Across the world many governments committed many billions toward combating the threat of Swine 'flu.

Now that the dust has settled and the very limited scope of the actual threat has emerged people are beginning to ask if this money was spent correctly.

In the UK there are two factions, those that believe any expense is justified 'just in case' and those that believe the government was suckered in by big 'pharma' business and ended up being fleeced or, at the very least, were just plain stupid with the money.

I have always been highly critical of three main areas of politics. The first is the EU that wastes our money and has not balanced the books for sixteen (yes sixteen) years due to waste and corruption. The second is climate change where nothing is really proved but we set out budgets to look into it and are surprised that those 'investigating' it find that it is there and that they must keep being well funded with our money. The third is this whole medical health scare thing, where there is a fortune to be made just by hinting that there is some horrible bug out there. Just look at how much money is in throat lozenges alone for example.

Now, I am not saying we should not take medicine, I am just asking people to be more critical of the 'experts' and not just accept what they say just because they are 'clever'. Their motives are not always as altruistic as they seem. Just listen to the bankers who say they do what they do to help businesses grow and keep society well supplied. The really highly paid scientists and economic experts all seem to go to the same universities. Why is a scientist with a mortgage any more moral than a banker with a mortgage? Think about it.

Another example of this is our elected MPs, a lot of whom are lawyers, who succumbed to the call of money in the form of expenses.

"Money is the root of all evil" they say. Well it seems to be the root of bucket loads of misinformation. Consider how the public would react if a study funded by the tobacco industry declared smoking beneficial to the human body? Or one by the oil industry saying that oil slicks are fun for wildlife? Is it likely that a body like the IPCC is going to publish a report that discredits its own existence?

Had the bulk of research money been allocated to prove that 'nothing much has changed over the years' guess what we'd keep on being told?

Centuries ago people were put to death for disagreeing with the 'accepted' science. Nowadays it is the starvation of funds and the bestowing of awards that seem to shape scientific thought. And business together with government will of course look to profit from the outcome of that research and thought.

Comment Here!

comments