Browse > Home /

| Subcribe via RSS



Centralised planning on its way to a place near you…

By Editor
February 23rd, 2015 at 12:05 pm | 2 Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

Check out this infographic showing Public Health’s plan for top-down food planning here in the UK which appeared in The Lancet last week.  Truly chilling….

http://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/stories/commissions/obesity-food-policy_lrg.jpg

H/T to Christopher Snowdon for spotting this. As he says

“This is Government with a very big G. It is state control of what can be made, what it looks like, how it is sold, where it is sold and what it is sold for. The only thing the government doesn’t do is make and sell the food itself (except in schools).

It is no wonder that the ‘public health’ model of top-down control of people and industry tends to be more popular with parties of the left than those of the right, but it is surprising that so few people on the centre-right fully recognise the ‘public health’ movement as the socialist enterprise that it is.”

Couldn’t put it better ourselves. The truly frightening part of this is that Public Health actually believe in this. How long before they start calling for state-ownership of supermarkets; compulsory purchasing of  farms; no … stop… we are giving them ideas…

It all started with tobacco regulation. Blame the big evil companies not the individual – demonise them, penalise them, regulate them them, take away their property rights and ultimately drive them out of business. Paint a picture of the individual as the weak victim in this scenario – not the discerning consumer.

“Individual responsibility” has no part to play in their doctrine (for doctrine it most certainly is). Politicians seem eager to lap it up – always easier to tell voters that they are victims of evil forces than it is to tell people that they need to change. Who wants to be told go get off their butts and go do some exercise, when they can be told to sit back and play the victim.

Non-smokers foolishly believed the mantra that tobacco was a “unique product” – and that the penalties applied to tobacco would never, could never, be applied to everyday stuff. And yet , here is the blueprint for top down planning – because, as they see it, people are stupid and all companies are evil.

 

Tags: , ,
'

Public Health Success?

By Editor
May 16th, 2012 at 8:00 am | 5 Comments | Posted in health

If, as some campaigners would have us believe, obesity is more of a health risk than smoking, the data suggest that 50 years of massive investment in the public health industry have yielded very little in the way of overall risk reduction.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – USA

I do not believe that the relationship between smoking and obesity rates is simple but this graph suggests that as a society we should at least consider taking a more holistic look at health issues.

For far too long now, health policy has been dictated by a dangerous combination of single issue campaigning and statistics based “evidence”.

People are not numbers, they do not conform to the rigid norms dictated by the public health industry and many will choose to accept certain health risks in pursuit of what they consider a more enjoyable if potentially shorter life.

I have no idea how much of the rise in obesity in the USA was fuelled by ex-smokers displacing one potentially harmful activity with another.  Similarly, campaigners have no idea whether trying to reduce young people’s access to tobacco and alcohol might lead to increased uptake of other substances that are potentially more acutely threatening to their health.

One thing that we do know, or should if we bothered to learn the lessons of history is that many public health interventions have had unintended negative consequences and the more illiberal and draconian the intervention then the greater the risk and impact of such consequences.

Chris Snowdon deals with this subject in some depth in his book The Art of Suppression. It is an informative well researched read for anyone interested in the reality behind the rhetoric.  Until I read it, amongst other things I was unaware that Heroin was originally promoted by the pharmaceutical industry as a non-addictive alternative to morphine.  Snowdon covers a range of issues including the disaster of alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, the EUs illogical ban on oral tobacco and the growth in designer drugs as a consequence of Ecstasy prohibition.

He questions why prohibitionist policies remain attractive to many in the light of their historic failure and concludes that “in the end, fear is more intoxicating than hope.”

By Chris Oakley. Chris has previously posted on Liberal Vision:  Smokers-State Aprroved hate and Intolerance is UK policy,   Alcohol is Old News – Minimum Pricing for Digestives is the “Next Logical Step” , Soviet Style Alcohol Suppression Campaign Called for By Public Health Activists , Alcohol Taxation: The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth , A Liberal Tolerant nation? and  What hope is there for liberty if truth becomes the plaything of political lobbyists.

Tags: , , , ,

Health Experts – “pathetic and stupid”

By Angela Harbutt
October 14th, 2011 at 7:00 am | 4 Comments | Posted in health

Yep I know what you are thinking – why is Angela stating the bleeding obvious. Actually “pathetic and stupid” is how “health expert” Professor Philip James, from the delightfully named “International Association for the Study of Obesity” described the government’s health strategy, announced yesterday. Prof James went on to say that the junk food industry “manipulated” individuals into consuming their products and that was why legislation was needed.

Hmmm would the “International Association for the Study of Obesity” be the same group that has been accused of taking millions of pounds from drug companies who make …..oh….. anti-obesity drugs. You were saying something about industry and “manipulating” Professor James? I understand they refuted that allegation. But why is it, to this very day, the IASO does not publish full and frank details of its sources of funding on its own website? I will allow you to decide.

I am a bit tired of these so-called experts scaremongering their way from one “pandemic” to the next, whilst trousering cash behind the scenes from vested interests (both governmental and private). (Am I thinking of ASH and big pharma here too?)

So yesterday’s announcement is a win. “Personal Responsibility” seems to be at the heart of the government strategy to “tackle obesity” – how refreshing.

Well done Mr Lansley…

When asked about why the government was not more keen on legislation, he said by working in partnership, more could be achieved faster. Yep he is almost certainly right – and no “unintended consequences” (such as a fat tax driving fatties to keep their much-loved high cal food but spend even less on healthier options).

Interestingly he also said that officials would continue to monitor the international evidence where countries were trying tougher legislation. Excellent. Thoroughly sensible.

So on that basis I assume that the government will also abandon its costly and unnecessary consultation into the plain packaging of tobacco products? Surely as with obesity – we can simply sit back and watch what  happens once Australia’s plain packaging legislation becomes law and on  the basis of the evidence – rather than “big health” groups pharmaceutical funded spurious modelling – conclude whether it works or not and act accordingly?

(picture courtesy of encognitive.com)

Tags: , ,