'The world is changed; I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth and in the air. Much that once was, is lost, for none now live who remember it.
It began with the forging of the Great Rings. Three were given to Elves, immortal, wise and fairest of all beings, seven to the Dwarves, great miners and craftsmen of the Mountain Hall, nine were given to the race of Man, which above all else desires power, for within these rings were the strength and will to govern each race. But they were each of them deceived, for another ring was made. In the land of Mordor, in the fires of Mount Doom, the Dark Lord Sauron forged in secret a Master Ring to control all others, and into this ring he poured his cruelty, his malice and his will to dominate all life. One ring to rule them all.
One by one the free lands of the Middle Earth fell to the power of the ring, but there were some who resisted, and who fought for the freedom of the Middle Earth...'
(From the film of Lord of the Rings)
The world of health is changed, although some of us might not have realised quite how much.
What were once three separate things, are now merged into one, and the identity of this new one we have not yet fully comprehended.
There is no longer Academic Medical Research as separate from Public Health, as separate from Pharmaceutical Industry, and those bodies which previously existed are now one, inseparable. One National Health Business to Rule them All, itself bound to our national economy, and the rulers and shareholders of private companies may grow rich upon it. The consequences of these changes are grave: it is not only activists, radicals and extremists who know this, for the Government Select Committee Health 4 knows it, for those who know where to read it:
'Thousands died and many suffered because the MHRA (UK regulatory body) failed, because it hastened to defend, licence and market a drug which was flawed.' And from the Health 4 report we must now understand:
- The National Health Business is no longer primarily concerned with our health:
- Our Government is in business, it sponsors the health industry
- The expanded unchecked influence of the health industry is against the public interest
- Our national regulatory body is itself competing for business on the international market
- Health industry dominates and corrupts drug research development and prescription
- It is inevitable that industry continue to dominate health provision on all levels
'The Department of Health has for too long assumed optimistically that the interests of health and of the industry are as one. This may reflect the fact that the Deparment sponsors the industry as well as looking after health...The consequences of lax oversight is that the industry's influence has expanded and a number of practices have developed which are againts the public interest. The industry affects every level of healthcare provision, from the drugs that are initally discovered and developed through clinical trials, to the promotion of drugs to the prescriber and the patient groups, to the prescription of medicines and the compilation of clinical guidelines. The organisation has been too close to the industry, a closeness underpinned by common policy objectives, agreed processes, frequent contact, consultation and interchange of staff. We are concerned that a rather lax regime is exacerbated by the MHRA's need to compete with other European regulators for licence application business'.
'Pharmaceutical companies will inevitably continue to be the dominant influence in deciding what research is undertaken and conducting that research, publishing it and providing information to prescribers'.
Who is the enemy? We cannot allow ourselves to demonise a 'Big Pharma', to think of it as some external evil element exploiting us for money and power. We cannot simply rail against it, for we have sold our health service to this element, and now we all serve it and rely on it, as workers in health and industry, and as users of the health service, as partakers of the national economy. It's just us, in various roles. And yet, it seems to be taking on a life, a character of its own. In the face of this great power, what can we do? We are each of us called to THINK about our everyday health, what it means to be human, and how we can best be healed.
The Health 4 report outlines some of the drug crimes committed by our National Health Business:
- Clinical trials which fail to indicate the true effects of a medicine on health outcomes relevant to the patient
- Several high profile cases of surpression of trial results
- Selective publication strategies and ghost writing
- Surpression of negative clinical trial findings leading to a body of evidence which does not reflect the true risk-benefit profile of the medicine in question
As the report points out, we all rely on published evidence
'if all the evidence is not published, or if negative findings are hidden, accurate guidance cannot be issued and prescribers cannot make truly evidence-based decisions'.
Here is the view of a health professional:
'...most people are ill-equipped to make health decisions on their own, without getting information and guidance from a health care professional...people who are uninformed and scientifically illiterate are not capable of making rational decisions about health matters'
So says Harriet Hall, great believer in evidence and science-based medicine
(sciencebasedmedicine.com).
But who is to say whether the 'health care professional' has been correctly informed, or even, actively mislead? Who is to say that the scientifically literate are capable enough, or noble enough to make rational decisions about our health?
Responsibility for our health slips from us into the shadow-land of scientific expertise, where only the best-equipped with science dare to go, and where only the strongest survive.
Health as become a battle ground between those armed to fight, armed with specialist scientific knowledge which a neighbouring specialist in a related field cannot hope to understand. Battles between those of high standing, with immaculate command of language, exemplary verbal reasoning skills, courage and determination beyond the reach of ordinary people. The battle ground is rent with the cries and parries
'Where is your source?'
'Not plausible!'
'Flawed research'
'Research invalid!'
Multiple sources are launched, repelled, multiple other sources counter-launched, evidence and interpretations questioned...
...and in the midst of this battle, the truth is hard, perhaps impossible to discern.
When some dared ask if pandemic flu vaccines could become mandatory, the same doctor Harriet Hall replied:
'No such proposal has been made. The Government couldn't do it even if it tried, because there won't be enough doses to go around. That's why they've issued recommendations prioritizing who should get the vaccine first.'
Even as she spoke, legally binding international health regulations were in place, and in force, and once the H1N1 pandemic was delcared in June 2009, Harriet's own Government went beyond a 'proposal', and declared its authority to make vaccines mandatory, in a congress report:
'States and local governments have the authority to initiate emergency measures such as mandatory vaccination orders and certain nonpharmeceutical interventions such as school closures, which may lessen the spread of infectious disease. The International Heatlh Rgulations adopted by the World Health Organization in 2005 provide a framework for international cooperation againts infectious disease threats.
The use of these emergency measures to contain the 2009 influenza pandemic may raise a classic civil rights issue: to what extent can an individual's liberty be curtailed to advance the common good?'
Interesting questions, which we have not thought to answer.
But, as the World Health Organisation must reason, only the irrational, the scientifically illiterate would deny that vaccines are our best defence against disease, and any member of the herd who resists threatens the herd immunity and cannot be allowed that freedom.
But what if flu vaccines are not immune from question?
The World Health Organization told us long ago that
'In emergency situation the enjoyment of our individual human rights and civil liberties may have to be limited in the public interest' (WHO considerations in developing a public health response to pandemic influenza 2007).
But we did not notice, as our individual humand rights and our civil liberties were slowly, quietly worn away.
We cannot leave it to others, to some radical opposition to fight our battles, for any group gaining momentum, power, and hardening views is not immune from corruption. As Gandalf said upon being offered the Ring 'No! I would use this ring from a desire to do good, but through me it would wield a power too great and terrible to be imagined'.
There is a movement afoot whose one aim is to destroy anything that is alternative or complementary to science-based medicine, to the International Health Business. 'Alternative' health is in its infancy, it is taking its first steps and is easily toppled, whereas Hard Science is at its zenith, rooted deep in our age of materialism, with the world of media, law and politics at its command. If we do not allow an extended version of health, of human health, our health, to evolve and develop in freedom, it will be crushed. Already national, international and world organisations and regulatory bodies exist which can be influenced to eradicate all we term 'alternative' medicine. It is only a matter of time.
...but there were some who resisted, some who fought for freedom of the Middle Earth...
Alexander McQueen was the British designer responsible for the introduction of the descent of trousers and the proffering of buttocks in everyday life.
lso that we followed him and other fashion designers into clothing our children, from toddler to teenager, with symbols of skulls and hellfire. There isn't a childrens' clothing rack in the land that isn't infested.
s,
