Over 200 health journals across the world have come together to simultaneously publish an editorial calling on world leaders and health professionals to recognize that climate change and biodiversity loss are one indivisible crisis and must be tackled together to preserve health and avoid catastrophe.

From Watts Up With That?

Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen – 6 November 2023

If you have ignored the previous revelations here at WUWT about climate propaganda news cabals operating in the MSM (newspapers, public radio, news agencies, magazines – worldwide) such as Columbia University’s Covering Climate Now [co-founded by the Columbia Journalism Review and The Nation in association with The Guardian and WNYC in 2019] and Inside Climate News [“Pulitzer Prize-winning, nonpartisan reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet.”], then I offer you yet one more to add to your “can’t we just pretend this isn’t really happening?” list.

The world’s major health journals, not all of them, but a majority of the major medical journals, have issued a joint statement.  Let me re-word that:  The Editors of the world’s leading medical journals have issued a joint statement as an Editorial in the BMJ (frequently referred to as the British Medical Journal).  How many of them?  “Over 200”.   The joint statement starts with this:

“Time to treat the climate and nature crisis as one indivisible global health emergency

Joint action is essential for planetary and human health

Over 200 health journals call on the United Nations, political leaders, and health professionals to recognise that climate change and biodiversity loss are one indivisible crisis and must be tackled together to preserve health and avoid catastrophe. This overall environmental crisis is now so severe as to be a global health emergency.”  [source —  Read the the full BMJ Editorial  here: https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj.p2355 ]”

Don’t for a minute think that the 200 signatories represent the membership or ownership of their respective medical journals.  That would be false – not even for the BMJ:

“BMJ is wholly owned by the British Medical Association (BMA), the professional association and trade union for doctors in the United Kingdom.”  “The BMA grants editorial freedom to The BMJ’s Editor-in-Chief, Dr Kamran Abbasi. The views expressed in the journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the BMA.” [ source ]

The members of the British Medical Association were not polled to see if they would like to issue this statement in the BMJ on their behalf.  (Brits:  Ask your doctor, he/she will never even have heard of the statement.)  I suspect that none of the journals obtained prior approval of the members of the organizations that their journal is supposed to represent to speak on their behalf.  The statement is just from the editors….exactly who?

These are the actual authors of the statement:

1.   Kamran Abbasi, editor in chief, The BMJ, London, UK

2.   Parveen Ali, editor in chief, International Nursing Review

3.   Virginia Barbour, editor in chief, Medical Journal of Australia

4.   Thomas Benfield, editor in chief, Danish Medical Journal

5.   Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, editor in chief, JAMA

6.   Stephen Hancocks, editor in chief,  British Dental Journal 

7.   Richard Horton, editor in chief, The Lancet

8.   Laurie Laybourn-Langton,  University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

9.   Robert Mash, editor in chief, African Journal of Primary Health Care & Family Medicine

10. Peush Sahni, editor in chief, National Medical Journal of India

11. Wadeia Mohammad Sharief, editor in chief,  Dubai Medical Journal

12. Paul Yonga, editor in chief,  East African Medical Journal

13. Chris Zielinski, University of Winchester, Winchester, UK

However, authors and signatories are not the same.  You can image how this works:  The Editors-in-Chief of JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association,  The Lancet (an independent, international general medical journal) and the BMJ (sort of the journal of the British Medical Association) – nominally the three most powerful and prestigious medical journals in the world – send out an editorial statement to a mailing list of all the editors of medical and health journals around the world with a strongly worded suggestion that they climb aboard the bandwagon.  Who would want to be left behind? 

So two hundred (maybe-) editors sign up to go along to get along. [ See here for a full list of editors signing on for their journals. ]

As you know, the so-called Climate Crisis has produced a lot of funding for those climate scientists.  And the climate science field stands to gain a lot of social and political power if nations (like the USA) officially declare a “Climate Emergency”. And then, maybe they can get a Global Health Emergency declared to allow them to ride in the climate emergency’s money-train’s caboose. 

Medial researchers have already been reaping some of that research dough to study and write papers about how the climate crisis will create death and destruction under RCP8.5.  See for instance this gem: Climate change crisis goes critical”. 

And where does this idea come from?  The cousin of the IPCC, the U.N.’s World Health Organization (see:  here).

What does this mean for you?  For us?  It means that there will be a lot more non-science nonsense from the health and medicine crowd needing to be to debunked. 

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

Let me assure you that this means that the field of medicine, or at least many of its professional journals, are now politically compromised on any topic that might even peripherally related to ambient temperature (now or in the future), the spread of mosquito or tick-vectored diseases (such as malaria, dengue, yellow fever, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), Lyme disease, Anaplasmosis, Ehrlichiosis, Babesiosis, Powassan (POW) and Tularemia – in the USA and many more elsewhere), heat related symptoms, any and all diseases spread by flooding, floods themselves, landslides, dam failures and all the other disasters that can and have been blamed on climate change (falsely for the most part).  These journals will seek out and approve for publication only studies that find present or future calamity, the majority using models that depend on the now-impossible RCP8.5 or its new clone-with-another-name.   And, because the journals accept and publish some of these types of studies, more and more will be written.   Few of them will have any value to science or health but will mirror the absurd talking points used in the editorial mentioned in the main essay.

I invite readers who are professionals in the field of medicine and health to help in the task of countering the exaggerations and falsehoods that have been appearing and will appear in your journals.  If you can, publish in the journals themselves.  But if you need help facilitating publishing here, you can write to me at my first name at i4.net. 

Read more, read deeply, read widely.

And, thanks for reading.