I dealt previously with the issue of why socialists are so struck with vaccination and later introduced the Leninist-Stalinist interpretation as a chatroom edit. There is one further sector in this general bag and they are the worst – because they hold considerable power. In this modern, post now Lord Peter “We’re so terribly relaxed about gross affluence, so long as it votes for us” Mandelson it’s OK for politicians and administrators to be paid substantial, non socialist salaries and perks.
Many of these folk are drawn of staunch, left wing origins and feel themselves still to be working for such egalitarian concepts as they used to adhere to vociferously. Only now they do it behind closed doors and through the corporate might of the state apparatus. But that’s OK, they reason, because it gets the goals achieved and that’s what the people’ll want, isn’t it?
Well, it’s a delicate balance and there’s many interests to be juggled. They even have to stick to a nominal budget, these days. Sadly, the truth is that all are still just bit players in the story and few have the nerve to even try to see the bigger picture. Wherever they are in the picture their decisions are based on pre-scheduled flow charts and the need to act as anyone else in the particular role would also have. Given the budgets and the outcomes required, there are set pathways to follow – all determined by quantified previous experience and so now integrated throughout the service.
Discussions to progress such understandings are prolonged and, probably, ongoing, so allowing updates but medical process is wholly in the hands of the medical practitioners – politicians, administrators and the like have to provide and control finances as well as staff, infrastructure, public awareness and appreciation and so on.
Given this, it is perhaps not wholly unexpected for a hospital manager I know to say “Don’t ever bring that subject up again with me” the last time I saw her, in great fury. She did not want to even discuss the fact that probably half her unit’s work load is generated as collateral damage from the childhood vaccination programme – it’s a children’s hospital.
Think about it.
From the administrator’s point of view is vaccine damage perhaps a good thing, or, at least, an acceptable by-product of process? Put on a cognitive dissonance hat and think further……”Thing is” ( she might think) “we know more benefit comes from having the jabs, in terms of illness avoided but we also know that there are a very small number of cases of vaccine damage. We are, of course, totally committed to providing the best possible care to any that we might see, however their conditions might present themselves. Of course we do not accept that the hundreds of the chronic conditions we see repeatedly are due to vaccine damage. These are just coincident phenomena and we also dispute that their numbers have risen greatly in recent decades. It’s probable that people notice them more and so they are more frequently diagnosed. Of course we are very pleased to give these clients the best possible treatment – every time they come back to us. In fact, we are about to build a new wing so we can continue to meet the demand for our services – success breeds success, don’t you know and we have more and more patients flocking to us. Well, we are so good, you know………”
OK, you can remove the CD hat, now, but you see how easy it is to rationalise your thoughts! Stuck in the glare of critical scrutiny, the administrator is not allowed to go off script. The medico-industrial pressure is too strong – “they’re the experts and we are beholden to accept their word in such matters”. If, indeed, they attempted to break ranks what would be the outcome(s)? Scorn, derision and dismissal, I suggest and quite probably worse.
Fed figures on relative risks of vaccine versus the actual illness from sundry industry sources, the administrator is unable, unwilling or just uninterested to check them and, of course, it is a very difficult field to obtain reliable statistics – and will be until we manage to bring about a radical reawakening! From that basis, all the above paragraph readily flows. Their interest is efficiency of process in terms of through flow, percentage recovery and so public satisfaction and, of course, the financial legitimacy
And it’s much the same for politicians – how can they reverse their previous assumptions of the efficacy of the process? U turns are so frowned on and lead to the ending of careers. Politicians are also courted by pharmaceutical companies – both directly and also by corporate investments in, for example, new wings to local hospitals – The Merck Children’s Hospital, say. Big, bold, modern, hi-tech are all great when it comes to getting re-elected. “See, when I were a lad, and we ‘ad to go down t’pit to earn a meager wage, well, in them days people suffered wi’tmeasles. My great aunt, she lost the sight in one eye and they tells me two young uns in ‘arry’s family died in t’same epidemic. Now we got New St. Merck’s Hospital and every doctor in the town has the vaccines to give every child so’s we can keep that scourge at bay. See what we do for you good people? An’ you will be out to vote next Thursday, won’t you? You’d not like them to take all this progress away, would thee?”
You’ll find such important administrators, decision makers, educators and influencers all singing from the same hymn sheets. They are legally glued together and cannot dissent – “it’s not my job to question that which other specialist experts have drawn up for me. Just as I would not expect them to question my work, so I naturally accept theirs.” Otherwise the whole system may well collapse in acrimony and law suits.
Many moons ago, when political parties held their annual conferences these were used to hammer out new policies, to discuss differences and agree to the bast compromises. Often this was very heated and harmony was not achieved. This no longer happens. Disagreements, when they occur, are sorted out behind closed doors and the public only sees a placid unity.
There is no place for dissent in the modern integrated plutocracy. See, it’s for our own good, they reckon we just gotta keep taking the medicine. They’ve been told it’s what we need and their job is to tell us.