Health Care Policy: Are Good Intentions and Conflicting Interests Causing Us To Miss The Boat?

In writing about health, I frequently refer to individual responsibilities needed to maximize outcome. In this article, I will introduce the role that health care policy plays by providing factual information along with questions arising from these policies. This is NOT about badgering anyone’s beliefs. The purpose is to identify possible “weaknesses” to help improve upon our current system. All I ask is a willingness to read the words with an open mind and a willingness to accept change if and only if the ideas and questions make sense to you. I believe that ALL problems have solutions. I also believe that it is the responsibility of the individual identifying the problems to pose possible solutions for the reader to consider. I will do this at the end of the article.
Our country was founded on controversy. “Rebels” whose names appear in the Declaration of Independence fought to change the status of our nation. Many feared losing ties with England would cause eventual devastation. It took years and compromises to achieve the independence we experience today. Our country continues to experience divisions politically, economically and socially. Divisive thinking, however, can be a positive attribute. It can balance opposing views and lead to compromises resulting in better outcomes.
Our founding fathers determined that checks and balances were necessary to prevent tyranny in any individual branch of government. The Federal health agencies in affiliation with State health agencies do not have a system of checks and balances. Health care policy is significantly influenced by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC). They advise the Director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), and Director of the Offices of Infectious Diseases (OID). The BSC consists of 13 MD’s, 1 DVM (doctor of veterinarian medicine) and 2 PhD’s. All of these board members have income provided by medical universities, medical laboratories, or medical institutions. This is a dangerous precedent because it allows the possibility for power and money to influence policy decisions. I am not saying that any of these individuals are corrupt. I am saying the current system lacks safeguards and is susceptible to corrupt policies.

If you disagree, please explain why in the comment area at the end of this article.

The following three ingredients are currently found in various vaccinations:
  • Aluminum
  • Formaldehyde
  • Thimerosal
The following is a quote from the referenced article highlighted in blue. I am including this quote, because it represents doctors and scientists (NOT activists) with concerns. The quote reads:
The possible dangers these substances can cause include a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21568886)
The FDA defends the safety of these substances by stating that quantities in vaccinations do not exceed safety limits.
My questions are:
  1. Is it possible that the dangerous reactions are the result of sensitivity rather than quantity of substances? (ex. What is the safe quantity of peanut exposure to an individual with peanut allergies?)
  2. What is the safe level of gluten for a person with celiac disease or gluten sensitivities?
  3. Is it possible that newborns and infants may also have sensitivities and therefore reactions based on this sensitivity rather than quantity of exposure?
  4. Is it possible that increased frequency of exposure (ex. booster vaccines) can increase the intensity of reactions resulting in increased harm?

If you disagree, please explain why in the comment area at the end of this article.

With the United States already the most vaccinated country in the world, a report was prepared by a panel of doctors, epidemiologists, demographers, and other researchers charged by the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine to better understand Americans’ comparative health. It was found in a publication called THE ATLANTIC and entitled, New Health Ranking: Of 17 Nations, U.S. Is Dead Last.
To quote, “The results surprised even the researchers. To their alarm, they said, they found a strikingly consistent and pervasive pattern of poorer health at all stages of life, from infancy to childhood to adolescence to young adulthood to middle and old age”.
Question:
  1. How would introducing more vaccines improve the health of our nation?
  2. Is it possible that shifting the focus from vaccinations to the implementation of lifestyle modifications would result in a healthier nation?

If you disagree, please explain why in the comment area at the end of this article.

Recently a 5 minute video was posted showing Congressman Bill Posey (Florida Congressman and ADVOCATE for vaccinations) asking congress to investigate a research project that was published in 2004 in the Journal of Pediatrics. The MADDSP-MMR autism study (Metropolitan Atlanta Developmental Disabilities Surveillance Program) concluded that the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine did not have any relationship to autism. The lead researcher (Dr. William Thompson) turned over all hard copy documents as well as computer files to the Congressman’s office concerned that the conclusions of the research were fraudulent and in violation of the FOIA (Freedom Or Information Act). He was also concerned that this would result in criminal charges brought by the DOJ (Dept. of Justice). Below is a 5 minute video of Congressman Posey addressing congress. It is worth listening to .

Question:
  1. Is it possible that the focus on mandatory vaccinations for both children and adults may not be in the best interest to IMPROVE THE U.S. HEALTH’S RANKING?
  2. Is it possible that blanket liability protection for the manufacturers of vaccinations provides greater incentive for development and distribution than health benefits?

If you disagree, please explain why in the comment area at the end of this article.

In conclusion I offer these SOLUTIONS:
  1. Make certain checks and balances are placed on our current regulatory agencies to protect the public.
  2. Create independent agencies (without agendas or government financing) to review government research and findings and provide their independent conclusions.
  3. Proved media coverage for all types of research addressing health care issues. This would include pharmaceutical, natural and holistic solutions if credible evidence is available. The public is entitled to ALL OPTIONS AVAILABLE. We cannot continue to allow one branch of health care to monopolize the industry.
Advertisements

5 comments

  1. I am of 2 minds when it comes to vaccinations. I had mine, my children had theirs and their children have theirs. However I won’t have any of the flu, pneumonia or other vaccinations that they recommend for adults nowadays. I even have to sign a form when I was hospitalized because I refused to allow them to vaccinate me. But I also believe they save more people than they harm or in worst cases kill. My dr gets very frustated with me because I just won’t do it.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I hope that people reading my articles understand I am simply trying to provide information that most people are not exposed to. It is important to me that EVERYONE has the opportunity to make decisions based on as much credible information as possible. I am NOT trying to push an agenda. It bothers me when various organizations treat us like ignorant sheep, unable to make intelligent decisions for ourselves. I want people to be as informed as possible when reaching decisions for themselves and their families. I also expect the healthcare industry (which I participated in for over 20 years) to respect our individual rights and comply with our requests as patients. I am tired of various industries using FEAR as a tool to achieve their agenda.

    If people walk away from reading this article and believe it’s just another vaccine article, I have failed in achieving my goal. It is supposed to focus on the individual and their civil liberties to choose whatever health care treatments they believe are in their best interest.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Healthcare is such an important issue. I’m just beginning to learn about the imbalance in the health care system in this country. Thank you for information like this that is rational, but at the same time raises the alarm about vaccinations and other health concerns. Aluminum in vaccines? Is that for extended shelf life???

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Aluminum is an adjuvant that is supposed to increase the efficiency of the immune response as well as the duration. It is supposed to make the vaccine’s effects more potent. The one issue that is never discussed is sensitivity to adjuvants. The regulators discuss the quantity in regards to safety. If a person is already prone to autoimmunity (from a genetic basis) this is an ingredient that can be detrimental. An over reaction by the immune system to any of the chemical compounds mentioned can lead to permanent neurological injuries. This is why I feel so strongly about parents having ALL THE INFORMATION as well as the RIGHT to determine what THEY BELIEVE is best for their families.

      Like

  4. I love your work. You are doing a great job. I’d be glad if you could check my blog too. Tc 🙂

    Like

Your comment can positively impact the lives of others.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: