Madison Area Lyme Support Group

Just as RFK Jr. gets his legs under his desk at HHS, a centralized public health agenda is gathering pace that threatens medical freedom, farmers’ rights, food security, and individual choice. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article

THE TOPLINE

• The CDC’s One Health Framework centralizes authority over public health decisions, potentially limiting independent research, open discussion, and medical freedom.
• The rollout of One Health is part of the public health response to bird flu, mirroring the COVID-19 playbook.
• The One Health approach sets the stage for greater government control, mandated health policies, and reduced medical autonomy.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of Interior (DOI) have jointly unveiled their National One Health Framework to Address Zoonotic Diseases and Advance Public Health Preparedness in the United States. Framed as a way to address zoonotic diseases and public health challenges—like the H5N1 bird flu—the One Health approach claims to integrate human, animal, plant, and environmental health concerns into a unified strategy. In our view, this framework lays the groundwork for sweeping governmental control over medical (and veterinary) decision-making and, in the case of the bird flu, direct intervention in the nation’s food supply.

One Health: Centralized Control Disguised as Public Health

The One Health approach has been around for several years but had not become official policy until January 2025. The policy effectively consolidates power in the hands of three federal agencies led by the CDC, USDA and DOI, dictating public health responses during crises. Instead of allowing independent research, open discussion, and medical freedom, this framework ensures that a “unified federal voice” dictates the narrative and available treatment options.

Crucially, the powers-that-be appear to be deploying One Health policies primarily through the USDA and not the CDC, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This shift away from CDC control is likely linked to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s role as new head of HHS, and he has been vocally resistant to pharmaceutical-driven health policies. The rollout of One Health, which emerged during the COVID era under the Biden administration, is being justified by rising concerns over the bird flu situation.

COVID Redux: H5N1

H5N1 avian influenza, aka ‘bird flu’, renamed more recently (presumably because it sounds more dangerous?) as ‘highly pathogenic avian influenza’ (HPAI) is a highly transmissible viral infection that primarily affects wild birds but has spread among poultry and dairy cows in the US. There have been a handful (70) human cases so far in the US with 1 death, according to the CDC. (You can reference our earlier coverage of the bird flu hereto get more background.)

The unfolding public health response to H5N1 bird flu mirrors the tactics used during COVID-19, except this time the food supply is involved. Scientists working under the pretext of pandemic preparedness have long manipulated avian influenza viruses, increasing their ability to cross species and infect humans (sound familiar?). Pharmaceutical interventions like mRNA vaccines are already in development using half a billion dollars of taxpayer money, ensuring that government-backed solutions are already in place if/when further outbreaks occur.

Federal agencies have used this situation to justify mass culling of poultry, purportedly to prevent further spread. Just as during COVID-19, PCR testing—known for its high false-positive rates—is being used to assess the number of infections. Inflated case numbers fuel media hysteria and the sense that there is a public health crisis. The result is artificial food shortages and price inflation.

You can see where this is going: to return to “normal,” we’re going to be told to accept mandatory vaccination of farm animals under the guise of disease prevention—no matter what the human health consequences may be of eating food that has been treated with mRNA vaccines. This crisis ultimately forces farmers and the public into compliance, making acceptance of One Health measures a prerequisite for food security.

Why This Matters

The One Health Framework is, in essence, an infrastructure for centralized medical and veterinary control. By ensuring a unified government voice, dictating public and animal health responses, and training agencies to enforce these directives, the plan undermines medical and health freedom as well as the right to informed choice. Under One Health-style frameworks, it’s not hard to imagine what the next round of lockdowns might look like, with public health authorities having learned from the mistakes of the first round during COVID.

A similar push for centralized control is evident in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) plans to exert greater influence over global health policies (see ANH International’s analysis). President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the WHO was driven by desire to resist global control, but only time will tell how the new Administration will respond to centralized, coordinated responses like One Health that develop within America’s borders. There is also the specter of how future presidents might act in relation to the WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and other United Nations’ agencies. The One Health Framework is, oddly, entirely in alignment with the global doctrines of UN agencies, and they potentially lay the foundation for international directives that override national sovereignty in health or veterinary policy.

Farmer First and Health Freedom

Outbreaks of highly contagious diseases like bird flu have already led to large-scale culling of poultry in the US, with over 35 million birds in commercial flocks being killed so far. This has caused significant distress and financial hardship for poultry farmers. The policy is part of the ‘stamping-out’ policy for avian influenza that meets World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) standards in an effort to maintain international poultry exports. Accordingly, the USDA is using the policy to force farmers to cull their flocks when ‘HPAI’ is detected, regardless of whether or not animals are sick. Many farmers and farmers’ groups are questioning the ethical and animal welfare impacts of the ‘stamping-out’ policy.

But it’s not just farm animals that are at risk of these draconian policies. One Health envisions coordinated responses against human cases that follow the rubric that was so widely adopted—and rarely questioned—by government authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather than consolidating authority into a top-down bureaucracy, we should encourage open scientific debate rather than enforcing a unified narrative, promote individual choice in medical treatments, ensure transparency and accountability in public health decisions, and prioritize local or regional responses and health strategies over broad federal mandates.

Public health should empower individuals, not enforce compliance. The CDC’s One Health Framework moves us toward an era where governments dictate medical choices, silencing those who dare to question official recommendations.

It’s time to reject centralized medical authoritarianism and advocate for a diverse, open, and decentralized health system that encourages the dissemination of truthful health information and respects the right of individuals to make informed choices about their own bodies and well-being.

Action Alert! Write to Congress and tell them to reject the One Health framework to protect individual medical autonomy. Please send your message immediately.  

Go to top link to write Congress to oppose One Health Framework.

______________

**Comment**

Sadly, a lot of Lymeland has embraced One Health, and research is nearly all earmarked with this Trojan Horse euphemism.  The similarly and disastrously named PTLDS comes to mind.

Words mean things.

For more:

• https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2023/05/02/one-health-what-is-it-whos-promoting-it-and-why/

One Health has been hijacked.  What once simply meant a health link and interdependence between humans, animals, and the environment has morphed into vague goals that push the accepted global narrative that includes: monopolization, digitization, sustainability, equity, ‘climate change,’ surveillance, control and ‘gain of function‘ research.

Reggie Littlejohn, founder and president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers and co-chair of the Stop Vaccine Passports Task Force, described One Health as “a very holistic-sounding approach to healthcare” that emphasizes “the interface between human health, animal health, plant health and ecological health.”

“All of that sounds very inclusive and holistic,” said Littlejohn, but “my concern is that it gives the WHO, under the pandemic treaty, the ability to intervene in any aspect of life on earth. So, if they find a health risk that involves animals or plants or even the environment, not just humans, then they can go into operation concerning that.”

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, told The Defender:

“The entire One Health Scheme is based upon the patent lie and obvious disinformation that COVID-19 somehow magically leaped from some animal in the Wuhan wet-market instead of being an offensive biological warfare weapon with gain-of-function properties that leaked out of the Wuhan BSL4 [biosecurity level 4 lab].”