Holistic Global Health Security

I’m sure you’ve heard of ‘Global Health Security’. If not, don’t worry. The World Health Organisation has got it covered -

‘Global public health security is defined as the activities required, both proactive and reactive, to minimize the danger and impact of acute public health events that endanger people’s health across geographical regions and international boundaries‘.

It appears to be an initiative to ‘break down international silos’ - to protect you.

Fortunately, the WHO can also help with the solution in that regard¹.

‘WHO has specific responsibilities and accountabilities for emergency operations under the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) and within the global humanitarian system as the Interagency Standing Committee (IASC) Global Health Cluster Lead Agency‘

I never actually heard of the ‘global humanitarian system’ before. I cannot wait to open that particular Pandora’s box.

‘WHO's health security interface works with involving international organizations, civil defense, military doctors, law enforcement and armed forces‘

… right. Yeah, I can see where this is going.

Because while the public has ‘One Health’ - dragged in through the currently negotiated pandemic agreement - to ‘protect us’ in the future, the military has since the year 2000 released similar ‘biosecurity’ reports, structured largely along the same lines, except for one, major difference. Instead of taking a defensive posture, biosecurity as a concept is agressive in its stance - strike first.

WHO Pandemic Agreement [April, 2024]

Global Health Security also has its own index². Which not only came into being in 2019 - hence just in time for the scamdemic - thus establishing a level of implicit pressure for governments to get in line, but this is also (entirely by coincidence) founded by the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Oh yeah, and with bonus Gates funding (though that really goes without saying).

The NTI was founded by Ted Turner, and they collaborated on global surveillance outfit CORDS with Fondation Merieux (involved with Wuhan BSL4 in 2015), but also Rockefeller, with whom they in fact have a long track record.

One Health - Part 2: Rockefeller, NTI & CORDS

As for said index³, this comprises six categories; health, norms, risk, prevent, detect, respond. Predict conspicuously absent.

I’m sure you’ll find it surprising, but no nations at present score in the top tier of rankings - no, they’re all badly lagging, though I’m sure that can be fixed through an update to the international health regulations down the line.

Oh wait - just by coincidence it happens to be the case that the IHR also is presently undergoing revision. But as that is not an article in that regard, here’s instead my interpretation of WHO’s ten key recommendations for Global Health Security, as run through ChatGPT -

But just to ensure NTI receive their fair due in the regard of the Global Health Security Index, here’s our old friend, Margaret Hamburg⁴.

And this index is being taken seriously; here’s from a WHO meeting you never heard of because it was towards the finale of Covid Season 2⁵, you recall, with you on the edge of your seat, amazed by the quantity of people lining up for the obviously corrupt vial quack science -

‘She called for an assessment of how the reliability of the Global Health Security Index would be improved by considering the prevalence of noncommunicable diseases and risk factors.‘

… yeah, see, the trouble here was not that this index very mysteriously came into being immediately prior to this alleged ‘pandemic’, no, what mattered was that said index was insufficiently inclusive! NCDs were quite simply a requirement!

This isn’t just the one document, for the record. Here’s an April, 2022, review from Thailand. This index, mysteriously coming into being just in time, was very much taken seriously from the get-go⁶. I’d do a longer review, but there really isn’t a point. This is about bringing everyone in line, becoming fully compliant with the narrative, regardless of how corrupt it… is.

But let me include a third document in that regard, this one’s from the WHO itself, and the WHA in 2021⁷.

‘The representative of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION expressed reservations regarding the recommendation to shift responsibility for response from the national level to WHO. Although WHO played a central coordinating role in addressing global health challenges, governments with strong health systems were able to take their own decisions on how best to protect the public health of their population.’

Note that they have reservations, but do not object.

’Regarding the recommendations on compliance with the International Health Regulations (2005), it would be unacceptable to disseminate unverified information on disease outbreaks or establish any type of parallel structure or informal interactions with States Parties; such an approach would weaken WHO. In addition, there was no evidence that States Parties that had undergone a joint external evaluation were better able to respond to the pandemic, and there were clearly flaws in the Global Health Security Index.’

And the JEE & the GHSI are brought up, just in case there should be any doubt. The index was taken seriously from the get-go.

’Efforts should instead focus on enhancing the role of National IHR Focal Points, supporting national capacity-building, building laboratory networks, combating the circulation of unreliable information and guaranteeing biological security. Fundamental changes to WHO’s operations or a potential treaty should only be considered after COVID-19 had been defeated.’

In other words, they entirely carry water for the health narrative. They are absolutely in alignment, regardless of what those 30 second clips of Putin might otherwise state. He’s an incredibly intelligent man, without the shadow of a doubt. But that doesn’t mean he’s any less deceptive than the rest of the crooks in charge, globally.

’In-depth analysis was needed to understand why current instruments were not working and develop a future health architecture. His Government would continue to share expertise and looked forward to reaching consensus regarding the draft resolution on strengthening WHO preparedness and response.‘

In other words - full alignment on health…

… and Agenda 2030⁸, CBDCs⁹, 15-minute cities¹⁰, …

… Digtal Health Earth (using satellite feeds)¹¹, the Convention on Biological Diversity (to which Putin in fact delivered the opening speech in 2021)¹², …

… but also the concept of ‘information terrorism’ in 1998, which slowly but surely turned into calls for censoring ‘misinformaiton’ and ‘disinformation’¹³.

See, it just so happens that Russia appears pretty much entirely in alignment on everything… well, apart from Ukraine, of course. I wonder why that would be.

Discovery

Incidentally, Global Health Security is a popular topic. Because we also have a Private Sector Roundtable on the matter.

The PSRT

And we have the Global Health Security Agenda, a brainchild of the CDC, and launched under Obama in 2014. This article was penned a while ago, but largely still holds up. I hadn’t quite snapped onto how they crooks operate back when written.

The Global Health Security Agenda

And how they operate is actually… kind of the point of this article. But before we get there, let’s just drag Tony Blair into this.

The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change

Because two things about old Tony - first, he very topically cooperates on the ‘Global Health Security Consortium’…

… but it also happens that not only is he a member of the Fabian¹⁴ Society¹⁵ (along with practically every front bencher of his including Gordon Brown, and in a more contemporary context - Keir Starmer), but he also unveiled the newly installed Fabian Window in 2006 at the LSE¹⁶. But him titling his foundation ‘Instutute for Global Change’ has nothing to do with the Fabian Parasites, and you’re a conspiracy theorist for even mentioning it.

The point I’m getting at is this -

• 2001. Global Health Security Initiative.

• 2014. Global Health Security Agenda.

• 2015. Private Sector Roundtable for Global Health Security.

• 2019. Global Health Security Index.

• 2021. Global Health Security Consortium.

So, this naturally prompts a question - what’s next?

-

In August, 2022, the Global Health Council launched an initiative, which didn’t receive much media coverage -

‘Global Health Security requires a new definition — one that is multidisciplinary, holistic, and centered on the safety and security of all people.‘

Multidisciplinary and holistic immediately suggests the ever-popular ‘Holistic Approach’, which further snaps to General Systems Theory, and ‘centered on the safety and security of all people‘ means that it’s collective. And the title of this?

Holistic Global Health Security¹⁷.

First off, the concept hasn’t yet seen a proper development, meaning this is early stage. They haven’t yet rolled out the full script, but this early 4-pager sheds sufficient light that it allows prediction of exactly what they have in store for us.

First off, we will deal with the content in two stages. First we deal with all things underlined in red, as these provide the context. Then we deal with things underlined in blue. That’s the important bit.

‘The current paradigm relies heavily on national security as the primary driver of the U.S. global health funding agenda. This approach, which conflates health security with national security, was first introduced with the HIV/AIDS epidemic, as wealthier nations began to see how public health crises in other countries could be detrimental to the safety of citizens at home.‘

I must say, ever since I discovered INCLEN I’ve had my doubts about the AIDS narrative, because this Rockefeller initiative (who else) was launched in 1980, the year immediately prior to the official start of AIDS. It’s just another absurdly convenient coincidence, especially when you consider what INCLEN does¹⁸. The International Clinical Epidemiology Network conducts multidisciplinary research on high-priority global health issues. This includes epidemiological, economic, and sociological studies to inform policy-making and improve health systems.

And this, immediately before AIDS broke (and with Foege in place at the CDCD). What are the odds.

‘Over time, this notion became more widely accepted, and in 2000, an unprecedented United Nations Security Council meeting was devoted entirely to HIV. The focus on security at the onset of the HIV crisis also prompted a massive USG response (PEPFAR) and multilateral response (Global Fund), which emphasizes the important connection between labeling something a “health security threat” and the funding and attention that follows. Later that same year, U.S. intelligence reports began to discuss infectious disease threats and their implications for national security‘

I’ve covered PEPFAR before. In my book they were an excuse to roll out global surveillance.

PEPFAR

‘Applying the idea of “security” to global health, rather than limiting it to traditional military threats, was solidified during the 2003 SARS outbreak. It was reinforced again, in 2014, with the creation of the Global Health Security Agenda and the response to the West Africa Ebola outbreak‘

You’d have never guessed, so I’m going to spoil the surprise - that Ebola outbreak came after the GHSA initiative. Another lucky, yet extraordinary coincidence, eh?

As for 2003 SARS, that was - per Neil Ferguson¹⁹ - a no-autopsy, diagnosis-of-exclusion event. It also led to the creation of the Hong Kong CDC and European CDC, both of which immediately launched public health surveillance initiatives.

Anyway, the present system is a disaster, because there’s a ‘lack of clarity around definitions’, which will lead to nations acting in their own interests (the horror when you’re a raging One World Marxist), plus ‘amplifying inequalities’, and never mind that those nations accepting fewer ‘vaccines’ overall did better during the scamdemic. But the next part is simply intolerable, from the perspective of said marxists -

‘Contradicting humanitarian principles, human rights, and development approaches: Security as a primary narrative risks focusing on a singular health issue or threat at the expense of a central focus on human rights, equity, dignity, and thriving development. It can result in misplaced targeting of interventions based on bias rather than evidence. As seen with COVID-19, it can also foster nationalism and protectionism, with little regard for global solidarity and equitable access to prevention, treatment, and vaccines. It risks stigmatizing the most marginalized and vulnerable and dehumanizing responses and policies.’

They even brought out their entire palette of dialectics, to ensure you understand that they are serious. Serious about that dignity²⁰.

Now, let’s get to what actually matters, underlined in blue.

How do we define security in the context of global health?

‘Narratives focused on “security” and “war” can convey important messages of urgency for issues that need critical and immediate attention‘

… thus driving a call for the ‘biosecurity’ aspect of the ‘Global Health Security’, conflating this aggressive approach, with the more docile ‘One Health’.

‘Security is loosely defined as being free from danger or threats. This can further be defined as ‘traditional’, ‘national’, or ‘human’ security, the latter of which views health and the environment like common goods that are essential to protecting communities and people (versus protecting the state).‘

And this is all to protect you… the collective ‘you’, that is. And the environment, which isn’t really you, but is you per their manipulative distortions.

‘The WHO defines global health security as “activities required, both proactive and reactive, to minimize the danger and impact of acute public health events that endanger people’s health across geographical regions and international boundaries.”‘

We already dealt with the WHO above, but yeah, ‘Imagine there's no countries’, eh? Supposedly, ‘it isn’t hard to do’. And we also see a call for ‘US leadership to lead in areas where its strengths lie’. I assume that means bombing 3rd world nations to smithereens, and then leaving bilions of equipment behind while doing a hasty, disastrous retreat. In the recommendations we find -

‘We have an opportunity to build a new path forward and establish a definition of global health security that includes the critical concerns of human rights, equity, dignity, and thriving development.'

That’s not really my definition, but unfortunately, this one was approved by the stakeholders, and I wasn’t picked to ‘participate’ in that regard. Better get used to that.

‘INCREASE LINKAGES BETWEEN HEALTH SECURITY AND OTHER GLOBAL THREATS like climate change and antimicrobial resistance. Structural drivers (governing processes, as well as economic and social policies) often get let out of a security framework.‘

Not only do we now include ‘climate change’ (which it always does), but we also see AMR, governance, and economic and social policies lobbed into this absurd conflation of what entails ‘health’ security, but these ridiculous inclusions are only just beginning I fear -

‘DEFINE PRIORITIES AND INDICATORS for how funding and resources support a particular strategy. The importance and integration of health systems and equity narratives should be elevated and work synergistically with health security efforts, instead of classifying everything as security — improving outcomes all around.‘

… we also see funding, resources, strategy, not forgetting those equity narratives which similarly to (defense) security in general should all be thrown into this deep and dark, bubbling cauldron.

‘TAKE A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO HEALTH INVESTMENT by strengthening and sustaining resilient health systems that can cope with emerging threats from within, instead of relying on outside donors and organizations for sporadic infusions of funding following health emergencies. This requires reinvestment of diverse public health surveillance, strengthening cross-cutting infrastructure and workforces, and thinking more carefully about messaging and linkages to governance, non-communicable diseases, and social determinants of health.‘

… not forgetting a systematic approach, resilience, surveillance, workforces, propaganda, NCDs, and even the Social Determinants of Health.

The Determinants of Health

‘LEARN FROM COVID-19 to leverage the renewed political commitment and various streams of preparedness and recovery funding to align goals across sectors and address “security” in a new and collaborative way‘

Loosely meaning not letting go of the Covid-19 narrative, and associated claims of ‘necessary legislative measures’, and -

‘STRENGTHEN HEALTH SYSTEMS FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH COVERAGE to improve access and quality of health for all people, especially those most left behind before, during, and after a pandemic.‘

No-one left behind is collectivism, Health for All takes us back to 1978 and the Declaration of Alma-Ata, and this aligns with the principle concept of Universal Health Coverage being Primary Healthcare, which in short centralises education, information, drugs, and vaccines, while decentralising everything else (apart from pandemic strike forces). In other words, a perfect arrangement should you seek to push 100-day CEPI ‘vaccines’ onto the people.

Selective / Primary Health Care

What this document, in short, does, is call for the complete merger of -

Health, climate change, AMR, governance, and economic and social policies, funding, resources, strategies, equity narratives, defense security, systematic approach, resilience, surveillance, workforces, propaganda, NCDs, the Social Determinants of Health, No-one left behind, health for all, and Universal Health Coverage.

Let’s slim these down; we have -

• Health
  AMR, NCDs.

• Environment
  Climate change

• Resources
  Funding, resources, workforces

• Governance
  Economic and social policy, strategy, defense security, Universal Health Coverage

• Messaging
  Propaganda, equity narratives

• Systems & Infrastructure
  Systematic approach, resilience

• Surveillance
  Public health surveillance, Social Determinants of Health

But wait - we forgot this one

‘National security cannot be the primary justification for global health security decisions. This approach is not only unsustainable, but also unjust‘

Thus, the ultimate objective is to create a sustainable, and just solution. And as the primary concept here is about health, this must be about sustainable health, which is unachievable without a sustainable environment and thus natural resources., especially as the document considers the ‘thriving development’ in line with the ‘critical concerns of human rights, equity, dignity‘.

Ergo, this is about Sustainable Health, driven by a Sustainable Environment, which includes Sustainable (Natural) Resources. And this will be driven by Governance, relying on Surveillance, Messaging, and Policy, all based on a Resilient, Systematic Approach.

And you know what, we’re now inching rather a lot closer to this.

A Long-Term Vision for 2050

Sure, we’re not there - yet. We need to broaden the definition of what comprise the ‘Natural Resource Base’, we need a further inclusion of the many ways we endanger our collective future by damaging the ‘Sustainable Production and Consumption‘, and though ‘health’ has now become ‘collective health’, we’re not quite yet at ‘well-being’, because we need to integrate the full set, and not just the Social Determinants of Health to get there.

Incidentally, the above is a system, governance will be dictated to you by those ‘stakeholders’ of which you will never become one, and… I also took the liberty to include how this aligns with a central thesis in the ‘Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars’ document, outlining how everything can be placed into a framework of electrical equivalents of (capacitance, conductance, inductance, and resistance).

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

And though this might all sound a tad too far-fetched, hear me out, because it completely and utterly completes the picture of what’s taking place at the moment -

1. Global Surveillance
   From live-streaming satellite surveillance, through city IoT sensors, to mobile phones, public health data, social media, and soon enough every bit of electrical equipment you rely on to live your life.

2. Digital ID
   These will be forced upon the people (Australia), not only because they are central to the strategy, but also incredibly convenient to have along with the surveillance data, especially in the context of dissidents - say, like demonstrating truckers.

3. Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs)
   With Digital IDs, the next logical step is CBDCs, probable be released with the promise that ‘they cannot be programmed’, just to convince a few morons that these will easen their already practically juvenile, burden free existence.

4. Carbon-backed CBDCs
   With CBDCs already in existence, this merger of carbon credits and CBDCs will in effect fuse ecology with economics, leading to a system claimed to be ‘good for nature’, thereby leading to ‘Planetary Health’ or other such nonsense.

5. Social Credit Systems.
   With the above in place, it’s finally time to ‘fix’ the issues of equity, environmental and intergenerational justice. This can be achieved through establishing different price levels on basis of skin colour, sexuality, …

6. 15-Minute Cities
   And with all of the above in place, you won’t be able to travel far anyway because your EV will simply stop at city limits, and CBDCs switched off without permision to leave. Thus - to protect you - they might as well build those walls to ensure that no-one ‘endangers our collective future’. And to ensure no-one commits the ultimate sin of environmental crime - better use armed guards to ensure no-one gets funny ideas.

The Carbon Currency

Conservation and Global Surveillance

Oh, and btw - you recall all the brazilian free speech Elon Musk guaranteed a few months back (while simultaneously silencing paid subscribers in the West), plus the Crenshaw story, similarly doing the rounds²¹? Oh yeah, about that - this also took place around the same time -

Consequently, let me take an educated guess what will be included in the first, proper edition of the ‘Holistic Global Health Security‘ outline. First, let’s hypothesize how the various entries above will be sold to the gullible (or just forced through, because after all - hey - it’s to protect you)

1. Surveillance is largely a done deal. They are presently pushing to digitise just about everything, including everything in the central database - especially that mean thing you told Auntie Bessie when you were five - and no-one is speaking up, all ‘sold’ on the premise that it’s good for you and makes fiscal sense.

2. The ‘vulnerable’ and ‘marginalised’ translates into a call for ‘digital inclusion’, though this could also be sold through promises of health equity, Health for All and ultimately Universal Healthcare.

3. CBDCs will be pushed through welfare recipients first, then public services including taxes.

4. A call for ‘Nature-based Finance’ will materialise, being sold along with other ‘Nature-backed Solutions’, thus enabling the carbon-backed CBDCs.

5. ‘Equity’ and ‘justice’ will be subversively promised addressed through Social Credit Systems (but not called as such), tailored to requirements. This will lead to active discrimination of especially straight white young Western males, because after all, they committed the ‘intergenerational’ original sin, along with all the slavery crime which everyone else participated in but didn’t document.

6. Though trialled, 15-Minute City rollout will come further down the line, and will thus not apply here.

Consequently, in the revised, full edition to be released down the road we will see a focus on digital inclusion, a further emphasis on nature and the services they provide to guarantee our health, which naturally leads to biodiversity and carbon emissions, there will be a call for full inclusion of the determinants of health (psychological, economical, political, …), subversive demands for further concentration of power to prote-, sorry, guarantee your health, and this will include intergenerational justice, equity, and all be phrased in language, suggesting adaptive management, which will then further tie into and broaden the scope of the ‘systematic approach’.

You see, once all of those are in place, they will be in a position to remove the stated focus of your ‘health’, to be replaced by ‘Sustainable Human Well-being’, which ultimately is about top-down, stakeholder governance, employing surveillane and adaptive management, and combined with the ‘nature-based solution’ that is carbon credit backed CBDCs, individually tailored… you get the picture.

Marxist Utopia awaits you.

1. https://www.who.int/health-topics/health-security#tab=tab_2

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Health_Security_Index

3. https://ghsindex.org/about/

4. https://www.nti.org/about/programs-projects/project/global-health-security-index/

5. https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB148-PSR/EB148_PSR3-en.pdf

6. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/documents/emergencies/universal-health---preparedness-review/uhpr_thailand.pdf?sfvrsn=7bb79e9e_1&download=true

7. https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA74-REC3/A74_REC3-en.pdf

8. http://en.kremlin.ru/supplement/5770

9. https://www.ledgerinsights.com/digital-ruble-cbdc-pilot-russia/

10. https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/masterplan-complete-for-15-minute-city-in-moscow/

11. https://bstu.editorum.ru/en/nauka/article/41669/view

12. https://russembkenya.mid.ru/en/press-centre/news/president_vladimir_putin_s_address_to_the_15th_meeting_of_the_conference_of_the_parties_to_the_un_co/

13. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D305-PURL-LPS53690/pdf/GOVPUB-D305-PURL-LPS53690.pdf

14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/community.29887098.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Adea360dc4550125df109c47de24bcbb2&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=search-results&acceptTC=1

15. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/community.29887092.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Adea360dc4550125df109c47de24bcbb2&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=search-results&acceptTC=1

16. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsehistory/2017/09/13/hammering-out-a-new-world-the-fabian-window-at-lse/

17. https://globalhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/GlobalHealthSecurityBrief.pdf

18. https://inclentrust.org/inclen/introduction/

19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1693389/pdf/15306395.pdf

20. https://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/

21. https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/musks-spacex-is-building-spy-satellite-network-us-intelligence-agency-sources-2024-03-16/