The majority of this work first appeared in ‘mappa mundi’ no.4. A number of sections derive from ‘terra firm’ no.7.
MEDICAL ADVICE FROM DR VERNON COLEMAN TO ALL THOSE FEELING A LITTLE UNDER THE WEATHER
Buy something that no one could possibly describe as sensible. If it’s time to change your car avoid all the modern mass market tin can saloons and buy something old with a little character. It will bring endless small moments of joy. I have a 1958 Bentley twice the size of Wiltshire. When it went for its MOT this week it didn’t have to go through one of those humiliating smoke emission tests because its so old that the authorities worried that it would have wrecked the sensitive equipment. I felt strangely exhilerated by this.” (dr vernon coleman).
"In December 1991, in the worst air pollution incident since the coal-fire smogs of the 1950s, 150 died in London.” (Guardian 20.4.95 p.5). (VH).
CARISM AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION
The medical profession, like many other professions, is closely entwined with multi-national road/car/oil corporations. This produces a medical bias in favour of cars which causes severe damage to human health.[1]
Part One: The Medical Profession and the Car Industry.
The (Commons environment) committee’s recommendations include replacing old bus engines and phasing out super unleaded petrol, which is 10% more polluting than ordinary unleaded fuel with only a 2% increase in performance. Mr Bennett (the Labour chair of the committee) said: “the only long term answer to VOC pollution, as with all traffic emissions, is to reduce traffic growth.” In December 1991, in the worst air pollution incident since the coal-fire smogs of the 1950s, 150 died in London.” (Guardian 20.4.95 p.5). (VH).
i) The Medical Profession’s Attitude Toward Cigarette Smoking and Cars.
It might have been thought that the medical profession’s attitude toward cigarette smoking and driving cars would have depended solely upon an objective assessment of the damage which these two activities inflict on human health. This is not the case. Whilst the medical profession is totally and vehemently opposed to cigarette smoking it has never raised any serious objections to cars.
I: A Comparison between Tobacco, and Car, Fatalities.
In virtually every country around the world, cigarette smoking kills far more people than car accidents. For example, it has been estimated that, in great brutland, in the early 1990s, smoking caused the deaths of 115,000 people a year[2] whilst car accidents killed a mere 5,000.[3] In other words, in brutland, tobacco kills roughly 23 times more people than car accidents.
Globally, however, the proportion is smaller, although there are no accurate statistics .. “the World Health Organization estimates (cigarettes) will claim 21 million lives over the next decade in the industrial world alone.”[4]; "some 2 million people die each year from smoking, and two-thirds of those deaths are in the developed world."[5]; A 650 page report written by professor richard peto and dr jillian boreham of the imperial cancer research fund’s cancer studies unit at the radcliffe infirmary in oxford claims that, “Worldwide, smoking is already killing three million people each year - and the number is rising. Professor Peto warned: “In most countries the worst is yet to come. Our estimate of about half a billion of the world’s current population eventually being killed by tobacco ..””[6]
It has been estimated that, “About 700,000 lives are lost yearly, according to the World Health Organization through the violence that motor-cycles, cars, buses, and trucks wreak on the highways and byways of the world. In addition, between 10 and 15 million persons are estimated to be injured. This grim toll represents a death every fifty seconds, and an injury every two seconds around the world. Developing countries are the hardest hit, experts say, accounting for about two-thirds of mortality, or for 500,000 deaths each year. But even worse, mortality trends are on the rise. For example - mortality on roads increased in 18 developing countries alone by 13% in over a decade, or by over 260,000 deaths, a survey shows. In industrialized countries, road deaths are estimated at 200,000 yearly. While still high, trends are on the decline. For instance - in 13 countries mortality on roads decreased by 18% over 10 years, or by 88,000 deaths. To cite but two countries: In the united states of america alone, deaths declined by 8%, from 51,153 to 47,093; and in the United kingdom by 26%, from 6,831 to 5,050 over the decade. Overall, the chances of being killed by a motor vehicle are owest in the developing countries. They are least motorized. Yet, because of poor standards of traffic safety, there are between 20 to 50 times more deaths per vehicle in those countries than in industrialized ones. For instance, Ethiopia, with one vehicle per 1,000 population, reported 151 deaths per 10,000 vehicles - the world’s worst safety record. Rwanda and Papua New guinea, each with 4 vehicles per 1,000 people, reported 115 and 69 deaths respectively, ranking 32nd and 31st. The standards of safety for eastern European countries, about 5 times lower than elsewhere in Europe, are similar to the develping countries. As car ownership increases, so too do deaths on the road. In Poland, for instance, fatalities climbed from 4,688 to 7,333 just between 1985 and 1990 - or by 56%. The victims of road violence are also pedestrians. In industrialized nations, about 20% of all those killed on the road are pedestrians.In developing countries, many ore pedestrians die. In South-East Asia and Latin America, they account for about 30% of road deaths; in the Western Pacific and Africa, for about 40; in the caribbean, for about 45; and in the Eastern mediterranean, for about 50%. (Manufacturers are buildingfaster cars). In 1967, for instance, only 10% of cars built in France could hit speeds of 150 kilometres per hour; in 1987, 75% could.”[7]
The above statistics concerning car fatalities do not include the number of fatalities caused by car pollution and the rest of the car industry. There are no scientific estimates of the numbers killed in either of these categories. It is possible that the number of people killed by car pollution could be double that caused by car accidents. Car pollution fatalities are believed to be greater in the disintegrating/industrializing countries than in the over-industrialized nations despite the fact that the latter has far more cars than the former. However, even if the carnage caused by the entire car life-line is taken into consideration, it is doubtful whether cars cause more fatalities than tobacco. [8]
The estimate of brutish cigarette fatalities seems to be somewhat high because doctors (most of whom are motorists) have made no attempt to determine what proportion of those who die from lung cancer are killed by cigarette smoking and what proportion are killed by pollution from cars!! Despite record levels of vehicle exhaust pollution in urban areas and the fact that many of the pollutants from car exhausts are the same as those from tobacco, all 115,000 deaths from lung cancer are imputed to cigarette smoking not car smoking. The people who die from passive smoking are deemed to have lived a vehicle-exhaust-free-existence and to have been the victims solely of marauding gangs of anti-social cigarette smokers. The number of fatalities caused by tobacco may therefore be smaller than that suggested by the above research.
Whatever the exact numbers are of people killed by cars and by cigarettes, there is not the slightest correlation between the number of fatalities and the scale of medical protests against the causes of these fatalities. The vast majority of the campaigns launched by the brutish medical profession are against cigarette smoking whilst cars are almost totally ignored even though the number of car life-line fatalities is not that different from the fatalities caused by tobacco.
II: The Medical Profession’s Campaign Against Cigarette Smoking.
For many years the brutish medical association (bma), brutland's medical establishment, has run innumerable publicity campaigns against the dangers of cigarette smoking and the threat caused by passive smoking.[9]
A couple of years ago the royal college of physicians published a report in which it argued that pop stars and media personalities should encourage children not to smoke, “It recommends non-smoking role models by parents, teachers, pop stars and media personalities so that children stop believing it is clever or “cool” to smoke.”[10] And, more recently, a survey of doctors revealed that, “Eight out of ten doctors believe it should be illegal to smoke in pubs, restaurants, offices and on public transport, a new survey revealed yesterday. The study, by the British Medical Association, shows increasing support among the profession to outlaw the weed.”[11]
II.A: Lung Cancer.
As has just been noted, medical research has estimated that smoking kills about 115,000 people in great brutland every year.
II.B: Cot Deaths.
Smoking is the biggest risk of cot death, a report says. The more parents puff, the greater the danger - and even nicotine on the breath can harm. The damning evidence - which destroys claims that cot mattresses are to blame - was uncovered by Government experts in the biggest ever probe into why tragic tots die in their beds. They found that a baby whose mother and father smoke is five times more ikely to die as a cot death than in a non-smoking home. Britain’s leading expert on the qustion, Professor Peter Fleming of St Michael’s Hospital, Bristol, said: “Cigarettes kill babies.””[12]
III: The Medical Profession’s Failure to Oppose Vehicle Exhaust Emissions.
Quite staggeringly, despite a decade of smog ridden streets around the country, the bma has never run a campaign against the dangers of vehicle exhaust emissions. By focussing on cigarette smoking the good doctors are implying that there is no health risk involved with cars. There are three major health threats from cars which the oily medical profession refuses to acknowledge.
III.A: Lung Cancer.
Whilst doctors protest endlessly about lung cancer caused by cigarrette smoking, they rarely mention that lung cancer is also caused by vehicle exhaust emissions. This silence seems to suggest that it is a medical fact that the only cause of lung cancer is cigarette smoking.[13]
It was pointed out above that it has been estimated that 115,000 people are killed by lung cancer in great brutland each year. However, this research did not determine how many people were killed by cigarette smoking and how many were killed by pollution from cars; it simply assumed that those who died of lung cancer were either smokers or the victims of passive smoking. Despite record levels of vehicle exhaust emissions, producing poisons which are similar to those from tobacco, all 115,000 deaths from lung cancer were imputed to cigarette smoking not car smoking. The scientific veracity of this assumption is utterly dubious. However, "An American study has revealed that 12% of lung cancer deaths in the USA could be attributed to motor vehicle emissions. No work in this area has been done in the UK, but if the figure is applicable to Britain, this would mean 3,000 to 4,000 lung cancer deaths per year as a result of automobile pollution."[14]
It is blatantly obvious that one of the major reasons why people living in inner city areas, or along main roads, suffer health problems is because they are constantly breathing in poisonous car exhaust fumes. They are victims of passive motoring. There is no difference between smoke filled rooms, which have become the nightmare of every non-smoker, and smoke filled streets after tens of thousands of motorists have dumped hundreds of tonnes of pollutants into the atmosphere. Post mortems carried out on child accident victims in los angeles reveal blackened lungs and clogged arteries all too indicative of the city’s polluted atmosphere but this is the sort of evidence which the medical profession in brutland goes out of its way to ignore.
Let's assume that the average smoker gets through an ounce of tobacco every week. In the same week the average motorist uses three gallons of petrol. The amount of pollutants pumped into the atmosphere by the average smoker is negligible in comparison to that from the average motorist. The latter generates nearly three hundred times more pollution than the former. It might be argued that smokers fill up rooms with smoke whilst car exhaust fumes waft harmlessly into the atmosphere but anyone who has walked alongside a busy road knows all too well that they are being constantly sprayed by poisonous clouds of vehicle exhaust fumes and that cities are blanketed in smog.
So why is it that doctors don't seem to be bothered about this major threat to public health? Why aren't they at the forefront of campaigns to reduce vehicle exhaust pollution? Why do they do so little research into the health problems caused by vehicle exhausts? The answer is that most of them are motorists; many have moved to the countryside where they believe they can escape the vehicle exhaust pollution in inner city areas which they have helped to create; many, as will be seen below, are on the payroll of multi-national oil corporations; and health charities accept donations from the car, and car related, industries. The cancer relief macmillan fund has accepted donations from a cancer inducing petrol company - for which see below. This charity seems to be more of a propaganda outfit promoting the interests of the oil industry than an organization concerned with improving people’s health.
III.B: Heart Disease.
The hypocrisy of the cancer relief macmillan fund regarding cars is by no means an isolated incident in the medical profession. The brutish heart foundation revealed its assumption that the car has no responsibility whatsoever for heart disease, whether caused by car exhaust fumes or the lack of exercise resulting from prolonged periods of driving, by offering a vauxhall corsa merit as a prize in a charity event. It is not difficult to imagine the outcry if this charity had stated that its top prize would be 10,000 cigarettes. The tenovus cancer charity also raffles cars and whipps cross hospital in waltham forest raises funds by promoting marathon car expeditions.
III.C: Asthma.
a) The Scale of the Asthma Epidemic in Brutland.
Asthma is another disease of the lungs which causes considerable pain and perhaps even greater levels of anxiety, “Those of us with asthma have airways (in the lungs) that are almost always red and sore (inflamed). Because they are inflamed our airways are quick to respond to anything that triggers (irritates) them.”[15]
Over the last decade an asthma epidemic has appeared in brutland, “Asthma is very common indeed. Around 3 million people in Britain have it (5% of the adult population). It is the most common chronic illness to affect children, causing them more time off school than any other condition.”[16] It .. “causes around 2,000 deaths each year.”[17]; “Asthma cases more than doubled between 1979 and 1991 to 97,277, latest figures reveal.”[18]
b) The Scale of the Asthma Epidemic in the ‘Developed world’.
The scale of asthma in what is described as the ‘developed world’ is no less appalling. Asthma .. “is the most common chronic disease in the developed world.”[19] It is .. “the only treatable condition in the western world which is increasing in prevalence.”[20]; “Up to 15% of europeans now suffer from asthma, according to a report from the World Health Organization to be published this year. Although exact figures are difficult to come by, studies such as the British Royal Commission report on environmental pollution, published late last year, indicate that severe asthma has doubled over the past 20 years, with an increase up to 5-fold among children.”
c) The Medical Profession Blames House Mites for the Asthma Epidemic.
The medical profession believes the main cause of asthma is house-mite droppings and that cigarette smoking exacerbates the illness.
c1. Dr Maunder, Director of the Medical Entomolgy Centre at Cambridge University.
“What concerns Dr Maunder and others dealing with the growing number of asthma cases, is the house dust mite, a spider like animal so small that it can hardly be seen with the naked eye. Most experts now believe that house dust mites, or rather their droppings, are responsible for the vast majority of asthma cases.”[21]
c2. The British Allergy Foundation.
According to the British Allergy Foundation, an allergy to a protein found in house dust mite dropings is responsible for most cases of allergy in this country. “Studies show that if you can really attack the mites you can reduce symptoms by up to 50%,” says Professor Robert Davies, chairman of the British Allergy Foundation and the head of the Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergy at St Bartholomews Hospital, London.””[22]
c3. General.
Some doctors believe that asthma is inherited but that, “An attack can be triggered by dust, animal fur and tobacco smoke.”[23]
d) The Medical Profession Dismisses Air Pollution as a Cause of the Asthma Epidemic.
Conversely the medical profession does not believe that vehicle exhaust fumes have any major role in causing or triggering asthma.
d1. The National Asthma Campaign.
At present there is no evidence that proves air pollution actually causes asthma to appear in someone who does not already have it.”[24]; “Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is in vehicle emissions from both diesel and non-diesel engines. There is some disagreement about how important NO2 may be in asthma. NO2 exposure is greatest, however, indoors, in homes with gas cookers and gas fires.”[25]
Unfortunately for these bigots in the medical profession, whilst the numbers of cigarette smokers has decreased over the last two decades, the number of asthma cases has rocketed. Even a schoolkid versed in the most basic understanding of statistical analysis would have to conclude that there is no causal link between the two. The same applies to the house dust mite. The number of homes with central heating increased dramatically throughout the 1960s and 1970s but slowed down thereafter. If asthma was caused by the house dust mite then the number of asthma cases would have followed a similar pattern but this did not happened. The only factor which matches the huge rise in asthma cases is the huge increase in car ownership which has taken place since 1979.
d2. The Highlands branch of the National Asthma Campaign.
It has recently been argued that, “Claims that worsening traffic pollution is to blame for the rising number of children with asthma have been called into doubt by researchers. They found that youngsters in the country were just as likely to have the condition as those in towns. The leader of the survey team, Dr Jane Austin, past chairman of the national Asthma Campaign’s Highlands branch, said the results ‘certainly contradict popular opinion which tends to link the dramatic increase in childhood asthma over the last couple of decades with the huge growth of traffic.”[26] The bizarre assumption here is that traffic fumes remain in urban areas and do not drift off into the countryside.
d3. The Department of Health.
On, ironically, Friday 13th December 1991, record levels of nitrogen dioxide built up over London. Whilst the department of health was issuing a statement saying, “It is not expected that many people will be affected significantly”, some 160 people choked to death from air pollution that day. This only came out following persistent questioning of officials by a House of Commons select committee, nearly three years later.”[27]
d4. Chief Medical Officer, Dr Kenneth Calman.
"Our esteemed Chief Medical Officer, Dr Kenneth Calman, noted last week a striking increase in hospital admissions and GP consultations for asthma. It now affects two million people he says .. He looks at possible causes .. and lists "genetic predisposition to the illness which can be triggered by various factors including diet, maternal cigarette smoking and indoor and outdoor pollution. The two words that have been studiously avoided are "emissions" and "transport". Dr Calman has a government issue Rover 216."[28]
e) The Drugs Used to Curb Asthma Epidemic.
Multi-national drugs’ corporations have patented a number of drugs to counter the effects of asthma. These are being dispensed in increasing numbers, “Between 1986 and 1991, prescriptions for asthma drugs more than doubled.”[29] Unfortunately some of these drugs have severe side effects. Hundreds of people have been crippled by drugs and are now suing the health service for compensation, “Hundreds of asthma sufferers are fighting for £100 million compensation after steroids ruined their lives and turned them into hunchback cripples. The battle against drug companies .. has become Britain’s bigest ever civil damages case.”[30]
The oil industry produces the oil which pollutes the atmosphere; it produces the petrol emissions which causes asthma and ruins people’s lives; it bribes doctors to look the other way as regards the causes of asthma; its pharmaceutical companies develop oil-based drugs to counter asthma, only to find that some of these drugs make people even more ill than they were before. If cars can’t poison people then anti-asthma drugs will. If multi-national oil corporations can’t destroy people by poisoning the atmosphere, they do so by dragging people into wars or by feeding them with poisonous drugs. There is only one cure for asthma and that is getting rid of cars.
III.D: Leukaemia.
Up until the 1990s no research had been carried out in great brutland into the link between leukemia and cars. It was believed that cancer was caused primarily by radiation and had nothing to do with cars. However, a number of doctors have started to suspect there is a link between leukaemia and cars although exactly what it is is not yet clear.
a) Benzene.
Some researchers believe that benzene in unleaded and super-unleaded petrol is carcinogenic. It is inhaled either in the atmosphere after it has passed through car engines or when motorists fill up their cars with petrol, “Lead-free green petrol could increase the risk of cancer .. there is growing evidence of a strong link between leukaemia in children and benzene. Researchers will soon be able to measure the risk of developing leukaemia against the level of exposiure to benzene according to Dr Simon Wolff.”[31]; ““People who use unleaded fuel without converters think they are driving green cars,” says Dr Simon Wolff, a leading poisons expert at University college, London. “In fact, they are chucking out even greater quantities of dangerous pollutants than an old banger. The (House of Commions) Transport committee report says, “The use of petrols with high levels of aromatic components is likely to lead to a rise in cancer cases. In particular, benzene is one of the key pollutants believed to be implicated in the development of leukaemia, especially in children.”[32]
b) Polonium.
Scientists from bristol have found a statistical link between childhood cancers (leukaemia) and car exhaust emissions. Small amounts of uranium are found in crude oil deposits. When this radioactive substance is pushed through a car engine it deteriorates into radioactive polonium. The polonium is carried in the air on pm10s. If these dust particles are inhaled the polonium gets into the blood stream. It is eventually absorbed by bone marrow where it breaks into cells and causes genetic damage which leads to cancer. Scientists have found traces of polonium in children’s teeth. It is believed that polonium may be responsible for one in six of childhood deaths caused by leukaemia.[33] The world health organization have stated that there is “no safe limit for benzene”.
I: Doctors Refusing to Treat Smokers.
In recent years the medical profession has launched a new campaign against tobacco smoking. This involves refusing to treat smokers who need long term, and even emergency, medical treatment .. “a growing number of doctors and surgeons are refusing to treat smokers.”[34] To give but one example of this new policy, "A heart patient owned up to smoking one cigarette - and had his operation cancelled. Doctors told lifelong smoker Joe, 62, who has been waiting since last November for a triple by-pass op, that he must quit cigarettes."[35] The medical profession have not, however, refused to treat motorists who have been injured in road accidents because of their own reckless behaviour.
Most doctors are motorists and non-smokers; only 6 out of 100 doctors smoke tobacco. In a period where medical services are becoming increasingly expensive, doctors are looking for a rationing criteria which, firstly, won’t cause public outrage; secondly, can be pursued informally thereby avoiding political opposition/legal challenges that would commence as a result of any formal statement; and, thirdly, and most importantly, conforms to doctors own bigoted outlook on life. Since only a tiny minority of doctors smoke cigarettes it is hardly surprising that tobacco is becoming the criterion of choice. It is the carism of the medical profession which encourages doctors to overlook the diseases caused by vehicle exhaust pollution and which enables them to use tobacco as a criteria for limiting the supply of health services.
II: Doctor Refuses to Treat Dying Bicyclist.
It is possible that the following incident is a one-off, "A doctor refused to leave his surgery in East Ham to help a dying cyclist."[36] But, who knows? Perhaps motorized doctors are trying to discriminate not merely against cigarette smokers but cyclists. Who’ll be next on their list - ramblers? In america the ill and the dying are dragged out onto the streets to qualify for free medical services. Is it possible that in great brutland people are going to have to be dragged into a car to stand any chance of being treated?
iii) Medical Profession Starting to Blame Drunken Pedestrians for causing Traffic Accidents.
It was pointed out in mappa mundi issue 4 'carism' that towards the end of 1994 the aa started a campaign to divert attention from drunken drivers by highlighting the number of drunken pedestrians who have been knocked over by motorists. It seems as if the origin of this campaign was the medical profession, "The Chairman's report of the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention was published in April 1994.The Commission covers every possible sort of accident .. It is startling to note that the Commission has identified alcohol related pedestrian accidents as a category of accidents, which it alleges is rising (no statistics are quoted), and suggests that publicans should arrange safe transport home for their customers, which seems to me a solution with great practical difficulties."[37]
iv) Medical Officers are Motorists.
The most straightforward link between the medical profession and the car industry is that many of those in the medical profession whether consultants, general practitioners, nurses etc, own cars.
v) The Government Encourages the Medical Profession to take up Company Cars.
A few years ago the government decided to try and entice doctors to work full time for the national health service (nhs) by offering a company car, "The government's latest gimmick to persuade hospital doctors to work more or less full time for the NHS, rather than earn more money through private practice, is to offer them 'company cars' on the NHS."[38]
vi) The Explosive Growth in the Number of Company Cars in the Medical Bureaucracy.
Over the last few years there has been a huge increase in the number of medical bureaucrats obtaining company cars.[39] The creation of nhs trusts has led to an enormous growth in the number of health service managers (and a decline in the number of nurses), “The army of NHS managers has soared 334% in four years as bureaucracy runs riot. Admin staff rose 13.5% (13,000) .. while the number of nurses and midwives dropped by 37,000.”[40] This increase in nhs managers, with their ethos of commercialism, has led to a corresponding increase in the take-up of company cars, “The NHS has lost 20,000 nurses in the last year and gained 12,080 penpushers. Figures unveiled by junior health minister Tom Sackville also show that NHS bosses have gained 6,560 company cars. The cost of leased and hired vehicles has rocketed by more than 30% to £70 million a year - enough to buy 28,000 cars. Opt-out hospitals are the worst culprits. Their bill for company cars soared from £5.3 million to more than £24 million in a year. Company cars leased include top of the range Rover 820s, Ford Granada Scorpios, and Vauxhall Carltons for senior managers. Middle management get Rover 400s, Ford Mondeos or Vauxhall Cavaliers.”[41]
Resentment about health bureaucrats getting company cars has been inflammed by a couple of cases:-
* Concern over executive pay and perks (in the nhs) was underlined when the “company car” for Brian Davis, former head of the Pembrokeshire NHS Trust, was revealed to be a flash Porsche coup.”[42]
* Hard-pressed health workers watched in disbelief as their boss took delivery of a £20,000 Mercedes - complete with celebratory champagne. Nurses and ancilliary staff at the Littlemore Hospital, Oxford - struggling to cope with a growing workload and guaranteed only a one per cent pay rise this year - saw their chief executive Dr Michael Orr jump into the plush new German car.”[43]
vii) The Medical Profession Raises Money by Raffling Cars.
Quite unbelievably a number of medical charities raffle cars in order to raise money to provide medical facilities .. for those injured in car accidents, poisoned by car fumes, or damaged by stress/lack of exercise caused by car driving.
I: The Brutish Heart Foundation.
The brutish heart foundation recently offered a vauxhall corsa merit as a prize in a charity event.
II: Tenovus.
The start of the national lottery has had a crippling effect on the fund raising activites of many charities. Various charities have protested about the loss of funds but in doing so have highlighted the fact that they have been raffling cars as prizes, “Major cancer charity Tenovus yesterday scrapped its scratchcard game, which earns half of its £3 million annual income, and revealed the loss of 500 jobs. Organizing secretary Michael Downs said the National Lottery had virtually killed off its £1.5 million a year card income because the charity’s £5,000 top prize couldn’t compete.”[44] The £5,000 top prize was invariably a car.
III: Whipps Cross Hospital.
"Once again Gates of Woodford have sponsored the Whipps Cross Hospital Radio Annual Car Run to Scotland and back, during the weekend of June 25/26th. The car, provided by Gates of Woodford, was a Ford Mondeo 1800 Turbo Diesel .. "[45]
viii) The Medical Profession Fostering Car Use.
The medical profession is fostering car use by providing massive car parking facilities for its so-called customers.
I: Churchill Hospital, Oxford.
The churchill hospital in oxford has created hundreds of new car parking spaces on pastureland it acquired in the 1980s.
II: Whipps Cross Hospital, Waltham Forest.
It was pointed out above that whipps cross hospital has been rasing funds by promoting car expeditions. However, it has also been trying to boost car use by providing a multi-storey car park, "A major multi-storey car park is being planned to solve parking problems at Whipps Cross Hospital. And the huge project - designed to provide 447 parking spaces and put an end to overcrowding in the hospital grounds and nearby James Lane - will cost £2.5 million. The five storey car park will make up for a shortage of 200 spaces revealed in hospital research two years ago."[46]
The fact that the nhs is spending more and more money on cars rather than its patients is bad enough but one commentator was aware of other issues involved in the hospital's decision to build a car park, "For sheer, sickening hypocrisy it would be hard to beat Forest Healthcare Trust which published a leaflet 'Beating the Car Nuisance at Whipps Cross Hospital' in the very same week that it applied for planning permission to chop down trees in the hospital grounds in order to erect a five-level multi-storey car park with 447 car spaces for hospital staff. This is the very same hospital that last year signalled the onset of Britain's greatest ever asthma epidemic when its accident and emergency department was so overwhelmed by people suffering from asthma attacks that doctors contacted the national Poisons Unit, fearing there might have been a leak of poison in the area. But of course it wasn't poison gas; it was the lethal combination of air pollution from motor vehicles and a high pollen count. Needlesss to say 'Green Charter' Waltham Forest Counci has enthusiastically endorsed the car park planning application."[47]
ix) The Medical Profession Fostering Car Use; Hospitals built in Places Accessible only to Cars.
The medical profession is also helping to boost car use by increasingly choosing to build hospitals on out of town sites which, just like out of town hypermarkets, are accessible only by cars, “Hospitals generate vast amounts of car-use - not just from their staff but patients and visitors too - and the trend towards bigger, out-of-town sites, has increased the problem. (The lack of public transport to these massive out of town hospitals has meant that) The usual response is to build bigger and bigger car parks but hospitals are running out of land and funds to meet demand. The Association for Public Health puts the annual NHS bill for car parking at around £165 million a year, despite the growing trend towards charging. At Southampton University Hospital Trust managers have been forced to look for alternatives. Every day 2,700 cars chase 2,000 spaces - the parking potential of a small town - on the 1,200 bed site with one entrance. Ambulances have been delayed in the resulting jams .. The Forest Healthcare Trust in Essex has negotiated the re-routing of buses to its hospitals after a study showed 70% of its staff drove to work.[48]
The issue of out-of-town-hospitals was recently brought to a head when a patient, desperately in need of medical attention, died in his car whilst stuck in a traffic jam outside an out-of-town hospital. This caused an even bigger traffic jam to build up which led to the death of another patient stuck in the same traffic jam who started hyperventilating because she was convinced (and quite rightly so) that, because of the ever lengthening queue of cars, she’d never get the medical treatment she needed. The traffic jam became so bad that a seriously injured road accident victim, who'd been knocked down by a doctor who’d been illegally speeding in his rolls royce on his way to a patient with a sore throat, died in an ambulance which had been unable to reach the emergency accident department. As a result of this triple fatality the hospital authorities recommended that the sole access road to the hospital should be replaced by a dual carriageway to prevent further snarl ups. Some have suggested a helicopter should be kept on standby to lift ambulances over the traffic jams so that they can get to the front of the queue - although it is feared this might provoke a riot amongst motorists who have have been stuck in a traffic jam for hours waiting for their turn. It is possible the only solution may be a new breed of doctor called cara-medics who rush out of the hospital in extremely small cars to attend to patients stuck in traffic jams. Hospital authorities are hoping that multinational road/car/oil corporation executives will sponsor the design, construction and maintenance of such vehicles. One wag said that the traffic jams building up outside hospitals reminded him of hospital wards and that perhaps the hospital authorities were trying to save money by having patients use their cars as private waiting rooms rather than cram up space in hospital wards which could be better used by hospital administrators as garages for their brand new company cars. The mundi club would just like to pay homage for providing this story, to the Earth rapist, medical shits in the churchill hospital in headington, oxford, who are currently extending their car parks to suffocate even more of the beautiful pasture land which once surrounded the death factory.
Whilst medical research teams have looked at health in relationship to diet, unemployment, and housing they have done almost nothing as regards traffic, "Perhaps the most unhealthy aspect of this unhealthy picture (the health problems caused by car exhaust fumes) is the lack of interest on the part of the medical establishment and others in doing research on a scale which would equal the sophistication of the number crunching performed on road-accident and other traffic phenomena (by the DoT)."[49] This point has been reiterated by others, “But while concern is rapidly growing about health in general, doctors and scientists remain surprisingly reluctant to explore the specific links between health problems and environmental conditions; where links have been made, it is largely due to pressure from grassroots environmental and health groups.”[50]
The fact that the medical profession believes that lung cancer is caused solely by cigarette smoking rather than car exhaust emissions also has the consequence that whereas it is possible for people to sue public or private corporations which allow employees to smoke[51] it is far more difficult for people to sue the department of transport for the ill health caused by cars.
Part Two: The Close links between the Medical Profession and the Oil Industry.
There are also a number of links between the medical profession and the oil industry. Oil corporations set up, and still control, a number of pharmaceutical corporations because the vast majority of ‘modern’ medicines are derived from oil.
i) The Donations given to the Medical Industry by the Oil Industry.
The oil industry gives substantial donations to the medical industry.
ii) The Perks Lavished on the Medical Profession by the Pharmaceutical (Oil) Industries.
The pharmaceutical industries treat members of the medical profession to lavish trips to exotic locations around the world in order to attend what are called ‘bananas conferences’. Most of the research work within the medical profession is financed by the pharmaceutical (oil) industries. The career prospects of every member of the medical profession is dependent upon the pharmaceutical (oil) industry.[52]
iii): The Medical Profession Raises Money through Selling Petrol.
Quite unbelievably the medical profession raises money from the sale of petrol in order to provide medical facilities for those poisoned by petrol fumes.
I: The Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund.
Part Three: The Close links between the Medical Profession and the Road Industry.
The following may seem to be only a minor example but it is highly revealing since it suggests that the oil company, firstly, is a compassionate-minded company and, secondly, sells a product which can be associated with health. The medical profession is seen to be giving a clean bill of health to petrol consumption,“Jet launched a cheeky national charity campaign. All the petrol buying public had to do to save money and help a worthwhile charity, the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund, was to bring along 10 or more tokens from any other major petrol company to your local JET outlet.”[53] To appreciate the corruption and scandal involved in the medical profession’s acceptance of such a donation it is only necessary to wonder how the public would react if the medical profession accepted a similar offer by a tobacco or alcohol company. Is there any doctor alive on this Planet who could explain the differences between petrol fumes and cigarette smoking?
i) The Donations given to the Medical Industry by the Road Industry.
"Lord Stafford, director of Tarmac, whose parent company gave £413,500 between 1979 and 1992 to the Mental Health Foundation of mid-Staffordshire Trust.[54]
Addendum One: A Case History; Dr Vernon Coleman.
Vernon coleman is one of the country’s leading Animal protectionists - ignoring hans reush’s criticisms of coleman’s opposition to the brutish government’s 1986 vivsection laws. Coleman writes a double page spread for one of the country’s most popular sunday tabloids and frequently makes use of this opportunity to highlight Animal protectionist issues. In 1993 he used his column to announce the launch of a campaign to persuade members of parliament to ban Animal experiments by the year 2000. He wanted people to join his campaign and stated that anyone who did so would be given car stickers to advertise the campaign. A letter was written to him demanding that he stop offering car stickers given the huge number of Animals killed by the car and the car industries,
Dear Vernon Coleman,
September 27th 1993
I enjoy reading your rumbustuous and witty Casebook every weekend and admire your criticisms of the medical profession.
I'm writing to express my support for your campaign to abolish animal experiments but primarily to express my opposition to one of the ways you are publicizing the campaign - the use of car stickers. Motorists kill more animals than vivisectionists, and the car industry is responsible for the destruction of far more animal habitats than the pharmaceutical industry. By using car stickers you are encouraging motorists to think that they are doing something to protect animals when they most manifestly are not. A number of environmental organizations, including the World Wide Fund for Nature, have now stopped using car stickers for publicity because of such blatant hypocrisy.
If you believe such objections are irrelevant then I'd be pleased to listen to your point of view. Otherwise if you do not withdraw these car stickers then I shall include your name in the section 'Famous Green Car Stickers' in the next issue of Mappa Mundi - the last issue of which is enclosed. Not much of a threat I admit but its a start.
I sincerely wish you all the best in your campaign,
No answer was received. A few weeks later an amazing article appeared in his sunday column in which he recommended a couple of ways in which people could “put a bit of spice into (their) life”. One was by “Racing your car engine at traffic lights.” and another was, “Buy something that no one could possibly describe as sensible. If it’s time to change your car avoid all the modern mass market tin can saloons and buy something old with a little character. It will bring endless small moments of joy. I have a 1958 Bentley twice the size of Wiltshire. When it went for its MOT this week it didn’t have to go through one of those humiliating smoke emission tests because its so old that the authorities worried that it would have wrecked the sensitive equipment. I felt strangely exhilerated by this.”[55]
Whilst the medical profession protests endlessly about lung cancer caused by cigarette smoking, it rarely mentions the role played by vehicle exhaust emissions. This silence seems to suggest that it is a medical fact that cigarette smoking is the main, and perhaps even the sole, cause of lung cancer. One of the reasons for this silence is that doctors are middle class and whilst most are motorists few of them smoke cigarettes - it has been estimated that only 6 out of 100 doctors smoke. It is in their interests to blame lung cancer on cigarettes because this enables them to evade any guilt for causing lung cancer by driving around in cars. Dr vernon coleman seems to fall into this category of a car-owning, non smoking, doctor.[56] And, just like the corrupt medical profession which he so brilliantly condemns, coleman does not believe that vehicle exhaust emissions have anything to do with asthma.[57]
Herr coleman also believes that doctors ought to be allowed to speed through traffic to reach patients in desperate need of medical attention. He wants general practitioners to be granted the same privileges as the emergency services. He boasts, “Fifteen years ago, when I was a GP, I was fined £45 for speeding to the help of a patient who thought he’d had a heart attack.”[58] He believes his work in saving lives is so important that he, and the tens of thousands of other doctors around the country, ought to be given a nice little flashing light to put on the hood of their cars in order to speed through traffic limits. Unfortunately even police officers, who have the right to break traffic regulations and are highly trained in driving skills, are involved in about half a dozen fatal accidents every year. How many people would doctors kill if they could drive as fast as they believed is necessary? Isn’t it possible they might end up killing and maiming more people than they saved?
It’s interesting to note that coleman was one of the first to demand that .. “people who made themselves ill by smoking or drinking too much should have to pay for their own medical treatment.”[59] This attitude is typical of doctors antipathy towards cigarette smoking. It doesn’t seem, however, as if he made any corresponding recommendation about forcing motorists to pay for their victims’ medical costs when they are found guilty of wreckless or dangerous driving. However, he has recently changed his mind. He now condemns, as ‘health fascists’, those who argue that people who induce their own illnesses should have to pay for their medical treatment. Is this because, as a motorist, he dreads the costs which motorists would incur?
The latest pearl of wisdom from the good doctor concerns asthma, “It is widely believed that the incidence of asthma has trebled in the last two or three generations. I am, I confess, just the teeniest bit suspicious of this claim. I can’t help wondering if the incidence of asthma might not have been exaggerated by the fact that many doctors and parents - encouraged by drug companies looking for new patients - are over-vigilant for symptoms of the disease. Still, there undoubtedly has been some increase in asthma and experts seem to agree that there are two main reasons for this: the pollution of our atmosphere and poor eating habits.”[60]
There are two points which can be made about this statement. Firstly, as far as is known very few so-called ‘experts’ have blamed asthma on food (most of them seem to believe it is caused by the house dust mite). Secondly, this is the first time he has acknowledged that asthma might be be caused by atmospheric pollution - although he doesn’t seem able to bring himself around to stating that this might include the sort of pollution being dumped into the atmosphere by motorists like himself, especially those over-privileged twits driving gas guzzling vehicles such as rolls royces. However in a later part of the article he indicates that, in his own personal opinion, exhaust fumes from cars and rolls royce have little responsibility for causing asthma because, “the most likely reason (for the increase in asthma) is our increased consumption of diary products such as milk, butter and cheese.” After all what doctor wants to admit that he is contributing to a situation where one in seven children have asthma and thousands are dying as a result of this disease?
The following year the good doctor was arguing, “asthma isn’t the only disease which is said to be commoner than ever before. Phooey! I just don’t believe any of it. The problem is not that these (and many other) diseases are becoming commoner, but that doctors are diagnosing them more often! Go into a doctor’s surgery with a mild wheeze and the chances are that the doctor will tell you you’ve got asthma .. The driving force behind this vast over-prescribing is, of course, the ubiqitous drugs industry.”[61]
Addendum Two: A Mystery Medical Association.
What would you think of a medical professional whose doctors held the following views:-
* condemns cannabis but sees nothing wrong in modest amounts of alcohol;
* campaigns against smoking and passive smoking but is unable to give any figures for the number of people killed by pollution emanating from cars;
* supports the consumption of sugar;
* supports the consumption of meat;
* supports the consumption of dairy products;
* supports millions of useless, sadistic, tortures on Animals which have never contributed to any understanding of human physiology and have never helped to cure a human disease;
* condemns heroin but prescribes millions of tranquillisers like valium and librium.
Addendum Three: The Brutish Medical Association.
The brutish medical association is:
a puppet of the meat trade,
a puppet of the milk industry,
a puppet of the dairy industry,
a puppet of the car industry,
a puppet of the alcohol industry,
a puppet of the nuclear power industry,[62]
a puppet of the drugs industry.[63]
The main role of the medical profession is to look after the health, wealth, and welfare of multi-national corporations not humans. The best thing that people can do to preserve their health is incarcerate doctors in out of town hospitals.