The Exponential Growth of Healthism

It is not that long ago that one saw people saying, when they were hit be some adversity, saying, “At least I have my health”.

On second thoughts, it is a long time ago that I last heard a person in the MSM, who had lost everything, say, “At least I have my health”.

Is it not weird that, in today’s world, with all the strictures about smoking, eating, exercise, etc, fewer people say, “At least I have my health”.

Could it be that they now believe that they ‘do not have their health’?

So what did people mean when they said, “At least I have my health”? I suspect that they meant, “I do not feel ill”. For all they knew, they might have been riddled with obscure conditions of a physical or mental nature.

Somehow, I became a subscriber to The Lancet. I never cease to be amazed by the incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo. Here are a couple of examples:

Romosozumab (sclerostin monoclonal antibody) versus teriparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis transitioning from oral bisphosphonate therapy: a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Recombinant human C1 esterase inhibitor for prophylaxis of hereditary angio-oedema: a phase 2, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial. 

Effectiveness of a group B outer membrane vesicle meningococcal vaccine against gonorrhoea in New Zealand: a retrospective case-control study.

Why are there not similar incomprehensible studies of the precise effects of SHS? Where are the funny words and constructs explaining precisely how SHS kills people, or makes them ill? And how ill is ill?

But, most of all, who the hell is paying for these wizard-like studies? I mean, how can any reasonably intelligent person not question the effectiveness of the studies on ‘medicinal compounds’? What are the studies into these ‘medicinal compounds’ intended to produce? Surely, would not doctors who administer the ‘medicinal compounds’ already know whether they work or not?

It would be interesting if those people who say, “At least I have my health” were medically examined. The probability is that they would be found to be suffering from hundreds of ‘diseases’.

So what can be done?

Trump addressed the UN. I read his speech. The USA pays more than 20% of the UN costs. He is fed up with it. He wants other countries to pay their fair share. He wants accountability (meaning an end to corruption). He wants ACTIONS instead of words, especially about places like North Korea. It is a great pity that he did not mention the woeful dereliction of duty by the WHO.

Note the concerns of The Lancet:

  1. postmenopausal women with osteoporosis..
  2. prophylaxis of hereditary angio-oedema.
  3. gonorrhoea in New Zealand.

What I am trying to do is to highlight the difference between ‘proper’ science, as displayed in those studies, incomprehensible to most of us that they might be, with the simplistic propaganda and systematic persecution of smokers, drinkers, fatties, druggies, parents, Christians, hetro-males, whites, workers, drivers, etc, etc.

There is only one answer. There is no reason whatsoever for duties on tobacco, alcohol and petrol. None whatever. They should attract VAT, just like any other product, and nothing else. The failure of politicians to address those historical iniquities is shameful, because what they mean is that a comparatively small number of citizens is subsidising the others.

The studies that I have referred to above show that the NHS has far more ‘health problems’ to deal with than just smokers possibly being a nuisance. The Nat Stats enumerate hundreds of different ’causes of death’. Sure, it is possible that some people will die from some condition which they were genetically prone to, and that smoking hastened their demise. But it is also possible that smoking delayed some people’s demise.

I do not give a toss about Tobacco Companies. I want to be able freely to buy cured tobacco leaves. I want to be able to create blends. I do not mind paying VAT on my purchases.

ALL our UK politicians are charlatans because they refuse to see what is manifest before their eyes. In today’s world of ‘free trade’, duties are an anachronism. But ‘duties’ on alcohol, petrol and tobacco are even more devilish. They have undermined ‘fair contributions’ to the State from everyone for years and years. They have contributed to poverty by extracting penalty payments from decent citizens. And if politicians do not know that, then they should not be REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE. They are supposed to represent the poor as well as the well-off.

All the political parties are equally GUILTY of ripping off the poorest people.

It has got to stop.


One Response to “The Exponential Growth of Healthism”

  1. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    My thinking too Junican. The choice of tobacxo products particularly cigarettes is now the least ever even worse than the war years. You should be allowed to create your own blends without any state interference.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: