Public Health-A Good Idea Gone Horribly Wrong

Public Health – A Good Idea Gone Horribly Wrong

We can see that public health started as a force for good and then transformed into something else when there was no longer any work to be done in the developed nations.

No one ever voluntarily closes a successful enterprise; they find other things to do and recruit more individuals to fortify their position.

Once it was a significant force for good, Public Health has evolved into just another of the neo-socialist control systems with all its numerous drawbacks.

It is, in many ways, a new religion with legal authority – a tool for forcing people to obey a set of values based on an absurd notion of perfection.

The removal of free choice

Public health measures always have inherent drawbacks. The problem with Public Health (in its current usage as a discrete and self-contained industry) is that it is commonly considered a good thing. Still, in practice – especially with the spread of globalisation – it has become too often a negative force.

It is driven by ideals but compromised by fanaticism and venality since it draws individuals who are highly susceptible to such influences.

In the end, the plan takes precedence over the individuals; at that point, Public Health has become a weapon of oppression.

If policies are correct in the first place, accepted and followed by a large number of people, and their implicit negatives are discussed and accepted by everyone, they may enhance public health.

These criteria are nearly unattainable, yet their enforcement is almost never questioned: removal of individual freedom, increased long-term public assistance costs, and reduced life opportunities for people with chronic diseases will not be considered.

Finally, the concept of a slightly shorter but considerably more joyful life is considered to be unacceptable: legislation explicitly forbids people from making their own decisions.

The Church is now joining the discussion, which may be the last one you’d expect to see speak out against having a long life. It wasn’t until recently when the Public Health-pharma connection was made:

“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

Since 2003, we’ve seen the real face of contemporary Public Health revealed by the tobacco control sector of the industry: they are prepared to murder anyone who doesn’t embrace their ideals.

By preventing access to Swedish Snus by force of law, which would save the lives of around 70,000 of the 0.7 million people who die annually as a result of smoking in Europe, Public Health is responsible for approximately 10% of the current EU death toll from smoking.

The field of public health has been transformed from a great force for good into a self-interest group that serves 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. Make sure PH cannot be dispensed with. Work into the fabric of health delivery and funding so that PH becomes a normal component of life. Attempt to become indispensable even though the most common illnesses have vanished.
  • Launch new initiatives and increase funding. Hire more people. PH should be seen as essential (despite there being no epidemics in the countries with the most funding). Make sure that big salaries are paid, to show how vital the job is – despite achieving nothing.

The emperor’s new clothes syndrome is exemplified by public health: once the major illnesses have been eliminated in countries that can be exploited for cash, and smoking has been reduced to 20% prevalence, there is no more value to be gained. It’s all about job creation programs and keeping the fiefdom after this point.

Surely we need some sort of public health?

Of course. We’ll need roughly 2% of the existing personnel and money. There will always be work to do in monitoring infectious diseases, smoking cessation programs, and other similar efforts.

The rest is just arbitrary make-work projects and self-serving publicity. There’s no need to worry about adolescent drinking when it’s at an all-time low and it’s still declining.

There is no reason to aim for a tobacco control rate of less than 20%. When the 20% Prevalence Rule takes effect, there is no exemption; only (THR) works when the 20% Prevalence Rule applies.

Keep in mind that the Public Health Industry is a national-level lobbying organization. It has nothing to do with public health; all genuine public health initiatives are carried out at the local level by local authorities, clinics, and hospitals. Vaccinations, mother and baby care, and other tasks are already handled – the national organizations have no connection to this work. Their funds aren’t used to fund genuine public health efforts.

Unfortunately, because PH spends so much of its time establishing itself, trying to gain more money, and squandering time and money on useless press releases and meaningless regulations, even the most developed nations are seeing a return of epidemic and environmental illnesses.

In the UK, both measles and tuberculosis are on the rise. Public Health can’t even do its most basic functions, most likely since there is no money in it – only expenses. Modern public health is mostly about paid lobbying at the national level, with little to do with actual public health, which is street-level action to reduce disease by influencing local environments for the better.

This is a lot of hard work with far less return than central lobbying, and the funding drives additional funds for administrative expenditures that ‘public health’ now revolves around.

Right now, the majority of PH is a waste of taxpayer money. In truth, it’s more than that: it’s a group of poisonous parasites that are doing more harm than good.

Fake charities

The Public Health sector has numerous NGOs that operate as charities, and claims that some (or many) of these organizations are fraudulent appear to have some basis since several of these groups are nothing more than lobbying organizations.

Industry-funded lobby organizations often promote the interests of their benefactors above public interest, and they spend far less on charitable goals than the general public is aware of.

Over to you

There’s a lot of misinformation out there about vaping, and it can be hard to know what’s true and what’s not. That’s why it’s important to get your information from reliable sources, like the experts at vaping blogs.

Our homepage is a great place to start if you’re looking for accurate information about all things vaping. Here, you’ll find articles on everything from beginner tips to in-depth product reviews. Plus, the team of expert bloggers is always updating the site with new content, so you can be sure you’re getting the latest news and insights into the world of vaping.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter

Scroll to Top