One Health Is a Massive Globalist Grantmaking Scam

I have said that a lot of things are stupid here at the plague chronicle. Most recently, I said the proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement is stupid. I have also said that Following the Science is stupid, that the campaign of the German Health Ministry against summer heat waves was stupid, that the booster campaign was stupid, that mask mandates were stupid, that mass containment was stupid, that the CDC’s pamphlet on “safer sex and monkeypox” was stupid, that fact-checkers are stupid, that politically loaded comparisons to National Socialism are frequently stupid, that pandemic wargames are stupid and that a lot of specific powerful people are stupid.

You must understand that this is only a very partial list; I have said that many other things are stupid as well. I stand by all of these posts and I will not apologise for my monotony. Stupidity is an obnoxious, frustrating and yet very constant and obtrusive feature of the systems that rule us. I emphasise this quality because I think the accent of much dissident commentary is too much on the malicious, authoritarian and often evil nature of government in the West. Don’t misunderstand me. The powers that be are very bad too, but it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that their collective actions and statements are often just astoundingly dumb. Probably never in the history of humanity has stupidity been so abundant, and so apparently ineradicable, as it is now. ”Cause Unknown&r... Dowd, Ed Check Amazon for Pricing.

I make these remarks because my dalliances with the Pandemic Agreement have inspired me to spend the better part of the day reading about One Health, which is a topic of concern in this quarter of the internet. And yes, I am going to say what you already knew I was going to say: One Health is very stupid. In fact, in contrast to many of the other stupid things I listed in the top paragraph, it is so stupid that I have trouble working out how important it is, or whether it even exists, except as a relabelling and a reorganisation of prior globalist initiatives and research projects. But, as so often, I am getting ahead of myself.

When you start to read about One Health, you immediately notice a very weird thing. Almost all the literature surrounding the concept, from academic papers to internet websites and information pamphlets, opens with a preamble striving to explain what One Health is.

Here, for example, is the World Health Organisation explaining what One Health is:

One Health is an approach to designing and implementing programmes, policies, legislation and research in which multiple sectors communicate and work together to achieve better public health outcomes. The One Health approach is critical to addressing health threats in the animal-human-environment interface.

Here is the proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement explaining what One Health is:

“One Health approach” means an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognizes that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants and the wider environment (including ecosystems) is closely linked and interdependent. The approach mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities at varying levels of society to work together to foster well-being and tackle threats to health and ecosystems, while addressing the collective need for clean water, energy and air, safe and nutritious food, taking action on climate change, and contributing to sustainable development.

Here is one of many academic papers explaining what One Health is:

One Health is a broad approach that facilitates interdisciplinary, multi-disciplinary, and transdisciplinary collaboration between the human health, animal health, and environment sectors. We use the term multidisciplinary to collectively refer to these collaborations, given that the nature of the collaboration might not always be known. Although there is no consensus definition of One Health, and other terms, such as EcoHealth and planetary health, are also used in this context, the idea that improvements in health could be achieved by fostering greater multidisciplinary collaboration between the human, animal, and environmental sectors has garnered increasing political attention and financial support.

This is not normal. Papers on climate science do not open with potted descriptions of greenhouse gases and global warming. Philological studies of ancient inscriptions are not generally prefaced with basic remarks about the nature of epigraphy. You get the sense that even the most intensely committed proponents of One Health harbour a distant anxiety that their project doesn’t make any sense. As we will see, that anxiety is eminently justified.

In the beginning, One Health was at least minimally coherent. The concept emerges from a conference held in September 2004 by the Wildlife Conservation Society. This was a proper globaloid event, attended by representatives from the World Health Organisation, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others. There, participants outlined twelve “Manhattan Principles” on “One World, One Health.” Back then, the big virological scare surrounded two zoonotic viruses, SARS and H5N1 influenza. The purse strings had been loosened, and conservationists, zoologists and veterinarians sensed an opportunity. Their twelve principles demanded that “the world’s leaders, civil society, the global health community and institutions of science” – i.e., grantmakers – “recognize the link between human, domestic animal and wildlife health,” “include wildlife health science as an essential component of global disease prevention,” “seek opportunities to fully integrate biodiversity conservation perspectives and human needs … when developing solutions to infections disease threats,” and many other ponderous, multisyllabic and unclearly differentiated things that all add up to the same imperative – namely, a request to be included in the emerging pandemic-prevention gravy train. Speed Reading: Learn t... Knight, Kam Check Amazon for Pricing.

A 2014 paper on “The evolution of One Health: a decade of progress and challenges for the future” relates the early history of the movement. Its authors admit that “One Health was born out of, and fueled by, fear,” specifically the fear that H5N1 influenza “could cause a pandemic in the human population, rivaling, and possibly exceeding, the estimated 50 million human deaths associated with Spanish influenza.” This “threat” soon “receded,” which is another way of saying that the great H5N1 pandemic never happened and people lost interest. Nevertheless, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, the Paris-based World Organisation for Animal Health and the World Health Organisation formed a “tripartite” partnership in 2010 to promote One Health “at the local, national, regional and global levels.” Six years after its founding, assisted by the 2009 Swine flu scare, One Health achieved official status within the globalist institutional machinery.

From this moment, the jargon descends upon One Health and the number of publications, pamphlets, websites and academic papers explode. What all of this verbal incontinence amounts to on the ground, however, is very hard to work out. That 2014 paper has a whole section listing “selected achievements” of One Health. Its authors pat themselves on the back for setting up influenza “surveillance systems,” whereby “the world” became “better protected.” What this means, as near as I can tell, is that advocates slapped the “One Health” label on existing influenza surveillance efforts and called it a day. Another achievement of “One Health” is said to be an EU-funded research project called the “Integrated Control of Neglected Zoonoses in Africa,” which conducted “case studies of zoonotic disease clusters in seven African countries.” The researchers responsible for this project used One Health terminology so it became another win for the concept. It goes on and on like this: One Health is judged to succeed to the extent that pre-existing research programmes make the appropriate genuflections.

Read the Whole Article