Are you just a unit of biodiversity? Ponder that.
After listening to a speech given by Congresswoman Harriet Hageman on the latest attempt to collectivize small, independent ranchers into a National Animal Identification System (NAIS), I set out to bring forward and update the work that I did with Jane Lesko (Eden) who was then President of the Idaho Eagle Forum – Idaho’s Chapter of Eagle Forum. We made an all out effort to expose this program around the country through Eagle Forum’s network of Chapter Leaders.
In updating the research, I found a connection to the Pan-American Health Organization and the World Health Organization’s One Health Program. That connection was made through Committee
Notes for the 2007 meeting of the US Animal Health Association (USAHA).
While reading the meeting notes, I didn’t see that this committee meeting was of the USAHA (senility is setting in) so I did a search on the name of Chairman Bob R. Hillman and the word “livestock”. That’s how I found the USAHA – 1985 Annual Meeting – Status of the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture’s Proposal for an Inter-American Surveillance and Reporting System on Animal Health.
With the cooperation and support of USDN APHIS Dr. Mulhern prepared a proposal for such a system, which was sent to 27 member countries of IICA jointly with a questionnaire in order to assess the need for an information system at the hemispheric level, the interest of the governments in participating, as well as the existing capacity for setting up a reporting system.
. . . All countries report to various international systems developed by OIE, FAO, PAHO, IICA, JUNAC and OIRSA
Pages 126-127 (pdf)
The IICA is the Inter-American Institute on Cooperation on Agriculture. There is a history timeline on the About Page.
1942 The Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences (IICA) was founded, and its headquarters were established in Turrialba, Costa Rica.
1948 Following the creation of the OAS, IICA became the specialized agency for agriculture of the Inter-American System.
1979 The Inter-American Board of Agriculture (IABA) was created as the highest governing body. The organization was also renamed as the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture. By that time, membership had climbed to 29 countries.
Since I didn’t know what the OIE was, I looked it up and found: Office International des Epizooties (name found in this agreement between the Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization and the Office – See page 2)
So I thought I would go back and have a closer look at the USAHA. Boom! I found it:
One Health is the initiative of the World Health Organization.
WHO – One Health
“The purpose of the Committee on One Health is to serve as a national forum for policy discussion and the exchange of information on infectious and non-infectious diseases and conditions, animal agriculture, and other issues affecting the health and well-being of humans, animals and the environment. The Committee will encourage increased coordination among agriculture, wildlife, environmental, animal health, and public health agencies and organizations to address zoonotic diseases and other One Health issues.”
During the Govern America radio program I do with Darren Weeks, one caller to the program suggested that “being” is the species and “human” is the adjective identifying the type allowing for humans to be included in the NAIS animal tracking system. In fact, in 2006, when Idaho Eagle Forum was researching the NAIS system, there were also programs testing chips for children so that they could be put in the lost and found database for children. Because this is all making sense in terms of One Health, I went to Wiki to look up the taxonomy using the term “species”. There it was – “units of biodiversity“.
Nationalized Medical Records
In my research on the U.S. health care system after listening to a meeting of the National Governors Association in 2007, I found that there was a proposal for a nationalized system of medical records in 1990. The normal thought process would be that only a nationalized system of health care would justify the expense of a nationalized system of medical records. Right? If not for health care, then what? The NGA meeting gave the answer – personalized medicine. It would allow the entire population of the U.S. as medical research subjects behind the cover of a computer system outside the control of the front line providers of health care. Personalized medicine is by definition experimental – medical research. Now we go full circle remembering the holocaust and the medical research performed on prisoners held in camps in Nazi Germany.
IBM and Dr. Mengele: Together Again
Excerpt from Dr. Douglas Wood’s presentation at the meeting:
[How can we reduce costs with IT?] It is a new form of medicine. We prevent the progression of disease using IT prediction and prevention tools coupled with personalized genomic medicine. We’re doing a project at Mayo now with IBM which allows us to link the capabilities of knowing the genetics of each persons background along with their behavioral and environmental factors which in fact, influence the development of disease.
In terms of the nationalized medical records system, did we get nationalized health care? No. We got a universal health insurance system. Do health insurers need medical records? No. Health insurance is a statistical system. They use the statistics of disease conditions, the expected numbers of people that might get that condition in a year so they can calculate the odds of disease occurrence, cost of treatments spread over their covered population so they can calculate the costs plus the margin of profit margin on an annual basis.
So what does all that mean? My guess would be that the nationalized system of medical records is for the record keeping for the “human” units of biodiversity for the WHO’s One Health System.
One Comment
Kristin
Note Trump pulled USA out of WHO participation but apparently CA Gavin Newsom (Max Headroom version 2.0) enrolled his state in WHO. I do not understand how California can implement participation like this? Are US States allowed to participate in this manner? It seems rather novel to me.