WHO's Pandemic Accord Will Give It Control Over U.S. Livestock and Food Supply

Thank you to Klark Barnes at EarlKing56.family.blog posted at LRC.

WHO's Pandemic Accord Will Give It Control Over U.S. Livestock and Food Supply https://t.co/bSICyD5waj

— An Avenging Angel (@aveng_angel) February 26, 2023

. . . nobody is talking about how the accord will give the WHO complete control over agriculture—wild and domesticated animals—and our food supply.

The WHO’s incoming chief scientist said on Monday governments should invest in vaccines for all strains of influenza that exist in the animal kingdom in case there’s an outbreak among humans.

Jeremy Farhar, who is leaving Wellcome to join the WHO later this year, said during a media briefing in terms of a potential pandemic event, H5N1 is a “big worry.”

Farrar warned the H5N1 (avian) influenza viruses are being allowed to circulate among poultry, wild birds, and mammals—and is the perfect way to “create something nasty.”

What I didn’t dive into is the concerning language that gives the WHO not only the authority to impose mandatory vaccines and lockdowns but allows it to use “viruses” in animals and the threat of a “pandemic” to take over U.S. livestock and our food supply.

The WHO is already letting us know they’re going to start with poultry—and you’re either going to allow your flocks to be controlled, surveilled, and vaccinated, or they’ll be killed so the viruses they don’t have won’t spread to people (or harm the environment). They are already laying the groundwork for this, and the authority they’ll derive this power from is the pandemic accord.

If you read through the 32-page draft of the accord, you’ll see how this document gives the WHO the authority to take control over U.S. agriculture and our food supply:

1. By signing onto the accord, a country acknowledges that “most emerging infectious diseases originate in animals, including wildlife and domesticated animals, then spill over to people.” (See p. 6)
   
   From the outset, they’re laying the foundation that “most infectious diseases” begin in animals; thus, their ability to regulate animals is within their purview.
2. Parties must reaffirm the importance of a “One Health approach” to detect and prevent health threats at the animal and human interface, “in particular zoonotic spill-over and mutations, and to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems.” (See p. 6)
   
   In other words, a member state that signs on to the accord has to agree to drink the Kool-Ade. They don’t want member states dissenting, so everyone needs to “reaffirm” their loyalty to an initiative called the “One Health Approach,” whose scope includes the health of people, animals, AND ecosystems.

Finish reading it.