The Pandemic Treaty
Since any of the legitimate methods for regaining the public’s trust (e.g., apologizing for their actions and reforming their conduct) will cost the billionaires a lot of money, the pandemic cartel is opting for the only other option available to them—doubling down on their current approach (e.g., by arguing the actual reason the pandemic response was a disaster was because we didn’t do enough of what they wanted) and reworking the legal system so any dissent from their policies is illegal. Since that would be almost impossible to do within the existing Democratic framework (as more and more countries are having populist movements rebel against the pandemic cartel) a global strategy which bypasses national governments is being employed instead.
This began in November of 2020,
at G20 (the annual gathering for the leading economic powers) where a
proposal was put forward for a “pandemic treaty” to ensure the nations
of the world would handle future pandemics in an “appropriate” manner. A
few months later, in March of 2021,
citing the statements made at G20, the World Economic Forum (WEF)
echoed this call—which suggests much of what they were proposing to the
public had already been put together in private.
Note:
the Global Biosecurity Agenda was already being created during the
Obama administration. Additionally, before that, massive sums were
expended for pandemic prevention and response beginning with the 2001
anthrax letters (which originated from a US biolab). The PREP Act,
which for the first time allowed untested, unlicensed drugs and
vaccines to be rolled out to the entire nation with no liability for
anyone, simply because of the potential for a national security
emergency, got passed in 2005—revealing that the planning for the
pandemic racket began at least two decades ago.
Since that time, a series of policies and regulations has gradually been put together by the WHO, the UN, the World Bank, the US, the EU and other multinational organizations (with the assistance of the other globalist organizations like the UN and the Rockefeller Foundation) to remedy the “deficiencies” in our pandemic response. Those policies and regulations in turn are part of a “pandemic treaty,” amendments to existing International Health Regulations, or domestic legislation that each member of the WHO is being pushed to adopt, and by virtue of being an international treaty must then be followed by each signatory country.
The pandemic treaty in turn contains a wishlist of each thing globalists have been working for over the last few decades. Let’s now review what’s inside it.
Climate Change and Pandemics
Since the “war on climate change” and the “war on pandemics” represent two of the greatest sources of wealth and power for the global elite, a lot of work has been put into conditioning the public being terrified of the existential risk each allegedly poses.
In turn, the pandemic treaty seeks to link both of these together by arguing that “climate change” is the root cause of the disastrous pandemics, and that this “problem” thus necessitates giving the WHO (and its related organizations) control over how we interact with the environment.
Note: while the link between the two is typically not specified, whenever a concrete justification is given, it is typically that wildlife habitat loss is bringing humans (or livestock) into closer contact with wild animals that harbor potentially serious diseases. While habitat loss is a huge ecological issue, there is very little evidence tying it to pandemics (as outside of biolabs, consequential animal to human disease transmissions are quite rare).
One Health
A common way humans have obtained power throughout history is by declaring an idea to the world and then having the world submit to that declaration (e.g., much of my work relates to one of the core declarations our medical system’s credibility rests upon—the lie vaccines are always safe and effective and that the global decline of infectious disease was the result of mass vaccination).
In
the modern era, declarations are brought to life by having a large body
of literature (and laws) reference and affirm those declarations.
Because of this, we regularly see that new brands aiming to serve as
modern day declarations be put forward via massive investments made
behind the scenes to establish the “credibility” of the declaration.
Note: declarations are also being used to push along the pandemic treaty. For example, the WHO’s director has stated
the treaty is necessary for the survival of our future generations
(e.g., grandchildren) and that there is a universal agreement amongst
nations that we need this treaty to prevent another catastrophe like
COVID-19. The important thing to remember is that while these
declarations may sound very convincing, they are in fact lies.
One Health began in 2004,
at an international (globalist) conference where the idea was put
forward that public health needed be expanded into a umbrella which
could control (and profit off) every aspect of our lives. For example,
“climate change” was folded into public health under the rationale that
the dire environmental threats we faced necessitated making “ecological
health” a core facet of public health. As you might expect, the push for
“One Health” was merged with the notion that the problems we now faced
were too complex for the electorate to solve and hence necessitated
decisions which would control our lives being delegated to a panel of
multidisciplinary “experts.”
Note: the major problem with
relying upon experts is how easy they are to buy off—particularly since
the (corporate owned) media will typically only allow people who can be
bought off to become our “experts.”
Since its founding, the scope of “One Health” has gradually expanded to cover each progressive concept (e.g., overpopulation, where humans should live, what farming practices should be used, global trade, vaccines, managing a wide variety of chronic diseases, promoting diversity and equity etc.). According to an editorial in The Lancet published in January 2023:
The reality is that One Health will be delivered in countries, not by concordats between multilateral organisations, but by taking a fundamentally different approach to the natural world, one in which we are as concerned about the welfare of non-human animals and the environment as we are about humans. In its truest sense, One Health is a call for ecological, not merely health, equity.
In short it’s morphed from a way to cover up lab leaks to a way to control each aspect of human life in the name of “health.” For example, One Health continually emphasizes the need for more surveillance and centralized control of public “health,” which will likely dovetail with the push to have digital identifications that will be used to track the global population.
Note: more detailed summaries of the broad scope of One Health can be found here and here.
At this point, I strongly suspect “One Health” was concocted by a public relations firm
which was paid to come up with the most emotionally appealing euphemism
that would effectively convince everyone to comply with its ever
increasing dictates (which the public would likely never agree to were
they to be presented in honest language). Likewise, as time has moved
forward, more and more other (globalist) organizations have come
together to support this declaration. For example:
•The CDC has a “One Health Office” tasked with promoting One Health domestically and abroad.
•The WHO has a team tasked with promoting One Health.
•Many other US agencies are devoted to promoting One Health (e.g., the USDA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the FDA and the NIH).
•Many
other large international organizations (e.g., the UN, FAO, OIE, and
UNICEF) along with their satellite organizations in each Western nation are aggressively promoting the One Health message.
•Private globalist organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation and the WEF are funding and promoting One Health.
•Many other longstanding institutions within the medical industrial complex (e.g., the American Medical Association and the premier medical journals) are also promoting One Health.
Note: many foreign equivalents of these institutions are also promoting the One Health agenda (e.g., Australia’s recently created CDC and Moldova’s FDA).
In
short, many billions in grants have been given throughout the world to
establish “One Health” as a pillar of public health throughout the
world. One Health is now embedded in most governments on every
continent…even though it is still impossible to identify this nebulous
concept has actually done anything that benefited health.
Note: American’s 2023 National Defensive Authorization Act
contained a provision to advance the “One Health Approach” and provided
at least one billion a year to support it (alongside financing a few
related globalist “public health” organizations).
So as you might have guessed, everyone who made a lot of money off COVID-19 (even Pfizer) is promoting One Health because enshrining this incredibly vague declaration within the legal and public health system provides them with the means to enact whatever policies benefit them. In turn, advancing “One Health” is a key theme throughout the WHO’s pandemic treaty.
The parties commit to promote and implement a One Health approach for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response that is coherent, integrated, coordinated collaborative among all relevant actors, with the application of, and in accordance with, national law.
Lastly, for anyone who doubts One Health is part of a globalist power grab to “regulate” (and monetize) every aspect of our lives, consider the text of this report (which repeatedly mentions promoting “One Health”)
Note: it’s quite remarkable how similar this language is to Bush’s famous 1991 “New World Order” speech which was used to kickstart our decades of disastrous wars in the Middle East.
Likewise, as the Lancet shows, a lot of this is just about money:
We call for the creation of an integrated and flexible Global Health Fund…The Global Health Fund would require annual disbursements of the order of $60 billion per year…This recommended annual funding of $60 billion would be allocated roughly as follows: commodities, $20 billion per year; pandemic preparedness, $15 billion per year; and support for primary health systems, $25 billion per year…We also highlight the design and political advantages of consolidating the target funding into a single Global Health Fund, which will ensure consistency, coordination with WHO, and a holistic vision of health that places the health system at the core.
The Global Health Fund should be closely aligned with the work of WHO. We propose that the Fund has its headquarters in Geneva, but has strong regional offices in each of the six WHO regions…The Global Health Fund should be supplemented by an emergency financing mechanism to enable a surge of funding in the face of a global health emergency.
Note: I am a lifelong environmentalist and fully agree with some of the concepts One Health touches upon (e.g., deforestation and habitat loss) are huge issues that need to be solved. Unfortunately, my experience again and again with the environmental movement is that once big money comes in and it stops being a grassroots process, the mission changes from addressing critical environmental issues to advancing the interests of the rich and powerful—which often are power grabs that have nothing to do with protecting the environment.
