Yeah, exactly. I've been poking around in the literature a bit and looking at this. Public health or global public health. It's a euphemism for the kind of profiteering technocratic solutionism whose outcome is certain to be tyranny and never real health, as you say. Usually comes wrapped in flashy talk about public-private partnerships,…
Yeah, exactly. I've been poking around in the literature a bit and looking at this. Public health or global public health. It's a euphemism for the kind of profiteering technocratic solutionism whose outcome is certain to be tyranny and never real health, as you say. Usually comes wrapped in flashy talk about public-private partnerships, philanthrocapitalism and enlightened self-interest. Vomit-worthy, all of it.
There is some sort of academic output on this stuff and it seems to be pretty new. Was it built up purposefully, strategically? One of the worst, the absolute worst and most poisonous exemplars, is Devi Sridhar. Chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh, Clinton Foundation acolyte and all-round health ignoramus. She has become highly influential in the UK but appears to have no grasp of anything scientific or medical whatsoever.
She and a few others seem to have been made responsible for the shaping of the debate, setting the terms of the discourse at the academic level. Trying to give the shitshow a sheen of credibility. The whole thing stinks and good folk like you are starting to drag them into the light. Thanks, very much appreciated. It's probably time for a rigorous investigation into how this came to be.
"Public-private partnerships" is a misleading term, the "public" don't get a look in. What they are are "Government-Corporate partnerships", a combination of 8 & 9 of the "14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism". Philanthrocapitalism is just more newspeak, what it really is is misanthro-capitalism. We need to stop using their "warm and fuzzy PR" terms.
Yeah, exactly. I've been poking around in the literature a bit and looking at this. Public health or global public health. It's a euphemism for the kind of profiteering technocratic solutionism whose outcome is certain to be tyranny and never real health, as you say. Usually comes wrapped in flashy talk about public-private partnerships, philanthrocapitalism and enlightened self-interest. Vomit-worthy, all of it.
There is some sort of academic output on this stuff and it seems to be pretty new. Was it built up purposefully, strategically? One of the worst, the absolute worst and most poisonous exemplars, is Devi Sridhar. Chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh, Clinton Foundation acolyte and all-round health ignoramus. She has become highly influential in the UK but appears to have no grasp of anything scientific or medical whatsoever.
She and a few others seem to have been made responsible for the shaping of the debate, setting the terms of the discourse at the academic level. Trying to give the shitshow a sheen of credibility. The whole thing stinks and good folk like you are starting to drag them into the light. Thanks, very much appreciated. It's probably time for a rigorous investigation into how this came to be.
"Public-private partnerships" is a misleading term, the "public" don't get a look in. What they are are "Government-Corporate partnerships", a combination of 8 & 9 of the "14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism". Philanthrocapitalism is just more newspeak, what it really is is misanthro-capitalism. We need to stop using their "warm and fuzzy PR" terms.