I used to think One Health was just a silly concept designed to justify more funding for the EcoHealth Alliance type of voracious grant hunter. Certainly EcoHealth was a major proponent of the concept. But well-fed One Health adherents suddenly appeared, tucked into many corners of the world (here is one South American example), including CDC, the World Bank and WHO. I had been wrong.
One Health is an idea plucked out of thin air: that in order to manage the health of the planet, we can’t think about people in isolation. We have to consider them in the context of animals too, both livestock and wild animals, and also “ecosystems”. This might have been a good idea if a significant chunk of human disease came from animals, but in fact, zoonoses (infections spread to humans from animals) are pretty rare. Think anthrax. Rabies. Monkeypox. And while flu viruses do reassort in animals, the risk of influenza has been factitiously ginned up by public health agencies for decades. I now suspect the reason was to acclimate the public to the idea of yearly booster shots.
It seems that One Health is an integral part of the globalist plan (proposing false health narratives with the aim of usurping authority), so I thought I had better give you a brief summary of this concept as I know it. Here is what WHO has to say about a free online course in the subject:
You will be introduced to new concepts from the field of epidemiology, social anthropology, disease ecology, veterinary sciences, global health policy, and others, as well as approaches such as One Health, Eco-Health and Planetary Health. The course also outlines innovative tools and frameworks used to study and tackle some of these global health challenges in light of the Sustainable Development Goals.
Section 8 of the course, which was produced jointly by WHO and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), is dedicated to the interlinkages between human health and climate change, ecosystem management and biodiversity, and the materials can be freely accessed after enrollment…
Latin American proponents of One Health described it thusly. I can’t find the meat on this bone.
The One Health concept was developed to encourage sustainable collaborative partnerships and to promote optimal health for people, animals, plants, the environment, and the whole planet. The dissemination of scientific discoveries and policies, by working directly with diverse communities, has been one of the main goals for Global One Health. The One Health concept has also been referred or related to as “One Medicine, One Medicine-One Health, One World-One Health, EcoHealth,” and Planetary Health,” depending on each fundamental view and approach.
I have previously collected and presented on this blog, and in talks, evidence that both Peter Daszak and Tony Fauci have been spuriously and repeatedly linking the COVID pandemic to climate change, to the encroachment of humans into wildlife areas, and to other normal and necessary human activities, such as agriculture, mining, and road-building. Here is one example. The activity of humans has been positioned to take the fall for this and future pandemics…and has been claimed to be the cause of earlier pandemics… a claim that foremost of the outbreaks mentioned was evidence-free. While I have many examples, ones that stand out are a Fauci-Morens article published in Cell, and an extremely long piece by the Lancet COVID Commission published in the Lancet on September 14, 2020.
While I have seen no evidence that One Health is a useful concept, nor that human activity (except via labs and monkey/bat hunting) have caused recent outbreaks, a huge network has been created to push this concept and to have it become an essential underpinning of epidemic understanding, international policies and legislation.
From CDC’s One Health website:
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 recognizing the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment.
CDC’s One Health Office leads the agency’s One Health efforts in the United States and abroad.
One Health has been positioned for a stealth takeover of how humans think about and interact with nature, with food production, and many other things. It was invented at CDC in 2009 and promoted internationally first in 2012, at Davos of course.
The Global Risk Forum sponsors the first One Health Summit
February 19-22, 2012, the first One Health Summit was held in Davos, Switzerland. The Summit presented the One Health concept as a way to manage health threats, focusing on food safety and security. The conference ended by approving the “Davos One Health Action Plan,” which pinpointed ways to improve public health through multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder cooperation.
I recall seeing examples of the Obama administration sending tentacles into what it referred to as the ‘global health security’ arena, but I had no idea where it was going, then. Below is what CDC says about One Health. It has always had trouble actually justifying the concept, but given significant fluff and funding that seems irrelevant. The One Health-ers are generally light on specifics. From CDC:
The One Health Office works to promote the One Health approach and increase awareness of CDC’s role in One Health in the United States and around the world. One Health Office experts work closely with human, animal (domestic and wildlife), and environmental health partners in the United States, in other countries, and with international organizations to build strong partnerships; develops tools and trainings to advance One Health; and leverages CDC’s expertise to assist partners in strengthening One Health efforts.
The CDC One Health Office serves as the head of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) Collaborating Centerexternal icon for Emerging and Reemerging Zoonotic Diseases. One Health Office staff also serve as agency liaisons to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nationsexternal icon (FAO) and OIE.
One Health Focus Areas
- Zoonotic and emerging infectious diseases
- Pandemic preparedness and response
- One Health emergencies at the human-animal-environment interface
- One Health pan-respiratory disease surveillance
- Global health security and capacity building
- Strengthen One Health coordination in the United States
- Strategic One Health partnerships
- Prevent zoonoses shared between people and pets
Below is the Daszak Task Force summary plan for its One Health work:
3. Identifying One Health solutions to future
All prior pandemics, and most known emerging
diseases have originated in non-human animals,
usually wildlife, and emerged due to environmental
and socioeconomic changes like land use change,
agricultural expansion, the wildlife trade, and
increased international travel. [* This is simply a dangerous fantasy upon which One Health pins its hopes to transform society–Nass]
These drivers bring
people, our livestock, and wildlife into closer contact
across large areas of the planet, and are the factors
behind the emergence and spread of HIV/AIDS,
pandemic influenza, Ebola, SARS, Nipah virus, and
likely COVID-19. [*This is another lie underpinning the One Health agenda.–Nass]
In particular, the identification of
the first large case cluster of COVID-19 at a seafood
and wildlife market mirrors the emergence of SARS
in the live animal markets of Guangdong in 2003,
but some data suggest that earlier cases occurred.
Likewise, the rapid environmental changes with
declines in biodiversity in rural China mirror those
across tropical and subtropical regions that have
led to spillover of a number of novel bat-origin
diseases. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to
occasional spillover into pet and zoo animals and
further involvement of farmed animals, with
large scale outbreaks and high transmissibility
of SARS-CoV-2 in mink farms in Europe and the
USA. [*Why were mink culled so dramatically when COVID could affect many animals but animal reservoirs were never a significant contributor to human disease? Was the cull to gain publicity and support for the zoonosis/One Health pandemic theory?–Nass]
This virally-mediated connection among the
environment, animals and people is a One Health
problem that underpins pandemic risk.
In this taskforce, we will use our findings to identify
One Health approaches to controlling future
pandemics that will:
• Identify potential synergistic effects and return-
on-investments of taking a multisectoral
approach to outbreak investigation and
pandemic prevention that includes human
health, animal health, and environmental health
• Identify key strategies, policies, organizations
and mechanisms to fund and deliver a
coordinated One Health approach to preventing
future pandemics at the national, regional, and
• Recommend public information programs
focused on key messages to raise awareness
in the general population and build support
for relevant policies that can facilitate a
transformative change of behaviors and actions
• Identify the sustainable development benefits
of One Health solutions to prevent pandemics.
And now a headline from the May 25, 2022 Guardian, a CIA-linked publication:
“Climate change is likely to exacerbate the rapid spread of viruses and pathogens as humans encroach on the natural world”
I hope I have given you enough information that you will be on the lookout when you hear the term One Health or hear about how it is human activity that causes pandemics, and therefore our activites must be curbed… presumably by Tedros and friends, the experts who brought you 2400 mg/24 hour hydroxychloroquine overdoses in nearly 1000 patients in order to sink the use of the drug for COVID. And don’t forget Tedros’s work with his Tigray tribe’s genocidal wars and the coverup of cholera epidemics when he was the Minister of Health and then of Foreign Affairs in Ethiopia. He has also been accused of seeking weapons for the Tigrays while serving as the WHO Director General.
Is he the right person to lead global health? The first WHO D-G who was not a physician? He is about to be re-elected to his second 5 year term.
Monday, May 23, 2022
MULTIPLY UPDATED May 24: This post is a winding story of current events and their linkages to hidden agendas. I am in hospital with a fractured hip and it is hard to write. This is not polished but is full of important information
MY RECENT HISTORY
I arrived in Europe May 12 with hopes to attend several conferences, but only got to one. The Scandinavian Freedom / Northern Light conference was wonderful. I made many new friends and encountered so many zoom friends whom I finally met in person. Being in the same room with people you like or love is absolutely necessary for our species. Don’t allow any more imposed separations and dislocations, ever again.
The Northern Light conference, cosponsored by CHD Europe, was focused on how to stop the totalitarian changes being initiated under the guise of a pandemic response. The cost of online access to the event is minimal, €20 or $21 US. The advertising was limited and few people knew it was happening outside Scandinavia. I suggest you view the events, which I am told will be available up to three months. I will post my PowerPoint presentation when I am able.
After the conference, I spent two days with Dr. Heiko Schoning, who has written a book about the anthrax letters case, including many links between the anthrax letters and the Covid response. And he has identified dozens of guilty conspirators. His book will come out in English in late summer. It is currently available in German only. We had lots to share.
And then I managed to trip, fall and break my hip. I had assumed that frequent walks, consumption of adequate vitamin D and my large frame would protect me but I was wrong.
The WHO, WHA, IHR
A trip to Geneva had to be cancelled, where the world health assembly is holding its 75th meeting this week, from May 22-28. The WHA is the governing body of the world health organization, including about 194 countries. Over the past few months there have been warnings of strange doings at the WHO.
The US state department has long been an arm of the CIA and deep state. This story is twisty so pay attention.
The US state department drafted a dozen AMENDMENTS to an existing international health treaty that had been adopted in 2005, termed the International Health Regulations (IHR). These US-drafted amendments would enable the WHO to assume control over the pandemic response to future pandemics on a worldwide basis. This is the US writing new rules that would give up its own sovereignty (and everyone else’s) to the WHO, in the event of a pandemic or health emergency. In February, very quietly, the proposed amendments were sent out to the WHA members for review, pending a vote this week. A thoughtful discussion of them can be found here.
I can promise you the US never gives up even a speck of sovereignty; and that the purpose of the state department is to maintain and expand US power. The only conclusion I could draw is that the US Government and/or the global elites were confident they could control the WHO, and since using the guise of a pandemic to grab power, influence and money had worked so well for them so far, they were expanding the program to the whole world via the WHO. People like Astrid Stuckelberger, James Rogusky and others predicted this was the mechanism to achieve a worldwide coup.
Concurrent with the presentation of these amendments to the WHA, a new WHO treaty has been in the process of being negotiated since last fall, and was expected to accomplish essentially the same thing: a means to transfer national control over health and medical care from individual nations to the WHO under the guise of a pandemic or medical emergency.
And a creative concept termed ‘One Health’ that has been a pet project of the WHO, CDC, etc., may be the mechanism to assert centralized control over agriculture, natural lands, mining and human activities that intersect with nature. I explain this below.
The intent of diplomatic language is often deliberately obscure, and I have not been able to fully understand the implications of the proposed amendments. Furthermore, the new WHO treaty is still being written.
Then suddenly last week a few dozen cases of monekypox–MONKEYPOX!?–were in the news. And exactly 2 days days before the scheduled WHA meeting on May 22, an emergency WHA meeting on Monkeypox was scheduled for May 20.
Yesterday I learned that most of the proposed amendments have been scrapped, retaining the single amendment that speeds up the required process of ratification by nation states from 18 or 24 months down to six months, after which time nations may no longer remove themselves from the treaty’s provisions.
Presumably this is a result of polling the WHA nation states and failing to get a 2/3 majority in favor of the rest of the package proposed by the US. Alternatively, it may mean that the other amendments were primarily a smokescreen, which were planned to be jettisoned as needed during “tough” negotiations. Or ?
Let’s wait a bit longer to see what this provision, locking nations into the IHR at warp speed, is actually about. We will know if it passes this week.
The WHA was called into emergency session last Friday allegedly because of monkey pox. It is unclear what the emergency was and how the WHA could have ameliorated it. Perhaps the idea was to brief everyone and achieve some agreement on the narrative to be issued. It is extremely suspicious that monkey pox, a rare condition with about 1% mortality that spreads minimally from person to person and results from contact with laboratory monkeys, showed up in at least one dozen countries simultaneously, on 4 continents. That does not happen due to raves, group sex or whatever prurient story the authorities have dreamed up.
What tests are being used to diagnose monkeypox? Usually when a new disease appears, there are no accurate tests available. The tests for the delta and earlier strains of COVID are not accurate for the Omicron strain: at least one of two PCR probes no longer matched.
So who even had an accurate test for the new monkeypox variant? Who was updating their monkeypox tests? Who needed such tests?
Are they using PCR tests, in which the cycle threshold and other test parameters can be calibrated to detect high (many false positive) or low (many false negative) numbers of cases by adjusting test sensitivity? Are the CDC, WHO and maybe the Charite hospital in Berlin the ones defining what constitutes a case and designing the tests? We know from our COVID experience they can’t be trusted to do either. Medpage reveals that only CDC can confirm the diagnosis for US cases.
It was also reported that the monkeypox virus has been sequenced and showed 99.9% homology with the Israel 2018 strain, apparently confirming it is derived from a known lab variant. Homology means it is 99.9% identical to this lab strain. It is probably too early for this to be definite, however.
One obviously wonders if monkeypox’ appearance relates to the WHO meetings, but I cannot give you any additional information at this time. Are people really so naive to believe that monkeypox appeared by accident? I was told about it by 2 young aides in the hospital, who clearly thought it was a psyop. Surely the WHO diplomats are no less naive? I would expect the African WHA members to be angered by this caper, as they are always being blamed for rare diseases, with negatively impacts on tourism and their economies.
And today the European CDC is warning monkeypox, like COVID, may never disappear. A genital rash disease that becomes endemic (in other words, people will always be at risk from it) could really get under peoples’ skin:
There is a risk that monkeypox could become endemic in Europe if the current outbreak isn’t brought under control and the virus spills back into susceptible animal species, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control said Monday as it issued a risk assessment of the unprecedented event.
Apparently monkeypox is intended to invoke the specter of HIV, which deeply affected Americans’ behavior, and kept them apart by providing yet another reason not to have sex.
There is another angle I totally forgot about with respect to monkeypox, but luckily the unsurpassable Whitney Webb has reminded me of the first law of investigative reporting: Qui bono? (Who benefits?) She wrote (and please read her entire piece):
Regardless of how the monkeypox situation plays out, two companies are already cashing in. As concern over monkeypox has risen, so too have the shares of Emergent Biosolutions and SIGA Technologies. Both companies essentially have monopolies in the US market, and other markets as well, on smallpox vaccines and treatments. Their main smallpox-focused products are, conveniently, also used to protect against or treat monkeypox as well. As a result, the shares of Emergent Biosolutions climbed 12% on Thursday…
Emergent has usually managed a spectacular recovery whenever things have gone sour for them (a frequent occurrence that repeated itself 2 weeks ago when the NY Times revealed the scope of its disastrous manufacturing of COVID vaccines, and the consequent loss of 400 million doses worth up to 10 billion dollars). The White House had covered this up. Emergent was always a generous friend to politicians and others with influence. Its CEO died a month ago at 64, and I thought that might take the wind out of its lobbying sails, but apparently I was wrong again.
Emergent had purchased the smallpox vaccine production plant from the US’s previous producer in 2017, when Emergent’s (and the CIA’s?) guy Robert Kadlec became the Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for Preparedness and Emergency Response, known inside the Beltway as the ASPR.
He gave loads of contracts for smallpox vaccines to his friends at Emergent (twice the volume and twice the per-dose price as before), and then the lack of PPE when COVID came was blamed on these purchases, as the funds came from the same pot (about $1 billion/year to replenish the National Strategic Stockpile) which coincidentally Kadlec is supposed to have designed, along with designing the post of ASPR, when he was a Congressional aide a couple of decades ago.
Nicole Lurie was the ASPR under Obama, when she approved the no-bid contract for $433 Million-$2.8 Billion for a smallpox drug purchased from SIGA Technologies. No one knew if it worked. SIGA’s primary owner was generous political donor Ronald Perelman.
Congress balked at the purchase, which was halted…for about 16 months… and then it quietly was concluded.
THE LANCET’s role and Jeffrey Sachs
There has been more strange recent news. Jeffrey Sachs is a Nobel prize-winning economist who had signed on as the director of the (self-anointed) Lancet COVID Commission. Peter Daszak was appointed the leader of the most important of the Commission’s dozen task forces, which was both designed to a) investigate the virus origins and to b) promote the One Health solution to pandemics.
Here is the link to the Lancet Commission/Daszac Task Force’s initial report. Note that all members are Daszak cronies and Stanley Perlman (a biodefense scientist from U. Iowa with an MD) has been linked to both questions about COVID’s origin and the ACE-2 humanized mice in which it was no doubt generated. Perlman was recently placed as a temporary member of the FDA’s VRBPAC vaccine advisory committee, to rubber stamp COVID vaccine approvals and authorizations.
But after Daszak became a hot potato, Daszak left the Commission and his task force went into hibernation.
Remember that the Lancet published a mostly Peter Daszak-ghostwritten “Correspondence” in February 2020 that was designed to tar anyone who questioned the origins of the virus as a conspiracy theorist who would damage the west’s ability to work with China to solve the pandemic. It was obviously (to me) carefully worded propaganda and the article and its theme were pushed out to a massive audience.
Then on May 22, 2020 the Lancet published an entirely fabricated article claiming that using HCQ or CQ for COVID led to about 35% increased death rates. I read it that day and blogged about it–it was so obviously phony, but then why hadn’t the Lancet, the world’s most-read medical journal, noticed? Lancet held tight, but after hundreds of complaints about obvious fabrications, finally the paper was retracted after 13 days. This was sufficient time to allow the damage to HCQ’s reputation to have been done. The original story had gotten worldwide attention, while the unmasking of the fraud went unnoticed. And efforts were made (for instance by the WaPO but by others too) to make it seem the original paper still stood. How such a clearly fabricated paper, based on the world’ largest patient database that no one had ever heard of, had gotten into print in the world’s foremost medical journal, in record time, has never been explained.
Then the Lancet Commission published a massive 23 page report in the Lancet on September 14, 2020 that seemed to me to be establishing Sachs’ group as credible, and buttressing a variety of what we have come to know as globalist narratives and agendas.
Professor Sachs therefore appeared to be a globalist flunky. And when I looked at the publications from his massive Commission, I learned the majority had to do with pushing COVID vaccinations.
So I was surprised to learn a few days ago that Professor Sachs himself had supposedly gone rogue, and published a paper in the PNAS, noting how the US government and institutions were hiding information about COVID’s origins. He and his coauthor wrote:
EHA [Daszak], UNC [Ralph Baric], NIH [Fauci], USAID [one of many funders of EHA and Wuhan], and other research partners have failed to disclose their activities to the US scientific community and the US public, instead declaring that they were not involved in any experiments that could have resulted in the emergence of SARS-CoV-2…
a US-based investigation need not wait—there is much to learn from the US institutions that were extensively involved in research that may have contributed to, or documented the emergence of, the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Only an independent and transparent investigation, perhaps as a bipartisan Congressional inquiry, will reveal the information that is needed to enable a thorough scientific process of scrutiny and evaluation.
Most likely, Sachs is trying to reassert his leadership regarding the original Lancet Commission investigation that was halted due to the notoriety of Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance. He may also be seeking funding for such investigation, and/or trying to repair his tattered reputation. Will he team up with Robert Zelikow to whitewash any future origins investigation? Stay tuned.