“Public Health” and “Medication Regulation”

I’ve used the phrase ‘medication regulation’ in the title as a self-explanatory term for the MHRA, which regulates medicines and medical devices in the UK.

There is something odd about the conduct of Public Health and the MHRA which is worrying. Both organisations are directly concerned with the health of the public, but approach it from different directions. The MHRA exists to ensure that therapies are absolutely as effective and safe as possible, whereas ‘Public Health’ is concerned with stopping people needing medications in the first place.

What is odd is that the MHRA requires absolutely correct science – factual science, clinical studies, trials, etc – before it will approve a medication or device. Only drugs companies have the money and expertise to do the evaluations, and they are required to pay large sums of money to get their products approved. And it takes a long time. Essentially, however, the process is about precision.

The case with ‘Public Health’ is entirely the opposite. No precision is required. On the contrary, wild claims can be made on the merest of evidence. Junk ‘science’ is regularly employed. Also, the evidence is wildly exaggerated. Even worse is the use of advertising methods to create fear and aversion. Who can forget the advert which showed red veins turning black or tumours growing on a cigarette, or the false graphics on fag packets, or the false statements like ‘smoking kills’?

The MHRA side of ‘the health of the public’ is precise and scientific, but the “Public Health” side of ‘the health of the public’ is riddled with lies and trickery.

Since the bodies in the UK who are controlling “Public Health” are directly linked to the UK Health Dept, and to the EU Health Dept, and to the UN Health Dept, it is reasonable to say that ALL THESE BODIES ARE UNETHICAL. If they are unethical, they are therefore inhabited by charlatans. If so, then what is the BMA doing supporting and encouraging them?

——-

Is it any wonder that the NHS costs are out of control? It is a classic case of ‘infinite time and resources’. I remember watching a play on TV a couple of decades ago. (What are ‘plays’ called these days?). In this play, a scientist had invented a serum, or whatever, which stopped the ageing process. Thus, if a person took this serum, he would for ever remain at the age at which he started to use the serum. But the serum was incredibly tricky and expensive to produce. Naturally, the discoverer administered the serum to himself, and, he was the only one who knew the ‘formula’. The Government decided to fund him to find a way to cut the cost and expedite the production. The catch 22 in the play was that, since he personally was virtually immortal, he needed not to hurry – and he didn’t. Years passed, and he kept telling the Authorities that he was ‘making progress’. Decades passed, and still ‘making progress’. Then he got knocked over by a bus and was killed. Well, I’m not sure about the ending, but it was something like that.

The NHS is a monopoly, as is the MHRA and the BMA. All are engaged in a monopoly. Costs increase, prices increase, efficacy declines, bureaucracy increases, and there is no end to it. The Blair Government saw that and introduced targets. But targets are useless if the underlying practices are not under control. They are top down and not bottom up. According to that argument, Tobacco Control is wonderful, because it is, in theory, bottom up in that it stops people needing NHS services in the first place, as might Booze Control and Fat Control. The problem is that these ‘Controls’ will not stop people getting old and infirm, and being an even greater cost to the NHS than ever were smoking, drinking and eating too much.

=====

Is there any sort of solution?

I don’t think so, as things stand. A combination of reforms might do it, but it would require the exclusion in the first instance of ‘medical professionals’ since they would not have the required expertise in matters of finance, statistics and systems.

First, one might accept that the longer people survive, the costlier they are likely to be in old age. Forcing people to stop smoking, drinking and eating will not change that situation – in fact, if the charlatan projections of ‘health benefits’ and ‘smoking/drinking/eating related diseases’ are correct, then the health costs of old age can only become greater and greater.

Does that mean that smoking, drinking and eating are to be encouraged to cut NHS costs? Of course not! Advise but do not force. No sin taxes. Scrap tobacco control since it is expensive and increases the nation’s health costs. Stop academics wasting student fees on their pet ideologies.

====

But above all, the discrepancy between the NHS MHRA demand for accuracy and the NHS PUBLIC HEALTH inaccuracy must be sorted out. Public health is not a product to be advertised like toothpaste.

Thus, obscene pictures on tobacco packets must only be TRUE pictures of real conditions caused by smoking. It is unethical advertising to show pictures of a condition, like mouth cancer, which has not been proven to be caused by smoking, in the same way that an improvement in the cleanliness of your washing using product X needs to be proven to be the case. People have complained to the Advertising Standard NGO and been fobbed off. That Organisation too is corrupt. If fact, it is hard to find a Government Organisation which is not corrupt.

Why? Because of the politicisation of the Civil Service. Our Civil Service used to be the best in the world precisely because of its political neutrality. Now, it is riddled with Zealots of one sort or another. What needs to be done is to appoint Directors who will ensure that the Civil Service is politics-free. In the New Civil Service, only actual facts will determine policy. No hype, no trickery, no politicking, no academia imput unless verified.

—–

The list of needs is almost endless, but only because politicians have allowed Zealots to over-ride their common sense, and because they rely upon passing fads to keep them in office. But some 50 MPs stood and got elected under false pretences. They claimed to be Conservatives, Labour or Liberal when, in fact, the were anti-tobacco Zealots – nothing more and nothing less. They may well have been supported financially by ASH, the BMA etc, for all we know. The potential for corruption is manifest.

 

Readers should note my phrase ‘potential for corruption’, for is not the bolded word precisely the same as ‘might’, ‘could’, ‘may’, which words almost always appear in academic tobacco studies?  Meanwhile, because of these words ‘might’, ‘could’ and ‘may’, people who enjoy tobacco are being persecuted in the world-wide ascendency of Fascism and Totalitarianism.

I must make it clear that the words ‘Fascism and Totalitarianism’ are not intended to convey the meaning of Naziism and Communism, but the ideas of “The State is All-Powerful” and “One Size Fits All”. Both these idea belong to the EU.

They must be defeated.