One Health, the Environment and Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR), from the UN Environmental Program
89 pages to blame antimicrobial resistance on the Environment, and if we all join together it will be okay.
Here is a booklet just released by the UN Environmental Program, one of the four members of the One Health Quadripartite, which consists of the 4 designated international agencies tasked with pushing out One Health globally.
It contains the 3 elements we have grown to know so well during the pandemic:
An overblown warning about impending doom
A totally inaccurate description of the cause
A vague solution that works for the globalists but not for us
And below is the latest scary tale:
They tell us that antimicrobial resistance is a really complicated subject.
And I must apologize for sharing with you so much gobbledygook, time after time. But all the WHO and UN and USG pronouncements about anything even peripherally related to health are now comprised of a standard set of buzzwords and concepts, and they are simply shaken up when it’s time to write a new document, and served to us again. (I am sparing you 3 statements from Sec. Xavier Becerra during his visits to Brussels, Geneva and Berlin this past week, so be grateful.)
Antimicrobial resistance is so simple. Bacteria develop mutations that allow them to evade antibiotics, and their new genes are often contained in small plasmids that can be excreted by the cell and shared with other bacteria. Because virtually all these mutations require additional energy or code to maintain, they die out when there is no antibiotic pressure retaining them. Until this present moment, the FDA, CDC and the WHO all knew that antimicrobial resistance was due primarily to the use of antibiotics in livestock feed, because it increased the rate of growth. 75% of antibiotics by weight are used for this purpose, globally. And people consume those antibiotics when they eat the meat, or the farmed fish, or the chickens.
But now we must believe that antibiotic resistance is an environmental problem, which can only be solved by using the (which lacks all specifics) One Health approach.
How many people does it take to create an 89 page, well-referenced mini book of gibberish? Count them, and remember it is your tax dollars paying for this. There appear to be 112 people listed on the Acknowledgements page who created this word salad. And that doesn’t count the “other UNEP contributors” who are mentioned at the end.
Now I am going to give you a randomly selected page (page 63) so you can see what this is really about:
While countries might have different processes
for developing and managing an effective national
governance mechanism for AMR, the need for a
robust multisectoral coordination system has been
highlighted across multiple fora as key for tackling
AMR in a sustainable manner.
So while individual countries tackle this problem already, in order to tackle it sustainably (what does that even mean?) we all have to work together, in coordination. “Highlighted across multiple fora??”— more word salad. The goal is ONE approach.
Thus, countries need
to integrate such environmental considerations
into AMR National Action Plans, and AMR into
environmental-related plans such as national chemical
pollution and waste management programmes,
national biodiversity and climate change planning.
Everything needs to be jumbled together so that no one is responsible for anything, and nothing will work. Is this how they downgrade our infrastructure?
Another priority area for urgent action remains to
ensure continued political engagement [keeping the money flowing] and support
in countries, including national budget allocations
and scaling up technical capacity [what the WHO claims to provide] across all sectors to accelerate the implementation of the NAP on
AMR. [What is the National Action Plan that requires acceleration?]
Countries need to explore innovative financial
incentives and schemes [finally, a real word], and to make the investment
case to guarantee sustainable funding.
Environmental monitoring and surveillance and
further research prioritization are also pivotal
to provide more data and evidence and better
understand the complex dynamics of AMR.
We need lots of money and we need to figure out how to convince people to give it to us. And they need to give it continuously. One way requires convincing them that AMR is complicated, when it is actually pretty simple. When bacteria are exposed to antibiotics they develop mutations to evade the antibiotics. When they are not exposed they lose the mutations. Duh. But by calling this complex we can do lots of surveillance for antimicrobial resistance and all sorts of other things too.
This will lead to improved science-policy interfaces to ensure
informed decision-making and prioritise interventions.
Therefore, strengthening national, regional and
global surveillance systems through improved
data management, private sector engagement,
implementation of data-driven practices and reporting
This won’t be acceptable unless we claim we are doing something better and more innovative than anybody else, even though we have not offered up a single innovation.
Further engagement and commitment are needed
from industry actors from the three economic
sectors and their value chains that are key drivers of
AMR development and spread in the environment
i.e. pharmaceuticals and other chemicals, agriculture
and food, and healthcare. This commitment should
include further steps to ensure more transparency and
corporate responsibility regarding their contribution to
the risk of AMR.
Globally, there is a need to establish international
standards for what are good microbiological indicators
of AMR from environmental samples, [in other words, we are calling for actions for which no good data exist] which can be
used to guide risk reduction decisions and create
effective incentives to follow such guidance.
National and global AMR-related planning and
action, and the critical role and contribution of
environmental authorities, experts and practitioners
need to be strengthened. Strategies and plans need
to utilise the ‘One Health’ approach while addressing
financial/business, climate and cultural contexts.
Regulatory, economic and in some instances cultural
barriers will need to be overcome. [In other words, even though we say that this is about reducing AMR, which is generally the purview of regulators, we are planning to trample existing regulations and other barriers to our goals.] Gender equality and rights-based approaches need to be adopted
in order to make progress towards environmental
sustainability. [Then why do the new, proposed amendments to the IHR omit the existing language, which promises adherence to “human rights, human dignity and freedom of persons”?] These issues need to be addressed and
given prominence in deliberations on the topic.
The Quadripartite organizations need to continue
leveraging their respective organizations’ resources
and strengths to jointly support countries in
scaling up national responses to AMR through a
‘One Health’ approach. Solutions exist, and many of them have been captured
in this report. They range from specific management
actions to promoting sustainable production and
consumption. [Reduced access to antibiotics.] A clear vision, ambitious targets [eating bugs rather than antibiotic-contaminated livestock?] and
road maps supported by political prioritization of
a ‘One Health’ response to AMR and international
enabling action [mo’ money] are needed to leverage the momentum. [Regarding the terror induced by fear porn: use it or lose it.]