Prevent, Predict, Detect, Respond

Jun 13, 2024

A primary strategy employed by our adversaries is a slow, incessant, very gradual encroachment of civil liberties, carried out through complex, indecipherable Aesopian Language. So in that context - what exactly does ‘Prevent, Predict, Detect, Respond‘ entail?

And how does this relate to ‘One Health’, ‘Biosecurity’, ‘Global Health Security’, and ‘Planetary Health/Human well-being‘? Let’s go through this step by step, to ensure that in terms of understanding, we…

Leave No One Behind1.

In 2021, the World Health Organisation released the following document; ‘ONE HEALTH THEORY OF CHANGE‘2. And let’s just get it out of the way -

‘Working Toward a World Better Able to Prevent, Predict, Detect, and Respond to Health Threats and Improve the Health of Humans, Animals, Plants, and the Environment While Contributing to Sustainable Development‘.

This post isn’t specifically about One Health, but I just wanted to establish that the two are related and contextually relevant.

… but recall how I said that they continuously and very gradually increase the scope of initiatives, thus encroaching civil liberties? Well, setting aside the absurd lists outlined in the document, please do take a look at the below and see what now counts in a discussion on what started as an initiative allegedly related to human health.

‘One Health is an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognizes the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and inter-dependent.‘

The key phrase here really is ‘sustainably balance and optimize‘. Because what does that entail, precisely?

‘The approach mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities at varying levels of society to work together to foster well-being and tackle threats to health and ecosystems, while addressing the collective need for clean water, energy and air, safe and nutritious food, taking action on climate change, and contributing to sustainable development.‘

And yes, of course. ‘Climate change‘ and ‘sustainable development’ are now also included. It’s not really about human health - especially yours, but rather that of human collective health. But it’s now also about…

‘Social, economic, cultural, political, technological… Anthropogenic Influences on Health‘

That’s… just a little too close in my book. We used to call those…

The Determinants of Health

esc

September 13, 2023

Read full story

Chapter 6 outlines long-term objectives, and these include -

‘Improved disease surveillance, early warning, and control across human, animal and plant health systems to minimize negative health outcomes‘

Sure, now biota is included as well.

‘Sufficient funding in place for key One Health plans and improved coordination of global One Health financing‘

And they want money, too.

‘Better informed and more inclusive health decision making and resource allocation that considers unintended consequences (for infectious and noninfectious threats/hazards)‘

Forward predicting chaos theory. Uhuh, sure thing. Except it’s not really about the claimed ability to predict, but rather the capacity to run the surveillance to ensure you stay in line and don’t get any funny ideas.

‘Improved ecosystem protection and management including wildlife, biodiversity, energy security, rural and urban development‘

By 2035, it will become an outright land management strategy, probably one very similar to that outlined in the Ecosystem Approach.

The Ecosystem Approach

esc

December 8, 2023

Read full story

‘Enhanced resilience of communities through better disease prevention’

Great. Resilience. That’s one of the things which is probably the most misunderstood in the context of alleged health and pandemic planning.

Because though ‘resilience’ appears one of those… floating words, nailing it down hasn’t commonly been achieved. So let’s start by doing just that. In fact, let’s start at the beginning, and the entire phrase ‘predict, prevent, detect, respond‘.

Surveillance. Information Theory. Detect.
Modelling and forecasting. General Systems Theory. Predict.
Defensive measures. Resilience Theory. Prevent.
Proactive measures. Cybernetics. Respond.

That’s right - it really is that simple. ‘Prevent, predict, detect, respond’ is a framework for Adaptive Management, and as every definition under the umbrella term ‘One Health’ eventually is broadened in general, these definitions also form a hierarchy -

One Health leads to Biosecurity.
Biosecurity leads to Global Health Security.
Global Health Security leads to Global Adaptive Management.

And with that as a backdrop, let’s go through how this works in practice. Here’s an admittedly simplified model of it all, but it should be sufficient to broadly outline how it all fits together.

Yellow is surveillance/detect/information theory (technically, EO4HEALTH and GEOSS are as well, but in this context they fit in better with the modelling aspect).
Green is modelling and prediction/predict/general systems theory.
Blue is preventative measures/prevent/resilience theory.
Red is proactive measures/respond/cybernetics.

Finally, we have orange and purple. We’ll return to those soon.

Step 1. A sheep herder in a remote part of Algeria falls ill, so he rationally decides to travel 60 miles to the nearest PEPFAR-funded clinic running Public Health Surveillance, to have a - gasp - Covid-19 test taken.

Step 2. The clinic - staffed with the very best One Health Workforce trained employees - performs a Covid-19 test, which - to everyone’s surprise - comes back positive; Covid-19 is detected.

Step 3. Upon detection, the response is immediate - as it should be, given we’re dealing with a dangerous and deadly illness. The definitely-not-false-positive test is forwarded to the predict function - call it the Early Warning System - which logically attempts to forward predict chaos theory in exactly the way we’ve failed to predict the weather for generations. In order to… fail to achieve the impossible, it pulls data from two additional sources beyond the allegedly positive test.

Step 4. The first data queried comes via the historical database, investigating how many billion have died in the past given similar circumstances. Naturally, this figure will reasonably be rounded up to the nearest million, in an exemplary use of the ‘precautionary principle’.

Step 5. To ensure we know exactly where the dangerous pathogen exists - or doesn’t - EO4HEALTH is queried; a GEOSS derivative which including realtime satellite feeds, and probably ‘CIT-SCI’, also known as ‘citizen science’ which boils down to data gathered from your social media accounts and mobile phone, though this definitely isn’t spying because you did click ‘accept’ at the bottom of that 351 page form.

Step 6. Armed with the information above; the definitely-not-false-positive test, the historical record written by the best big pharma executives, and the GEOSS live-streamed satellite information ensuring you won’t ‘endanger humanity’ by leaving your 15 minute prison - and with an emphasis on the ‘precautionary principle‘ - the very finest Bill Gates funded scientists calls it a pandemic potential, and the ‘best available scientific consensus’ is hence established.

Step 7. On the back of said ‘best available scientific consensus’, the various stakeholders are engaged. As the issue might be local, the decision making process could be ‘decentralised to the lowest appropriate level’, and this recommendation (along with other deliberations out of the stakeholders - who were all in agreement, as those who disagreed were iterated out early on) is forwarded to the decision makers.

Step 8. The decision makers might accept the verdict out of the stakeholders - or, alternatively, they could entirely ignore them and just go with the ‘best available scientific consensus’ - especially given the enforcement mechanism likely would rule against them, should they not.

Step 9. A political response through policy is formulated, considering a wide variety of options including masks, social distancing, quarantines, or even culling all livestock in a 5,000 mile radius on account of a potential singular migrating bird, and/or a mouse being carried all the way from New Delhi to Kalkota on the express train by mistake. Absolutely no evidence is required here, a mere hypothesis will suffice - regardless of levels of absurdity. Because you wouldn’t want to kill grannies, now would you?

Step 10. Given this being early stage, policy likely relates to preventative measures, such as masks, social distancing, … or even vaccines developed in less than 100 days by people with no more than 36 days of education, thoroughly tested on at least 7 quadriplegic mice… all of which died during the trials though for unrelated reasons.

Step 11. As modelled death counts predictably cross the 4 billion, more aggressive - proactive - measures are considered, including travel restrictions, quarantines, vaccination mandates - even further livestock culling.

Step 12. Extreme circumstances might trigger the ‘more broadly’ Manhattan Principle clause. Under which circumstances could that happen? More on that later.

Step 13. With all said and done, the historical database logs the stellar success. The vaccination mandates saved 24 trillion lives (and never mind the spike in all-rate fatalities, which can all be marked down to space chemicals or climate change). Of course, tomorrow marks another day - and another positive test. Fortunately, the historical record logged the impressive number of lives saved through early, mandated vaccination, ensuring it’ll happen again… forever.

Step 14. However, what everyone (especially the mainstream media) forgot to ask relates to those ‘ethics declarations’ everyone was forced to sign along the way, cooked up on the claim that the dangerous pathogen was in fact produced in a lab - thus, ensuring that the ‘scientific consensus’ was fabricated by the most capable scientists… who’d be fired for disagreeing, deliberated by expert ‘stakeholders’… fined for questioning the ‘science’, and passed into policy by ‘decision makers’… who’d be prosecuted for ‘reckless endangerment of lives’ should they dare to oppose the ‘best available scientific consensus’.

Step 15. Now, should the policy response include only items in yellow (detect), green (predict), and blue (prevent) - that’s more commonly known as ‘One Health’.

Sure, those in white should be included, but I’m not re-doing the flowchart at this stage!

Step 16. Should the policy response further include items in red - that’d be aligned with the concept of ‘biosecurity’.

Step 17. However, by including an even broader focus, aligned with contemporary ‘Global Health Ethics’, we can hypothetically align the ‘pandemic’ response with all sorts of initiatives - like ‘climate change’, or ‘sustainable development’.

Step 18. And that’s really where the matter of ‘Animal Culling, more broadly’ comes in. See, in the context of wanting to ‘sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems‘, that in no uncertain terms mean slimming down human impact on nature, which can realistically speaking only be achieved through either drastically lower living standards, or a significant cull of world population.

Step 19. Ultimately, it comes down to what the ‘purpose’ is. The contemporary ‘purpose’ as indicated above is ‘sustainable development’, which further includes addressing ‘climate change’. But this is a large topic in itself, and one which calls for a return to Jantsch’s pyramid. Thus, this will be the topic of a future article.

Now, on ‘Global Health Ethics’ courtesy of the World Health Organisation we have this - ‘Ethical questions related to health, health care, and public health cover topics as diverse as moral issues around reproduction, state obligations in the provision of health care services, and appropriate measures to control infectious disease‘3. Yes, it’s yet another ‘moral call’.

But I’ve covered ‘ethics’ in the past, more to come soon enough.

The Ethical Approach

esc

Jan 18

Read full story

As for the call to ‘balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems‘, here’s from the April, 2024 edition of the WHO Pandemic Agreement draft.

WHO Pandemic Agreement [April, 2024]

esc

Apr 24

Read full story

Though not sourced from the WHO draft itself, the above also links to the UN report ‘The Right to a Healthy Environment‘ from which we learn that this right ‘also guarantees environments that are ecologically healthy, regardless of direct impacts on people‘, per Latin American courts.

Alternatively, I could source the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference proceedings in that regard. Consider the final point in recommendation 3. Oh yeah, and those alleged ‘zoonotic diseases’.