not despair. Don't give up hope. This is our time to act together. Remember, we overthrew slavery.
No one thought it could be done. The Berlin Wall came down. No one thought it would be done. Apartheid ended in South Africa. No one thought it could be done. This can be done. It was stopped last year. We can do it this year. But we need to get the attention of our representative in DC and our senators. And I think together we can do this.
Frank Gaffney: Congresswoman Bachmann, thank you. I couldn't ask for a better closing and rallying cry from any of you. And I so appreciate this being now part of the record that we've compiled here. We are down to one participant. She happens to be a utility infielder, so I'm not the least bit concerned about sending her a question or two that she will not be capable of addressing very, very capably. I want to thank all of those who joined us by video but are no longer obviously with us and can't comment. But Reggie Littlejohn, to you. One of the powerful takeaways from all of this is, is the point that Congresswoman Bachmann made you did earlier, and I think others as well, namely, that there is afoot at this moment. Something that we've been hearing about as a kind of distant ambition of globalists and communists and well, for that matter, Islamists and others who seek global domination. World government is a rubric under which it's often described. Do you think on the basis of your study of this document and the two drafts that are now emerging and kind of the efforts that Michelle talked about of the European Union and Australia and New Zealand and of course the Biden administration, among others, that this is now overwrought, that that we're ascribing to the agenda here, something that is this kind of fantasy without real basis for those concerns. Or is that really what's now decidedly in prospect?
Reggie Littlejohn: Well, Frank, I would encourage anyone who thinks that what we're saying is overblown to read the documents. I mean, I just quoted the documents. It's there in plain black and white that they want to. Okay. So, this is my opinion. I believe that the World Economic Forum and the United Nations want to establish a one world government, a great reset, and that they are using the World Health Organization as the arm to do that, because one of the greatest motivators of people is fear. So, if they are able to terrify us, either through COVID 19 in the beginning or through some updated COVID virus or maybe through monkeypox or maybe through Ebola, whatever it is, people are willing to give up freedom because they are afraid of getting really sick or dying some kind of a horrible death. Right. Like from Ebola. And so that's the that's the mechanism by which they're going to get people to agree to be surveilled that that we need to counter misinformation and disinformation, that we need to have a global surveillance system to keep us all safe. And as I have said and as Michel has said, once this is in place, once this surveillance system is in place, and especially if we combine it with a central bank, digital currency and a cashless society, they will be able to shut us off from any dissent because they'll be, you know, as soon as you dissent, they'll shut you off from your credit cards and your bank account, and you won't be able to use cash. So, these amendments are coming up, I believe, for a vote at the end of May. And all they require is a 50% vote at the World Health Organization, something people need to understand about the World Health Organization and the World Health Assembly, as Michele Bachmann mentioned. There are 194 countries. Each country has one vote so that the United States vote is the same as a vote from the smallest country you can think of or the vote from China is the same. It doesn't matter how big the country is, it doesn't matter how powerful the country is. But this is something that could put us under a totalitarian regime that that that we didn't vote for and that we have no control over other than by withdrawing entirely from the W.H.O., as is proposed by Representative Biggs, and has been done in the past by former President Donald Trump. And I would urge everyone, as Michele Bachmann mentioned, to alert your congressman and senator by going to stop VAX passports.org. That's stop VAX passports.org. And shortly there will be an action item up there where you can sign up to alert your representatives to the impending dangers and to what they can do about it on a legislative level.
Frank Gaffney: Thank you. This is such an important initiative. Reggie, there are a number of efforts underway to both raise this alarm and vector attention. And I think particularly what is being called for by you and Michelle Bachmann in terms of using the leverage that currently exists for this debt ceiling. Increase to exact. Not just a commitment, not just the promise of some sort of legislative initiative, but to put in motion as a condition precedent to any adjustment to the debt ceiling, the formal notification of the United States withdrawal from the World Health Organization. That seems to me to be an absolutely minimal demand at this point, given the stakes that we've described here today. I would hope that both sides of the aisle would embrace this idea, given that nothing less than the sovereignty and the future of our country is on the line. Reggie, I did want to just go through the timeline on this with you one more time, because it's a little unclear to me and maybe to others as well. We've had these two weeks of meetings on these various drafts, drafts of regulation, amendments and drafts of a new document, a new treaty or accord agreement, whatever they call it, one of which will be considered the amendments in the upcoming World Health Assembly meeting at the end of May. You have raised the question, and I think you're right to do so, that quite possibly the accord, the treaty, whatever it is, will also be taken up. What happens then? There's a majority vote for the first, a two thirds majority vote, I think James said. For the second, whether silence is consent or whether people actually formally vote for these arrangements. Is it right that, as I understand it, they will provisionally go into effect even before there is any kind of process in the states in question to, for example, in our system have a ratification debate.
Reggie Littlejohn: Well, Frank, I've heard that that there is some kind of a provisionality provision. I have not seen it myself. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I think it was Dr. Francis Boyle, if I'm not mistaken, that said that that they will go in provisionally. I think he did so. But in any case, we need to really. Raise the awareness of this right now because the international health regulations are certainly going to be coming up in at the end of May. There's going to be another draft, I believe, of them being circulated and then discussed in at some point in April. And then in terms of the pandemic treaty, which Senator Ron Johnson rightly is saying is the pandemic accord, which Senator Johnson is rightfully saying is the treaty that is scheduled to come up in May of 2024. But just because the World Health Assembly could choose to ambush us, they could just say, you know what, we thought it was going to take us longer to come up with our recommendation, but we've come up with it, you know, now. And so, we're just going to vote on it now. I mean, I wouldn't put anything past them. So. So it's possible that they could both come up this May. Now, the one thing I would say about the Ron Johnson proposed legislation is it really only deals with the thing that is called a pandemic accord instrument, the thing that we've been calling a treaty. But I would argue that the international health regulations are also should also rightfully be called a treaty, because they also impact our national sovereignty and things that impact national sovereignty should be called a treaty, even though they are disguised or are masquerading as simply amendments to previous regulations.
Frank Gaffney: I think this is a critical point. And Reggie, the reason that I think this argument for immediate action seems to me to be so necessary is that if, let's say nothing else is done, the agreement comes into effect in May provisionally, and then there's some period of time before we do anything about it. In the meantime, these arrangements are institutionalized. There may even be, who knows, some dictates handed down by Dr. Tedros that would be demonstrating the who's authority. And again, as several of our speakers have made clear, it doesn't have to be a pandemic, folks. It can be whatever Dr. Tedros thinks or his Chinese communist masters think is a public health emergency. And whether that's a, you know, gun violence or whether it's, you know, some sort of repercussions of, you know, inadequate access to abortion or whether that's undocumented migrants, as they're now being called, are being inadequately cared for or the climate issues, who knows? It could become a vehicle for asserting authority and whether it's as has been suggested. The Biden administration who is doing the enforcing or it's the World Trade Organization, for heaven's sakes, talk about global governance. This sounds like what they're about. So, for all these reasons, I just want to leave our audience with this really important message. This is no drill. This is taking place as we speak. I think the agenda is being pretty well telegraphed. It's been brilliantly illuminated by our speakers today. It has given rise to arguably the most serious threat to the sovereignty of this country, certainly ever freely accepted by a government of the United States. And it must be stopped. It must be stopped in its tracks. So, we encourage you to communicate with Congressman Chip Roy, who has been mentioned in this connection as trying to help get this debt ceiling leverage utilized to extricate us from the World Health Organization. Congressman Andy Biggs is to be commended for his legislation. The Speaker of the House needs to be encouraged to bring bills to the floor that do this. And more to the point, make it an absolute prerequisite for assent to raising the debt ceiling, to protect the freedom of the American people and the sovereignty from those that the World Health Organization and elsewhere who clearly have in mind taking it from us. This is the fight of our lives. Think, as Reggie said at the beginning, and it is one we cannot lose or certainly we can lose, but we mustn't lose. With that, I just want to say thank you to all of our speakers. We had really an incredible array of expertise. And Jonathan Emord, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. David Bell, Reggie Littlejohn, James Roguski, and of course, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. I want to thank not only them, but all of you for taking this information aboard, taking it, I hope to heart. And then as Dede will say again momentarily, please take this video and for that matter, the others in this series and make them as widely available as you can. We will have shortly a new book that tries to distill the essence of many of them. It's called The Indictment, and it is about prosecuting the Chinese Communist Party for its war crimes against America and its other crimes against humanity. This is a coming attraction. Stay tuned for more on that shortly. In the meantime, thank you again for listening. And I'm turning the floor back over to Dede Laugesen. This is Frank Gaffney, over and out.
Dede Laugesen: Thank you, Frank. And thanks to all of our audience members for being here today. A video of this webinar will post to present Danger China.org Within a day of the conclusion of our program, please share this and our other programs with your elected representatives, colleagues and other networks. Join us again next week for our next installment of the Committee on the Present Danger China Webinar series on the CCP's Unrestricted Warfare Against America and the Free World and how the USA is Betrayed by CCP Captured Elites. Thanks for joining us today and goodbye.
Who is Robert Malone is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.