twitter: @rolygate

Public Health - A Good Idea Gone Horribly Wrong

Originally, public health was the movement to reduce or eradicate communicable diseases such as smallpox and cholera. It has radically changed into an industry that can be referred to as Public Health, which seeks to:

a) Regulate and correct people's behaviour according to a preconceived ideal.

b) Maximise longevity at the expense of anything else, including quality of life, cost to the individual and cost to the state.

c) Develop rules for life that comply with a perfect ideal, and are embodied in public policy implemented by force.

d) Impose the ideals of the urban, socialist elite on everyone else.

e) Provide well-paid employment for its members, whose principal task is implementing policies that control others' lives without their permission.

f) Implement policies that, by force of law, protect and promote Public Health's commercial partners.

 

So we can see that public health began as a force for good, and changed into something else when there was no work left to do in the developed countries. No one ever shuts down a successful enterprise voluntarily: they find other things to do, and recruit more people in order to strengthen their position. From being a major force for good, once there was nothing much left to do, Public Health morphed into just another of the neo-socialist mechanisms for control of the population, with all the massive negatives that entails.

In one sense it is a new religion but with legal powers - a force to compel obedience to a set of rules for life based on a warped ideal of perfection.

The removal of free choice

Public health policies always have intrinsic negatives. Part of the problem with Public Health (in its sense as a discrete and self-contained industry) is that it is generally thought of as a positive force, but - in practice - is now too often a negative one. It is driven by ideals but diverted by zealotry and corruption, because it attracts people highly vulnerable to those pressures. In the end, the plan becomes more important than the people; and at that point Public Health has become an instrument of oppression.

The policies may improve the general health of the public provided that they are correct in the first place, are widely accepted and complied with, and the implicit negatives in such actions are discussed and accepted by all. Compliance with all these conditions is almost impossible, and the price to be paid by the public (or even the state) is never discussed: removal of individual liberty and elevated costs to the state for support in later life are never considered.

Above all, the concept of a slightly shorter but far happier life appears to be taboo: individual choice is explicitly removed by law. Even the Church is now speaking out on this modern evil - probably the last group you would expect to see telling us that long life is a bad idea. It wasn't, until the Public Health-pharma tie-in:

"Ironically, one of the crueller side effects of the sophistication of modern medicine is that we have perfected ways of keeping people alive long after any pleasure or meaning has disappeared from their lives. We sentence them to years of mournful inanition, though many of them would happily take their leave while they had a mind to do so."
- Bishop Holloway

 

And since 2003 we have seen the true face of modern Public Health revealed by the tobacco control section of the industry: they are actually prepared to kill anyone who doesn't comply with their ideals. Public Health is responsible for about 10% of the current EU death toll from smoking, by preventing access to Swedish Snus by force of law, which would save the lives of around 70,000 of the 0.7m reportedly killed by smoking in Europe annually.

Public health has changed from a powerful force for good into a self-interest group that exists to protect and promote itself at the expense of others.

Motivations

The Public Health industry has two principal aims:

  • Gain control of non-clinical health. Ensure that PH cannot be dispensed with. Weave into the fabric of health provision and funding so that PH becomes part of the environment. Attempt to become indispensible even though the major diseases have disappeared.
  • Get more and more funding, and expand. Bring in more staff. Exert continual pressure on the media so that PH is seen as vital (despite there being no epidemics in the countries with the highest funding). Make sure that massive salaries are paid, to illustrate the importance of the work - despite achieving nothing.

Public Health is the epitome of the emperor's new clothes syndrome: once the major diseases have been eradicated in the countries that can be exploited for funds, and smoking has been reduced to 20% prevalence, then absolutely nothing more of any value can be accomplished. After this point, it is all about job creation schemes and protecting the fiefdom.

Surely we must need *some* public health?

Of course. We need about 2% of the current staff and 2% of the current funding.

There will always be work to do in monitoring infectious disease, smoker education, and similar tasks. The rest is entirely capricious make-work schemes and self-serving publicity. For example, there is no point in worrying about youth drinking when it is at an all-time low and still falling. There is no point in trying to reduce smoking prevalence past 20% since tobacco control policies cease to work at that point: there is no exception to the 20% Prevalence Rule anywhere; only substitution (THR) works once the 20% Prevalence Rule operates.

Keep in mind that the Public Health industry is a national-level lobbying group - it has nothing to do with the health of the public: all real public health work is carried out at local level by local authorities, clinics and hospitals. Vaccinations, mother and baby care and so on are already taken care of - the national groups have no relation to this work. Their budgets are not applied to actual public health work.

Unfortunately, PH spends so much of its time cementing its position, grasping at more funds, and wasting time and money on fatuous press releases and useless policies, that infectious and environmental diseases are making a comeback even in the most advanced countries. Measles and TB are on the up in the UK - Public Health can't even carry out its most basic duties, most likely because there is no money in it - only costs. Modern public health is mostly about paid lobbying at national level and has nothing to do with actual public health, which is street-level action to reduce disease by changing local conditions for the better. This of course is very hard work and far less profitable than central lobbying and the funding drives for more money for administration costs that 'public health' is now based around.

Currently, the vast bulk of PH is a useless waste of taxpayer's money. Actually it is more than that: it is a collection of toxic parasites doing more harm than good.

Fake charities

The Public Health industry has many NGOs that operate as charities, and accusations that some (or many) are fraudulent appear to have some credibility since some of these groups are nothing more than lobbying organisations; some may be part-funded by industry and promote the interests of that industry above public interest; and they may spend far less on charitable objectives than the public is aware of. They may spend more of their funds on their own salaries and lobbying than any real action in the field they profess to work in; in some cases it appears that action receives less funding than 'administration' (e.g. salaries and expenses).

Here is an explanation of the problem:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2835947/The-Great-British-rake-really-happens-billions-donate-charity-Fat-cat-pay-appalling-waste-hidden-agendas.html

Belief system

PH sees the person as the steward of a body in the same way that religion sees people as stewards of a soul; thus, it is a religion that defines how people act, without reference to their personal wishes. Like all religions it attracts zealots, the semi-insane, and the corrupt. There will always be some form of commercial exploitation of such an easily-manipulated agenda, in this case by the pharmaceutical industry, who have essentially the same goals: prolong life at all costs, as it is the key to profits. The transnational pharmaceutical corporations are the back-up funder for Public Health, when taxpayers' funds cannot be appropriated freely or where an enticement needs to be offered.

PH is never, in any circumstances, about making people happy or allowing them to live their lives according to personal choice. It is about conforming to a modern form of ruleset whose nearest relative is that of a religion. It is something akin to the application of zealotry to the law.

People who do not follow the preset rules are seen as addicts and therefore without volition: if, for example, they like a proscribed food or stress reliever or consumer stimulant, then they can be classed as 'addicted' to the preferred choice, and thus their opinion is worthless and can be discredited. They are 'fatties' or 'foodies' or 'druggies' or 'alkies' and have no valid voice in the discussion.

Public Health principle #1: remove the primary stakeholders

One of the core principals of PH is that the subjects of the policy cannot speak against it: they can be ignored due to their bias. In addition such people can be maligned as being in the pay of any industry that might supply their needs; and in these ways the power of the opposition can be removed. It is never admitted that PH is supported in exactly the same way by opposing industries, except better.

Therefore the first rule of Public Health is that the principal stakeholders must be forcibly removed from the debate.


The first task, then, is to disenfranchise the stakeholders so that their seat at the table can be removed and their voice suppressed. This may take as much or greater work than the actual assault on their rights, since the opposition must first be crushed before any further progress on legally removing their rights can be made. If this step is not completed successfully, further measures may be diluted by unwelcome opposition. It is important to maximise propaganda output at this stage, and multiple methods can be employed - see the Public Health Guide To Control.

The best example of this is the way PH has lied so prodigiously about EVs (electronic vapourisers) and their users, in order to attempt to remove opposition to policies designed to regulate EVs out of existence. The scale of the lies is not simply prodigious, it is ground-breaking in the health-related area: never have so many egregious lies been published about a single topic. In order to do this, PH has had to contradict Prof Britton, who has stated that ecigs would save 5 million lives just in the UK just among those alive today; Prof West, who says that ecigs are about as harmful as coffee; Prof Hajek, who says ecigs are about as safe as you can get; and countless other professors of medicine, doctors, and THR specialists.

It is difficult to work out why the Public Health industry would deliberately kill so many people by putting them off smoking cessation, preventing access to the best solutions, and generally attempting to keep people smoking unless pharmacotherapies are used (which have a 9 out of 10 failure rate). Various theories have been advanced including zealotry, corruption and incompetence. No doubt these all have a part to play; though one attractive answer is that the successes achieved by EVs in reducing smoking prevalence in several countries have been achieved without the Public Health industry, and indeed against its directives. (A 1% smoking prevalence reduction is shown last year, due entirely to EVs, in the latest UK stats from R West's Smoking Toolkit project; after many years of zero prevalence reduction.)

This is more important than it appears: the single most important 'property' of the pharmaceutical industry is the principle that it alone decides health policy. It is the key to profitability and is protected at any cost.


Needless to say, the Public Health industry and the pharmaceutical industry are quite close. In many cases they are one and the same thing. Perhaps it would be churlish to note that smoking generates about 15% of pharmaceutical industry revenues and that EVs will mostly destroy that income in time, since (according to Prof West's projected mortality figures) no statistically-identifiable number of vapers will experience serious morbidities requiring treatment - unlike the current bonanza for the Geneva cartel. Chemotherapy drugs, COPD drugs, cardiac drugs, blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs, cholesterol drugs, smoking cessation drugs and all the rest are extremely profitable. The trick is to get as many people onto them as possible for as long as possible; and the longer that life can be artificially prolonged, the more drugs will be needed. It is the ultimate revenue-generating feedback loop - but it is not a perpetual motion machine: it needs constant pressure from the Public Health industry to provide the engine. That is their true value, and why their salaries are commensurate with their value to the pharmaceutical industry.

Disinformation

Public Health is defined as much as anything else by the continual lies it must propagate in order to enforce its highly-profitable agenda. Where it masquerades as part of the medical profession, the disinformation produced is of an epic scale and bears no relation to science; statistics and epidemiology are seen as tools to be distorted and re-worked according to the overall plan.

Health economics is an opposing pressure that is denied any recognition; harm reduction (and most especially THR) is seen as an evil that should be eliminated to create the perfect world: a place where everyone conforms to the health rules and pays taxes that support the health rulers.

The goal

The aim of 'Public Health' can be expressed in the form of its unspoken edict to the population:

   "Live your life according to our rules, because these are the rules for a perfect world. If you cannot do so, and oppose us, then go away and die - and the sooner, the better, as we only want true believers to survive.
    We will not permit you to mitigate the health effects of your actions as it contradicts the rules. Human happiness is not the goal of Public Health, it is compliance with our rules so that future generations are born into a perfect world.
    If you disagree and say so or act accordingly, it qualifies as a serious offence. It creates needless problems for us, may create pressure on our funding, may risk our salaries, and in general creates a problem that we see as best solved by your earliest death, precipitated if necessary by our refusal to allow you any way to mitigate the health impact of your lifestyle.
    Even if you find a harmless way to continue your chosen lifestyle, we will not permit it. Indeed, this is one of the gravest sins as it is a cancerous resistance to our rules that may render our position untenable, and it seriously harms our funders - and both are aspects that affect our funding, which is inestibly more important than your health or happiness."


Public health is an industry, a form of religion, and a profession. It gains control of its subjects, and the funding required to operate, by appealing to left-wing idealism in order to create a wedge that can be driven into administrations and then exploited to advantage. Its mode of operation is to exploit the trend toward neo-socialist political structures in modern government: rigid control of the population combined with maximum commercial revenue. There is no term as yet for this modern form of government, epitomised by the EU: a federal government that is specifically designed to insulate policy from interference by the public while maximising revenues by protecting major industries; perhaps neo-communist is the closest we can get.

Because the end result in some areas of operation is the death of those who do not comply and who are allowed no alternative option, it is probably better to describe this as neo-Stalinism. Socialists, even neo-socialists, are not normally as willing to kill anyone/everyone who does not agree with them as PH personnel and especially those in the tobacco control industry are. That part of the public health industry tends to attract the most hardline zealots of all, who brook no opposition to their dream of a perfect world. It is the true religion and all non-believers can be destroyed without remorse.

The real aim

Note carefully that the ultimate goal is compliance, not health: lives are irrelevant (whether the quality of, or even the termination of) in the process of taking control of the system, its structures, and its revenues, in the true hard-left manner. The target is a perfect world, with perfect people, living according to perfect rules, and supporting the ruling elite in the proper style. Any other consideration is of no consequence. Those who do not agree can be sacrificed without recrimination: they are of no value to the cause, and thus worthless.

The important goal is the principle of a perfect world where policy and revenue are owned by Public Health, and this goal has no time limit or timescale; therefore no accommodations need be made. All sacrifices are justified, since PH is the ultimate expression of "the end justifies the means". All methods are therefore justified in the struggle.

  • The Public Health industry is institutionally incapable of recognising that people, in the main, prefer a happy life to an artificially extended, ascetic (or miserable) one.
  • It is even less capable of recognising that where people manage to find a solution that combines most of the benefits but may not be perfect, to deny them that option by force of law is the act of despicable, mindless zealots.
  • The concept that Public Health can be (and is) perverted into the worst form of megalomania and corruption appears to not even be recognised.
  • In the end, the Public Health industry is the perfect example of a self-serving special interest group who care nothing for those trampled underfoot in their drive to own the machine and as much of its revenues as is humanly possible - at any cost.
  • In many respects, modern Public Health is a direct expression of the trend toward an urban, socialist elite enforcing their views on everyone else: rural, coastal, and town populations must conform to ideals set by an urban ruling class whose lives are remote in every aspect from those they rule over. In their legally-enforced version of conformity, all are considered to be inactive, sedentary city dwellers with no requirement for calories or pleasure after a day of hard work; and to have a desire to live forever, on an inner-city sofa. To describe the urban socialist elite as remote or unrealistic is probably far too charitable.

Public Health - is it ever any use?

Of course: when it concerns itself with communicable and environmental diseases (e.g. smallpox, cholera, TB). It does sterling work, and always has done, on reducing and even eliminating some diseases. But the new face of Public Health - its role in controlling peoples' lives whether they want it or not - is simply a job creation scheme designed to support the ever-increasing numbers of people coming into the industry who have nothing to do. They need make-work schemes otherwise they would have no employment; they create work where there is none. Or rather, it appears on the surface to be a job creation scheme; but there is almost always a commercial beneficiary, and for some reason it is always Public Health's very good friends in the pharmaceutical industry.

The end result is that they interfere with and even legally prohibit people's lifestyle choices for no good reason. What possible basis is there for restricting or even banning the purchase of the most efficient products to avoid smoking or quit smoking, such as ecigs? What possible reason can be given for attempting to regulate these products out of existence when, according to Prof Britton, the potential is there to save 5 million lives in the UK just among those alive today? Why would anyone ban products that are, in the words of Prof West, "About as harmful as coffee"?

No one knows why. The answer is probably a mix of zealotry bordering on lunacy, and corruption.

If they can ban things that will save millions of lives, for no apparent reason, then we in turn should be allowed to ban what they want to do. Let's start with procreation, since the world certainly doesn't need any more of these incompetent, corrupt lunatics.

 

Public health per se is a wonderful idea, and in the mid-20th century became one of the defining mechanisms in society, demonstrating the power of modern civilisation to protect and improve. By the 21st century it had become a corrupt and evil perversion: it morphed into a type of religion, controlled by zealots and part-funded by the worst elements of commercial exploitation. It attempts to replace old religion with a new and far worse monolith: a transnational force for oppression and control, where human rights are violated, individual rights are removed, and where commercial agendas are rigorously protected by the corrupt.

 

How can the Public Health problem be solved?

Here is a simple prescription for solving the Public Health problem: a 3-point plan that needs to be followed to fix this vicious neoplasm.

  1. Shrink to a more realistic size commensurate with the workload. Since all health problems have dramatically reduced in the civilised countries, it follows that public health funding, staffing and salaries can also reduce (not increase year on year, as is the rule now).
    - Slash government funding, and legally prohibit any funds originating in any way from the pharmaceutical industry due to the blatant conflict of interest.
    - Conduct regular forensic accountancy investigations of senior staff to ensure that unidentified funds have not been accrued, in order to protect the public. Real 'public health' - that is to say, the actual health of the public - means isolating policy from commercial pressure.
  2. Go back to doing something valuable instead of acting as pharma's revenue stream creation partner. Concentrate on the communicable diseases that are now increasing due to inaction by Public Health. There's no money in it; but it's honest work, for a change.
    - Get into local community work instead of the national-level profitable advocacy that occupies the Public Health industry currently: generating propaganda on behalf of funders or for work-creation schemes.
    - Do something about the squalor and conditions that are allowing the old diseases to make a comeback. That's right: do some public health for a change.
  3. Or: move lock, stock and barrel to the developing world, where public health is actually needed.

 

 


Notes

More technically complete explanations of the gross errors in modern PH, by insiders - and perhaps more charitable in parts:

http://antithrlies.com/2014/09/21/dear-public-health-the-public-despises-you-so-you-are-probably-doing-it-wrong/
http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2391
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-conceit-of-public-health.html

For a detailed look at the operations of the tobacco control section of Public Health, see:
www.ecigarette-politics.com/the-tobacco-control-industry.html
 

The Public Health Guide To Control can be read in conjunction with this article: the playbook for destroying the opposition before removing their rights.

 

 

 


created 2014-09-22
update 2014-12-29