Selective / Primary Health Care
The Declaration of Alma-Ata1 takes on a new meaning, once you become aware of the games they play.
First off, the claim that it's decentralised is... not quite true, even though ‘the people’ are essentially expected to take care of themselves -
'requires and promotes maximum community and individual self-reliance and participation in the planning, organization, operation and control of primary health care...'
But operational decentralisation isn’t the whole story. The full list of services considered essential include -
‘education concerning prevailing health problems and the methods of preventing and controlling them; promotion of food supply and proper nutrition; an adequate supply of safe water and basic sanitation; maternal and child health care, including family planning; immunization against the major infectious diseases; prevention and control of locally endemic diseases; appropriate treatment of common diseases and injuries; and provision of essential drugs;‘
Education is centralised, as is promotion, vaccines, provision of essential drugs, and advice on family planning - which really is part of education.
Treatment of common diseases and injuries is decentralised (per above), as is - presumably - maternal and child healthcare.
The one that sticks out is ‘prevention and control of locally endemic diseases‘. Reason being that it can’t be fully decentralised, but rather must be controlled from top down, if used to essentially protect outside communities. Consequently, this would be a case of ‘decentralised to the lowest appropriate level’, which we also see mentioned in the Convention on Biological Diversity’s ‘Ecosystem Approach’; key being - who decides to what level to delegate?
Another item of interest is that apart from maternal and child, no such as general healthcare is considered essential. Either way, let’s recap -
Centralised: education, promotion, vaccines, drugs.
Delegated: prevention and control of locally endemic diseases;
Decentralised: treatment, healthcare.
And the centralised responsibilities of education and promotion can then be further reduced to information, and vaccines and drugs in short entail pharmaceuticals. And the delegated responsibilities comes down to epidemic containment strategies.
For the record, the American representative in Alma-Ata was John Bryant2 -
‘His life changed when he was invited to help the Rockefeller Foundation with a study of health in the developing world. In 1969 Cornell University Press published his first book "Health & the Developing World"‘
The Declaration of Alma-Ata was immediately seized upon by Jim Grant, and the Rockefeller Foundation, as they launched a drive for ‘Selective Primary Healthcare’3. This - supposedly - focused on a narrower part of Primary Health Care, which could in first instance be reduced to GOBI; growth monitoring, oral rehydration techniques, breastfeeding, and immunization.
Where I’m going with this is here - the difference between primary health care and selective primary health care is… what, exactly?
While both focus on immunisation and information, primary health care includes the delegation of responsibilities related to containment, and the selective edition included ‘growth monitoring’, which soon afterwards became simply ‘monitoring’, also known as surveillance -
‘Some members of the WHO tried to respond to the accusation that they had no clear targets. For example, a WHO paper entitled “Indicators for Monitoring Progress Towards Health for All” was prepared at the “urgent request” of the Executive Board. Another publication provided specific “Health for All” goals: 5% of gross national product devoted to health; more than 90% of newborn infants weighing 2500 g; an infant mortality rate of less than 50 per 1000 live births; a life expectancy over 60 years; local health care units with at least 20 essential drugs.‘
At present, GAVI4 is the primary organisation on the topic of vaccination, claiming that ‘Gavi supports the immunization of almost half the world's children‘, which is then followed by baseless claims of quadrillions of lives saved, as calculated by some Gates funded outfit, no doubt.
Two things of interest in the Wiki article. First we have the claim of ‘GAVI has been particularly successful at promoting the uptake of newer vaccines‘. Well, that’s not really all that strange, as Jeremy Heimans of Purpose Campaigns revealed in the 2008 book, ‘Development Finance in the Global Economy‘ that they essentially resort to bribery to get there.
The second thing of interest is that - per Wiki article - ‘Gavi was created in 2000 as a successor to the Children's Vaccine Initiative, which was launched in 1990‘5. And I don’t really wish to dive into details here, so let’s just establish that -
‘The CVI was established by the United Notions Children's Fund (UNICEF), the United Notions Development Programme (UNDP), the Rockefeller Foundation , the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), and has its secretariat at WHO's headquarters.‘
Instead of spending time on the relatively short-lived CVI, let’s go further back. Specifically, to 1984, and the Task Force for Child Survival6. And yeah, it’s more of the same. Vaccines, third world nations… and -
‘3. To promote the integration of other procedures such as oral rehydration, family planning and other primary health care activities in pilot areas in each country.‘
Oh, golly. It ties right into Primary Heath Care! And who were involved?
‘Dr. William Foege of The Centers for Disease Control was asked to serve as Executive Director of the Task Force, which would be responsible to a group consisting of five agencies: WHO, UNICEF, UNDP, The World Bank and The Rockefeller Foundation.‘
Now feel free to check with the list relating to CVI above. It’s a clear 5 of 5.
In other words, the vaccination drive which came out of the Declaration of Alma-Ata and Primary Health Care specifically led to William Foege’s Task Force in 1984, then the Children’s Vaccine Initiative in 1990, which then led to GAVI in 2000.
And as for Foege, he became head honcho of the CDC soon after health care planning in the United States was introduced (1974), only to see an incredibly fake Swine Flu outbreak while a pandemic planning meet took place in Rougement (1976) - and it was in his name the first 1978 pandemic planning document was signed, after which he in 1984 headed the Task Force, vaccinating as many children as possible.
And further - as soon as that 1978 pandemic plan was signed, establishing surveillance and vaccines the overriding tools to solve pandemics - the conference in Alma-Ata took place, establishing top-down vaccination policies through Primary Health Care, which then in 1979 was expanded upon at the Rockefeller’s Bellagio centre, and then followed by the 1984 Task Force, which much like the later 1990 CVI was funded by… Rockefeller, along with an identical 4 United Nations agencies.
Of course, it’s not all Foege contributed. Because it was also very much him introducing the world to One Health in 2004, which expanded the concept of surveillance and vaccines to not only humans, but also livestock, wildlife, and even the environment and land-use policy - and even further incorporated Margaret Chan’s horrific culling policy, originally rolled out in 1997 during the very, very scammy H5N1 episode - though originally suggested in 1996 by a Wellcome group including a young Neil Ferguson as a solution to the BSE issue in the United Kingdom.
There are a few other interesting tidbits included in the World Bank report linked above. First off,
‘5. Initiate a systems approach review of vaccine delivery‘
Thereby throwing yet more General Systems Theory into the fray, and as for India -
‘Providing vaccines to other commodities.‘
Perhaps it’s just me, but that sounds just a tiny bit like ‘livestock’, which - incidentally - was certainly part of the H5N1 solution in 1997; livestock surveillance, poultry vaccination, and culling.
At this stage I can further draw in the 2001 Pilanesberg Resolution7, which is sort of a bridge between 1997’s H5N1 solution, and 2004’s One Health8, penned by Osofsky and Karesh, both of whom found later fame - the former through Rockefeller’s Planetary Health9 initiative, and the latter through EcoHealth Alliance, and the heavily Rockefeller influenced Council on Foreign Relations10.
… of course, when you look at the Manhattan Principles (One Health), you find that Osofsky and Karesh also co-authored these, while both were working for the World Conservation Society, which for the record also has a track record involving the Rockefeller Foundation.
What I say is that it’s the same actors - again and again - very, very slowly rolling out a much larger plan. But how much larger, you ask?
Well, that’s where the WHO’s 1986 Ottawa Declaration for Health Promotion11 enters the frame. And in this context, keep in mind that this is prior to the Earth Summit in Rio (1992). Prior to the Brundtland Report (1987).
And yet - what we find in here is… kind of staggering.
We find a broadening of the concept of health - which meshes with the Determinants of Health concept, which then went on to became health indicators - we find mention of sustainable resources, and social justice and equity.
And this is technically before Brundtland allegedly launched the concept of ‘sustainable development’. This, of course, isn’t actually true, as the IUCN used this phrase already in 198012, but the entire principle was outlined in the book, ‘Only One Earth’ penned by Barbara ‘Spaceship Earth’ Ward and Rene Dubos, who incidentally spent his entire career with Rockefeller.
Either way, we also find a call for a ‘cleaner, more enjoyable environment’ along with a request for ‘legislation, fiscal measures, taxation and organisational change’. And - what might have appeared somewhat odd in 1986 - a request to -
‘Our societies are complex and interrelated. Health cannot be separated from other goals. The inextricable links between people and their environment constitutes the basis for a socioecological approach to health. The overall guiding principle for the world, nations, regions and communities alike, is the need to encourage reciprocal maintenance - to take care of each other, our communities and our natural environment. The conservation of natural resources throughout the world should be emphasized as a global responsibility.‘
That’s right. We need to take care of the environment, in order to ensure our own health. I must admit, it took a long time for this to click with me, but now it does.
The (Social) Determinants of Health essentially call for surveillance data on, well, everything relating to our human lives. These lead to indicators for said, the sort which are currently being rolled out through the Global Surveillance networks under the umbrella of GEOSS, or in this context, specifically GEO BON and GBIOS.
In other words, health through said determinants has become just another set of surveillance indicators, to be fed to the ‘system’ they have built since certainly the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference. More on that in a separate article.
We can then carry on, drawing parallels with life-long learning, claims of transparency, the issue with urbanisation, the demands for a ‘holistic approach’ which furthermore drags in ‘ecology’. I will say this - they have played the very long game, and they have played it well.
And if you don’t believe me in terms of those indicators, let me just quote you this -
‘to counteract the pressures towards harmful products, resource depletion, unhealthy living conditions and environments, and bad nutrition; and to focus attention on public health issues such as pollution, occupational hazards, housing and settlements;‘
Pollution, occupational hazards, housing, and settlements? None of those - in my book - are directly related to personal health. Secondary health factors? Possibly. But not primary.
‘to acknowledge people as the main health resource; to support and enable them to keep themselves, their families and friends healthy through financial and other means, and to accept the community as the essential voice in matters of its health, living conditions and well-being;‘
There’s the ‘decentralisation’ of the actual implementation which we encountered in the Declaration of Alma-Ata, essentially telling you to deal with your own problems, and -
‘to reorient health services and their resources towards the promotion of health; and to share power with other sectors, other disciplines and, most importantly, with people themselves;‘
… yeah, the system needs ‘re-orienting’, and while you have to take care of yourselves, the centralised authority will blast you with information - and vaccines, of course.
When the Pandemic Treaty says to ‘sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems’, that’s essentially qualified through ‘human well-being’, and this - ultimately - will be measured through a prism of surveillance indicators, of which some may be relevant to your health, while the rest will measure your age, height, and the number of trees on a patch of land in Kuala Lumpur. And I can source that, but that’ll have to wait as this drags in the next topic.
See, to them, we really are little more but farm animals, and should you in the future suffer a terrible disease then best of luck.
Especially with that delivered vaccine, claimed to cure said terrible disease.
The dominant theme throughout here is collectivism (the idea behind Communism, socialism, Fascism, Dictatorship), not Individualism. And who will decide for the collective- The funders and their schemers who see themselves above the collective.
This rot is so deep and thoroughly laced throughout that there is no fixing this domination scheme. End it (the UN, its WHO, World Bank, etc.) or else enjoy your chains.
It reminds me of the Rockefeller-friend Russo interview talking about Feminism which the Rockefellers made a thing. Far from freeing women from oppression, it has captured them as designed and destroyed their femininity and humanity. Expect nothing different here.
As said, it is a long, long decades old plan to enslave us people spanning several generations who do not remember and do not see it. The prison has been built for us and is being hardened. All that is needed is to slam the door on it shut with Digital ID and elimination of all physical cash leaving only their programmable currencies.