The Pandemic Treaty and the Whole of Society Approach

Back in October 2023, I reviewed the pandemic treaty draft at the time. And though this in the meantime was updated a few times, I saw no particular reason to write another article on the matter, because it - in my book, at least - hadn’t truly changed sufficiently for me to dedicate time on.

But the language in some areas in general perhaps warrant another look, because the pandemic plan ultimately is only part of a much larger plan.

I covered the October, 2023 draft over here -

The Pandemic Treaty - Oct 2023

And here’s the related backstory -

The Health Planning Agencies of America

And central in much of this stand a little-known organisation -

The ESWI

You can find the latest, revised draft on the WHO’s website¹. It’s titled ‘Revised draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement‘, and dated the 13th of March, 2024. In other words, it’s about a month old, so you’d expect more work has been carried out in the meantime.

Now, I realise a number of commentators have already delivered their verdict on the matter. Consequently, I’m going to dedicate my time to areas which I see covered less elsewhere, because a fair few things are not being given their appropriate levels of attention. The Introduction includes mention of ‘health being a human right’, which is a typical UN-style inversion, because this doesn’t mean that the UN will grant you anything in terms of health, but merely that you’re allowed to deal with the matter. And how it’s to be dealt with was outlined in first the Declaration of Alma-Ata of 1978 followed by the 1986 Ottawa Declaration.

You, your family, or your community will deal with the matter itself, while those at the top of the hierarchy will blast you with information and education, and supplying you with drugs and… yes, vaccines.

Selective / Primary Health Care

The intro continues, stating that ‘spread of disease is a global threat’, which the Alma-Ata also referred to through the delegation of containment. We then get the common inclusion of the ‘whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach’, which I don’t see many people grasping the significance of. Consequently, this will be dealt with later on in the document as it’s central to what they attempt to push through, while distracting you with fabrications, lies, and distortions, pretented to you by an ever-compliant and complicit MSM. One Health, mentioned further down in the document, is also central to all of this, as is the resilience that follows, along with universal health coverage, which slots rights into the Declaration of Alma-Ata’s suggestions of a healthcare system.

And - predictably - we’re then treated a fair bit related to money; intellectual property rights, rights over genetic resources, sharing of benefits - because this is all those private partners ultimately care about. The introduction then adds genetic sequencing, which ultimately is about DNA storage² and next-gen sequencing³.

… because when using DNA storage, a singular bit takes up only 14 atoms, and a single gram of material can store an astonishing 215 petabytes of data, meaning that as a single, complete human genome takes 715mb, one gram can store the full genome of 300,000,000 humans.

It’s a brave new world, after all. Anyway, you’ll be pleased to know that your national overlords retain sovereign rights to your DNA. Well, that’s the claim anyway.

In Article One we have one of the more important inclusions in the document -

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

I’ve covered this in the past, but essentially, your ‘needs’ and ‘rights’ will be ‘balanced’ with those of nature, meaning that as human footprint is substantially above alleged ideal, unless these people are confronted, humanity is in for a very, very dark period of time, as the choice is between drastically lower living standards for especially those in the west, or far fewer of us, globally. Pick your poison. And we then have an overly broad definition of the term ‘pathogen with pandemic potential’, similar to the such, fraudulent call, which led to ‘One Health in Animals’ back in 1997 and Hong Kong.

The 1997 H5N1 Pandemic That Wasn't

Now, if you read my recent article on Selective / Primary Health Care, you’d see me state that information is to be dictated top down (along with vaccines), and in this context we see -

‘“relevant diagnostic, therapeutic or vaccine” means a diagnostic, therapeutic or vaccine that is prequalified by WHO or has received a positive WHO Emergency Use Listing assessment or an authorization from a national regulatory authority for treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease in relation to which WHO has declared a public health emergency of international concern or characterized as a pandemic;‘

It might not be explicit, but the top-down ‘prequalified by WHO’ approach is obvious. And the national health planning agencies will ultimately, too, take their orders from the above, with the WHO providing the ‘secretariat’. More on that in a bit.

We also see mention of Universal Health Coverage ‘without financial hardship’, which in the context of delivering said simply means if a community can’t afford it, then it won’t have it. Because ultimately it’s the community delivering said; the central organisation will provide education, information and vaccines only. You could almost summarise those though ‘the best available scientific consensus’. Almost.

Article Two we can ignore but Article Three goes beyond the typical well-sounding verbiage and adds ‘accountability to achieve the common interest’ where said is dictated through ‘the best available science and evidence’, which should be used as ‘the basis for public health decisions’.

The key here is who controls said ‘science’ - ie, ‘scientific consensus’, aka explicit anti-science - and the ‘accountability’ will see your doctor fired for not carrying out orders. It happened during the scamdemic, after all.

Article 4 introduces the surveillance aspect - which not only is a part of the early warning system, but also detailed by Selective Primary Health Care - needs to be multisectoral (they will loop in any other surveillance data source), should lead to ‘community-based early detection and control measures’, discussed by the Declaration of Alma-Ata and in short means a top-down method to - by force - contain people, but even worse - ‘implement active infection prevention and control’, which could well mean a right to - by force - inject you with yet another mRNA atrocity tested on 3 mice, and a Sustainable Markets Initiative Digital Twin⁴ on any grounds, cooked up on a whim by those, etablishing ‘the best available scientific consensus’, who will further silence and quite possibly prosecute you, should you speak up on grounds of ‘dangerous misinformation’, whilst simultaneously claiming that ‘the science changed’ after you took said ‘vaccine’.

I don’t know how to make it more obvious. The science is cooked. And crooked. Who controls the science is attempting to establish said as a new religion, because whatever they claim is science absolutely is not, yet you’ll be forced to believe. And you can see the same pattern unfold in ‘biodiversity’ and ‘climate science’ as well, where said ‘science’ is exactly as ‘settled’ as it was in regards to ‘Covid-19’ during the scamdemic… at least until ‘the science changed’ for the 278th time.

The surveillance of course is required to monitor the claim of zoonotic illnesses, but should also include water, sanitation, and hygiene - meaning we now straddle far beyond One Health’s original premise. Vector-borne disease surveillance follows along with antimicrobial resistance (AMR), before requesting a full, national rollout of related policies. And then comes another telling inclusion -

‘The Parties recognize that environmental, climatic, social, anthropogenic and economic factors increase the risk of pandemics and endeavour to identify these factors and take them into consideration in the development and implementation of relevant policies, strategies and measures, including by strengthening synergies with other relevant international instruments and their implementation.‘

The surveillance information gathered, in other words, will be lumped in with environmental, climatic, social, anthropogenic surveillance, and econonomic factors. In yet other words - they are not just going to run public health surveillance here, they are going to take said, and integrate every other surveillance data stream that they have.

It’s global surveillance on steroids. It’s EO4HEALTH. It’s GEO BON, CIT-SCI, GEOSS, GBIOS, and all of this started in 1971 with SCOPE’s first report on Global Environment Monitoring, leading to UNEP’s GEMS programme in the early to mid 1970s. I have covered all of this in detail.

Conservation and Global Surveillance

Now, the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi Targets is set to monitor the earth through 100 ‘indicators’, where each of said means a set of surveillance data, some of which will be sourced through GBIOS or GEO BON, both of which are GEOSS derivatives. And in the Selective / Primary Health Care article, I covered how human health also will become - in short - the measuring of health indicators, meaning that no-one will care about individual health, apart from your family and community. Those at the top will simply blast you with quack science and send you vaccines. Don’t take them. Whatever lies they spew, do not take them. Especially not ones, cooked up in 100 days⁵ through an enterprise sponsored by notorious, self-serving billionaires.

As for the ‘human indicators’, that’s where the Determinants of Health come in, first introduced in the 1974 report by Lalonde⁶.

The Determinants of Health

The following Article 5 on One Health is somewhat light, but in short, One Health means surveillance, vaccines and culling, applied in the context of humans, animals, and the ecosystem. I’ve written a great many articles on this topic, recent one is here -

The Berlin Principles

A notable inclusion is the One Health Workforce training, which has existed for years already, and which naturally is a field dragging in the exceedingly corrupt ‘GLOBE Legislator’ John Kerry and his daughter -

One Health: The Workforce of tomorrow

Vanessa Kerry.

Article 6 continues, in short outlines how primary health care will be the template for universal health coverage, meaning they those at the top will blast you with propaganda and forcibly inject your loved ones, while you, yourself, has to patch up your own health problems to the extent you can afford. Which is to say taking 2 paracetamol or a state-mandated vaccine, as the UNFCCC/CBD mechanism will simultaneously steal every penny out of your pocket.

The Grand Plan

But it also includes common standards - meaning the global surveillance system is fully compatible through and through - along with the continuous application of Soviet Style behavioural science, applied by literal Communist trash like Susan Michie⁷, who incidentally was rewarded for her Marxist trash policies rolled out onto an unsuspecting British public, being catapulted to a senior position within the World Health Organisation. Because - apparently - having actual communists in senior positions is not a problem, when you pretend to care about people’s health. It’s never been tried before, after all.

Article 7 carries on detailing the workforce, somewhat covered above. It also drags in mental health… oh, coincidentally, do you know how to cure⁸ people’s mental health problems?

Well, first, here’s some Rockefeller/Lancet Planetary Health quack science, produced by the Oxford Martin School on Unbridled Marxism and Killing Fields suggesting that the fabricated initiative on ‘climate anxiety‘ is causing mental health issues. Consequently, we totally should stop deforestation, etc and restore nature. Funny how all solutions appear to come back to that.

Of course, the Convention on Biological Diversity has a very similar claim a document of theirs from 2017, titled ‘GUIDANCE ON INTEGRATING BIODIVERSITY CONSIDERATIONS INTO ONE HEALTH APPROACHES‘⁹ -

‘Mental health and well-being: Promote opportunities for interactions between people, especially children, and nature, to provide benefits for mental health, to support cultural well-being and encourage physical activity in green and biodiverse spaces, particularly in urban areas;‘

It’’s a call for building parks and restoring nature, especially in urban areas.

The workforce, for the record, should be the result of the relevant educational institutions, where said education is obviously controlled top-down, using ‘the best available scientific consensus’ recently fabricated.

Article 8 calls for occasional reviews, ensuring that the global survellance system patches any holes people might be punched through the totalitarian structure.

Article 9 calls for public funding of R&D, which should further include options for private ‘investors’ to steal even more taxpayer funding. It’s a lengthy article, but it doesn’t really reveal anything particularly surprising.

Article 10 relates to the pooling¹⁰ of IP¹¹, and distribution of ‘vaccine’ plants, which should naturally be funded through ‘long-term contracts’, as the case was, when vdLeyen signed a billion euro agreement with Pfizer, and then destroyed the evidence¹². These people are crooks and belong in jail, where they naturally should be ‘protected’ using those mRNA concoctions they’re in a rush to push on the people.

Incidentally, the entire field of IP valuation and transfer could easily be used to enable tax fraud. Should an organisation sit on a range of worthless patents, they could have a third party ‘independently’ value these at millions, donate said to third party ‘charity’, and then take a tax break on said ‘donation’.

And that, incidentally, is where Article 11 enters the frame - Transfer of Technology. I won’t go into depth here, it’s only there to ensure the private sector is legally allowed to rip off the taxpayer.

Article 12 follows, which is yet another inclusion, benefiting vulture capital and the connected organisations who get to sell your genetic material with impunity. Tellingly, this is the longest article, and this should quite frankly indicate whose interests are truly catered for in this document, and it sure isn’t ultimately about health. But what’s also of personal interest is that the Convention on Biological Diversity is casually looped in through the Nagoya Protocol¹³ which deals with a similar issue from the side of ‘biodiversity’. Yes, between this and the Nagoya Protocol, all biota will be wrapped up.

Article 13 details the supply chain, which isn’t really specific to this document but will point out the following -

‘promoting and coordinating within the Network to avoid competition for resources among international procuring entities, including regional organizations and/or mechanisms;‘

Now, this could hypothetically be considered beneficial if we’re speaking of bidding prices up through competitive bids for supply constrained resources, but it works both ways. It also prevents true price discovery if competing bids can’t be entertained for necessary resources, thereby driving overall prices up, leading to a crooked comunity where the central ‘secretariat’ (provided by the WHO) will dictate winners and losers.

The Article 13bis addendum then straddles onto the profit incentive for those private vultures, yet again cementing that this document is primarily about milking the public.

Article 14 is about strengthening the regulatory environment. Uhuh, sure thing. The same regulatory environment which didn’t jail vd Leyen, didn’t prosecute the many, many lies benefiting the insiders, and who let that New Zealand tinpit dictator walk free, as it was discovered that the government and civil servants had exempted themselves from those ‘vaccines’, while forcing said on the population. Those people should not be let off this under any circumstance. It is absolutely treasonous behaviour, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.

People like these belong in jail, yet, ‘strengthening the regulatory environment’ will do exactly the opposite, concentrating power at the top, while those same people clearly breaking the law with impunity increasingly will go after the commoner for posting ‘misinformation’ on the internet, and other absurdities.

Article 15 is about liability and compensation, which suggests the private actors should… nah… could pay $0.02 (with the public picking up the rest of the bill), yet claim credit when the occasional ‘winner’ of the worst lottery in existence on the very, very rare occasion decides to pay out to those harmed by vaccines. Article 16 reinforce the lies that decisions will be driven by legit science, especially on a global scale.

Article 17 is one of less well understood components, but it’s central to it all. It’s about the ‘whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches’, which should include a national body, working together with relevant stakeholders like big pharma (and those ‘indigenous peoples’ if they can afford to include), which is where having a fundamental grasp of how those ‘stakeholders’ are selected becomes importance.

The Stakeholder Selection Process

This article further, and explicitly, drag in -

‘Each Party, based on national capacities, shall take the necessary steps to address the social, environmental and economic determinants of health and shall work to prevent or mitigate the socioeconomic impacts of pandemics‘

Yes, the Determinants of Health, followed by -

‘Each Party shall take appropriate measures to strengthen national public health and social policies to facilitate a rapid, resilient response to pandemics, especially for persons in vulnerable situations, including by mobilizing social capital in communities for mutual support.‘

All of this is a global, top-down takeover, and this document is meant to enable the human aspect of it all. But we haven’t yet discussed the new power structure.

Article 18 then adds ‘misinformation’, essentially to allow these ‘infallible’ central planners to spew their lies with impunity while simultaneously stopping people from broadcasting the truth.

‘Each Party shall promote timely access to credible and evidence-based information on pandemics and their causes, effects and drivers, with the aim of countering and addressing misinformation or disinformation, particularly through risk communication and effective community-level engagement.‘

Of course when the entire field of science is completely crooked, bought and paid for by those same ‘philanthropic’ organisations which amazingly become ever more wealthy the more billions they ‘give away’, then you cannot and should not ever in a trillion years ‘trust science’.

It really is very, very simply, and this is what I have my kids repeat back to me at least once per week -

SCIENCE IS ASKING THE QUESTION WHY.

If you’re not allowed to ask the question why, then it isn’t science.

Nevermind when the ‘science’ you have to ‘trust’ changes continuously.

‘The Parties shall exchange information and cooperate, in accordance with national law, in preventing misinformation and disinformation, and endeavour to develop best practices to increase the accuracy and reliability of crisis communications.‘

Article 19 is on implementation and support, and Article 20 on sustainable financing is yet another intended to benefit those private sector vultures, who’d readily inject you with untested chemicals should it benefit their bottom line, on the excuse that it’ll some exotic plant species in Mongolia or some other absurdity, nevermind that entire field being absolutely riddled with fraud just as well. It does however highlight a pooled fund, to be used for the PABS system which will license your generic material to big pharma in a heartbeat, requiring no authorisation by you.

ENviRON

I’ve seen a lot of easily dismissable attacks on Tedros, claiming that the WHO will become dictators once this has gone through. That’s not technically correct. Because while the WHO does indeed provide the ‘secretariat’ (genuinely hate that word, it reeks of a Soviet bureaucracy to me), the actual power will reside with a Conference of the Parties, as outlined in Article 21. And we already have those, a notable one on the topic of the UNFCCC, where the Paris Agreement was shoved through national parliaments without those ever, properly informing the public about what the outcome of signing up would ultimately become.

In short, in the future - much like in the field of alleged climate science at present - national parliaments will be forced to enact directives outlined by the Pandemic COP. Consequently, it’s not the WHO but said COP which will dictate the global lockdown, which I reckon will come sooner rather than later, given that a takeover as soon as possible is par for the Marxist course, who don’t want the majority of the people to realise what’s actually taking place while their MSM liars distract you. Incidentally, this is also why they’re so busy rolling out one distraction after another.

Regardless, the COP will oversee subsidiary bodies, and the mobilisation of financial resources. Each member of the COP will have one vote, per Article 22, and per Article 23, each national member shall provide updates on state of implementation. Finally, as said, Article 24 outlines the WHO carrying out the duties of the secretariat.

The inclusion of this -

‘Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the WHO Secretariat, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the domestic laws or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures, or implement lockdowns.‘

In essence states that it’s not the WHO; it’s the COP. But do direct your anger at both, because the WHO’s grubby little hands are all over this document itself.

I could continue here with the following articles 25-35, but as I covered these already in the October, 2023 substack post linked at the very top, I’d rather spend my time elsewhere.

… and for sakes of completion, here are articles 36 and 37.

-

Being of somewhat ‘spergy’ nature, I tend to take a topic and run with it. And one of my more recent obsessions has been General Systems Theory. And there’s a very good reason for that.

General Systems Theory

You see, General Systems Theory (GST) is all over Spaceship Earth, the Circular Economy, Sustainable Development, the Ecosystem Approach, Planetary Health and One Health.

So… what about the Pandemic Treaty?

in 2019, Wolfgang Hofkirchner penned a paper titled 'Social relations: Building on Ludwig von Bertalanffy'¹⁴, which - obviously - relates to General Systems Theory, and... is a somewhat breathtaking paper that everyone should read.

'The living organism is a hierarchical order of open systems... maintained by continuous exchange of components of the next lower level... turnover rates are the faster the smaller the components envisaged'.

The importance of this quote should be clear by the following -

'At present there is a tendency to consider a society, an economy, or a nation, as a whole which is super‐ordinated to its parts.'

That's right. Society is an organism of its own, and humans are cells within -

'Bertalanffy appealed to respect the biosphere as a whole and to reorganize the world into a system of (mutually) symbiotic societies. As a patriot of our planet Earth, he claimed a universal declaration of interdependence and an ethos that should not focus on the good for the individual alone but on the level of humanity as a global system'

Humanity, the biosphere, the lot. Everything should be integrated into 'systems' fitting within one another, and in which, humans would be considered little more than singular cells, and the good of the individual replaced by the demands of the 'greater good'.

And 'interdependence' - that's a call for collectivism.

Declaration of Interdependence

'... and agonistic relations must be put in the service of truly synergistic relations to enact another step in human evolution. Such a transition is necessary because the social relations of any partition of humanity...'

We're looking at a 'Great Transition' of society itself, though I suspect some might consider it a Fourth Industrial Revolution, but -

'The establishment of such relations would mean the abolition of those frictions by a new suprasystem in which all existing systems take part and shape according to the new relations on a higher level.'

The objective here is outlined just prior to the conclusion, stating -

'It is both possible and desirable to transform the social relations from antagonistic and agonistic forms into synergistic forms that in themselves will be appropriate to handle the commons on a planetary level, to guide global governance, and to enable a thriving and surviving human civilization'

Which is nothing short but identifying the ultimate objective being a new societal structure on a global scale, leading to global governance, which will handle the global commons, and enable a 'thriving' civilisation... under hardcore Marxism. Finally, the conclusion adds -

'The role of microlevel and macrolevel is clarified, and social self‐organization can, thus, be construed as dialectic of agency and structure. The ontic whole of society is modelled as a systemic entity characterized by dynamism.'

There it is. The 'whole of society' requirement made popular through Pandemic Planning - not forgetting 'leaving no-one behind' - which is necessary because people will naturally attempt to flee this rehashed vision of Pol Pot -

'... builds upon the new conception of the world helps design applications for the transformation towards a better world.'

It is in all seriousness nothing short of a call for a Marxist revolution.

'... they can choose to transform such conflicts into social relations of unity through diversity, into relations that make individuals and society—and any partitions of world society and the whole of world society—boost each other such that societal development becomes sustainable on our planet'

And finishing off - naturally - with more General Systems Theory through Sustainable Development, and reminding you that in Marxist Utopia, diversity leads to unity - which stands in sharp contract to reality.

Now, if this was just a singular paper, I could leave it, quite frankly. But there’s an increasing amount which see prior art. Here’s another, this one from 2019. ‘The Puzzling Metaphor: Teaching General Systems Theory to Marriage and Family Therapy Trainees‘¹⁵. And this one is essentially establishing expressly the same type of family therapy, outlined by Edward Goldsmith in the 1971 General Systems Yearbook, through his article on ‘The Limits of Growth in Natural Systems‘.

But, as said, ‘General systems theory is also anchored in the One Health approach‘¹⁶. In fact, the full quote further loops in ‘resilience’, also to be found in the pandemic draft -

‘To build resilience in the health system, efficient resource allocation is vital. Systems thinking has been tested and proven a successful approach for understanding the complexity and dynamics of health networks. General systems theory is also anchored in the One Health approach. Essentially, systems thinking is an approach to problem solving and designing solutions, where the role and mutual influence of stakeholders and context is unclear. With an axiomatic approach, systems thinking can complement the linear and reductionist approaches by permitting the testing of new ideas in social systems. In systems thinking, an organisation and its respective environment (context) are viewed as an entangled whole of interrelated and interdependent parts rather than separate entities‘

And finally, out of Sandia Labs and 2017 we have ‘Complexity Science for Strategic Foresight and Resiliency in National Security Decision-Making‘¹⁷.

‘Evolution: An underlying problem with applications of complexity science is that, it is, itself, complex, relatively new, and still evolving. Modern complexity science has its origins in the late 1940s with the introduction of General Systems Theory and Cybernetics.' Since then, the field has grown significantly through the deepening and broadening of common theoretical foundations drawn from diverse fields (i.e., behavioral economics and game theory, evolutionary biology and psychology to thermodynamics, information science, neuroscience, and physics to name a few).‘

And to mention another field -

‘Exemplars: Appropriate combinations of theoretical principles and associated tools and techniques from complexity science — e.g., self-organization and the emergence of order as well as nonlinear behaviors; innovation, adaptation, and learning; pattern and/or network analysis; resiliency in system dynamics; risk reduction through progressive hedging — have individually proven effective on a wide variety of wicked socio-technical problems, providing foundations for strategic foresight and resiliency planning. Multi-scale agent-based modeling, a tool for exploring emergent behaviors — is the analytic cornerstone of the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) policy for community response to potential pandemic influenza strains, and the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) strategic recommendations for national pandemic planning and response‘

Yes - pandemic planning and response, dragging in General Systems Theory, and courtesy of the DHS and the CDC.

It’s at this stage I could go a number of directions with this, bur probably most obviously here. 2005, and the Department of Homeland Security’s ‘National Strategy for pandemic influenza‘¹⁸, hosted on the CDC’s website. Though it doesn’t include General Systems Theory, it does involve both organisations listed above in the context of Pandemic Planning, and does include an implicitly link to the One Health tripartite, though said wasn’t officially established until 2010 with the Hanoi Declaration¹⁹.

Alternatively, I could drag it over here. ‘Modeling COVID-19 effects on SDGs using system dynamics in Egypt‘²⁰.

And that link loops in the SDGs, which further links up with General Systems Theory per ‘System Dynamics & Sustainability: A Research Agenda for the Coming Decade(s)‘²¹. And that document includes GST flowcharts on SDGs for ‘Urban Planning for Walking and Cycling’, ‘Green Infrastructure’, ‘Trade-offs between economic growth and environmental pollution in the Maldives’, ‘the Circular Economy’, and other ‘sustainability initiatives’.

Or if you want more explicit evidence of the the involvement of General Systems Theory in health itself, we have ‘Systems Thinking and Modeling for Public Health Practice‘²².

Or, finally, you could pop over here ‘Public Health Measures: Environmental Assessment in Outbreak Investigations‘²³.

‘In 1999, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began to explore using a systems approach, as described in this article, during FBIO environmental assessments. This approach was further explored by state and local food safety programs participating in the CDC Environmental Health Specialists Network and by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As a result, the US FDA began conducting systems- based environmental assessments in 2011 during that agency’s foodborne outbreak responses. In 2002, the US National Park Service Public Health Program began its exploration of a systems approach for its field assessments of foodservice establishments. The Park Service continues to work with this approach to determine if it can help regulators and food managers gain additional control over food safety issues. In 2013, CDC will launch an elearning program on how to conduct an FBIO environmental assessment.‘

The point is this - regardless of what you think of the concept in the first place, General Systems Theory has been rolled out very succesfully in just about every field you care to mention over the past few decades. And GST ultimately is about creating an understanding of a system, mirroring it, simulating it, predicting it, and slotting it in within a larger system until you reach your 15-minute neighbourhood, your city and its urban ecosystem, its landscape, nation, region, sub-continent, and even its space within the biosphere, and even the solar system under the guise of ‘Spaceship Earth’ and its demand for a General Systems Theory-derived ‘Circular Economy’.

But why stop there?

But it could also, conceivably, be used to predict, prevent, detect and respond. In fact, given its success elsewhere, to suggest it wouldn’t almost inconceivable.

1. https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb9/A_inb9_3-en.pdf

2. https://potomacinstitute.org/images/studies/Future_of_DNA_Data_Storage.pdf

3. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a82e8f1e5274a2e87dc3975/NDNAD_Ethics_Group_-_Ethical_dimensions_of_NGS_technologies_to_criminal_....pdf

4. https://a.storyblok.com/f/109506/x/86cf61245c/smi-health-systems-digital-health-whitepaper.pdf

5. https://cepi.net/cepi-20-and-100-days-mission

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lalonde_report

7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Michie

8. https://www.planetaryhealth.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2019/04/Climate-Change-Flooding-and-Mental-Health-2019.pdf

9. https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/629f/e69c/ab9b09a460d2aba373150a3d/sbstta-21-09-en.docx

10. https://www.who.int/initiatives/the-mrna-vaccine-technology-transfer-hub

11. https://medicinespatentpool.org/what-we-do/mrna-technology-transfer-programme

12. https://www.politico.eu/article/new-york-times-sue-european-union-ursula-von-der-leyen-pfizer-texts/

13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagoya_Protocol

14. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/sres.2594

15. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1066480719868702

16. https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-018-0398-6#:~:text=The%20One%20Health%20approach%2C%20which,4%2C5%2C6%5D

17. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1648673

18. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/pdf/pandemic-influenza-strategy-2005.pdf

19. https://www.afcd.gov.hk/tc_chi/quarantine/qua_vb/files/OWOH2.pdf

20. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-20019-1

21. https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10281862

22. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470500/

23. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/nears/docs/ea-encyclopedia-foodsafety.pdf