- The World Health Organization’s pandemic treaty, the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs) and the global One Health agenda are all part of a soft coup, a global power grab
- The globalists’ plan for our future can be summarized as “global dominion by the few and total control of the masses”
- The technocratic cabal has control over most if not all Western governments, as well as the bureaucratic structure of the WHO; 85% of its funding comes from private entities, so it’s owned by private interests
- Based on the current treaty draft and proposed IHR amendments, it’s clear that mRNA-based vaccinations will be mandatory under the WHO’s power structure, and these vaccines will be made in 100 days by skipping human trials and shaving safety and efficacy testing down to the bare bones
- Under the treaty, as currently written, nations will be required to surveil and censor social media. The WHO’s narrative will be the only one allowed
In this September 1, 2023, Highwire interview,1 Dr. Meryl Nass, a biowarfare and epidemics expert, exposes the threat posed by the World Health Organization’s pandemic treaty and the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs), which add to and further strengthen the WHO’s powers under the treaty. The WHO’s One Health agenda is also part of this power grab.
Nass also recently published an article, “The WHO’s Proposed Treaty Will Increase Manmade Pandemics,”2,3 in which she reviews the history of biological warfare and the role of gain-of-function research, where we are right now, and what the globalists’ plan for our future is. It’s imperative everyone understand what the plan is, because we can only stop it by rejecting it en masse.
Nass Persecuted by Lawless State Medical Board
But first, Nass provides an update on her personal situation. In January 2022, the Maine medical board suspended Nass’ medical license for spreading “COVID misinformation” and prescribing ivermectin. They also ordered her to undergo a psychological evaluation by a board-selected psychologist.4 Nass refused.
As she points out in the interview, “misinformation” refers to information that may be mistaken or inaccurate, but being wrong is not a crime — no matter how badly government wants you to think it is.
We have the First Amendment — freedom of speech — for a reason. Government does not have the legal right to suppress our speech, and the medical board is a state government agency. So, by censoring doctors like Nass and punishing them for speaking their minds and sharing medical and scientific data, they are actually the ones breaking the law.
Nass didn’t, because there’s no law against sharing information, even if it is suspected of being incorrect, or can be proven to be wrong. And, in this case, the board is actually punishing her for sharing truths.
So, in mid-August 2023, Nass sued the Maine medical board, and every board member in their personal capacity, for violating her free speech rights.5
“Telling me that I can’t talk about the vaccine or I can’t talk about the treatment of COVID or masks or distancing, even when the things that I was saying were based on published medical literature, that is a First Amendment violation,” Nass said in a statement.
“The state government and the federal government are not allowed to restrict the speech of people. So we are looking for a jury trial to see whether the Board of Licensure in Medicine is guilty of a malicious, political prosecution and targeting of me.”
The Plan in Broad Strokes
So, what is the globalists plan for our future? Summarized into as few words as possible: global dominion by the few and total control of the masses.
As explained by Nass, the COVID pandemic showed us that the technocratic cabal has control over most if not all Western governments. World Economic Forum (WEF) founder Klaus Schwab has even bragged about how his Young Global Leaders have “penetrated” governments of the world.6
The technocratic cabal also has control over the bureaucratic structure of the WHO. Eighty-five percent of the WHO’s funding comes from private entities, most of which is earmarked for specific programs. “So, the WHO is already owned by private interests,” Nass says.
According to the WHO, the reason the COVID pandemic got so bad is because nations failed to cooperate. Hence, the reasoning goes, we need an international treaty that centralizes pandemic response powers to the WHO. The problem, of course, is that most nations did follow the WHO’s irrational and unscientific recommendations. Its ineptitude — whether intentional or not — is what destroyed economies and resulted in needless deaths.
Based on the current treaty draft and proposed IHR amendments, it’s clear that mRNA-based vaccinations will be mandatory under the WHO’s power structure, and these vaccines will be made in 100 days rather than 10 years by skipping human trials and shaving safety and efficacy testing down to the bare bones.
The WHO will also decide which medications can be used in medical emergencies, and which you cannot have. In other words, the WHO director-general will decide the health care for every person in every member state, and your local doctor will be required to follow his edicts. You’ll have no medical freedom or bodily autonomy anymore.
Nations will also be forced to implement massive nationwide biosurveillance programs to identify potential pathogens with pandemic potential. This will include swabbing and testing humans, domesticated animals, farm animals, wildlife, farms, factories, wastewater and more, and the chances of finding a pathogen with pandemic potential if searching for it in every nook and cranny of the world are 100%.
The WHO director-general will then have the sole authority to declare a pandemic, or even potential pandemic, at which point all decision-making powers fall under the WHO. However, there are no standards that must be met before a public health emergency can be declared.
The way these documents are written, the director-general can even act on what amounts to hearsay. He doesn’t have to have proof that a pandemic is imminent or in progress. He can act on suspicion. Even more disturbing, the treaty will be in force all the time, so the director-general doesn’t even need to declare an emergency. He will have the authority to dictate public health even when there’s no pandemic. That’s how far-reaching this treaty is.
Nations will also be required to surveil and censor social media. The WHO’s narrative will be the only one allowed. YouTube has already implemented this policy, even though the treaty is not even in place yet.
Download this Article Before it Disappears
The History of Biological Warfare and How We Got Here
Nass also reviews the history of biological weapons and why we’re in a situation now where most of the pandemics that have occurred are basically the result of biological weapons development.
In 1969, President Nixon announced the U.S. would end its offensive biowarfare program. This was a strategic rather than altruistic move, because the U.S. was far ahead of other nations when it came to chemical and nuclear weapons. By banning biological weapons, which are relatively simple and inexpensive to create, the U.S. would gain a strategic advantage on the global stage.
Nixon initiated the first global treaty to prevent the creation and use of biological weapons in 1972. The Biological Weapons Convention took effect three years later, in 1975. However, in 1973, genetic engineering was discovered, which suddenly allowed the U.S. to gain a technological advantage that would allow us to make better and more precise biological weapons.
The problem with the Biological Weapons Convention is that there’s no enforcement. To be effective and verifiable, a nation needs to be able to challenge another nation and have the right to carry out inspections, and add sanctions in cases of noncompliance. But this enforcement method was not included, and the U.S. has blocked all efforts to add enforcement articles to the treaty since 1991. So, as explained by Nass:7
“Under the guise of preparing their defenses against biowarfare and pandemics, nations have conducted ‘dual-use’ (both offensive and defensive) research and development, which has led to the creation of more deadly and more transmissible microorganisms. And employing new verbiage to shield this effort from scrutiny, biological warfare research was named ‘gain-of-function’ research.”
SARS-CoV-2, for example, appears to be the direct result of gain-of-function research. As noted by Nass, it has “unusual homologies (identical short segments of nucleotides) to human tissues and the HIV virus, which may have caused or contributed to the late autoimmune stage of illness, an impaired immune response and ‘long COVID.’”
As such, SARS-CoV-2 is a biological weapon. David Martin, Ph.D., has also done many interviews, speeches and lectures exposing COVID-19 as a biological warfare crime.https://rumble.com/embed/v2oem0q/?pub=4Video Link
Are We Funding Public Health or Bioweapons Development?
As noted in Nass’ article, funding for natural epidemics, such as seasonal influenza, has been lumped together with biodefense funding, which hides the cost of our nation’s bioweapons development, because in reality, “biodefense” is “bioweapons development.”
And, while bioweapons development is dangerous and violates the international treaty, biodefense is useless and a complete waste of money, so it’s a lose-lose proposition for taxpayers.
In March 2023, former CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield testified before Congress stating that gain-of-function research had never, to his knowledge, resulted in a single beneficial drug, vaccine or therapeutic.8
In other words, while they conduct this research under the guise of “defense,” all gain-of-function research is biological weapons research and has no beneficial public health applications.
The pandemic treaty promotes the proliferation of biological weapons, and opens the door wide to biological weapons research and testing. It will take us in the opposite direction of where we need to go to prevent future pandemics.
The WHO treaty makes matters even worse by requiring member nations to look for pathogens with pandemic potential, and when they find them, to share them, and any research done on them, with everyone else.
So, the WHO treaty quite literally promotes the proliferation of biological weapons, and opens the door wide to biological weapons research and testing. This will also remove the ability to cast blame on any particular nation for starting a pandemic (read unleash a biological weapon), as everyone is working with the same pathogens.
The treaty also requires nations to eliminate administrative hurdles to gain-of-function research on pathogens with pandemic potential, when we really need far more stringent regulations on this type of work, if we’re going to engage in it at all.
So, the WHO treaty will move us in the complete opposite direction of where we actually need to go if we want to prevent future pandemics. To prevent them, we need to stop gain-of-function research, because that’s the greatest pandemic threat out there.
Pandemic Preparedness Is a Smokescreen
Similarly, the idea that the world can prepare ahead of time for a global pandemic is “a smokescreen behind which lies a fascist approach to social management,” Nass writes. She adds:9
“There’s no known way to prevent pandemics, and the methods that governments are spending money on are actually going to make this problem a great deal worse.
The concept of a ‘response’: withholding cheap, available generic drugs in favor of the warp speed development of patentable drugs and vaccines, which will undergo minimal testing and have no liability, is another disaster in the making.”
Our Health Agencies Are Selling Us Out
Importantly, the U.S. government — including our health agencies — have been central in developing and writing these documents, which strips us of our sovereignty as a nation, bodily autonomy as a people, along with freedom, human rights and democracy in general.
Indeed, the IHR amendments specifically remove the need to respect “human rights, dignity and freedom of persons” during public health emergencies. This deletion did not go unnoticed, however, and after severe criticism, language “guaranteeing” human rights was inserted into the latest draft (the Bureau draft) of the pandemic treaty.
The bottom line is, our health agencies are not protecting us. They’re controlled by private, globalist interests, and they’re selling us out.
We also see this in the way the U.S. health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration refused to course correct once it became clear that the COVID shots were not preventing infection or transmission, and were causing historically high rates of injuries.
Instead, they doubled down and imposed mandates, and started fiddling with database algorithms to hide the extent of injuries and deaths. Likewise, the WHO is working on an international vaccine passport, even though the entire premise for it has been eliminated. If the shots don’t prevent infection or transmission, then what good does proof of “vaccination” do?
Same with the masks. No matter how much scientific evidence was thrown at them, health authorities refused to admit that masks don’t work and pushed for wearing two or three masks instead. And what can we say about the worldwide recommendation to treat only advanced-stage infection? It’s medicine 101 to treat a condition as early as possible, especially when it comes to infections.
As noted by Nass, “There can be no question about it: Our health agencies are guilty of malfeasance, misrepresentation and deliberate infliction of harm on their own populations.”
All the basic rules of medicine were tossed out during COVID, and under the pandemic treaty, common sense and basic medical facts will be ousted forever. Nass goes through much more in her article, so I urge you to read it10 in its entirety.
The IHR amendments will only require a 50% vote of whoever is in the room at the time of the vote, which will take place at the World Health Assembly’s annual meeting, May 22 through 24, 2024.11 The amendments will take effect 10 months later for any nation that does not opt out.
Nations that have not officially opted out will then be bound by the new terms laid out in the amendments. The pandemic treaty will also be voted on during that meeting. It will require two-thirds vote in favor by the members that are in the room and will go into effect as soon as 30 nations have ratified it.
Thirty days after that, the treaty will go into effect for all the nations that have signed on. Any nation that has not signed the treaty will be excluded from its terms. Those who sign the treaty must wait three years before they can get out.
Door To Freedom
To prevent this nightmare, Nass has founded a new organization called Door To Freedom (doortofreedom.org), which seeks to educate people around the world about what the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments will change life as we know it, and strip us of every vestige of freedom.
Door To Freedom has created a poster to explain the impacts the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments will have. Please download this poster and share it with everyone you know. Also put it up on public billboards and places where communities share information.
Other Action Items
While the situation seems incredibly bleak, Nass insists there are many things we can do to prevent the WHO’s power grab, including the following:
•Call your congressman or congresswoman and urge them to sponsor H.R.79 — The WHO Withdrawal Act,12 introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs, which calls for defunding and exiting the WHO. At the time of this writing, it has 51 cosponsors, all of them Republicans. We cannot get this bill passed without Democrats, so we need to get them to understand what’s at stake.
The Sovereignty Coalition is making it easier for everyone to make their voices heard. Its Help the House Defund the WHO page will allow you to contact all of your elected representatives with just a few clicks. Simply fill out the required field, click submit, and your contact information will be used to match you with your elected representatives.
•Also urge your congressman or congresswoman to sponsor H.R.1425,13 which would require the pandemic treaty to be approved by the Senate. It currently has 27 cosponsors.
•Call your senators and urge them to sponsor the Senate version of H.R.1425, which is S.444, the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act.14 It currently has 47 cosponsors.
•Share Door To Freedom’s educational poster15 everywhere you can, and direct them to doortofreedom.org for more information. Also share, share, share information about the IHR amendments and how they will destroy national sovereignty, and increase surveillance and censorship. You can find a quick summary here.
The United Nations agenda for global governance is accelerating and is being pushed by both the Biden administration and by the Chinese Communist Party, warns journalist Alex Newman in this interview on War Room with Steve Bannon.
Next the WHO going and claiming everything has to do with health and should be under there control.
WHO trying to control the world. Disbanding the WHO.
Enough is enough.
One health to take over anything because all central to health and humans 9Life) no longer greater than animals. Please click on the link for the video/info?
Our leader of the Labour Party as already said he prefers Davos over parliament so if our government is on board with this and our major opposition party are as well doesn’t hold out much hope
The new pandemic please click link for video Urgent?????
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.”
This was apparently, one of the hardest videos to find. It’s from a UN Council assembly meeting in 2006, on the subject of chemtrails and what they’re doing SHARE the hell out of this?
One Health is 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 by the NWO as the central decision-maker and overseer of it all.
Behind the scenes, One Health partnerships have already been formed in countries around the world.
The One Health network was built and expanded in the U.S. primarily by cutting public health funding.
Amendments silence means accept: please click link
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.
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.
Overreach by adding all up and allowed to be controlled.
One Health 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 One Health agenda includes medicine, food and agriculture, communications, economics, civil society, global trade and commerce, research, noncommunicable disease, mental health, land use, disease surveillance and much more.
This is how the WHO is trying to gain the authority to dictate how we live our lives worldwide.
Forever chemicals and WHO.
Why Does National Security Depend on Forever Chemicals?
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
- One month after a federal study found a direct association between serum levels of PFAS and testicular cancer in military personnel, the military released a report to Congress claiming the chemicals are “quite stable,” and “critically important” to military readiness
- David Andrews, senior scientist at EWG, said the report fell short in effort and scope. Government regulations are not proposing a ban on PFAS as alluded to in the report, and the statements were “completely unsubstantiated, and it’s almost a fear-mongering statement”
- PFAS-laced firefighting foam increases the risk to firefighters. One retired Air Force firefighter told KFF Health News that the Air Force told personnel it was “just soap and water, completely harmless”
- PFAS is associated with multiple health effects, including cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, liver and kidney damage, reproductive damage, birth defects, and low birth weight babies
- The U.S. military does not recognize dangers from PFAS, does not recommend serum levels in veterans, and is intent on creating food from plastic to feed military men and women who have dedicated their lives to defending this country. Thank you so much for your service. Here’s a big bowl of plastic-derived food
In August 2023, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy released a report in which they claimed:1
“PFAS are chemically quite stable, and many are water and oil repellent, heat resistant, and/or stain resistant … DoD is reliant on the critically important chemical and physical properties of PFAS to provide required performance for the technologies and consumable items and articles which enable military readiness and sustainment.
Losing access to PFAS due to overly broad regulations or severe market contractions would greatly impact national security and DoD’s ability to fulfill its mission …”
PFAS are fluorinated chemicals that are known to be endocrine disruptors and are known to accelerate metabolic changes in the body. Since the 1999-2000 survey, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) has measured blood serum PFAS in adults and children and released the data every two years.2
Biomonitoring studies have also measured levels from occupational exposure, communities that have contaminated drinking water, and throughout the general population.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) notes that while blood levels for PFOS and PFOA have declined as use has declined, exposure to other PFAS chemicals may rise. Data show that the highest exposure is occupational and in communities that have been exposed, most in their water supply.3
Department of Defense Report ‘Fell Short in Effort and Scope’
As ATSDR has noted, the NHANES has recognized that rising serum values of PFAS may have indicated a significant health risk since 1999. As KFF Health News reports,4 a DoD study in 1974 demonstrated the chemical was fatal to fish and in 1983 a report showed it was deadly to mice.
Despite this knowledge, it is apparent from the subsequent actions of the military that they were not protecting service men and women. As demonstrated by a photo release from the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service5 in 2013, personnel working without protective gear on Travis Air Force Base, California, were surrounded by mounds of PFAS-laced firefighting foam.
James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 20236 authorizes appropriations for military activities of the Department of Defense and requires the assessment of PFAS chemicals in military products and equipment. This prompted the August 2023 DoD report to Congress in which the DoD claimed PFAS chemicals were critical and eliminating them could undermine military readiness.7
According to the report,8 most of the weapon platforms incorporate these chemicals, including microelectronic chips and lithium ion batteries. The chemicals are also used in a variety of uniform clothing, footwear, tents and duffel bags.
For more than 50 years, the DoD has used PFAS-laced firefighting foam and contaminated at least 359 military sites or nearby communities, with over 200 others under investigation. Yet, the report did not address health concerns. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) told KFF Health News that the “report lacked acknowledgment of the health risks or concerns posed by PFAS and ignored the availability of PFAS-free replacements for material, tents and duffel bags.”9
According to David Andrews, senior scientist at EWG, the report fell short. “It’s kind of like that report you turn in at school, when you get a comment back that you did the minimum amount possible,” Andrews said. In addition to this, Andrews notes that the government has not proposed banning PFAS chemicals as was alluded to in the report.
“The statements are completely unsubstantiated, and it’s almost a fear-mongering statement,” Andrews said. “I think the statement is really going beyond anything that’s even being considered in the regulatory space.”
Kevin Fay, executive director of the Sustainable PFAS Action Network, a coalition of organizations and researchers who support PFAS compound use, told KFF Health News10 that using a one-size-fits-all approach “will gravely harm national security and economic competitiveness.”
Study Shows Direct Association Between One PFAS Chemical and Cancer
The Congressional report was published one month after a 2023 research study11 confirmed what multiple other studies have shown in the past — firefighters have a higher rate of testicular cancer than people in other occupations, which points to the presence of PFAS in firefighting foam.
The difference was this federal study demonstrated for the first time a direct association between serum levels of PFOS, a chemical in the PFAS family, and testicular cancer. The researchers tested blood serum drawn from Air Force servicemen and banked at the Department of Defense Serum Repository.
They gathered data from 530 Air Force servicemen with a diagnosis of testicular germ cell tumors and 530 controls that were matched for several factors including ethnicity, race, birth date, the year they entered the service and the year the sample was collected. The researchers found elevated concentrations of some PFAS chemicals in the blood supply of those employed in firefighting in the military and at bases where there was a high PFAS concentration in the drinking water.
Elevated levels of PFOS were associated with testicular germ cell tumors. “To my knowledge, this is the first study to measure PFAS levels in the U.S. military population and to investigate associations with a cancer endpoint in this population, so that brings new evidence to the table,” Mark Purdue, senior investigator at NCI and co-author of the study, told KFF Health News.12
Testicular cancer has a high rate of diagnosis in active military personnel aged 18 to 40 years who are in peak physical condition. It was the age distribution and exposure to PFAS contamination that prompted the researchers to look for a possible connection.13
Kevin Ferrara, a retired Air Force firefighter, told KFF Health News that the Air Force barely warned of any dangers. “We were told that it was just soap and water, completely harmless,” Ferrara said. “We were completely slathered in the foam — hands, mouth, eyes. It looked just like if you were going to fill up your sink with dish soap.”14
Ferrara does not have cancer but has other health concerns he attributes to his exposure to PFAS. While the Department of Veterans Affairs does not currently recommend blood testing,15 KFF Health News reports that the Congressional PFAS task force introduced an act that would require the VA to treat conditions that are linked to PFAS exposure as well as provide disability benefits.16
Download this Article Before it Disappears
More Health Risks Associated With PFAS Chemical Family
KFF Health News describes the case of Gary Flook, who served in the Air Force for 37 years as a firefighter. Flook did not speak to KFF Health News as he is part of a 3M class action lawsuit filed in August 2022.17 June 22, 2023,18 3M agreed to pay $10.3 billion to roughly 300 communities in a multidistrict litigation to help clean up PFAS chemicals in the water supply.
There are an additional 3,000 claims that are still unsettled. Michael London of the New York law firm Douglas & London is representing plaintiffs in the city of Stuart, Florida. He told Time, “There are also 5,000, perhaps 6,000 individuals who have brought personal injury cases [nationwide].”19
One 2023 study20 published in a Lancet publication, eBioMedicine, found an association between exposure to PFAS and an increased rate of thyroid cancer. The researchers noted that this is a worldwide concern, given the ubiquitous nature of PFAS exposure.
One research team explained that an accumulation of epigenetic events induced by PFAS exposure can “synergistically amplify tumorigenicity and cancer progression,” adding that immune system suppression and chronic inflammation also likely play a role. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals that accumulate in body tissue can also lead to fatty liver disease.
“This bioaccumulation,” researchers wrote in Environmental Health Perspectives, “coupled with the long half-lives of many PFAS, leads to concern about the potential for PFAS to disrupt liver homeostasis should they continue to accumulate in human tissue even if industrial use is abated.”21
The researcher’s systematic review and meta-analysis compared exposure to liver injury. The data showed higher levels of serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) indicating liver damage with exposure to several PFAS chemicals. Exposure to PFOA was also linked to higher aspartate aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyl transferase levels — two widely used markers of liver disease — in humans.
Another 2022 study22 published in the American Heart Association journal Hypertension showed women with the highest concentration of PFAS chemicals in their bloodstream also had a 71% increased risk of high blood pressure. According to the Endocrine Society, PFAS exposure may contribute to:23
|Pregnancy-induced high blood pressure
|Altered cholesterol levels
|Liver and kidney damage
|Altered immune response
|Low birth weights
|Tumors and cancer
U.S. Military Wants to Feed Plastic to Service Men and Women
Apparently, American servicemen and women are not exposed to enough plastic pollution on military bases and in the food and water supply. In 2020 Iowa State University announced that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) awarded the University and partners a $2.7 million grant to create a process that would make food from plastic and paper waste.24
The military hopes to use this to feed the men and women who have dedicated their lives to defending this country. They believe the ability to turn paper and plastic waste products into a consumable could help with short-term “nourishment” and improve military logistics for extended missions. They estimate the total award could reach $7.8 million before the project ends.25
The proposed system hopes to convert plastic waste into fatty alcohols and fatty acids and paper into sugar that would then be bioprocessed by single-cell organisms into an edible mass rich in protein and vitamins. In other words, the hope is that microorganisms in the lab can do what those in the environment and ocean cannot — convert endocrine-disrupting chemicals found in plastic into vitamins and proteins.
DARPA also awarded Michigan Tech26 and collaborating researchers $7.2 million to turn plastic waste into protein powder and lubricants. In 2022, Stephen Techtmann’s lab announced they had indeed converted plastic into something that smells like yeast extract. “But he [Techtmann] hasn’t tasted it. First, he wants to know it’s safe, free from anything that might be toxic. It is, after all, made from plastic.”27
In an era where fake meat is valued over regeneratively and biodynamically grown real meat,28 it doesn’t take much to imagine that the next step could be plastic food for all. DARPA is starting with military men and women who put their lives on the line to protect our country. Thank you so much for your service. Here’s a big bowl of plastic.
– Sources and References
- 1, 8 Report on Critical Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Uses, August 2023
- 2, 3 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, PFAS in the US Population
- 4, 12, 13, 14, 16 KFF Health News, August 9, 2023
- 5 Defense Visual Information Distribution Service, Flurry of Foam Released at Travis
- 6 Public Law 117-263
- 7, 9, 10 KFF Health News, November 20, 2023
- 11 Environmental Health Perspectives, 2023;131(7)
- 15 US Department of Veterans Affairs, PFAS
- 17 Justia, August 4, 2022
- 18 3M, June 22, 2023
- 19 Time, June 23, 2023
- 20 eBioMedicine, 2023;97(104831)
- 21 Environmental Health Perspectives, 2022; 130(4)
- 22 Hypertension, 2022;70(8)
- 23 Endocrine Society, PFAS Chemicals: EDCs Contaminating Our Water and Food Supply
- 24, 25 Newswise, September 11, 2020
- 26 Michigan Tech, September 16, 2020
- 27 MLive News, October 24, 2022
- 28 Navdanya International April 2021
TODAY’S FREE ARTICLES
- 1Honey Laundering: Is Your Honey Real or Fake?
- 2Essential Oils Can Help ADHD
- 3Is This Why Chase Debanked Dr. Mercola?
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.
- 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
|Global trade, commerce and security
|Public policy and regulation
|Noncommunicable diseases (basically human medicine as a whole)
|Agricultural land use (which involves forcing farmers off their land)
|Disaster preparedness and response
|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.
One Health is also baked into the proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR). This is how the WHO will gain the authority to dictate how we live our lives.
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.”
Download this Article Before it Disappears
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
The WHO has stated that they will use the “EU Digital COVID Certificate” as a model to establish a global digital health certificate.
“One of the key elements in the European Union’s work against the COVID-19 pandemic has been digital COVID-19 certificates. To facilitate free movement within its borders, the EU swiftly established interoperable COVID-19 certificates (entitled ‘EU Digital COVID-19 Certificate’ or ‘EU DCC’),” the WHO press release reads.
“With this collaboration, WHO will facilitate this process globally under its own structure with the aim to allow the world to benefit from convergence of digital certificates.”
During the height of the Covid crisis, the EU Digital COVID Certificate made it so that EU citizens could only travel to other member states if they provide proof of vaccination, recovery, or a recent negative Covid test. In some EU countries like Austria, citizens were essentially segregated from society if they refused to take to Covid injections.
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) 76th World Health Assembly (WHA) wrapped up last week without members coming to a final agreement on the pandemic treaty or amendments to the international health regulations (IHR).
However, there were significant developments, including:
- Approval by member states of a large budget increase for the WHO.
- The launch of new fundraising initiatives.
- Warnings about a future pandemic or deadly new “Disease X.”
- A new collaboration between the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation to promote new vaccines.
The new developments were in addition to those The Defender reported on last week, including the release of a new bureau’s text of the draft pandemic treaty and new proposals to limit free speech and personal liberties.