New World Economic Forum ESG Cabal Holds Organizations to “Health Equity” Standards
Will some lives matter more based on intersectionality?
The Global Health Equity Network (GHEN) is the latest group in the Environmental Social and Governance (ESG) cartel seeking to force businesses and organizations to transform their practices and procedures to serve the interests of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Figure 1).
Launched at Davos earlier this year, the GHEN is a World Economic Forum initiative that convenes leaders across sectors and industries in the public and private sectors to advance what they call “health equity,” or equal outcomes, in healthcare. It includes private sector executives, government representatives, academics, and civil society leaders whose collective goal is to advance a joint vision of Zero Health Gaps. In their Zero Health Gaps Pledge, which all 40 participating CEOs have signed, their organizations (Figure 2) commit to embedding health equity in their core strategies, operations and investments.
The Pledge states that “vast inequities in health and wellbeing outcomes between and within countries persist” and that the “three key root causes of health disparities are inequality within societal systems, non-medical drivers of health, and systemic flaws in the healthcare system, including access to and quality of care.” It goes on to say that a world with Zero Health Gaps requires a multidisciplinary approach and concerted actions including, but not limited to: “supporting strong Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs, providing accessible high-quality health and mental health services; paying employees across the supply chain a living wage; investing in safe living environments, and many others” listed in their Action Guide.
Environmental, Social and Governance Cartel
Part of their mandate is to produce ESG metrics that will hold their own entities and others across the globe accountable for putting these “health equity” actions into place. ESG stands for Environmental Social and Governance, which is a new scoring and rating system for businesses based upon how closely they hold to the 4 platforms of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: People, Planet, Prosperity, and Principles of Governance. Many banks and investors are using the ESG scores of corporations to screen where their capital flows, controlling the market like a cartel to force entities to behave in a certain way, lest they be costed out of business. “It would be a real shame if you didn’t get that loan, grant, or investment you’re hoping for, wouldn’t it?”
The reverberating impact this has had across our culture and economy in the United States is reflected in the news stories of the day. Bud Light, a beer brand that has been historically marketed to blue collar working men, hired a transgender influencer to frolic around in their bathtub for a recent ad campaign in order to comply with the “S” in ESG. T-Mobile recently announced, as a commitment to the “E” in ESG and the Net Zero Pledge they signed, that they will address their entire company’s carbon footprint, including “both direct emissions from T-Mobile's operations and facilities as well as indirect emissions from purchased electricity. This includes customer device usage, shipping materials and fuel, employee transportation and travel and more.” Wells Fargo & Co landed in the news for skirting the “G”, or governance policies, in ESG by not executing affirmative action in their hiring practices. They were being investigated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice because they had “suspended a policy requiring that it interview a ‘diverse’ group of people for some jobs, with half of the candidates being female or nonwhite.” The New York Times reported that some employees went to great lengths to fulfill the policy, even going so far as to conduct “fake” interviews for jobs that had already been filled.
Embedding “DIE” (Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity) into Healthcare
These examples are a cautionary tale as to what might occur when adding “health equity” to ESG metrics; especially considering organizations like Pfizer, the American Cancer Society, and the American Heart and Diabetes Associations have signed the Zero Health Gaps Pledge.
Will the REALD (race, ethnicity, language and disability) and SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) identifiers in Figure 3 mean affirmative action practices when it comes to deciding who gets preferential access to medicines, treatment, or any health resources? Will this require that blood transfusions for transgender affirming care surgeries will be prioritized over other surgeries? Will race and sexuality factors be considered when deciding who is in line for organ transplants?
Practices like these have already begun to seep into our healthcare system. During the COVID-19 pandemic, both Utah and Minnesota’s Departments of Health used race as a factor in allocating who could receive Monoclonal antibody treatment by having 'non-white race or Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity' score two extra points on the Risk Score Card that medical professionals were instructed to use to numerically weigh patients’ risk through several medical factors. Intermountain Health Care, one of the largest healthcare providers in Utah, Idaho and Nevada, declared systemic racism a public health crisis and added “equity” as one of the fundamental drivers in their organizational strategy, and was even mentioned in the Global Health Equity Network’s Business Case as an example.
Determinants of “healthy years”
Will age also be a factor when considering who gets medical interventions and who doesn’t in GHEN’s vision of achieving “health equity” within and across communities? (Figure 4) The GHEN Action Guide refers to “healthy years in a person’s lifespan,” which could mean that only some years of a person’s life will be considered valuable over other years.
This language is eerily similar to that found in former Obama Senior White House Health Policy Advisor Dr. Ezekiel “Zeke” Emanuel’s Complete Lives System which, he explains in this 2009 Lancet paper, “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”
“Attenuated” means rationed, restricted or denied medical care that commonly leads to premature death.
Giving priority medical care to persons between 15 and 40 years old would discriminate unfairly against both children and the elderly. Would they be considered, what World Economic Forum’s Agenda Contributor Yuval Noah Harari calls, “useless eaters” who don’t contribute to society, and therefore should be considered of less value? Under this type of system, would a baby born with a congenital heart condition be lower on the totem pole for medical intervention based on their age, or even lower if they are a white male baby in GHEN’s vision of “health equity”?
Planned Parenthood has also signed on to the Zero Health Gap Pledge, leaving one to wonder if GHEN’s agenda has anything to do with eugenics and population control. Organizations that will be strong-armed into joining the GHEN or risk losing capital in the ESG swindle will most likely be forced to fully fund the reproductive health care (cough: abortions) and transgender hormone treatments that Planned Parenthood provides.
Socialist Medicine
“ESG is about controlling and forcing behaviors. It attempts to do through capital markets what activists and their government allies have been unable to do through democratic processes,” writes Utah State Treasurer Marlo Oaks. This is exactly what is happening through the Global Health Equity Network. By adding “Health Equity” indicators into ESG ratings, they will undemocratically move the United States into a more socialized model of universal healthcare based on social determinants of health. They will knowingly use economic pressure and market manipulation to compel the medical establishment to use the lens of progressive politics to practice discrimination when deciding who receives medical care and when. It is a slippery slope with no limiting principle as to what factors determine an individual’s value and right to life.
Unless and until these cartels are held accountable by exposing and punishing those who participate in this racket, the results will be unnecessary death and the further erasure of public trust in the medical system. Neither can be afforded.
Lisa Logan is the host of the YouTube Channel Parents of Patriots and author of the Substack Education Manifesto. If you find value in her content, you can support her work here. As a wife, mother and accidental activist, she has made it her mission to expose the sinister agenda behind the changes to education and other captured systems & institutions so we can save our children and the future of our country.
"Health equity" is another access point to push forward their communist agenda. Great work!
Awesome article. Thank you.