alicespringstomind

Dr Meryl Nass, Dr David Bell and James Corbett (journalist) had this very wide ranging, intelligent discussion recently about the two public health agendas coming into play. This particularly interested me after observing public health colleagues who trained 10+ years after me, over the past three years. The new training appears to promote military style tactics and encourages a massive power imbalance between those with the right to enforce rules (mass quarantine of healthy people; mask mandates; job, career and income loss of those disagreeing with unsafe and defective interventions), and those they are stamping down upon in the name of safety and the greater-good. I wonder if the level of pseudoscience promoted was able to take hold because of this power dynamic? If it makes you feel powerful, will you promote something that you know is wrong?

Anthropogenic causes of disease and other problems are used to blame humans, which then justifies control measures with no evidence supporting their use and much evidence demonstrating their harms. This is not at all the public health which was taught in the early 2000s, nor practiced up until 2020, so what changed? My notes are below.

Pandemic/Biosecurity Agenda

Came into play around 25 years ago when public-private partnerships (PPPs) began in international health. Previously horizontal programs focussed on local communities determining their own priorities and being supported to manage their own health. PPPs introduced more money and were sold as a good thing. The extra money seems good but most philanthro-capitalists contribute in order to impose their own ideas and earn profits. This resulted in commodity-based health – patented products. Because it can be argued that vaccines are required by everyone on earth repeatedly, they provide an excellent return on investment.

International public health is now vertical, with centralised rules about which commodities should go to the people, rather than communities determining their own needs. The pharmaceutical industry and their investors bring the money to this table, and are at the top of the chain. It was naiive of the health world to agree to this.

Most people in the health field are now funded through these mechanisms, so they can’t escape as it would decimate their own livelihood. A large bureaucracy is now managed by for-profit entities. Covid has highlighted this clearly.

Nutritional deficiencies, sanitation and other basic priorities are ignored, and WHO are now focussing on Covax, planning to mass vaccinate the entire poor world, who are already immune and have near-zero risk. Disease burden has been replaced as a priority by “equity”, which means forcing everyone on earth to take the same product regardless of need.

One Health

The idea of environmental factors influencing health, including animal health, is age-old. For example polluted rivers, infected food sources etc. However in the past few years a new ideology has arisen whereby “all life is equal“, with the life of any animal being considered equal to any human, is being promoted. Dr Bell wrote an article outlining the concerns about this: Your Daughter for a Rat? The Corrupting of One Health.

In a public health paradigm where people are supported to make individual health decisions, One Health recognises that human health is affected by the environment and public health provides an advisory service. With public health becoming prescriptive and telling people what to do, then they can make demands on every aspect of our lives and control all human activity, by convincing us that anthropogenic causes are to blame for everything, eg climate change etc.

Humans are natural beings and a part of nature, and we are evolving naturally. Claiming that there are too many humans on earth is not a sensible way to deal with nature because we are part of nature. The anthropogenic argument, that humans are to blame for all health concerns on the planet, is an erroneous ideology.

Biosecurity as Public Health

The biosecurity concept began in the USA via Homeland Security in 1999. At this time Anser Institute for Homeland Security introduced plans for a Homeland Security course at the National War College. Dr Robert Kadlec, aka “Dr Strangelove”, a biowarfare expert, was involved. Only after the Anthrax attacks in 2001, did massive infrastructure for pandemic preparedness begin, including new laws, and in 2017 Dr Kadlec became President Trump’s Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.

The biosecurity infrastructure creation has evolved through the United Nations as One Health. The concept is based on a degradation of humanity to the level of animals. Corbett poses the argument that this is connected to the shift away from vitalism (the idea that living and nonliving organisms are fundamentally different) – which brings us to the issue of transhumanism, being promoted through the all-too-powerful creeps at World Economic Forum, particularly Noah Yuval Harari.

Public health has evolved into mandates, restrictions and top-down control of health decisions. For humans as well as animals and ecosystems. Corbett argues that any theoretical structure founded on abrogation of bodily autonomy and our right to choose, is null and void.

Dr Bell reminds us that 30 years ago people were not dying in droves. That is because of authentic public health. Sanitation systems, clean water, etc. In the 1968-69 Flu pandemic, Woodstock went ahead. People went on normally. Less people died in these previous pandemics than die every year from Tuberculosis. The claims that pandemics are becoming more frequent are untrue, and being used to create fear and encourage compliance with the biosecurity agenda.

US Biological Warfare Program

Began in 1943, during WW2 to create weapons for use against the Germans and Japanese. A number of weapons were made, including Anthrax and weapons against plants and animals, to destroy food supplies. The program was not closed down after the war. It is not expensive (compared with other warfare) and so poor countries can also implement biowarfare, and so protecting against biowarfare was also a part of the research. Plans to stop the program were not strictly enforced despite a treaty in 1975.

Genetic engineering of bacteria and viruses gave the US an advantage over most other countries due to their advanced biotechnology in this regard. A biodefense program evolved despite being officially illegal. In 2001 a book called “Germs” by three New York Times reporters was published, which talked about the three biodefense programs still running, which most people thought had been outlawed.

Pandemics and biowarfare melded together. It was unclear whether the 2004 Avian Influenza was a natural or artificial virus. Huge amounts of money were dedicated to biodefense around this time (around US$10B/year for the past ten years). It is unknown where the money went, as it was farmed out to many different departments and in many different grants. Including grants to teach people about One Health. Extra health professionals have not been trained for overall health programs, but money has been spent in training existing health workers in emergency preparedness.

Various US laws have passed to build the legal and financial structure for pandemic preparedness. Emergency Use Authorisation (as used for the Covid-19 injections) did not exist before 2005. The only two ways to receive a drug prior to that, were either by being a bona fide clinical trial participant with informed consent, or receiving a licensed drug.

Funding and classification framework is different when an issue is considered to be related to biodefense. One Health is being framed as a biosecurity issue, with the abrogation of bodily autonomy and the promoted idea that “health” can only be obtained via genetic sequencing and pharmaceutical products. This in fact contradicts the authentic idea of one-health, whereby human health comes from healthy ecosystems.

Much of the genetic sequencing etc, is driven by software engineers. This is the opposite of biology, in which there is huge diversity. The idea that there is a single “fix” for a health problem requires trials, for example drugs work in patient-specific contexts. For example ivermectin works better in patients with good Vitamin D levels; improving immune systems as a part of medical treatment is imperative. This is the opposite of what happened in Covid, despite the Covid response being led by those pushing One Health. This shows that the concept is being distorted.

World Health Organisation are institutionalising One Health and wedding it into treaties which citizens will have no control over. They have defined medical products as “anything to do with human wellbeing”, which can basically be anything. They also talk about “threats to health”, which broadens their powers to an extraordinary extent.

Public health is being used to enforce control over almost every aspect of human life.

Because there is no good definition of One Health, a high level expert panel has been convened. Most committee members are not known to Dr Nass. An Eco Health Alliance scientist (Dr Catherine Machalaba) is one of the members, and described as “a high level expert” having received a PhD in One Health. “She became a high level expert the year she got her PhD. What was so expert about that?“. Veterinarian Marion Koopmans, a very controversial figure involved in the PCR scandal, creation of biological weapons and other things, is another. These people are there “to manage the message”. The globalist agenda rolling out with the UN, WHO, WEF, World Bank etc, is carried out with these professionals, who are limited. It is hard to imagine how they were convinced to go along with it.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) claimed that climate change is purely anthropogenic, completely disregarding normal variations and natural influences. This principle, and its use in health (pandemics) is not coincidental. For example Alexander King, co-founder of the Club of Rome, wrote in 1991 in his book The First Global Revolution, “the common enemy of humanity is man”, using water shortages, famine and global warming as examples to be used to convince the masses that we need attitude and behaviour change. This is Malthusian ideology.

Regarding climate change, the UNFCCC did not look at whether the climate is changing and what the causes might be, but defined human activity as the problem and controlling human behaviour as the solution. More is available at Is the IPCC Rigged? Questions for Corbett #096. The climate change agenda is promoted using computer modeling calculations, which have been wrong every time in the past thirty years.

The ideology behind blaming humans considers human life as a “plague upon the planet”. Children as a threat to their grandparents is an example used in the Covid response; climate change considers humans as a threat to the entire planet. The people at the top of these agendas are doing fine. They jet around, eat beef, and live a nice life. The intent is not to limit them; it is to limit others, which will benefit this small group. Public health saw an impoverishment of most of the world at the same time as an unprecedented increase in wealth of the small number who were influential in pushing the covid response. The same thing happens with climate – a small group fly in their private jets to the climate change conferences and plan how to close down the world’s airports except for use by those making the plans.

This is a dark agenda. Those pushing it consider other humans as lesser than themselves. This is not a new idea. Throughout history most civilisations have had slaves. There is a line of continuity through the Malthusian movement in the late 1800s, to eugenics in the 1920s and 1930s and Nazi public health in the 1930s-1940s. In the founding document of UNESCO, Julian Huxley wrote about eugenics. He then helped steer the environmental movement which moved to the biosecurity agenda, which is now moving towards the One Health agenda.

This ideology devalues the life of others. [Something I have observed for many years, working with marginalised and impoverished communities, is that most of us do devalue the life of others. Those in the more powerful group always consider themselves to be superior to those in the less powerful group]. Catherine Austin-Fitts has spoken of slavery as the most lucrative industry there is, and that it is the intent behind today’s events.

There is no science to support the concept that the planet cannot sustain an increasing human population. Read more here. Carbon dioxide increases plant growth, so the increase of CO2 being seen (which is in fact miniscule), is partly why the human population is expanding: because there is more available food. Warmer regions of the earth grow more food. Climate change is a reality of increasing food availability.

The biosecurity agenda, the attack on food, the attack on old energy sources and the 15-minute-cities plan are all coming from the same source. Bill Gates is representative of this agenda, but certainly not the only person involved. The World Economic Forum – a rich person’s private corporate club in Switzerland – is another example. They manage the Young Global Leaders program who identified people who would buy the ideology, follow instructions, and have been put in place in supposedly democratic nations across the globe – Finland, NZ, Canada, etc etc. The WEF explicitly state that this is what they are doing, so it is not a “conspiracy theory”.

The same is happening with the One Health agenda – a cadre of people who agree to push this agenda are in place. They are probably looking for people to do the same with other agendas, eg energy, new types of housing, etc. The corporatisation of governance has completely taken over. They have decided we are to be utilised for the purposes of generating profit. Enticement of the globalists has included the idea that they can inject us – a means of control is injection mandates.

Dr Bell disagrees that they have taken complete control. They have a lot of control but a big chunk of humanity remains in a position to put a stop to this. Including politicians who are standing up. Many heads of departments are appointed, not elected, and this guarantees that they will reliably do what you want. Their levels of competence are irrelevant.

They also intend on making the average person want what is being done. This is why they are framed in language that makes it sound appealing – ‘equity’, ‘inclusion’, and other buzzwords. Once people start to see what the agenda really entails, there will be pushback. We have already seen this with the Dutch farmers, for example. This is ultimately a battle for the mind and it is important to understand the ideology of those behind this, so that we can convince those who are complying, that they don’t in fact want what is happening.