The Promotion of Ill Health by Public Health England

And all the other Public Health Quangos.

“Prevention is better that cure”. How many time have we heard that? Is that not the justification for everything that Public Health England does? But it is a mantra’, is it not?

Cambridge dictionary:


(especially in Hinduism and Buddhism) a word or sound that is believed to have a special spiritual power:
A personal mantra is sometimes repeated as an aid to meditation or prayer.

a word or phrase that is often repeated and expresses a particular strong belief:
The British fans chanted that familiar football mantra: “Here we go, here we go, here we go…”

As regards ‘prevention is better than cure’, I prefer the first meaning.

Vaccines, provided that they have been thoroughly tested and found to be safe for the vast majority of people, are good prevention. The discovery of quinine as a defence against malaria is a perfect example. The MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) is less clear. It might be true that there is a risk of autism, but how great is the risk? And how dangerous are measles, mumps and rubella? As a child, I developed measles and mumps. Lots of kids did so. But we did not die as a result. Catching those diseases immunised us for the future. How many children actually died from those diseases? I do not know. I suppose that some did.

But how do you prevent football injuries? The only way is not to play football. You cannot immunise someone against football injuries.

Where things go wildly wrong is when ‘Prevention’ includes the use of force. The mantra goes as follows:

“If we prevent (via bans and taxes) people from smoking, there will be no need to cure the ‘smoking related illnesses'”

Or even more of a mantra is:

“If we prevent children from taking up smoking, the ‘smoking related illnesses’ will not occur and there will be no need to cure those illnesses”

In those two cases, the aim of preventing the illnesses justifies the use of force.

The smoking ban was the use of force. Publicans were forced to use force to stop people smoking in their pubs. ‘Forced to use force’. I am not talking about just physically throwing a smoker out of the pub. I am also talking about refusing to serve such a person with more drinks or banning such a person. Those too are force. The justification was the prevention of illnesses among bar staff, even though there was almost zero evidence of such illnesses. The evidence was ‘allegorical’ at best, and non-existent at worst.

In like manner, cig manufacturers have been forced to cover the packets with dire warnings and pictures of people with diseases, which are very unlikely to be pictures of confirmed consequences of smoking. Indeed, one person (at least) has complained that he was the subject of a picture, and yet he was a non-smoker. If that were true, and I suppose that it would be a devil of a job for the person to prove that he was the subject, he has a very good case for claiming damages to his reputation, among other things. For a start, his health situation is private and not public. He had a right to agree or disagree to his private situation being publicised, and he had a right to be remunerated for the use of his picture in that way.

My main point follows.

How much harm is being perpetrated by the constant blitzkrieg of fear and propaganda by Public Health England? How many perfectly healthy plump people are worried to death about their health? How many people who enjoy ONE glass of wine or whiskey after dinner are worried to death because Silly Sally said that she worries about breast cancer every time that she has a glass of wine? How many people are worried that they sprinkle some salt on their food, and especially what proportion of a gram is entailed? How many people are worried stiff that they enjoy a spoonful of sugar in their tea? How many people will NOT take in enough salt? The body rids itself of excess salt via the kidneys, although, of course, that defence can be overridden by massive and continuous ingestion of salt. But a sufficiency of salt is absolutely essential.

I think that it is almost certain that Theresa May will have a decent majority after the coming General Election. She should realise that smokers, vapers, drinkers, have greatly enabled her victory, even though the MSM has not acknowledged that fact. I can say that because I truly believe that there are fewer ‘tribal’ voters than there use to be. My parents were Labour because they were part of Orwell’s Wigan Pier downtrodden masses. My Dad was a coal miner and his wage was only just enough to live on. A week in Blackpool was the best holiday that they could afford.

But I must stress that their lives (and the lives of my sister and I) were not unhappy. Our week in Blackpool was magical, but there was also magic for us children exploring the ponds in surrounding fields and finding ‘frogspawn’. ‘Frogspawn’ was a gelatinous mass of cells, all stuck together. Each cell could become a frog. Adult female frogs produced that mass in huge quantities. After a while, the cells turned into newts and then into frogs. But I dare say that most of the newts were devoured by other creatures in and around the pond since only a few frogs actually survived.

There was lots of fun to be derived in those days of ‘parental responsibility’. I remember one evening when my best friend and I, when I was about 10, sheltered in our bush hideout while a massive electric storm raged overhead. IT WAS MAGNIFICENT!! Lightning flashed and thunder rolled, but there was no rain. It was wonderful to behold.

Public Health England needs to be purged. It is promoting worry with every pronouncement. The Government MUST set up its own research establishments and abhor Universities. Universities are corrupt. They need to be put back in their place – apolitical education about FACTS. It is really, really abhorrent that OPINIONS have displaced FACTS. The Climate Control gang in the uni of Essex(?) were particularly criminal in their activities, and yet not one single person has been castigated.

It is not in the interests of university professors to castigate each other, and they will not.

And the same is true about the objectives of Public Health England. If smokers have to be ‘eliminated’, then so be it. Gas chambers are not needed – well, not yet.

The critical thing revolves around the use of FORCE, whether by bans or taxes. Such things are not ‘Prevention’ – they are naked FORCE, and they have no part in English life.



4 Responses to “The Promotion of Ill Health by Public Health England”

  1. Radical Rodent Says:

    Slight error, there, I’m afraid, in your natural history: newts are a separate species – even a separate genus – from frogs and toads (one of which produces its spawn in strings, the other en masse). The young of frogs (and toads) are tadpoles.

  2. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    PHE are making everyone’s life miserable and should be abolished.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: