Knowledge doesn’t spark off sensibility

The fact that people get told again and again that smoking is bad for them and gives them cancer, that too much eating is bad for them and gives them secondary diabetes at the least, the fact that too much drinking leads to liver failure and death, that unsafe sex leads to aids and other diseases, all that doesn’t matter to seemingly educated people who continue their bad practises but ask doctors to find better remedies, so that they can continue what we know now as deadly sins.

God has given us clear rules on what we can do to live safely on this earth but people just want to ignore his laws and think science will help to eradicate sin and make it a thing of the past; they think if we find medical remedies then it doesn’t matter any more if we live in sin. There then would be no more sin because science can solve all problems.

That is the work of the devil and that devilish thinking has crept into people’s minds and into the highest ranks of society these days.

Despite continued health campaign HIV in gay men has not become less but rises at a steady pace.

Buying cigarettes is made as least enjoyable and expensive as possible but what do I see every day? Yesterday I saw even a vicar smoking around a school when talking to parents. I see teachers standing outside their school to smoke in their breaks, I see severely obese doctors and health professionals all the time, the list is endless.

I ask myself why do people do not want to live? The answer can only be they are deeply unhappy with themselves, their marriage, their jobs. Yet society pays for this unhappiness.

Yet when our relationships are about to break up we have a trial separation to get a breather. But in jobs for example people who continue to smoke do not get relieved of their duties, people who are very obese, do not get suspended until their body is back to shape. The Community Secretary Mr Pickles would be my first contender for a suspension and diet plan, so that he fits into his Porsche better.

Leaders must ask themselves why are there more and more who break the law, why are there many who do not want to live healthy? They must ask themselves whether society requires some kind of re-organisation so that people can live fulfilling lives.

God shows no mercy to those who do not want to follow his rules, that has been shown in history, we cannot turn around what has been made without severely affecting the chain of creation.

Of course unhealthy lifestyles cause cancer but paying more for cancer research doesn’t help those living unhealthy lifestyles to change their habits, it encourages them to carry on.  Yet threatening people’s jobs will help them to give up or end up where they perhaps subconsciously ought to be on the dole, street, wherever rotten habits lead them.

There are plenty of health conscious people on the dole these days.

I would go as far as to say that its those with unhealthy lifestyles who are in the important jobs, that are the ones who repress the rest of us into sinful and wasteful lifestyles, those are the ones that demand more taxes so that the results of their sick lifestyles can be healed, they are the ones that cause our society to creek under the burden of too much taxes.

Yet our current laws only punish those who fail the worldly legalities to do with administrative processes and robbing possessions or murder, those who fail to adhere to laws of decency and healthy living, those are the ones that never get punished, they get preferential health treatment instead.

Advertisements

Ban trans fats

I can only reiterate my demand for a banning on trans fats that I made publicly during a Radio discussion when we talked about the taxing of butter. I rejected plans to tax butter here in the UK just as they do it in Denmark. Butter is a natural fat and as such not harmful to the brain, it can only damage if eaten in excess together with other fattening foods.

Trans fats are usually found in those cheap biscuits that are so tempting for the poor to buy. When they visit their local supermarket they are confronted with expensive healthy and fresh foods but cheap and affordable biscuits.

It has now become more expensive to bake at home than to buy a cake that is most likely laden with trans fats, those fats that encourage Alzheimers disease to take hold and shrink our brains in old age.

Study results published on the BBC website today, just proof the point. In fact these days I find it much more useful to visit the BBC website daily rather than looking at government websites, which are confusing and not to the point.

Frankly I do not understand why they even ask for proof that healthy foods make the brain work better, it simply makes sense that if you eat healthy that your brain functions better rather than eat stuffy trans fat biscuits all day.

It is most probable that the poor are priced out of a healthy lifestyle by not being able to afford healthy foods in the quantity needed to keep fit and healthy.

Of course it is proven that too much cholesterol is bad and that fatty foods can increase the risk of high blood pressure through being overweight and getting high blood pressure with it but it is merely a matter of losing weight and getting to grip of the cholesterol that way rather than tax healthy fats like butter.

I am just a little concerned that it actually costs $20 to get access to the Neurology published study research online. I do not know why the BBC links to that site for research that costs $20 to read. The poor must be able to get essential information free of charge and get easy access to it.

 

I am very sceptical about this NHS deal

Though I am always for new things to be tried out, but what is missing in the NHS problem at this moment in time, is the actual responsibility of the individual for their conditions being recognised. It doesn’t matter how rich you are, if you are obese and come with health related problems to the NHS, you do not have to sell your house to get treatment. People are just being encouraged to get ill, they do not have to make income related contributions to their health bill.

The understanding of keeping healthy is still very poor in Britain. Blaming something else for one’s health is still in fashion.

People still think walking is for losers, thanks to Mrs Thatcher, who enforced that attitude during her time as Prime Minister. She ensured that her successors praise her by introducing the post Prime Ministerial payments and so all of them hail her as the best thing since sliced bread.

But if we really look at her record, we can see that her policies are very short-sighted. The home owner scheme she developed does not help couples, who now have problems sorting out the mortgage and value on shared owned homes when they break up. The home ownership has caused misery on council estates, where leaseholder often have problems keeping up with repairs and caused a shortfall of public housing and of course she failed to relate health costs to finance via a person’s assets.

But at least it is one lady this nation still treats with respect whilst in many other aspects Britain has gone rude towards the previously weaker sex. Baroness Thatcher did a lot to rid us of ‘the man has to hold the door open’ attitude because she emancipated women probably beyond the level they wanted to be emancipated. This nation is very polite towards this first lady beyond cause I may add.

So whilst Circle tries to run an entire NHS trust on the same funding as all the trusts are run, they will have to cut costs to make it work and if they cannot make it work, that will then be just another company costing banks a lot of money in defaulted loans. We need a fundamental change to NHS funding procedures to get health costs into perspective. All persons who are reckless with their own health should have to use their own assets to pay for the treatment.

It really does not help to put all home owners on the same high pedestal, we put Mrs Thatcher and then allow them to run up a high health cost bill if they are irresponsible with their own health but they can keep their assets.

Denmark’s fat tax is a big fat mistake

What a joke that Denmark levies a tax on saturated fats. Some scientists even agree with me and say that sugars and refined carbohydrats are more responsible for our health than saturated fats. There is nothing wrong with butter, lard and natural fats in general. It is in the how much. It is a great mistake in my view to tax natural fats and punish people to eat them at all.

What is unhealthy in my personal view are all those processed foods that we eat to snack in abundance rather than the pure natural ingredient. It is a matter of much one eats and not what one eats. It’s a little bit like taxing people for breathing. It could well be possible that Denmark would be the first country to tax people for doing that too.

 

turning us into aliens

Humans keep on dreaming about aliens, how they look, where they exist, how they contact us or how we contact them. Many pictures of supposedly aliens beings have been circulated in the world. Some films even imagine that human evolution will reduce our whole physical existence to some flap of fancy tissue that contains a brain and we’ll live in little containers. But who will maintain those brains?

Now I read that a Professor George Church invented DNA mapping. The story goes that with that technology cures and preventative medications can be developed that will allow us all to reach a longer lifespan, something like 150 years. Isn’t that what we read in the bible. Yet in the bible those characters described did not reach that old-age by using DNA technology and fancy medications.

What about healthy living? Reading this article it seems we do not have to care that much about our health any longer but only pop a pill once disaster struck, like an infection or cancer striking in our bodies. That got me interested and I thought, what type of a person would have such an idea? Is it somebody who is too lazy to be fit himself. Looking at Professor Church, with all respect for his scientific genius, it becomes apparent, that he has a bit of a belly and is not exactly lean and fit and extremely healthy himself. So is it possible that a person who doesn’t look after his own health the best way possible tries to invent a way to stay healthy for all others who are not quite capable of living a purely healthy lifestyle.

Does Professor Church want to find a way around nature and tell us all, don’t worry, about eating healthy, stopping smoking, excess drinking, I can find a way to reverse the damage. I can’t really find a relationship to healthy living in this whole article. There is a mention of synthetic biology; we all read about the damage synthetic drugs do to those who take them today, the synthetic drugs are much more evil than the naturally derived ones.

Siting down with a glass of Elder flower and Pear Cordial, I can really appreciate the good things humans can make out of natural ingredients. Even in baking recipes, I am always told use the natural vanilla extract instead of the synthetic one, its better.

Of course the discussion in the article then centres around human body parts wearing out and one could get hit by a truck. That says that we are made from natural parts, grown out of body part material that can wear out and that artificially created objects can kill us easier than natural objects. It used to be the other way around, it used to be natural objects that killed us easier in the times when we still had many more wild animals living around us.

I think it is a good thing to extend a healthy life and someone’s body to the maximum effect because if we do not idealise healthy and long living then what do we want from life, then we do not want to live in the first place successfully and only look for excuses to work out way out of life.

The many pictures we saw of alien-like creatures, we do not know whether they were man-made in the literal sense of the word; they could have been subject of covert experiments with human genes or they could have been made from plasticine in the first place.

Having heard about this story that a boy wandered into the city of Berlin after saying he lived for 5 years without being detected I wonder what else our forests contain because if that is possible than anything is possible.

I think trying to meddle with human DNA and trying to synthetically change the way of nature is a truly evil concept. It is the way to avoid stopping to sell junk-food and it is the way to stop having to tell people how to live healthy lifestyles. What we really need is a new set of standards and values instead of putting up with slack minds that want to keep on being lazy.  There is really nothing new in the concept, the concept that is being formed around being unfit, eating unhealthy and getting ill.

New benefit classification needed

I blogged about the problem a couple of days before the national press took it up, the problem of claiming disability benefits for self-inflicted problems, problems that pay benefits and those benefits pay-outs help to keep the drug-trade alive and cause alcohol related anti-social behaviour. David Cameron’s campaign and the publication of official government figures to disclose the breakdown of disability benefits claimants followed on.

So far benefits only classify between two types of people, those able to work and getting either income support or job seekers allowance and those unable to work and entitlement to disability benefits.

Yet thanks to those 2 classifications, the benefits systems actually supports drug dealing and anti-social behaviour and self-inflicted harm by making it easy for people to get overweight, drunk to excess and allow drifting into drug addiction.

Having heard a former drug addict say on TV that benefits saved him from turning into crime, I gotten even more upset because this means that benefits are used to blackmail the state to keep people off crime so that they can buy drugs instead of committing crime and getting the money to purchase drugs from state handouts.

This makes it an even more clear case for taking drug addicts off disability benefits, because if they commit crimes to get the money to buy drugs, then they just have to go into jail and that is where they belong. It will make it a much easier choice for people when they decide whether to become drug addicts or not when that soft benefit options is taken away from them.

To say I will commit a crime if the state doesn’t pay for my illegal drugs is legalizing blackmail and making it institutionalised abuse of the law.

We need a new benefits category of those willingly causing harm to themselves and making themselves unable to work through an unhealthy and self-destructive lifestyle and those people should be put on the lowest level of benefit and put in jail if they break the law just like everybody else. Of course that will lead to a sudden upsurge of jail demand, but I predict it will soon drop off when addicts realise that the best option for them is to stop breaking the law as they are better off living healthy.  alternatively those people could be sanctioned under the mental health act for causing self-harm instead.

Furhter still why should those who had been addicts get preferential treatment when they apply for jobs, when others who have kept themselves healthy are only too eager to work? I think the law should have to bounce back on its feet and sense has to be brought back into the benefits system.

The Great financial confusion

Today, I mean society today, reminds me a bit of what I belief the Great American Depression was like in the first half of the last century. Jobs losses, cuts in services and misery all around. Stickers are on lamp posts to save the NHS and stop nurses from being sacked, articles in the papers that hospital waiting times get longer. Indeed my own hospital appointment was put out that little bit further as well. The most ridiculous suggestion I read recently was that a financial consultant has advised the NHS that they could save money by stopping tonsilitis operations. So lets all have some very sore throats in the future then.

Yet I do understand that, as a nation, we have to make with what we’ve got and earn what we want to have. But when I hear that we cut disability benefits, it makes my blood boil to find that alcoholics can get disability benefits so that they can buy more booze and overweight people get disability benefits and a mobility scooter. Often, so I hear some disabled persons spend their benefits on drugs as soon as they emerge from the post office with the cash, whilst the dealers wait outside for them to relief them of their cash.

So why does our wonderful new government not bring some sense into public finance and divert benefits to those who need them and cut them from those who suffer only because of their own excessive indulgences. Why do so many people refrain from drinking so they can do their jobs that little bit better, why do so many show responsible attitudes and earn very little money with it, like those aforementioned nurses, who are in danger of losing their jobs, when others can just let the pig out and get rewarded with extra benefit pay-outs?

I think what a government must do first of all is bring sense into this madness that we call today the welfare society.

I received my letter that my ability to apply for a pension has ben put off for another 5 years, but where is the job I am supposed to be doing whilst I am too young to receive a pension? But on the positive side I can claim 50% off my bus fares whilst I am unemployed and look for work. That is putting value for money where it is needed.

I often think that life has now become so complicated that even those who sit in positions of power do not know any longer were to direct resources to because people on good incomes just do not understand what life on the bread line is like.

Rents are artificially inflated by excessive housing benefit levels for modern housing developments whilst council flats stay on low rents. Often the modern housing has small rooms whilst old-fashioned council flats are comparatively large flats with old-fashioned amenities like bathrooms, kitchens and hall-ways.  We see 1 bedroom studio flats advertised from 170 – 240 per week whilst 4 bedroom council flats can cost as little as £120 per week. Whereby the 1 bed studio is only 1 room whilst the 4 bed council flat has 4 bedrooms, kitchen, bath, hallway and living room.

It seems the modern developers need some type of guarantee that they can generate certain rent levels to make their investment worthwhile. It seems that not only housing cannot be levelled out to generally acceptable rates so that everyone can afford to live somewhere but also the benefits cannot be distributed effectively to those who need them really.

The UK’s 2-class lifestyle has now divided not only housing, rents and wages but also benefit levels into ridiculous and helping addicts to purchase their alcohol and drugs even better and into those benefit levels to those who can just about afford food and basic clothing but nothing else.

The UK is unable to find a formula that allows fair rents and fair benefits and wages.

Quite obviously if council home rents where adjusted to modern commercial rent levels, rents would go through the roof whilst benefits could not be raised to cover the cost because housing benefits artificially inflate rents in the private housing market. Addicts could not come off their addictive substances if they got less disability benefits because there is no efficient health service in place to help them to come off the drugs/drinks. Yet it is often only because of high benefits that local drug dealers and off-licence shops stay in business. I should say its a bit of a fine mess the UK is in.

PS: See here an article and statistics from the Department of Works and Pensions

school dinners cause political friction

There has nothing been more exciting than the question of what children should or should not eat and who decides the quality of the food. Ever since Jamie Oliver came on the scene, we hear that our daily diet determines our health throughout life. The question of whose responsibility it is what a child eats has caused political storms. Even party colleagues start to squabble among themselves on this point.

The fact is that we live in a nanny state, that children spend 8 hours or more in schools, that they have to be fed whilst there. The choice is school dinners or packed lunch. Schools even want to dictate to parents what they children can bring to school and we’ve seen photos of parents coming to the gates with bags of chips to top up the dinner provisions.

Of course parents should be responsible what children eat but the understanding of how food affects our health is varied. Even health professionals are sometimes overweight, smoke and seem to care little about themselves.

Now Jamie Oliver makes us all aware what food does to us and I am sure not only children benefit from his campaign. Fact is that children’s health and treatment will affect all of his because treatment costs are spread out to affect us all.

Another question is, is it possible to ‘breed’ the perfect healthy human being? Should be desire this to happen or are we content with looking after each other as we always did.

Is there anybody able to live in perfect health just by eating healthy foods? I don’t think so and have experimented on that point and got the flu despite eating record amounts of fruit. There is more to health than just food, there is lifestyle and general habits. How much we drive, how much we walk and exercise is of as much importance as how much we eat.

We need to get the healthy attitude all around, make people who are too fat feel odd and not employ fat health workers and discriminate against them because of weight to set a good example. After all patients get discriminated against when they are too fat and get second-rate treatment, so why should we have to put up with fat nurses and fat health consultants?

Of course it is a noble cause to preach healthy eating and good foods, but many people can’t even afford to purchase those good foods on a low wage. People get driven to eating fat-rich diets by simply not being able to purchase 5 – a – day because it is too expensive. A healthy diet spans around so many things, eating the organic bread, getting low fat milk, having fruit, veg, salads and brown breads. Many healthy foods cost more than unhealthy foods. Then there is the problem of cooking for some when they can’t afford to pay for gas/electricity and need to use the local take-away, where chips are the favourite.  Apparently in areas where we compute high rates of poverty, we also see high rates of obesity. The matter is rather one of attitude for those who are rich but for those who are poor its lack of money; or how can these ‘poor’ people purchase that much food that they can get too fat but be poor at the same time? The answer is that fat foods are very cheap and healthy foods are very expensive. Eating is for many a comfort rather then a necessity too.

I understand Jamie Oliver has been through Italy and praised the Italian’s attitude towards feeding children. No fry-ups, only cooked, healthy meals. That is fine when the whole society lifestyle is centered around this and that is what we should be copying, that we change all our lifestyles. But really what would the electronics gadget manufacturers say, would anybody still know what to do without a TV in the home and don’t we all think its easier to order and have delivered rather than go on long shopping trips.

The cost of healthy foods is heavily determined by availability and the higher we populate the planet the more scarce healthy foods become and the more expensive they get. Yet I applaud Jamie Oliver for making us aware. If we only could turn back that clock.

Keeping healthy

I must admit that the debate about the NHS budget seems ridiculous taking into consideration how many simple and common sense approaches are available to keep health costs and working methods ship-shape and bristol fashion.

Just reading through some online research, and often also the small print in newspapers, even the common ones, gives essential clues to keeping healthy and effective.

Some solutions cannot be easily overcome as they are nature given like for example that pear-shaped women are more likely to have a bad memory.  This one is particularly funny because I just thought last night,why is it, that I keep on putting on weight on around the waist when it looks better to put it on around the hips.

Others like the large waist are a matter of keeping good food discipline e.g. dieting  People with a waist over 80cm increase their cancer risk regardless of anything else. 

Other risks, imposed by modern gadgets are not so easy to cope with as they are promoted by businesses, e.g. mobile phones and I read over the weekend, and I can’t remember where, that there is not enough done to remind people of the potential health risks from the use of mobile phones. strangely enough, especially business and local authority workers love to use them because customers are easy to reach.

It is quite easy to bring a solution for health care, which is,that those responsible for the health decay should pay for it. So for example if a person chooses to be overweight, they should have to be responsible for the costs arising from it and if a business chooses to sell goods that are dangerous they also should have to donate large parts of their profits for the health care. It is up to each business to carry out thorough studies before they sell a product and not be able to say, well we didn’t know how damaging it is.

When I read those Big Society plans, it would help those who tend to overeat to donate the money to charity instead but only to those who are not fat and poor, lol.

Especially in Londson  food outlets have dramatically increased when it sometimes would be much easier if supermarkets or shops selling microwave foods provide a microwave in the premises for people to eat it there and then.

Healthy living in Tower Hamlets

I have read many stories that there is a problem with obesity in Tower Hamlets, which led some to call for Free School Meals for all. I agree that this is a good way to regulate what children eat during the day and prevents overindulgence in unhealthy foods. Yet we also have to look at the source of obesity and there are several reasons in my view, which include but are not exclusive to,

  • lack of exercise cause by lifestyles, which include electronic entertainment, lots of it, does not require physical activities to do them, home deliveries for shopping
  • stress caused by living conditions and lack of proper education

Interestingly Tower Hamlets has a healthy living campaign but in the course of that campaign many green gardening schemes were introduced on council estates but playgrounds for children were removed to make way for gardening schemes, which I think is questionable to do so. Children do need the exercise that playgrounds provide, they also need healthy food but considering how densely food outlets are found in most parts of Tower Hamlets, getting fresh fruit and vegetables is no problem at all. Considering how little can be grown and how cheaply one can obtain fruit and veg, I think it is not very beneficial to remove playgrounds for the sake of a couple of vegetable plots, that yield hardly enough for a couple of meals.

Stress is another factor, that makes people eat.  I have found myself that it is very difficult to get involved in any service in Tower Hamlets that is not automated and strictly regulated in the way they are conducted. The lack of good education, that is evidenced in the most recent OECD statistics, shows on the personal skills that facilitators of social exercise and social services have these days. The stress of that lack of education and personal skills could make people overeat. See also my post Labour ruined Education.

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits