The World Health Organization (WHO) is moving ahead with a Global Digital Health Certification Network (GDHCN) — an interlinked, global technological system that would be used to recognize the validity of health certificates and “vaccine passports” — according to independent journalist James Roguski and others who spoke with The Defender.

“In reality, the WHO is not waiting for the negotiations to be finalized,” Roguski said. “They are already moving forward with the construction and implementation of a global system that is designed to restrict your freedom to travel.”

The “negotiations” is a reference to next month’s meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, where the WHO’s Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) is set to begin negotiating proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR).

The IHR is a binding international law governing public health and global health emergencies. The WGIHR is composed of representatives of 196 nation-states negotiating proposals for amendments to the IHR.

In all, 307 amendments have been proposed for the IHR by 16 entities, on behalf of 94 countries — including amendments to formalize the creation of a globally interlinked system of health certificates that would be recognized by all WHO member states.

Roguski, who has investigated the workings of the WHO and the proposed IHR amendment negotiations and “pandemic treaty,” said that while the pandemic treaty has garnered more attention, it is the IHR amendments that contain proposals for such “certificates.”

Author and podcast host Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, echoed Roguski’s concerns about the IHR amendments and GDHCN.

Gaffney told The Defender:

“What’s very alarming to me, and I think many others, is that we’re looking at the prospect that the international arrangements that are being put into place will have as their sort of critical infrastructure if you will, this kind of global identification, the capability and that it will be abused to exercise control over people irrespective of the rights, for example, that they enjoy under our constitution. And in fact, I think very much to the detriment of those rights.”

The proposals under consideration

The provisional agenda and draft program for the Oct. 2-6 WGIHR meeting list “consideration of proposed amendments” to IHR articles regarding “points of entry” and “public health measures” — specifically with regard to travel and conveyances, — and “health documents” as the main topics of discussion.

Roguski said the WGIHR proposals are not limited to vaccine passports, but also encompass prophylaxis certificates, testing certificates, recovery certificates, passenger locator forms and travelers’ health declarations.

According to Roguski, the key proponents of such proposals include the 27 EU member states and the member states of the Southern Common Market — whose full members are Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (including Russia), and India and Indonesia.

“The EU has taken the lead in putting this infrastructure in place for the people of the EU,” Gaffney said. But the World Economic Forum, Bill Gates, Big Pharma, “and, not least, the United States government, the WHO and the U.N.” are also proponents of a global system of health certificates and passports.

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, told The Defender the Biden administration is playing a significant role in this process.

Boyle referred to his forthcoming book, “Stopping the Globalists: WHO Worldwide Totalitarian Medical Police State,” where he wrote:

“In order to circumvent and then to repress and quash this massive American COVID civil resistance movement, the Biden administration decided to go to the WHO in Geneva in order to procure from them there both a treaty and an international agreement that it could then use here in the United States to defeat the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that gives control over Public Health to State and Local democratically elected officials and to the American people themselves.”

According to Roguski, “Interestingly, the 47 members of the African region of the WHO did not submit any proposed amendments regarding the GDHCN.”

Roguski compiled a list of all the proposed IHR amendments for global health certificates in any form, including a proposal from India regarding “Article 23: Health measures on arrival and departure” calling for “documents containing information for a lab test in digital or physical format.

Meanwhile, Russia’s proposal for Article 23 calls for:

“information concerning the traveller’s itinerary to ascertain if there was any travel in or near an affected area or other possible contacts with infection or contamination prior to arrival, as well as review of the traveller’s health documents if they are required under these Regulations including documents containing information for a lab test in digital or physical format including documents containing information on a laboratory test for a pathogen and/or information on vaccination against a disease, including those provided at the request of the State Party in digital /electronic form.”

An Indonesian proposal for “Article 31: Health measures relating to entry of travellers” suggests states could require “medical examination, vaccination or other prophylaxis or proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis whether in paper based or digital format … when necessary to determine whether a public health risk exists.”

And a proposal by the Czech Republic on behalf of the EU’s member states for “Article 36: Certificates of vaccination or other prophylaxis” states: “Other types of proofs and certificates may be used,” such as “test certificates and recovery certificates,” for diseases “where a vaccine or prophylaxis has not yet been made available.”

The Czech Republic and EU member states also proposed that “Persons undergoing vaccination or other prophylaxis under these Regulations shall be provided with an international certificate of vaccination or prophylaxis … in the digital or paper form.”

WHO failed to define ‘vaccine’ and ignored safety standards

According to Roguski, Article 21 of the WHO Constitution gives the WHO the authority to adopt regulations — but this authority is being abused.

“They may attempt to adopt such vague language that their ‘regulations’ would enable them to ‘approve’ whatever ‘certificates’ they wish,” Roguski said.

“In my view, the word ‘regulation’ means to make regular, to set standards, to define terms. You define the nomenclature and how you diagnose a disease or how you do something.”

However, Roguski said, “They are about to fail miserably in the crafting of regulations to define standards. One of the things they’re supposed to do is ensure the safety of treatments and they’ve completely ignored it.”

Roguski noted that the term “vaccine” is not defined by the WHO. Instead, Article 6 of the existing IHR simply states that “Vaccines … shall be of suitable quality” and subject to WHO approval and“Certificates under this Annex are valid only if the vaccine or prophylaxis used has been approved by WHO.”

While Article 1 of the existing IHR “defines the terms used in the IHR,” Roguski said that the term “vaccine” is not defined there.

“This was a very serious mistake that was allowed to be adopted in the IHR (2005),” Roguski said. “This is unacceptable. If you don’t define a vaccine, what’s a vaccine certificate?”

Similarly, Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist, biological warfare epidemiologist and member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, told The Defender, “If you don’t have effective vaccines that stop casual person-to-person transmission, how can they be justified?”

Yet, the WHO is working rapidly to finalize the GDHCN, defining it as “an open-source platform, built on robust & transparent standards that establishes the first building block of digital public health infrastructure for developing a wide range of digital products for strengthening pandemic preparedness and to deliver better health for all.”

“The GDHCN includes, but goes far beyond, just ‘vaccine passports,’” Roguski said. Noting that the current IHR recognizes only paper-based vaccine passports for yellow fever, he said, “The GDHCN would dramatically expand the IHR” to include other types of certificates under consideration as part of the proposed IHR amendments.

It was during the B20 meeting in November 2022 that “Indonesian Health Minister Budi Gunadi Sadikin let the cat out of the bag and revealed the plan to create the Global Digital Health Certification Network,” Roguski said.

{vembed Y=ELDI5QBEQTI}

Sadikin subsequently called on the G20 to adopt a “digital health certificate acknowledged by the WHO” that would allow the public to “move around.”

According to the WHO, the COVID-19 pandemic served as the impetus for the development of the GDHCN.

“There is a recognition of an existing gap and continued need for a global mechanism that can support bilateral verification of the provenance of health documents for pandemic preparedness and continuity of care,” the WHO said.

“Expanding such digital solutions will be essential to deliver better health for people across the globe,” the WHO claims, noting that the GDHCN is based on “the infrastructure and experiences with the digital European Union Digital COVID Certificate (EU DCC) system.” This WHO-EU partnership was announced in June.

In turn, the WHO states that the GDHCN “has been designed to be interoperable with other existing regional networks” — meaning, other vaccine passports developed during the COVID-19 pandemic and used regionally, including the SMART Health Card, an initiative of the Vaccine Credential Initiative used by 27 U.S. states and territories, and nine countries.

Google, Microsoft, Amazon Web Services, Oracle and the Mayo Clinic are among the backers of the SMART Health Card via their participation in the Vaccine Credential Initiative.

Roguski said the GDHCN “is a really savvy move” on the part of the WHO member states, “because it makes it so that nations don’t have to force vaccines on their own citizens.” Instead, “They could make demands that each nation can make demands of all of the other nations while respecting their own citizens’ free will.”

In other words, “You don’t have to have a jab or a testing certificate or a recovery certificate or a prophylaxis certificate so long as you stay inside your country,” he added. “It’s a very savvy way of creating a digital prison … and abusing everybody’s rights.”

For Gaffney, “the vaccine passport ‘brand,’ shall we say, is one way of characterizing various kinds of digital identification models,” which are “all designed for a similar purpose, which is not only to surveil the populations but to be able to control them.”

According to Roguski, the proposed amendments will also legitimize “biological weapons research under the guise of health.”

Roguski said:

“They want more of that. They want to legitimize going out into the world, finding pathogens that have pandemic potential and then bringing them into the lab rather than just leaving them out in nature, where they maybe weren’t harming anybody. They can make jabs for things that may or may not actually be causing any problems.

“Potentially they’re getting into gain-of-function research. They should be outlawing gain-of-function, not facilitating it. It’s crazy.”

Roguski and Gaffney agreed that the WHO’s proposals also put national sovereignty at risk by placing public health decision-making in the hands of global entities like the WHO, and by restricting global freedom of movement.

Roguski, referring to the Bureau’s text of the “pandemic treaty” that is currently under negotiation, noted “in Article 38, there is a setup where they can agree to protocols … It doesn’t have to come back to the Senate to approve the protocols. They just have carte blanche. They could do whatever they want with tens of billions of dollars.”

Gaffney said, “The appearance by Joe Biden today at the U.N. General Assembly may be the last such appearance by an American leader of a sovereign nation because I think it’s no exaggeration to say that what these guys are cooking up is going to diminish our sovereignty markedly.”

Several legislative efforts are in progress in the U.S. challenging the WHO’s authority or calling upon the U.S. to leave the organization.

According to Roguski, “Over 50 members of Congress have co-sponsored the WHO Withdrawal Act” (H.R.79), adding that he is “working to have the Senate consider companion legislation.”

According to Gaffney, who is hosting a webinar Sept. 20 relating to proposals to expand vaccine passports and grant the WHO more power— a proposal by the House Appropriations Committee to end U.S. funding of the WHO is currently “in legislation,” but its “future is unclear, at best.”

Boyle and Nass are slated to participate in the Sept. 20 webinar.

The IHR amendments and the proposed “pandemic treaty” are scheduled to be discussed and voted on in May 2024 at the WHO’s World Health Assembly, in Geneva. But Roguski said the May 2024 target may now be in jeopardy.

“I see that there is vast disagreement,” Roguski said, noting that the negotiating parties have been unable to agree on a common working document and that “a lot of nations, Bangladesh, some of the African nations and so forth, are very, very unhappy that their suggestions did not make the cut.”

However, for Boyle, these negotiations represent a power grab by globalist powers, with dire consequences for humanity should the proposals come to pass.

Again quoting from his forthcoming book, Boyle said: “This time, the globalists fully intend to suppress any and all opposition to their totalitarian medical edicts here in the United States and elsewhere,” via “bluewashing their entire totalitarian police state project through the WHO.”

If approved, the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments will “constitute international agreements under the terms of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,” Boyle said, adding that it will then be argued that they are “‘the supreme law of the land’ under Article 6 of the United States Constitution … in conjunction with the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act.”

According to Boyle, this will then “override all opposition by state governors, state attorneys general, state general assemblies, all publicly elected officials … your public health authorities, and even your primary care physicians.”

Roguski said that while it is difficult to oppose the GDHCN directly because it is, at its root, simply a technological platform, the inputs into that platform — such as vaccines and PCR tests — can be challenged.

On his Substack, Roguski listed several instances where scientists and peer-reviewed research questioned PCR tests.

“The focus that I have is on the validity of the certificate, not the software system that enables people to access whether or not you have a certificate,” he said. “The garbage coming into the system is untrustworthy. The PCR tests as a diagnostic, the jabs being something that could restrict travel though they don’t stop transmission or infection.”

“The strongest case that we have is to hold them to the limits of their authority,” he said. “Do we really want the WHO to be the one who decides whether or not a test or a vaccine is seen as an acceptable certificate? That’s where the fight is.”

“We cannot allow flawed and fraudulent injections and/or tests to be used to restrict our freedoms,” Roguski added.

Author

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV's "Good Morning CHD."

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.