Discover more from Resisting the Intellectual Illiteratti
The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part V: Medicalizing Climate Change
Based on the CDC's bureaucracy manifesting acute symptoms of CO2 poisoning as seen in the quality and nature of their work products, we can account for all that excess CO2. Problem Solved.
The Federal government has numerous agencies that are specifically tasked to compile climate and analyze climate data or deal with climate change and its effects, such as the EPA or NOAA. These agencies are amply funded (meaning excessively overfunded like all federal agencies are), so there is no need for medical agencies to extend their turf to encompass climate science or regulations1.
The CDC on these same pages refers to a series of resources, such as the following4:
When assessing and preparing for the human health effects of climate change, public health practitioners will likely need to access climatological information. Projected climate data, such as future temperature and precipitation, can be used to assess vulnerability and project disease burden. However, state and local health departments often do not have the capacity to utilize climate data or climate projections. This document provides a definition for climate outlooks and climate models and describes particular outlooks and models that may be useful in anticipating the human health effects of climate change. It also includes a topic overview and some suggested initial methods for state and local health departments. This guidance is in accordance with Step 1 of CDC’s Building Resilience Against Climate Effects (BRACE) framework.
Each region of the United States experiences climate change and its impacts on health differently, due to the regions’ location-specific climate exposures and unique societal and demographic characteristics. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Climate and Health Program supports states, counties, cities, tribes, and territories to assess how climate change will affect their community, identify vulnerable populations, and implement adaptation and preparedness strategies to reduce the health effects of climate change. This document describes the various health impacts climate change will have on different regions of the United States as outlined in the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), actions taken by the CDC Climate and Health Program’s health department partners to prepare for and respond to climate change in their communities, and relevant tools and resources.
And of course, where would we be without combining climate change & fighting racism:
Not Just the CDC:
The Lancet - arguably the world’s preeminent medical journal - empaneled a “Commission on Health and Climate Change” in 2015.
From The Lancet’s own report, Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health:
“The 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change has been formed to map out the impacts of climate change, and the necessary policy responses, in order to ensure the highest attainable standards of health for populations worldwide. This Commission is multidisciplinary and international in nature, with strong collaboration between academic centres in Europe and China.”
Does this mean that a climate catastrophe is on the horizon? Is China going to “accidentally release” some novel atmospheric seeding tech platform that cools the world by a few degrees (which would be catastrophic for most living things including humans)?
The Lancet maintains a nice, scary-sounding feature called “The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change”:
Sounds eerily reminiscent of the panic porn fearmongering they would help unleash a few years later when covid rolled out of the ‘Wuhan wet markets’.
To cap it all off, the Spectator piece mentioned earlier had the following to say about The Lancet’s climate change activism:
Perhaps the Lancet’s most bizarre endeavour under Horton’s watch has been publishing a piece sympathetic to the fanatical climate change group, Extinction Rebellion. It is difficult to comprehend how promoting such an overtly political cause in a reputed scientific journal can ever be justified. However, far from an isolated occurrence, it may be viewed as the culmination of gradual steps to exploit the Lancet’s medical prestige and mould it into an influential voice for promoting a certain type of political ideology.
Read that last sentence a few times to appreciate what is being admitted here - that political ideologues conscripted the Lancet to appropriate its prestige and cachet to push a (radical) political agenda.
The Lancet’s article in question here is so radical that it is worth reproducing part of it:
Other medical journals have been similarly zealous on the climate front. The BMJ for instance has published a slew of climate change papers, letters, and editorials.
The last one here in particular is rather stunning. It’s bad enough for doctors to wade into the political maelstrom of climate science, but to “take the lead”??
Not to be outdone, JAMA recently published a paper “UN Reports New Insights on Link Between Climate Change and Human Health”, where they breathlessly report that (emphasis mine):
The effects of climate change are no longer only future fears. They already threaten the environment as well as the physical—and mental—health of humans, according to new insights from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of the United Nations.
JAMA even put out “an open call for papers” on the subject of climate change and health:
Were there not enough submissions to JAMA that they need to solicit papers on new subjects?
Regardless, it is evident that the medical community are evangelist crusaders on behalf of climate change.
The medical community has waded in on practically every other prominent political issue, but due to the mind-numbing length of this article as it is, we’re going to leave them off.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
However, there is in theory still a place for the CDC and medical academia to get involved in climate or climate change-related issues. Natural disasters - such as those widely projected by climate models to increase in frequency in the coming decades - pose obvious health risks that the medical community is uniquely disposed to be able to quantify and advise (in part) how to best mitigate the adverse health impacts of these situations.
However, this can only work provided that:
The CDC et al does not stray beyond the specific medical dimensions of climate change.
The CDC et al does not attempt to medicalize non-medical characteristics in the course of dealing with medical concerns
Where we run into trouble is that neither of these provisions were upheld.
In other words, if it even looks like the CDC et al is seizing upon climate change as a vehicle to advance a political agenda - not healthcare - then it is not a legitimate endeavor to be involved in. There is no justification for compromising the integrity of medical institutions to meddle in areas where there is no lack of available personnel or funding to do the research work.
Again, to be clear, this is not about the scientific accuracy (or lack thereof) of the specific assertions undergirding the widely disseminated general model of runaway anthropogenic climate change. The issue here is that climate science emphatically does not fall within the CDC’s purview, and that therefore CDC involvement in Climate Change is deleterious to its institutional credibility and ability to carry out its core functions etc. as stipulated elsewhere in this article.
A few additional gems curtesy of the CDC’s “climate” “science”:
Because of course, you might get covid while the volcano is dumping tons of burning ash and soot on your head:
Apparently, it is too difficult to ask one of the other dozens of federal govt agencies, UN agencies, EU agencies, or NGO’s devoted to climate change that the CDC needs to produce their own personal in-house climate change materials?? This is reminiscent of the how the various ministries in the USSR would function - for example, even though there was a “Ministry of Bricks”, if a different ministry needed bricks to build themselves a new building, they typically would just make them themselves (to avoid the wait times and quality control issues).
And does anyone really think that random state health officials are making the sort of “preparations” that would actually be helpful? Considering that the CDC et al was caught with their pants down completely unprepared for a pandemic (this despite being aware of all the individual elements of the production of and lab work on the covid virus), are we to believe that there is any real competency in their efforts to prepare the medical world for the adverse impacts of climate change??