What Is The Dept of Health FOR?

Christmas day night. We’ve had a great day, and now everyone has necessarily gone home and it is only 9.30 pm. What better than to write a post?

The above question has been floating around in my mind for some time, and I do not know the answer. The question has only just clarified itself in my mind somewhat.

I do not know when or how, but the words ‘and wellbeing’ were added at some point. Thus the ‘Minister of State for Health’ became the ‘Minister of State for Health and Wellbeing’.

As I said in my last, short post, the word ‘wellbeing’ has no precision about it. And yet the WHO has introduced the phrase ‘Health and Wellbeing’ somehow into its objectives.

‘Health’ is not that difficult to define reasonably. It means physical, bodily correct functioning. Your heart pumps blood with the correct balance of this and that nutrient and water etc; impurities are filtered out and disposed of; you eat, drink, poo and pee regularly and with some enthusiasm; your brain (not your mind) functions correctly and sends out the right signals.

The mind is significantly different. The ‘old’ brain is automatic. Animals, and we, pee and poo when the ‘old’ brain sends automatic signals. Both animals and we can ‘hold it’ for a while due to ‘habit’, but a human has no more control that an animal if push comes to shove. He well urinate or defecate because he must, but he will tend to look for a place to do so which is the best place as he sees it at the time. He might pee in a flower pot and poo on newspaper. Your mind, because it able to reason, can make choices. ‘Mental Health’ is a bit weird. I do not know, but it is possible that the ‘automatic emotions’, which animals also possess, override the mind. ‘Fear’ is one such automatic emotion.

We all agree that such ailments are the business of ‘The Health Dept’, but how did ‘wellbeing’ find its way into that Dept? ‘Wellbeing’ has little to do with Health, either physical or mental. In fact, economists suggest that we can weigh up our own wellbeing via ‘trade-offs’; well-off people can buy more expensive and succulent foods than poorer people, but that does not mean that poorer people are starving. Most people have a way of life which is regular; they buy foods which they can afford and spend some money on entertainment. Even in the difficult years immediately after WW2, working people could afford their rent, food and a few pints on a Saturday night. But they did ‘make do and mend’. Socks were darned and clothes patched.

Only in the 1960s did paid work become plentiful and well paid so that male youths could buy teddy suits and female youths could dress up like harlots (as seen from a puritanical point of view). There was an excitement in the air in those heady 1960s.

But it was not only young folk who enjoyed the atmosphere. Older people flocked to working men’s clubs and played bingo and enjoyed a few beers. They were happy. The ‘trade off’ was NOT between starving and enjoyment. It was about how you spent your time.

At some point in the recent past, ‘Health’, in the sense of physical bodily functioning, has been downgraded. It has been replaced by ‘wellbeing’, which no one can define. Anything other than ‘contagious’ disease is ‘wellbeing’.

Thus, smoking is an affront to ‘wellbeing’. It does not matter that smokers enjoy smoking. It does not matter that smoking, for each individual smoker, is a pleasant experience.

When ‘Wellbeing’ invaded the ‘Health Dept’, that dept became ‘not fit for purpose’. Wellbeing has created loads of work for the NHS. Finding minor problems in old people is to be expected.

So we come to the crux. What does the Dept of Health and Wellbeing exist for? Is it Health or Wellbeing? The two things are not synonymous.

As I see it, the word ‘wellbeing’ was deliberately used to create uncertainty. After all, no one actually needs alcohol or hamburgers.

What is needed is that people become aware of the fact that they are being misled by fake statistics. It is not about forming some sort of political party. It is about spreading knowledge. Don’t bother about smoking bans. They are not important. What is important is that the Gov has no right to decide what constitutes ‘wellbeing’  for any individual.

Efforts by Gov, other than genuine persuasion, are persecution. The Smoking Ban was persecution and still is. If a person wishes to venture outdoors with a shroud over his/her body and a mask over his/her face, then he/her must be willing to be laughed at and ridiculed. That would not be persecution.

Massive taxes are persecution. Remember that the massive taxes on cigs exist ONLY to raise revenue for Gov. Smokers are being persecuted.

But such persecution is becoming  more and more widespread. What else is minimum pricing in Scotland? And yet people vote for the SNP. It can only be that the vast majority of voters rarely go to pubs or drink at home.

Somehow the persecution must end.


4 Responses to “What Is The Dept of Health FOR?”

  1. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Smokers are bullied relentlessly. Govt and Health Fascists wouldn’t get away with such bullying of any other group. I wish we could forcibly hit back. In my own way i fight back by flaunting my enjoyment of tobacco and trying to buy all my premade cigs abroad. The only UK tobacco i buy is Gawith Hoggarths excellent Golden Turkish for tubing.

    • junican Says:

      Ordinary people need to see that. If you get into conversation with someone, don’t bother about whether smoking bans are justified. Concentrate on the bullying, persecution and theft.

  2. Smoking Lamp Says:

    The persecution must end. That implies an end to ‘public health’ tyranny and smoking bans. I think exposing the healthist lies can be a good first step–especially as the prohibitionists expand their reach to alcohol and coffee (both linked with increased longevity) and other foods people enjoy.

    • junican Says:

      It doesn’t seem to matter if PHE persecution is condemned by loads of qualified statisticians etc. They just plough on. That is why it is not a question of FACTS – it is a question of politics. It strikes me that Cameron created PHE to get the Zealots off his back. The same applies to ‘devolution’ to local authorities.
      The system is rotten to the core because it was always based upon expediency.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: