One Health: The Berlin and Manhattan Principles

In 2004, The Manhattan Principles were released. These are, in short, the 12 rules making up ‘One Health’. They go as per below -

I’ve spent a fair amount of time trying to decipher their legit meaning. In general, some concepts encapsulate a number of these components; One Health is the ecosystem, which is what all life live within; humans, domestic animals, and wildlife animals. The biodiversity is - for lack of better description - the ratio of each sub/group (ie lions, or livestock cows, or humans) relative to another. And by ratio, I don’t really mean some explicit number, but rather a rough estimate.

Naturally, this is somewhat academic, as nature itself sets catastrophic events onto herself from time to time. The resilience of the ecosystem is the ability for it to overcome, but there’s no guarantee this will indeed happen. The Rockefeller Foundation, however, appear to think that if you micromanage the entire planet with surveillance and vaccines, you can.

Or rather, they don’t. Because this is ultimately about control, and all the well-meaning stuff will promptly be discarded once you’ve been cut down to size and learn to own nothing and be happy.

Regardless, the Manhattan Principles does not consider natural disasters, say, a vulcano destroying Hawaii. They, in short, consider everything being the direct result of loss of habitat or due to environmental damage, be it land or water. And the cause is always because of humans. It’s a pretty naive interpretation of reality, or rather, it’s a politically expedient lie.

-

The official explanation is that this is about saving the planet, which on the surface of things appear well reasoned and intentioned.

Or so you would have though, anyway, unless you start looking for a hidden meaning, because a number of those principles are very clumsily worded, and appear significantly out of order. It seems somewhat intentional, and the motivation could be to hide a message in plain sight. They very frequently do this, but natually, this is speculative.

One Health, for instance, has been repeatedly buried in public health messages, starting certainly 2015, but probably from 2013 onwards. And always in the same way - in the spot in the text you’re least likely to pay attention. Usually around 70-80% down the page, in general, to account for those weirdos who read books by reading the final chapter first. I’m one of those weirdos, incidentally.

And the thing is - there are a number of words which could hypothetically be reinterpreted; principle 8, for instance - what does ‘more broadly’ refer to, exactly? And then merge this with principle 6, ‘fully integrate’ - does this mean we should impose the same solutions upon humans as that of animals, and if so, does mass culling in principle 8 apply to humans, and does principle 9 outline how - by vaccination? It would appear somewhat likely, at least, given what we experience at present with excess deaths showing no sign of abating.

But, as said, all of this is speculation, of course. But they do like to hide messages in plain sight.

-

The update to the 2004 Manhattan Principles was released in 2019, and goes by the name ‘The Berlin Principles’; they go as below -

There are a lot of similarities. But there are also differences. Some of the more ‘problematic’ wordings are now gone (mass culling, being one)… but is it, though? Because they really do like hiding things in plain sight.

-

So with this in mind, I decided to compare the two, side by side.

Yellow marker means copied from original (2004 Manhattan Principles), green means addition (2019 version only), red means deletion (2004 version only), and cyan means it’s been reworded, but practically retains its original meaning.

And here they are, side by side.

I have furthermore underlined what I personally find of interest in this regard. And I will start by saying that I’m not really crazy about this update. And I will outline why below.

The issues I have are -

1. Global citizenshop has been added to principle 10. That would suggest the end of sovereignty.

2. Climate crisis has been added to principle 3. This was somewhat expected, and you can somewhat map this to the Manhattan Principles, but still, not entirely.

3. Strong institutions is repeatedly hammered in. This covers centralisation, globalisation, authoritarianism, possibly. What exactly is the meaning here?

4. There is no call for funding via sovereign governments. In fact, funding is expected to come from an international funding mechanism (principle 7), which probably means the World Bank. Or in the context of global citizenship, could essentially mean a combination of world government, and NGOs. National governments no longer exist, or at least, not in the same capacity.

5. One Health was supposed to be about health. Yet, there is no mention of human health programs or equivalents - which existed in the 2004 version (principle 4).

6. Vaccinations and mass culling are no longer explicitly mentioned. While this could appear a good thing, it could also mean they hide, vaccines in principle 8 (under the more covert industry). I will get back to the culling aspect in a minute.

But you know what the single most worrying aspect in this regard is, from my perspective? It’s that while in 2004, humans were considered as a separate group, and consequently specified explicitly, they now appear sided with the other animals. And consequently, the wording somewhat hints at while the same passive measures (surveillance) being applied to all, the active measures used to control disease will similarly be applied to all, and hence, humans.

And in that regard, the mass culling isn’t truly gone. Because already in principle 1, the Berlin Principles state that we need to ‘take action to retain the conservation and protection of biodiversity’. Humans are just no longer stated as a separate category, they’re part of ‘biodiversity’, and consequently, if culling other species, humans might well be in line just as well. And to compounds the matter, Berlin Principle 6 explicitly outline how ‘human health and well-being’ should be integrated in the ‘biodiversity conservation perspectives’, just as the case was in the Manhattan Principles.

-

And there is one final thing which I’ve struggled to let go, down in the footnotes.

‘One Health’ is not the final stop. Footnote 1 states ‘… while recognising Planetary Health’. That’s not coincidental. Before you know it, the narrative construction will shift gears, and it’ll be about ‘Planetary Health’, and ‘One Health’ will have moved within the Overton Window.

You can see this script exactly play out in relation to ‘Gain of Function’. For well over a year, the MSM and Facebook etc would readily censor you for suggesting foul play in this regard. But now it’s acceptable. What exactly changed?

I tell you what changed. That particular buzzword has outplayed its useful role in the script, and now it’s shifted into the range of acceptable opinion - but why?

Because it wastes time. Instead of a number of the very finest minds considering that whether Gain of Function truly was in play or not, really does not matter in the slightest at this stage. But while you are busy wasting time debating GoF, the Pandemic Treaty inches closer to passing - thereby wasting valuable time that we don’t have.

-

Andrew G Huff is just one example of this, for the record. I also see Laura Khan - who’s a very founder of the One Health Initiative all the way back in 2007 - actively feign outrage about China, about GoF, about Fauci, and so forth. Because they are trying to run out the clock.

As for planetary health… well, that’s for another day. But I need to finish my half-written update on “One World, One Health” first.

And while we’re on that topic…