Public Health and the Net Zero Ideology, By James Reed
Another insightful piece appeared at the Daily Sceptic, a fine blog, written by a public health insider about how the present public health philosophy fits, or does not fit in with the philosophical foundations of Enlightenment thought. The main focus is upon climate changed, but the same observations apply just as well to Covid and other forthcoming pandemics that are in plan for us.
The relevant point to the debate is that public health officials are not much about debating policies with the public, but, contrary to the Enlightenment, are more in line with the Inquisitions of the past that led to witch burning, imposing their will upon the public This was clearly seen in the Covid plandemic, where all debates were shut down, not just on the vax, but on health policies such as the lockdowns. There were legitimate questions that should have been debated, and doubts were raised about the modelling that was done to justify the lockdowns, but nothing, just a shutdown of inquiry. It was only after the most draconian suppression of liberty in the modern world had occurred, that researchchallenging the mandates was published. Until recently the academic journals kept a tight lid on this.
As detailed below, the same narrative by the public health and medical profession is now occurring with climate change, which since Covid, has come back to take central place in the elites' list of big things. Thus, we are seeing a playing out of the climate change catastrophe claims, given a health focus. Articles in medical journals are claiming that there is a major threat to human populations from supposed rising temperatures, even though all data shows that the main temperature killer of humans is the cold, and this will increase from lack of fossil fuels, a product of manic environmentalism.
The article concludes, below with a plea for health authorities to follow the truth: "Alternatively, we could embrace the truth, however dangerous and worrisome, through a rational and open discussion. Rather than throwing abuse and derogatory remarks at those who hold a different line, we could examine our own position and weigh it against theirs. This might help restore trust in public health, but it could also wreck our careers. It all comes down to where we place ourselves, and others, in a hierarchy of values. We can play it safe and be slaves to an Inquisition that oppresses and impoverishes the many, but benefits a few including ourselves. Or we can risk following the truth wherever it may lead. But that, in the current climate, would take courage."
I do not see the vast majority of public health and medical authorities doing this, since the system is now very much made in the Inquisition model, which destroys the careers of those who opposed the ruling ideologies. It will require extensive political reform to protect free speech in science and free research. But here, there clear limits will be imposed by funding, since Big Pharma is a major funding source, so good luck with grants from them for critical research!
"International public health operates around a clear set of dogmas, protected by maintaining taboos on discussion of subjects that might undermine them. This may seem backward or even alarming, but it is entirely logical. For a quarter of a century, the industry has been dominated by private investors and corporate interests who are attracted to a market for which products can be coerced and mandated without restrictive advertising standards. The growing narrative around climate and health promises to be the apogee of this approach.
Taboos and dogmasHuman societies always maintain taboos. Some seem to have arisen by common consent, some are driven from above, but it can be hard to identify their origins. Do cultural taboos on pre-marital sex or homosexuality, for instance, originally arise from the bulk of the population, or as restrictions imposed by religious or political authorities? Did a requirement to acknowledge the Earth as the centre of the Universe reflect popular sentiment, or drive popular sentiment? Did the Inquisition in Europe grow through popular prejudice, or was it purely an organ of authoritarian control?
The Enlightenment supposedly brought Europe out of the Inquisition, and while true in some ways it is also an illusion. Safe Spaces in university campuses are areas where the Inquisition persists. So are the protests against drag queen book readings, and the protests against the protests against drag queen book readings. We don't need to think an Inquisition is right or wrong, just acknowledge that we all put limits on freedom of expression and filter which ideas can be shared.
The public health climate InquisitionPublic health professionals see themselves as Children of the Enlightenment rather than Children of the Inquisition. We claim the side of commonsense rather than taboos and dogma. We think this sets us aside from the general public, who are easily persuaded through ignorance to entertain the rantings of charlatans.
Because we are educated and progressive, and health is so important, we claim a right to bypass much of the conversation that Enlightenment normally requires. We need to fast-track things to the truth because they are so important, and we are so knowledgeable about them. While this may seem reflective of the inquisitors of old, we hold that there is a fundamental difference; they were wrong, and we are right. Comparisons therefore simply show the ignorance of the accuser, whom we then label far-Right or otherwise reality-denying. Climate change and its effect on health is a good example. This will become clear by explaining the official public health industry position on this area, critical both to continued human existence and to securing future funding.
Exchanging truth for permissible narrativesThe public health professions, not least at the international level, are adamant that climate change is an "existential threat". Dogma states that this is almost solely driven by human activity, particularly the burning of the fossil fuels on which the last few hundred years of technological and medical progress have relied. It also implicates traditional meat diets in driving the climate. The Director-General of the World Health Organisation is adamant that this must be his organisation's priority. Two hundred medical journals considered it so important that they abrogated editorial standards to publish a letter highlighting various controversial claims as dogma; as example, a rapid increase in elderly deaths "due to heat" that ignored the simple increase in the total elderly population that accounted for most of this change, whilst far more die of cold. The letter's authors were not ignorant of this – they just consider the issue so important that it is worth misleading the public in order to gain a required response.
So, this is where we are on climate in the public health sphere. We are funded, as a group, to impose someone's dogma. "The Science is settled." We are still all in favour of human rights and evidence-based policy, but consider ourselves entitled to ignore them in order to protect them.
To explain further, it is useful to list what is deemed acceptable in the international public health industry to secure a salary and serve our funders:
§The climate is warming, and this will have overwhelmingly negative consequences on health.
§Human activity – particularly burning of fossil fuels and farming for meat – are the primary drivers of climate change through CO2 emissions and emissions of nitrous oxide, methane and other greenhouse gases.
§If we don't reduce emissions (reach Net Zero), we will face mass human death and potentially extinction.
§A warming climate is increasing pandemic risk.
§A warming climate is increasing extreme weather events, with a rising impact on health.
§Warm days, though common where most people live, pose an extreme threat to health.
§Climate change is driving increased malaria (see later), increased tuberculosis (previously thought due to poverty) and infectious diseases generally (irrespective of their continued overall decline).
§A warming climate could raise sea levels and enlarge deserts, destroying human settlements and agricultural land, causing mass starvation and forced migration.
Taken at face value, this list constitutes a compelling reason to reach Net Zero carbon emissions and force a change in diets. A delay through continued open debate would make outcomes worse. As a result, we have formed them into dogma and enforce this, protected by a series of taboos, including the following (which, to protect public safety, you can delete later):
§Climates changed frequently in the past (e.g. Medieval warm period, Roman warm period, 6,000 years ago (tree line further north near the Artic Ocean) etc., and these were not driven by anthropogenic CO2.
§Reported acute infectious disease outbreaks have been decreasing over the past decade rather than increasing.
§Mortality from acute weather events has plummeted over the past century.
§Rising CO2 has increased global plant growth, which is a contributor to our ability to feed eight billion people, a feat many considered impossible.
§A warmer climate will likely extend productive agriculture in cool temperate regions such as Eurasia and North America, increasing food availability.
§The main driver of infectious disease and shorter life expectancy in low-income countries is poverty. The reason Western people live longer is because they became richer, and this happened primarily through the burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – in industry, transport, farming, construction, sanitation and in the manufacture of fertiliser and medicines. Wealthy countries still burn many-fold higher volumes of fossil fuels per person, and correspondingly release more CO2, than poorer countries where people live much shorter lives (see graphic).
§Over three billion people still rely on wood-based cooking (or burning dung) and this is a major cause of deforestation and regional climate change and desertification (e.g. in East Africa), indoor air pollution (that contributes to over a million deaths per year) and impoverishment and physical risk for women (who must walk miles to collect wood).
§China and India are rapidly increasing their coal-burning capacity and CO2 outputs to achieve the benefits that wealthier nations have, and this will far outweigh CO2 reductions achieved in the West or forced on other poorer and less powerful countries.
This second list is demonstrably true. But such is our concern and discipline (we prefer these terms to "fear" and "cowardice") that we don't discuss them in open forums. Even poverty reduction, once integral to public health, is now taboo in the context of climate change. Public acknowledgement that Net Zero policies entrench poverty and inequality would put the entire narrative at risk.
Now, climate change is proclaimed the major threat to health, soon to "overwhelm the world's health systems", and WHO and partners are prioritising reaching Net Zero. It is not that climate change is irrelevant to malaria, but that the malaria community is unable to actually weigh it and proposals for its mitigation in an objective manner. Net Zero policies will logically exacerbate poverty, increase transport costs, increase malnutrition and thereby drive higher overall malaria mortality, but such discussion is taboo.
We can choose slavery or scienceSo, the issue of health, climate and CO2 is complicated. One way to cope with complexity is to ignore it. WHO now adopts this approach, and literally invents a narrative, maintaining that "ever increasing climate-mediated disasters create humanitarian emergencies where infectious diseases can take hold and quickly spread". This creates media headlines but loses the trust of rational people once they are exposed to reality.
A rational assessment may even conclude that, through increasing the human food supply, rising CO2 and warmer temperatures may provide an overall health benefit. Or, they might be outweighed by negatives of warmer temperatures: some areas may lose rainfall, some may see more floods. But stopping this would depend on the current global warming episode being almost entirely due to human emissions while those in the past were not (interesting) and then these causes being remediable without causing net harm to over eight billion of us, which is highly unlikely.
In public health we do not discuss this, as it is awkward. We maintain this taboo for one of two reasons:
1.The consequences of a warming climate are so dire that the risk is not worth taking. We therefore consider a relative few of us in wealthy countries have the self-assumed right to impose our solutions on the rest of humanity, keeping them in poverty while we thrive. Or:
2.Wealthy donors, with influence over public health priorities and important investments in climate change-related technologies, expect us to do so. Our job includes selling their product.
The first reason is essentially fascist, whilst the second is cowardice. Either way, we are acting falsely and disingenuously about climate change and health, and we all know it. We label the second list of bullets above as misinformation and censor it. If we argue that we are doing this for a greater good, we therefore see this within the hierarchical, feudalist model that allows a few to dictate restrictions and poverty on the many. We have chosen the side of the Inquisition, not the Enlightenment.
Alternatively, we could embrace the truth, however dangerous and worrisome, through a rational and open discussion. Rather than throwing abuse and derogatory remarks at those who hold a different line, we could examine our own position and weigh it against theirs. This might help restore trust in public health, but it could also wreck our careers. It all comes down to where we place ourselves, and others, in a hierarchy of values. We can play it safe and be slaves to an Inquisition that oppresses and impoverishes the many, but benefits a few including ourselves. Or we can risk following the truth wherever it may lead. But that, in the current climate, would take courage."
Comments