Our health has nothing to do with politics! But politics can seriously damage our health unless we can all look objectively at the safety/effectiveness of medical treatment.
In most countries of the world health becomes a political issue only when there is an argument/discussion about how much more money should be spent on conventional medical treatment! For instance, in Britain the only ‘political’ issue about health ever discussed is how much additional money should be spent on pharmaceutical medical care in order to support the allegedly underfunded, and ‘broken’ National Health Service (NHS).
It is now very different in the USA. The Democratic Party unquestioningly supports pharmaceutical medical care; whilst the Republican Party is now questioning its safety and effectiveness, and particularly the quality of the medical ‘science’ on which it is based. The foolishness of such a political divide over health issues can quickly be outlined.
If Republicans refuse vaccination on the basis of an unsubstantiated political stance (that vaccines are unsafe and ineffective) they would be denying themselves medical treatment which might benefit their health, even save their lives.
If Democratic supporters are prepared to get vaccinated on the basis of bad medical ‘science’, and vested interests that insists that vaccines are safe and effective they would be putting their health, even their lives, in serious danger.
Whether to take pharmaceutical drugs is not political. In Britain there is no health debate, political or otherwise. We either accept what we are told by the powerful Conventional Medical Establishment (the pharmaceutical industry, the NHS, the mainstream media, and our Government) and take the risk. Or we examine the medical evidence and either accept pharmaceutical medicine.
USA citizens have to make a decision about which political stance they want to to believe. Who do they believe? What is the evidence? I am following the medical debate in the USA with much interest, as I believe that pharmaceutical drugs are largely ineffective, and certainly dangerous to our health. In Britain there is no political party to argue my case, but when I practiced homeopathy I saw so many people who had been damaged by pharmaceutical drugs/vaccines (and were helped by taking the offending drug in homeopathic potency on the basis of “like curing like”) that I needed no further convincing.
So how should citizens of the USA make their decision? First and foremost they should not do so through their party political affiliations! If I was an American citizen I would not be a Trump supporter. But I would support his policy on health.
Second, I would look at the arguments that are being made to support the policies of the two main political parties. JF Kennedy is raising important issues about the quality and honesty of the ‘science’ that ‘confirms’ the safety and effectiveness of drugs and vaccine. He argues that the pharmaceutical industry has effectively ‘captured’ drug regulation, and that as a result patients are no longer effectively protected from dangerous pharmaceutical ‘medicines’. And much more (I won’t rehearse all the arguments here).
Third, Kennedy highlights the rise and rise of chronic disease (allergy, arthritis, autism, dementia, diabetes, heart, kidney, liver, lung disease, et al) over the last 70+ years, and asks why this has almost exactly mirrored the massive increase in pharmaceutical drug taking. Many of the “safe and effective” drugs and vaccines that drug regulators have encouraged us to take have, after many years (sometimes decades) have been withdrawn or banned because they have been belatedly found to be too dangerous to prescribe. Can this correlation be accepted as causal? No, perhaps not. But whilst Kennedy asks the question, and seeks to find an answer, his opponents seem unprepared even to ask the question. They appear to be in denial.
Fourth, I would look at the vested interests that supports each side of the political debate, not least when health and medicine are involved. Who is likely to benefit from a particular policy? Several years ago I read (somewhere) that every federal politician in the USA was financed by the pharmaceutical industry. I believe this is why governments have allowed their citizens to be poisoned by drug-based medicine, and have taken little or no effective action despite regular medical scandals.
So who gains and who loses from Kennedy’s policies? The pharmaceutical industry would undoubtedly be the main loser if there was greater regulation (more insistence on proper and honest science) on drugs and vaccines. So Kennedy’s policies would provide little advantage to them. The Democrats seem to favour the status quo, that is, the dominance of pharmaceutical medicine in health care. Drug companies will obviously want to enforce their ‘medications’, with mandated vaccines, et al, as this maximises their sales and their profits.
Indeed, what company would not want government to mandate their products? I can see no similar beneficiaries of Kennedy’s policies, which in the main appear to be based on the need for patients to (i) have accurate information about the drugs/vaccines they are being asked to take, and (ii) the importance of health freedom, and patient choice, in making a decision.
Many people will not have the time or inclination to examine these arguments. But my fifth reason for taking my decision is that at least Kennedy is arguing his case. I would recommend that everyone takes this as his/her baseline. We should all want to hear the case for an against any policy! Yet in response Kennedy is being castigated and abused, often at a personal level; his position and arguments are not being refuted through investigation and evidence.
If one side of any argument is resorting to abuse, and refusing to engage, to provide evidence for their stance, their arguments are invariably weak.
Personal abuse is not an argument for anything in politics, or indeed, life generally. Nor is straightforward dismissal of an idea. When the conventional medical establishment uses terms like “disinformation”, “fake news”, or “conspiracy theory” I suspect it stems from a failure to engage in discussion. (I have written about this in more detail here).
There is one final argument, one that relates to health freedom, and patient choice. When we are ill we all have choices, although we are really told this. Mandating any one of these choices (for example, forcing vaccines on those who wish to remain vaccine free) deprives us of this choice. Pharmaceutical drugs are not our only option to ill-health. Over 50 years ago I decided that when I was ill I wanted to be treated with homeopathy. Yet I would no more want to force other people to make that decision than I would accept being forced to take a vaccine myself!
In this respect USA citizens are actually very lucky! There is, at least, a political debate going on there. In Britain, and most other countries, there is no such debate. For instance, would anyone in the USA believe me if I said that we hear little about this important health debate here? There is virtual silence from the UK media, the pharmaceutical-dominated NHS, and the Government - and any other mainstream source of information available to patients. And the health issues now being debated in America are ones that are equally important to us here in Britain.
So we should all ask - WHY? Surely if a drug, or a vaccine is (or even might be) unsafe, we should all be informed, the issue should be thoroughly investigated by people without a vested interest, so that each one of us can make up our own minds. This is not a party political issue. Politicians should not be making our decision for us. This is not about ‘the left’ or ‘the right’. It is about our health, and what we, each one of us, choose to do about it.
