Countries that treasure individual
freedom and respect bodily autonomy have only one choice: Exit the World
Health Organization. It is now beyond clear that the WHO intends to
eliminate both of those, and then some, through an international program
called One Health, formally adopted by the WHO and the G20 health ministers in 2017.1
The term “One Health” was first coined by EcoHealth Alliance,2
the group that subcontracted risky gain-of-function research to the
Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), the lab from which SARS-CoV-2
emerged.
In hindsight, it’s easy to see that the globalists’ plan to
concentrate power has been in the works for decades, and the playbook is
always the same: “Give us more power so we can protect you and keep you
safe.” Alas, every time we give them more power, we find ourselves both
less safe and less free.
What Is One Health?
In the video above, Dr. Meryl Nass explains the implications of One
Health. In short, our entire way of life, our freedom, our quality of
life — indeed, our very humanity, are now at stake.
One Health is basically the culmination of a grand global plan that
places human health, animal health, environmental concerns, food,
travel, housing and everything else under a single umbrella, and the WHO
is being set up as the central decision-maker and overseer of it all.
As explained by Nass, the One Health concept was initially based on
the concept that veterinarians and doctors stood a better chance of
combating zoonotic diseases — infections that jump species from animal
to human — by working together. While that’s a reasonable idea, the
concept was hijacked by globalists who saw that it could be used to gain
power and control over the whole world.
The One Health agenda is based on
the premise that a broad range of aspects of life and the environment
can impact health and therefore fall under the “potential” to cause
harm.
The graphic above illustrates some of the areas that fall within the
scope of One Health. But that’s not all. According to a One Health
Commission document, One Health also includes:3
Communications |
Economics |
Civil society |
Global trade, commerce and security |
Public policy and regulation |
Research |
Noncommunicable diseases (basically human medicine as a whole) |
Mental health |
Agricultural land use (which involves forcing farmers off their land) |
Disaster preparedness and response |
Disease surveillance |
The “human-animal bond” (the relationship with our pets) and much more |
The WHO Will Have Power to Dictate Every Facet of Our Lives
If the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty
is enacted, the WHO will have unilateral power to make decisions about
all of these areas, and its dictates will supersede and overrule any and
all local, state and federal laws.
For example, under One Health, the WHO will be able to declare
climate change as a health emergency and implement climate lockdowns to
address it. It will be able to restrict local and international travel
under the guise of environmental and/or human health, implement a
vaccine passport requirement as a biosecurity measure, radically alter
diets around the world in the name of animal welfare and environmental
protection, and much more.
As noted by Nass, “they’re basically trying to lasso everything in
the world under One Health.” Meanwhile, One Health “lacks a conceptual
system, real world evidence and a method for being implemented and
evaluated,” she notes.
The One Health joint plan of action itself is pure word salad. It
tells us nothing, really, other than it’s about forming a global
coalition to “drive change” and transform life at the “global, regional
and country level” under the guise of “health.”
The One Health Network Has Already Been Built
Behind the scenes, One Health partnerships have already been formed
in countries around the world. According to Nass, the One Health network
was built and expanded in the U.S. primarily by cutting public health
funding. One Health then stepped in with funding but, of course,
recipients of One Health grants had to embrace the concept and push it
out to others.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science
Foundation (NSF), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), nongovernmental organizations and
universities are all disbursing funds to expand the One Health network
in the U.S. “Advancement of a One Health approach” is even included in
the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).4
The One Health concept is also creeping into the school system, where
students are being taught the importance of “responsible citizenship,”
“cultural sensitivity” and “global mindedness.” The same tactics are
used to build this network in other countries as well.
One Health Is Baked Into IHR Amendments
Importantly, as explained by Nass,5
One Health is also baked into the proposed amendments to the 2005
International Health Regulations (IHR), which the World Health Assembly
(WHA) is scheduled to vote on in May 2024. This is how the WHO will gain
the authority to dictate how we live our lives.
“So, people need to be aware that this is coming,
it’s a runaway train and we have to do what we can to stop it — which we
can do by pulling out of the WHO,” Nass says.
As noted by Nass, in the U.S., a small group of national legislators are introducing House6,7 and Senate bills8,9,10 to require Senate supermajority approval of the WHO treaty before it’s signed.
In the U.K., conservative MPs are also warning ministers of an
“ambition evident … for the WHO to transition from an advisory
organization to a controlling international authority,” and are urging
the Foreign Office to block efforts to “intrude materially into the
U.K.’s ability to make its own rules and control its own budgets.”11
Andrew Mitchell, the minister of the Foreign Officer, has vowed to
“block any law that prevents the U.K. from setting its own health
policy,” but he also stressed that the U.K. is “supportive of the
pandemic treaty currently being negotiated by national governments,”12 and that treaty, as it’s currently written, completely eliminates member states sovereignty.
People in other countries also need to educate their legislators
about the dangers of One Health, the IHR amendments and the pandemic
treaty under consideration, and call on them to protect their nations
against this stealth takeover.
So, to summarize, One Health is a global project to centralize power
with the WHO so that it will have the authority to control every aspect
of human life, across the world, without regard for national sovereignty
or human rights. Any number of countermeasures, including those used
during the COVID pandemic, can then be deployed to combat things like
climate change, loss of biodiversity, noncommunicable diseases,
pollution, hunger, poverty and so on.
Overblown Warnings of Doom and Other Tactics
In a May 25, 2023, Substack article, Nass highlights the three
elements used repeatedly to push what is ultimately a global takeover
agenda:13
- An overblown warning about impending doom
- A totally inaccurate description of the cause
- A vague solution that benefits the globalists at the expense of the population at large
These were used during the COVID pandemic. They’re also being used to
push the false idea that antibiotic resistance is caused by global
warming, and therefore requires a more comprehensive approach — a One
Health approach.
Nass cites a February 2023 report by the UN Environmental Program
(UNEP) titled “Bracing for Superbugs: Strengthening Environmental Action
in the One Health Response to Antimicrobial Resistance.”14
UNEP is one of the four international agencies that are pushing the
One Health agenda globally and, according to this report, the fact that
nations are already addressing antibiotic resistance is not enough.
Instead, nations must all work together using a singular, coordinated
approach that includes “environmental-related plans such as national
chemical pollution and waste management programs, national biodiversity
and climate change planning.”
Countries must also come up with “innovative financial incentives and
schemes” to pay for the proposed action plan and “guarantee sustainable
funding.” UNEP also calls for “science-policy interfaces,” the
prioritization of interventions and the strengthening of surveillance
systems. They also stress that all strategies employed must “utilize the
One Health approach while addressing financial/business, climate and
cultural contexts.”
Does anyone else see how problematic that can become? To raise just
one example, overuse of antibiotics in food production is at the root of
the problem, yet any strategy to address it must take stakeholders’
financial and business concerns into account. At the end of the day, it
becomes all about protecting and promoting the interests of certain
“stakeholders,” which are primarily NGOs and private businesses. As
noted by Nass:15
“Antimicrobial resistance is so simple. Bacteria
develop mutations that allow them to evade antibiotics, and their new
genes are often contained in small plasmids that can be excreted by the
cell and shared with other bacteria ...
Until this present moment, the FDA, CDC and the WHO
all knew that antimicrobial resistance was due primarily to the use of
antibiotics in livestock feed, because it increased the rate of growth;
75% of antibiotics by weight are used for this purpose, globally.
And people consume these antibiotics when they eat
the meat, or the farmed fish, or the chickens. But now we must believe
that antibiotic resistance is an environmental problem, which can only
be solved by using the ... One Health approach.”
‘Climate-Aggravated Outbreak Threats’ Being Pushed
If climate lockdowns and the like sound unbelievable, start paying
attention to what you read in the news. For example, PR Newswire16
recently announced a partnership between the WHO and the Rockefeller
Foundation aimed at “genomic surveillance, adoption of data tools for
pathogen detection and assessment of climate-aggravated outbreak
threats.”
More and more, we’re seeing “pandemic threats” being tied to things
like climate change, so that the first can be used to justify drastic
action on the second. As reported by PR Newswire:17
“The Rockefeller Foundation and the World Health
Organization (WHO) have announced a new partnership to strengthen the
WHO Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence.
As part of the collaboration, the Foundation is
investing US $5M in partners working with WHO to cultivate global
networks for pathogen detection and strengthen pandemic preparedness
capabilities, including broadening surveillance for diseases worsened by
rising temperatures and extreme weather.”
October 2022 Pandemic Simulation
There’s also no doubt that we’ll be faced with additional pandemics,
because the pandemic threat is what drives the push for global
centralization of power. The globalists who practiced what was to become
the global COVID response have also told us there will be more
pandemics, and at this point, it would be foolish not to believe them.
So, what might the next pandemic be, and when might it strike?
October 23, 2022, the WHO, Johns Hopkins University and The Bill
& Melinda Gates Foundation cohosted a tabletop exercise dubbed “Catastrophic Contagion,”
involving a novel (and supposedly fictional) infection called “severe
epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025” (SEERS-25), which
primarily affects children and teens.
These are the same groups that ran Event 201, which turned out to be a
pandemic simulation for COVID. According to the Catastrophic Contagion
simulation, SEERS-25 — an enterovirus like the polio virus — will
originate in Brazil in 2025.
Fictional news reports featured in the simulation reported 1 billion
cases worldwide and some 20 million deaths, including 15 million
children, plus millions more left permanently paralyzed from the
infection. Based on this exercise, we can assume (unless additional
pandemic exercises are carried out) that the next pandemic will target
children and young people.
This would be a logical progression, from a totalitarian perspective,
considering people are typically willing to do just about anything to
keep their children safe.
COVID showed them that most people were willing to sacrifice even
their most basic freedoms “to save grandma.” So, what won’t they
willingly give up if it comes down to “saving children”? The globalists
intend to take our human rights and civil liberties away from us, and to
be successful in that endeavor, they will need all the help and
cooperation they can get.
Dr. Abdullah Assiri, co-chair of the WHO’s Working Group on
Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) recently
stated18
that the world “requires a different level of legal mandates” to
address future pandemics, and that “actions that may restrict individual
liberties” is a priority.
Who Is Making Decisions on Our Behalf?
Clearly, the idea that unelected and unaccountable globalists are
trying to strip away individual freedoms and implement a totalitarian
system of global top-down control is not a loony “conspiracy theory.”
It’s a plain fact, and we, the public, have NO say in this.
In the video above, author, researcher, activist and natural health advocate James Roguski19
explains the World Health Assembly’s (WHA) role in the WHO’s takeover.
Part of what makes it so difficult to stop this power grab is because
the WHA is the body that will vote on the IHR amendments and the
pandemic treaty, but the public is not allowed to know who, from their
country, is part of the WHA.
Roguski tried filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to
get a list of the U.S. delegates and was told there’s no such list. So,
we can’t know who the WHA delegates are until they’ve signed in at the
meeting and cast their vote on our behalf.
Needless to say, this means we cannot contact them beforehand to tell
them how we think they should vote on a given issue. That said, Roguski
was able to determine that Xavier Becerra, U.S. secretary of Health and
Human Services, is the U.S. lead delegate.
Past the Point of No Return, All Freedom Will Be Lost
It’s now beyond imperative that people understand where we’re headed,
and that the COVID measures weren’t just responses to a given pandemic,
but rather were the foundation for a totalitarian one world government,
where human rights and freedoms will no longer exist.
This is likely the biggest challenge mankind has ever faced as a
collective, and it requires strong collective resistance. In order for
that resistance to occur, however, people must understand what’s going
on and how all of these various programs, treaties, partnerships and
agendas work together. They’re all part of the same scheme, which is to
implement a One World totalitarian technocratic government under which
humans have no intrinsic value.
Call on Congress to Withdraw US From the WHO
While the U.S. House and Senate have introduced identical bills to
thwart the WHO’s power grab through the proposed pandemic treaty, that
still might not protect us if President Biden signs it, because the
treaty is specifically written to circumvent the Senate-approval
process.20
A far more effective strategy would be for Congress to withhold its
annual contributions to the WHO, and then withdraw the U.S. from the WHO
altogether. I believe it may be worth supporting all these strategies.
So, please, contact your representatives and urge them to:
- Support the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act
- Withhold funding for the WHO
- Support U.S. withdrawal from the WHO
We also need to protect our nation against the IHR amendments. To
that end, the World Council for Health has launched a global #StopTheWHO
campaign. Here’s how you can get involved:21
Speak — Raise awareness on the ground and online. Use articles, posters, videos |
Act — Campaign through rallies, political mobilization, legal notices and cases and similar campaigns |
Collaborate with health freedom coalitions such as the World Council for Health |
Explore activist toolboxes such as: World Council for Health Stop the Who Campaign and stopthewho.com |
Engage global indigenous leadership to take a united stand against the WHO’s IHR |
Notify World Health Assembly country delegates to oppose the IHR amendments (if you can identify them) |
Activate people’s parliaments, legislatures or referendums to oppose power grabs |