Despite the fact that I am 77 years old, I am healthy.
How can I declare that, since I do not have a ‘medical certificate’ to prove it? The reason is that I do not need proof. The fact that I am alive proves it.
So why, after some 55 years of smoking, drinking and eating am I still alive and fit? I do not know of any acedemic research which concerns itself with old people who are strong and fit. I know that there are studies about the lifestyles of 90 year-old people, who are still alive, and that they smoked and drank as much as they liked. Among that sub-section, smoking was not relevant their their condition.
The word ‘CONDITION’ is important.
My title is ‘Health’ and Mechanics. Note the commas around the word ‘Health’.
A person who climbs mountains can expect to fall from time to time. Normally, such falls are just a slips which cause no harm. But, gravity being what it is, ANY slip is a fall. In every event of mountaineering, there is a risk of falls. That is a manifest fact.
But are those falls ‘health’ risks?
Superficially, they are, if ‘health’ means any abnormality from perfection. But the reality is that there are no perfect human specimens. The fraud Glantz in the USA is fat – very fat – obese. How does it come that such a fatty dictates?
There are no perfect lifestyles, other than dead lifestyles. Dead lifestyles are perfect.
The Tobacco Control Industry is a death industry. Few people understand that. Death, and not Life is the business of that industry.
Almost all deaths are ‘mechanical’ for one reason or another. EVERYONE who dies does so because a major organ fails, and the effect of that failure causes the heart to stop beating. It is mechanical.
The vast majority of people who die do not die from ‘ill-health’. They die because a major organ of their bodies breaks down. It might be the liver, the brain, the lungs, the heart, the kidneys -who knows?
I feel sure that the confusion between ‘ill-health’ and ‘ill-lifestyles’ has been deliberately engineered. But I do not know why. Perhaps MPs who did not recognise the difference between ‘Health’ and ‘Safety’ when the “Health and Safety at Work” Act was passed, are responsible for the rise of ‘experts’ to be Kings and Emperors. After all, if politicians are obliged to accept as gospel the machinations of academics, then those academics become Kings and Emperors.
‘Health’ is ephemiral. ‘Safety’ is more realistic. Smoking bans in pubs, based upon the the probability of danger to staff, could be justified, if there was danger. But ‘danger’ was never the excuse for the bans. The excuse was ‘health’.
Is that the weakness?
Generally speaking, there is a vast difference between ‘danger’ and ‘risk of danger’.
Oh dear! Talk about opening a can of worms….