UK Accepts Big Pharma Money to Trial Drugs on the Unemployed
Sun 8:28 am +01:00, 20 Oct 2024 6
Kit Knightly – Off-Guardian Oct 18, 2024
Three days ago the British government announced a new scheme to inject obese people with weight loss drugs to try and tackle “worklessness”.
Writing in the Telegraph – where else would a “Labour” minister write? – Health Secretary Wes Streeting proudly announced the plans, and praised the new wave of anti-obesity medications:
The long-term benefits of these drugs could be monumental in our approach to tackling obesity. For many people, these weight-loss jabs will be life-changing, help them get back to work, and ease the demands on our NHS.
The specific drug in question is “Mounjaro”, produced by pharma giant Lilly to compete with the Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic/ Wegovy. And the first phase of the scheme is a five-year trial on 3000 obese people in the Manchester area, described in another Telegraph article:
Up to 3,000 obese patients – a mixture of those in and out of work, and on sickness leave – will be recruited for a five-year study that will explore whether the medication boosts productivity and could bring more people back to the workplace.
It was also announced that Lilly – the biggest of Big Pharma vultures – will be “investing” £280 million in the scheme.
Streeting describes it as:
a collaboration that includes exploring new ways of delivering health and care services to people living with obesity, and a five-year real-world study of a cutting-edge obesity treatment.”
“Collaboration” is doing some work in that sentence.
If you order a pizza from Domino’s, that’s not a “collaboration”. You don’t “collaborate” on getting a pizza – You pay for a pizza, and you get a damn pizza or you get your money back.
…and £280 million buys a lot of pizza.
The quid pro quo here is pretty easy to see.
So, I repeat the headline:
The British government is being paid by Big Pharma to trial new drugs on the unemployed.
We’re reaching levels of Great Reset dystopia not previously thought possible, and it opens up important questions for the future.
What happens if the trial is said to be a success? (And, you know, I have a funny feeling it will be.)
What happens if the new wonder drug is labelled a cure for “worklessness”?
We’ve already seen “no jab, no job” applied to vaccines during the “pandemic”. How long before the overweight and unemployed are told “no jab, no unemployment benefits”?
How long before the healthcare is rationed or conditional in other ways based on other lifestyle choices?
Streeting hints as much in his column…
The NHS can’t be expected to always pick up the tab for unhealthy lifestyles.
Seems like smokers, meat eaters, the overweight – or anyone else deemed “unhealthy” – might be in trouble soon enough.
Considering this follows hot on the heels of plans to job train those committed to mental health institutions, the “painful” budget and cutting the winter fuel allowance for pensioners – all while still spending billions to fund war over seas – you have to wonder if any of those people who were so sure Labour were the “lesser of two evils” back in July are starting to feel a little foolish.
There is no lesser. They’re all just evil.
You can read our previous article on new-wave weight loss drugs here:
—
Support Off-Guardian:
craziness abounds. Why not make life like it used to be. Obesity was not an obvious issue in the last half of the nineteen ninety’s. Access to Social Media via mobile/cell phones doesn’t help, especially girls. Call of Duty etc doesn’t help boys. Being able to get an 18″ Pizza delivered to your door within an hour certainly doesn’t help. Mental anguish via constant doom and gloom supplied by TV via the governments actions, causes more of the same by losing you friends, straining relationships etc. I can assure you of that. Mental health is at an all time low for the susceptible. Obesity is just one issue. Alcohol and drug use are rampant, and in Scotland, ie the testing ground for unpopular Government ideas, they have twice increased the price of alcoholic drinks per unit of alcohol. Now it might work out for statisticians with a vested interest in proving it works, but in many cases, luxuries such as food take second place. This trial of Ozempic might be a huge success, but where will you find 3000 jobs. I am not in any way, well travelled, and live in a deprived corner of a deprived Country, and round here, the tourist industry, supermarkets, and retail outlets provide the only easily accessible jobs, mostly on minimum wage and part time hours. it will get worse too, as house prices are booming because of people from further South fleeing the carnage in their previous area.
The US, and now the UK, medical systems don’t want to cure anything, they want to TREAT long term customers. It’s a BUSINESS man, and no business want’s to lose it’s customers by removing their reason to be a customer do they. Stands to reason. Permanently sick, or addicted? They don’t care because, either way, you keep consuming their poisonous potions
The old Hippocratic Oath, that all doctors used to swear to, started with
“First do no harm” or similar. That didn’t suit the business medical model so it was removed when the “modern” oath was introduced. Says it all for me…
As Ian says above then, back in last century, obesity was not an issue at all. When I grew up in 1950’s there were literally ZERO obese people. Fat people were so rare that they were considered to be freakish. We had a school mate that we used to call “Fatty Turner”. He was just a big boned tall lad, not at all fat by todays standards. Nowadays being obese is actively encouraged by the media matrix. Look at all those horribly fat models and gross fat celebrities. Some of the sights on a modern high street make me slightly nauseous, obese people in yoga pants particularly….
How long before calling somebody fat becomes a hate crime?
“How long before calling somebody fat becomes a hate crime?”
It suspect it is now in Scotland Pete. If the obesity classes them as disabled.
“In Scotland, the law currently recognises hate crime based on prejudice towards the following characteristics: race, religion, disability, transgender identity and sexual orientation.””
Bear in mind, it’s not what’s said, it’s how it’s perceived. Plenty of scope there.
Yes Ian
I THINK that it is a hate speech crime against me so, voila, it’s a hate speech crime against me. Just like that, no sensible basis whatsoever, purely subjective on behalf of the offended one. Logically it’s utterly ridiculous and it seeks to remove our ability to SPEAK what is on our mind!
In fact our freedom to speak is inviolable, we are born with the ability to speak, and no “legal” system can remove that from us. “Legal” means anti nature, legal is a FICTION by definition. It uses your Strawman Legal FICTION identity, it’s NOT the real flesh and blood you in any real sense. It’s purely a concept for the MIND, to equate your Strawman identity with YOU the real human
So it is directly opposed to Natural and Gods Law. Which is supreme and towers above ALL human laws. There is absolutely no doubt about that
Having said all that then, practical considerations are very relevant. Try telling all that to the the totalitarian enforcement “officer” who is implementing their corporate law against you. Discretion is the better part of valour
You are still free the THINK whatever you want. That isn’t “illegal”, not yet anyhow
indeed as you say Pete, not yet.