ICWA Weekly News
June 9th Radio show links, Ideas to prepare comments for the June 14th BOH meeting, Public Health's "One Health" already entrenched in WA, WNBA Storm jump into the vax coercion game.
by Gerald Braude
In this newsletter:
June 9 Episode of An Informed Life Radio - show links
What is One Health? It’s already in full swing in Washington
WNBA Seattle Storm scheme with WA Department of Health to coerce shots for kids
June 9 Episode of An Informed Life Radio
Guest: Dr. Denise Sibley, MD
RSV: The Disease and Pipeline Vaccines - Informed Choice Washington | ICWA
Washington Faces Worker Lawsuits for Requiring COVID Vaccines (governing.com)
WSBOH-WA Board of Health Meeting Packet for June 14th with Public Comments submitted by June 9th
Newsweek article referenced in public comments to the SBOH: It's Time for the Scientific Community to Admit We Were Wrong About COVID and It Cost Lives | Opinion [1-30-2023]
NY Post article referenced in public comments to the SBOH: 10 myths told by COVID experts — and now debunked [2-27-2023]
Toxic-Free Future | Science, Advocacy, Results (toxicfreefuture.org)
About - Michael K. Turner, MD: Integrative Medicine Physician , WA (michaelturnermd.com)
Home - Children's Health Defense Tennessee Chapter (childrenshealthdefense.org)
One Health in Full Swing in Washington
With the ending of the COVID-19 scare, the World Health Organization (WHO) is in the planning stages of implementing more population control. This time, the fear campaign is called “climate change.” Instead of a shot in every arm, the solution will be through an environmental program called One Health.
William B. Karesh, DVM, EcoHealth Alliance’s executive vice president for Health and Policy, coined the term One Health as reported in a 2003 newspaper article on Ebola. The term is meant to spotlight the nexus between human health, animal health, and ecosystems and to bridge the silos between ecology and human and veterinary medicine.
What's the Difference? The Meaning of One Health | Global Health NOW
EcoHealth Alliance is also the group that subcontracted the risky gain-of-function research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), the lab from which SARS-CoV-2 emerged.
A May 8, 2023 article in The Defender shows that the WHO has adopted the same definition:
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines “One Health,” as “an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems,” as they are “closely linked and interdependent” — a concept that on the surface appears to promote noble goals interlinking human and environmental health.
As noble as those goals seem to be, experts who spoke with The Defender in that article raised questions about other aspects of the One Health concept, including a biosecurity agenda, a global surveillance system, vaccine passports and restrictions on human behavior. Arguing that the concept has been “hijacked,” they question the intent of those involved with the development and global rollout of the concept — including the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Bank.
Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare epidemiologist who is a member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, said such objectives are kept deliberately vague. She referred to a CDC document that stated:
“Successful public health interventions require the cooperation of human, animal, and environmental health partners … Other relevant players in a One Health approach could include law enforcement, policymakers, agriculture, communities, and even pet owners.
By promoting collaboration across all sectors, a One Health approach can achieve the best health outcomes for people, animals, and plants in a shared environment.”
“I anticipate that One Health will be used to impose changes in the way humans and animals interact … most likely based on the needs of the WEF [World Economic Forum]/elites and not the needs of the people or the animals that will be affected.”
Reggie Littlejohn, founder and president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers and co-chair of the Stop Vaccine Passports Task Force, told The Defender, “It’s not clear that One Health is prioritizing human health.”
Highlighting the “vague” language employed by the global organizations promoting One Health, Littlejohn said that one goal may be to “govern farm animal health in addition to human health,” through which “they could do things like forcing vaccines on livestock.”
According to Nass, this reflects how the WHO “has been changing into a biosecurity agency,” adding that “the justification, apparently, for the WHO’s director-general to take over jurisdiction of healthcare during pandemics, but also potentially ecosystems, animals and plants, is through One Health.”
Nass noted that One Health “is mentioned several times in the National Defense [Authorization] Act for Fiscal Year 2023” (NDAA), which includes 18 pages on “pandemic preparedness” and a formal definition of the “One Health approach” on page 952 of the act.
Independent journalist and researcher James Roguski also highlighted the prominent placement of One Health in the NDAA and noted that, by formally defining the concept within the act, it is now part of the Code of Federal Regulations. However, Roguski said the NDAA goes even further:
“The U.S. has pledged a billion dollars a year to the World Bank Pandemic Fund in support of the global health security agenda. The WHO is one of 14 intermediaries who will receive and redistribute some of that billion dollars.
Basically, it’s capitalism, it’s corruption, it’s an abomination from a health perspective. Let’s just throw money at pharmaceutical companies, build out the infrastructure in these nations and, if you’re making tons of products locally, you’re going to be able to convince the local government to stick them in people’s arms or shove it down their throat.
And none of it really has shown to be of any health benefit. It’s damage to people’s health.”
Associated with the promotion of a global biosecurity agenda is the development of a global surveillance infrastructure that would purportedly protect human and animal health and the environment. An Oct. 3, 2022, WHO document states:
“The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that caused COVID-19 has underlined the need to strengthen the One Health approach, with a greater emphasis on connections to animal health and the environment …
… It uses the close, interdependent links among these fields to create new surveillance and disease control methods. …
We now have an unprecedented opportunity to strengthen collaboration and policies across these many areas and reduce the risk of future pandemics and epidemics while also addressing the ongoing burden of endemic and non-communicable diseases.
Surveillance that monitors risks and helps identify patterns across these many areas is needed.”
Remarking on this, Littlejohn said One Health’s proponents talk about “interoperable, integrated surveillance systems.” She told The Defender:
“I believe … these surveillance systems of people, animals, plants, and the environment are going to be coordinated by some kind of a global surveillance system that is interoperable globally and integrated.
Whoever’s running this show, the WHO, the Chinese Communist Party … the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who are the people who really appear to be running the show at the WHO, are going to be able to tap into and see all of our private information. Not just us, but animals and plants.”
An article by the Alliance for Natural Health International in The Defender on May 17, 2023, detailed the mechanisms at play behind the One Health.
‘Sinister Forces at Play’ in WHO’s Global One Health Agenda • Children's Health Defense
Of note, the article points to the relationship between One Health and the ongoing international pandemic preparedness negotiations:
The mechanisms being used for this deeply disturbing shift toward, globalized “one health” are two-fold.
One relates to changes proposed to the existing International Health Regulations of 2005 (IHR) via amendments that are currently being negotiated. This is, in effect, the only internationally applicable regulatory system in force that aims to regulate coordinated responses to health threats.
The second mechanism involves the introduction of a new “treaty,” namely the “WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention preparedness and response.”
With a name like that, its short form, the “Pandemic Treaty,” has been widely adopted for ease of reference.
Although two separate documents, the amendments and the Pandemic Treaty work in tandem. One, the former, states the “what,” while the latter, the “how.”
The amendments dramatically extend powers to the WHO, redefine important concepts and broaden the context, while the Pandemic Treaty is concerned with the financing and governance required to support these amendments.
In his highly detailed analysis of One Health in a June 5, 2023 article, Dr. Joseph Mercola argued that One Health is the reason why countries should exit the WHO:
Countries that treasure individual freedom and respect bodily autonomy have only one choice: Exit the World Health Organization. One Health is the culmination of a grand global plan that places human health, animal health, environmental concerns, food, travel, housing and everything else under a single umbrella, and the WHO is being set up as the central decision-maker and overseer of it all. Behind the scenes, One Health partnerships have already been formed in countries around the world. The One Health network was built and expanded in the U.S. primarily by cutting public health funding. One Health then stepped in with funding but, of course, recipients of One Health grants had to embrace the concept and push it out to others. One Health is also baked into the proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), which the World Health Assembly (WHA) is scheduled to vote on in May 2024. This is how the WHO will gain the authority to dictate how we live our lives.
why-countries-must-leave-who-pdf.pdf (mercola.com)
As mentioned in the May 8 article in The Defender, the CDC is one of the forces at play behind One Health. The CDC’s web site discusses its “One Health Office.”
The CDC site provides the same talking points that come from the WHO:
One Health is a collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary approach—working at the local, regional, national, and global levels—with the goal of achieving optimal health outcomes recognizing the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment. CDC’s One Health Office leads the agency’s One Health efforts in the United States and abroad.
How will all this get implemented locally? Naturally, it starts at the Washington State Department of Health (DOH), and the following link reflects this:
Global & One Health | Washington State Department of Health
Furthemore, the DOH will be hosting a One Health conference this summer:
The Washington State Department of Health is hosting this year’s Washington One Health Conference on August 16, 2023 at Central Washington University in Ellensburg. This is an opportunity for cross-sector sharing and collaboration on human, animal, and environmental health issues.
One Health | Washington State Department of Health
The indoctrination of the program is being carried on to the state’s educational and research institutions.
The University of Washington’s Center for One Health Research uses the same WHO talking points:
One Health is an integrated, transdisciplinary approach to health problems involving humans, animals and the rapidly changing environments we share. These problems are complex and interconnected. They require new scientific and professional competencies to understand and address them. One Health incorporates multiple perspectives to assess the underlying causes of these health challenges and to develop evidence-based, "win-win-win" solutions.
What is One Health? | Center for One Health Research (UW)
The center also focuses on indoctrinating healthcare workers:
Human-Animal Medicine is an innovative reference exploring the unprecedented convergence of human, animal, and environmental health, triggering global pandemics and requiring new clinical paradigms. The "One Health" approach calls for greater communication and cooperation between human health care providers, public health professionals, and veterinarians to better address vital issues of emerging diseases and environmental change.
One Health Communication and Collaboration | Center for One Health Research (UW)
The One Health agenda at the University of Washington is also indoctrinating future generations of healthcare professionals:
Graduate Certificate in One Health | UW School of Public Health
The description for the curriculum reads as follows:
“The One Health curriculum emphasizes the linkages and integration between human, animal, and environmental health. Specific areas of emphasis include zoonotic diseases, the human animal bond, integrated approaches to human, animal, and environmental risk and outcome data, and human animal medicine (including clinical comparative medicine). The Graduate Certificate in One Health is intended to enhance the education of matriculated UW graduate students and professional students beyond their regular course of study.”
Vaccination Incentives at Play at Seattle Storm Games
The Women’s National Basketball Association’s Seattle Storm has teamed up with the Washington Department of Health (DOH) to market shots for Big Pharma.
Take Your Shot with Washington State Department of Health - Seattle Storm (wnba.com)
A DOH Care-a-Van will be stationed on the outdoor plaza at Climate Pledge Arena during Storm weekend games. As part of this no cost “Take Your Shot” campaign, the Storm is offering two complimentary tickets to select games for every youth vaccination received.
Reflecting on the team up, Bob Runnells, vice-president of Informed Choice Washington, said:
“It’s sad that the WNBA seems so desperate to get people in the seats that they have to partner with public health and coerce families to take shots with gifts. Especially when the reputation of public health agencies is in free fall. This promotion might just fall flat or even backfire on the WNBA.
It’s also sad that public health is basically admitting that their shots aren’t that great and people need to be bribed.
I still don’t understand how organizations think coercion is OK. There are laws against coercion for a medical procedure. I guess there is no criminal penalty associated with the code, which is a shortcoming of our government when they incorporated the Nuremburg Code into US Code. There’s a great compilation video showing how ridiculous COVID-19 vaccine coercion is.”
Mr. Runnells was perhaps referring to this video compilation on The Highwire from May 2021.
Regarding coercion in medical procedures, the rules for informed consent are addressed in U.S. Code Title 21 saying investigators (providers) must “minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence.” These bribes are bald-faced coercion.
The Care-a-Van will offer routine childhood vaccines for children ages three through seventeen as well as the COVID-19 shot for those three and older. The childhood vaccines being offered include Chickenpox, DTaP/Tdap, MMR, Polio, and others. There is no indication that parents will be told there are zero co-administration studies showing it is safe for a child to get an mRNA shot—which sets up a spike protein factory in the child’s cells and suppresses aspects of the immune system in order to accomplish the task—at the same time as other injections, also designed to provoke the immune system.
The WNBA has not indicated if there will be first-aid or emergency services available in the event of immediate adverse vaccine reactions.