The world is just a few weeks away from the global acceptance of the World Health Organization pandemic treaty, known as WHO. This treaty includes the “One Health” agenda and is designed to “balance” the health of people, animals, and plants, as though all three are of equal value.
One Health
Adopting the “One Health” approach will affect multiple aspects of everyday life, from agriculture and farming to livestock and food production to environmental issues. The “One Health” agenda is designed to globally declare possible pandemic-type risks, which will naturally lead to forced lockdowns and restrictions placed upon the private sector. The solution will be more mass vaccinations and, for the safety of the general public, more types of surveillance on private citizens.
In 2018, the National One Health Steering Committee (NOHSC) and Technical Working Groups (TWG) agreed to a five-year strategic plan. Part of that strategic plan is the Global Health Security Agenda. What is that? The Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) is a global effort to strengthen the world’s ability to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats. More than 70 countries, including the United States, have signed onto the GHSA framework.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which works directly with other governments, plays a leading role in supporting progress towards the GHSA’s targeted goals for 2024.
WHO Pandemic Agreement
The most recently updated version of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, last amended on April 22, is designed to redistribute wealth and protective equipment away from the U.S. and establish a global governing board with little accountability to U.S. citizens. WHO has made it clear that it intends to involve itself far beyond the aspects of possible pandemic outbreaks. The latest agreement calls for WHO to be hands-on with such items as climate change, poverty, and hunger.
Some will say this is all about money—pharmacies, hospitals, and those who gain financially. However, according to a Wall Street Journal article from April 2021, forty new billionaires were created, and over 200,000 small businesses were destroyed in the U.S. in 2020 alone. The last pandemic was not about wealth; it was about wealth transfer.
When this pandemic agreement becomes binding, nations will still have the right to adopt laws, but only per the Charter of the United Nations and the WHO constitution. Countries cannot make changes that are incompatible with the WHO Pandemic Agreement.
Support for Abortion
The WHO Pandemic Agreement, as it is written, would authorize funding and support for abortion. The agreement obligates nations during pandemics to ensure the provision of essential healthcare services, which means abortion would be considered an essential service.
Disease X
Kate Bingham and Tim Hames of the WHO, using fear as a tool, warn in their book, The Long Shot: The Inside Story of the Race to Vaccinate Britain, which was released in March of 2023, paint the picture of a hypothetical disease such as “Disease X” which could become the next pandemic and kill fifty million people worldwide. They open their book by saying this is the work of two authors but one voice. Proposing a pandemic designed to kill fifty million people may be the work of many authors, but the one voice they are listening to is not God. Second Timothy says God did not give us the spirit of fear.
World Health Assembly
What is the timing of all this? The ninth set of meetings to revise and finalize the WHO Pandemic Agreement will take place from April 29 to May 10, 2024. Two weeks later, from May 27 to June 1 in Geneva, Switzerland, the 77th World Health Assembly will meet to finalize these agreements. This will dictate how the United States and the world respond to any future pandemics.
As of now, the WHO pandemic agreement is easy to enter but almost impossible to leave. The language of this agreement is designed so that once a nation signs onto the accord, it “shall not be discharged” from any “obligations which happened while it was a Party to the WHO Pandemic Agreement,” even after it withdraws.
H.R. 79
Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona introduced the WHO Withdrawal Act (H.R. 79) into Congress. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin introduced the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act
On February 5th, 2024, Congressman Chris Smith from New Jersey held a news conference on Capitol Hill. Smith, who serves as a senior member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, has been vocal about the World Health Organization’s pandemic treaty.
He has raised concerns about the lack of transparency in the treaty process. The ninety-minute news conference can be found on YouTube. It was posted just two weeks ago, but as of today, it only has 39 views.
A Treaty, An Agreement, or a Framework?
It is pointed out that the WHO refuses to call this treaty a treaty; they are calling it an agreement or a framework. If it is called a treaty, it would have to be submitted to the treaty process in the United States, which could delay or even derail this agreement.
Congressman Smith says, “This is on a fast track. Much of this has been done without very much scrutiny or insight. However, we do know from the draft of this pandemic treaty that it will be binding. They say it right in the treaty. It will be as if the U.S. Congress and the President signed a law that does all these things.”
Article 6
Smith confirmed it is evident in Article 6 of this agreement that it promotes abortion on demand. He said the World Health Organization (WHO) Secretary-General has entered into agreements with several pro-abortion groups, including Planned Parenthood, a group out of the European Union, and the Center for Reproductive Rights. He said there are no gestational limits on abortion right up until the moment of birth. He also points out that this agreement does not protect healthcare professionals, including doctors, who don’t want to be participants.
The press conference acknowledges this treaty or agreement calls for surveillance and digital I.D.s. This treaty sets the stage for the Antichrist system described in Revelation 13. The future Antichrist system will lead to the demand for the global worshipping of the Beast. (Revelation 13:15). Scripture tells us this coming one world leader will have authority over “every tribe, people, language and nation.” (Revelation 13:7). If nations today are willing to give up sovereignty for a proposed pandemic treaty, what will the world leaders be willing to give up in the Tribulation period.
Humans, Animals, and Plants
The WHO still plans to use “One Health” as a vehicle to control humans, plants, and animals—all in the name of environmental health. Once this treaty is approved, the WHO will have total power and control over matters related to health and Climate Change.
All one needs to do is look at nations like Nigeria. In November 2023, Nigeria held its National One Health Steering Committee Meeting. That led to the country’s president signing the “One Health” approach into law, designed to balance the health of people, animals, and plants, as though all three are of equal value.
This global effort is part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Program. In fact, the White House issued a fact sheet in February 2022 endorsing the United States’ commitment to the Global Health Security Agenda. You can find this fact sheet on the White House’s website.
CDC
In America, the CDC and the Center for Disease Control will be the arm pushing this agenda. It seems the Global Health Security Agency is on track to reach its 2024 goal of global acceptance and finalizing the world’s first pandemic agreement.
The Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), the WHO Pandemic Agreement, and “One Health” may soon become reality. The WHO pandemic treaty is to be voted on later this month. It requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass. The “One Health” agenda will cover multiple aspects of everyday life. From our diets to our healthcare, how and where the population can live and work, to deciding what constitutes water and land pollution. There will not be an aspect of life as we know it that will not be influenced by this proposed treaty.
If this treaty receives the majority vote needed to pass, the way it stands now, there will be a 10-month deadline for member states to reject the amendments, which means that come May 2025, life will be much different.
