---

The International Health Regulations (2005) are already being “strengthened” with a One Health approach and One Health is embedded in the Pandemic Treaty. However, the United Nations and the World Health Organisation came late to the One Health party.

While WHO is attempting to get its horrific One Health Pandemic Treaty adopted worldwide, the US government has already rolled out the One Health ideology through US agencies.

In the following, Patrick Wood gives an overview of the all-encompassing nature of the One Health agenda, its origins and how it is already embedded in US agencies.  For their purposes, with One Health implemented domestically, signing up to WHO’s Pandemic Treaty isn’t actually required.

Please note: WHO is attempting to have two instruments adopted at the next World Health Assembly meeting at the end of this month to implement its pandemic plans: Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (“IHR”); and, the Pandemic Treaty, which has also been referred to as to as the Pandemic Agreement, Pandemic Accord and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”).

WHO Needs A Treaty? “One Health” Is Already Firmly Established In America

By Patrick Wood

While the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) has been gaslighting the world about the need for a global “Pandemic Agreement,” the Feds had already rolled out the infrastructure to support it when nobody was watching.

While the United Nations and its WHO should be kicked out of New York into the Atlantic Ocean, the real problem is our own government, which has been front-running the whole operation for years.

It’s called “One Health.”

Initially conceived by the World Wildlife Conversation Association in 2004, the One Health Commission (see below) was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation in 2009 with the objective of spreading the concept widely. It worked.

The NIH (National Institute for Health) got on board in a 2013 study, ‘Toward Proof of Concept of a One Health Approach to Disease Prediction and Control’, where they considered “the role of changing environments with regard to infectious and chronic disease risks affecting humans and nonhuman animals”and“disease prediction and control.”Then …

They found evidence to support each of these concepts but also identified the need for greater incorporation of environmental and ecosystem factors into disease assessments and interventions.

In 2023, not surprisingly, the CDC and the HHS (Department of Health and Human Services) conducted a study: ‘National One Health Framework To Address Zoonotic Diseases and Advance Public Health Preparedness in the United States: A Framework for One Health Coordination and Collaboration Across Federal Agencies’.

So, off to the races they went. spreading the contagion (as a bona fide fact, not!) throughout several government agencies.

The Scope of One Health

The One Health Commission is a 501(c)(3) non-profit funded by other non-profits, including the Rockefeller Foundation.

According to the Commission’s website, here are all of the areas wrapped into One Health:

• Agricultural production and land use
• Animals as Sentinels for Environmental agent and contaminants detection and response
• Antimicrobial resistance mitigation
• Biodiversity / Conservation Medicine
• Climate change and impacts of climate on health of animals, ecosystems, and humans
• Clinical medicine needs for interrelationship between the health professions
• Communications and outreach
• Comparative Medicine: commonality of diseases among people and animals such as cancer, obesity, and diabetes
• Disaster preparedness and response
• Disease surveillance, prevention and response, both infectious (zoonotic) and chronic / non-communicable diseases
• Economics / Complex Systems, Civil Society
• Environmental Health
• Food Safety and Security
• Global trade, commerce and security
• Human-Animal bond
• Natural Resources Conservation
• Occupational Health Risks
• Plant / Soil health
• Professional education and training of the Next Generation of One Health professionals
• Public policy and regulation
• Research, both basic and translational
• Vector-Borne Diseases
• Water Safety and Security
• Welfare / Well-being of animals, humans, ecosystems and planet

Basically, One Health intends to control all facets of life: Economics, water, public policy, occupational health risks, agriculture, global trade, commerce, environmental health, ecosystems, communications, climate change and incidentally, pandemics and human health.

Can you see the plan here? This encompasses 100% of living and inorganic material on the face of the planet.

Whole-of-Government Approach

The US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) has a whole website devoted to it:

One Health is a collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary approach – working at the local, regional, national, and global levels – with the goal of achieving optimal health outcomes recognising the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment.

One Health is an approach that recognises that the health of people is closely connected to the health of animals and our shared environment. One Health is not new, but it has become more important in recent years. This is because many factors have changed interactions between people, animals, plants, and our environment.

What are the “many factors” that have changed? Obviously, none. But that hasn’t stopped them from linking your healthto animals and ecosystems. The rhetoric is insidious:

Successful public health interventions require the cooperation of human, animal, and environmental health partners. Professionals in human health (doctors, nurses, public health practitioners, epidemiologists), animal health (veterinarians, paraprofessionals, agricultural workers), environment (ecologists, wildlife experts), and other areas of expertise need to communicate, collaborate on, and coordinate activities. Other relevant players in a One Health approach could include law enforcement, policymakers, agriculture, communities, and even pet owners. No one person, organisation, or sector can address issues at the animal-human-environment interface alone.

You might think the Centres for Disease Control has overstepped its boundaries. Now, it is crossing over to law enforcement, veterinarians, agricultural workers, policymakers, wildlife experts, ecologists and even pet owners.

The Biden Administration is taking a whole-of-government approach to One Health.

The US Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), like the CDC, has its own website:

The health of animals, people and the environment is connected. The “One Health” approach is the collaborative effort of the human health, veterinary health and environmental health communities. Through this collaboration, USDA achieves optimal health outcomes for both animals and people.

With its partners such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Environmental Protection Agency, tribal Nations, USDA seeks to maintain or reduce health risks to animals, humans, the environment and society.

The US Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) has its own website:

The One Health Initiative recognises this interconnectedness and advocates a comprehensive approach to health and environmental problems versus a piecemeal approach. By building bridges between physicians, veterinarians, environmental scientists, and public health professionals, the initiative aims to “promote, improve, and defend the health and well-being of all species.”

The US Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has its own website:

One Health is a holistic approach to advancing human well-being that recognises that the health of people is closely connected to the health of animals and our shared environment: when we protect one, we protect all.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service hired a “One Health Coordinator.”

Ad infinitum.

Don’t Need A Treaty For This

The United Nations and the World Health Organisation came late to the One Health party. Regardless of the bickering among nations, I can guarantee that One Health will remain on the centre stage. Let’s look at the April 2024 ‘Proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement’.

In ‘Chapter 1, Introduction, Article 1, Use of Terms’ we read the definition of One Heath used in the document:

“One Health approach” means an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimise the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognises that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants and the wider environment (including ecosystems) is closely linked and interdependent.

Revised draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement (A/INB/9/3 Rev.1), 22 April 2024, pg. 5. Accessed from Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (resumed session and drafting group).

The meat is seen in Article 5.

Article 5. One Health 

1. The Parties commit to promote a One Health approach for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, recognising the interconnection between people, animals and the environment, that is coherent, integrated, coordinated and collaborative among all relevant organisations, sectors and actors, taking into account national circumstances. 

2. The Parties commit to identify and address the drivers of pandemics and the emergence and re-emergence of disease at the human-animal-environment interface through the introduction and integration of interventions into relevant pandemic prevention, preparedness and response plans. 

3. Each Party shall, in accordance with its national context, protect human, animal and plant health, with support from WHO and other relevant international organisations, by: 

(a) implementing and regularly reviewing relevant national policies and strategies that reflect a One Health approach as it relates to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response; 

(b) promoting the effective and meaningful engagement of communities in the development and implementation of policies, strategies and measures to prevent, detect and respond to outbreaks; and 

(c) promoting or establishing One Health joint training and continuing education programmes for human, animal and environmental health workforces, to build relevant and complementary skills, capacities and capabilities. 

4. The modalities, terms and conditions, and operational dimensions of a One Health approach shall be further defined in an instrument, that takes into consideration the provisions of the IHR (2005), and is operational by 31 May 2026. 

Revised draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement (A/INB/9/3 Rev.1), 22 April 2024, pg. 8. Accessed from Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (resumed session and drafting group).

All of the word-salad language in the rest of the Pandemic Agreement is superfluous to the main plan to unify everything to the One Health concept.

But wait, the federal government has already been steeped in One Health for almost 20 years!

While everybody obsesses over the loss of sovereignty, the horse has already left the barn. Instead, we should think about how to rip this stinkweed out of our native soil.

About the Author

Patrick Wood is an author and researcher who has written extensively on the topics of technocracy, globalization, and the New World Order. He is known for his work on the Trilateral Commission and his critique of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development agenda. 

He is the author of several books.  His book ‘Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order’ explores the history and development of technocracy, tracing its roots back to the 1930s and its connections to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development agenda.

He publishes articles on his website ‘Technocracy News & Trends’ and a Substack page ‘Patrick Wood’s The Quickening Report’.

Featured image: One Health graphic edited from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development