A unexpected cost of 'universal' health care

One of the biggest threats posed by western medicine is that it is highly institutionalised, as as a result its administration is highly formalised, structured, centralised, not to mention highly political. There are benefits in this approach and there are flaws. Some of the benefits are:
1. Systematic approach to research - We can have confidence procedures are being followed
2. Collaboration among professionals - We can be confident that researchers are accountable to the extent that results and conclusions are shared (within the limits of corporate disclosure)
3. Preservation of scientific standards - That the industry preserves certain standards for procedures, disclosure and compliance.

But there are also a number of problems with this approach:
1. Standardisation, and thus the possible entrenchment and non-questioning of scientific methods
2. Rationalisation of policy to preserve the reputations of imminent representatives or to promote certain political outcomes, eg. universal vaccination.
3. An deference to authority - less 'imminent' voices closer to the coal face are ignored because peak industry bodies are pursuing different agendas

One of the greatest follies I find with scientists is the over-simplification of science to achieve certain objectives, to sell a policy to a certain audience, or a desire to draw attention to certain research. There is an attempt to draw 'universal' truths from scientific research by making <5%>
The reality is that any percentage of people whom dont respond to a treatment or drug is important, and efforts should be made by drug companies to understand why certain patients dont respond to a drug, just as they study why the vast majority do. The reason they dont is to save money, and to avoid ruining a good story with bad news. If they should find compelling reasons why their product does not work, or even worse, causes severe side effects, then they fear they might be undermining corporate profitability. True in the short term, but in the long term they will be avoiding law suits and developing a much improved understanding of their products and the conditions they are treating.
At root there is of course a desire by scientists or researchers for fame or financial fortune. This need not be a problem if:
1. There is adequate disclosure
2. There is adequate opportunity for critiquing science outcomes
3. Inferences are critiqued

One of the starkling problems I have with science in medicine is the tendency to treat all people as if they are the same. The 'sameness' that makes us human beings need not imply that our bodies behave exactly the same way when certain conditions are changed. The absence of evidence for a link between autism and certain vaccinations might not be available, but if our understanding is not sufficient to eliminate the possibility, then perhaps there is a need to either better understand the medicine or to monitor symptoms. To readily the science community evades certain knowledge that disputes their beliefs.

It is precisely because of the anti-science aspects of medical science that I dispute the desirability or safety of universal vaccination. More specifically I question the use of vaccines as long as:
1. There is inadequate understanding of the <5%>
2. There is inadequate monitoring of the possible side effects of taking medicines, whether vaccinations or otherwise
3. There are safer preventative strategies that can be adopted - even if seemingly more expensive

My concern is that there is so much that researchers still dont know about the human body. There attempt to adopt 'one size fits all' problems is not science, but statistics. We can see an obvious appeal in this strategy for pharmaceutical companies because they make money whether the treatment works or not, and they are not liable unless they are negligent in responding to signs of side effects. But are they taking adequate steps to question the effectiveness of safety of their treatments. I think we have to be particularly cautious where governments are sponsoring universal health solutions like vaccination.

History is littered with examples of universal health solutions that have backfired. The most famous example was the use of formaldehyde in the 1950s (??). It seems that the link between a vaccination and autism is shaping up as another example. I think we are being sold the benefits for the sake of corporate profits without being given adequate risk analysis (disclosure) on the risks because the research is geared to selling benefits, not protecting us from the downside.

I refer you to the following blogspot where you can order the book written by a mother of an autistic child whom questioned the underlying science that fails to draw a link between the MMR vaccine and at least some incidences of autism. Her story appeared on Oprah. See http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2007/09/jenny-mccarthy-on-oprah-vaccine-injury.html.