Government clings to ‘wet market’ theory to justify globalist One Health program

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Acting Director Dr. Lawrence Tabak insisted to Congress last week that the coronavirus could not have possibly been created in a laboratory and was instead passed from bats to humans in a Wuhan wet market.

Tabak’s remarks came despite his own previous admission that the coronavirus was being used to infect mice in a lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology prior to COVID-19 as part of a US government grant. The grant was awarded to EcoHealth Alliance, the organization which oversaw the gain-of-function coronavirus research at the lab.

Dr. Andrew Huff, the former vice president of EcoHealth Alliance, confirmed in his book The Truth About Wuhan published in December that the virus was indeed leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s lab.

“EcoHealth Alliance and foreign laboratories did not have the adequate control measures in place for ensuring proper biosafety, biosecurity, and risk management, ultimately resulting in the lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Huff wrote.

Last month, a Pfizer executive was caught on hidden camera saying the wet market theory is “bullsh*t”.

"You have to be very controlled to make sure that this [COVID] virus that you mutate doesn’t create something that just goes everywhere,” he said. “Which, I suspect, is the way that the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest. It makes no sense that this virus popped out of nowhere. It’s bullsh*t."

Yet still, government officials such as Tabak and former National Institutes for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Dr. Anthony Fauci continue to claim the virus was transferred to humans from bats. The government’s wet market theory is defended by media operatives, who label any dissenters “conspiracy theorists,” and social media companies, who have removed posts and users for spreading “misinformation” by suggesting a lab leak.

The crackdown on those who suggest the lab leak has been perplexing given that claims about the origin of the virus — even if false — have no practical bearing on health practices. Whether the virus was leaked from a lab or a wet market would not impact COVID mandates or policies.

But if the coronavirus was found to have leaked from a lab, it would jeopardize a globalist project currently underway called One Health.

One Health is an approach to healthcare which, instead of being human-centric, focuses on how “climate change” affects human health.

In fact, the ideology appears to be mainly a pretext for pushing the “climate change” agenda. One Health reasons that like COVID-19, humans can catch diseases from animals; to avoid this, humans must stop eating meat and reduce carbon emissions. 

Science journal The Lancet said last month that One Health addresses the “most existential threats” such as “antimicrobial resistance, food and nutrition insecurity, and climate change.”

To achieve a One Health utopia, a greater emphasis must be placed on protecting the environment and reducing the “human pressure on the environment,” which includes eating plants instead of animals.

“The EAT-Lancet Commission takes an equitable approach by recommending people move away from an animal-based diet to a plant-based one, which not only benefits human health, but also animal health and wellbeing,” said the article.

The Lancet emphasized that the impetus for this approach was COVID-19 which, having purportedly transferred from bats to humans, showed the need to avoid such “disease spillover” from animals. For this reason, healthcare must incorporate more environmental health organizations.

This will make health more “equitable,” says the article, which claims that the current healthcare framework is also racist. 

The Lancet is not the only medical journal promoting One Health. FACETS, a Canadian journal, also called for “[s]trengthening a One Health approach.” A letter published in Nature last month called for the World Health Organization (WHO) to impose an “overarching One Health framework.”

Indeed, the WHO is working on such a framework, in coordination with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH). In May 2021 the heads of these four organizations, with the support of France and Germany, created the One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP) which oversees the rollout of One Health to countries around the world.

Together, the globalist organizations have created a One Health Quadripartite Joint Plan of Action for 2022-2026 that “provides a set of activities that aim to strengthen collaboration, communication, capacity building, and coordination across all sectors responsible for addressing health concerns at the human-animal-plant-environment interface.”

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has endorsed the WHO's plan to implement One Health:

We will have a better chance of suppressing infectious diseases only if we adopt what the WHO calls a One Health approach and integrate predictive modelling and surveillance used in both infectious disease control and climate change.

Last month, the OHHLEP held a One Health workshop in Bangkok which focused on how humans can help the environment. The aim of the meeting was to identify challenges and opportunities in “biodiversity, climate resilience and environmental determinants.” Representatives from veterinary and environmental organizations attended, along with government officials from around the world. These included Casey Barton Behravesh from the CDC, Catherine Machalaba from EcoHealth Alliance, and Lei Zhou from China CDC.

Details of the meeting, such as what was discussed, proposed and agreed upon, remain unclear. 

But One Health has already started making its way into legislation. In December, Congress quietly passed the Advancing Emergency Preparedness Through One Health Act (HR 2061/S 681) which commissions the establishment of a One Health program. The heads of federal agencies such as the CDC, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense and others are ordered to submit a proposal for a One Health Framework to Congress within one year.

The Act says the first goal of the One Health Program is to prevent zoonotic diseases, which can only be done by focusing more on the environment and agriculture. The bill’s authors worry that zoonotic disease outbreaks may cause egg shortages which can in turn affect vaccine production.

“Public health preparedness depends on agriculture in a variety of ways,” reads the bill. “For example, a wide range of vaccines, including those for influenza, yellow fever, rabies, and measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), are primarily cultivated in poultry eggs. Egg shortages resulting from zoonotic disease outbreaks could impose serious risks to vaccine manufacturing efforts."