Vaccinated people are more likely than the unvaccinated in recent months to be a COVID-19 case, hospitalization, or death in 25 states, according to an Epoch Times investigation.
In Kentucky in June, for example, 67 percent of the deaths were among the vaccinated, according to data obtained by The Epoch Times.
That same month, the vaccinated made up 65 percent of COVID-19 cases, 64 percent of COVID-19 hospitalizations, and 66 percent of COVID-19 deaths in Wisconsin.
The numbers are a drastic change from 2021.
After the mass vaccination campaign in the United States gained momentum, virtually every state reported unvaccinated people making up the vast majority of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.
The numbers began tilting while the Delta virus variant was dominant. They have tilted even more since the Omicron variant displaced Delta, according to the newly collated numbers.
The Epoch Times compiled the data from state health department websites and databases. Some were obtained through records requests and have never before been made public.
The statistics underline how vaccines have increasingly performed worse as newer virus variants emerged, according to some experts.
They are “clear evidence that the vaccines are not working to prevent disease and death,” Dr. Robert Malone, who helped invent the messenger RNA utilized in the two most widely-administered vaccines, told The Epoch Times.
Others argue the raw numbers don’t contribute to analyzing vaccine effectiveness because they must first be adjusted to account for factors such as age.
“Unless one is able to correct for age and health status, this number is misleading, and does not lead to the conclusion vaccines are ineffective,” Dr. Roger Klein, a policy adviser to The Heartland Institute and a former adviser to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other U.S. health agencies, told The Epoch Times via email.
Some states provide age-adjusted numbers, as recommended by the CDC.
Data Reporting
Most states report at least one metric (cases, hospitalizations, deaths) by vaccination status. Some group the partially vaccinated with the unvaccinated when breaking down metrics.
As vaccines have proven increasingly unable to prevent COVID-19 infection in the Omicron era, a growing number of states have followed the CDC in separating those who have received a booster from the fully vaccinated.
Key terms as generally defined:
Unvaccinated: people who have gotten zero shots.
Partially vaccinated: people who have received one dose of the Moderna or Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines and people who have not seen 14 days elapse since their final dose of a primary series.
Fully vaccinated: people who have completed a primary series of a vaccine.
Boosted: people who have received at least one extra shot on top of the primary series.
The term fully vaccinated will be used in this article to refer to anybody who has received a primary series, regardless of whether they’ve received a booster. Not fully vaccinated refers to anybody who has not received a primary series. The term vaccinated, meanwhile, will refer to anyone who has received at least one dose of a vaccine.
Exceeded Expectations
In 14 states, the percentage of one or more so-called breakthrough metrics—post-vaccination cases, hospitalizations, and/or deaths—in recent months exceeded the percentage of the population that was vaccinated or fully vaccinated.
In most cases, that was a single metric. But in several, it was multiple, and in one, it was all three.
All data are from 2022. Only percentages were available for some states. Data for June were preferred, followed by data for July. Metrics are only listed if they exceed the percentage of vaccinated.
Alaska* (March): 3,995 breakthrough cases (64.5 percent of cases) Vaccinated at the time: 59.1 percent of 5 and up
Idaho+ (June 5–July 2): 89 breakthrough hospitalizations (53 percent) Fully vaccinated at the time: 52 percent
Kentucky* (June): 55 breakthrough deaths (67 percent) Vaccinated at the time: 66 percent
Louisiana– (Aug. 7): 61 percent breakthrough deaths Vaccinated at the time: 52 percent full, 6 percent partial
Some states adjust the data before releasing it, which is meant to eliminate differences that result from one population being different from another. The most common adjustment is for age.
Age adjustment is used to compare populations directly “when the age distribution of who most commonly gets the disease, or seriously sick from the disease, is skewed,” according to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. For COVID-19, older populations are more likely to experience severe illness and death, and are also more likely to be vaccinated, experts say.
While the raw numbers look bad for the vaccinated, after adjusting for age, the rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths in Wisconsin are higher for the unvaccinated throughout 2022 (cases have been higher in the vaccinated in recent months). That’s similar to most of the other states that report data as rates, some of which also provide raw numbers.
Wisconsin’s raw numbers were obtained through a records request.
Clinical trials and vaccine efficacy studies are the basis for determining vaccine effectiveness, Dr. Ryan Westergaard, chief medical officer for the state’s Bureau of Communicable Diseases, said during a briefing, adding that the research shows that protection against severe disease and death remains high.
Studies can help control for biases such as vaccinated people being more likely to get tested at sites, which report data to the state, versus at home, which is not counted, Dr. Leisha Nolen, Utah’s state epidemiologist, told The Epoch Times.
The studies show “the vaccines aren’t doing as well at keeping us from getting infected, but they are still keeping people out of the hospital,” Nolen told The Epoch Times.
Nolen singled out a study from researchers with the CDC and partner institutions, published in the agency’s journal on July 22 (pdf).
Researchers reported data from a CDC-funded network of hospitals across 10 states from December 2021 to June 2022. The data showed that two doses of a vaccine, or a primary series, provided 57 to 68 percent protection against hospitalization through 149 days after vaccination, but dropped to as low as 24 percent 150 or more days after vaccination.
A third dose increased protection to 92 percent against BA.1, one of the subvariants, and 69 percent against BA.2, another subvariant. That protection dropped to 85 percent and 52 percent, respectively, after 120 or more days.
BA.5 is currently the dominant strain in the United States. Emerging dataindicate the vaccines do not provide as much shielding against BA.4 and BA.5 as earlier strains.
Dr. Leisha Nolen, Utah’s state epidemiologist, in an undated file photo. (Courtesy of Utah Department of Health)
Majority Vaccinated
In 11 other states, the vaccinated made up a majority of at least one metric, but the proportion of vaccinated did not exceed the percentage of vaccinated.
All data are from 2022. Percentages reported near or above 50 percent. Preference was for data in June, followed by data in July. Metrics with unvaccinated comprising a majority are not listed.
Arizona+** (May): 62 percent breakthrough cases; 56.4 percent breakthrough hospitalizations Fully vaccinated as of June 1: 62 percent
Illinois+ (June 1–June 29): 205 breakthrough hospitalizations (49 percent); 195 breakthrough deaths (62 percent) Fully vaccinated at the time as of Aug. 15: 65 percent
Maryland+ (June): 67.5 percent breakthrough cases, 70.6 percent breakthrough hospitalizations Fully vaccinated as of May 31: 76 percent
Massachusetts+ (Aug. 2): 334 breakthrough hospitalized patients (60 percent); (June 25–July 1) 48 breakthrough deaths (77 percent) Fully vaccinated as of July 18: 79 percent
Dr. Steven Hatfill, a virologist and specialist physician, in Washington on March 28, 2020. (Courtesy of Vish Burra)
Other Studies
Vaccine-provided protection began waningagainst infection and, to a lesser extent, against severe illness in 2021, when the Delta variant was dominant. Since Omicron emerged in December 2021, that trend has quickened.
Research on booster effectiveness has largely shown an initial increase in protection, followed by a quick decline. Other research, meanwhile, has indicated that vaccinated people are, at a certain point, more likely than unvaccinated people to get infected, which could relate to a phenomenon called immune imprinting.
Owing to the waning effectiveness, U.S. regulators have already cleared first and second boosters—as have many other countries—and are poised to authorize updated vaccines that target Omicron, describing the current formulation as not “well-matched” to the dominant variant.
“It’s really not possible to predict what this virus is going to do, and I think it makes sense to be prepared with these boosters, which contain components of a BA.4 and BA.5 as well as the so-called archival Wuhan strain,” Dr. Cody Meissner, one of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s external vaccine advisers, told The Epoch Times.
Some experts like Meissner say most people, including all adults, should still get vaccinated. Others note healthy individuals are at little risk from COVID-19, especially new variants, and say that the more recent data suggest little benefit for many.
That includes data from other parts of the world, including the United Kingdom, that have recorded the vaccinated as comprising the bulk of COVID-19 metrics.
“What we’re looking at now is a sign of progress of a number of factors, primarily [that] the vaccinated can still catch and spread the COVID-19 virus,” Dr. Steven Hatfill, a virologist, told The Epoch Times.
“The cost-benefit ratio now especially for the younger age groups has disappeared,” he added later.
Moderna’s internal documents regarding their COVID vaccine trials, obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, show that most of their studies submitted for approval to the FDA were “irrelevant” and did not follow Good Laboratory Practices (GLP), according to a former pharma executive.
Pfizer cannot use the government as a shield from liability for making false claims about its COVID-19 vaccine, lawyers for a whistleblower argued in response to Pfizer’s motion to dismiss a False Claims Act lawsuit.
August 11, 2022, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reversed its COVID-19 guidelines, thereby vindicating every “misinformation spreader” out there.
“Catalysts can help tackle some of the world’s most pressing problems”, said Toshiaki Taniike, Professor of materials chemistry from the Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST)
“For example, they can break down plastic waste, cut the carbon footprint of fertilizer production as well as capture and use carbon dioxide generated by industrial processes,” added Taniike.
Although scientifically speaking, it would be fascinating to dive further into what Toshiaki and his team have implemented, whilst appreciating their approach that combines two cutting-edge technologies: high-throughput experimentation and artificial intelligence. However, in this piece, we will be looking at parallels between what was previously revealed in the globalist One Health framework which is being promoted by the architects of the COVID-19 ‘global pandemic’, and the One Health climate change agenda, and those who are combining social engineering through the application of Big Data and AI.
Below we will be examining how One Health approach is used in combining all the doomsday computer model-based scenarios (+AI) currently used by the WHO and other sister UN agencies, under the ever watchful eye of technocrats in the World Economic Forum.
Although the One Health approach is still in its adoption phase, this is not a major obstacle for globalist cleptocrats, as evidenced by the recent sidelining of actual scientific evidence by WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who effortlessly overruled the recommendations of his own panel of experts on declaring a health emergency for the relatively obscure condition known as ‘Monkeypox,’ to declare on his own (undoubtedly, inspired by the last pandemic) unilateral ‘global health emergency’ which he then elevated to “a public health emergency of international concern.” Unfortunately, COVID-19 has provided this new global health technocracy with a working template to launch seemingly endless ‘viral’ threats, each to be elevated to both regional epidemic or ‘global pandemic’ levels. What an epic scam.
Video: Media briefing on monkeypox with WHO DG Dr Tedros
‘Trust the Science’
True scientists will always entertain a real scientific debate, and accept the constant state of re-evaluation, and promote forward-thinking, with the mission of helping their community to get closer to the truth. However, when it comes to the One Health approach, we are looking at a methodology employed by a corrupt scientific cult of ‘global public health.’
New Lever of Control: ‘Food Security’
The final leg of our One Health trilogy analysis will cover the very sensitive and complex subject of “food security.” No doubt you’ve probably heard this broad term by now, which comprises of food supply, food safety, and sustainable food production. Globalist planners are hoping to nest the issue of food security neatly under the One Health Approach. Not surprisingly, this constant variable has now found its way into all of the latest computer models and equations now being used to justify “global emergency” measures at the United Nations level, with the permanent blessing of our governments so-called leaders.
Previously, we investigated how the globalists and the United Nation Quadripartite (WHO, FAO, OIE, UNEP) had relentlessly worked at integrating One Health education into higher education curriculums in science, technology and social studies programs in order to build competencies in One Health language, and the requisite skills required to build and maintain vast networks through stakeholder institutions – supposedly designed to improve public health, environment health, food security and sustainable agriculture. This is very much the epitome of a technocracy, and the embryonic birth pangs of a global government structure. In terms of delivering on its mission of public health, One Health appears to be a pre-digested concept that helps formulate a desired narrative by using computer modeling fed by an insatiable appetite for Big Data – which sadly removes the human dimension and often ground observations. Many of the scientists financed under One Health research seem to have willingly accepted this dogma, which is nothing more than obedience as career pragmatism. Nothing new there, but none of this is going to advance any real science.
The ways and methods used by the globalists to promote and over-exaggerate various threats posed by so-called ‘climate change’, and alleged ‘zoonotic’ and other pathogens, all said to be threatening our food supply, our health, and our environmental security – pose serious doubts as to the scientific legitimacy, and thus should be challenged at every turn.
Back in 2013, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) Director General Bernard Vallat, was promoting the One Health framework as the way to supposedly improve the health of animals, humans and the environment itself. But the adoption of such an approach at global, national and sub-national level has been hijacked, and inculcated into government and policymakers’ minds for years. It took around 20 years for us to start hearing leaders and presidents, and other high-level government officials using the term “One Health” – all promoting in unison, and marveling at its magical ability to predict and supposedly prevent all sort of disasters and national security threats which today have thrown the world into a perpetual state of emergency.
The United Nations Agency OIE, known today as the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), also uses a One Health approach to demonstrate how animal diseases can pose a threat to our food supply. This, they claim, is a threat to our ‘global food security,’ and to economic growth, or so they claim. You can now see this is a desperate attempt to convince the policymakers of the World (and the unelected operatives and influencers) to address these issues in a coordinated way, so as to avoid (or more likely to create) the impending public health and food emergencies. It’s quite a clever ruse, once you understand how all disciplines bounce off of each other for no valid reasons other than to provide an “irrefutable data set,” ready to re-feed into any subsequent computer model, which will certainly create the desired result which policy wonks are looking for. If COVID-19 taught us anything, it’s that computer models can lead to unmitigated policy disasters.
Like a machine, One Health works every single time in creating and reinforcing any global emergency scenario which enables policymakers to justify the liberticide measures they are (for most) gladly enforcing upon their respective populations.
Document: OIE (WOHA) 2013 One Health Approach Bulletin
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), a One Health Food Security approach is essential for progress to ‘anticipate, prevent, detect and control diseases’ that according to them spread between animals and humans. The One Health approach is also deemed efficient to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR), prevent environment-related human and animal health threats, as well as combating many other challenges relating to food security. The globalist cult motto is:
“We are one world working together for One Health”
The questions many are asking is: has One Health ever anticipated, prevented, detected or controlled any diseases?
Well, the answer is unfortunately not black and white, but the lack of any track record makes it hard to see any real benefits of such an AI and data-led approach, whilst leaving us pondering on the reasons why it is being heavily pushed and promoted to shape the global security policies of a burgeoning new world order. It seems a tremendous effort, with huge resources allocated, all to control the policies of tomorrow, presumably to accommodate the Schwabian Great Reset agenda, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and of course to comply with sanitary and phytosanitary standards of the World Trade Agreement (WTO).
As part of their increased collaboration on One Health, the WHO Secretariat has worked closely with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), OIE and UNEP to develop a One Health Joint Plan of Action (OH JPA) to guide the work of the four organizations so that they will operate under a “One Health” approach at a global, regional and country level. The following draft One Health Joint Plan of Action (2022-2026) details the collaboration between FAO, OIE, UNEP and WHO as requested in Resolution WHA 74.7 and as required to take control of nations – while destroying them one piece at a time. In other words: this agenda is real, and in its final development stages.
Document: Draft One Health Joint Plan of Action (2022-2026)
As shown in our previous articles on this subject, at the centre of this global network is the One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP). This ‘stakeholder’ steering committee gives the advice throughout the development of the OH JPA, as they seek to implement a ‘holistic and systematic approach’ to solving these so-called man-made problems.
Tying Climate Change to Food Security
The United Nations quadripartite suggested that changes occurring in the natural environment due to climate change are now threatening and compromising ‘feed and food security,’ and allegedly increasing the spread of infectious diseases – including zoonotic viruses, drug-resistant infections, and vector-borne diseases. This is where they attempt to link climate change to food security under the One Health approach. These experts now claim that changes in temperatures and humidity levels can expand vector populations beyond their present geographic ranges, and thus expose animals and humans to diseases to which they would have no natural immunity. One Health allows computer-modeled projections and real world relationships to become interchangeable, and seem even reversible. Again, if the contrived COVID ‘global pandemic’ taught us anything, it’s that allowing computer models to inform global public health policy – is an absolute road to disaster.
In their minds, this is cutting-edge technocracy: ‘high-level’ interdisciplinary working groups using AI to solve the world’s challenges. It sounds really good. On one hand, mixing different scientific fields can open up an interesting debate, but unfortunately, as we now know, this high-flying technocracy approach offers way too much leverage for unscrupulous organisations and transnational corporations (and certain billionaires) to use it as a Constant Emergency Creating Platform.
Men have interacted with nature for millions of years, venturing in deep forest in the most remote part of the world – as hunters and gatherers, and yet we are still here alive and kicking, despite all odds, surviving drastic climate cycles (cold and hot). So what has truly changed and why so many catastrophic doomsday scenarios are suddenly being pushed into the public discourse?
The OH JPA plan of actions (pictured below) are, of course, very alarming, but this is what one should expect when health, environment and food professional alarmists come together, and with the full financial backing so-called philanthropists, and their global corporations, banks, and eager government officials – always happy to dilapidate taxpayers’ money in order to create an ideal policy framework that will benefit only these self-proclaimed oligarchs and their transnational corporate networks.
During the course of our investigation we have also come to appreciate the role COVID-19 has played in introducing these plan for action and why it was so crucial to have SARS-COV-2 released (accidentally or not or even at all, depending on your set of believes) to launch the real agenda of control hiding in plain sight.
None of these One Health public emergency remedies would make any kind of sense without COVID. To portray the idea of climate change and food security as a “Global Health Emergency,” the globalists needed to create the fear of a persisting burden of things like endemic zoonotic, neglected tropical and vector-borne diseases, as well as antimicrobial resistance all cleverly cooked up with a One Health recipe.
It’s simply uncanny!
I would go even further and say that COVID was and still is a distraction as the real agenda which is far scarier than a bad flu called COVID 19 with a survival rate estimated around 99.9%. Of course, older people are more sensitive to the flu, so your chances of survival naturally vary according to your age. No rocket science here.
Having said that, the main question still remains:
Why was COVID-19 declared a pandemic and a global health emergency when none of the data available today support that claim?
I won’t discuss the vaccine here, as this is truly a legal matter that is currently being handled by many human rights lawyers, activists and scientists around the world, all of whom are defying the mainstream narrative and asking for transparency and justice as the elephant in the room can no longer be ignored.
We can debate for the next 30 years on the origin of COVID, but seeing the US reluctance to release the JFK files, or the WHO’s ability to change the definition of a vaccine, we see very little hope in getting to the bottom of that question. So why not concentrate on the actual globalist agenda at hand, and focus our efforts on unmasking the One Health Agenda, a true threat to our democracy we should all be watching closely?
What is food security?
According to the FAO of the United Nations:
“Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (World Food Summit, 1996). This definition gives rise to four dimensions of food security: availability of food, accessibility (economically and Physically), utilization (the way it is used and assimilated by the human body) and stability of these three dimensions.
In 2010, the FAO and the WHO developed a document to assist countries (members) in the formulation and implementation of national food safety emergency response plans that are consistent with the risk analysis and key elements of the food safety emergency-related programmes of FAO and WHO, namely the Emergency Prevention System for Food Safety (EMPRES Food Safety), and the International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN). We will go back to INFOSAN in a moment.
Today the FAO Strategic Framework 2022-31 articulates FAO’s vision of a sustainable and food secure world for all, in the context of the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development.
The forward of the following document is provided by FAO Director General Qu Dongyu who rapidly remind us that the COVID-19 pandemic (or plandemic) and its resulting economic impact, has put a strain on all countries as they strive to reach their UN Sustainable Development Goals, while containing the pandemic and its fallout. He goes on saying that “extreme climate events, trans boundary pests and zoonotic diseases, as well as conflicts continue to exacerbate the situation”.
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Strategic Framework 2022-31
Much has been made of recent events about the global grain crisis allegedly caused by Ukrainian’s military conflict with Russia. The general mainstream narrative is that Russia is causing the crisis but preventing Kiev from exporting its bountiful harvests. While this is debatable, the fact remains that western leaders and their media arms are seizing on this perceived crisis in order to elevate the issue of food security as a prime directive of the globalist agenda.
Ukraine accounted for just under 9% of global wheat exports in 2021, according to the World Food Programme of the United Nations, hence, we found it quite politically motivated to place all blame on Russia, but certainly the Ukrainian conflict has somewhat exacerbated the global grain market situation.
In March 2022, France and many other countries, saw sunflower oil deserting their supermarket’s shelves – with the government and the MSM quickly blaming the Russians’ incursion into Ukraine for the empty shelves and maritime deliveries. Everyone was panicking, and the media were pumping the fear around the clock. Unfortunately for them, leading supermarket chains reacted promptly to say they were not forecasting a penury of it until July 2022 when perhaps (and only perhaps) a slow-down in global supply could be felt. We are now at middle of August 2022 and there is still no major shortage on the horizon. As of the end of July, the global agricultural price supply index has remained relatively stable.
So what was it then? A political instrumentalisation of a war to promote food insecurity, or more importantly to create fear? A tonne of sunflower cost 640 euros in mid-February 2022, compared to nearly 1,000 euros in April 2022 – as usual, someone is coining it in on the back of this conflict, whilst governments are using it as a platform to launch their respective food insecurity campaigns.
FAO introduces their new business model presenting the agri-food systems transformation plan as one of the key levers to unlock progress towards the entire Agenda 2030 – where of all these manufactured problems are blamed on the COVID, the climate change, the endless threat of new and exotic zoonotic diseases, and of course the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Yet, they will never bring up the fact that US, UK and EU sanction policies designed to punish Russia are actually threatening fertilizer and other big agra products which farmers around the world need in affordable and stable quantities.
Amid all this, we can still see how One Health is placed once more at the centre of the proposed industrial transformation to justify every single plan for action.
The following document provides great clues on how One Health is utilised in all major Biosecurity programmes. For instance, here with theOne Water One Healthfit-for-purpose water quality programme, part of FAO priorities related to circular agriculture economy and ‘green cities.’
This is a typical example on how the globalists wish to influence Global Water Security Policies so as to bring them under the control of a future iteration of a One World Government, therefore extending the One Health approach to embrace all sectors being Animal and Plant Pests and Diseases (APPD) or Anti-Microbial Resistance (AMR) under a broader biosecurity programme. They clearly have been working on this for a very long time.
The “Best Production” gap identified by the FAO in their BP3 One Health analysis (Page 59) speaks for itself:
Increasing losses to production and adverse health effects caused by the spread of biological threats, including zoonotic infections of pandemic potential and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in the crop, animal and aquaculture sectors.
That is how they have instrumentalised COVID by fabricating the idea of a biological threat which was necessary in order to advance the new ‘Threat Based Economic Model’, which is why all current and future policy reforms will use One Health as the innovative and altruistic approach requiring countries with the use of legally bidding instruments such as treaties and other binding agreements, to relinquish their sovereign privilege and universal right to self-determination to the United Nations.
The UN and its corporate and philanthropist partners are working relentlessly to gain control over the Global Health/Food/Environment Security Policies that govern the new litany of Emergency Responses, Preparedness and Prediction Measures for Pandemics, Potential Outbreaks, and other threats related to climate change, and ‘antimicrobial resistance’ outbreaks. The policies they are fighting for will allow them to gain greater control over nations and their people therein.
The One Health approach was always about Big Data and protocols that would provide the UN and their stakeholders with a vast amount of information that will be used unscrupulously to justify liberticide measures or push forward predictive models that will open the doors to corporate sharks and investment bankers always excited by an opportunity to increase their bottom line or create debts for their ledger.
The holistic One Health approach was privileged at a very early stage by the World Bank and now by the UN Quadripartite, as it allows the UN and its sponsors to fabricate the idea of an ongoing “Global Food Crisis” and the inflammatory depression is the results of a global health emergency known as COVID, but also the result of a Global Environment Emergency (Climate Change) exacerbated by conflicts (Russia-Ukraine).
This is highly suspicious at best, especially when knowing that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major contributor to the WHO, has business interests in the very same sectors of activities all promoted with a One Health approach to Food Systems, Food Security and Sustainable Food Production. A mere coincidence? Take a look below:
INFOSAN, the International Food Safety Authorities Network managed jointly by the food and agriculture organization of the UN, FAO, as well as the WHO is a global network launched in 2004 and according to them aims at fostering a global community of practice of food safety officials from around the world. The sheer scope of this project is breathtaking:
In this interview, Carmen Savelli Technical Officer at the Department of Food Safety and Zoonoses at the WHO, shares information about INFOSAN explaining how INFOSAN encourages a One Health approach and provided country experiences on the importance of this approach during food safety emergency response. According to him, responding to food safety events requires One Health approach because the identification of the event can actually happen at any stage along the whole food chain, at the level of production, on a farm, for example, and all the way up to consumption and after consumption, when you have human cases of illness identified. The global technocratic framework being constructed here is simply incredible:
As mentioned in our previous articles, the main goal of these organisations is to play an important if not a central role in the shaping up of global health security policies, including the anticipated reforms of the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR).
INFOSAN has members in 188 countries and its network is humongous, hence, they will have their fair share of weight in this transformation – especially in the implementation of what is to become a revised IHR.
“Infosan actually also supports the implementation of the International Health Regulations (IHR)” says Carmen Savelli in his interview.
Some of you might recall the proposal for amending the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) made on 27 May 2022, allegedly to strengthen WHO preparedness for and response to health emergencies. In Geneva, Switzerland the 194-nation members of the World Health Assembly approved a resolution that halves the two-year period for amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) to take effect down to just one year. Why the rush?
‘The move was part of a highly technical package of US-proposed measures that picked up support as the most practical way of kick starting the reform process in pandemic response,’ states a article from Health Policy Watch. There is very little doubt as to the role Colin McIff, Deputy Director of the Office of Global Affairs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has played in the IHR reforms agenda and of course he was applauded like a rock star when everyone gathered to approve the globalist proposal.
IMAGE: Colin McIff, Deputy Director of the Office of Global Affairs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Hard not to think that these people are actually running away from something, or worried that something is about to catch up with them. Notice how everything in government since the early days of the COVID crisis has been done under an ’emergency’ procedure, and expect global health, food and environment security policies to conform to this trend.
The aim is to push for a package of reforms in anticipation of the World Health Assembly 77 in 2024. No doubt that all the globalist organizations, including Big Pharma and their financial partners, are working around the clock to convince policymakers and their stakeholders of the power of One Health. What I am trying to say here is that we have very little time to stop this masquerade before it becomes all legally binding under new international treaty reforms being implemented under various banners, like the law of the sea treaty, to be codified on various national and regional (EU) levels.
Since One Health is closely linked with the lucrative new computer-modeled prediction business (climate change, pandemic, and food scarcity), it is only fair that we ask ourselves if people or organisations such as the Rockefeller Foundation are blessed with the gift of foresight.
Barely 5 months after the first news of COVID-19 invaded our TV screens, with fear peddlers all too happy to scare the public with some incredible death and case numbers, we witnessed a report worthy of the best fortune-tellers issued by the Rockefeller Foundation on July 28, 2020, explaining how the RF and their acolytes saw the opportunity and the obligation to transform the U.S. food system in order to make it more efficient, equitable, healthy, and resilient etc., by shifting to a system that better integrates public-private and philanthropic solutions – to address America’s (and likely the rest of the world’s) intractable and growing nutrition insecurity. Did they know something we didn’t?
You can read in their food policy report (paper):
“While the opportunity to realize this vision has come to us under tragic circumstances, it has also inspired the kind of passion, commitment, and innovation that gives us hope the needed transformation can and will be accomplished.”
“To do so, stakeholders from across the food system and beyond must come together to drive transformational shifts in systems, policies, and practices. We must collectively meet the moment to address immediate need while laying the foundation for the systemic and structural design of a transformed food system.”
What we can take away from this report is that lobbying for the transformation of food systems was clearly a priority for the Rockefeller Foundation’s agenda. The report reads more like a message sent out to the globalists and their pilgrims – reminding them that time had come to “reset” the food system of the world. According to RF,Covid-19 has made it clear that despite the innovation, entrepreneurship, and dedicated efforts of many players across the supply chain, the overall food system does not promote healthy people, a healthy planet, or an ‘equitable’ economy. Thus, the time for a Great Reset had finally come, and bankers could throw their weight behind it, while our governments around the world proceeded to plunge our nations into record-levels of debt (if that is even possible) and currency devaluation. Yes, the people, not elites, would have to pay for the globalists’ transformation.
What is truly missing in this report is a slice of honesty where they could have mentioned the pharmaceutical and the chemical industry who made billions, if not trillions, on the back of the agri-food business, not to mention the companies who control everything you eat, drink or buy.
Not surprisingly, only 10 companies control almost every large food and beverage brand in the world:
I guess it is easier to blame everything on COVID or the Russians, and simply deny any responsibility for the systemic breakdowns we are now witnessing. With the One Health approach, they will soon be back in business under the name of some friendly and altruistic foundations or companies boasting about how they have saved the World from a Global Food Security Emergency, selling us Bill Gates’ synthetic beef, or vegan burgers from Swedish company Oumph that are said to taste like human flesh. Dystopia is here.
The ultimate winners of the new ‘food security emergency’ narrative are the global banking cartel.
On their website the World Bank Group explain how it works with partners to build food systems that can ‘feed everyone’ – everywhere, every day by improving food security, while promoting ‘nutrition-sensitive agriculture’, and supposedly improving food safety. The Bank is a leading financier of food systems. In 2020, there was $5.8 billion in new IBRD/IDA commitments to agriculture and related sectors, and of course they have adopted and applied an integrated “One Health” approach to managing risks associated with animal, human and environmental health.
Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, total World Bank Group financing has reached $272 billion, including $52.6 billion in the last quarter of FY22. For the 15 months from April 2022 to June 2023, financing was expected to reach $170 billion.
The World Bank also houses the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), a global financing instrument that pools donor funds and targets additional, complementary financing to agricultural development across the entire value chain. Lots of debt, and lots of profit to be made, and I will let you guess what happens when nations start defaulting on their loans.
The mercurial Fourth Industrial Revolution also uses a fear-based economic model, articulated around the One Health Agenda, in order to hide the fact that Schwab’s Great Reset is nothing less than a master plan to enslave nations with debts whilst creating more fictitious fiat wealth for elites to consolidate real assets.
I will quote a fantastic article of author Michael Pettis entitled, How Does Excessive Debt Hurt an Economy? He says:
“It is notable that in almost every case in history when a country’s rapid growth has been associated with even more rapid growth in its debt burden, the subsequent adjustment has always turned out to be far more difficult than even pessimists had predicted”
“People have always systematically underestimated the positive impact on economic activity of rising debt and the negative (and asymmetrical) impact on economic activity of the subsequent adjustment. There is little reason to believe that the future will be much different.”
The new economic model presented by the World Economic Forum, the World Bank and the United Nations Quadripartite, will, without a doubt, create fictitious wealth which is associated with rising debts and inflation, because it is usually the banking system or governments that funds soft budget entities.
Let’s not be fooled here: they will be no redistribution of wealth, nor a cascading effect where taxpayers will reap the benefits of these grand public-private investments. Profits will go where they always go – straight into the bankers’ pockets and the political campaign coffers.
Global Health, Food and Environment Security Policies will be shaped by these very same people or organisations to accommodate this obviously well-crafted heist.
Michael concludes in his article that, “The economic impact therefore lies not in the debt itself, but rather in the fictitious wealth it has created.”
This is how elites plan to reconsolidate their wealth, political power, and real assets.
Following a One Health logic where climate change is being promoted as a global health emergency (see my previous article here), we needed to see if One Health had also been used to provide or justify the necessary data to push a narrative where climate change is also promoted as a food security emergency.
Is ‘climate change’ the engine or the cause of a food security emergency?
The following Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2015 report brings together the computer model-based evidence from the UN’s IPCC, updated by the latest scientific findings and validated by FAO’s alleged knowledge and experience on the ground. It is said to provide an overview of the cascading impacts of climate change on food security and nutrition, from physical impacts on agro-ecosystems to livelihoods and food security. Follow their logic, and you can see who this new power-grab will unfold.
FAO uses IPCC over-exaggerated warming projections, assumptions and the hypothesis required to roll-out a One Health “holistic approach” which allow them to promote catastrophic scenarios where climate change brings a cascade of risks from ‘physical impacts to ecosystems, agro-ecosystems, agricultural production, food chains, incomes and trade, with economic and social impacts on livelihoods and food security and nutrition.’ Nothing is left out.
When reading the document (and in between the lines) we sense a deeper agenda, which is mainly to transform, but also control agriculture systems and food systems globally. Climate change will be used to promote more international exchanges of genetic resources as countries would eventually seek to obtain ‘well-adapted’ (ideally genetically modified) crops, livestock, trees, and aquatic organisms. The adaptation to climate change in agriculture and food systems for food security and nutrition will need to be enabled by massive public-private investments, and binding agreements and policies, nailed into place by institutions in various regions, once more putting the banking system and their globalist organisations at the very for front of this manufactured ‘green’ industrial revolution.
Hiding in the background are World Economic Forum stakeholders, always ready for action and planning, and immediate implementation of investment projects, especially those investments that require longer time frames to be developed and arrive in the field of: forestry, livestock breeding, seed multiplication, R&D, innovation, and knowledge transfer to enable adaptation. This is a technocrat’s playground, intentionally made to be too complex for any pleb, or even elected leader, to understand. So we defer to ‘the experts.’
Ask yourself this question: how the globalists could ever strive to form a One World Government, under its various guises such as the vaunted “Rules-Based International Order”, without a plan to control the food, agriculture and water systems of the world, and their associated security policies requirements?
It seems the way they have chosen to control these systems globally is by interfering with them, and climate change provides the perfect scapegoat used to justify such deep interference. The One Health Agenda conveniently provides the added value of supplying the UN Quadripartite and the IPCC with the Big Data necessary to design their computer models that can project any scenario’s desired outcome. The computer models then become the ‘science’ and ‘evidence’ presented by these institutions to justify a raft of new polices, and to secure more and more funding for such endeavors. It’s akin to a self-licking ice cream cone.
If we stop questioning them and ourselves, all that is left for us to do is to “trust their science”.
FAO/Climate Change & Food security: Risks and Responses (2015 report):
This very alarmist report was compiled in 2015 with a One Health approach (see page 15) examining the interface of Sustainable Agriculture, Food Safety, and Food Security by alleged climate change. The report is mainly based on assumptions, hypothesis and projections where climate change and the IPCC/FAO data (if you believe in their accuracy) predict everything, and justify these climate alarmists and the fearmongers’ vision of the future.
Global warming in the Arctic
As things stand, contrary to the long-running global warming hoax, the Greenland ice surface is actually continuing to gain in thickness, with an above-average accumulation (following a pattern observed since 2017, except for year 2019), as confirmed by the climatic observational data of the Polar Portal in the Arctic (this year recording some of the coldest temperature for the month of June).
In his very short June 2022 article, Sébastien Renault analyzes Greenland’s factual data reported by the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), describing the current phenomenon where the surface thickness of the Greenland polar ice sheet is actually increasing, a report curiously ignored by the main stream media.
It’s not difficult to see why the mainstream media routinely ignore any report like this: Photo 1:
Photo 1: Surface mass balance per day (between 01/09/21 and 20/06/22)
Photo 2: Balance of the accumulated mass anomaly (between 01/09/21 and 20/06/22) (source)
Sébastien remind us that it is indeed the heat of oceanic water currents, under double solar influence (from above), and geothermal (from marine subsoils), that contribute directly to the cyclical process of melting Arctic ice, which appears to have absolutely nothing to do with the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere – a fact which perplexes climatists. He explains:
“The imposture of climate change fearmongers, particularly with regard to the phenomena of melting ice in the polar regions, must be tirelessly denounced. More than ever today, at a time when such intergovernmental fraud is causing famine and impoverishment on a global scale, preventing hundreds of millions of people from meeting their basic energy and food needs.”
If you take climate change exaggeration out of the One Health approach, the entire concept suddenly falls apart, and thus, it cannot justify most of the claimed doomsday computer model-based scenarios promoted 24/7 in our media and government reports. This is why MSM will never give room to the findings of institutions like the Danish Meteorological Institute, as it will hinder the entire man-made global warming theory bandwagon, and of course all of their manufactured health, environmental and food emergencies. The entire gravy train suddenly comes to a grinding halt.
We shall take this opportunity to direct you to a 21st century Wire article titled “Despite Climate Doom Talk, Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is Blooming” another topic that makes IPCC so called experts very uncomfortable.
And finally here is the declaration from 1,200 scientists and professionals from across the world led by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever who declares: “There is no climate emergency.”
Obviously, the climate debate is too large to tackle in a single article, and so we do not intend to adjudicate this vast controversy here, but we hope to raise a few examples and salient points which might give the reader an indication that ‘the science’ is far frame settled on this issue.
What is important to understand is that the grand design of the globalist One Health agenda seeks to link food security to climate change, and use this as a pretext to implement a global governance control mechanism over the world’s food supplies. This is why exposing climate change propaganda and challenging the One Health concept is vital. This is why it is now crucial to fight this intellectual battle, and to bring back real science into the conversation, but also promote real on the ground scientific work and empirical observations which do not leave space for the lies and deceit which have come to dominate this arena.
In this article, you will find the “10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics,” and of course they have a lot to say about the over-exaggerated and wildly alarmist IPCC computer models. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winner in physics sees climate change orthodoxy as a “new religion” for scientists whilst pointing to the fact that data isn’t nearly as compelling as it should be to get this kind of conformity the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the globalist would want to impose. Likewise, Princeton’s highly-respected physicist Will Happer is another one who thinks the influence of man-made CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.
No doubt one of the biggest climate skeptics is Myron Ebell, the former Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). In September 2016, he was appointed by then Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to lead his transition team for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Myron has been challenging the man-made global warming campaign and the proposed catastrophic prediction issued by UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer modelers. He also, amongst many others, has denounced the ‘Climate Industrial Complex’ greed – which doesn’t sit well with the globalists who quickly turned him into a “climate denier.” A modern day heretic.
Does that not remind you these top scientists around the world challenging the COVID-19 pandemic who where labeled ‘Anti-vaxxers’ and ‘COVID deniers’ – for challenging the experimental gene therapy injections which the globalists called “vaccines”? Thanks to our disgraceful mainstream media, we’ve all had an opportunity over the last past two and half years to see wild computer-modeled projections, and hear outrageous claims based on those same computer models, all predicting giant death tolls which thankfully never materialized. Do you see a pattern?
VIDEO: Myron Ebell on Climate Change
Most scientists (including skeptics) think the planet may be warming, and that humans may be playing a role in that process, but in reality, the vast majority of scientists don’t pay as much attention to it as we are led to believe. The key debate between alarmists and skeptics is the impact of the alleged man-made CO2, not whether we’re causing any measurable warming. The only consensus that matters is whether scientists are actually concerned about climate change, and most scientists are simply not.
Finally, there are many prominent scientists and scientific organizations who openly and consistently reject the idea that humans are causing a climate catastrophe, including climate experts with experience at MIT, Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, and the University of Pennsylvania, as well as many other respected academic institution around the world. Others have served as official national climatologists or worked for major government agencies such as NASA and NOAA. Among the many influential scientists who have questioned the causes and/or consequences of the so-called “consensus” on climate change are several giants of science over the past half century, such as Freeman Dyson, S. Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, and Will Happer. There are numerous others too, but these voices are systematically kept out of the MSM, and not invited to contribute to the IPCC conversation either.
From this perspective, One Health is nothing else but a Trojan horse that once more allow the creation of a data set aiming at feeding the IPCC computer models used to support their alarmist global warming scenarios.
The following video from Cutting Through The Noise: Climate Science 101 with David Siegel, dated April 12, 2022 (39 mins), and it is clearly a masterpiece which provides very valid points that explain the true state of the planet’s global warming. Again, no one here is denying it is not getting slightly hotter, but it’s not near to what it was in the past, and certainly not as bad as the climate alarmist would like you to think.
We know that past CO2 levels got extremely high, and the data is available to show it, therefore establishing correlation between alleged man made CO2 and ‘green house’ gas emissions and climate change is not difficult to do using the conventional argument. Of course, many other factors come into the equation which potentially could disturb the earth climate, but evidently at a far slower pace. For instance, solar cycles are arguably the most influential, but these are not used as inputs into the IPCC’s exotic modeling for man-made global warming. Many observations prompt us to better understand what happens if CO2 changes very quickly, over a period of time, while those other factors stay constant. This is still an open question, and it’s far more complicated than Powerpoint jockeys like Al Gore will have you believe.
The Exposé published a great article about Climate Intelligence CLINTEL, a global network of critical scientists and engineers with a simple message: “There is no climate emergency.”
In this article published on July 11, 2021 by climatologist Judith Curry we can read:
“It is easy to simplify both the problem and its solutions. The complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity of our knowledge of climate change are not taken into account in policy and public debate. The proposed solutions are technologically and politically inapplicable on a global scale.”
“More specifically, regarding climate science. Climate sensitivity (reaction to a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) is affected by an uncertainty factor of order 3. The alarming predictions of climate models for the 21st century are based on an emission scenario (RCP8.5) that is highly implausible. Climate model predictions neglect natural climate variability, which dominates the regional climate on inter annual to multi-decadal time scales. Finally, reducing emissions will do little to improve the climate of the 21st century, because if climate models are to be believed, it will only produce its effects in the 22nd century and likely even beyond.”
Again, it is vitally important to keep going back to the climate change debate, as it is inevitably linked to the One Health ‘food insecurity’ scenario that is currently being pushed.
As the global climate warms slightly, crop yields in the U.S. and around the world are setting new records almost every year. This is true for almost all other countries. Thanks in part to ‘longer growing seasons, fewer frost events, more precipitation, and the fertilizing effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide, farmers are producing more food on less land, supporting a growing world population.’
The 2019 global crop year saw record production of major crops such as maize, rice and wheat. In addition, prior to 2019, record crop yields have been set nearly every year for the past decade.
More notably, since 2015, nearly all major U.S. crops have seen record yields per acre, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), for instance, the USDA reported that the top three yields for corn were in 2017 and 2018 and 2019. Additionally, the top five recorded rice yields were from 2015 to 2019, while the 2011 to 2019 wheat yields were among the top 10 historical U.S. wheat yields.
So global warming is not the enemy of food security. Quite the opposite.
In 2020, these trends continue globally. The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported in December 2020 that annual global food production rose 1.3 % compared to 2019, despite production restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. So it’s pretty clear: global warming is extending growing seasons, reducing frost events and making more land available for crop production. As global temperatures have risen slightly, global soil moisture has remained unchanged or slightly improved, and increased ocean evaporation has led to increased global precipitation, especially during the summer and autumn harvest periods.
In addition, carbon dioxide acts as plant food, and thus has great benefits for crop production as atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as an aerial fertilizer. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels support plant growth and resistance to drought and heat. For this reason, greenhouses often take in more carbon dioxide.
So why should we fear climate change? Why should we fear food shortage?
WEF and the Global structure of Food Innovation Hubs
Let’s now take a look at Klaus Schwab’s other project. Here’s what the alarmists at the World Economic Forum (WEF) are proposing to reinvent the food and agriculture system of the world.
A growing set of global players from private and public sector drive and support an initiative known as the Food Innovation Hubs, supported by a Global Coordinating Secretariat (GCS), and hosted by World Economic Forum, based in Wageningen in The Netherlands. According to their summary, the GCS enables the founding of local hubs, supports their functioning, stimulates adoption of innovation and creates a global network and learning environment. The first of these Food Innovation Hubs are being developed in countries like Colombia, India, but also in Europe. In addition, ‘scoping work’ is well underway in several countries in Africa – in Zambia, Kenya, and Ethiopia, and also in Vietnam. Each of these “hubs” will be locally owned and governed, or so they say.
The WEF Food system initiative in collaboration with the global consultancy firm McKinsey & Company (remember them) one of the big winner of the COVID-19 pandemic provides a great clue as to what it is to be expected right now and in a very near future.
Firstly, the World Economic Forum has identified so-called “transition pathways” necessary for food systems transformation which requires several of these technocracy transitions. These transitions necessitate a fundamental change in the way food is produced (including in agri-industrial operations as well as in the practices of more than 500 million smallholder farmers around the world), and of course a need for farmers to adopt more “sustainable farming practices,” and to “protect and restore natural resources,” and to “meet the nutrition needs of a new generation of consumers.” The language should sound familiar by now. A huge transition will be required to meet the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, but at what cost for people?
However, the Schwabians are telling us that governments have provided approximately $570 billion per year in public support for agricultural producers to meet development imperatives related to their ‘food security’ canard, by not without sufficient focus on climate, nutrition and health outcomes (One Health in action right here).
NOW FOR THE NUDGING: They also go on to explain how they need to remove incentives that have the perverse effect of preventing those in the food system from changing their behaviour. This is taken straight out of the WEF Behavioural Sciences | Strategic Intelligence agenda and here is how it looks like:
This following report focuses on WEF Food Systems Initiative who recommended four ‘pathways’ for creating the incentives needed to transform food systems. It’s truly worth the read just to observe the architecture of control – the very essence behind their proposed ‘transformation.’
WEF Incentivizing Food Systems Transformation (source):
When the food system has been incentivized enough, you will become accustomed to companies like IMPOSSIBLE (fake meat) selling you the magical and juicy plant based IMPOSSIBLE BURGER or SAUSAGE or CHICKEN NUGGETS. Note that their slogan is “ONE Team One Mission”. They could have just as easily added One Health. Listen to their interview on the WEFORUM of the WEF discussing whether we have reached “the end of meat”…
The Impossible Burger promotional talk on the WEF Forum radio show:
With more WEF food system incentives, the City of London will also enjoy the freshness of the fresh salad and vegetables freshly grown in the world’s first underground farm, 33 meters below the capital. This is one of the solutions being proposed to feed our growing population, and to combat the threat of climate change. As the rhetoric continues to reach galactic levels, it leaves one speechless and sad, especially when thinking about the Dutch farmers, but also the rest of the European farmers currently fighting against this cabal to preserve their traditions and livelihoods.
This is what the WEF Food Innovation Hubs have been working on behind the scene – which is nothing else but the destruction of farming and food as we know it, consuming in its path all of the jobs, businesses, and families – by shaping and lobbying for new European policies to fit the new Big Food industry, which harnesses Big Tech and Big Data business models. This really is Built Back Better in action, and it will leave a trail of corpses in its wake if we don’t act now.
The situation in Holland was born out of relentless lobbying for years, supported by some of the most corrupt European technocrats and EU states government officials, under the leadership of WEF, to ensure the 2019 Green Pact or Green New Deal will further their agenda. Suffice to say, it is important that people read these documents and understand the origins of what we are currently seeing in The Netherlands, and also why it is suspiciously not being reported by the mainstream media.
The European Green Pact: Doc1 and Doc2, is the initial roadmap of the key policies and measures needed to achieve their European Green Deal.
The Climate Agreement, presented in The Hague, on 28 June 2019, is the real the nail in the coffin for the Dutch farmers, as it allows ‘climate change’ to justify the slashing of Nitrogen Oxide and ammonia emissions by 2030. This is a recipe for disaster for traditional farming in The Netherlands – which is the world’s second-most productive agricultural nation. Here is what the corrupt Dutch government agreed for the farmers and people of The Netherlands…
June 2019 Dutch National Climate Agreement – The Netherlands:
I will only add one remark as everything is well explained in the above document regarding the emission reduction in livestock farming in The Netherlands. There is an emphasis on voluntary participation in measures, with a view to ensuring that the reduction achieved via these measures helps to reinforce the ‘ecological value’ in the “Natura 2000″ areas, and half of developments in the livestock farming sector. The national government will make €100 million available for this purpose.
But what is Natura 2000 exactly?
Natura 2000 is the EU wide network of nature conservation areas, allegedly set up to ensure the survival of Europe’s most valuable species and habitats. It is not restricted to nature reserves, but based on a much broader principle of conservation and sustainable use, where ‘people and wildlife can live together in harmony.’ Yeah! Right (they just don’t want to see people there)!
By the end of 2008, the network consisted of more than 25,000 sites, covering around 20% of the total land area of the EU — around 800,000 km2 — plus 100,000 km2 of marine environment.
In 2017 in Europe, the network represented 27,522 sites and covers 18% of the land and 6% of the exclusive economic zone. As of March 1, 2017, France had 1,766 sites, covering nearly 13% of metropolitan land territory and 11% of the metropolitan exclusive economic zone.
Natura 2000 in the Netherlands clearly indicates ‘the urgency of reducing nitrogen levels’ in Natura 2000 areas. Do you believe this is a coincidence?
After Marine Protected Area (MPA) we now have to deal with Land Protected Area (LPA) under the ‘Rules of the World Order’. Take a look at page 3 of the following document and realise for yourself how the NWO is securing lands for themselves under the disguise of biodiversity, bird and habitat preservation. Nine biogeographical regions were identified, Alpine, Atlantic, Black Sea, Boreal, Continental, Macaronesian, Mediterranean and Steppic.
You are not very welcome there. Instead you will be herded into one of their mega “smart cities” to eat their plant based burgers and their insects tarts, consuming their green energy, and obeying there laws, as well as their ‘science’, and everything else….
Some of you might have heard of the Tristate City Network in The Netherlands, a mega-city ‘umbrella model’ developed by Peter Savelberg, which aim is to put The Netherlands ‘on the map’ as a large green metropolis, bringing together Randstad, but also including direct neighbouring countries such as Flanders and Nord Rhein Westfalen Germany. Of course, the globalists are loving this concept, as it takes away the notion of nation and sovereignty, and replaces it by the idea of the quintessential mega-city of the NWO, an idea which has been trending for quite some time. It is not clear if Tristate City is somehow linked with the EU Green Deal, but for sure this project has secured government and private sector support. We will keep an eye on it…
Moving on, it feels real good to see the Dutch and German farmers are fighting back against government’s EU Green Deal agenda, and their radical nitrogen emissions policy.
Likewise, Italy has also been part of this protest movement for a while, and it is only a matter of time before France falls under the same sanctions and restrictions. And so the push-back should be epic too. Serbia which was granted EU candidate status in 2012 is also feeling the pressure and is joining the farmer’s resistance movement.
Adding insult to injury, Sky News Australia recently release a video where Mr Dean said The Netherlands’ government planned to cut emissions between 30 and 70 per cent “as part of their green agenda”.
Adding, “Completely arbitrary bureaucratic madness, but this is what happens when you legislate climate targets,” he said.
“The little people, the farmers, the small businesses get crushed under the wheels of the bureaucrats who believe they are ‘saving the planet’.”
The Bolt Report: Dutch farmers ‘desperately’ fighting back against government’s green’ agenda (source):
Subsequently, we couldn’t resist showing you what Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of The Netherlands, had to say about the WEF Innovation Hubs, which he describes as an ‘inventive agricultural solution’ during the “Transforming Food Systems and Land Use” panel, at the World Economic Forum DavosAgenda. (source)
WEF Davos 2021: Transforming Food Systems and Land Use, Mark Rutte Dutch PM
The One Health Approach is also being used by the environmentalists and climate alarmists, by applying what they have come to call “Environmental Stressors” – such as Land Use Change, Biodiversity Decline, Climate Change, Ecotoxicity and Chemical Pollution, Air Pollution, Water Pollution and finally Ocean Pollution. These are new metrics of the globalist technocracy.
This 2022 WHO/Europe report entitled “A health perspective on the role of the environment in One Health” is truly revealing as it allows us to see how such a holistic approach allows these corrupt scientists to push climate change into an equation where our health and food supply is suddenly now in danger because of supposed emerging ‘environmental and climate change factors.’
The WHO global strategy on health, environment and climate change, promotes multiple scenarios where the alleged consequences of global environmental change, including the over-exaggerated climate change and biodiversity loss justifies ‘cross-sectoral emergency action plans’ in the field of land use and planning in agriculture, industry and energy. All this because they care about your health?
They are playing right into the hands of Big Pharma and Big Food to corner you in a complete dependency state where people will be used as constant guinea pigs, whilst our farmers will lose their lands and livelihood.
A One Health Approach allows these very scientists to use any losses of diversity, including genetic diversity and transform it into a very serious threat to global food security suggesting it undermines resilience to threats such as pests, pathogens but also to climate change. They will use anything to fit their models and associated agenda.
This is an extract from the climate change segment of this 2022 WHO/Europe report
“Climate change is a “threat multiplier” to other environmental problems, a human health threat and a driver of biodiversity decline. Climate change alters habitat conditions, driving organism migration to higher latitudes and altitudes. Migration of species disrupts synchronicity between interacting species and changes tropical cascades. Such changes may interfere with natural control of wildlife populations and cause outbursts of disease vectors or host species (Patz & Hahn, 2012).”
“Increasing temperatures drive range expansions of disease vectors (such as fleas, ticks, aphids and mosquitoes) and of zoonotic hosts by facilitating survival in higher latitudes and altitudes (as in the case of Aedes albopictus mosquitoes). Several neglected tropical diseases can now be found at higher latitudes.”
Their message is clear: we should all be scared.
WHO Europe: A health perspective on the role of the environment in One Health
As we have seen all along this article, the One Health agenda can explain the architecture behind the renewed globalist technocracy movement, but mostly it supplies this approach by harnessing all the Big Data necessary to pour into computer-generated forecasting models that help the globalists framing their new and constantly changing global health and food security policies designed to gain control over the world’s food systems, healthcare systems, the ecosystem, and the energy systems of the world, and by doing so, it is controlling all of us all in the process.
Remember what globalist luminary Henry Kissinger once said to the World Economic Forum:
This One Health trilogy has been a learning curve for me, but I sincerely hope it will do the same for anyone who has taken the time to read and understand this.
The One Health subject has never been touched upon seriously by the mainstream media, and for good reason, as it would reveal the brainchild and the primer behind the gigantic ‘global pandemic’ fraud we were all forced to endure, as well as elites’ deliberate efforts in steering any future food, climate and energy security crises, which has become the Vaudeville we are currently being forced to watch and play a role in these grand social engineering experiments.
Now and in the future, be aware that most of the projects and products promoted under the term “One” are likely to be part or the result of this same globalist agenda.
We hope that in years to come, One Health will be revisited and scientists will be able to better understand the motivation behind such a cunning approach, and understanding that it was only promoted within the scientific community to streamline an emerging global scientific dictatorship, one where no more questions will be asked and where the young scientists of tomorrow will be compelled to follow technocratic protocols without challenging their very nature and their scientific foundations.
It will get worse before it gets better, and scientists from all fields need to go back to basic science, and step away from the ‘prediction business’ as it is currently killing people, and in the medium to long term it will eventually depopulate our beautiful planet, providing elites with the pretext to spawn a new ‘designer’ race of genetically modified humans. Many will argue that such a transition is already underway, albeit in its very early stages.
I am confident many of you would want to remain as old good Homo sapiens, which carries a notion of wisdom.
A reminder of what the root of that word means: Sapiens, present participle of sapere, “be wise”, or see sapient (adj), “wise, sage, discerning,” late 15c. (early 15c. as a surname), from the Old French sapient, and directly from Latin sapientem (nominative sapiens) “sensible; shrewd, knowing, discrete;” also “well-acquainted with the true value of things” (like Greek sophos), a specialized use of the present participle of sapere, of things, “to taste, have taste;” of persons, “to have discernment, to be wise.” (Source)
Let’s be wise, let’s be united, and let’s keep real tasty food in our plates.
At the height of the pandemic, the United Nations recruited over 100,000 “digital first responders’ to push the establishment narrative on COVID via social media.
Why were worldwide measures taken which have caused one disaster after another and pushed humanity deeper towards the abyss instead of lifting them out of their misery.
More than 40 percent of pregnant women who participated in Pfizer’s mRNA COVID vaccine trial suffered miscarriages, according internal Pfizer documents, recently released under court order. Despite this, Pfizer, and the Biden administration insisted that the vaccines were safe for pregnant women.
Piece by piece the Big Pharma/globalist narrative is unwinding as scientists with important positions within the system are crying foul. In this case, Professor Jeffrey Sachs warns that government must demand and enforce transparency from biodefense labs engaging in gain of function research.
Unelected and unaccountable Technocrats are bent on creating vaccine passports. There is no discussion with nation-states or actual citizens who will be forced into taking the passports. A universal digital ID is the Holy Grail of Technocracy because it will enable a “Skynet” system of total control. The World Bank’s backing guarantees that Central Bank Digital Currency will be tightly coupled with vaccine passports.
