{"id":122839,"date":"2023-06-09T21:27:22","date_gmt":"2023-06-09T21:27:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/?p=122839"},"modified":"2023-06-16T17:13:56","modified_gmt":"2023-06-16T17:13:56","slug":"one-health-what-is-it-whos-promoting-it-and-why-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/one-health-what-is-it-whos-promoting-it-and-why-1\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018One Health\u2019: What Is It, Who\u2019s Promoting It \u2014 and Why? (1)"},"content":{"rendered":"

The \u201cOne Health\u201d concept has been gaining traction among public health policymakers in recent years \u2014 but questions remain about what One Health really means, who\u2019s behind the concept and whether what started out as a sound idea has since been hijacked by people or groups that see it as a means to expand their power.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines One Health<\/a> as \u201can integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems<\/em>,\u201d as they are \u201cclosely linked and interdependent<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

On the surface, that approach sounds noble and reasonable. But some scientists and medical experts told they\u2019re concerned about the concept\u2019s vague goals, and the motivation of those involved with the development and global rollout of the concept \u2014 including the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Bank<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Some experts also questioned the connections many key figures in the One Health initiative have to entities involved in controversial gain-of-function research<\/a> in Wuhan, China.<\/p>\n

Defining \u2018One Health\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

The WHO argues that by linking humans, animals and the environment, the One Health approach<\/a> can \u201chelp to address the full spectrum of disease control \u2014 from prevention to detection, preparedness, response and management \u2014 and contribute to global health security<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to the WHO:<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile health, food, water, energy and environment are all wider topics with sector-specific concerns, the collaboration across sectors and disciplines contributes to protect health, address health challenges such as the emergence of infectious diseases, antimicrobial resistance, and food safety and promote the health and integrity of our ecosystems.<\/em><\/p>\n

The approach can be applied at the community, subnational, national, regional and global levels, and relies on shared and effective governance, communication, collaboration and coordination. Having the One Health approach in place makes it easier for people to better understand the co-benefits, risks, trade-offs and opportunities to advance equitable and holistic solutions<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, according to independent journalist and researcher James Roguski, a definition of One Health also appears on page 952 of the recently passed National Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2023<\/a>, which states:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe term \u2018One Health approach\u2019 means the collaborative, multi-sectoral, and transdisciplinary approach toward achieving optimal health outcomes in a manner that recognizes the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

And a WHO One Health \u201cfact sheet\u201d<\/a> published Oct. 3, 2022, claims that \u201cThe health of humans, animals, and ecosystems are closely interlinked. Changes in these relationships can increase the risk of new human and animal diseases developing and spreading<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The fact sheet states that \u201c60% of emerging infectious diseases that are reported globally come from animals, both wild and domestic<\/em>\u201d and \u201cOver 30 new human pathogens have been detected in the last 3 decades, 75% of which have originated in animals.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cHuman activities and stressed ecosystems have created new opportunities for diseases to emerge and spread<\/em>,\u201d the WHO notes.<\/p>\n

What are such \u201cstressors<\/em>,\u201d according to the WHO? They \u201cinclude animal trade, agriculture, livestock farming, urbanization, extractive industries, climate change, habitat fragmentation and encroachment into wild areas<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Hinting at claims that covid-19<\/a> emerged in such a manner, rather than as part of a lab leak<\/a>, the WHO claims:<\/p>\n

\u201cFor example, the way land is used can impact the number of malaria cases. Weather patterns and human-built water controls can affect diseases like dengue. Trade in live, wild animals can increase the likelihood of infectious diseases jumping over to people (called disease spillover).<\/em><\/p>\n

The covid-19 pandemic put a spotlight on the need for a global framework for improved surveillance and a more holistic, integrated system. Gaps in One Health knowledge, prevention and integrated approaches were seen as key drivers of the pandemic.<\/em><\/p>\n

By addressing the linkages between human, animal and environmental health, One Health is seen as a transformative approach to improved global health<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Experts: One Health concept noble, but idea \u2018hijacked\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

Several experts said the core concept of \u201cOne Health<\/em>\u201d is noble, but along the way, it was \u201chijacked<\/em>\u201d by powerful entities seeking to instrumentalize it for their own ends.<\/p>\n

Dr. Meryl Nass, a member of the Children\u2019s Health Defense<\/a> scientific advisory committee, told that One Health \u201cseems to have been invented by a doctor and a veterinarian, and I don\u2019t think they had any idea of what it was going to be used for<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThey just seemed to think it was a good idea to think about zoonotic diseases through the lens of a vet, as well as medical and zoonotic diseases or diseases that people catch from animals<\/em>,\u201d Nass added.<\/p>\n

Dr. David Bell<\/a>, a public health physician and biotech consultant and former director of global health technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund, called the One Health concept a \u201cperfectly sensible approach to looking at health that\u2019s been hijacked like so many other things<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bell told:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe concept of One Health originally was just pointing out the obvious that people have known for thousands of years: that human health is connected to the environment, connected to their food chain, connected to the animals they live with, et cetera, and that if you are trying to improve general human health, population health, then dealing with these other influences that harm health is perfectly rational<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

He noted, as an example, that \u201csome diseases, like bovine tuberculosis, affect humans as well<\/em>,\u201d so managing that disease would lead to fewer humans contracting it.<\/p>\n

Bell said that while \u201cthere\u2019s nothing wrong with the concept of One Health in its generic form, the problem is it has been co-opted by people who want to use public health to control a society, enrich themselves and enrich their sponsors<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Because One Health can be defined so broadly, Bell said, \u201cIt\u2019s now being looked at as anything in the biosphere that could potentially affect human wellbeing you could say anything that causes stress on people is part of the One Health agenda<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

He added:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you\u2019re a really wealthy person that sponsors something like the WHO, and you wanted to increase the reach of your power and ability to enrich yourself, then One Health becomes really valuable in public health \u2014 because public health is virtually anything that humans interact with or do.<\/em><\/p>\n

And then, you can justify almost any way of controlling people on the basis that, in some way, you\u2019re protecting someone, somewhere, from some form of ill health or reduced quality of health<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reggie Littlejohn<\/a>, founder and president of Women\u2019s Rights without Frontiers and co-chair of the Stop Vaccine Passports Task Force, described One Health as \u201ca very holistic-sounding approach to healthcare<\/em>\u201d that emphasizes \u201cthe interface between human health, animal health, plant health and ecological health<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cAll of that sounds very inclusive and holistic<\/em>,\u201d said Littlejohn, but \u201cmy concern is that it gives the WHO, under the <\/em>pandemic treaty<\/a><\/em>, 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<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Nass noted that \u201cvery few people in the Western world actually catch diseases from animals unless you define them in a certain way<\/em>,\u201d citing claims made by some scientists that influenza is a zoonotic disease, for instance.<\/p>\n

According to Nass:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe reason half a billion people or more get the flu every year is because it goes person to person primarily, although it does reassort in animals and so, the idea that you have to change the way we look at medicine to account for them is a completely ridiculous concept<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The One Health concept \u201cis much more popular in the public health and veterinary communities<\/em>\u201d than the medical community, Nass said, because \u201cit doesn\u2019t make any sense for doctors<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

WHO, World Economic Forum expanded the scope of \u2018One Health\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/strong><\/p>\n

According to Nass, while One Health, as a concept, was introduced approximately 20 years ago, it was later \u201crolled out at the <\/em>World Economic Forum<\/a><\/em> [WEF] in Davos<\/em>,\u201d with the support of the CDC.<\/p>\n

\u201cApparently, globalists got the idea that they could use it for their own purposes, and subsequently they\u2019ve expanded what it is<\/em>,\u201d Nass said. \u201cSo, it started out as humans and animals, then it went to food and agriculture and plants, and then recently, ecosystems were included, which meant the whole planet<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to the WHO, a \u201cOne Health Quadripartite<\/a>\u201d has been formed, along with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), who \u201chave developed a <\/em>One Health Joint Plan of Action<\/a><\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Following this, a \u201cOne Health High-Level Expert Panel<\/a><\/em> (OHHLEP) was <\/em>formed in May 2021<\/a><\/em>, to advise FAO, UNEP, WHO and WOAH on One Health issues<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The WHO says these issues include \u201crecommendations for research on emerging disease threats, and the development of a long-term global plan of action to avert outbreaks of diseases like H5N1 avian influenza, MERS, Ebola, Zika, and, possibly, covid-19.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

OHHLEP<\/a>, composed of 26 \u201cinternational experts<\/em>,\u201d meets five to six times per year. The panel says it will<\/a> \u201chave a role in investigating the impact of human activity on the environment and wildlife habitats, and how this drives disease threats.<\/em><\/p>\n

Critical areas include food production and distribution, urbanization and infrastructure development, international travel and trade, activities that lead to biodiversity loss and climate change, and those that put increased pressure on the natural resource base \u2014 all of which can lead to the emergence of zoonotic diseases.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

Nass noted that \u201cclimate change and climate disaster<\/em>\u201d are the recent additions to the WHO\u2019s One Health agenda, turning a tripartite into the current quadripartite plan.<\/p>\n

At the November 2022 OHHLEP meeting<\/a>, agenda items included developing a \u201cTheory of Change<\/a><\/em>\u201d (ToC) in connection with One Health, and inserting commentaries in The Lancet<\/em> to promote this \u201ctheory<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The minutes of the meeting also appear to tie the Lancet<\/em> commentary and the ToC with the pandemic treaty<\/a>, stating:<\/p>\n

\u201cPublishing a Lancet commentary on the ToC detailing where it should be applied, with the objective of influencing the pandemic instrument (800 words commentary piece).<\/em><\/p>\n

A more extensive version could be finalized and sent to the Lancet for a separate publication<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Earlier this year, The Lancet<\/em> published a \u201cseries<\/em>\u201d on \u201cOne Health and Global Health Security<\/a><\/em>,\u201d composed of four articles \u2014 with OHHLEP members as the listed authors \u2014 plus an editorial, a \u201cviewpoint<\/em>\u201d and a commentary. They include:<\/p>\n