The Expose | Rhoda Wilson
The proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHRs”) and the Pandemic Treaty both incorporate the “One Health” approach.
One Health has little definition or structure and is sold using vague strings of words and phrases that are meaningless and often confusing. This is deliberate and in the same vein as tactics used by governments during the covid era to keep populations confused and so more likely to blindly follow instructions.
Behind the verbiage, One Health is a tool to create networks and combine efforts towards centralising power and control. Once central power has been achieved then similar measures that were imposed in response to the covid “pandemic” can be used for climate change, loss of biodiversity, human diseases, vector-borne diseases and more.
Where will the power and control be centralised? The World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”)
Director Dictator General Tedros the Terrorist and, ultimately, those who fund WHO.
That One Health is incorporated into WHO’s global dictatorship plans has almost slipped under the radar, but some researchers such as Dr. Meryl Nass have noticed, investigated and are trying to inform others.
One of the biggest changes WHO has seen in its 75-year history is a shift from funding from sovereign nations to funding from private parties. As of now, the bulk of the WHO’s funding comes from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and two closely aligned vaccine-based non-profits funded by vaccine and pharma companies, the vaccine alliance GAVI and the global Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations or CEPI.
There’s no hiding the incestuous interconnection between various governments and organisations including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum (“WEF”). It’s no coincidence that the Gates Foundation is the second largest funder of WHO, which is also helping to fund WEF.
WHO’s “Pandemic Treaty” will not only be concerned with pandemics. It introduces globally the “One Health” ideology. The concept recognises the interdependence of human and animal health and the connection with the environment. Through this One Health agenda, WHO will have the power to make decisions in matters relating to the environment (including greenhouse gas emissions, pollution and deforestation), animal health (e.g., livestock) and human health (including vaccinations, social determinants and population movement). With these extended powers, WHO could readily declare a climate or environmental emergency and enforce lockdowns.
Read more: The plan for WHO supremacy over human health, Alliance for Natural Health International, 11 May 2023
Not only is One Health included in the Pandemic Treaty, but it is also in the proposed amendments to the IHRs which are being negotiated at the 76th World Health Assembly this week.
On Monday, the host of the Dutch podcast Voorwaarheid (English ‘Video Truth’) Willem Engel interviewed Dr. Meryl Nass about One Health and how it has spread and is being used for a hidden agenda. Dr. Nass has published several articles about One Health on her Substack page HERE.
One Health was a concept some doctors and veterinarians came up with about 20 years ago. International organisations and self-appointed elites hijacked the idea to use it as a means of gaining power and control over most of the world, Dr. Meryl Nass told Engel. As a result, the “basket of items” that could be included in the One Health concept has continued to expand.
“UN agencies became involved with it. Other international agencies like the World Organisation for Animal Health became involved. And the Rockefeller Foundation started funding it in 2009. And so, by 2009 it had already been captured and CDC rolled out a One Health programme. By 2012, the idea of One Health was rolled out at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
“It became a lot of words that, simply saying, different groups needed to work together for their shared objectives. But the objectives were not defined. The methods by which they were to work together were not defined. And the projects they were to work on weren’t defined either.”
There have been at least 60 different definitions of “One Health.” Dr. Nass read out a few. You can read these on the first two pages of the slides that accompany her interview HERE.
According to the most recent and authoritative definition, One Health includes not only people and animals, as was the original concept 20 years ago, but it now also includes plants, waterways and ecosystems. The One Health Commission claims that One Health is a “ray of hope for addressing our global challenges” and lists 14 “global challenges” including food, water safety, security, soil health and “comparative biology.”
The four lead agencies underlying One Health are WHO and three UN agencies – Food and Agriculture Organisation (“FAO”), United Nations Environment Programme (“UNEP”) and World Organisation for Animal Health (“OIE”).
The One Health approach is built into the proposed amendments to the IHRs that are currently on the table. Some of the amendments are likely to be voted on at the World Health Assembly this week and the remainder in May 2024.
“The One Health approach … will fall under the purview of the WHO Director-General whenever he or she decides to declare a public health emergency of international concern.
“It probably won’t be implemented until 10 months after next May [22 months from now] when the new International Health Regulations would be able to go into effect. But some of it may be, if it’s passed this year, it will only take 18 months [from now] to go into effect and our nations will only have 10 months to pull out if they want to.
“We have to do what we can to stop it [before it goes into effect next year]. Which we can do by pulling out of the WHO.”