Facebook Twitter YouTube SoundCloud RSS

ONE HEALTH: Trojan Horse to Make Climate Change a ‘Global Health Emergency’

Part 2 of a 3 part series…

Freddie Ponton
21st Century Wire

For those who were able to read my last article entitled, “One Health – Globalist Path to a One World Order”, where I challenged the reader with the gigantic task of unpacking the United Nations quadripartite primer for the Fourth Industrial Revolution known as One Health, you may already be cognizant of the next important task – that of deconstructing the official narrative currently being used to support the climate change doomsday scenarios which globalist institutions claim are somehow impacting global health, and your well-being. This is certainly what climate alarmists would have you believe, but this environmental narrative is a crucial anchor for the globalists in gaining adoption for their ‘One Health’ command-and-control agenda.

The findings in our first article revealed a new threat-based economic model (pandemics, bioterrorism, climate change, extreme weather, war, political terrorism et al), built upon two sustainable developments doctrines, the Manhattan Principles and Berlin Principles. As a concept, some have described these as an integrated unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimise the health of people, animals and natural ecosystems. However, upon closer examination, these principles also resemble something akin to a framework for a fully globalized, socio-economic overhaul.

In other words, this is another subtle route for injecting a steady stream of fear and coercion through governments and public-private partnerships and into societies. When you understand how it actually works, you will soon realise the clever ways in which the globalists are using the One Health agenda to optimise their bottom lines. Indeed, all of this elite stewardship of the planet is not undertaken purely out of altruism, or some desire to save humanity from an impending environmental catastrophe. Moreover, One Health provides the tools of control necessary to achieve the goals set out in Agenda 2030 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDG).

During this chaotic economic and geopolitical transition, we are all busy witnessing magical manifestation of spiraling inflation in the economy, whilst waiting in trepidation for the return of the ‘next pandemic’, be it COVID, or one of its numerous mercurial cousins slated to spring into action whenever the WHO decides to declare a global health emergency.

In this article we will examine how and why the World Health Organisation (WHO) and its partners have been relentlessly pushing the idea that ‘climate change’ is one of the biggest global health threats to mankind in the 21st century, an extreme position which is confirmed by the following WHO statement:

“It has never been clearer that the climate crisis is one of the most urgent health emergencies we all face,” said Dr Maria Neira, WHO Director of Environment, Climate Change and Health” (source)

The following statement was made on 11 October 2021, when the WHO launched its “COP26 Special Report on Climate Change and Health”. The report certainly paved the way for the One Health argument which is being used to bolster “climate action” in the form of a proposal which explicitly lays out a set of priority actions from the global health community to governments and policymakers around the world, calling on them to ‘act with urgency’ on what they are alleging is a dual climate and health crisis.

It’s also important to note that when it comes to climate change alarmists, some of these scientists and politicians associated with this topic have become extremely religious in their tone and rhetoric.

The Health Argument for Climate Action: COP26 Special Report on Climate Change and Health:



The WHO COP26 report includes ten recommendations that highlight the urgent need and numerous emerging opportunities for governments to prioritise health and equity in the international climate and sustainable development agendas (forgive them for omitting any mention of the huge profit waiting to be made by these self-styled altruistic corporations and their philanthropic foundations).

When you hear crisis terms like “urgent health emergencies,” alarm bells should be going off. By now, everyone who is paying attention should know what the word emergency implies, particularly in terms of emergency (use) authorisation. By now, you should already know where this path is leading us.

Let’s remind ourselves that the WHO had recently changed the definition of a vaccine in order to accommodate a new gene therapy designed to supposedly ‘protect’ world populations from an alleged ‘novel’ coronavirus whose empirical attributes and origins still escape us – and so pushing climate change as a new global health emergency shouldn’t be too difficult. However, even climate change still requires a hook.

WHO: keeper of the narrative?

According to a WHO 2016 report entitled, “Preventing disease through healthy environments: a global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risks,” which attempts to calculate the burden of disease in regions which the WHO deems as potentially catastrophic.

WHO 2016 report, “Preventing disease through healthy environments: a global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risks”

Preventing disease through healthy environments


The report claims that low and middle income countries in WHO designated Southeast Asia and Western Pacific Regions had the largest ‘environment-related disease burden’ in 2012, with a total of 7.3 million deaths, most attributable to indoor and outdoor air pollution. Further regional statistics listed in the report include:

  • 2.2 million deaths annually in African Region
  • 847 000 deaths annually in Region of the Americas
  • 854 000 deaths annually in Eastern Mediterranean Region
  • 1.4 million deaths annually in European Region
  • 3.8 million deaths annually in South-East Asia Region
  • 3.5 million deaths annually in Western Pacific Region

In 2016, the WHO began ramping-up its narrative of climate change as a ‘global health emergency.’ It is worth noting that the 2015 Lancet Commission concluded that “tackling climate change could be the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century”. Conspicuously, they refer to it as an ‘opportunity’ – while simultaneously naming it as a serious threat. The verbiage seems to matter, as it rings like a WEF Schwabian-style ‘window of opportunity’.

Video – 2015 Lancet Commission: Climate change and health (source):


While I wish we could say these are mere recent efforts and not yet well-developed, the fact is that the globalists have been developing this narrative for quite some time. In 2012, the WHO estimated that some 12.6 million deaths (23% of all deaths worldwide) were attributable to ‘modifiable environmental factors’, many of which are claimed to be influenced by climate change.

The 2009 UCL–Lancet Commission: Managing the health effects of climate change, describes the ways in which climate change acts as a ‘force multiplier for threats to global health’, whilst the Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on Planetary Health described in a 2015 report, how sustained human health and development are dependent on flourishing natural systems, and used the term “climate change” no less than 140 times. So there can be little doubt that the doomsday theory of climate change is being positioned as the central trigger for enacting a centralised global control system under the guise of a global public health initiative.

Reading the Lancet review is enlightening to say the least, and provides us with some explanation as to how globalist confabs are using claims of ‘health impacts of climate change’ to underpin their policy prescriptions. One of the tools they use to construct their argument is data from the World Meteorological Organization, in Geneva, Switzerland (further down you will see how the US is using the same meteorological approach to justify the health impacts of climate change).

IMAGE: The ‘health impacts of climate change’ (Source: Lancet)

United Nations pushes Climate as a ‘pubic health threat’?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change, is perhaps the biggest environmental alarmist oracle of all time. Nearly all of their predictions and assessments employ elaborate computer modeling, not unlike the complex and alarming models posited by the infamous Imperial College biostatistition Neil Ferguson – models which were used by both the UK and US government to justify a COVID-19 state of emergency and unprecedented ‘global public health crisis,’ followed by draconian lockdowns, mask mandates, mass testing and tracking of populations, and fanatical vaccine policies.

Section B.1.4 of their 2022 report entitled, “Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Summary for Policymakers” reads as followed:

The occurrence of climate-related food-borne and water-borne diseases has increased (very high confidence). The incidence of vector-borne diseases has increased from range expansion and/or increased reproduction of disease vectors (high confidence). Animal and human diseases, including zoonoses, are emerging in new areas (high confidence). Water and food-borne disease risks have increased regionally from climate-sensitive aquatic pathogens, including Vibrio spp. (high confidence), and from toxic substances from harmful freshwater cyanobacteria (medium confidence). Although diarrheal diseases have decreased globally, higher temperatures, increased rain and flooding have increased the occurrence of diarrheal diseases, including cholera (very high confidence) and other gastrointestinal infections (high confidence). In assessed regions, some mental health challenges are associated with increasing temperatures (high confidence), trauma from weather and climate extreme events (very high confidence), and loss of livelihoods and culture (high confidence). Increased exposure to wildfire smoke, atmospheric dust, and aeroallergen have been associated with climate-sensitive cardiovascular and respiratory distress (high confidence).

IPCC Climate Change 2022s


So is that it? Must we consider all these reports as the actual scientific consensus that supports these sweeping claims and global policy prescriptions?

Later in this report, we see how the One Health Concept, with all of its algorithms and models, was inserted into the equation to explain the global health impacts of climate change, but for now, we’ll further concentrate on the “One Health Approach” to this alleged environmental crisis.

A One Health Approach to Climate Change

The 2009 UCL-Lancet Commission goes on to state that, “climate change represent the biggest global health threat of the 21st century”.

“The impacts of climate change on human health and well-being are being felt today”.

According to Genon K. Jensen, the editor responsible for the January 2021 report for “The Health and Environment Alliance” (HEAL), the impacts of climate change on human health are not limited to the increase in average temperatures, the melting of glaciers, and sea levels risings. Climate change is also said to be the cause behind human and animal migration, the increase in “extreme weather events”, and most importantly – the emergence and spread of vector-borne and waterborne infectious diseases, and rises in allergens present in air, water and food.

HEAL is a European not-for-profit organisation addressing how the environment affects health in the European Union (EU), and so it does influence policymakers.

SEE ALSO: ONE HEALTH – Globalist Path to a One World Order

Perhaps you may want to take the time to review the following HEAL briefing on a “One Health Approach to Climate Change and the COVID-19 Pandemic” which provides an anxiogenic breakdown of the main existential anxieties one needs to develop in order to accept the One Health fear-based economic model. Now we understand why more and more children are experiencing “eco-anxiety”, or a chronic fear of impending environmental doom, no doubt fostered in part by a sustained barrage of alarmist eschatological sermons delivered by the young climate cleric Greta Thunberg.

HEAL One Health Briefing:


In Durban, South Africa during the UNFCCC 17th Conference, the world’s governments took the opportunity to confront all these so-called threats with their supposed stakeholder consensus solutions. The Durban Declaration on Climate and Health was issued December 4, 2011, and contributed extensively to the narrative that has been pushed ever since. Governments committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have issued an immediate ‘call for action’ to mitigate the alleged effects of climate change, and to protect and advance ‘global public health’.

This declaration gave birth to many UN Partnerships & Programmes, all pushing the same climate change and environmental impacts agenda, all carefully wrapped around the idea of ‘global public health.’

Several global coalitions such as the Health, Environment and Climate Change Coalition(HECCC), and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) were created. Additionally, WHO has a joint office with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and a joint programme with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

See the Durban Declaration here: 


For its part, the WHO has been diligently working on climate change and global health for over 25 years – advocating, collecting evidence (evidence which neither proves nor disproves its claims), providing support to countries in dealing with the alleged health effects of climate change, and often falling woefully short of their lofty objectives – which might explain why the One Health Holistic Approach was adopted so quickly as it provided an invaluable source of new data which is then re-fashioned to help support their assumptions and claims. This is why the new mantra you are hearing everywhere now is about “preparedness and prevention,” as this does not require anything else but virtual modeling scenarios injecting the right amount of fear and doomsday imagery to further influence and indoctrinate the minds of the public who will be nudged to rally around institutions like the WHO and a One Health Approach to solving these global problems.

To this point, we can show a few other key documents amongst those affixed to the 2014 WHO report that would perhaps shed some light, or at the very least, help us to better understand – with a One Health Approach – the connections between climate change and a potential global health threat. Notice also, how all stakeholder institutions have collectively set their virtual alarms for the years 2030 and 2050, as future watershed markers on the doomsday timeline, implying that their raft of new policies must be in place before those years or else a cataclysmic chain of events will ensue which will then lead to a potential extinction of the human race.

The World Health Organization. (‎2014)‎ report on “Quantitative Risk Assessment of the Effects of Climate Change on Selected Causes of Death, 2030s and 2050” was the reference document used by all stakeholders to establish climate change as a bona fide global health emergency.

Quantitative risk assessment

This quantitative risk assessment study was undertaken by an international consortium coordinated by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), the University of Otago in New Zealand, and Mariam Otmani del Barrio from the Department of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health at the WHO (she was responsible for managing the completion of the assessment and the production of the report). The study was carried out in order to compare doomsday scenarios with a future without climate change. The results of this study provides us with a projected additional number of deaths for the year 2030:

• 38,000 due to heat exposure in elderly people
• 48,000 due to diarrhoea
• 60,000 due to malaria
• 95,000 due to childhood under nutrition

In this report, the WHO projects a dramatic decline in child mortality, and this is reflected in declining climate change impacts from child malnutrition and diarrheal disease between 2030 and 2050. On the other hand, by the 2050s, deaths related to heat exposure (over 100,000 per year) are projected to increase. Impacts are the greatest under a low economic growth scenario because of higher rates of mortality projected in low and middle-income countries.

By 2050, impacts of climate change on mortality are projected to be greatest in South Asia. These results indicate that climate change could have a significant impact on child health by the 2030s. Under a base case socio-economic scenario, WHO estimated approximately 250,000 additional deaths due to climate change per year between 2030 and 2050.

To call any of this ‘science’ is problematic at best. All of these conclusions seem to be derived from computer modeling based on tenuous assumptions that man-made global warming is somehow driving all of these death categories.

Of course, these numbers do not represent a prediction of the overall impacts of climate change on health, since the project handlers could not quantify several important causal pathways. Nor can they address the fact that many such pathways could also reflect positive, as well as negative impacts on health.

On the pandemic side of their argument, their landscape of doom conveniently ignores a fundamental problem. Even if any of the following figures are remotely true, which I seriously doubt, it has since been exposed how most people have died with COVID, and not from COVID. Add to this the unreliability of notorious nondiagnostic COVID-19 PCR test assay developed by Christian Drosten, and you would have to seriously doubt the baseline figures these projections are working from.

The WHO World COVID death toll report 7th June 2022 alleges 6.3 millions deaths from COVID, yet WHO have no problem declaring that climate crisis is one of the most urgent health emergencies we all face with 250,000 additional world deaths due to climate change projected per year between 2030 and 2050. This type of conflation and hyperbole has sadly become the norm in global public health circles, a veritable free-for-all in terms of spinning up an endless array of potential threats. Only their numbers simply do not support such exaggerations. Their true purpose seems to be to scare the public.

When using their numbers and applying a strict like-for-like comparison, one could conclude climate change is not in the same league as the tobacco industry. Those products are said to kill more than 8 million people each year according to the WHO report from May 2022, not to mention the measurable environmental effect it has on the planet, and yet the tobacco industry is still quietly carrying on in the background. The same could be said for a number of other more measurable killers.

So where are the climate casualties? Do they actually exist?

WHO: ‘Tobacco is killing us and the planet’ campaign:


Moreover, their own pronouncements seem to contradict their alarmism. The World Health Organization (‎2014)‎ report on “Quantitative Risk Assessment of the Effects of Climate Change,” points out that recent trends in socio-economic development, education and technology will continue for the next 15–50 years, resulting in a continued decline in mortality (not a rise) from infectious diseases and undernutrition.

Clearly, this report does not fit well with the narrative, and contravenes the WHO and its partners’ fear mongering campaign which posits that climate change is impacting global public health at an alarming rate. So which is it?

Any sober researcher will struggle to see anything alarming in the data. Nothing here remotely justifies the reforming and streamlining of national and global public health policies, nor a radical and complete overhaul in the way we approach public health in the face of potential pandemics and climate change.

The only thing which might explain the underlying motivations behind their sweeping agenda is perhaps a need to implement world security policies necessary to ballast the construction of a One World Government.

For instance, in the context of climate change the One Health approach to vector-borne diseases (VBD) is the favored one, which automatically pushes the idea that climate change increases the mortality rate associated with VBD.

Operationalizing One Health Approach building on the TDR-IDRC Research Initiative on Vector-Borne Diseases in the Context of Climate Change in Africa, is a perfect example of activities sponsored by the WHO/CDC One Health cabal.

One Health is clearly a “format”, and a “primer” from which a new globalist language and methodology is being developed to formulate a Strategic Action Plan (SAP) to scale-up health and environment interventions in Africa and around the world. Of course, all of these actions require solutions which normally arrive in the form of some pharmacuetical intervention. No wonder Big Pharma is sponsoring the 6th World One Health Congress 2020: A Metrics-Based Evaluation of One Health virtual event.

TDR is the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, a global programme of scientific collaboration claiming to help facilitate, support and influence efforts to combat diseases of poverty. It is co-sponsored by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), all of which are part of the “One Health” syndicate (think crime syndicate) in Africa.

Since the origin of the One Health agenda emanates from the United States, it seems only fair to focus on their public-private partnership which is supposed to stop climate change from destroying ‘global health.’ As incredible as that sounds, this is actually the fulcrum of this entire technocracy movement.

U.S. ‘One Health Approach’ to Stop Climate Change

In 2019, in the United States, more than 70 medical and public health organizations issued a frantic call to action on climate change, calling it the “greatest public health challenge of the 21st century.” Notice the keywords: ‘public health.’ You may ask: what does public health have to do with energy consumption policy? This same phraseology will be used by the WHO and its stakeholder partners around the world, urging government officials and policymakers to take on a new set of ‘public health’ priorities, including shifting away from coal and natural gas to renewable energy, supporting the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and ensuring residents have access to safe and affordable drinking water. All of these issues are now being bundled under the broad banner of ‘global public health.’

Other health impacts all cited in the report a familiar bill of fare: an increase in vector-borne illnesses, such as Lyme disease, and West Nile virus, along with the rise in emergency room visits for various lung conditions including asthma. But then they include other climate-related threats, like the weather, and even an alleged increase in wildfire risks.

This leads us to Washington’s premier climate consensus gatekeepers, the Climate Program Office (CPO), and their National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA One Health Initiative. The CPO manages competitive research programs, while NOAA funds ‘high-priority climate science, assessments, decision support research, outreach, education, and capacity-building activities designed to advance our understanding of Earth’s climate system, and to foster the application of this knowledge in risk management and adaptation efforts.’ The CPO supports research conducted in regions across the United States, at national and international level. Both of these organisations are key in producing data which is then used to bolster theories that undergird the opinions of groups like the UN’s elite IPCC. Together, they form the ring-fence of the ‘climate consensus.’

In April 2010, the NOAA’s Science Advisory Board’s Oceans and Health Working Group (OHWG) produced a conspicuous report which appears to emphasise the Agency’s ‘contributions to the health community’ and charged the agency with establishing a new coordinated approach across the line offices. Not surprisingly, a new “One Health” strategy was launched to address this supposed gap in policy implementation.

Recently, NOAA has developed new or enhanced partnerships in four key health areas: One Health, public health, climate change, and the Deep Water Horizon oil spill.

Naturally, NOAA has ended up taking the lead in the “One Ocean-One Health” race. For those that read my initial One Health article, you will remember how French President Emmanuel Macron and the president of the European Commission Ursula Von der Leyen, launched the “One Ocean Summit” in Brest, France, in conjunction with the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). There is no doubt that NOAA, a trusted brand among American environmentalists and the liberal establishment, is taking on a leadership role to monitor certain aspects of the marine environment to provide forecasts of conditions that could potentially affect human and organism health.  Once more, a One Health Model and its associated data will be used to push any number of virtual threats – which will most certainly be used to justify a legally binding amendment to the High Seas Treaty, likely embedded in a revised UNEP constitution. This will effectively give the globalists’ climate agenda real teeth in terms of what is allowed in trade and commerce in international waters. The treaty will cover the so-called high seas, which begin beyond national exclusive economic zones that extend 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres) from a country’s shores.

Having said that, the United Nations and their “One Ocean Stakeholder” echelon will find it hard to close this deal – as they just simply can’t agree on who gets a share of the benefits from the exploitation of what are known as “marine genetic resources” located all around the world. This may trigger an internecine war among certain elites and governments, at least in the near term.

This leads us to the issue of Marine Genetic Resources (MGR), which are meant to include the genetic information marine organisms host enabling them to produce a wide range of biochemicals that can benefit humankind in many ways, not least of all through applications of bio discovery of new pharmaceutical compounds, chemical derivatives, cosmetics, food supplements, research tools, and in other industrial processes. They also include adaptive solutions found in deep-sea organisms that can help develop new materials and structural designs and much more. For the GMO industry, you can just imagine what a potential financial reservoir the world’s oceans represent.

Let’s think for one second and ask ourselves this: how could the globalists ever hope to have a One World government without controlling the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) which account for about two-thirds of the world’s oceans? The simple answer is: they can’t, and that is why they are so desperate for a newly revised UN High Seas Treaty. Aside from controlling and prohibiting any challengers, everything they do must also carry a return on investment component, as well as a control component. That is why “One Health” is merely a means to an end.

Hence, the “One Health-One Ocean” can be viewed as adapted methodology for policymakers to leverage the vague and arbitrary threat of climate change as a bona fide “Global Health Emergency.” As for us, we will be told that due to the omnipresent climate threat, or the spectre of ‘climate chaos,’ access to a huge slice of our planet and its resources must now be restricted (you could say privatized for a select few, of course) in order to protect you from these newly designated ‘health hazards’ – hazards which only became hazards with the stroke of a pen, following some UNSGD Powerpoint presentation.

As you have certainly realised by now, it is always about protecting you – when in reality it is about coercing you into not doing something, or forbidding you from going somewhere.

NOAA’s One Health Approach



The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is a federal program mandated by Congress to coordinate federal research and investments in ‘understanding the forces shaping the global environment, both human and natural, and their impacts on society.’ In reality, the USGCRP is in the prediction business, supposedly helping public and private stakeholders (selected for their compliance to the new agenda, membership has its privileges) identify supposedly ‘climate sensitive’ infectious diseases (EIDs), all to supposedly ‘protect public health and strengthen national security.’ Here we can see their attempt to blend global public health and national security. This will provide the gateway to executive emergency measures. Think about what we saw during the COVID-19 era, and now codify this ‘global response’ into law. Can you see where all of this is heading?

One of their favorite tools in administrating this new technocracy is something called the One Health Systems Mapping and Analysis Resource Toolkit, otherwise known as OH-SMARTTM, and this is how it works:



The US 2017 National Security Strategy states that, “biological threats to the U.S. homeland, whether as the result of deliberate attack, accident, or a natural outbreak, are growing and require actions to address them at their source.”

This is why USGCRP has been looking at ways of increasing the U.S. government’s ability to “predict, and prevent,” and to supposedly prepare for various and sundry ‘climate-sensitive’ infectious diseases that the experts claim will somehow threaten U.S. interests at home and abroad, and this also why Atlanticist world leaders are all touting the same mantra, and why the WHO is now working 24/7 to push forward with its new international legally binding Global Pandemic Treaty.

The so-called “War on Terror” has now been replaced by a War on Bio Terror, or more broadly, a “War on an Invisible Enemy.”  Think about it: no more looking for Bin Laden in the remote mountains of Afghanistan. Instead, an A.I. driven One Health Systems Mapping and Analysis Resource Toolkit (USGCRP) will do the trick and save us from these endless ’emerging threats’. Whether these threats exist or not is immaterial to the technocracy. What matters is how well we as a population will comply with the latest global health diktat de jour. 

If what I am speaking of still hasn’t convinced you, then ask yourself why the USGCRP has assembled the proverbial A-Team, regrouping no less than 13 US Gov agencies to control the process (Yes, 13… how unlucky we must be).

The COVID-19 hysteria was merely a primer for things to come. The U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 2019 report explains how the federally-funded and academic scientists discuss their latest research on predictive computer modeling (think Neil Ferguson on steroids) and its applications for predicting an infinite number of alleged risks of ‘climate-sensitive emerging infectious diseases.’ An interagency steering committee was also created to facilitate ‘the flow of information between stakeholders’ – or more aptly, to ensure the flow of information remains in a sealed vacuum, reserved for those in the need-to-know blackbox big data business.

Predicting Climate Sensitive Infectious Diseases to Protect Public Health 



One Health and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

EPA wants to make sure that the United States, and the world, understand the connections between climate change and human health. They are positioned to play a key role in facilitating the One Health approach, specifically in administering the supposed emerging risk to human health posed by animal illnesseses. While this has never really been a problem for humans in the past, the new regime believes this now a major threat, which of course, requires a unitary and globalised ‘solution’.

EPA is lined up to be a key node in America’s “One Health Framework”, which explains why they were selected to organise a series of One Health webinars across the United States in 2021, mainly promoting the idea that biodiversity and its ecosystems are under threat from man-made global warming, but also posing the question of whether or not mankind could be its own worst enemy, and how man’s activities might sicken populations and animals, and disrupt ecosystem functions. Read more about their curriculum here.

Consider the last two years of intermittent lockdown due to an alleged pandemic, and then ask yourself the following: how effective would a new One Health framework be if the government wanted to make sure populations were staying home, and fearing everything in their immediate environment – from their neighbors, to pets, extreme weather events, or even the wind blowing something dangerous into their space? What about people who then develop mental illness? A One Health Approach would certainly seem to be the state’s most comprehensive tool at hand.

Perhaps we should remind ourselves of 9/11, when the neocons couldn’t stop promoting the so-called “threat of terrorism” which eventually led to the US military and its allies heading into Iraq (thanks to Colin Powell and his imaginary vial of deadly pathogens), a supposedly preventative action which cost the western public trillions, and ended up killing at least half a million Iraqis, including countless children – all based on zero evidence. Even though Iraq was not involved in the Attacks of 9/11, and certainly didn’t have a WMD programme. Again, it was all based on the perception of a potential threat.

Now let’s imagine for one moment what one could do with a One Health Concept modeling algorithm. We could be at war with an invisible enemy for the foreseeable future, or a least a few centuries. Waves of variants, and new zoonotic diseases. Now add to the all pervasive climate threat, and with globalist scions like Madeleine Albright telling you that it too was a difficult choice, but at the end it was all worth it (for them of course). Watch: 

Apparently, there is no time to waste. Organisations such as Global Climate and Health Alliance, with their influential members around the world are promoting the same message over and over, are way too eager to inform us that climate change is already responsible for a rising death toll, and the spread of illness around the world. For this, me must adopt a One Health approach, or we will surely perish.

To illustrate this, we can look to the Australia-based Climate and Health Alliance (CAHA), and campaigns like the “Climate Change is a Health Emergency,” another great example of communications and marketing efforts designed to push this dubious agenda. The examples are literally everywhere.

In Europe, an event called ONE 2022 is promoting the global unitary concept of One Society-One Planet-One Environment-One Life, all tucked neatly under the One Health Agenda. Yet another effort from the United Nations and its stakeholder partners to promote “One Health” as the primer for the One World Economy, and trust me when I say your health and your well-being is at the very centre of everything, only perhaps not in the way you might have imagined.


In the heart of Europe, the French Agency for Development or Agence Française de Développement (AFD), is promoting a new approach to health policies, to better acknowledge the ‘interdependence among human and animal health’, as well as the health of our ecosystems. Again, a “One Health Approach,” for which AFD is already financing several projects.

ONE HEALTH: Responding to pandemics with a holistic approach to human, animal and environmental health

In a fantastic article by Michael Shellenberger entitled, “Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong,” published by Forbes Nov 25, 2019, you can read the following:

Few have underscored the Climate Change and the Environmental Threat more than student climate activist Greta Thunberg and Green New Deal sponsor Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez the latter saying:’

‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change”

Like environmentalist and author Shellenberger, I am not a “climate denier”, but I am conscious enough to know I will likely be put in this box for pushing back against climate alarmism, and for exposing those who have weaponised it to spread fear amongst the populations, in order to expedite a radical political, social and economic agenda, if not their own greed, and desire for money and power.

In his article, Shellenberger reminds us that economic development has made us less vulnerable, which is why there was a 99.7% decline in the death toll from natural disasters (which would include any climate or weather disasters) since its peak of casualties in 1931.

He adds that in 1931, some 3.7 million people died from natural disasters. In 2018, just 11,000 died. And that decline occurred over a period when the global population quadrupled. Hardly a cause for alarm. More like a cause for celebration, but the prophets of doom gathering at confabs like Davos have other plans for humanity.

What about claims of massive crop failures, famine, and mass-death? Shellenberger adds:

“That’s science fiction, not science. Humans today produce enough food for 10 billion people, or 25% more than we need, and scientific bodies predict increases in that share, not declines”

He goes on to cite more examples, including  figures from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) forecasts for crop yields, showing a steady increase towards 30% by 2050. And the poorest parts of the world, like sub-Saharan Africa, are expected to see increases of 80-90%. Again, this should be cause for celebration in the 21st century, and yet, we are constantly being told the end is nigh.

Many people like Michael Shellenberger work in the area of climate change because they worry about the impact this may be having on endangered species. Many such environmentalists fear that climate change may even threaten up to one million species globally, and up to half of all mammals, reptiles, and amphibians in diverse places like the Albertine Rift in Central Africa, home to the endangered mountain gorilla. This massive loss of in the animal kingdom surely spells doom for humans, no? Again, Shellenberger concedes, “but it’s not the case that we’re putting the human race survival in danger through extinctions.”

For a more detailed anlaysis, I will direct you to Michael Shellenberger acclaimed book, “Apocalypse Never” (Note: I don’t agree with everything Michael says, but I have a lot of respect for a man humble enough to recognize he was wrong for a very long time, he was part of the problem and now, perhaps he can be part of the solution).

The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the greatest challenge humans have ever faced and said it would wipe out civilizations. It was this kind of emotive propaganda that has paved the way to the new paradigm we are facing now where real environmental concerns have been hijacked by radical climatist doctrines, using any kind of data or computer models to ‘prove’ questionable theories that are masquerading as ‘settled science.’ If I wasn’t reasonable, I would likely call such an attitude “environmental extremism”, but certainly not science. Under a One Health Approach, these same tropes will be weaponised to scare even more people, and justify the most incredible policy prescriptions – all in the name of ‘global public health.’

This is why I found it very hard to believe that our health will, or is being impacted, to the point of calling something as vague and spurious as climate change – a Global Health Emergency. It simply does not stand up to even the most basic scientific scrutiny.

First climate change was used as the explanation for natural disasters, and now we are meant to believe it could be the cause of most health problems on the planet. Merging the threat of climate change with the new concept of global public health. But it’s really nothing more than the latest globalist parlor trick. We are seriously being taken for a ride, and some people (we know who they are) are definitely poised to benefit from this unscrupulous agenda – an agenda which really needs to be exposed now.

I will conclude by saying that climate change, which is affecting the environment, happens through a process known as the four seasons; spring, summer, fall, and winter, and more broadly under solar maximums and minimums. Do not read a hint of sarcasm in that statement either.

So do not worry yourself too much, and remember that stress is the greatest killer of them all. Relax and enjoy your ride listening to Vivaldi, and with time, this wave of One Health and climate change propaganda will soon vanish away like everything that is not based in truth. If you are genuinely concerned about the fate of the planet, then consider getting yourself a bicycle, it will provide you with the exercise you need, whilst getting you off your computer and allow you to admire nature without polluting.

In our next article, we will likely address One Health and the Global Food Security Agenda, another phantasmagorical story that won’t fail to surprise you.

PART 1: ONE HEALTH – Globalist Path to a One World Order
PART 3: ONE HEALTH: Food Security and the Catalyst for Manufactured Emergencies

READ MORE CLIMATE CHANGE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Climate Files


Restore Your Health - Clive de Carle's Natural Vitamin & Mineral Supplements
Get Clive de Carle's Natural Health essentials of the finest quality, including vitamin & mineral supplements here.