Must read: The Trojan Horse of "One Health"

One Health downgrades the value of human beings, claiming we should be equal to animals. The Lancet editors say so. Read it yourself -- it's one ugly page

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)00090-9/fulltext

The Lancet is the oldest and best known medical journal in the world.

It has performed questionably during the pandemic. First there was the February 2020 Peter Daszak-ghostwritten Lancet Correspondence that demanded we not consider a lab origin for COVID, as this would jeopardize our relationship with China and reveal we were ignorant conspiracy theorists. Sixteen months later, the same cadre of Daszak-organized authors published another Lancet propaganda piece in support of their earlier Correspondence.

Then there was the May 2020 publication of the fabricated article from Surgisphere, claiming that HCQ and CQ were killing COVID patients in hospitals around the world.

Then there were the publication of articles ‘proving’ that HCQ and IVM were dangerous, unsafe or both. And the reveal that the Lancet took money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Lancet chose to move beyond publishing medical journals, creating a COVID commission led by Jeffrey Sachs to solve all COVID-related problems. Their biggest problem was making Peter Daszak head of the COVID origins working group. Sachs had to go public with bizarre explanations of how he had only just discovered that Daszak had been lying to him, while Sachs himself was innocent as a lamb. To prove it, he gave a garbled explanation about the origin of COVID, which he said was due to US ‘biotechnology,’ but he declined to name any institutions or scientists or funders. Then Sachs spoke up about the Nordstream bombings to try and burnish his tattered reputation.

Most of the original COVID Commission publications related to the wonders of mRNA vaccines. A later report focused on supporting the WHO’s pandemic preparedness initiative with lots of money. (I previously blogged with a transcript of 3 choice minutes of Sachs’ speech on this and a discussion of the report’s main points.)

As if this wasn’t bad enough, the Lancet produced a One Health Commission and a Food (EAT) Commission to assist in ushering in the New World Order. After publishing many articles on ‘One Health’ produced by its One Health Commission (basically a waste of paper, as the Commissioners had great difficulty finding any evidence that the “One Health Approach” was good for anything) the Lancet editors came out with this doozy, which I reproduce in full because you wouldn’t believe me if I just wrote about it. My comments follow this Lancet editorial, published in January 2023.

I will select key sentences (in italics) and then discuss them.

The One Health High-Level Expert Panel defines One Health as "an integrated unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems."

[Hmmm, what exactly are we balancing?}

Although the series focuses on pandemic preparedness, One Health goes way beyond emerging infections and novel pathogens; it is the foundation for understanding and addressing the most existential threats to societies including antimicrobial resistance, food and nutrition insecurity, and climate change.

[Existential threats? What are they talking about? How did climate change get thrown into the One Health basket? How do they propose to tackle food insecurity while giving animals equal status as humans? Do meat and dairy disappear? Aren’t crickets and worms equal to people too?]

Modern attitudes to human health take a purely anthropocentric view – that the human being is the center of medical attention and concern. One Health places us in an interconnected and interdependent relationship with nonhuman animals and the environment. The consequences of this thinking entail a subtle but quite revolutionary shift of perspective: all life is equal, and of equal concern.

[So, humans are no more valued than animals or environmental concerns. It sounds like some humans are going to be asked to give up some of what they have for the animals and the environment. Which humans will be doing the giving, and what will they be told to give? For what purpose exactly?

Do we really think concerns for animals are being elevated? Of course not. Humans are being lowered in this One Health panoply to the status of animals, which is probably why the guarantee of “human rights, dignity and freedom of persons” in the current International Health Regulations was removed from the draft IHR amendment changes being proposed.]

…providing a growing global population with healthy diets from sustainable food systems is an urgent unmet need. It requires a complete change to our relationship with animals. The EAT Lancet Commission takes an equitable approach by recommending people move away from an animal – based diet to a plant – based one, which not only benefits human health, but also animal health and well-being.

[It sounds like they are planning to get rid of most livestock. And they are not happy with us feeding ourselves; instead they need to insert themselves into our food choices, as well as our relationships with animals. Do they also intend to completely change our relationships with humans? Don’t ignore that the plant-based diet may only improve health because the animal products have been so degraded with hormones, growth enhancers, antibiotics, pesticides, etc.

The series recommends the involvement of more environmental health organizations to better integrate environmental, wildlife, and farming issues to help address challenges relating to disease spillover.

COVID, monkeypox, Ebola, Zika, Avian flu etc. all came from human contact with wild and domestic animals, and don’t you dare forget it. It is rural humans who are responsible for pandemics, not our esteemed lab scientists funded by federal agencies, especially the Department of Defense. This narrative is essential to justify the plans of the globalists that are hinted at in this Lancet piece, as well as the plans embodied in the new IHR Amendments, pandemic treaty, and the global biosecurity agenda.

How does this Lancet editorial conclude?

… One Health will be delivered … by taking a fundamentally different approach to the natural world, one in which we are as concerned about the welfare of non-human animals and the environment as we are about humans. In its truest sense, one health is a call for ecological, not merely health, equity.

The Lancet editors’ words speak for themselves. In case you want more information on these topics, the sidebar directs you to the relevant Lancet publications:

For more on the definition of
One Health see https://www.
who.int/news/item/01-12-2021-
tripartite-and-unep-support-
ohhlep-s-definition-of-one-
health

For the Lancet One Health and
Global Health Security Series
see Series Lancet 2023; published
online Jan 19. https://doi.
org/10.1016/
S0140-6736(22)01595-1

For the EAT–Lancet Commission
see https://www.thelancet.com/
commissions/EAT

For more on the global burden
of antimicrobial resistance see
Articles Lancet 2022;
399: 629–55

I hope you, gentle readers, agree: the plotters have opened a window on their plans, and we cannot claim to be unaware or remain complacent. There exists a vast conspiracy to utterly transform the world, which includes multinational organizations, governments, scientists, public health professionals and medical journals. Pandemics are the excuse. Do you want the future they are designing, or do you want something else?