The Flimsiness of ‘Public Health’

Ever since ‘Public Health’ abandoned its core concern, being infectious diseases, and turned its attention of non-diseases, such as lifestyles, ‘Public Health’s’ raison d’etre has become less and less secure. Let us be clear. A lifestyle, whether it be drinking alcohol to a given extent, or smoking to a given extent, or eating to a given extent, is not itself a disease. It is because the Zealots have somehow corrupted our language that it has been possible to talk of ‘a tobacco epidemic’. Such a phrase is nonsense since it could be equally applied to flooding. As we saw last winter, there was a ‘flooding epidemic’ in the Somerset Levels. The Global Warming extremists would, no doubt, predict ‘flooding PANdemics’, if they could. In fact, I am surprised that they have not already done so.

A lifestyle is not a disease and therefore needs not to be cured, and therefore has little to do with ‘Health’, and therefore has little to do with ‘The Health Dept’. I suspect that the linking of lifestyle to health is probably the worst error of judgement that has been committed ‘since records began’. Epidemiological studies will always be wrong because it is extremely unlikely that over-indulging in alcohol, to the extent of becoming an alcoholic, will produce good health results. In fact, one might reasonably say that such a result is nigh on impossible. If that is the case, then it must be true that an epidemiological study of that nature can never produce a ‘beneficial’ effect. Such an effect is impossible. It has been shown that moderate consumption of alcohol is beneficial, but the Zealots are not at all interested in that. They want only to study the alcoholics, and, from those studies, demand ‘minimum prices’ and such. They might study drinking as a whole, but, because of their idealism, will pick out only the worst aspects and emphasise them. That is their ‘modus operandi’.

===

It follows reasonably that lifestyle effects ought to have nothing to do with ‘Health’. If the Government is intent on ‘nudging’ people, there needs to be a separate Dept, which we might call ‘Safety’. ‘Health’ and ‘Safety’ are not the same thing at all. Not remotely.

And yet we have suffered a couple of decades with these two separate ideas being lumped together. That is another idea which is one of the worst ideas ‘since records began’.

—-

It is precisely because of the establishment of an artificial link between ‘Health’ and ‘Safety’ that certain people were able to infiltrate the Health Dept and create laws such as the smoking ban. If we think about the words being used, and if we think of the reason for the smoking ban, we see that the predominant consideration in the smoking ban is “Safety”. Health, as regards the smoking ban’ is a secondary consideration.

====

I think that we defenders of the liberty to enjoy our lives as we wish need to be aware of the importance of words. Do not accept the phrase “Climate Change” (since the climate changes all the time). Use only the phrase “Global Warming”. Little things like that upset the Zealots, who want everything their own way.

===

As regards “Tobacco Control”, the Zealots created their own hell. They cannot get away from it. It is built into the “Framework Convention of Tobacco Control“. “Control” is the important word.

What does that word, “Control”, mean? It obviously does not mean “prohibition” or “extermination”. I think that it means precisely what it says: “Control tobacco usage to our fiduciary advantage”.

===

But what is worse is the use of “Professors” and “Doctors” (very willingly) to create non-existent dangers. It is strange that the “Professors” and “Doctors” who do the talking are rarely skilled in medicine. They are nearly always people people skilled in “Advertising”, or in the case of some of them, skilled in nothing more than ‘blithering’ (in the sense of ‘blithering idiot’).

===

Finally for tonight.

There are people like McKee and Bauld who have no connection with “Health” whatsoever. Their “connection” is with proving that it is possible to control by the use of words, backed up by force. Such ideas are ‘fascist’ in the sense of “State Control and Authority” and ‘totalitarian’ in the sense of “One size fits all”.

Fascism was defeated when Hitler and Mussolini were overthrown. Totalitarianism was defeated when Stalin pegged out. But both of these tyrannies have returned, but only because of ignorance in our political establishment of the recent past.

===

Is there an answer to the political ‘short term’ stupidity of Parliament as a whole? Perhaps there is. Much has been made of the idea that MPs could be ‘recalled’, ie sacked if the electorate decided so. But what about doing away with ‘General Elections’ altogether? Why should such elections be sacrosanct? Why not replace MPs as and when and give them,  individually, a five year term of office? But why five years? Why not three years? What we do not need is professional MPs. We need politicians who see their job as protecting the people against the “The King”. ‘The King’, as regards the enjoyment of tobacco, is all those delegates who will be blithering in Moscow.

Most of the attendees in Moscow are probably ‘health’ employees, and they are certain to applaud whatever the ‘FCTC CONTROLLERS say. Their jobs depend upon it.

But what is of the greatest importance is that people like McKee and Bauld should be revealed as frauds. For that is what they are. They do not speak the truth.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “The Flimsiness of ‘Public Health’”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    “But what is worse is the use of “Professors” and “Doctors” (very willingly) to create non-existent dangers. It is strange that the “Professors” and “Doctors” who do the talking are rarely skilled in medicine. They are nearly always people people skilled in “Advertising”,”

    ‘Advertizing’ and ‘Propaganda’ and ‘Obscuring the Truth’ are total musts in keeping people scared and un-aware of reality.

    Lifestyle changes will do very little to improve an individual’s chance of not dying.
    (USA data)
    315 million people and 2.4 million deaths per year means that the total death rate is about 0.75% of 1%’

    In any given year, on average, a person has a 99.25% chance of dying from all causes.

    A lifestyle change to prevent dying from some specific cause is going to have little effect.

    Cancers are 23% of the total deaths.
    23% of 0.75% = death rate of 0.17% of 1%(17/100ths of 1%).

    Since a person, on average, has a 99.83% chance of not dying from cancer in any given year, there is little improvement to be made..

    An improvement from 99.83% to 99.99% is only about an improvement of 2/10ths of 1%.

    That is why the Zealots always talk about ‘Public Health’ benefits rather than benefits to an individual risk of not dying.

    If they do talk about individual risks, they make statements about un-specified amounts of change or relative risks and never actual risks or chances of ‘not dying’.

  2. garyk30 Says:

    Doll’s Doctor Study and smokers vs ex-smokers and cancers.

    Death rates per 1,000 per year

    Current smokers = 7.78 died(992.22 did not die)

    Ex-smokers = 4.66 died(995.34 did not die)

    By quitting, smkers will improve their chances of not dying by only 3/10ths of 1%.

    TC zealots will crow about the 40% decrease from 7.78 to 4.66 and never mention that 7.78 per 1,000 is a very small number.

    7.78 per 1,000 is a death rate of only 8/10ths of 1%.

  3. garyk30 Says:

    Life Style change zealots claim that quitting smoking will improve a smoker’s chances of not dying from lung cancer.

    There are 46 million smokers in the USA and the CDC says that they account for about 33,000 lung cancer deaths(LCD’s) per year.

    That is 1 lcd per 1,394 smokers, with 1,393 not dying.

    That is 99.93% not dying.

    It would be very difficult to improve on that number.

  4. junican Says:

    That is (one of many) the trick, Garyk – Take an increased RR of, say, 25% (even though that 25% is no where near a statistically relevant number) and use it to scare people. Then take the whole population of smokers and multiply by 0.25 and you will get some thousands of people, which you then use to bamboozle politicians and double the ‘scare factor’.
    It is all very deliberate and is unethical when using such tactics in matters of Health. It is disgraceful.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: