05 Jun 23
One Health is basically 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.
Good or bad idea?
@metal-brain saidReally now?
One Health is basically 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.
Good or bad idea?
On which conspiracy whack-job website did you pick up this wee nugget of gold?
@metal-brain saidGlobal plans are only needed for problems that have global consequences. e.g. nuclear anti-proliferation treaties. Similarly, we need a new global policy for AI and AGI.
One Health is basically 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.
Good or bad idea?
But how we treat animals? Let's be real.
@metal-brain saidYour statement is incorrect. One Health isn't that at all. You've been in the CT closet again.
One Health is basically 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.
Good or bad idea?
@metal-brain saidMultiple sources. You're the one making the statement, you're the one to supply the information sources from where you obtained your ridiculous idea. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you're right. Well?
What is your source of information?
06 Jun 23
@kewpie saidThe WHO itself.....moron.
Multiple sources. You're the one making the statement, you're the one to supply the information sources from where you obtained your ridiculous idea. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you're right. Well?
https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/one-health
@metal-brain saidFrom the link you provided, first introductory paragraph.
The WHO itself.....moron.
https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/one-health
One Health' is an integrated, unifying approach to balance and optimize the health of people, animals and the environment. It is particularly important to prevent, predict, detect, and respond to global health threats such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
The approach mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities at varying levels of society to work together. This way, new and better ideas are developed that address root causes and create long-term, sustainable solutions.
One Health involves the public health, veterinary, public health and environmental sectors. The One Health approach is particularly relevant for food and water safety, nutrition, the control of zoonoses (diseases that can spread between animals and humans, such as flu, rabies and Rift Valley fever), pollution management, and combatting antimicrobial resistance (the emergence of microbes that are resistant to antibiotic therapy).
And this is what you claimed:
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.
Points that you have claimed that are not proven here:
1. The culmination of a grand global plan.
2. The inclusion of food, travel and housing and everything else.
3. The central decision-maker and overseer of all the items in point 2.
You might be treated with more respect if you didn't embroider basic statements with such loads of emotive language and outright untruths.
Collaboration of the scientists who research and report zoonotic diseases and their prevention and control in a WHO think-tank is hardly going to oppress all humanity, whatever your paranoic mindset may conclude.
@kewpie saidHere is the exact quote:
From the link you provided, first introductory paragraph.
One Health' is an integrated, unifying approach to balance and optimize the health of people, animals and the environment. It is particularly important to prevent, predict, detect, and respond to global health threats such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
The approach mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities ...[text shortened]... WHO think-tank is hardly going to oppress all humanity, whatever your paranoic mindset may conclude.
"One Health is basically 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."
What is untrue in that quote?
It is a global plan. The WHO is being set up as the central decision-maker and overseer of it all.
https://www.hydesmith.senate.gov/exclusive-sen-ron-johnson-leads-bill-push-back-who-overreach-ensure-senates-power-over-pandemic
06 Jun 23
@metal-brain saidYou believe Ron Johnson?
Here is the exact quote:
"One Health is basically 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."
What is untrue in that quote?
It is a global plan. The WHO is b ...[text shortened]... .gov/exclusive-sen-ron-johnson-leads-bill-push-back-who-overreach-ensure-senates-power-over-pandemic
How embarrassing.
06 Jun 23
@suzianne saidHe has 15 cosponsors dummy.
You believe Ron Johnson?
How embarrassing.
Mike Braun, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, Steve Daines, Chuck Grassley, Bill Hagerty, John Hoeven, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Mike Lee, Roger Marshall, Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, Thom Tillis, and Tommy Tuberville.
Do you know what an intergovernmental negotiating body is?
https://www.hydesmith.senate.gov/exclusive-sen-ron-johnson-leads-bill-push-back-who-overreach-ensure-senates-power-over-pandemic
@metal-brain saidRepeating your unsourced opening sentence, along with providing a link to a piece of American politicking which appears not to contain it, isn't honest debate, it's just stubborn ignorance.
Here is the exact quote:
"One Health is basically 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."
What is untrue in that quote?
It is a global plan. The WHO is b ...[text shortened]... .gov/exclusive-sen-ron-johnson-leads-bill-push-back-who-overreach-ensure-senates-power-over-pandemic
Read your own links again, then reread your own words. I'm trying hard to reconcile what you say with simple truth.
This is from a piece of your second link:
The Daily Caller first obtained the legislation, titled the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act, which was spearheaded by Johnson and has 15 cosponsors. The bill mentions the WHO creating an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) and, if passed, would require any agreement produced by the INB to be submitted to the Senate as a treaty in an effort to provide more transparency on the administration.
The lawmakers believe they need to start fighting to prevent the WHO from creating an INB.
Sounds to this non-American that the Daily Caller is not a reliable factual source, rather it's a source of alternative facts. What do you think, Suzianne?
06 Jun 23
@kewpie saidSo now you expect us all to believe 16 senators are conspiracy theorists? LOL
Repeating your unsourced opening sentence, along with providing a link to a piece of American politicking which appears not to contain it, isn't honest debate, it's just stubborn ignorance.
Read your own links again, then reread your own words. I'm trying hard to reconcile what you say with simple truth.
This is from a piece of your second link:
The Daily Caller first ...[text shortened]... a reliable factual source, rather it's a source of alternative facts. What do you think, Suzianne?
You are embarrassing yourself.
06 Jun 23
@metal-brain saidI don't expect you to believe anything. I've read so much of your dishonesty that I start from a position of distrust. Say and believe what you like.
So now you expect us all to believe 16 senators are conspiracy theorists? LOL
You are embarrassing yourself.
06 Jun 23
@kewpie said"Say and believe what you like."
I don't expect you to believe anything. I've read so much of your dishonesty that I start from a position of distrust. Say and believe what you like.
That is what you do. You are so determined to not believe things you convince yourself you know more about politics than the politicians. Every fact you refuse to accept instantly becomes a conspiracy theory.
Are we all supposed to believe 16 senators support a bill that is based on a conspiracy theory? Again, what part of my quote in the OP is untrue?