Citing 'One Health', Experts Demand Conflation of Climate Change, Public Health

Do you hear that? It's the sound of the next 'lockdown', 'mandates', and 'mitigation efforts', brought to you by 'experts™' in 'A' faking wisdom in 'B'

Today brings up yet another aspect of our ever-stranger ‘post-Covid’ world.

Earlier this week, we spoke about the recently started human trial of a ‘new DNA vaccine’ that is supposedly ‘good’ to fight ‘bird flu’ (which, so far, has shown little zoonotic spill-over potential to non-birds):

Ready for 'the next pandemic'? Norwegian Researchers are Testing New Jabs vs. Avian Flu

The Meta-Impact of the ‘Pandemic™’

As it happens, the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’ has had a profound impact on how the pharma-political-academia complex ‘sells’ its ‘goods’: it would appear that good ol’ propaganda of the Edward Bernays vintage isn’t working nearly well enough anymore after almost a century.

I think what we can more clearly see now is that the the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’ is the (so far) culmination of the power of propaganda; at the same time, however, the ‘lived experiences’ of the Black Death (not) that was or wasn’t ‘Covid-19’ and its availability on the internet—mainly courtesy of social media—testifies to the limits of propaganda.

Now, wouldn’t that by at least somewhat ironic? I mean, given the documented ties between the ‘Western’ (mainly US) intel community and social media behemoths, such as Google, Facebook, or Wikipedia, I think it is a testament to the qualities—or lack thereof—of societal mind-control (brain-washing) that this king of ‘filter-splinter net’ has brought about: internet giants ‘filter’ information that their users are permitted to see (and censor other items), but somehow these control mechanisms began to crack, to a certain degree, during the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to gaslight anyone about the impact of the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’, esp. vaccine injuries, but what I would point to are the by now obvious limitations of such gaslighting: no matter what ‘the powers that be’ advocate, and no matter how many ‘experts™’ they trot out, it’s clearly not working very well (if Gallup polls are to be believed):

Source. Do I trust Gallup? I’m not that naive, but even the most ‘curated’ polling data has to have some relation to objective reality; if anything, I think these values are overly positive (i.e., I think that ‘trust’ in legacy media is actually even lower).

Hence, the need to censor dissident voices, gaslight the directly affected victims of ‘Operation Warp Speed’, and deflect attention via psy-ops that re-enforce existing pseudo-cleavages within social units (e.g., families, social circles, co-workers, etc.), such as #stand with Ukraine/Israel/whatever. I for one wonder about the possibility of increasing the hype beyond anything related to the Zionist cause. But I digress.

BMJ: ‘Climate and nature crisis as one indivisible global health emergency’

Citation: BMJ 2023;383:p2355; source.

If you haven’t heard about this editorial by Kamran Abbasi, editor-in-chief of the British Medical (sic!) Journal, I think it’s high time you took a few minutes to digest this (for readability, I’ve omitted the references; emphases mine):

Over 200 health journals call on the United Nations, political leaders, and health professionals to recognise that climate change and biodiversity loss are one indivisible crisis and must be tackled together to preserve health and avoid catastrophe. This overall environmental crisis is now so severe as to be a global health emergency.

Hold it right there, Mr. Abbasi, and think for one moment about the context of the last such ‘global (public) health emergence’. Right, it was the the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’ of 2020.

The world is currently responding to the climate crisis and the nature crisis as if they were separate challenges. This is a dangerous mistake. The 28th UN Conference of the Parties (COP) on climate change is about to be held in Dubai while the 16th COP on biodiversity is due to be held in Turkey in 2024. The research communities that provide the evidence for the two COPs are unfortunately largely separate, but they were brought together for a workshop in 2020 when they concluded: ‘Only by considering climate and biodiversity as parts of the same complex problem…can solutions be developed that avoid maladaptation and maximize the beneficial outcomes.’

In other words, that is, Margaret Thatcher’s infamous statement, ‘there is no alternative’ to either or any of whatever global tyranny we propose because ‘the science™’ says so.

As the health world has recognised with the development of the concept of planetary health, the natural world is made up of one overall interdependent system. Damage to one subsystem can create feedback that damages another—for example, drought, wildfires, floods, and the other effects of rising global temperatures destroy plant life and lead to soil erosion and so inhibit carbon storage, which means more global warming. Climate change is set to overtake deforestation and other land use change as the primary driver of nature loss.

Two things to consider here: what is ‘planetary health’ and why are the supposed ‘experts™’ still using ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ as synonyms?

‘Planetary Health’ is a Globalist Plot

First of all, don’t fall for the gibberish word-salad; second, don’t trust me on the header, read for yourself over at the ‘Planetary Health Alliance’ website (my emphases):

Planetary Health is a solutions-oriented, transdisciplinary field and social movement focused on analyzing and addressing the impacts of human disruptions to Earth’s natural systems on human health and all life on Earth.

See, it’s a ‘transdisciplinary field’-cum-’social movement’ that proposes that ‘everything is connected’. We’ve come quite a bit from the ‘panta rhei’ of Ancient Greek philosophy, but there is more:

It is not just climate change; it is everything change…

Everything is connected—changing our planet’s natural systems comes back to affect us, and not always in ways that we would expect. Understanding and acting upon these challenges calls for massive collaboration across disciplinary and national boundaries to safeguard our health.

Strangely, if ‘everything is connected’ but ‘not always in ways that we would expect’ means: we don’t know all that should be known about it.

Yet, ‘understanding and acting’ is what we’re called upon to do, however imperfect our knowledge might be.

I grant you, it’s of course better safe than sorry, and humanity has devised the precautionary principle (I’m looking at you, public health officialdom and legacy media here), but asking ‘everyone’ to act like a wayward teen trying to ‘do something’ is, at best, a recipe for disaster.

Never before has humanity’s footprint on Earth’s natural systems been so large. We are outstripping available resources from the only habitable planet we know. Since 1950, the human population has increased by nearly 200%; fossil fuel consumption by over 550%; and marine fish capture by over 350%. We’ve placed dams on about 60% of the world’s rivers, we’ve cleared nearly half of temperate and tropical forests, we use nearly half of accessible freshwater every year, and we appropriate about half of the planet’s livable surface to feed ourselves.

And herein emerges into view the anti-human agenda of the ‘Planetary Health Alliance’: cloaked in pseudo-humanist language and faking empathy (which is what, by definition, psychopaths do by habit), we’re able to learn who is responsible for the ‘everything crisis’: it’s ‘us’, you, me, your unborn grand-children, and the like.

The logic behind these words is clearly discernible: reduce the human population by at least 200% and fossil fuel consumption by at least 550% to ‘mitigate’ the worst excesses of the presumed ‘everything crisis’.

Why do I say so? Because it’s obvious—as long as there’s ‘too many’ people on the planet, there cannot be ‘planetary health’.

Their website if full of ‘interesting’ pieces, and I’d encourage you to browse it and see what ‘they’ have in store for ‘us’: here is a direct link to their ‘research bibliography’.

So, who is behind the ‘Planetary Health Alliance’?

‘About Planetary Health Alliance’

In 2015, the Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on Planetary Health published its report ‘Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch’ in The Lancet.

This, really, should give you a first-hand impression of who (the Globalists) is behind this plot—and who, as with the WHO-declared, so-called ‘pandemic™’ is working overtime out in the open to assist the plotters.

Oh, yes, it’s the same people who are behind the WHO-declared, so-called ‘pandemic™’ scare. Don’t take it from me, though, for they say so in their ‘About Us’ section:

As the central organization at the heart of this global field, the PHA brings together over 380 organizations from over 60 countries—more than half from low- and middle-income countries—to support the rapid growth of this transdisciplinary, solutions-oriented field.

Translation from bullshit bingo lingo: look, unlike the WHO-declared, so-called ‘pandemic™’ with the ‘developed world’ leading the psy-op, we took great care to include as many third worlders as needed to convince you that this is a much more ‘inclusive’ charade.

The PHA supports the dissemination of new research, the development and curation [oh, look, who would have thought…] of foundational education materials, and the bringing together of communities of practice around the world. It also helps to integrate Planetary Health into the global health and human development communities and mainstream the field’s new insights and frameworks into the domains of policymaking, the private sector, and the public. It seeks to mobilize the global health and human development communities, private sector, and civil society to recognize that the Earth Crisis represents an urgent humanitarian crisis and to build an activated global constituency committed to rapid structural shifts in how we live in order to reduce our ecological footprint and secure a livable future for humanity and the rest of life on Earth. 

So, the PHA is a ‘central organization’ that collects ‘appropriate’ studies and ‘curates’ relevant ‘education materials’ to foster recognition of ‘the Earth Crisis’ as an ‘urgent humanitarian crisis’.

If only we could get governments, legacy media, politicians, activists, and the like to recognise the urgency of present-day humanitarian crises, such as slave-based mining in sub-Saharan Africa (no-one in the West cares as electric mobility and gadgets depend on raw materials from there; no-one in China cares, as they remain mum about this as long as a profit could be made) or whatever is happening in the Middle East right now (or in Ukraine, for that matter), to say nothing about human trafficking, massive abuses by governments or corporations, and the like. But we should all support and coalesce around something as ‘fluffy’ and ‘fluid’ as a ‘planetary health emergency’, right?

Starting November 2023, the secretariat of the PHA is based at Johns Hopkins University. This connection to, and support from, a world-class university in the field of global health and a location in Washington, DC dramatically expands the Alliance’s ability to achieve its core mission: helping to catalyze the global field of Planetary Health and mainstream its insights and frameworks into the realm of action and decision making. The PHA is supported by a Steering Committee and an Advisory Board, all made up of international experts and Planetary Health leaders.

So, the central secretariat of the PHA is at Johns Hopkins University. Like the de facto central steering body of the the WHO-declared, so-called ‘pandemic™’. Interesting.

They didn’t even bother to look for another place across the street (here’s looking at you, GWU or American U) to make this all a tad less obvious, didn’t they?

So, the PHA shall, henceforth, be labelled ‘EarthInform’ or the like.

The rest of the ‘about us’ page is loaded with more bullshit bingo lingo, hence I shall refrain from discussing it at length, but I will point out one titbit that gives away the ideological predispositions of PHA and its founders:

Justice, Equity, and Compassion: The health burden of degraded natural systems disproportionately affects future generations and people with the fewest resources who are often least responsible for environmental changes. This is deeply unfair and mirrors vast existing disparities and structural inequities worldwide. We hold that justice, equity, and compassion must be the driving forces behind a future of planetary health for all.

Don’t fall for this, as esp. the key terms—’justice, equity, and compassion’—do not mean to them what they might mean to you and me. Equity, in all brevity, means the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist mediated production of equal outcomes, that is, a ‘planeraty’ community where someone else (EarthInform) decides what’s good, right, and morally fine for everyone.

Curiously, that paragraph also relates an objective truth:

people with the fewest resources who are often least responsible for environmental changes

Go back up and re-read what the PHA’s core mission statement says:

We are outstripping available resources from the only habitable planet we know.

Who, then, is the ‘we’ here? It’s people in the developed, rich countries.

Is is a wonder, then, that the demonisation of everything ‘Europeans’ or people of ‘European ancestry’—what in the perverted, racist US discourse falls under the header ‘White’—is progressing as it is?

I submit to you that the ‘we’ decried by the PHA is actually a barely-concealed call to ‘do something’ about the rich and developed countries that are held mainly responsible for ‘the everything crisis’.

See more thoughts about this here:

Why 'They' Hate 'Us' ('White' Peoples) With a Vengeance: Towards a Theory of Anti-'White' Sentiment

Back to The British Medical Journal

This risk, combined with the severe impacts on health already occurring, means that the World Health Organization should declare the indivisible climate and nature crisis as a global health emergency. The three preconditions for WHO to declare a situation to be a public health emergency of international concern are that it is serious, sudden, unusual, or unexpected; carries implications for public health beyond the affected state’s national border; and may require immediate international action. Climate change seems to fulfil all those conditions. While the accelerating climate change and loss of biodiversity are not sudden or unexpected, they are certainly serious and unusual. Hence, we call for WHO to make this declaration before or at the 77th World Health Assembly in May 2024.

Tackling this emergency requires the COP processes to be harmonised. As a first step, the respective conventions must push for better integration of national climate plans with biodiversity equivalents. As the 2020 workshop that brought climate and nature scientists together concluded, ‘Critical leverage points include exploring alternative visions of good quality of life, rethinking consumption and waste, shifting values related to the human-nature relationship, reducing inequalities, and promoting education and learning.’ All of these would benefit health.

Health professionals must be powerful advocates for both restoring biodiversity and tackling climate change for the good of health. Political leaders must recognise both the severe threats to health from the planetary crisis and the benefits that can flow to health from tackling the crisis. But, first, we must recognise this crisis for what it is: a global health emergency.

The Journal of the German Medical Association Explains

As per the Ärzteblatt’s explanation (my translation and emphases), we learn the following:

Declaring a public health emergency is the highest alert level that the WHO can impose. It did so, for example, in the case of the corona pandemic. This calls on all member countries to exchange information and do everything possible to get the problem under control.

Declaring a state of emergency does not have any concrete effects. The WHO cannot prescribe measures for any country. It is up to each country to decide.

Yes, that is, unless and until the new WHO ‘Pandemic Treaty’ is adopted and ratified.

Politicians must open their eyes to the threat to health posed by the climate and natural crises, the current appeal continues. They must realise how much eliminating the crises could contribute to public health.

Sure, let’s trust the ‘experts™’ a bit more, esp. after the WHO-declared, so-called ‘pandemic™’. What could go wrong?

What Does the WHO Say About This?

The WHO has for years described climate change and air pollution as a global crisis affecting health, a WHO spokesperson said in response to a query. To declare a public health emergency (PHEIC), clear criteria must be met, such as a phenomenon being new, unusual and at risk of spreading worldwide, he said.

‘The climate crisis has unfortunately been taking place for decades and has long been a chronic global crisis’, the spokesperson informed. Therefore, he said, the technical conditions have not been met. The climate crisis requires sustained, long-term interventions, also with regard to health, but that is not what a PHEIC declaration is for.

Sure, so, let’s ask ourselves yet again: why the need for a new ‘Pandemic Treaty’?

Beware of the Globalists bearing gifts…