Peter Daszak. ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive.’ Sir Walter Scott was right

1.  In February 2018 Science magazine ran a long puff piece about the Global Virome Project.  Its authors included Peter Daszac, his associates Jonna Mazet and Dennis Carroll. Carroll is a former official at the CDC and USAID, an agency that funded Daszak extremely well.  Carroll left USAID to found and lead the Global Virome Project, and he and Mazet both signed the Lancet letter. George Gao, current head of China’s CDC, also is a coauthor, as well as 5 others.  Daszac is the corresponding author. The tone of the piece suggests Daszak wrote it, because like much else he has written, it sounds like a fund-raising letter.  It discusses the wonderful benefits to be gained in terms of drugs and vaccines for future pandemics, simply by virus hunting… if the world will pay the $billions Daszak requires. I wonder if EcoHealth Alliance paid Science to run this piece.

I would say that plan did not work out so well for the world. 

2.  On January 27, 2020 Peter Daszac, EcoHealth employee Kevin Olival and Hongying Li submitted a paper for publication to the journal Biosafey and Health, with copyright going to the Chinese Medical Association Publishing House. Daszac is the corresponding author.

The paper was rapidly accepted and available online on February 5, 2020.  It was titled, “A strategy to prevent future epidemics similar to the 2019-nCoV outbreak.” In it, the wildlife trade is blamed for pandemics.  The authors write, “the drivers of disease emergence are human activities that are expanding on a global scale, including deforestation, agricultural intensification and the wildlife trade…suggesting that pandemics will become more frequent and more devastating in the future.”  NIAID and USAID paid for the work.

3.  The Lancet Covid-19 Commission (for which Peter Daszak chaired a task force) authored a 23 page statement published in the Lancet on September 14, 2020. This was 23 pages of mostly repetitive garbage. I have never seen anything 23 pages long in the Lancet, ever.  Did somebody cough up a per page price? 

This long statement has clues that it was written by the pandemic purveyors for their own purposes.  For example, “The Covid-19 epidemic can and should be suppressed through non-pharmaceutical interventions, including effective community health services, that cut transmission of the virus, to be followed by the introduction of effective and safe vaccines…”  This is an unsubtle statement against treating the illness with drugs! Published in the world’s top medical journal! Is the Lancet the best journal money can buy, especially given the Lancet‘s publication of the May 22 fabricated paper on the chloroquines and the March 7 Daszac ghost-written letter panning Covid conspiracy theories?

And, “Uncertainty also remains about the duration of acquired immunity from past infection.”  Since we know that people who recovered from SARS-1 had long-lasting immunity, why question the duration of immunity from SARS-2? The only reason is as a marketing tool for vaccinating those who are already immune, and then giving frequent boosters.

4.  During July 27-31, 2020 Peter Daszac chaired the International Workshop of Biodiversity and Pandemics/ Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.  Its Executive Summary seems to be a commercial for Daszac’s multibillion dollar One Health initiative to (supposedly) prevent pandemics.  Not start them.

But the Summary also contains many clues to where the purveyors of the pandemic seem to want to take the world’s people.  “[Disease] emergence is caused by human activities” it declares. 

Other suggestions from this group reveal the hidden hand driving the agenda.  What are some of the things the group calls for?

  • ‘Green’ corporate bonds
  • Reduced meat consumption
  • Reassessing the relationship between people and nature

Yes, we have heard it before, and Daszak was everywhere, promoting such ideas.  I could go on and on.  He chaired a group at the National Academies.  He was made a member of the National Academies.  

But you get the point.  Daszak had several roles. EcoHealth Alliance, with extensive military funding, seems to have explored and transferred dangerous viruses among its partners in 31 countries. Daszac also posed as an environmentalist, protecting the environment from wanton agriculturalists and wildlife traders,  A.K.A rural people. Finally, he was a teller of tales, tales meant to shape the future.  Man’s incursions into areas of high biodiversity harm the planet.  We must live in harmony with nature.  We must eat less meat.

Mind you, he never talked about growing livestock more safely, avoiding antibiotics that encourage the growth of resistant bacteria. He never talked about recycling, or using less energy. No, he was fixated on a few memes, shared with Fauci and the World Economic Forum, that seem to be intended to direct us to new ways of living.

____________________________

The ‘One Health’ idea, which is based on the proposition that we should be constantly worried about zoonotic infections, has recently crept deeply into the fiber of public health, and imho it needs to be rooted out. It is being promoted as the justification for changing the way humans and animals interact.  While I am all for improved animal husbandry, the One Health idea looks more like a Trojan horse than an animal welfare plan to me, especially since Daszac and his ilk have been its major cheerleaders.

Here is what our CDC, another major promoter of the [deliberately] vague One Health concept, says about it:

One Health is gaining recognition in the United States and globally as an effective way to fight health issues at the human-animal-environment interface, including zoonotic diseases. CDC uses a One Health approach by involving experts in human, animal, environmental health, and other relevant disciplines and sectors in monitoring and controlling public health threats and to learn about how diseases spread among people, animals, plants, and the environment.

Successful public health interventions require the cooperation of human, animal, and environmental health partners. Professionals in human health (doctors, nurses, public health practitioners, epidemiologists), animal health (veterinarians, paraprofessionals, agricultural workers), environment (ecologists, wildlife experts), and other areas of expertise need to communicate, collaborate on, and coordinate activities. Other relevant players in a One Health approach could include law enforcement, policymakers, agriculture, communities, and even pet owners. No one person, organization, or sector can address issues at the animal-human-environment interface alone.

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.

Do you see what I mean?  This statement doesn’t say anything.  There are no goals, and no strategies. Collaboration for collaboration’s sake? One Health looks like an excuse to spend public funds while promoting a meaningless concept.  But more than that, from my reading 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/elites and not the needs of the people or the animals that will be affected. And One Health will probably try to grab attention in the aftermath of the pandemic, promising, just like Daszak does, that it will save us from the next pandemic. One Health and Peter Daszak are practically synonymous.  

A huge gravy train has been built of public health professionals, veterinarians, and government/UN/other agencies to carry out “One Health.” The One Health Commission website provides the following list of governmental organizations that are ‘implementing’ One Health:

Government Organizations implementing One Health

Here is what Peter Daszac, the  Commissioner in the Lancet One Health Commissionpredicted on August 28, 2019:

“In his invited lecture on “Can One Health Help Prevent the Next Pandemic?” Prof. Daszak talked about how emerging infectious diseases are a growing global threat. These diseases are complex and hard to predict. Many of these emerging diseases are zoonotic, meaning that they can spread from animals to humans. A One Health approach, which recognises the interaction between humans, animals and the environment could help disease prediction and preparedness.”

BTW, Daszac is not a professor and never has been. However, our co-conspirator Ian Lipkin, coauthor of the Nature Medicine article, made Daszac a Member in Lipkin’s Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia.

I think you see what I’m trying to convey.  This is a concept promoted by hucksters, for reasons best known to themselves, since their writings lack meaning.  Be aware that it may be used as a cudgel to promote pandemic “solutions” and a persistent pandemic mindset.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dr Chris King
Dr Chris King
1 year ago

I'm a veterinarian, and it's always struck me how blatantly anthropocentric "One Health" is. It's balderdash that it has anything to do with animal welfare; it has everything to do with protecting humans from animal pathogens. It enlists the help of unwitting veterinarians to serve as de facto public health watchmen and lackies, even at the expense of the animals in our care. In the process, "One Health" completely ignores what filthy creatures humans are 😉

And it completely ignores Pasteur's apocryphal deathbed concession: "Bernard was right: the microbe is nothing; the terrain is everything." Of course, that's an oversimplification, and I'm pretty sure it didn't really happen that way, but I take their point: MY health has more to do with whether or not I succumb to infection than does the microbe in question. We see this clearly with COVID-19, where the clinical manifestations of infection with SARS-CoV-2 range from none to death.

One of my all-time favourite terms is humanosis: transmission of pathogens from humans to animals. In other words, it's when WE make THEM sick. It's a neater and truer term than the customary one: "reverse zoonosis" (what a nonsensical – and anthropocentric – term that is!).

If we broaden the definition to any pathological process (-osis) caused by humans (the pathogens), then this pandemic and all of its geopolitical baggage is a great example of humanosis.

Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago

Will investigative journalists look into the grants issued by NIH when CREID was established in 2020? You were one of the first people to point this out. A year later and those same names continue to pop up. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-establishes-centers-research-emerging-infectious-diseases.

Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago

Dr. Nass, it's seems the One Health narrative is just a cover story, if you will, that explains why suddenly in the 21'st century "pandemics" are a risk.

Of course the reality is the population control crowd – Davos and complicit governments – are using One Health to hide the fact that pandemics are lab created.

Covid was created AND intentionally released, with a script well developed by Gates/WHO/NIAID Event 201
to suppress Covid treatments and drive people via fear to a dangerous mRNA vaccine – which kills some quickly and the rest over time, while making everyone sterile.

This is very clearly a criminal act, likely 2'nd degree murder. Soon the fear will be on the other side of the table, and the whistleblowers will start to spill their guts to save their own souls.

Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago

Who is Alina Chan? I don't know. I do know there is a term/phrase, in the vernacular, "limited hangout" and various strands/strains. The research question may be: is she part of, wittingly or unwittingly "limited hangout" — spook speak referring to things like actual misinformation, and actual planted fake news, operations; and in its broadest sense, actual government, e.g. Western Empire/Westernism propaganda; the main function of which is DECEPTION: tell some of the story, and thus create a narrative; which deceives public since entire set of facts remain hidden.

Ongoing discussion on lab/leak/ versus naturally occurring — this altogether leaves out Sars CoV 2 being: a military operation, for example.

[[Chan knew she had to move forward and make her findings public. In the final draft of her paper, she torpedoed the seafood-market theory, then laid out a case that the virus seemed curiously well adapted to humans. She mentioned all three possible explanations, carefully wording the third to emphasize that if the novel coronavirus did come from a lab, it would have been the result of an accident in the course of legitimate research.]]

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2020/09/09/alina-chan-broad-institute-coronavirus/

In fact, the paper Chan et al. wrote that was published May 2, 2020 with two others: does not explicitly state [it would have been the result of an accident in the course of legitimate research]; instead is more vague [even if this key point: may be implicit in this paper]. However, neither has Boston Magazine issued or published any correction/amplification: on the paraphrase of Chan et al., [it would have been the result of an accident in the course of legitimate research] — and here we are nine months later.

That paper is titled: "SARS-CoV-2 is well adapted for humans. What does this mean for re-emergence?" by Shing Hei Zhan1, Benjamin E. Deverman3, and Yujia Alina Chan. From paper, see: [[However, there is presently little evidence to definitively support any particular scenario of SARS-CoV-2 adaptation. Did SARS-CoV-2 transmit across species into humans and circulate undetected for months prior to late 2019 while accumulating adaptive mutations? Or was SARS-CoV-2 already well adapted for humans while in bats or an intermediate species? More importantly, does this pool of human-adapted progenitor viruses still exist in animal populations? Even the possibility that a non-genetically-engineered precursor could have adapted to humans while being studied in a laboratory should be considered, regardless of how likely or unlikely (39).]]

This same paper also took a page out of the Daszak play book — on telling people to avoid nature. This paper concludes as follows: [[While these investigations are conducted, it would be safer to more extensively limit human activity that leads to frequent or prolonged contact with wild animals and their habitats.]]

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.073262v1.full.pdf

For the more curious, feel free to check out this comment to a blog March 12, 2020 posted 3:13 p.m. by "OldMicrobilogist", that begin as follows: [I’ll throw my 2 cents in here. I have zero proof other than my gut feeling that this is a bioweapon. I do have 40 year of biodefense research experience behind me and worked at Fort Detrich on bacterial vaccines where I developed my own aerosol infection routes and developed multi-species models of pathogenesis to establish correlates of immunity.]

at https://thesaker.is/continuation-of-the-kinda-open-thread/#comment-772547

Ron Unz, who believes O M B is legit, wrote about this theory himself, since; and posted O M B's entire theory at

https://www.unz.com/article/was-coronavirus-a-biowarfare-attack-against-china/
-30-

Dr Chris King
Dr Chris King
1 year ago

I see "One Health" as the apotheosis of FONS: 'fear of nature' syndrome. It's a mental condition in which everything natural (including one's own body) is viewed with deep suspicion, if not outright alarm, as potentially dangerous and in urgent need of avoidance or suppressive control – or both.

It's a psychopathy.

And it perfectly explains this entire COVID pandemic.

Scroll to Top