WHO’s Dictator General to initiate climate lockdowns!

‘One Health’ will give WHO’s Dictator General power to initiate climate lockdowns
By Rhoda Wilson on May 24, 2023

The proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHRs”) and the Pandemic Treaty both incorporate the “One Health” approach.

One Health has little definition or structure and is sold using vague strings of words and phrases that are meaningless and often confusing. This is deliberate and in the same vein as tactics used by governments during the covid era to keep populations confused and so more likely to blindly follow instructions.

Behind the verbiage, One Health is a tool to create networks and combine efforts towards centralising power and control.  Once central power has been achieved then similar measures that were imposed in response to the covid “pandemic” can be used for climate change, loss of biodiversity, human diseases, vector-borne diseases and more.

Where will the power and control be centralised? The World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) Director Dictator General Tedros the Terrorist and, ultimately, those who fund WHO.

That One Health is incorporated into WHO’s global dictatorship plans has almost slipped under the radar, but some researchers such as Dr. Meryl Nass have noticed, investigated and are trying to inform others.

One of the biggest changes WHO has seen in its 75-year history is a shift from funding from sovereign nations to funding from private parties.  As of now, the bulk of the WHO’s funding comes from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and two closely aligned vaccine-based non-profits funded by vaccine and pharma companies, the vaccine alliance GAVI and the global Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations or CEPI.

There’s no hiding the incestuous interconnection between various governments and organisations including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum (“WEF”).  It’s no coincidence that the Gates Foundation is the second largest funder of WHO, which is also helping to fund WEF.

WHO’s “Pandemic Treaty” will not only be concerned with pandemics. It introduces globally the “One Health” ideology. The concept recognises the interdependence of human and animal health and the connection with the environment. Through this One Health agenda, WHO will have the power to make decisions in matters relating to the environment (including greenhouse gas emissions, pollution and deforestation), animal health (e.g., livestock) and human health (including vaccinations, social determinants and population movement). With these extended powers, WHO could readily declare a climate or environmental emergency and enforce lockdowns.

Read more: The plan for WHO supremacy over human health, Alliance for Natural Health International, 11 May 2023

Not only is One Health included in the Pandemic Treaty, but it is also in the proposed amendments to the IHRs which are being negotiated at the 76th World Health Assembly this week.

On Monday, the host of the Dutch podcast Voorwaarheid (English ‘Video Truth’) Willem Engel interviewed Dr. Meryl Nass about One Health and how it has spread and is being used for a hidden agenda. Dr. Nass has published several articles about One Health on her Substack page HERE.

One Health was a concept some doctors and veterinarians came up with about 20 years ago. International organisations and self-appointed elites hijacked the idea to use it as a means of gaining power and control over most of the world, Dr. Meryl Nass told Engel.  As a result, the “basket of items” that could be included in the One Health concept has continued to expand.

“UN agencies became involved with it. Other international agencies like the World Organisation for Animal Health became involved.  And the Rockefeller Foundation started funding it in 2009.  And so, by 2009 it had already been captured and CDC rolled out a One Health programme.

By 2012, the idea of One Health was rolled out at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

“It became a lot of words that, simply saying, different groups needed to work together for their shared objectives.  But the objectives were not defined. The methods by which they were to work together were not defined.  And the projects they were to work on weren’t defined either.”

There have been at least 60 different definitions of “One Health.”  Dr. Nass read out a few.  You can read these on the first two pages of the slides that accompany her interview HERE.

According to the most recent and authoritative definition, One Health includes not only people and animals, as was the original concept 20 years ago, but it now also includes plants, waterways and ecosystems.  The One Health Commission claims that One Health is a “ray of hope for addressing our global challenges” and lists 14 “global challenges” including food, water safety, security, soil health and “comparative biology.”

The four lead agencies underlying One Health are WHO and three UN agencies – Food and Agriculture Organisation (“FAO”), United Nations Environment Programme (“UNEP”) and World Organisation for Animal Health (“OIE”).

The One Health approach is built into the proposed amendments to the IHRs that are currently on the table.  Some of the amendments are likely to be voted on at the World Health Assembly this week and the remainder in May 2024.

“The One Health approach … will fall under the purview of the WHO Director-General whenever he or she decides to declare a public health emergency of international concern.

“It probably won’t be implemented until 10 months after next May [22 months from now] when the new International Health Regulations would be able to go into effect.  But some of it may be, if it’s passed this year, it will only take 18 months [from now] to go into effect and our nations will only have 10 months to pull out if they want to.

“We have to do what we can to stop it [before it goes into effect next year].  Which we can do by pulling out of the WHO.”

#ExitTheWHO

During the second half of the interview, Dr. Nass and Engel had an interesting discussion about the origins of the “pandemic.”  It’s well worth the listen.

https://rumble.com/v2pf3hq-dr.-meryl-nass-one-world-one-health.html

The video above is embedded from Rumble.  If you are unable to view the video, you can watch it on Odysee HERE.

https://odysee.com/@Voorwaarheid:1/2023-05-22-One-World-One-Health-Met-Dr.-Meryl-Nass:e

Further resources:

    ‘One Health’: What Is It, Who’s Promoting It – and Why? Children’s Health Defense
    ‘One Health’ — The Global Takeover of Everything? Children’s Health Defense
    One Health: A Plan to ‘Surveil and Control Every Aspect of Life on Earth’? Children’s Health Defense
    ‘Sinister Forces at Play’ in WHO’s Global One Health Agenda Children’s Health Defense

Free Speech in Twitter is claimed as ‘disinformation' by EU

Translation: They lost control over propaganda speech on twitter and are now in free spin mode, they need everything in place to sell their western lies and Elon is blocking their lies and propaganda.

If I recall correctly the EU was sold as a organization to merely facilitate economic transactions and movement among countries not a Soros unelected super state.

EU is a totalitarian state for what eastern Europeans post communist states fought for 60 years to eradicate, the only difference is that Western Europe swallow it with bones and everything under the disguise of freedom loving United States of Europe.

The EU is desperate to clamp down on Elon Musk’s free speech as ‘disinformation’
If Brussels’ tech disinfo code is voluntary, then why did officials freak out when Musk yanked Twitter from it?
RT : 4 Jun, 2023

European Union officials are having a meltdown, all because Twitter CEO Elon Musk has withdrawn the platform from a “voluntary” EU code of conduct for tech firms to combat so-called “disinformation.” And they have yet to cite a single actual example of it.

EU Internal Markets Commissioner Thierry Breton tweeted, “You can run, but you can’t hide,” citing a legal obligation to prevent disinformation from August. He’s basically treating Musk, a guy who builds rockets and cars in America, like an unruly schoolchild, with Brussels in the role of the principal. French Digital Minister Jean-Noel Barrot even threatened to ban Twitter from the EU in a recent interview, citing the “grave” threat of disinformation.

They’re basically accusing Musk of pre-crime, like in the movie ‘Minority Report’ where Tom Cruise’s character is chased down by the state before having committed an offense. The EU is seeking to bring the very long arm of its authoritarianism down on Musk and other private tech players – however far outside the EU they might actually be – who refuse to abide by Brussels’ “Code of Practice on Disinformation,” concocted in 2018 and revised last year.

Breton is even heading to Silicon Valley to check in on them. “I am the enforcer. I represent the law, which is the will of the state and the people,” he said about his trip.

Sounds like Mr. Enforcer could use a good humbling from the people he purports to represent, and what better way for it to be delivered than through Musk, who envisions Twitter as the voice of the people and a platform for truly free expression.

By withdrawing from the code, Musk is just the latest example of what seems to be a trend. Facebook’s parent company Meta has already laid off moderators. Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, and others have also cut into their watchdog departments, citing cost-cutting measures. Perhaps policing narratives is bad for business.

You have to wonder, though – if joining this EU pact is optional, then what exactly is the big deal? It’s not like there’s any guarantee that any of the signatories are actually reducing what the EU considers as disinformation. In fact, the whole concept of top-down policing of information flow raises suspicion about the potential marginalization of views and debates that oppose the establishment narrative. According to this EU code,

tech platforms like Twitter are connected with “fact-checkers, civil society, and third-party organizations with specific expertise on disinformation.” The policy document adds that platforms also must report to an EU “Code Taskforce,” monitoring their efforts. Given that any such actors would implicitly have the EU’s stamp of approval, it’s not a stretch to imagine that they could effectively end up acting as enforcers or gatekeepers of the establishment narrative.

Musk himself is no stranger to this kind of systemic collusion between state actors and platforms to the detriment of contradictory debate and free information flow. It was his own release of the Twitter Files in the wake of his acquisition of the platform that brought to light the collusion between Twitter and Western government authorities to manipulate and censor public debate over Covid-19, for example, or to coordinate on certain narratives about geopolitical competitors (like Russia) – all under the guise of fighting “disinformation.”

Speaking of which, it didn’t take long after Musk’s withdrawal from the disinfo code for the EU’s vice president for values and transparency – an Orwellian title, if there ever was one – to suggest that the ultimate beneficiary of Musk’s actions in withdrawing from the code wasn’t free speech and debate, but rather Russia.

“Bye, bye birdie,” Vera Jourova said. “Twitter has chosen a hard way to comply with our digital laws. Russia’s disinformation is dangerous and it is irresponsible to leave EU’s anti-disinformation code.” Right, because all facts and analysis that don’t align with the Western agenda has to be Russian, as these folks see it. The reasoning is just a step away from proclaiming Musk to be some kind of useful idiot for Russia, despite him also being a major Pentagon contractor.

It seems that Musk has just decided that the EU’s provisions aren’t aligned with the free-speech mandate that he has for the company, which he personally owns and for which he forked over $44 billion. And the EU apparently can’t bring itself to respect the definition of private ownership.

If they wanted to make and treat online platforms like a public good or service, then they should just outright spend the cash to do that themselves so they can turn them into firehoses for their own propaganda – and then watch everyone flee.

It’s not like Musk is just letting fake news proliferate, despite the EU pearl-clutchers suggesting otherwise. It looks like he’s just found a different way to address fact checking. How arrogant do you have to be to figure that a guy who builds rockets and revolutionized the car industry couldn’t possibly come up with a better fact-checking system than a bunch of garden-variety bureaucrats?

When Musk took over the platform, he ditched some Twitter moderators and replaced them with a feature called “Community Notes,” whereby users who spot something that’s factually incorrect or misleading can contribute in real time to a correction or clarification that’s visible right under the tweet in question.

It turns out that this row between Twitter and the EU has become quite the topic on the platform itself. It’s also generating a lot of comments that Western officials would rather the average person did not see. And with Musk in charge, there’s not much they can do about it beyond threats and name calling. At least not without looking like the budding authoritarians they are.

- - -
Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist, and host of independently produced talk-shows in French and English.

US Intentionally released SARS-Cov-2 in Wuhan

“US Intentionally released SARS-Cov-2 in Wuhan”
Patents' American Researcher Martin told it at EU International Covid Summit
By Fabio G. C. Carisio
May 30, 2023

Originally published by The Standard

The Covid-19 coronavirus was “intentionally released” by the United States in Wuhan, China, with the target to trigger a global pandemic to raise public acceptance of vaccines, a US businessman specializing in patent auditing said.

David Martin, the founding chairman of M Cam asset management company, said at an International Covid Summit organized by the European Parliament in Brussels earlier this month that the US was responsible for the making of both coronaviruses causing the outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome – or SARS – in 2003 and the Covid-19 pandemic in the past three years.

The third edition of the summit featured speakers from anti-lockdown advocates to medical academia to discuss the global pandemic response. The speakers shed light on the possibility that the coronavirus which caused the pandemic was man-made, instead of naturally occurring.

In his speech, Martin said: “The pandemic that we alleged to have happened in the last few years did not happen overnight. In fact, the very specific pandemic using the coronavirus began at a different time.”

He said that in 1965, scientists discovered the coronavirus as a model of a pathogen – an agent that causes disease. They also found out that coronaviruses can be modified.

“Later we started learning how to modify a coronavirus by putting them in animals such as dogs and pigs,” Martin said, adding that such a practice became the basis for US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer’s first coronavirus spike protein vaccine in 1990.

But very soon the medical sector and drug makers found out that the vaccines did not work.

“Because the coronavirus is a malleable model, it mutates,” Martin said. “Every medical publication concluded that coronaviruses escape vaccines because it modifies and mutates too rapidly for a vaccine to be developed.”

In 2002, a university in North Carolina initiated a study to develop an “infectious replication defective,” which Martin interpreted as “a weapon to target individuals, but not have collateral damage.”

Characterizing the project as having “mysteriously preceded SARS by a year,” Martin said the coronavirus that caused the highly deadly infection was not from China and that it was “engineered” instead of naturally occurring.

On Covid-19, Martin said the coronavirus – named as SARS-CoV-2 by the World Health Organization – was poised for human emergence in 2016, with a preview about an “accidental or intentional release of a respiratory coronavirus” from a laboratory in Wuhan.

He said the purpose of the coronavirus “release” was to boost global acceptance on universal vaccination.

Explaining the common concern among the medical industry, Martin said: “Until an infectious crisis is very real, present and at the emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored.

“To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase the public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures, such as the pan-influenza, or pan-coronavirus, vaccine. A key drive is the media and the economics will follow the hype.

“We [pharmaceutical firms] need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issue. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process,” he said.

The Covid infection was first reported in Wuhan, Hubei province in central China in late 2019, with initial clusters coming from the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. The disease turned into a global pandemic in early 2020. As of Saturday, over 766 million infections have been recorded worldwide, with nearly seven million deaths.

The source of the coronavirus remained a mystery. Some scientists believe it transferred to humans from wild animals like bats and manidaes, while some politicians, in particular those from the US, accused the Wuhan Institute of Virology – a government-controlled lab – of leaking the pathogen.

A team of WHO-appointed experts inspected Wuhan in early 2021 to probe the source of the pandemic. After the 12-day visit, including a visit to the lab, the scientists concluded that it is “extremely unlikely” that the lab could have leaked the Covid-19 coronavirus.

MAIN SOURCES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hveIX7g-eiA

The Standard – US ‘intentionally released Covid virus in Wuhan’ EU summit told