The plan was launched by the Quadripartite, which, in addition to WHO, consists of the: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, founded as OIE)1
The World Health Organization already has too much power. This new initiative amounts to taking multiple globalist organizations and synchronizing their plans, while at the same time combining their resources and power to create a One Health plan. “The Quadripartite will join forces to leverage the needed resources in support of the common approach to address critical health threats and promote the health of people, animals, plants and the environment,” according to a WHO press release. One can only imagine what this really means, particularly as they highlight “emerging and re-emerging zoonotic epidemics.”
What Is the One Health Joint Plan of Action?
On paper, WHO states the One Health Joint Plan of Action (OH JPA) “seeks to improve the health of humans, animals, plants, and the environment, while contributing to sustainable development.” Its five-year plan, which spans 2022 to 2026, intends to expand capacities in six One Health areas: Health systems Emerging and re-emerging zoonotic epidemics, endemic zoonotic The environment Neglected tropical and vector-borne diseases Food safety risks Antimicrobial resistance The plan includes a technical document “informed by evidence, best practices and existing guidance,” which covers a set of actions intended to advance One Health at global, regional and national levels. “These actions notably include the development of an upcoming implementation guidance for countries, international partners, and non-state actors such as civil society organizations, professional associations, academia and research institutions,” a WHO2345
press release reads. In other words, the ultimate goal is to create rules to be followed on a global scale, including the following “operational objectives”: Providing a framework for collective and coordinated action to mainstream the One Health approach at all levels Providing upstream policy and legislative advice and technical assistance to help set national targets and priorities Promoting multinational, multi-sector, multidisciplinary collaboration, learning and exchange of knowledge, solutions and technologies WOAH director general Dr. Monique Eloit stated, “Using a One Health lens that brings all relevant sectors together is critical to tackle global health threats, like monkeypox, COVID-19 and Ebola.” Meanwhile, WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus repeated the rhetoric that a “One Health” approach would be necessary to save the world:
“It's clear that a One Health approach must be central to our shared work tostrengthen the world's defences against epidemics and pandemics such asCOVID-19. That's why One Health is one of the guiding principles of the newinternational agreement for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response,which our Member States are now negotiating.”
Is WHO Trying to Preserve the Status Quo?
Timing-wise, WHO's One Health Joint Plan of Action announcement may be serving the purpose of covering up the lab origins of SARS-CoV-2, so they can continue to go into caves and other areas, dig up new, or unknown, viruses and bring them back into densely populated areas where high-security biosafety laboratories are typically located. WHO's investigation into COVID-19's origin was a “fake” investigation from the start. China was allowed to hand pick the members of WHO's investigative team, which included Peter Daszak, Ph.D., who has close professional ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).6789
The inclusion of Daszak on this team virtually guaranteed the dismissal of the lab-origin theory, and in February 2021, WHO cleared WIV and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan, China of wrongdoing, saying these labs had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak. Molecular biologist Richard Ebright, Ph.D., laboratory director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology and member of the Institutional Biosafety Committee of Rutgers University and the Working Group on Pathogen Security of the state of New Jersey, called out the members of the WHO-instigated investigative team as “participants in disinformation.” Only after backlash, including an open letter signed by 26 scientists demanding a full and unrestricted forensic investigation into the pandemic's origins, did WHO enter damage control mode, with Ghebreyesus and 13 other world leaders joining the U.S. government in expressing “frustration with the level of access China granted an international mission to Wuhan.” Of note, according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his book “Vax-Unvax,” of which I received a preview copy, Ghebreyesus was chosen to be WHO's director general by Bill Gates — not because of his qualifications, as Tedros has no medical degree and a background that includes accusations of human rights violations, but due to this loyalty to Gates. Gates, through his billions in donations to WHO, has significant leverage over WHO's decisions. So who is ultimately controlling WHO's One Health Joint Plan of Action and its initiatives aimed at further controlling global health and society?
Trust WHO? Watch This to Learn About the Real WHO
Giving WHO and its cronies more global control is a bad idea. Decentralized health care and pandemic planning — moving from the global and federal levels to the state and local levels — makes sense, as both medicine and government work best when individualized and locally oriented. As it stands, however, the opposite global agenda is being applied.1011121314
If there were any doubt, watch TrustWHO, above, a documentary film produced by Lilian Franck that delves into the corruption behind the preeminent organization that's being trusted with public health. In it you'll learn that industry infiuences, from Big Tobacco to the nuclear industry and pharmaceuticals, dictated WHO's global agenda from the start. WHO's 2009 H1N1 pandemic response was heavily infiuenced by the pharmaceutical industry. Many are also unaware that WHO signed an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is “promoting peaceful use of atomic energy,” in 1959, making it subordinate to the agency in relation to ionizing radiation. WHO works closely with IAEA and has downplayed health effects caused by the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters.
WHO's Strong Allegiance to China
If history is any indication, WHO's assembly of global superpowers striving to control everything from health to the environment is not going to act in the public's best interest. During the COVID-19 pandemic, WHO acted to protect its allegiance to China above all else — including public health. According to a Sunday Times investigation published in August 2021, WHO's allegiance to China was secured years earlier, when China secured WHO votes to ensure its candidates would become director-general. Further:
“The WHO leadership prioritized China's economic interests over halting thespread of the virus when Covid-19 first emerged. China exerted ultimate controlover the WHO investigation into the origins of Covid-19, appointing its chosenexperts and negotiating a backroom deal to water down the mandate.”
Its China ties played a “decisive role” in the course of the pandemic. On January 28, 2020, four weeks after Taiwan had alerted WHO that a mysterious respiratory illness was spreading in China, WHO had not yet taken action and continued to praise China. Ghebreyesus even praised China for their transparency and said the Chinese president had “shown ‘rare leadership' and deserved ‘gratitude and respect' for acting to contain1516
the outbreak at the epicenter,” the Sunday Times reported. “These ‘extraordinary steps' had prevented further spread of the virus, and this was why, he said, there were only ‘a few cases of human-to-human transmission outside China, which we are monitoring very closely.'” Speaking with the Sunday Times, Ebright said it was this close connection that ultimately steered the course of the pandemic:
“Not only did it have a role; it has had a decisive role. It was the only motivation.There was no scientific or medical or policy justification for the stance that theWHO took in January and February 2020. That was entirely premised onmaintaining satisfactory ties to the Chinese government.So at every step of the way, the WHO promoted the position that was sought bythe Chinese government ... the WHO actively resisted and obstructed efforts byother nations to implement effective border controls that could have limited thespread or even contained the spread of the outbreak.It is impossible for me to believe that the oficials in Geneva, who were makingthose statements, believed those statements accorded with the facts that wereavailable to them at the time the statements were made. It's hard not to see thatthe direct origin of that is the support of the Chinese government for Tedros'selection as director-general ...This was a remarkably high return on [China's] investment with the relativelysmall sums that were invested in supporting his election. It paid off on a grandscale for the Chinese government.”
WHO Goes All in on Global Superpower Plan
It's already clear that WHO's usefulness as a guardian of public health needs to be reevaluated. Now, it stands to become even more powerful. Rather than learning anything from the course of the pandemic response, it seems they're willing to risk it all1718
and continue following what got us into this mess in the first place. Only now, they'll be doing so with additional collaborative powers. The One Health Joint Plan of Action's continued focus on “zoonotic epidemics,” when evidence strongly suggests SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab, is revealing. So, too, are its claims that only One Health can save us from “ecosystem degradation, food system failures, infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance.” The disturbing part is One Health sounds like a fairy tale that will lead to a utopian society. In reality, the “health” it's spreading isn't health like you're thinking, but rather health in the form of whatever product, technology or globalist agenda they're pushing. By joining forces, they become that much harder to overcome — and they're already moving ahead on financing and plans for “implementation.” According to WHO, “Efforts by just one sector or specialty cannot prevent or eliminate infectious disease and other complex threats to One Health ... Building on existing structures and agreements, mechanisms for coordinated financing are under development to support the plan's implementation.”
Read the full article at the original website