Facebook Twitter YouTube SoundCloud RSS
 

ONE HEALTH – Globalist Path to a One World Order


Freddie Ponton
21st Century Wire

I would like to think that many would agree when I say the world we once knew seems to have taken a very strange path, to say the least. As global elites sit comfortably on board their proverbial public-private partnership super yacht, whilst sipping vintage French XO with their philanthropists cohort and pondering ever more creative ways to keep control of an ever sinking ship, we can only wonder what might be their next diabolical plan. 

We saw them parading once more at the World Economic Forum’s annual confab in Davos, where the world’s most wealthy and powerful technocrats gather to discuss the ‘big ideas’, and how they plan to tackle new challenges, and fine tune their elaborate master plans, not least of all warding off another new and sneaky threat, like the latest “disease X”, or as William Henry Gates III likes to call it, ‘the next pandemic.’ Clearly, a hypothetical disease due to some unknown exotic virus, said to be likely (or rather unlikely) to cause a serious pandemic. 

In 2018, if you remember, the World Health Organization (WHO) followed by the World Economic Forum (WEF), added this “disease X” to the list of pathogens that could pose a danger to humanity. A truly disturbing prophecy, when just two years later, the world’s greatest-ever respiratory plague, “Covid-19”, suddenly emerged to take the world by storm. Ironically, this pandemic was a perfect model of “disease X” (how timely).

SEE ALSO: One Health: Trojan Horse to Make Climate Change a ‘Global Health Emergency’

A true game changer, Covid-19 was presented to mankind as a likely zoonosis, an infectious disease that is transmitted between species from animals to humans, or from humans to animals.

Already in their starting blocks, the world’s mainstream media began orchestrating a perfectly harmonised symphony, presenting us with around-the-clock news programs and bulletins, featuring an endless carousel of self-proclaimed science experts, public health mavens, and grandstanding politicians and reiterating the identical script: the introduction of a novel coronavirus allegedly from “an animal reservoir”. Still, the origins of SARSCoV-2 have managed to escape the world, leaving us with a bevy of assumptions and exotic theories, all of which are making it exceedingly difficult for anyone to wrap their heads around where this show-stopper of a virus came from, or if it even exists in nature, much less what actual threat it ever posed to the human race. Instead of looking for straight forward evidence of a truly purified and isolated version of the SARSCoV-2 virus, many have instead entertained supernatural ‘gain of function’ theories. And with all that speculation, we are, collectively speaking, no closer to discovering the truth of what supposedly caused this global upheaval of the last two years.

This leads us to the story of “One Health”. In this article, we will chart its origins, from inception to adoption, in the hopes of better understanding how this concept has strangely become the handbook for the contagion business, but also possibly the most powerful instrument of control which globalist oligarchs have devised to date. It is also the underlying concept, and virtual cornerstone of a yet to be realised working global government structure. 

The formation and super bureaucratic architecture of this framework is complex and multilayered, but to understand its function and purpose, you only need to remember one thing: whoever controls the “One Health Economies” controls the people, the governments, and by extension, the future of humanity.

What is One Health?

The One Health concept has been in the making for over a decade, but it is now moving into BETA mode. According to the plans outlined by the WHO and its meticulously assembled One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP), One Health is an integrated, unifying approach which aims to sustainably balance and optimise the health of people, animals and ecosystems across the planet. It is the new global society framework upon which all new sustainable development initiatives and transitional systems will be built, and is the basis for the implementation of a new global world order.

One Health claims to recognize the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environmental ecosystem, as closely linked and ‘interdependent’.

The approach mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities at varying levels of society, all meant to work together to foster well-being and tackle emerging threats to health and ecosystems, while addressing the collective need for clean water, energy and air, safe and nutritious food, taking action on climate change, and contributing to the ongoing objective of sustainable development.

Indeed, it seems they do care very much for our well-being.

The importance of establishing a One Health Definition was first raised by the OHHLEP, and later agreed by the four main stakeholder partners, referred to as the United Nations Quadripartite, tasked with developing a common language and understanding around the new concept of One Health.

The WHO, along with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), and more recently the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), all welcomed the newly formed operational definition of One Health (my humble experience tells me that rarely do people disagree when potentially billions of dollars in public money is about to be thrown their way).

Let’s start by reviewing this Quadripartite (WHO, FAO, OIE, UNEP), the four organizations now working together to mainstream One Health, supposedly conceived in order to help humanity prepare for and prevent, predict, detect, and respond to ‘global health’ threats, and promote sustainable development. 

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) provides us with a great clue, stated on their website:

“The application of a One Health approach is a critical one for achieving the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)”.

“We are One World working together for One Health”.

You may have noticed that One Health has been getting a lot of traction recently, particularly in response to quantifying diseases’ impact on the economy, a burden can be calculated, even if the methodologies and results remain heavily debated. For example, in a 2011 paper, Making Sense of One Health, we can read comment made by Jean Kamanzi, a Senior Officer at the World Bank and currently with UN FAO Regional Food Safety officer for Africa, estimating that SARS-1 would have cost $50 billion, foot and mouth (FMD) in the UK $30 billion, FMD in Taiwan, $5-8 billion, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the UK $10-13 billion, and Nipah virus in Malaysia $350-400 million.

In another estimation, economists consider that the emergence of BSE, SARS, Avian flu (H5N1), and swine flu (H1N1) have caused over $20 billion in direct economic losses over the last decade, and in excess of $200 billion in indirect losses.

One Health claims to solve these problems.

Once the importance of infectious diseases was ascertained, the question became, what are the options for preventing and controlling them? “The One Health Approach” was deemed by the Quadripartite to be a valid solution and potential response to address these challenges, but without giving a clear explanation as to why suddenly, as the old global economic model is being collapsed, that all of these exotic viruses are suddenly taking the center stage, and creating what appears to be an orchestrated chaos. Judging by what we have all witnessed over the last two years in terms of the ‘global response’ to COVID-19, you would have thought that we never had to deal with viruses and epidemics before. 

Questioning the Effectiveness of ‘One Health’

Limitations of “One Health Approach” have been widely reported, and its critics identified four serious hurdles:

1. Absence of standardised methods to measure the complexity of the benefits achieved from this type of holistic approach.
2. Lack of systematic methodology to prove the nature of health impacts across the animal and human health sectors.
3. Lack of agreement in leadership issues, resource allocation, and work distribution and…
4. Insufficient indicators and measures of ‘public health’.

Yet, somehow this concept has relentlessly been pushed on policymakers more than ever now, to the point of becoming a key pillar of the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), and all this without any scientifically proven track record of its effectiveness, much less its efficiency.

This is well described in the 2014 abstract entitled, “One Health Security: An Important Component of the Global Health Security Agenda” by Gigi Gronvall, PhD, and Crystal Boddie, MPH, senior associate and associate at the UPMC Center for Health Security (Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security) in Baltimore, where they expressed the important role One Health might play in achieving the objectives of the new Global Health Security Agenda.

Here is an extract from the above-mentioned abstract:

“The objectives of the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) will require not only a “One Health” approach to counter natural disease threats against humans, animals, and the environment, but also a security focus to counter deliberate threats to human, animal, and agricultural health and to nations’ economies. We have termed this merged approach “One Health Security”. It will require the integration of professionals with expertise in security, law enforcement, and intelligence to join the veterinary, agricultural, environmental, and human health experts essential to One Health and the GHSA.”

One great examples of what such “Health Security” policies translate into, is the Australian government’s Asia Pacific Center for Health Security. Here we have the open license by the state for never ending lockdowns and detention centers for alleged ‘contact cases’, not to mention the heavy-handed and violent nature with which these drastic health security and vaccination roll-out measures have already been enforced in Australia.

How will this One Health Security Agenda be put into action? 

Furthermore, a paper entitled, “Vaccines for zoonoses: a one Health paradigm”, prepared by physician, virologist and vaccinologist, Thomas P Monath, MD, one of the One Health Initiative (OHI) co-founders and leaders in the United States, received a warm welcome by none other than Dr. Anthony Fauci who, according to the One Health Initiative, commented and wrote the following to OHI:

“Thank you for sharing the article about [Dr.] Tom Monath’s work. It is really well done, and captures the important contributions of our long-time friend and collaborator.”

“…we have long embraced a one-health paradigm at NIAID, especially in the realm of emerging and re-emerging diseases, most of which are zoonoses and must be studied in the context of the ecosystems humans share with microbes, non-human hosts, vectors, reservoirs and other actors. Many of the research efforts about which I speak and write almost daily fall under the one health rubric, in that our studies are multi-disciplinary and have benefits not only for humans but for other species, agriculture, and other aspects of society and the environment.” (you can read the rest of Fauci’s comments here)

It goes without saying that when someone as controversial as Dr. Fauci, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Chief Medical Advisor to the US President, tells you that ‘much of his research’ falls under the One Health rubric, it certainly warrants extra attention.

Those with an acute sense of observation will have certainly picked up on the fact that Thomas P Monath, MD was in the process of launching a new and exciting vaccine company (that article was strangely removed from the One Health Initiative website).

Later in this article, we shall review One Health at face value, and ask whether it actually brings any benefit to the broader global population, or if it is just another instrument of globalist subterfuge designed to scale up a new economic model – for the benefit of major stakeholders, namely drug manufacturing companies, large banking interests, billionaire philanthropists, and the global network of technocrats at Davos.

It is worth remembering that the alleged zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2 were never established. According to the WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2 conducted by a Joint WHO-China task force between the 4th January and 10th February 2021, on page 82 of their joint report entitled Zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2 one can read:

“SARS-CoV-2 is thought to have had a zoonotic origin. Genome analysis reveals that bats may be the source of SARS-CoV-2. However, the specific route of transmission from natural reservoirs to humans remains unclear.”

The investigative mission into the origin of SARS COV 2 in Wuhan China included five WHO experts led by Dr Peter Ben Embarek; two Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) representatives and two World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) representatives and this is what Peter Ben Embarek announced at the Wuhan live briefing at the end of the mission on the origin of SARS COV 2 (COVID 19) – Full video here

Dr Peter Ben Embarek – LIVE from Wuhan – Media briefing on COVID-19 origins mission:

 

Although we can commend them in their efforts to try and find out the truth, the scientific data simply does not support, nor provide, an unequivocal proof of the “origins of COVID”. Any such speculation, is still an educated assumption at best, and yet, whole rafts of new policies are being built on top of these spurious assumptions. 

After 13 years in the making, the utility of the One Health Approach/Concept/Framework has yet to be demonstrated. It has yet to predict, prevent or stop any pathogen outbreak from becoming a ‘pandemic’ and demonstrate any tangible benefits to our planet’s biodiversity and ecosystems, much less our health and well-being – all of which it claims to improve.

Follow the money – One Health and the World Bank

For its part, the World Bank has outlined its version of the One Health mission, and has positioned itself as the central player to be added to UN Tripartite (that was before UNEP came on board), as it was difficult to fully exclude them from the formal alliance. The World Bank really pushed hard to implement, One Health, that is, to transform it into a workable concept that can allow for ongoing fundraising. It is also the organisation that invested the most heavily in shaping One Health into a coherent and more developed globalist discourse (since when is a bank a charity).

However, at an earlier stage, the World Bank was regarded with caution by the FAO, WHO, OIE, as some were fearing that the World Bank was interpreting One Health as a tool to redefine the role of animals in public health, as the World Bank was said to be aiming to fuse public health and veterinary services. Despite their denials in this regard, they have clearly advanced this agenda a long way. 

Such a fear was certainly justified and transpired in a statement made by Bernard Vallat in 2009, then the Director General of the OIE, and this is what he said:

The concept ‘One World, One Health‟ should not serve as a pretext for dangerous initiatives like trying to achieve economies of scale based on purely theoretical notions worthy of a sorcerer‟s apprentice, such as trying to merge the Veterinary Services and the Public Health Services.

Here it is important to acknowledge that were, in fact, pockets of dissent within different globalist institutions. 

The issue of the merging of public health and animal services was a tense one then, which certainly damaged the architectural efforts by the World Bank. However, with its habit of raising funds, and with its will to remain involved in One Health, the World Bank proved to be difficult to set aside, and remains to this day an important partner in managing the governance of One Health.

World-Bank-One-Health-Framework – 2018 (source)

123023-REVISED-PUBLIC-World-Bank-One-Health-Framework-2018

 

New arrivals to the One Health party

There are other organisations which have been at the margins of One Health for some time, but have since been integrated to the global alliance. These are the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). All have embraced the One Health doctrine which emphasizes the need to view human health and well-being as a subset of environmental health. This is a key concept, and one of the foundational principles of One Health, which folds everything into an environmental envelope, along with all the various eco imperatives, including climate change.

It seems the global order has a plan, and somehow One Health is at the very heart of it. 

In November 2020, at the Paris Peace Forum, these four organisations met to further enhance their cross-sectoral collaboration by creating a multidisciplinary One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP), launched by none other than Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Director-General of the World Health Organisation, and with the support of the governments of France and Germany.

Watch as Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus launches the One Health High Level Expert Panel:

.
The history of One Health

According to their website, the One Health Initiative began as a movement in the United States to forge ‘co-equal, all-inclusive collaborations’ between the range of actors and stakeholders in the public health space – physicians, osteopathic physicians, nurses, veterinarians, dentists, and other scientific and environmentally related disciplines. Other key stakeholder organisations include the American Medical Association, American Veterinary Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Nurses Association, American Association of Public Health Physicians, the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the U.S. National Environmental Health Association (NEHA).

Additionally, more than 950 prominent scientists, physicians and veterinarians worldwide had endorsed the initiative.

According to its description and statement on the US FDA’s own website, One Health (formerly called One Medicine) says it was set-up “to improve the lives of all species, human & animal through the integration of human medicine, veterinary medicine, and environmental science.”

The CDC, who rapidly became a believer and eventually an umbrella organisation for the initiative, provides here a good historical background of One Health and its precursors. Although it is a globalist organization, One Health was actually born in 2007, in the United States.

The modern, globalised concept of “One World, One Health” was put forward by the Wildlife Conservation Society at a symposium in New York in 2004 hosted by Rockefeller University. To sell the concept, they used case studies on Ebola, Avian Influenza, and Chronic Wasting Disease, as examples of threats to global public health. The assembled expert panelists delineated priorities for an international, interdisciplinary approach for combating threats to ‘the health of life on Earth.’

While this sounds altruistic on its surface, it raises a few key questions as to the true motivation of this unprecedented global enterprise. Why won’t they focus on the world’s biggest killers, such as Ischaemic heart disease, which is responsible for 16% of the world’s total deaths, and rising by more than 2 million to 8.9 million deaths in 2019 according to the WHO?

Is it not also worth noting that stroke and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are the second and third leading causes of death, responsible for approximately 11% and 6% (respectively) of total deaths worldwide? How about lower respiratory infections that remained the world’s most deadly communicable disease, ranked as the fourth leading cause of death.

So why are all of these tropical and other diseases suddenly considered ‘major threats’, thus forcing the scientific world to revisit the way there were looking at global public health?

A central question emerges: is One Health a Global Security Agenda?

About “One World, One Health”

According to their literature, “One World, One Health” is based on a set of principles referred to as the “Manhattan Principles” by the organisers of the One World, One Health event who presented their list of 12 recommendations (see here) for establishing ‘a more holistic approach’ to preventing supposed epizootic diseases, and also “for maintaining ecosystem integrity’ for the benefit of humans, their domesticated animals, and also ‘for the foundational biodiversity that supports us all.”

It is also worth noting – the Berlin Principles on One Health which were formatted at the 2019 One World, One Health, One Future Conference sponsored by the German Federal Foreign Office (FFO) in partnership with the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).

We can now see how this ambitious framework seeks to combine human and animal health into one singularity, and to pool the risk of alleged ‘outbreaks’ under the same umbrella of ‘global public health.’ The implications of this are immense, and should not be understated. 

In 2020, a “One World, One Health, One Future” virtual event was held under the same patronage. The concept was developed by six international organizations who released their joint Strategic Framework entitled, “Contributing to One World, One Health: A Strategic Framework for Reducing Risks of Infectious Diseases at the Animal-Human-Ecosystems Interface” at the International Ministerial Conference on Avian and Pandemic Influenza, held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, October 2008. Representatives included specialists from the WHO, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FOA), CDC, the United States Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Center (USGS), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre (CWHC), the Laboratoire Nationale de Sante Publique of Brazzaville in the Republic of Congo (LNSP-CG), the IUCN Commission on Environmental Law, and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), among other stakeholders.

Since there was insufficient time to discuss the Framework at the meeting in Egypt, Canada agreed to host an addendum international expert consultation. This was held from March 16-19, 2009, in Winnipeg. It was done under the auspices of the Public Health Agency of Canada’s Centre for Food-borne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (CFEZID), who also hosted the One World One Health Expert Consultation in Manitoba. Beside the usual suspects, one must note the participation of UNICEF, as well as the World Bank, and the bio surveillance agency, the United Nations System Influenza Coordination (UNSIC).

Subsequently, The One Health Commission was formed to facilitate the coordination of these organizations, and in November 2009 a One Health Summit was held in partnership with the National Academies of Science in Washington, D.C. The event’s nine speakers included senior officials from the USDA, CDC, FDA, NIEHS, USAID, members of academia, state governments, and the Kansas Bioscience Organization also participated.

One_Health_InitiativeTask_Force_Mem_306367AC81F70

.
Also at the event, Rear Admiral Ali Khan, Acting Director of The National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases at the CDC, spoke on the topic of “One Health in Action.” I am not sure if he knew how far this initiative would go, but he clearly had a specific vision and plan, as one would expect from a high ranking naval officer. It is very likely that the eventual blueprint for One Health was born that day.

It’s crucial to note that this event was taking place in the midst of the 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu pseudo pandemic, which was later exposed by a number of researchers and journalists as an over-hyped global event, but one which helped the WHO and other actors consolidate more bureaucratic power and authority in terms of declaring pandemics, and helping to spearhead the global distribution of pharmaceutical ‘solutions’ such as Tamiflu, vaccines and other products. That said, Rear Admiral Khan did not miss the chance to remind the audience that as of November 8, 2009, the World Health Organization reported over 503,000 alleged confirmed ‘cases’ of H1N1, and at least 6,260 deaths from the influenza. He identified key factors in the influenza’s emergence, including “microbial adaptation, changing ecosystems, international travel and commerce, and human susceptibility to infection.” 

Again, the animal and ‘zoonosis’ angle is centre stage here. Dr. Khan underscored the importance of “recognizing and addressing disease emergence at the interface of animals, humans and environmental health.” He also called for “looking beyond humans to expand opportunities for disease detection, control and prevention.”

Dr. Khan outlined five key steps for success in this endeavor, all of which are designed to solidify the centralization of power and authority around new alleged pandemics:

  1. Leadership: create a global initiative for targeted One Health activities
  2. Investment: develop a worldwide surveillance and response system
  3. Integration: develop diagnostic platforms for use in humans, animals and the environment
  4. Research: create new tools to identify pathogens and approaches for integrating information systems
  5. Respectful Partnerships: secure partnerships across sectors in the U.S. and abroad

At this point, it is difficult to deny that 13 years ago this globalist confab had already figured out a blueprint for an agenda which was fully activated in 2020. 

ohcsummitexecutivesummary20091201b_28D1C919BD197

.
The One Health Initiative Task Force Members, who were part of the One Health Commission, have since been integrated into the CDC, and have now become the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) One Health Office.

CDC’s One Health Office has become the agency’s lead for all One Health activities both domestically and globally. Established in 2009, it was the first formal office dedicated to One Health in an established US federal agency. Today, their office is located within the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID) at CDC in Atlanta.

As a functioning public relations arm, One Health Office is also tasked with promoting the “One Health approach,” and to increase awareness of CDC’s role in One Health in the United States and around the world.

A few questions already come to mind, especially when looking at the US partners involved in this initiative (USDA, CDC, FDA, NIEHS, USAID), and looking at potential synergies between the One Health agenda and the Covid-19 pandemic, but also at the One Health coalition partners such as US Department of Defense (DOD) and its sub-agency, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) who happened to finance some 30 Biolabs in Ukraine, and 300 other similar operations around the world, not to mention their financial support to companies such as Ecohealth Alliance and Metabiota which are detailed in my previous article, Pentagon-Ukraine Bio Labs: The Hunter Biden Connections.

As mentioned above, the 2004 One World, One Health Symposium which was held in New York was put forward by the Field Wildlife Conservation Society, where Dr. William B. Karesh was directing their veterinary program. He is currently the Executive Vice President for Health and Policy at none other than Ecohealth Alliance, a company that had its fair share of controversial studies, along with Fauci and NIH funded R&D programs around the world, most notably in China at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The controversial bio surveillance outfit EcoHealth, headed by CEO Peter Daszak, was suspected of carrying out supposedly dangerous “gain of function” research work with Shi Zhengli, a leading Chinese virologist, known also as “the bat lady.”

It is believed that Dr William Karesh coined the term “One Health” back in 2003, and his journey since then on board the One Health train has been nothing short of spectacular. He serves as the president of the World Animal Health Organization (OIE) and oversees its Working Group on Wildlife Diseases, and also chairs the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and its Wildlife Health Specialist Group, a network of wildlife and health experts from around the world. Dr. Karesh also serves on the WHO’s International Health Regulations Roster of Experts who focus on the human-animal interface and wildlife health. Dr. Karesh was also the Emerging Pandemic Threats (EPT), as well as Partner Liaison for the USAID PREDICT-2 bio surveillance program.

To clarify my own position, I reserve serious skepticism about many of the widely held assumptions regarding Gain of Function (GOF) claims and its theoretical basis, which has been conveniently pushed by numerous media outlets and politicians as the answer to all of our unanswered questions regarding the supposed “origins of Covid.” However, I do support a continued open debate on this issue. 

While One Health has over the past 15 years established itself in the life sciences, veterinary medicine, and biomedical sciences, it still remains obscured from public view, hence the reason for compiling the research contained in this article.

One thing is for sure: the One Health Commission seems to be following very closely the development of the COVID-19 pandemic, and is now urgently recommending the need to implement the One Health approach globally. If you take the time to follow the links featured on the One Health Commission’s webpage, you will find a plethora of information explaining the role which One Health played in the COVID-19 response, and much more.

You will also learn how in Ireland, a One Health team was assembled to help parameterise complex mathematical and resource models, and how in New South Wales, Australia, state authorities “engaged collaboratively with animal health veterinarians and epidemiologists to leverage disease outbreak knowledge, expertise and technical and support structures for application to the COVID-19 emergency.”

You will also discover how the African One Health University Network linked members from various health institutions and universities from eight countries to provide a virtual platform for knowledge exchange on COVID-19 in order to support the global response.

As you would expect, epidemiological computer modeling features heavily on these knowledge sharing platforms, the same sort of modeling sold to governments by the likes of Imperial College epidemiologist Neil Ferguson, who wildly exaggerated the projected death toll from COVID back in the spring of 2020. It was these overinflated imaginary models which were used to justify lockdowns and other harmful virus mitigation policies. 

Key players behind ‘The One Health Platform’

As you will read in the 2015 One Health Commission history PDF document, the One Health Commission was invited to participate in the International One Health Platform Foundation. Of course, the billion dollar question here is this: what is the One Health Platform Foundation, and who is behind it?


(click image to enlarge)

The One-Health Platform (also seen here at www.onehealthplatform.com) was founded in 2015, and describes itself as a “scientific resource center and a hub for stakeholders in One Health.” It claims to be an autonomous, non-profit organization, and is accompanied by the World One Health Congress as the largest “One Health” event of the year for experts and researchers from around the world, serialised in its One Health Outlook, an official journal which is “aiming to promote the collaboration, connection and rapid sharing of information within all fields of research relevant to One Health through open access publishing.”

                   

Prof. Ab Osterhaus                Prof. John Mackenzie         Chris Vanlangendonck

The management board on the One Health Platform is made up of Professor Ab Osterhaus, known throughout the world for his work on SARS1 and H5N1, the pathogen alleged to have caused avian influenza, Professor John Mackenzie, and Professor Chris Vanlangendonck.

During the course of my research, some key clues emerged which reinforced my belief that the One Health Platform and its One Health Outlook publication would indeed point me in the right direction as to who else is driving this globalised operation. Finding people such as Christian Drosten (author of the problematic RT-PCR ‘gold standard’ assay for the WHO), Peter Daszak (CEO EcoHealth Alliance), William Karesh (DVM, EcoHealth Alliance) as part of the One Health Outlook Editorial Board certainly motivated me to dig further.

The One Health Outlook is headed by Editor-in-Chief, Ab Osterhaus PhD, Research Center of Emerging Infections and Zoonoses, Germany at the University of Veterinary Medicine in Hannover known as TiHo who is a member of the German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), under whose umbrella about 150 scientists from 27 institutions at seven locations cooperate.

Here is a video of Ab Osterhaus known also as ‘Dr Flu’ in his capacity as scientific advisor for the Artemis One Health Foundation in the Netherlands. Albert Osterhaus is no small fish, and his name keeps on appearing in many corruption scandals such as the notorious “Mexican Flu” scandal.

Video: Ab Osterhaus – Artemis One Health Foundation

 

Osterhaus is amongst the leading One Health scientists who are pushing the highly contentious “spillover theory” which advances the narrative that wherever humans further encroach on the natural world, pushing into the territories of animals, it brings them into contact with new and exotic microbes that live there, and which sometimes jump across species boundaries in “zoonotic” fashion, where they allegedly mutate and cause diseases. Is it true? While it currently serves as the basis for all the entire global apparatus we have shown already, and is widely regarded as the consensus in mainstream virology circles, the theory is still highly debatable, and may not be the global threat it is touted as.

I was surprised (or perhaps not) to find out that One Health Platform was also registered in 2015 as a company headed by Ab Osterhaus, registered at 35 22nd St East, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7K 0C8, Canada, and at No1 Zevensterstraat, Laarne, Flanders, 9270 in Belgium, the country where the European Council is headquartered, and we will see later why this may be important.

One Health: not so non-profit after all

It is impossible to describe the One Health Platform without including the International One Health Coalition (IOHC), a collaborative partnership between the One Health Platform and existing international governmental and non-governmental organizations and institutions.

The IOHC claims to reinforce the One Health concept where the coalition partners can set up a framework for information-sharing, cooperation and awareness raising activities. Through the International One Health Coalition, the foundation builds a global community of One Health stakeholders that includes the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the CDC, and many more.

‘Once Health’ promoted by President of France Emmanuel Macron

During the 75th World Health Assembly held in Geneva, Switzerland, held on 22-28 May 2022, French President Emmanuel Macron inserted a brief remark regarding One Health, and knowing this president, this was not a coincidence. It was surely a coded message addressed to the global health policymakers, confirming that One Health was on track and should be fully integrated in the new Global Health Security Policy structure. This represents a big step, especially at a moment when a looming treaty on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response is being negotiated between the European Council and the WHO. See the full video here.

Emmanuel Macron pushing the One health agenda at the 75th World Health Assembly:

 

On January 1, 2021, a former French government agency known as the ANRS (Emerging Infectious Diseases) was restructured into an autonomous body under the roof of another French public agency, Inserm. This new independent body was created with the mission of funding, coordinating and leading research on various infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, STIs and tuberculosis, and also the bevy of emerging respiratory infections including Covid-19, viral hemorrhagic fevers, arboviruses and many more. The French government was now relying on the ANRS and on the scientific consortium known as REACTing and its expertise, in responding to crises related to emerging diseases. Both organisations ended up merging in December 2020, but kept the acronym ANRS. 

Amongst the ANRS international partners you will find the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIH/NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), the WHO, and the DZIF (German Center for Infection Research), just to name a few (see a full list here). It’s important to note that all these organizations were deeply involved in pushing the global COVID-19 vaccination program.

The ANRS is also the sponsor of numerous therapeutic trials. These are mainly aimed at evaluating new therapeutic strategies like vaccines. As a result, the ANRS engages in collaborations with the biggest transnational pharmaceutical companies.

Whilst the ANRS was building international partnerships, with a One Health Approach, focusing on human and animal health and the impact of humans on the environment, the agency prepared the response to the scientific challenges posed by emerging diseases, and was placed under the supervision of the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation and the Ministry of Solidarity and Health. The ANRS is headed by none other than Dr Yazdan Yazdanpanah, a key figure and influencer in the COVID 19 narrative in France as well as in the WHO.

In France, the drug Chloroquine was banned, as well as the freedom to consider any other treatment, under penalty of state sanction and prosecution by the Medical Council, or the courts. This was attributed to the intense lobbying of the ANRS by Inserm and its Aviesan partners (partners in Africa, Asia and Polynesia), including the Pasteur Institute, as active stakeholders, and working on the following: H5N1 and H1N1 influenza, SARS, Mers‐Co, Chikungunya, Ebola and Zika vaccines. Such obvious conflicts of interest is a big problem in France, and the subject still remains taboo. 

Video presentation by Aviesan:

 

INSERN, ANRS and its AVESIAN partners are believed to have taken part in France’s Public Health Defence Council,  which is responsible for coordinating the country’s COVID-19 national crisis policy and associated meetings under a strict veil of secrecy afforded by the Defence and National Security Council responsible for crisis public health decisions. This is what the US national security apparatus refers to as a ‘Need to Know Basis.’

Furthermore, Prof. Yazdan Yazdanpanah is also the member of the French Covid‐19 scientific committee, with the most declared conflicts of interest, yet he is occupying an executive role in the pandemic preparedness and response in France and internationally.

It is somewhat concerning to see all the movers and shakers of the COVID-19 ‘global pandemic’ response – all promoting One Health, especially knowing they have been financed by the pharmaceutical giants such as Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, MSD, and with the active participation of Jérôme SALOMON, France Director General of Health (DGS).

In this 2020 Session of the Veterinary Academy of France, entitled “Coronavirus & Covid 19,” we can see Dr Stéphane de la Roque, Team Leader of the One Health Team’s Country Emergency Preparedness and IHR at the Word Health Organisation (WHO), together with ANRS Director General, Prof. Yazdan Yazdanpanah, discussing the need for a global “One Health” system. 


(click image to enlarge)

I therefore submit the idea that One Health has played and will keep on playing a strategic role in the context of the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR), and therefore in the handling of the COVID 19 pandemic, and of course in all future pandemics. All this points inevitably in the direction of the proposed WHO Pandemic Treaty and the IHR reforms currently under negotiation at the European Council and at the WHO, where One Health will provide the working framework for a new layer of global governance. 

We recall a special session of the World Health Assembly (WHA), which was convened in late 2021 to consider developing a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument, on pandemic preparedness and response, and a so-called ‘Pandemic Treaty’. Consideration was given to this treaty as well as to reform of the International Health Regulations (IHR) as the principal governing instrument empowering the WHO even further in supposedly preventing and mitigating future pandemics. This is just another  “Carte Blanche” power for the WHO and its well known sponsors such a Bill Gates and others, to abuse nations’ sovereignty and bypass their democratic processes in order to impose a centralised, top-down global ‘public health’ regime. 

s12992-021-00779-0

In the following document (the first page is translated in English) you will find the declaration by Prof. Yazdan Yazdanpanah about the potential conflict of interest with pharmaceutical companies. The original document is available here but can also be found on the Website of the French Ministry of Health here.

FINAL YAZDANPANAH_Yazdan (1)

In the picture below, the GloPID-R chair Prof. Yazdan Yazdanpanah and WHO DG Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus can be seen together at the opening of the Global research & innovation forum. Prof Yazdanpanah is also an expert at the World Health Organisation (WHO), the guy is everywhere.

Since its creation in 2013, GloPID-R, an international network of major research funding organizations created to facilitate a rapid and effective response to infectious disease outbreaks, has steadily increased its membership. Today, it consists of 32 members worldwide. Gates-funded organisations like the World Health Organization, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), along with the European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), are also actively engaged in the network.

In 2021, the African Union (AU) through the African Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (African CDC), and the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), all signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) aimed at establishing a framework to serve as a firm basis for cooperation in their shared goals to promote a new paradigm to drive new trends in ‘global health.’ The MoU covers implementation and public health research, the One Health approach, and data management.

EDCTP-MoU-PR-September2021 (1)

I will leave you with one more clue, as I could probably go on for a few more pages talking about Prof. Yazdan Yazdanpanah and his connections with the One Health Global Network and the Big Pharma industrial complex. Here we can see him summarising the achievements of three and a half years of the EU-JAMRAI, the European Union Joint Action on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR), and its role of developing and implementing the One Health policies as a partner of the European One Health Programme (OHEJP).


(click image to enlarge)

The ANSES, the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, also leads the One Health concept efforts. This is illustrated in particular by the agency’s participation in two collaborative projects on this theme. The first, the One Health major area of interest (DIM) project, funded by the Ile-de-France region from 2017 to 2021, brings together numerous animal and human health research teams in the region.

The Agency plays a central role in coordinating the One Health European Joint Programme (EJP) from 2018-2023, where ANSES is coordinating the project while working closely with the Belgian partner Sciensano on coordination of the programme’s scientific activities. The ANSES laboratories’ research teams are participating in 17 of the 23 research projects selected within the framework of the EJP.

The National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment (INRAE) is another leading research organisation in France with a very clear focus on One Health. The INRAE claims it is the first research institute in the world specialized in the interdependent fields of agriculture, food and the environment, hence the reason why this French government agency conducts research and carries out projects with a “One Health approach,” while developing interdisciplinary research at European, but also at international level.

Also, CIRAD is a French agricultural research and cooperation organisation working for the sustainable development of tropical and Mediterranean regions. Another French agency involved deeply in the promotion of One Health, you can read on their website,“The “One Health” concept must be institutionalized to prevent new epidemics on a global scale.”  Now it’s really starting to look more like a cult, with all of its well rehearsed mantras.

Living in France, I have had the chance to observe the Scientific Committee in charge of advising the French Government during the COVID-19 pandemic, and I must say it was very confusing with recommendations often far removed from any scientific facts, to say the least. They eventually issued their opinion on One Health (see document below) which was later sent to the national authorities on February 8, 2022 and made available to the public. 

contribution_conseil_scientifique_8_fevrier_2022_one_health.fr.en

.
Till today, a substantial part of the French population remains very skeptical of the COVID-19 pandemic and the origins of SARS-CoV-2, not to mention the liberticide measures that were derived from this sanitary crisis. 

I guess we just want to know why our government is so focused on One Health and Zoonotic matters, especially with the announcement of upcoming new measures for the “new virus on the block” known as the Monkeypox. In a public press release, the new head of the French Ministry of Health Brigitte Bourguignon, highlighted the efforts made to put in place preventive measures and plans to fight against the “Monkeypox” in accordance with the WHO International Health Regulations. Here we go again…

This sudden emergence or re-emergence of a virus, literally out of nowhere, doesn’t sit well with many who feel that they are once more taken for a ride.

The One Health Economy: Global Command and Control

From the evidence in my research, we can clearly see how One Health is a concept platform being used by the globalists’ various Public-Private Partnerships and stakeholder entities – in order to maintain and manage a constant threat of virus outbreaks and ‘possible pandemics,’ and its acceptance via a multidisciplinary set of recommendations to be integrated in a national and Global Heath Security Policy agenda. While One Health may have been also used as a lobbying tool for industry, it is has without question been completely hijacked by the globalists to justify any number of emergency measures, as well as future global vaccination roll-outs, and more importantly to force populations around the world to surrender, little by little, their liberties and freedoms. But there is more to it…

They feel they want us to feel scared, but also guilty too. This is where the notorious climate change narrative comes into play, and the role populations may have played in breaking down the equilibrium of the biodiversity and its ecosystems, creating endless “spillover” theories, which naturally gives birth over time, to the wider goal in all of this – which is a very lucrative One Health Economy.

On could say that the One Health Agenda is certainly instrumental in influencing people to accept an entirely new global paradigm, one that forces society to live under a new set of rigid rules of control – like one where the European Health Passport will become your new digital ID. This is where One Health integrates into the new cashless digital economy described by World Economic Forum (WEF) luminary Klaus Schwab and fellow technocrats. Consider how the One Health imperative which they have carefully assembled – now provides the moral and ethical imperative needed to glue the new digital money and health passport system into place internationally. 

If you thought the globalists had enough control already, you might be wrong, as they seem to want to control everything including our spending habits, our freedom of movement, our health, our ability to transact, and even what we eat. This short list is unfortunately far from complete. 

One Health and the environment

We still will need a much better understanding how the One Health Agenda plugs itself into the all-important ‘biodiversity threat’ and climate change narratives that have been pushed for quite some time now. Still, we must pose the initial question: is there any validity to these threats, or is it another tool designed to engineer guilt, fear and further control amongst populations?

For instance, this article from the New York Times published on June 17, 2020, comes across as an extraordinary piece of propaganda which encapsulates a set of ideas that is being strongly pushed onto the public, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic (or plandemic, as some might describe it), where humans have supposedly unleashed a flood of diseases after they started destroying habitats and ruining ecosystems. Not surprisingly, their article cites people like Jonathan Epstein, Vice President for science and outreach at EcoHealth Alliance, a key figure in the media’s One Health echo chamber. But the overriding message is clear: we must now merge public health and the environment, and do it globally

Everything we do to disrupt natural systems, to manipulate the surrounding environment, influences our own health.”

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) published on their website the transcript of a speech given on 17 March 2022 by Inger Andersen, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, during the 28th United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) Tripartite Annual Executive Meeting, and this is what he had to say:

And finally, the Ministerial Declaration recognized the greater risk of future pandemics if humanity does not overhaul its interaction with nature. The UNEA sent a clear message: a healthy environment equals healthy people and animals.”

Clearly the idea of removing population from natural environments such as coastal regions and forests and green pastures seems to be maturing, if not already part of the UN Agenda 2030 and its long term vision to ‘re-wild’ farms and greenbelt lands, and herd world populations into increasingly crowded smart cities, and other centres in preparation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. That would be one way to gain control (way to go WEF!).

Christian Westbrook from Ice Age Farmer did an excellent job at breaking it down in his July 2020 video here:

.
The United Nations Development (UNEP) is also adding its weight by reminding us that our civilization ‘faces a global biodiversity emergency, a climate emergency, and a public health emergency, all stemming from the destruction of nature.’

That’s right, they want to transform the biodiversity alleged crisis into an opportunity, of course they do! Read more…

Does this not sound like fearmongering to you?

Back to the One Health Platform, which aims also at supporting attendance of the International One Health Congress by the future leaders of One Health from low and middle income countries and to promote the health and productivity of livestock in developing countries by reducing the impact of ‘neglected zoonotic diseases.’ This is where the environmental and climate agenda, and the alleged ‘zoonotic’ pandemic trigger – all come together to allow for a comprehensive approach to implementing their new technocracy. Organizations such as the International Centre for Well-Being (ICWB) supported by the Gates Foundation are amongst the grantees of the One Health Platform.

Many of you will have heard on 3 March 2022, the European Council adopting a decision to authorise the opening of negotiations with the World Health Organisation (WHO) for an international agreement (treaty) on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

Now take a look at the European Council promotional video for the Pandemic Treaty, where they sell it to you like it was for the safety of future generations, when in fact it is only about taking away EU countries’ right to self-determine their health policies, regulations and laws. It is simply scandalous. Watch: 

.
What could possibly be the urgency for pushing for such an international treaty; a legally binding under international law agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response to be adopted under the World Health Organization (WHO)?

The European Council claims this would enable countries around the globe to strengthen national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics, but is this truly their goal or just another step to World Governance? You decide…

“The proposed WHO agreement is unnecessary, and is a threat to sovereignty and inalienable rights’ said World Council for Health. “It increases the WHO’s suffocating power to declare unjustified pandemics, impose dehumanizing lock-downs, and enforce expensive, unsafe, and ineffective treatments against the will of the people.”

WCH-OPEN-LETTER-ON-WHO-PANDEMIC-TREATY-2

Many who favor a treaty believe it offers the best way to increase political commitment from states to reform global health governance, however the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that this was a hollow proposition. In fact, government responses to COVID-19 have purportedly violated or manipulated many conventions and treaties, including the WHO Constitution, International Health Regulations (IHR), and human rights agreements.

(click image to enlarge)

Government responses to COVID-19 have purportedly violated or manipulated many treaties, but wasONE Health’ included in the preparation of this proposed international treaty which was referred to in 2021 as a framework convention? The answer is YES.

Note that on page 8 of the following WHO International Treaty Framework Convention for pandemic preparedness and response document, you can see One Health’ is included in the legal considerations which demonstrates that One Health was part of the plan all along, confirming that we are looking in the right place.

Treaty WHO EC March 2021

Knowing that Charles Michel, a Belgian politician serving as President of the European Council since 2019, will be a key signatory for the proposed Pandemic Treaty together with WHO head Dr Tedros Adanson Ghebreyesus, and the fact that the Gates Foundation is the second-largest contributor to the WHO and a partner of the One Health International Coalition, it is fair to assume that the One Health platform, which is now fully endorsed by the Quadripartite WHO-OIEFAOUNEP, without mentioning Gates-funded Big Pharma vehicles GAVI and COVAX, could have played a behind-the-scenes role in pushing, if not engineering this controversial Pandemic Treaty in order to influence and gain some form of control over the decision-making process and mechanism associated with the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) by utlilising a systematised One Health Approach in everything they do. Think of it as their own customised bureaucratic framework for maximizing their own interests, whatever they may be. 

There are certainly some very suspicious synergies between this treaty and what Bill Gates describes in his latest book How to Prevent the Next Pandemic, where the billionaire vaccine mogul explains the steps required to be prepared for “the next pandemic.” In the following video, Gates breaks down his three recommended steps, with the second step being the creation of a permanent organisation of experts – who are fully paid and prepared to mount a coordinated response to a dangerous outbreak at any time. In his book, he proposes to call this group the GERM a Global Epidemic Response & Mobilization team based out of WHO’s regional offices and likely in its headquarters in Geneva. Watch: 

.
The team’s disease monitoring experts would look for potential outbreaks and once it spots one, GERM should have the ability to declare an outbreak and work with national governments and the World Bank to raise money for the response very quickly. Product development experts would then advise governments and companies on the highest-priority drugs and vaccines. People who understand computer modeling would coordinate the work of modelers around the world in order to calculate the spread of the alleged virus. And the team would help create and coordinate responses, such as how and when to implement border closures, lockdowns, social distancing, and impose the use of masks. Naturally, Bill wants to be in charge of front running this project. 

According to Gates, GERM’s response to an active outbreak would only be one part of their work. The team’s most important job is helping to run outbreak response exercises that ‘test whether the world is ready’ for the next major outbreak. Militaries regularly run war games to evaluate their readiness, and so Bill goes on by saying that we should be doing the same with any potential virus and disease threats. In most countries, these exercises would be run by local public health and military leaders, where GERM would act as an advisor and reviewer of their operations.

You might want to take the time to listen to Bill Gates’ TED Talk where he talks about GERM in great length.

We can establish that Bill Gates and Charles Michel (President of the European Council) actually know each other, and enjoy a working relationship, if not a friendship.

Funny how sometimes a few pictures can actually tell a story better than words…

It has now become quite clear that in the context of the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), part of the United Nations 2030 Agenda, there is a concentrated effort to push a narrative, associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, to establish a new biosecurity and biothreat landscape, creating the illusion of gaps in biosafety and biosecurity surveillance and response capabilities. In other words, we are not safe, and so we need an entirely new and global layer of regulations, systems and enforcement mechanisms put in place.

Why is that? And what is the ultimate goal? We will go back to this in a moment.

If you haven’t already seen it, I invite you to take the time to watch the following video called “The Plan” which provides background, but also a glimpse of future potential events to come (full video). Watch: 

.
Could this help in explaining why so much Biosafety-Biosecurity government programs have flourished around the world over the past 8 years? I have identified many of them, all avidly embracing the One Health Approach and the massive budgets and support that comes with its adoption.

Read my recent article on Germany’s Biosecurity Program and the Bundeswehr Institute of Microbiology (IMB) a military research facility of the German Armed Forces involved in Ukraine.

Now, going back to the newly formed Quadripartite WHOFAOOIEUNEP, it is important to take the time to describe The One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP) who is going to take on an important advisory role for the WHO, and likely to Bill Gates’ proposed Global Epidemic Response & Mobilization Team (GERM).

The One Health High-Level Expert Panel

This high level panel claims to contribute to advancing the One Health Agenda, by helping to better understand the root causes of disease emergence and spread, and informing decision-makers to prevent long-term public health risks. It all sounds altruistic enough. 

The OHHLEP is made up of 26 independent experts selected by the big four international organizations (FAO, OIE, UNEP, WHO).

One French expert is a member of the panel: the biologist and ecological scientist Serge Morand, research supervisor at the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) and a researcher at the French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD).

However, the high level panel is chaired by the German national Thomas Mettenleiter, President of the Institute Council of the Friedrich Loeffler Institute (FLI) and Wanda Markotter, Director of the University of Pretoria’s Centre for Viral Zoonoses in South Africa (who is also known as the African Bat Lady), will go back to her in a moment.


(click image to enlarge)

The One Health High-Level Expert Panel first meeting was held in Paris 17-18 May 2021. A press conference was organized by WHO on Thursday, 20 May 2021 in the presence of Jean-Yves Le Drian, former French Minister of Defense and current French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, who presented this new body responsible for prevention of diseases of animal origin.

Following my recent article on The German Military Biological Program in Ukraine, I was not surprised at all to see Thomas Mettenleiter, the President of the German Institute Council of the Friedrich Loeffler Institute (FLI) spearheading this outfit. The Friedrich Loeffler Institute (FLI) is strongly invested in Ukraine with their own string of biolabs projects accompanied by the Institute for Microbiology of the German Armed Forces. They were working on a Biosecurity project “Ukrainian-German biosecurity initiative for zoonoses risk management near the EU external border” (they could have said the Russian border) part of Germany Biosecurity Programme funded by the German Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Tripartite Guide to Addressing Zoonotic Diseases

en-tripartitezoonosesguide-webversion

.
Let’s go back briefly to South Africa where the
University of Pretoria One Health (UPOH ) network was initiated in 2020 to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, and in partnership with UNICEF’s Humanitarian Programme through its flagship Programme known as “Generation Unlimited”. This initiative is part of Future Africa and specifically the “One Health” cluster which activities and focus area spearheaded by Prof. Markotter who happens to be the research chair at UNICEF Future Africa and the number two at the One Health High-Level Expert Panel. Was it a coincidence that Omicron was first detected in South Africa? We’ll let you decide…

Some of you will also remember Dr. Angelique Coetzee, the South African Doctor who supposedly discovered the Omicron strain, and who later revealed how she was ‘pressured’ into describing the variant as much more dangerous than it really was. Dr Coetzee was a chairperson of the South African Medical Association (SAMA) and was quickly asked to step down. She clearly wasn’t in the know, but the South Africa Medical Association (SAMA) certainly was.

In 2018, it was SAMA who began strategising and brainstorming on what could be done, separately and jointly, to actualise the collaborative implementation of One Health in South Africa. Dr. Angelique Coetzee was one of the first to report the new variant in November 2021, confirming it was causing only ‘mild’ symptoms for those in her country. I believe Dr Coetzee was intimidated, which could indicate she was interfering with a big plan which she was not privy to. Telling the truth does have a cost in the “Need to Know” business.

SAMA_SUM_OneHealth_2018Jun25_F474ED09C9175

.
Is One Health a Public Private Partnership?

Take for instance the GIZ Global Project on Pandemic Prevention and Response, where One Health is sponsored by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) since 2021, and until at least 2024. It is worth noting that GIZ who describes itself as a service provider in the field of international cooperation for sustainable development and international education work, is a joint stock company with the legal form of a limited liability company, it is recognised as a public-benefit organisation who happens to make billions in revenue each year. No surprise here!

The GIZ project formed the German Epidemic Preparedness Team (SEEG). The SEEG Team support Germany, but also partner countries in their efforts to prepare and respond to disease outbreaks at short notice, flexibly, professionally, and globally.

To capitalize on synergies and profit from existing expertise, the Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI), Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine (BNITM), the Charité Universitätsmediz in Berlin are cooperating in this project.

For those interested in digging deeper into Germany and the role some of its organizations played in the COVID pandemic, I invite you to take a look at Charité Berlin Institute of Health (BIH). The BIH is funded 90 percent by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and 10 percent by the State of Berlin. The two founding institutions, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin and Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (The Helmholtz Association is Germany’s largest scientific research organisation with 40,000 staff working in its 18 scientific technical and bio-medical research centres). The Association’s annual budget amounts to more than €4.7 billion (just follow the money).

The Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research (FIZ) launched in 26 April 2022 the Helmholtz Institute for One Health (HIOH) in Greifswald – Germany. Coincidence?

As it turns out, the Helmholtz Institute for One Health ceremony enjoyed the presence of Dr. Chikwe Ihekweazu, Assistant Director General at the World Health Organization (WHO) and leading the WHO Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence. The architect of this WHO Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence is no one else than Jens Georg Spahn the former German Federal Minister of Health under the leadership of Chancellor Dr Angela Merkel. Spahn was also the architect of Germany’s Digital Wallet/Vaccine Passport program. What a small World…

Video: Dr. Chikwe Ihekweazu, Assistant Director General at WHO addressing the HIOH:

 

On the occasion of the World Health Summit in October 2020, Germany’s Development Minister Gerd Mueller announced the creation of a new One Health area within his Ministry.

This is one of the many statements he made during the 2020 World Health Summit:

“In view of the COVID-19 pandemic, we will massively expand the priority area of One Health and pandemic prevention,” Mueller said. “Parliamentary State Secretary Maria Flachsbarth is to coordinate our international cooperation as the BMZ’s Commissioner for global health and One Health.” 

Maria Flachsbarth is an ex-Officio Member of the Board of Governors of the African Development Bank (AfDB) from 2018–2021).

Mueller further explained that the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation & Development (BMZ) was initially investing 30 million euros from its Global Emergency COVID-19 Support Programme into the One Health program. This funding would be used to set up a first One Health pandemic centre in Kenya to promote knowledge sharing on human and animal health.

“We are strengthening food safety and early detection of zoonoses in food production together with the World Bank,” Mueller added.

On that day, One Health was officially institutionalised in Germany.

Let’s move on and take a look at the One Health European Joint Programme (OHEJP)…

The One Health European Joint Programme (OHEJP)

  1. A European One Health Joint programme (OHEJP) was launched on 1st January 2018 in which more than 40 partners from 19 European countries are participating. “Antimicrobial resistance and threats through new pathogens are controversial examples of the extent to which the health and illness of humans, animals and the environment are linked together,” said Professor Dr. Andreas Hensel, President of the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). “A joint European research programme under the auspices of One Health can help to counter microbial risks effectively.” The German partners of the European Joint Programme on One Health are the BfR, the Friedrich Loeffler Institute (FLI) and the Robert Koch Institute (RKI).

The One Health European Joint Programme (OHEJP) was created on the back of the MedVetNet network of excellence and the MedVetNet Association, One Health EJP was started with mainly reference laboratories for infectious disease in humans and animals aiming to integrate and align work processes of joint priority and through joint research.

The MedVetNet Association is one of the consortium members of OHEJP. The project will run until the end of 2022.

ANSES pdf

.
According to their Website, the goal of the European Joint Programme (EJP) is to build up a European platform for One Health which satisfies the needs of European and national political decision makers and interest groups (stakeholders). To this end, European institutions from the fields of medicine, veterinary medicine and consumer health protection in the food sector are to expand their cooperation in order to achieve progress in the containment of ‘foodborne zoonoses’ (infections transferred between humans and animals), antimicrobial resistance, and new infection hazards (emerging threats).

The examination of infectious pathogens which can be transferred from animals to humans seems to be an important focal point of the European One Health Programme. The programme fits within the EU framework programme for research and innovationHorizon 2020 succeeded by “Horizon Europe“, and sponsored by the European Commission. The One Health EJP (Grant Agreement 773830) was headed by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES). Currently, ANSES is working on Programme Parc the European Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals funded by Horizon Europe, a project seeking to develop next-generation chemical risk assessment, incorporating both human health and the environment in a “One Health” approach.

The One Health EJP aim is to generate scientific data, methods and software programs which can be used by national and European institutions to assess health risks and possible preventive measures. An exchange with other large-scale projects sponsored by the European Commission will be guaranteed at the same time. One of the tasks will be the efficient and regular transfer of knowledge between the research community and national authorities, as well as international and European stakeholders. Everyone working together in a vacuum – which is very similar to how military intelligence tends to operate. 

At the OHEJP, the One Health concept recognises that human health is tightly connected to the health of animals and the environment, for example that animal feed, human food, animal and human health, and environmental contamination are closely linked.

In line with the “Prevent-Detect-Respond” concept, the main focus of the new OHEJP is to reinforce collaboration between institutes by enhancing transdisciplinary cooperation and integration of activities by means of dedicated Joint Research Projects, Joint Integrative Project and through education and training in the fields of Foodborne Zoonoses (FBZ), Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) and Emerging Threats (ET).

Earlier, we saw French President Emmanuel Macron pushing the One Health Agenda during his speech at the 75th World Health Assembly (WHA), but here in the following video filmed at the same event, we can also hear Sajid Javid, UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, confirming his endorsement of the One Health Agenda discussing Antimicrobial Resistance and Emerging threats, two pillars of the One Health Approach. This cannot be a coincidence.

Video: Sajid Javid, UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on One Health:

 

If you have time do take a moment to check out the stakeholders of the One Health European Join Programme (OHEJP), it really helps to understand how big this Public Private Partnership structure is and what their priorities are.

There is no doubt that we are looking at the making of transdisciplinary web of European scientific outfits working with governments who are all too willing to take control of the narrative and associated scientific data and provide more ‘recommendations’ for the Global Health Security policymakers. That is the very definition of control.

Project PREZODE and Project One Health

The OHHLEP’s work is drawing on that of the PPREZODE project initiated by French research bodies including, the French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD) with the Institut Pasteur the French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development CIRAD, the national research institute for agriculture, food and the environment INRAE) with various international partners.

Perhaps that could explain why Macron is so close to Charles Michel the president of the European Council. We can see them below, joining together in a selfie with the French President together with the Arnold “The Terminator” Schwarzenegger. This could easily be interpreted as an insignificant detail, but alas, everything as a meaning. France Germany and Brussels are at the heart of One Health, and more than likely in the planning of Pandemic 1′ and certainly the ‘Pandemic 2′ (endearingly referred to by Bill Gates) which is being touted already by various and sundry experts as some variety of ‘pox’ (perhaps monkeypox or smallpox). 

For it’s part, PREZODE will implement the OHHLEP’s recommendations, combining research and operational activities to mitigate the risk of infectious diseases of animal origin emerging, through reduced pressure on biodiversity. 

Once more, the “zoonotic spillover” theory (transmission of pathogens from wild animals to humans) is pushed onto the public, forcing us to accept the idea that we are at constant risk from the animal world (and of course from the environment), and that we should be grateful to have Big Pharma and generous philanthropists like Bill Gates coming to the rescue (it is truly a wonder how humanity has made it this far without them).

The Prezode Project was announced by World Economic Forum Young leader, French President Emmanuel Macron at the One Planet Summit on 11 January 2021. It is fascinating to see how this entire puzzle is starting to shape up, even perhaps more interesting to see the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) partnering with PREZODE (Preventing Zoonotic Disease Emergence) initiative to build further collaborations to prevent the risk of zoonotic diseases emerging. 

PREZODE-ENGLISHo

.
At this stage, we must ask if the One Health Agenda was included in the blueprint of the World Economic Forum’s and Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset master plan. Let’s take a look at what was said recently during the 2022 WEF Davos Summit.

This short video demonstrates perfectly the level of obedience from the Medical R&D field that has completely assimilated the One Health Approach in their business development strategy. You may have noticed how she avoids mentioning the term One Health, but she does describe it almost to perfection. Watch: 

 

Is there a reason for that? Absolutely, scientists receive substantial funding from the US federal government, and the European Union, and major foundations advocating the One Health Agenda such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or the Welcome Trust, just to name a few. This could explain why many of these doctors kept silent during the vaccination roll out in Europe, but also in the US and in the UK. One thing is for sure is that this roster of high-profile doctors are pushing the Globalist One Health Agenda at the many WEF confabs in 2022. I don’t know about you, but this looks very scripted to me…

‘Threat Based Economy’ – One Health and the Global Health Security Agenda

The GHSA is an alliance of 70 countries as well as international and non-government organizations, and private sector companies, working to secure global health security. It includes WHO, OIE, FAO, and also the World Bank and Interpol.

According to GHS, the objectives of the Global Health Security will require not only a “One Health” approach to counter natural disease threats against humans, animals, and the environment, but also a security focus to counter deliberate threats to human, animal, agricultural health and to nations’ economies. That is what I call a “Threat Based Economy.”

Here is an extract of a 2017 interview with Dr Simo Nikkari, GHSA/JEE expert at the Centre for Military Medicine, Finland talking in 2017 about the One Health Concept being at the centre of the Global Health Security Policies. The Joint External Evaluations (JEE) is an alliance, but also a tool used by the WHO to obtain independent assessment of countries capacity to comply with the WHO International Health Regulations known as IHR.

Dr Simo Nikkari, GHSA/JEE Expert one health 2017 interview:

 

What Dr. Nikkari mentioned at the end of this video is extremely important, as it clearly demonstrates how already, in 2017, One Health was considered as the foundation for a new framework for public action including animal and human health, but also in agriculture, defense, economic development, food safety planning, public safety planning, tourism, trade and transport. We can now see how it has been designed to cover all aspects of the global economy and society. The One Health Agenda provides the necessary dataset for Global Security Policymakers and the Quadripartite of the WHO-OIE-FAO-UNEP to remove once and for all sovereign countries right to self-determination. It is crystal clear that unelected body (private public partnership) will make the rules for us, if we let them. 

WHO proposed pandemic treaty will strengthen the International Health Regulations (IHR) through a One Health Approach as confirmed by the WHO here. Here we can see how the global Pandemic Treaty slides perfectly into the One Health framework. It provides the organizational structure and bureaucracy for the Pandemic Treaty, and could form the required cornerstone needed to erect a future One World global government. 

This explains why EU policymakers and the European Council are all in favour of a pandemic treaty with the WHO, which could give rise to unimaginable abuse of power and the destruction of democracy as we know it. The United Nations is clearly where the New World Order has encored itself. Rest assured that this treaty is nothing short but a stepping stone that will empower the new global order and its public private partnership partners in ways and magnitude that has never been seen before.

The One Health Agenda is a key component but also The Primer” for the Great Reset and the structural blueprint for a new economic model, which I will call the “One Economy”.

The One Health Approach is fully integrated into a burgeoning “global health security” policy framework – including global food security policies, global agriculture policies, global environment policies, global transport policies, global defense policies (etc), all encapsulated in the One Health Agenda.

According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), an agency of the European Union, the most prominent disease threats related to the One Health concept includes emerging disease vectors (zoonotic and human origin), AMR (anti-microbial resistance), and bioterrorism. The ECDC webpage has already announced an outbreak of monkeypox since early May, currently promoting contact tracing and isolation, but also asking EU countries to review their diagnosis capacity, like PCR Tests, and their Monkeypox vaccine’s stock.

Déjà Vu?

Note that bioterrorism, a term often touted by Bill Gates, effectively pulls the entire One Health program under the purview of national security and global security. As with the Global War on Terror (2001-present), any decrees issued under the One Health banner will be classed as ‘security measures’ and therefore supersede all normal expectations of civil liberties and rights.

This also means that whatever ‘The Science’ consensus is at the WHO level, will also be folded into this new global health security matrix. Add to this the prospective WHO Pandemic Treaty, and you then have a situation where there can be no ‘opt-outs.’ So ‘The Science’, becomes a de facto global mandate, and one step close to global government. 

ECDC spokesperson Dr. Andrea Ammon on potential monkeypox outbreak in the EU/EEA:

 

Alleged zoonoses pathogens, such as Ebola, Zika, and Avian Influenza, Leishmaniasis, West Nile virus, brucellosis, tularaemia, monkey pox, regular influenza, rabies, hantavirus – were all identified and highlighted by One Health experts who identified the sectors and/or disciplines that should be prioritised for intensified collaboration with public health. These included:

 Veterinarian services

 Wildlife (e.g. entomologists)

 Transport

 Trade

 Media and communication

 Biosecurity

 Pharmaceutical

 Law enforcement, police, border control

 Environment (geological survey, land planning/development)

 Civil society (volunteers, citizen scientists)

 Risk management (insurance industries)

 Legislation (government, policy, NGOs)

Experts also highlighted the need for cross-disciplinary research, particularly in relation to modeling research involving big data and potentially artificial intelligence for compiling and analysing disparate datasets and historical research.

The year 2017 was a pivotal year for the One Health Agenda, with a sudden noticeable acceleration in the project, and we can now observe the results from such efforts in their call for public action to institutionalise One Health, as described in this 2017 expert consultation report entitled, ECDC – Towards One Health Preparedness. Read more…

One-Health-preparedness-24-May-2018

.
The “One Economy” will, over the years, trigger regular call for public action to ensure these economies’ polices and regulations are place under the Quadripartite of WHO-FAO-OIE-UNEP. This will each time result in a “legally binding treaty” which will compel European and other signatory countries to surrender their right of self-determination and the future of their economies?

I have already identified few of these calls to action, and here is one of them:

The One Ocean” – The French President Emmanuel Macron and Ursula Von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, accompanied by 40 other head of states and governments respectively, initiated and participated in the launch of the “One Ocean Agenda” at the One Planet Summit for the Ocean, and this is what Ursula had to say:

The Coalition is calling for the adoption of an ambitious treaty for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. We need an international agreement, a legally binding instrument that would sustainably govern the high seas. We are so close, but we need to push”.

On 12th February 2022, in the context of global governance, the European Union and the French Presidency of the Council launched the High Ambition Coalition on the High Seas. Here the heads of state stressed the urgency of finding an operational agreement by the end of the year. With this in mind, the 27 member states of the European Union and 16 non-EU countries launched the High Ambition Coalition for a legally binding High Seas Treaty” with the ultimate end goal of the One Ocean Agenda which will likely be placed under the roof of the United Nation Environment Programme who organised two workshops during the summit, one focusing on the new Blue Economy, and the second on Marine Protected Areas (MPA).

We must stay vigilant and examine the contents of these treaties and reject them when the democratic process is undermined.

One Country One Priority Product (OCOP)

On 7 September 2021, Rome, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) part of its Global Action plan on Green Development of Special Agricultural Products launched the One Country One Priority Product (OCOP) agenda, an initiative aiming at boosting the value chains of special agricultural products to ensure food security, improve nutrition, increase incomes and preserve the environment. 

This is what FAO Director-General, QU Dongyu, at the launch event had to say:

The transformation of agri-food systems starts by identifying one product or a specific crop….This one product then becomes an entry-point for new, concrete actions to achieve tangible results for better production, better nutrition, a better environment and a better life for all, leaving no one behind.”

On 11th March 2022, in Accra,Ghana, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) launched the new ‘One Country One Priority Product’ initiative in Africa,

The transformation of agri-food systems starts by identifying one product or a specific crop,” highlighted the Director-General QU Dongyu.

The One Country One Priority Product (OCOP) is part of the FAO One Health global action plan to achieve Global Food & Nutrition Security and this plan falls under the FAO one health integrated approach agenda.

Could Kissinger’s famous quote have inspired the FAO and its One Country One Priority Product?

“Control oil, and you control nations; control food, and you control people” – Henry Kissinger

As you can appreciate, everything tends to link back to the One Health Primer and I believe a global treaty for food & nutrition security is to be expected in a near future where the FAO (Quadripartite member) will be the world undisputed authorities for its policies.

Now tell me this is not about controlling population…


(click image to enlarge)

One Health: A Corporate World Order

Around the year 2017, many world leading companies started to reflect on how to use and integrate One Health into their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategies and their business development models, many adopting the One Health Concept and embracing the vision that ‘our health and that of the planet are totally interdependent.’

A great example of such engagement is Danone, one of the world’s leading food companies, going so far as to revamp their corporate logo by adding a “One Planet One Health” strap line. According to Danone, this initiative is symbolizing a new step in ambition to become the catalyst for the Food Revolution. It encourages all consumers and food stakeholders to join the One Planet One Health movement (read more here).

Other companies such as Veolia, a world leader in ecological transformation, is using its Veolia Foundation to promote the “One Sustainable Health” (OSH) approach with the objective to put forward influential recommendations and innovative actions by using the OSHA Forum. According to the Veolia Foundation, this process will lead to recommendations for public policies and the implementation of operational actions in the field in favour of One Health for All” (back to the primer). The recommendations will be at the heart of an OSH Forum statement, which can be adopted at the World Health Summit 2022 (October 16-18 Berlin, Germany).

According to the Partners Foundations of the One Sustainable Health for All (OSHA), such recommendations ‘will help guide the public policies and operational programme of states, international agencies, companies, NGOs and foundations.’

It is quite clear that global corporations and their foundations, together with NGO’s and government agencies, have used the COVID-19 pandemic as this new global launch platform – carving out a window of opportunity for their new initiatives with an integrated One Health Approach. One could say that some of these entities may have benefited from an early warning, but that is for you to decide. 

To survive in the New Economy, one would need to pledge allegiance to One Health

The globalists favoured Public Private Partnership model has created many privileged channels, special forums and lobbying groups – all of which will definitely ensure the corporate leaders of yesterday will secure their legacies – and remain the captains of industry tomorrow. Step by step, they will continue to become more and more influential in forming consensus, and will be able to orientate the public policies in ways that benefit them and their privileged cohort. This level of corporate feudalism will eventually plunge the small and medium size enterprises into a disadvantaged position, unable to keep up and afford the rafts of regulations and endless ‘compliance’ – a very unfair competition which they will not be able to survive in, as these already gigantic corporate consortiums continue to own everything (while you and I will own nothing, and be happy).

Is it a coincidence companies like Mercedez call their new AMG hybrid Project One? Is it a coincidence that global insurance company like Allianz call their new travel insurance OneTrip Emergency Medical? And is it a coincidence that Bayer AG, a German multinational pharmaceutical company, is also promoting the One Health Agenda?

Video: Bayer & One Health

 

Our governments around the world were prepared for this COVID 19 so-called pandemic. How can we forget the UK’s Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, launching with prime minister David Cameron in 2015 the UK Vaccine Network, chaired by the infamous Chris Whitty, to ensure that the UK was at the forefront of the global fight against future disease outbreaks.

The UK Vaccine Network had already identified that many pathogens of epidemic potential were zoonotic in origin and therefore a One Health Approach was essential to tackle these diseases. The Department of Health and Social Care collaborated then with Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) a non-departmental public body principally funded through the Science Budget by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), to run a research competition to support One Health Approaches to accelerate vaccine development. One Health is not new for them, it was only kept under the radar until a window of opportunity came knocking at their door.  

The UK Vaccine network tells you that One Health Research promotes ‘antigen discovery, enhance understanding of disease pathogenesis, and accelerate vaccine development.’ (Note: speed to market is key, how can we forget these supersonic clinical trial and vaccine development, from 10 years to 6 months)

In conclusion

I could probably go on for few more pages listing all the corporations, NGO’s and foundations, as well as governments that have pledged their allegiance to the new One Health world religion, but I would like to think at this stage you’ve already got the picture. What we are witnessing taking shape here is well financed, cohesive supranational network with centralised decision and policy-making powers. It is now extremely close to being fully operational, and it represents the basis of a global ‘Public Private Partnership’ coup d’etat

If you are a ‘One Health’ true believer, you will no doubt be eager to offer up your arms for more experimental gene therapies, and of course you are prepared to adopt a vegan/vegetarian diet, eschew air travel, not to mention having a wonderful life in your new solar and wind-powered lightly air conditioning smart apartment in your dedicated Smart City, with its beautiful art deco vertical farms. Hopefully, you will have a view to remind you what you gladly gave up to feel safe.

It is absolutely unequivocal that One Health is a pillar of our ‘Keepers’ master plan, created to feed the global health policy makers with big scary bulletproof data that will justify any and all new emergency measures, new norms, and new liberticide laws that are vital for stealing what’s left of our inalienable rights, liberties and freedoms.

One Health was not always popular, but slowly it has made its way up to the top of the globalist agenda, and will now play an important role in the new economic model (Great Reset), cleverly crafted by the World Economic Forum and McKinsey & Co. (one of the Big Four consultancies), as they continue to inundate the public with the latest “zoonotic spillover” narrative, with the help of the credulous WEF Young Leaders who we have naively elected and of course with the unconditional support of our beloved mainstream media. 

The globalists are building a virtual economy invoking the following: biodiversity emergency, climate emergency, defense threat emergency, food security emergency and public health emergency at any given opportunity, leaving some of us to wonder if the One Health agenda could actually be the operational corner stone, if not the building blocks, of not only the Great Reset, but an embryonic One World Government.

Meanwhile, they are gently collapsing the old economic model with all its dirty secrets, whilst ‘Building Back Better’ for themselves, of course. We can now see a controlled demolition exercise in progress, where it’s better to go along to get along if you don’t want to be censured, left behind, or simply buried under this new technocratic avalanche.

The plan seems to be simple and visibly designed to keep you in a constant state of fear, whilst leading the individual on a series of guilt trips (similar to the religious concept of original sin).

Are we going to surrender our freedom and human rights for one last dose of their biosafety cocktail? 

I cannot stop thinking that humans might have just become a new commodity, another resource to trade on the market. No more need for quantitative easing, our body will generate billions if not trillions for the banks, the drug and food manufacturer cartels, and the generous philanthropist that have now taken over our countries and governments.

The prospect of profit and easy funding has perverted too many of our academics and some in the scientific community, many of who have struggled way too long, waiting for budget that never came, and simply saw a commercial or political opportunity to fulfill their personal ambitions. As for our elected representatives, they are chosen for their ability to not rock boat and for their lack of political courage, so unfortunately there’s little to no hope there, at least for the immediate present.

The new system will make sure we remain disciplined and an ever more predictable consumer with the use of AI, geolocation, facial recognition technologies and machine learning apps. There is a strong case for our bodies to become addicted and dependent from their drugs and vaccines, creating more side effects until our last breath, our last song (probably Otis Redding, These Arms Of Mine).

The One Health Coalition end goal is to have vaccines manufacturing facilities in all the countries that are active members of the WHO, and with the looming international agreement (treaty) on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, they are getting one step closer to achieving it (and not without help from Bill Gates). I am worried that if we keep on entertaining this New World Order lunacy we will end up owning nothing and being very unhappy, and leaving our kids and their kids, to be pricked and manipulated for a very long time to come.

However, I will end this article on a bright note. I see undeniable courage every day, as whistle-blowers continue to come forward every week, telling us their story from the inside. There are still many good and valuable people working for these corrupted institutions and organisations, and in time, more will come forward to confirm what we already know, or at least by then some would have realised what they are actually part of.

Good work is done everyday in institutes and labs around the world, but we need more transparency and to expose those who see ‘dual use’ of science as a limitless commercial concern, or a power-grabbing opportunity.

Remember your oath if you are a Doctor, and remember who you serve when you are a politician, and if you consider yourself to be a citizen of the world, do not take true democracy for granted. Always be reminded that it is an everyday fight just to keep it alive, and therefore it is our duty to actively participate in its preservation.

In my next article we will investigate the Monkeypox Mythology and other misconstrued ideas about viruses and associated vaccines in the context of One Health.

PART 2: One Health: Trojan Horse for Climate Change a ‘Global Health Emergency’
PART 3: ONE HEALTH: Food Security and the Catalyst for Manufactured Emergencies

READ MORE COVID NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire COVID Files

SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM HERE

Restore Your Health - Clive de Carle's Natural Vitamin & Mineral Supplements
Get Clive de Carle'sNatural Health essentials of the finest quality, including vitamin & mineral supplementshere.