Noor Bin Ladin - Last Minute Push for WHO International Health Regulations to Control Global Health

Show Notes and Transcript

Noor Bin Ladin returns to Hearts of Oak to discuss the World Health Organization's role in advancing globalism and its impact on the United States. 
She highlights amendments at the 77th World Health Assembly regarding pandemic treaties and national health authorities. 
Noor delves into WHO's funding sources and expresses worries about the organization's expanded powers in responding to global health emergencies, emphasizing the implications for national sovereignty and individual freedoms. 
She calls for local activism to challenge health-related laws, repeal unconstitutional measures, and reduce big pharma's influence on global health policies, advocating for awareness, involvement in local politics, and the defence of bodily autonomy and constitutional rights in the face of potential global health governance by the WHO.

*Items of reference mentioned in the podcast...
WEBSITE                      wehurtothers.com
JAMES ROGUSKI         jamesroguski.substack.com

Noor Bin Ladin was born in Switzerland to a Swiss mother and Saudi father with the most controversial last name of the 21st century, at first glance it isn't obvious that she would be a freedom loving, Americanophile and patriot at heart.
Noor's background story and early life were recorded in her mom's bestselling book, "Inside the Kingdom: my life in Saudi Arabia", by Carmen Bin Ladin.
In short, her mother realised that she couldn't bring herself to raise her three girls according to Saudi culture, she fought a long, harsh battle in Swiss courts in order to gain their freedom and secure their upbringing in the West with Judeo-Christian values.
This clash between her life and how different it would have been in Saudi Arabia had her mother lost, made Noor appreciative of the values and freedoms in the West from early on in her childhood.
Travelling to America extensively from the age of three onwards further cemented her love for the American way.
Though she has largely kept to herself since the tragic day of 9/11, Noor can no longer stand by and watch as America burns. A supporter of President Trump since his campaigning days of 2015, she felt compelled to speak up ahead of the 2020 elections, the most consequential in America's history.
Why? Because the more we are to take a stand in the fight for the Free World, the higher the chance of saving Western Civilization from the brink of collapse.

Connect with Noor...

X/TWITTER          x.com/NoorBinLadin
SUBSTACK          noorbinladin.substack.com/
PODCAST            rumble.com/c/NoorBinLadin 

Interview recorded 4.6.24

Connect with Hearts of Oak...
X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUK
WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/
PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/
SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/
SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/

TRANSCRIPT

(Hearts of Oak)

I am so happy to have Noor Bin Ladin back with us once again. Noor, thank you so much for joining us again today.

(Noor Bin Ladin)

Thank you for having me, Peter. It's a pleasure to be back on the show with you.

Oh, thank you. It's always good having someone on more than once. I thoroughly enjoyed discussing your background, your life, and where you are now in your activism. And we're going to talk about something completely different today, which is a huge topic, a contentious topic and a confusing topic. So we'll see what happens there. But people can find you @NoorbinLadin on Twitter or X. And of course, your Substack, which is essential reading. And that's just noorbinladin.substack.com And all the notes, all the links are in the description for viewers and listeners. So make sure you go after the end of this. I know you'll want to subscribe to NoorbinLadin.substack.com.

The WHO, World Health Organization, we've heard. Maybe I can just ask you first, Noor, how did you kind of become interested in an entity that probably most of us hadn't actually heard about until the COVID tyranny? But how did you get interested and begin to delve into the WHO and kind of what they were?

Well, Peter, as we discussed last time when I was on the show for the first time, you know, my interest is in the history of globalism and how obviously that intersects with the planned decline of the United States of America, you know, my nation that is very dear to me. And looking at globalism as a whole, especially the last 200 years, but more specifically the 20th century, you understand that the globalists have built one giant superstructure in order to advance their agenda of a one world order, this new world order, this one world government and the who is one of many many vehicles that was set up in order to push forward with this agenda of theirs of you know centralizing all the resources in the world centralizing power into one governing body essentially and they use many different tools many different crises such as you know quote pandemics and for that reason the WHO plays a key role so that's how I became interested in the WHO, but it's very much related to all the work that I've been doing in the sense that the WHO is one piece of the puzzle.

And of course, I know you've been a key reporter on the ground there on this topic and many others for the War Room. And it's always good to connect with the War Room posse and anyone who brings information and news to the number one political podcast in the States. And I've enjoyed many of those.

Thank you.

Let me get into what we want to talk about, which is this decision at the World Health Association. It was the 77th meeting. I know many of us think, where have we been? 77 of these just flew past. But there have been 77 of these. Most of them, many of us were and have been completely unaware. But they adopted what are called the IHR, which are the International Health Regulations Amendments.

Tell us how this meeting, the WHA, what was the intention of it? And again, we'll go into talking about how this was pushed through seemingly at the very end of it without proper assessment or looking at, probably when everyone was just wanting to finish off and go to bed, this was slipped through. But yeah, tell us about the WHA, this 77th meeting of it.

Sure. I'll start by giving a little bit of context. So indeed, all eyes were on Geneva last week, Geneva, Switzerland, my hometown, where the WHO have their headquarters. Every year they meet in the UN building to host the World Health Assembly which is their annual meeting and this is where the member states and you know the executive board and the WHO entity essentially decides on their plans and whatever items are on the agenda and this year's annual meeting the 77th World Health Assembly was of particular interest to a lot of people in the world because everybody was kind of holding their breath to see what was going to happen with the so-called pandemic that was one track that was one legal instrument that was supposed to be presented last week and then the second track were the amendments to the international health regulations which were initially adopted back in 1969, there was a first big set of amendments that were adopted in 2005 and now this is the second, you know, kind of package of amendments that were adopted, as you mentioned, at the 11th hour on the final day of the WHA. And so coming back to the first track so that we get that one out of the way. Everybody was waiting to see what was going to happen with the so-called pandemic treaty.

A lot of propaganda over the past couple of years, you know, post the scamdemic. A lot of our leaders in the world, many different, quote, stakeholders pushing for a pandemic treaty to be reached at this 77th WHA.

Obviously, Big Pharma, manufacturers of, quote, vaccines, different alliances. We can come back into that later because there were a few announcements by CEPI and Gavi following the WHA. But on the Friday prior to the WHA starting on the 27th of May, it was announced by the WHO that it was likely that they weren't going to be able to reach an agreement on the pandemic agreement. I smelled a decoy straight away while others were prematurely celebrating and unfortunately it was unwarranted. This is also something we can get back into a bit later. But essentially the decision what transpired and this was announced as well on the final day of the WHA at the same time as the adoption of the amendments. But the WHO, the member states have decided that they were extending the negotiation period for the pandemic agreement.

Up until next year at the next WHA, WHA 78 in May here in Geneva once more. And with an objective of actually finalizing the agreement before the end of the year. So they're going to put pressure on the different member states to reach an agreement before the end of 2024 but they're giving themselves some extra time until May just in case and also announced in that same statement negotiations will resume in July of this year so we're going to keep looking at what's coming out of these negotiation meetings out of Geneva and, over the next few months, because that's not over at all. It's just delayed, but it's very much still on. So that's the first track. And then the second track, the amendments were adopted very late on the 1st of June, the final day.

I think it was expected that they were going to pass at some point during this week. It wasn't expected that it was going to be so late during the time frame for the WHA. And these amendments are certainly not a victory for the people. And we can get into that in terms of what the amendments actually are during this interview.

Okay, well, you mentioned about we were all given this false sense of security by many people by being told, It's not going to happen. It's been paused, delayed. Don't worry, we've won the battle, but the war may go on.

I think we've talked before about the danger of putting out information which is not necessarily true, maybe wishful thinking, maybe pure misinformation. And we attack governments and mainstream media for misinformation but it does seem as though sometimes it happens on our side and that announcement by many commentators that actually it's been paused, we've won this battle seem to be part of that misinformation.

Yes it was actually quite frustrating and I did my best to push back against it straight out of the gates already on that Friday that I mentioned before the start of the WHA on social media.

Because it's hard enough that we need to fight against the disinformation on quote, the other side from the other side from the mainstream media, like all the propaganda that they wage against us. But then we also need to fight back against disinformation, you know, whether ill intentioned or not, you know, So from our side, it's a little bit disheartening. And because the issue here is that you give people a false sense of hope or a false sense of having a moment of respite. Is that how you pronounce the word?

Yeah, respite, yeah.

Respite when actually this is the time where we really need to be pushing back really strongly and even more so like there's no space for us to let down our guard and I think the other the other side understands that very well which is why you know they make it so convoluted and they have all these different tracks and instruments and they put out the propaganda it's a way of,

I mean, there are many objectives to that, but including demoralization and getting people discouraged. And so when you have that thing on our side where people are celebrating, although it's unwarranted, you kind of like take the wind out of people's sails at a very critical moment in reality.

We obviously we have two main international bodies which we are all concerned, we've got the WEF and that's more in the economic and the WHO is looking at health but how does because we've seen some discussions in the media in the UK over the last maybe two months, three months calling into question the power of the WHO and these regulations. But how is it made up? Is it government representatives that go and they vote? Because the WHO is funded by individuals and entities and governments. But what individual power is it that Switzerland sent a representative, the UK sent a representative, and they come together and vote and they're accountable to their national governments or people? Or how does the setup work?

I'm so glad you asked that question, Peter. Thank you so much.

There is a lot of confusion and many misconceptions as to what is actually going on, especially with this term sovereignty. And this is the reason why I have been doing a podcast series on my podcast, Noor Bin Ladin Calls, with James Roguski, who is the number one researcher on the WHO. A lot of what I know and what I'm learning about the WHO is thanks to my conversations with James and his Substack, which I have subscribed to and read regularly. And that's the reason I really wanted to do regular phone calls with him for myself, but more importantly for the audience to try and make sense of actually what is going on and the key distinctions, because as I said, they make it complicated on purpose. And people need to understand, I'm going to try and make it as simple as possible. We are dealing with tentacles of the same octopus, and they advance in lockstep, all of like all of these stakeholders to use, you know, the globalist terms, they're all advancing together. And so the key point, if I had to boil it down to one thing, is that this has nothing to do with health.

And this is about all of these stakeholders getting together and figuring out how they are going to continue to poison world populations. And I'm going to borrow a brilliant sentence by James, who I just mentioned. You know, this is about our decreased health and their increased wealth. This is what the WHO, Big Pharma and our governments and all these other organizations and institutions are working towards and we can get into as well the the inception of the WHO why it was set up in the first place and the fact that it's been rotten since the very beginning and designed for this purpose but this is especially true or manifests in a very clear way when you look at the the last few years and the pandemic industry that they've essentially created out of thin air to push these, quote, pandemic related products onto the population, whether it be faulty PCR tests that we know are completely useless for the purpose of diagnostics, these so called, you know, medications, these drugs like Remdesivir, and, of course, the genetic modifying jabs.

Experimental jabs.

What they're trying to do with these two instruments, along with many other initiatives and regulations and activities, is to institutionalize this new pandemic industry and push more of this poison onto the population.

And it's not a question of the WHO stealing the sovereignty of our nations. And this is something, again, I understood with James, because in the documentation, it doesn't say that. It's about coordinating the response to these so-called pandemic emergencies between the different stakeholders, allowing them to make a profit while poisoning us. And our governments are in on this. This is the crux of the matter, is that our governments are driving this. They themselves are drafting and enacting legislation that not only supports these international instruments, but actually are even stricter in their application. And it's not the WHO that's going to say, close down your borders. It's our own countries that are going to close down our borders, make foreign travellers either quarantine, get jabs, and have these procedures done to them upon entry of the country if they want to continue to travel, vaccine passports, etc..

We saw with COVID, we got the preview of what our governments did to us. They didn't need the WHO. WHO makes recommendations, has these regulations, and then our nations can point to the WHO, as you know, the health authority, to justify their tyrannical rule over the populations.

And, I think it's very important for these distinctions to be made because when people go around saying certain things, that aren't right, or precise, it leads to a lot of confusion. And then, you know, you have Tedros who goes on stage or whatever in different conferences and says, oh, there's so much disinformation and misinformation and we have to fight against that. Well, he's not entirely wrong when he says that, because on our side, we're not doing the due diligence of communicating accurately about what's actually going on. And, you know, obviously everybody makes mistakes. I make mistakes. I just really do try my best to do a good job in terms of explaining this. And when I don't know what I refer to people who really know their stuff. And in this case, it's James Roguski. You know, we mentioned that the outset of this conversation, the WHO, it's just one piece. And I'm much more of a macro person looking at how all of these pieces fit together and I also love history so you know I'll look more into the history of things and how we got to this point and the different steps that the globalists took in order to get us to where we are, which is, you know, on the brink of the realization of this agenda, 2030 agenda, new world order agenda. But looking at the different individual pieces, we really need to look to people who are doing the most thorough job. And in this case, it's James Roguski. So you really need to have him back on the show, Peter.

I will, I love talking with James. He was thorough. He was open. It was a great conversation. And I know you and James have done many chats, many interviews. I had one.

Yeah on that on that point I encourage people to go to my Substack the latest article is a 15 minute chat I had like, the last episode of the podcast with James is featured in the latest article on my Substack and we do a kind of like briefing or debrief of what happened during the WHA so to understand what transpired I would encourage people to watch that

Oh, absolutely. Can I ask about the, I want to get into the regulation, but another question about the makeup.

You've got a lot of money comes from countries and private organizations into a lot of these entities. And I think the US is maybe the biggest funder of the WHO with probably, I think, $400 million is what I read. But then the Bill and Melinda Gates also gives a lot. Then you've got other UN bodies like Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, that also give a lot of money. Explain a little bit maybe about what that means because you've got the vax, a quasi, organization representing vaccine organizations and it is pumping money into this and that could be seen as very good that the media could portray that as this is wonderful they're actually contributing to world health but there seems to be a darker side and I always worry about when organisations are involved in funding that have no representation, no say with the public, with the government. It's one thing you can lobby your government. But actually with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, we don't have a seat on the table. We can't write a letter to Bill and complain. They are a power and authority onto themselves. So tell us a little bit about the funding.

Great question. I actually built a website with my friend Nick Chirruti called wehurtothers.com. And you'll see there's a whole section on the page dedicated to the WHO on funding. So all this information is available there, but I'll obviously just answer your question.

WHO gets funding via two key ways. The first one is through the membership fees of the member states, that accounts for about 20% of their funding. And the rest, the 80%, is done through voluntary donations, which can be from the member states themselves if they want to give more than what they're obligated to give. And via any other institution, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, such as the Rockefeller Foundation. I made sure that in that section on wehurtothers.com, I had a special link regarding the relationship between the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation. The WHO wouldn't have been able to exist in its shape without funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and support from the Rockefeller Foundation, who had already been instrumental in setting up the WHO's predecessor health body in the League of Nations. So we can draw a straight line, you know, from the early 20th century to today with the Rockefeller Foundation. And anyway, we can do that with regards to anything that has to do with, quote, health and medicine, because they really captured all of this.

And to your point what I was describing a bit earlier about you know the WHO being this coordinator or facilitator or quote middleman acting you know for the benefit of big pharma and for them to be able to put more and more and more money into their pockets, this is what this funding is about and this is what you know CEPI's role Gavi's role is about it's about putting in place via the WHO, the structure of this business deal in order for them to continue profiting of off of our ill health caused by them in the first place.

Well, this is how the industry works. They give us something which has side effects, and then there's a solution for that, which is another drug. So it is, yeah.

And one thing that is interesting, and I actually pulled it up for you before we did our interview, but you see both Gavi... And CEPI made announcements relating to the pandemic treaty following the World Health Assembly's decision.

And I mean, I'll put this online on my Twitter just after our call. So in the meantime, it'll be available. They urge the delegates the member states the WHO to reach an agreement with regards to this pandemic treaty because obviously they have an interest there in terms of getting all of this deal structured so that they can continue as I just mentioned pushing their poisonous jabs onto the population.

Let me just mention it was wehurtothers.com we'll put the link in the description of wehurtothers.com for delving into the work that Noor and others have done into the background of the WHO. So make sure and use that and delve in deeper.

Yeah, if I just may say one word about this, it's a great tool that we built with Nick because we aimed to do a sort of repository of WHO information from alternative sources, you know, who are trying to draw attention to the ills of the WHO, but also we have a lot of official documentation in there so that you can see for yourself through the WHO speak, obviously, what it is that they're pushing forward through that vehicle. So I really encourage people to go look at that website. And obviously, I also have all the interviews I've done with James listed there and just documentaries, articles. So whatever medium you prefer, it's a great tool for you to educate yourself on the WHO and the con that is WHO on behalf of big pharma.

Absolutely. Let's go into the amendments that were passed at the 11th hour.

Again, you mentioned this has been there, the International Health Regulations 2005. So they've been there, set in legal stone. However, that actually works. But this has now been a big change to that. And of course, off the back of a supposed pandemic, it's a perfect opportunity to revisit something like this. But maybe let us know some of those amendments and why they are concerning.

Yes, the first thing I'll say in terms of procedure is that these were adopted in a fraudulent way, because according to Article 55 of that very document, this final text needs to be made available a minimum of four months before the World Health Assembly. So that would have been end of January. So that was completely thrown out of the window. And in terms of what happens now that they've been adopted, there wasn't a vote or anything like that. It's more of a tacit acceptance.

Member states now have, I think, between 10 and 18 months to reject these amendments. So this is where we need to be acting and telling our, governments and the representatives, you asked me a question earlier about how it works, our government sent a delegate, there's a delegate that is selected by our government. So the Biden regime has, you know, their who delegate that comes here to Geneva for these meetings etc representing the government the Biden regime I can't call it a government obviously, there are 10 to 18 months now to reject for our you know countries our governments to reject them so we need as you know a people in each of our respective countries to be like banging on about this and asking for our governments to reject this, obviously. But I'm not sure how successful we will be considering that all of our governments are captured, but this is very important and that's why a lot is riding as well on what happens this year in 2024 with so many elections going on in the world, but most importantly in the US.

It's true. And with all the meaning, you've got European parliamentary elections happening more or less now. And I'm intrigued at the change that could bring with so many populist parties on the right raising concerns. Sadly, in the UK, we've also got an election and we're going to get a Labour government. So it's going to be the love of the WHO is going to just be increased massively with a hard left government. But of course, then the election in November could change how funding works for the WHO. But I kind of think even if President Trump is able to regain that position in the White House, probably other entities, I mean, if that's 400 million, that drops off. I can imagine other entities will step up because this project is too important to fail.

Yeah. Before we go into the amendments, as you just asked, to that very point, I wanted to bring up this special character. His name is Lawrence Gostin, and he is currently the director of the WHO's Center on Global Health Law.

He's been working in the health, public health sector for decades. He even worked with Hillary in the 90s. He was working on health policy since the 70s, but in the 90s, he was working with Hillary when she was the first lady.

He authored the US's Model State Emergency Health Powers Act in 2001. And we know how much legislation came out of that that was detrimental to the people. He authored a book entitled global health security, a blueprint for the future, I posted this on Twitter you just go and read the book's description and you understand exactly what we're talking about in terms of them building out this architecture for global health and how this is going to impact us as people using national institutions like our health services etc, national governments and also international institutions working hand in hand to push this, right? So this is what the book is about. And he put out an interesting tweet.

Saying, Dr. Tedros tells the WHA he's confident the pandemic agreement will be finalized. WHA is likely to extend the mandate for negotiations for five to 24 months. So this was during the week before the official announcement came out. U.S. diplomats wait to find consensus, but think it'll take one to two years. If Biden loses the White House, the US will surely pull out. So he was saying that during the week. So they're aware that it depends on what happens in the US, right? And it's obvious that they're expecting that the US would pull out should President Trump regain, and rightfully so, his place in the White House, because he started the process of exiting, of having the U.S. exit the WHO. Unfortunately, the timeframe wasn't long enough because once you trigger that, you need one year before it comes into effect. And one of the very first executive orders that Biden signed after that sham of an inauguration ceremony was to get the US back into the WHO.

Okay, so take us through some of the amendments that have been made and why they should be of concern to us.

I really encourage people to read the amendments themselves to echo what James says. I know it's really convoluted. So I also encourage people to go to James's Substack because he highlights the key bits. And I'm actually going to read from one of the articles that he made with regards to that, selecting a few of the key amendments that we need to be looking at. And the first one people need to read in full actually is Article 1, because Article 1 is all about definitions. So from the outset of the regulations, they just changed a few of the definitions and added some of them or amended some of them. And so the first one I'd like to read, which is relevant to everything we've been discussing in terms of them wanting to poison us with these products, is the definition of, quote, relevant health products. So, relevant health products means those health products needed to respond to public health emergencies of international concern, including pandemic emergencies, which may include medicines, vaccines, diagnostics, medical devices, vector control products, personal protective equipment.

Decontamination products, assistive products, antidotes, cell and gene-based therapies and other health technologies. So those were added.

And if you paid attention, they used the term pandemic emergency and that definition. So now I want to read the definition for pandemic emergency.

Pandemic emergency means a public health emergency of international concern that is caused by a communicable disease. And one, has or is at high risk of having wide geographical spread to and within multiple states.

[34:42] Two, and is exceeding or is at high risk of exceeding the capacity of health systems to respond in those states. Three, and is causing or is at high risk of causing substantial social and or economic disruption, including disruption of international traffic and trade. Four, and requires rapid equitable and enhanced coordinated international action with whole of government and whole of society approaches. And so the point that needs to be made with this definition it's that it's so vague and so wide-ranging and the person, according to these regulations that gets to determine what is quote a pandemic emergency is the director general of the WHO Dr Tedros Gabriel and so he can wake up tomorrow and say oh this is this pathogen or this you know virus qualifies as a pandemic emergency and then that would trigger certain things and allow states to implement some of some of the regulations that are in this in this document and one of the key new things in the document pertains to the creation of what they have termed a national IHR authority. So each member state within their health system is going to create a national IHR authority and also an IHR focal point that will be tasked with coordinating with the WHO. And I think if I had to choose one term to to make it clear for people is coordination, switch it for sovereignty and the who is going to steal your sovereignty which is not accurate and change it for coordination this is about coordination the who coordinating with our own governments and our own governments being you know the the tyrannical organisms that will be effectively enacting laws on a national level in and as an expression of their national sovereignty, you see this is where this is perverse and James explains this very well, if the United States of America, if the the federal government decides, hey you. You're a Swiss national, if you want to come and visit in the US you need to be jabbed, you need to have digital id with your vax status etc, you need to quarantine upon your arrival regardless of whether you come via air, boat, seas or land, this is a decision by the US government and it's a decision that they already made Peter, during this scamdemic, the first round COVID, I was not allowed to go to the US as a unvaxxed non US citizen.

And we got a preview during that round of what it is our countries, our governments can do as an expression of their national sovereignty with the full backing and complicity of the WHO and these regulations.

So this moves from previously, the WHO gave recommendations and governments fell into line, every single government but in theory I guess a government could have said, this is nonsense, we're going to reject that, but this seems to be legally making that enforceable that states must now comply.

That's a great point you make, because a lot of the confusion is also due to the fact that we had quite different drafts a year ago. And in the initial drafts, it did appear that there was an issue of sovereignty and the WHO having these types of powers over states. It was the reading of those documents with the legally binding, they had the term legally binding in there and other provisions. And I was also following the release of these documents, I was also mentioning the fact that this was a power grab by the WHO. But in the meantime, throughout this year, we've had new information with leaked documents. And now we have this final official document that was released a few days ago.

That is the final version that was adopted, as we mentioned, at the 11th hour. And it's not as, I want to say stringent as the previous versions, there is language you know, the member states shall, the state party that's how it's referred to in the document, the state party shall, you know, may compel the traveller to undergo, so they do kind of like a, it's kind of like a gymnastics exercise where they they manage to circumvent certain things, but the end goal is the same for all of them and so they're playing with the law, they're very good at playing with the law but the result inevitably is the same, loss of freedom for us, the people at it, the loss of sovereignty at the individual level.

Using or abusing power at the state, at the national level, and the international level.

And of course, I mean, James' article is exceptional. We'll put a link in going through those. But it does seem that the ritual of absolute power to quarantine anyone, to demand that happens. But then it's also about international travel. It's not just about the States. They then will make recommendations which are, in effect, demands that actually international travel is subject to whatever. I think one of the that talks about vaccinations but i think in in part of it it says any in article 31 it says additional established health measures that prevent the control, so any extra health measure, it's not, it doesn't say you know, you need to get a jab or wear a mask, it's like anything that may be needed that is dangerous.

Yeah and what is key here, Peter, is that they agree on all this stuff when it comes to the measures and what our own, countries are going to compel people to do. This is not the point of contention. And I understood this very well with James. This is about the business deal.

The negotiations is about figuring out who is going to get a piece of the pie. They've agreed on all the measures and how they're going to deal with us plebs once the next pandemic comes around, which there is a consensus. It's not about if, it's about when the next pandemic comes around. So the point of contention, why these negotiations are taking so long, be it with the IHR or with the pandemic treaty, is about how they're going to structure their deal and how they're going to distribute the spoils. And that's why I wanted to come to Article 44 because this is what it's about, Article 44 and Article 44BIS.

Not BS.

No, it should be BS. It definitely should be BS, but let me read. I'm not going to read the full thing. It's a little bit long, but no, but I should. It's really important. If you bear with me like two minutes, I'll read the full thing. So Article 44.2bis states parties subject to applicable law and available resources shall maintain or increase domestic funding as necessary and collaborate, including through international cooperation and assistance as appropriate to strengthen sustainable financing to support the implementation of these regulations.

Tutor, pursuant to subparagraph C of paragraph 1, state parties shall undertake to collaborate to the extent possible to a. Encourage governance and operating models of existing financing entities and funding mechanisms to be regionally representative and responsive to the needs and national priorities of developing countries in the implementation of these regulations, b. Identify and enable access to financial resources, including through the coordinating financial mechanism established pursuant to Article 44b is, necessary to equitably address the needs and priorities of developing countries, including for developing, strengthening, and maintaining core capacities.

[Which brings me to Article 44bis. 1. A coordinating financial mechanism. The mechanism is hereby established to a. Promote the provision of timely, predictable, and sustainable financing for the implementation of these regulations in order to develop, strengthen, and maintain core capacities as set out in Annex I of these regulations, including those relevant for pandemic emergencies. B. Seek to maximize the availability of financing for the implementation needs and priorities of state parties, in particular of developing countries.

And C. Work to mobilize new and additional financial resources and increase the efficient utilization of existing financing instruments relevant to the effective implementation of these regulations.

This is an important part I'm almost done. 2. In support of the objective set out in paragraph 1 of this article, the mechanism shall enter alia a. User conduct relevant needs and funding gap analysis. B. Promote harmonization, coherence, and coordination of existing financing instruments. C. Identify all sources of financing that are available for implementation support and make this information available to state parties. D. Provide advice and support upon request to state parties in identifying and applying for financial resources for strengthening core capacities, including those relevant for pandemic emergencies. C. Leverage voluntary monetary contributions for organizations and other entities supporting state parties to develop, strengthen, and maintain their core capacities, including those relevant for pandemic emergencies. 3. The mechanism shall function in relation to the implementation of these regulations under the authority and guidance of the health assembly and be accountable to it.

And so I'm not going to read Annex 1, but as it refers to Annex 1, and it's all about creating the structure and the core capabilities for surveillance, on-site investigation.

Laboratory diagnostics, implementation of control measures, etc., determining the risk of communication in terms of the disease. But what it means is that they are essentially setting up the infrastructure so that the poorer nations can also be able to say, hey, the pathogen you've identified, well, that we've identified in our mechanism, like in our, how would you say, with the core capabilities set up that we've put in our countries, the pathogen comes from us. So we want to be able to get a percentage of all the profit that you make off of the products, the health-related products that you create for the so-called pandemic. And this is what happened, you know, with Omicron in Africa, right, where they gave away, you know, Omicron, the genetic resources, the genetic resource, pardon me, of Omicron, and then Big Pharma created all these products off of the back of it, you know, the boosters and stuff. And so they made an agreement where rich countries would give funding so that the poorer nations could set all of this up and have the right to claim the spoils basically of the products that will be created off of the back of these pathogens. And this is the point of contention, by the way, with the pandemic treaty was how they were going to agree on the PABS system, the pathogen access and benefit sharing system, because they need, you know, these quote, pathogen or genetic resources or sequences to base their

poison on and then it's about distribution and it's you know these nations they're not saying what they should be saying, is that we don't want these poisonous products, we don't want to be forced to take these poisonous products which is what our nations should be saying, they're saying, hey we want a piece of that poisonous pie, as James refers to it, we also want to to get money from these criminals that are in charge of our different countries, they also want to get money in their pockets so this is what this whole process has been about. It's about profiteering off of our continued ill health.

Yeah profiteering and control absolutely. Noor it's always difficult to squeeze a huge topic like this into an hour but maybeI will put the links up and people do need to read James's Substack and they can go through the articles and everything is there.

Yeah I'm sorry reading article 44 and article 44bis, it's so dry this language and it's,

James said it on our podcast the other day, he gave out very good medical advice. He said, if you want to fall asleep at night, if you, suffer from insomnia, just read these documents. And it was so true, ahead of recording that very podcast episode with James, you know, we did it 24 hours after all of these announcements were made. And so that following day, I was reading the amendments and it wasn't in the evening, it was in the afternoon and it still managed to make me really drowsy. So listen, bless James for spending so many hours reading every single word in these documents. But, yeah, it's done on purpose, you know, to really not make people want to read these documents and therefore be properly informed. But I'll echo James, you know, read the damn documents if you want to know what it is they're up to. And for sure, listen to other people that are talking about this subject by all means. But if you really want to grasp what's going on, just go and do the research as well and do the reading yourself. Thankfully, you have a few people that you can look up to who can give you pointers. This is what James does. He gives you pointers and he says, hey, look at this, look at this, look at this, look at this.

But the time to just consume news from whatever source and just take it at face value, we know that doesn't really work. So don't even listen to me. Just go and read the documents.

I agree. And just for the last few minutes, can I just ask you about people responding?

We talked about 10 to 18 months about being extended, the negotiating period being extended. That's part of the pandemic treaty. But, I mean, how can people be involved? They can obviously raise awareness online, on social media. Is it a case of writing to governments? I mean, what can people do when they're armed with the information? What's kind of their next step?

Listen, you need to be focusing at the local level and regional level. So, for example, in Switzerland, they are preparing a law on epidemics. That's the name of the law. It's currently being redrafted it's to be presented in 2026, I'm involved with local, associations and organizations that are trying to raise awareness in the wider population, we have, we are very fortunate here because we can vote directly on on laws you know through our referendum process we also have the ability to put forward quote initiatives, so for example on the 9th of June, I'm going to go vote. There's an initiative to protect bodily autonomy in terms of vaccine mandates and to have that added specifically in the constitution. We do have an article in the constitution that protects the integrity of a human being, but we want to make it specific so that there's no way to go around it when they introduce the law on epidemics. And in the US, I mean.

You have so many laws that should be repealed because they're completely unconstitutional. Laws, as I mentioned, some of them that derive from this act that Lawrence Gostin authored, the U.S. Model State Emergency Health Powers Act in 2001. This was, when the anthrax thing was going on. He had actually started working on it two years prior in 1999 kind of like the patriot acts you know they had started working on it also in the 90s so they were preparing a few things ahead of different crises, let's put it that way and so that US model state emergency health powers act from that I don't know how much legislation, how many laws were derived that you really need to be looking in your own country what's going on, your health and, what's HHS in the US, oh you're in England sorry, but for the American audience stuff coming out of HHS, how they coordinate with the CDC and all of these corrupt sick and evil institutions.

Listen, just take big pharma down, all of it, and all of these associated institutions. It's been going on for at least 100 years longer. But, for the sake of focus, we can just talk about the 20th century and how basically everything was set up to push poison and to suppress actual remedies.

Not manufactured by big pharma. So this is the root of the problem of what's going on. It's really looking at the entire structure within which the WHO sits.

Well, Noor, I really do appreciate you coming on and giving us that, not only background information, but the call to action. I know people want to delve deeper into your Substack and also James both of the links are in the description so thank you so much for coming on unpacking what you're seeing there and what's going to impact every country in the world, so thank you.

I hope I was able to bring a little bit of of clarity because as I mentioned at the outset of the conversation, it is very convoluted it does take time, people don't have time, people are busy fighting other battles, figuring out how to survive.

And I just hope that, my work, certainly James's work that I know for sure because it does help me, but I hope that what I'm doing can help orient a little bit and provide a little bit of clarity with all this confusion. So thank you everyone for listening up to now and even sticking till the end, despite the reading of Article 44 and 44 BIS, which was so boring, but important.

It is. And, Noor, I've certainly learned a huge lot just listening to you. So I know our audience will feel exactly the same. So, Noor, thanks so much for today.

Thank you.