cross posted to my other blog.
Lancet has a series of articles saying we need to reset medicine because humans are equal to animals.
I am putting the articles here in a series to fisk their lack of scientific rigor, and also so that I don't have to keep going to their website to read them but can fisk the article at my leisure
One Health: a call for ecological equityThe notion that the wellbeing of an individual is directly connected to the wellbeing of the land has a long history in Indigenous societies.
Define Ïndigenous societies. Indigenous societies are not a monolith. Give an example with pros and cons. And don't overlook the fact that many of them have left these pristine environments to live and intermarry with others. And don't overlook that many of them use slash and burn techniques or overgraze the land. And don't overlook that their lifestyle is only "sustainable" due to high maternal child mortality, and don't forget the kidnapping of wives and infanticide in those Amazon tribes so beloved by Pope Francis.
Nowadays, the term One Health has become an important concept in global health.
The One Health High-Level Expert panel defines One Health as “an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimise the health of people, animals, and ecosystems. It recognises the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and inter-dependent.”
True, but this is also rhetoric of the ecology minded, and again the devil is in the details of exactly what they mean to implement to do this.
On Jan 19, we published a new four-part Series online on One Health and global health security, which analyses current understanding of potential public health emergencies and explores how effective adoption of One Health could improve global health security. Although the Series focuses on pandemic preparedness,
so basic public health. And how they are the saviors who will impose their plans to "ïmprove global health security"
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.
again, rhetoric. And lumps microbial resistance with food insecurity and climate change as threats to society.
Modern attitudes to human health take a purely anthropocentric view—that the human being is the centre of medical attention and concern.
why yes. Because we are humans who are endowed by the Creator with certain rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And because medicine from ancient times has been about treating the sick. You want to do environmental stuff, fine. But it is not medicine. (emphasis mine).
One Health places us in an interconnected and interdependent relationship with non-human 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.
Ah so here we see the rhetorical trick: we need to take care of the earth (following their guidelines) to stay well, but hey, human lives are not more important than wild animals. (we in the Philippines saw this type of thinking when an alligator killed a school girl and the locals trapped him. The westerners lamented the action of the locals who didn't respect the animals dignity. As for the school girl, hey, she was only a poor Filipina girl so who cares. A similar attitude can be found in Nat Geo specials about tiger or crocadiles killing people in India: more concern about the animals than the poor villagers).
This understanding is fundamental to addressing pressing health issues at the human–animal–environment interface.
For example, 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.
Actually, despite the propaganda, starvation deaths have gone down.
Indeed, anyone involved in farming could see it is green policies that are going to cause famine: until the recent man made fertilizer and fuel shortage, blamed on Covid and Putin but actually due to green policies that stopped fracking of natural gas in the US, and of course pushing the Ukraine war instead of trying to make peace there. And of course, the greens opposed the original green revolution (that requires fertilizer to grow these crops) and who are now opposing GM crops that would enable less use of pesticides and could also increase protein in the crops to enhance nutrition.
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 wellbeing.
Translation: You will eat bugs and like it. A top down tyranny not only telling you what to eat, but insisting you be happy with this man made crisis. And why do I suspect bird flu killing the chicken industry and African swine flu killing pigs and Foot and Mouth disease killing ruminants are examples of failure of these health minded people stopping these epidemics, because they want to implement low protein vegetarianism on the world. Kwashiorkor anyone?
The COVID-19 pandemic provides an important example of the need for a One Health approach.
Analyses of the successes and failures in managing the pandemic have prioritised health systems and the provision of vaccines and antivirals.
Fair enough.
But understanding the causes of the pandemic demands a broader ecological perspective. This lesson has not been fully learned and so we remain susceptible to future lethal emerging infectious diseases.
The Series recommends the involvement of more environmental health organisations to better integrate environmental, wildlife, and farming issues to help address challenges relating to disease spillover.
WTF?
Covid was not a disease spill over from an animal. It was virus manipulated by man (actually a woman scientist) doing gain of function research. And through carelessness, it leaked out of the lab,
To make things worse, not only did the Chinese government and WHO try to deny there was an epidemic, and later saying yes there is an epidemic but it's not infectious, and then yes there was an epidemic but hey it came from a bat in a wet market (just ignore the lab doing gain of function experiments on the covid 2 virus). Indeed, Lancet was part of this coverup: Despite Lancet's attempt to silence the whistle blowers by allowing the head of Ecohealth to insist that covid was a disease spillover from bats, and if you even hinted that maybe the lab was the origin, you would be silenced.
Now we come to the really chilling part of their Humans are not more important than animals point of view.
One implication of a One Health approach is the need to reduce human pressure on the environment—an important medical intervention in itself.
Translation: we need population control of all those poor people who want to grow food and whose farms diminish the area of wild animals who look so nice in Nat Geo TV shows, and a pristine habitat that looks so nice on our instagram posting when we visit as eco tourists.
So Mrs Bill Gates is using money to push contraception on Africans and the West of using the WHO to push contraception on and abortion as a human right.
Next topic pleas:
Take antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Driven by antimicrobial use and misuse in human, animal, and environmental sectors, and the spread of resistant bacteria and resistance genes within and between these sectors, AMR inflicts a huge global toll. An estimated 1·2 million people died in 2019 from antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections with another 4·95 million deaths associated with bacterial AMR globally. Only by applying a One Health approach can action to address AMR be achieved.
yes, a problem, and excess use of antibiotics in the animal industry is a topic that is discussed by farmers. But it is the modern factory farm methods of raising chickens, pigs, cattle, and fish that lets poor people to have access to cheap protein. People on traditional low protein diets tend to die a lot from infectious diseases, especially Tuberculosis.
Lancet might estimate that 1.2 million people die of antibiotic resistant diseases, but please don't ignore that 250 thousand of these deaths are because of counterfeit drugs or vaccines that are commonly sold in their world countries: And this is a problem of corruption and crime that could be stopped.
One huge concern is the risk of worsening inequalities as On
e Health networks are largely situated and resourced in high-income countries. The current One Health architecture of institutions, processes, regulatory frameworks, and legal instruments has led to a fragmented, multilateral health security landscape.
As the second paper in The Series points out, a more egalitarian approach is needed, one that is not paternalistic or colonial in telling low-income and middle-income countries what they should do.
For example, demanding that wet markets be closed to halt an emerging zoonosis might be technically correct, but if it does not account for those who make their livelihoods from such markets, One Health will only worsen the lives of those it claims to care about. Decolonisation requires listening to what countries say and what their needs are.
well, the need of the Philippines is basic infracstucture and jobs.
As the global economic crisis continues (The World Bank forecasts a sharp downturn in growth and soaring debt that will hit developing countries the hardest), One Health needs to be implemented sensitively.
yes, the wrong headed plans of the elite to handle the Covid crisis and stop the use of fossil fuels etc. are all economic decisions made by those in charge of the world. But apparantly that won't stop you.
The reality is that One Health will be delivered in countries, not by concordats between multilateral organisations, but 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.
Italics mine.
there is it again: animals and environment more important than human beings. And they expect us not to notice.
In its truest sense, One Health is a call for ecological, not merely health, equity.
Again, ecological equity. What does this mean in the real world?
Three guesses.
No comments:
Post a Comment