Honestly, I didn’t expect an answer My Questions quite so quickly, but then, the truth will out, because the truth does have a nasty habit of bobbing to the surface.
My-oh-my, it was a surprise though, to see it answered so honestly.
I asked David Cameron a question the other day; I’ve now had my reply, even if indirectly delivered through the UK media. At least in a "here’s your answer, now you go figure it all out you silly wee wummin" type of format, at any rate that’s how it was presented in the press today.
Actually, I'm not so crazy as to think it was just my reply and it was only a partial answer, but he might have just as well shouted it from the rooftops. It was the response to the NHS question and it states very, very clearly, we’re about to lose our own Scottish NHS.
I'm talking about the English backlash in all the papers today, the one where there is a demand that we get our spending cut to a UK average, or even less, if that’s what Westminster decides. They’re saying £1,400 a head. This equals around £7.2 billion – allow me to write that out in full; £7,200,000,000. That’s cuts like you've never seen before. Oh, they’ll be staged allowing time for progressive charging to creep in, health insurance to slowly become a requirement and acceptable. You know how Westminster works; the death of a thousand little cuts. Except this time there’ll be over 7 billion little cuts.
Now, let’s remember where broadcasting is reserved to, especially after seeing ‘Better Together’ ads on the BBC (as a child, I really did believe it was supposed to be neutral and impartial, a great institution. That’s just another of those young beliefs shattered I suppose, consigned to the same afterlife as the tooth fairy). Anyway, remembering that broadcasting is reserved, we know who they’re supporting, and it isn’t ordinary folks.
This ‘newly revealed’ backlash is not particularly new; in fact it’s actually been (sometimes not so) subtly covered for a number of years now. England has forever been awash with images of the drunken Scot, belligerently whingeing for a handout. Meanwhile, they studiously ignore the fact that we put in far more than they do, more than we ever see back, which absolutely can’t be said for England.
Accordingly, akin to the Indy Ref, when you give folks half-truths, half the information and facts such as ‘they get more than you, is that fair’, of course the answer’s ‘NO’. It’s the same logic they’re using to try to get a ‘NO’ vote in Scotland, and sadly, some of my fellow Scots, reliant on a diet of Westminster propaganda, will vote that way, simply because like the English population demanding our budget be cut, they simply don’t know any better. Wonderfully subtle state propaganda, isn’t it?
Now, had these same English residents been given the full facts instead of Westminster propaganda i.e., the Scots actually pay far more into the system - much more. In reality, 2010/2011 tax receipts were £10,700 per person for Scotland, as opposed to an average of £9000 per person for the rUK. Had these same residents been made aware that these excess taxes are possibly paying a percentage towards England’s PFI contracts on hospitals and schools; wouldn't they be more amenable to the idea that it is only fair the Scots receive slightly more back than residents in rUK? Would there still be this hue and cry in England?
I suspect that not. The vast majority of English are reasonable folks, they’d be reasonably happy with that arrangement, if not downright tickled pink.
Sadly though, supplying the information at this juncture won’t work, because south of the border Scotland has been demonised in both popular culture and the popular press for far too long. The BBC is largely responsible, and the BBC is a reserved arm of Westminster. I can say that, because it’s been done at all levels, from the portrayal of Scots in newsprint to even one of my favourite old Beeb comedy shows like Black Adder; cringe worthy depictions of red-headed, tartan-bobble-hatted, be-kilted savage Scot, my people. Perhaps that’s why many suffer a Scottish cringe?
Anyway, it’s largely irrelevant now. What is relevant though is that the poll on attitudes showed upwards of a three to one majority of ‘realigning’ spending, as in cutting our budget. In reality, people who have done their research know this poll is based on half truths, innuendoes and lies. However, just like the ‘NO Voter’ in the upcoming referendum, it is what they truly believe; because they base their opinion upon the information they've been spoon fed. That makes it very real.
Furthermore, this also makes it very real to the politicians in Westminster; real and actionable. They do, after all, look upon us as ‘one country’, not four countries voluntarily making up one state. So when three of four who voice an opinion tell them to act, and it’s an action they want to take anyway, they pretty much now have to be seen to be doing something. We can bet the English press will report one set of promises, their Scottish editions will report it another way.
That means if the hoodwink holds enough of our people until September 19th, then within a very short time we can expect to see an ‘adjustment in our allowance’ of some 7 billion quid. It’s not going to be an upwards adjustment either.
If the hoodwink holds, that seven billion, and by government figures would mean one of two things if applied to us; it’d mean shutting down every hospital in Scotland, with every GP Practice or making you pay for them by forcing you to buy private insurance. It means that, or finding the money some-place else.
The problem being, there isn’t any some-place else. Since any extra Holyrood extracts from us will be deducted from what Westminster gives them.
I have recently spoken with a nurse taking a position in England. I asked if her contract was with the NHS, a health board, or a private company. You’d think that’s an easy enough question. Not in England, not today. She’ll be in an NHS uniform though, for now.
So, Mr. Cameron thanks for my answer, although I know you didn’t just decide to give it to me directly. I know your methods, and how you use the media. First they ‘uncover a story’ and engender disbelief, that disbelief turns to outrage, and as with our poor, our disabled, our sick and our immigrants, outrage begets anger and demonisation, which in turn gives support for the actions you intended anyway. It’s a bit like Putin invading his neighbours.
You want me to keep a system of healthcare, the future of which is to be modelled on the US, where a simple Caesarian Section can cost up to $25,000. You’re seriously asking me to vote for that?
Well, having had your response Mr. Cameron, I’ll give you mine. I’ll just say ‘No Thanks’ on the 18th, but I’ll say ‘YES’ to trusting my neighbours and country. You see, what you've threatened if we vote yes, while worrisome, isn’t really very scary. Not when it’s put beside what you're promising to do if I say ‘No Thanks’. The consequences of No means you’ll really have the power to make it happen, and me? Well, I’ll no longer have a finger to point, will I?
Showing posts with label health care in USA and UK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care in USA and UK. Show all posts
Wednesday, 20 August 2014
Monday, 8 July 2013
Is there pact to destroy the NHS?
I've had the opportunity to live in both the UK and US. In a previous life I spent a career in healthcare. Consequently, I have always kept an eye on this subject as I'm interested in it, and have watched England’s steady march to Privatisation for a decade and more.
The first issue is; why privatise?
No, really, why bother?
The universal government line is that it is:
1) ‘Necessary’
2) ‘Reduces costs’
3) ‘Fosters competition’.
The first two are obviously hokum; the last is probably undesirable in a health care scenario, unless folk just get the opportunity to go elsewhere, which could be satisfied by simply electing to go to another health board. It would be easy to make a statute to cover a right to change health boards. The cost would be no more than some legislation.
Let’s look at the first two for a minute, the hokum claims.
Well, I would deal with ‘Necessary’ first, except I've come up against an immediate issue; nobody is telling me Why it’s necessary, unless it circles around points two or three, in which case it’s irrelevant fluff; and fluff we should also be able to agree is hokum.
So, if reason one for privatisation is self evident ‘padding’ of hokum, and reason three can be fixed by statute that leaves reason two.
Reason two says it ‘reduces costs’, which is smoke and mirrors. Let’s say the State, and we’ll make it the entire UK as well as use easy numbers, has a hundred billion for health care. We’ll make it simple by abbreviating scenarios and not adjusting for inflation.
In 1973 the nation had a hundred billion to spend on health care. We were taxed a hundred billion to support it, we spent a hundred billion on it. We got what we paid for, more or less directly returned.
Now, fast forward forty years. At this point about a third, twenty to fifty percent depending on how you work the numbers, of that service is effectively privatised, from PPI to PFI contracts to farming out of services and people.
So, now we've got a hundred billion of our money going in and about sixty five billion returned directly in ‘services’
What has happened to the other thirty five billion? Well, ‘The City’ and ‘Wall Street’ like to see profits of thirty to forty percent; we’ll call it a third on average. Executive salaries in the private sector are generally higher, hourly wages generally lower, but about ten percent of company revenue is usually kept to repay banks and shareholders as well.
Of that thirty five billion, we’ll be generous; about twenty billion might come back in services which have been included as part of PFI/PPI agreements, e.g. laundry, security, some aspects of direct care services, building maintenance etc.
So, in 2013, we still put in a hundred billion, but we lost fifteen of it to the ‘privateers’ padding their treasure chests. Now you know how a lot of those new yachts I see every day get paid for. Luxury lifestyles being financed while your children or your grandparents go on waiting lists. In fact, at the time of writing, our £19,000 floating home is next to a $7,000,000 yacht – financed by the insurance side of the US health care industry. And let’s be clear, it is an Industry.
So, what inspired this blog, and why now?
The NHS has just announced it expects a thirty billion funding gap by 2020.
To meet that, Lady Williams is advocating charging for visits to doctor’s surgeries. They’re also proposing having pensioners pay. So-called “wealthier” pensioners, just because they might have worked all their lives and saved like crazy and have a pension other than the State’s, now get to buy that executive or banker’s new yacht. Yet, had those elderly squandered their money instead of saving, they’d be off the hook for the time being - until the financial threshold is eliminated.
Of interest are the comments made by NHS England’s information director, Tim Kelsey.
Here is the gist of what Mr. Kelsey said:
"We are about to run out of cash in a very serious fashion."
Followed by a revealing statement:
‘... the UK and US governments were currently working on a common standard of certification for health companies to make it easier for them to access both markets”.
As the Guardian article pointed out, critics of the government's health reforms say they were conceived as a "necessary prelude" to a trade agreement with the US.
He further stated:
"one of the things that we agreed with the US government which will be hopefully signing at the G8 meeting in November is that we want to make it as easy as possible for small businesses to get access to both the US and the UK market places” .
“To do that we want to have some common standards. We will be working on a standard of certification so that you can be in the digital hospital marketplace or the apps marketplace and you only need to sign up to one certification scheme."
Based upon his statement and those of others, US healthcare companies, in return for their millions poured into US election campaigns, want a return on those millions. They need fresh markets and fresh profits. The government and those who manage the NHS appear to be on the brink of devising a system which would enable the simple, painless integration of NHS services into private US health care systems. This is a very accomplished system that charges ever-increasing amounts of money in the form of monthly insurance payments from its users i.e. Patients.
The fundamental interpretation here is that these US companies have lobbied their ‘bought’ representatives to make access to the UK market a prerequisite of any future trade deal. Very quietly, the US is telling Westminster, ‘Privatise Your Healthcare’, and Westminster, London, like the subservient poodle it is, is agreeing.
The only way they (health care companies based in North America) can get that access, and therefore additional opportunities for profit, is through increased privatisation of the NHS. If that privatisation doesn't happen, then they’re only fighting for a bit of that existing thirty percent. They will then undercut each other, services will suffer, bankruptcies will follow, and our people will get hurt by both poorer care and unpaid bills.
Remember just because Blue Cross UK goes belly-up and leaves a medical wasteland in its wake, it doesn't mean Blue Cross USA has to pay. That’s the “beauty” of independent subsidiary companies.
Therefore, feel free to vote “NO” in 2014. Just be aware there is every likelihood one of the many things you’ll be voting “NO” to is the NHS. You have to remember, reduced public spending in England will result in a claw-back of our meagre pocket money under the Barnett Formula. The outcome of which can only mean reduced spending in Scotland.
The current cost of a quality ‘family healthcare plan, i.e. the kind of health care we currently take for granted, in the USA is creeping towards a thousand pounds per month. Can you afford that?
Furthermore, from personal experience, I know that even “comprehensive” cover doesn't truly ensure care in every eventuality that may become a health imperative in your life. Like many in the US, we were forced to sell everything we owned - from our home to my guitars - to pay for brain-scans and tests following a serious industrial accident.
As the UK will be copying the US health care model over the next several years, with both Labour and Conservative members pledging to ‘continue these reforms’, what you’re looking at is a return to the nineteen thirties. If you have any doubts about this, just check the list of Registered Members Interest in both Houses and see how many are intertwined with private healthcare companies. We need only look as far as Ms. Cherie Blair to find one very well-known example.
Then again if you do vote no, perhaps next time I break down on the ocean, maybe one of these new multi-million pound yachts will stop and help me. If it does, I’ll thank you for that ‘No’ vote. In reality, I’d expect it to do what the last one did when emergency struck. I’d expect it to ignore us, to keep on sailing, and pretend it didn't see the distress flare’s being let off or it didn't hear our anxious calls on the emergency radio channels.
You see, like us, if you don’t have health insurance in several years time, you’ll be able to expect that hospital ship to just maintain its current course and keep sailing on by.
The first issue is; why privatise?
No, really, why bother?
The universal government line is that it is:
1) ‘Necessary’
2) ‘Reduces costs’
3) ‘Fosters competition’.
The first two are obviously hokum; the last is probably undesirable in a health care scenario, unless folk just get the opportunity to go elsewhere, which could be satisfied by simply electing to go to another health board. It would be easy to make a statute to cover a right to change health boards. The cost would be no more than some legislation.
Let’s look at the first two for a minute, the hokum claims.
Well, I would deal with ‘Necessary’ first, except I've come up against an immediate issue; nobody is telling me Why it’s necessary, unless it circles around points two or three, in which case it’s irrelevant fluff; and fluff we should also be able to agree is hokum.
So, if reason one for privatisation is self evident ‘padding’ of hokum, and reason three can be fixed by statute that leaves reason two.
Reason two says it ‘reduces costs’, which is smoke and mirrors. Let’s say the State, and we’ll make it the entire UK as well as use easy numbers, has a hundred billion for health care. We’ll make it simple by abbreviating scenarios and not adjusting for inflation.
In 1973 the nation had a hundred billion to spend on health care. We were taxed a hundred billion to support it, we spent a hundred billion on it. We got what we paid for, more or less directly returned.
Now, fast forward forty years. At this point about a third, twenty to fifty percent depending on how you work the numbers, of that service is effectively privatised, from PPI to PFI contracts to farming out of services and people.
So, now we've got a hundred billion of our money going in and about sixty five billion returned directly in ‘services’
What has happened to the other thirty five billion? Well, ‘The City’ and ‘Wall Street’ like to see profits of thirty to forty percent; we’ll call it a third on average. Executive salaries in the private sector are generally higher, hourly wages generally lower, but about ten percent of company revenue is usually kept to repay banks and shareholders as well.
Of that thirty five billion, we’ll be generous; about twenty billion might come back in services which have been included as part of PFI/PPI agreements, e.g. laundry, security, some aspects of direct care services, building maintenance etc.
So, in 2013, we still put in a hundred billion, but we lost fifteen of it to the ‘privateers’ padding their treasure chests. Now you know how a lot of those new yachts I see every day get paid for. Luxury lifestyles being financed while your children or your grandparents go on waiting lists. In fact, at the time of writing, our £19,000 floating home is next to a $7,000,000 yacht – financed by the insurance side of the US health care industry. And let’s be clear, it is an Industry.
So, what inspired this blog, and why now?
The NHS has just announced it expects a thirty billion funding gap by 2020.
To meet that, Lady Williams is advocating charging for visits to doctor’s surgeries. They’re also proposing having pensioners pay. So-called “wealthier” pensioners, just because they might have worked all their lives and saved like crazy and have a pension other than the State’s, now get to buy that executive or banker’s new yacht. Yet, had those elderly squandered their money instead of saving, they’d be off the hook for the time being - until the financial threshold is eliminated.
Of interest are the comments made by NHS England’s information director, Tim Kelsey.
Here is the gist of what Mr. Kelsey said:
"We are about to run out of cash in a very serious fashion."
Followed by a revealing statement:
‘... the UK and US governments were currently working on a common standard of certification for health companies to make it easier for them to access both markets”.
As the Guardian article pointed out, critics of the government's health reforms say they were conceived as a "necessary prelude" to a trade agreement with the US.
He further stated:
"one of the things that we agreed with the US government which will be hopefully signing at the G8 meeting in November is that we want to make it as easy as possible for small businesses to get access to both the US and the UK market places” .
“To do that we want to have some common standards. We will be working on a standard of certification so that you can be in the digital hospital marketplace or the apps marketplace and you only need to sign up to one certification scheme."
Based upon his statement and those of others, US healthcare companies, in return for their millions poured into US election campaigns, want a return on those millions. They need fresh markets and fresh profits. The government and those who manage the NHS appear to be on the brink of devising a system which would enable the simple, painless integration of NHS services into private US health care systems. This is a very accomplished system that charges ever-increasing amounts of money in the form of monthly insurance payments from its users i.e. Patients.
The fundamental interpretation here is that these US companies have lobbied their ‘bought’ representatives to make access to the UK market a prerequisite of any future trade deal. Very quietly, the US is telling Westminster, ‘Privatise Your Healthcare’, and Westminster, London, like the subservient poodle it is, is agreeing.
The only way they (health care companies based in North America) can get that access, and therefore additional opportunities for profit, is through increased privatisation of the NHS. If that privatisation doesn't happen, then they’re only fighting for a bit of that existing thirty percent. They will then undercut each other, services will suffer, bankruptcies will follow, and our people will get hurt by both poorer care and unpaid bills.
Remember just because Blue Cross UK goes belly-up and leaves a medical wasteland in its wake, it doesn't mean Blue Cross USA has to pay. That’s the “beauty” of independent subsidiary companies.
Therefore, feel free to vote “NO” in 2014. Just be aware there is every likelihood one of the many things you’ll be voting “NO” to is the NHS. You have to remember, reduced public spending in England will result in a claw-back of our meagre pocket money under the Barnett Formula. The outcome of which can only mean reduced spending in Scotland.
The current cost of a quality ‘family healthcare plan, i.e. the kind of health care we currently take for granted, in the USA is creeping towards a thousand pounds per month. Can you afford that?
Furthermore, from personal experience, I know that even “comprehensive” cover doesn't truly ensure care in every eventuality that may become a health imperative in your life. Like many in the US, we were forced to sell everything we owned - from our home to my guitars - to pay for brain-scans and tests following a serious industrial accident.
As the UK will be copying the US health care model over the next several years, with both Labour and Conservative members pledging to ‘continue these reforms’, what you’re looking at is a return to the nineteen thirties. If you have any doubts about this, just check the list of Registered Members Interest in both Houses and see how many are intertwined with private healthcare companies. We need only look as far as Ms. Cherie Blair to find one very well-known example.
Then again if you do vote no, perhaps next time I break down on the ocean, maybe one of these new multi-million pound yachts will stop and help me. If it does, I’ll thank you for that ‘No’ vote. In reality, I’d expect it to do what the last one did when emergency struck. I’d expect it to ignore us, to keep on sailing, and pretend it didn't see the distress flare’s being let off or it didn't hear our anxious calls on the emergency radio channels.
You see, like us, if you don’t have health insurance in several years time, you’ll be able to expect that hospital ship to just maintain its current course and keep sailing on by.
Saturday, 30 April 2011
Dealing With Chemical Encephalopathy.
In September / October 2006, my husband Bill was involved in industrial accidents with neurotoxic agents, ie chemicals.
Unsurprisingly, he became extremely unwell with a mix of very confusing and distressing symptoms including (but not limited to):
Employment doctors were of no earthly use as were those at local hospitals to which he was sent for assessment. The final straw for me was when one bright spark sent him home with acid reflux medication.
We searched for and found a doctor in St Louis, Missouri - Dr. Tipu Sultan - who specialises in Environmental Medicine. After several tests, he diagnosed Bill with Chemical Encephalopathy - (ie., Brain Damage caused by a chemical agent) - plus severe Reactive Airways Disease. Dr. Sultan recommended we get a functional scan known as a SPECT scan, and see a specialist neuro-toxicologist Dr K. H. Kilburn in Pasadena.
The employment doctors did a CT scan of his brain - and found nothing!
Allow me to share a little piece of information these guys don't bother telling you.
You can carry out a CT scan on a cadaver up to 12 hours post mortem - around which time the brain begins to really decompose and liquify - it will show a normal brain, unless it there is a bullet present, an obvious tumour or a fractured skull.
CT scans reveal structure, not function.
With further research we found a scanner facility in Denver that had the newest scanner in the USA. The only 4 headed camera of its type in the United States at that time, which had just recently arrived from Germany in January 2007. They did two SPECT scans seven days apart, and we visited the Dr. Kilburn in between.
The reason for two scans is simple.
One is done under conditions of relaxation, warm area, eyes closed - covered with an opaque mask, headphones with gentle "white noise", no other stimulation from any source. The second scan is done while putting the brain under "stress". ie, asking various questions pertaining to mathematics, logic or linguistic problems, or using various types of stimuli which illicit emotional, auditory or visual responses, or require memory.
Each time the scans were performed, a radio-opaque dye was administered. The isotope travels in the blood stream, and is specifically taken up by brain tissue. Areas of active brain become obvious as blood flow increases and larger amounts of isotope is absorbed. The distribution of the nucleotides give the final picture on the film.
In Pasadena, Dr. Kilburn carried out 7 hours of quantitative and qualitative testing of Bill's capabilities and brain function. These tests can also detect if you are attempting to fool the system (ie malingering), as it measures brain functions and timings directly and electrically, and not just by what the patient reports or claims, nor what the doctor or assistants observe subjectively.
These test confirmed without doubt his brain is comprehensively damaged. There is not a lobe that isn’t affected.
Meeting new people or going new places soon becomes a pointless exercise. After several days, trips meeting new friends become a vague memory, like something he was told a long time ago - then after about ten days, they may as well have never happened. His life is a bit like the character in the "50 First Dates" movie, but the total memory loss takes about 5-10 days, then it's all gone.
People and places and events just cease to exist. Ever since the accident Bill has made an effort to maintain a daily journal of what he did, where we went, with whom we went, anyone we met, so forth and so on. He one-finger types this into his (large keyed) lap-top. If he didn't, his life would not exist, except in a day to day fashion with memories greater than a week fading into oblivion.
From the point of view of his personality, he’s ok’ish. He has lost many inhibitions which were part of his charm - for instance, he never swore unless the situation was really bad - and now he does. He becomes very frustrated by his inability to use either of his hands, and is certainly a little less patient than prior to the accident. He is also very much less confident than previously, second guessing many of the things he does, instead of following his instincts. And finally, he’s lost over 5 stone (70lbs).
So far, however, we are lucky, he has no signs of dementia or confusion, however both doctors say he has now a 70% chance of developing both, plus or minus Parkinson's Disease in the not so distant future.
Sounds totally crappy, doesn’t it?
It certainly was. For many weeks following the accident, I was in fear of waking up to a corpse in the morning, he was so sick.
Our security and future seemed to become hazy and lost as we had to sell the house in Kansas City, firstly we had to pay for all the medical bills ourselves and secondly, the pollution levels there would have killed him within 5 years. We were now homeless and required a solution. Our choices were fairly limited too. With very little cash left, we had to decide whether we were heading for a trailer park in the Arizona desert or an isolated mountain cabin. However, after much consideration, we bought a boat to attempt to achieve our goal of living apart from mainstream society. Away from all the chemicals which pervade every single area of 21st Century living.
The doctor in St Louis had said to go somewhere we can find "Clean water, clean food and clean air" and avoid everything that is in common use in gardens, homes, malls, towns etc, and especially products which contained neuro-toxic and/or petrochemically derived substances.Our lives have been irreversibly altered.
As a direct result of the injury, we have to live as chemical free a life as possible.
So, here’s a little exercise for you. After you’ve read this walk around your home and remove every single chemical based thing in it. (Mentally… for now).
Now imagine you would like to visit us.
We’d have to ask you to prepare months in advance by changing your clothes washing habits and using a non toxic detergent, no fabric softeners allowed at all- sorry. You’d have to source chemical-free shampoos, conditioners and body creams, and not bring brand new clothing with you - they off gas formaldehyde and dyes.
When my Mum came over to visit us in the summer of 2007, I had to wash every item in her suitcase before she could wear it in the house. Even then, it still caused problems as fabric conditioner is designed to linger. Hopefully you'll be a non smoker too. Still want to visit?
Now how about us visiting you?
Get rid of any/all air fresheners; all the same above with the shampoos etc, not use any surface cleaners for at least a week other than 5% bleach solution. Make sure you do not purchase any new furniture, carpets, rugs or clothes for at least 6 months prior to us dropping by. Can see how this makes socialising a bit of an adventure?
Miscellaneous Socialising.
Restaurants are an assault course. Hopefully the server won’t be reeking of perfume, or a bunch of over-cologned people don’t get the table right beside you, or the restaurant uses automatic air fresheners, or house-keeping hasn't just cleaned out the lavatories with scented cleansing products and the food isn’t full of additives… and on and on and on ad-infinitum.
I haven’t even got to food yet, have I? All water has to be clean and filtered. All food has to fresh, non processed and organic. A scoosh… unless you live some where (eg the American Midwest) they don’t give a monkey’s fart about what they eat. By simply removing all non-organic and processed food from the diet, Bill's health began to improve dramatically, as toxins were being removed gradually and not being replenished by continual dietary top-ups. I think our diet is on the whole, much healthier now. And it would be hard not to agree, major alterations have been achieved, and maintained.
There is, of course, always the down side. We've been unable to go to the cinema for years. Parties and large gatherings are what I refer to as Chemical Pinball, so we don't. Even meeting up with friends or family is a fraught affair.
Before you start thinking "major pay-out/compensation".
Let me just say we had to go to court to get basic workers compensation, no lump sum, no massive pay out. The employer, The City of Kansas City denied liability despite a paper trail as long as the Missouri River, and claimed Bill was malingering despite the evidence of two very eminent doctors in their field.
I'll just remind you that Bill was only 46 at the time of the accident. We had our future all planned out in front of us. Obviously, that got lost in the struggle to pay for all the doctors and investigations ourselves. None of our personal medical insurances would wear it as this was an industrial accident, and as the employers were denying liability, Workman's Compensation Medical care wouldn't pay either. We were approximately $25,000 in the hole on medical care and investigations, accommodations and travel expenses!
We had to sell, to all intents and purpose, every one of our personal possessions to pay.
And that's why we stay on a boat. Ours choices were limited. Sit and moan and watch him die, or actually do something to make a future possible. Sitting blaming others and bemoaning our fate would have achieved or changed nothing.
My only additional comment would be this to my friends and family living in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Cherish the institute that is the NHS. It is far from perfect, I know from first hand experience - I was a registered nurse in a major Glasgow hospital - but, if we had had no money and no access to money, my husband Bill would without doubt be dead under the private USA system.
I believe the NHS would have dealt with this very unusual and rare type of brain injury effectively,. It would have been a learning curve for us all. But at least I think I would have had better support.
A Little Post Script:
Dr Kilburn told us the amount of damage caused by the injury could have been limited by the administration of 2 x $20 injections within 48 hours of the poisoning incident and given 1 week apart. This is protocol on the west and east coasts of America and in UK and most of Europe. Missouri and the Midwest had never heard of these injections. Following Bill's accident and the City of Kansas City losing the court case and found liable, this has since become protocol there too.
Unsurprisingly, he became extremely unwell with a mix of very confusing and distressing symptoms including (but not limited to):
- tremor
- hypertension off the scale. From 180-220 over anything from 120-150 mmhg. Life threatening.
- weakness
- dizziness
- nausea
- vomiting
- overnight changes in visual acuity
- bloating
- jaundice
- sudden weight gain
- coughing fits
- unable to balance/ remain standing up with closed eyes
- incapable of walking in a straight line
- and at times near collapse combined with an inexplicable inability to tolerate many household and personal care products.
Employment doctors were of no earthly use as were those at local hospitals to which he was sent for assessment. The final straw for me was when one bright spark sent him home with acid reflux medication.
We searched for and found a doctor in St Louis, Missouri - Dr. Tipu Sultan - who specialises in Environmental Medicine. After several tests, he diagnosed Bill with Chemical Encephalopathy - (ie., Brain Damage caused by a chemical agent) - plus severe Reactive Airways Disease. Dr. Sultan recommended we get a functional scan known as a SPECT scan, and see a specialist neuro-toxicologist Dr K. H. Kilburn in Pasadena.
 | |
| Bill heading for the Bahamas with DEA in 2005 |
Allow me to share a little piece of information these guys don't bother telling you.
You can carry out a CT scan on a cadaver up to 12 hours post mortem - around which time the brain begins to really decompose and liquify - it will show a normal brain, unless it there is a bullet present, an obvious tumour or a fractured skull.
CT scans reveal structure, not function.
With further research we found a scanner facility in Denver that had the newest scanner in the USA. The only 4 headed camera of its type in the United States at that time, which had just recently arrived from Germany in January 2007. They did two SPECT scans seven days apart, and we visited the Dr. Kilburn in between.
The reason for two scans is simple.
One is done under conditions of relaxation, warm area, eyes closed - covered with an opaque mask, headphones with gentle "white noise", no other stimulation from any source. The second scan is done while putting the brain under "stress". ie, asking various questions pertaining to mathematics, logic or linguistic problems, or using various types of stimuli which illicit emotional, auditory or visual responses, or require memory.
Each time the scans were performed, a radio-opaque dye was administered. The isotope travels in the blood stream, and is specifically taken up by brain tissue. Areas of active brain become obvious as blood flow increases and larger amounts of isotope is absorbed. The distribution of the nucleotides give the final picture on the film.
In Pasadena, Dr. Kilburn carried out 7 hours of quantitative and qualitative testing of Bill's capabilities and brain function. These tests can also detect if you are attempting to fool the system (ie malingering), as it measures brain functions and timings directly and electrically, and not just by what the patient reports or claims, nor what the doctor or assistants observe subjectively.
 | |
| In Scotland 2004 |
- He has lost his sense of smell.
- His ability to balance has gone; he can’t walk in a straight line any more nor can he close his eyes, or stand in an unlit room without falling down - remember, blind people can walk. Neither can he look up at the sky when he has no reference point (a tree, hill) to tell him where he is in space with reference to the ground, otherwise his balance fails and he falls.
- He can no longer write and has no fine motor control in either hand.
- He is unable to drive due to reduced reaction times, and the inability to estimate traffic speed, car spacing, timing etc... how frustrating for a man who raced motorcycles.
- He can't even travel safely in many cars if they don't have a “recirculate function” on the AC which means he can be affected by vehicles with polluting exhaust impairing his functionality and affecting his lungs.
- His intellect is largely intact - but he is unable to concentrate for more than a 40-60 minute period on anything as he "falls asleep" - it's actually more like a state of unconsciousness. This happens because his neuro functions shut down as the damaged areas are unable to uptake nutrition. His blood brain barrier is also destroyed, so now when he is in contact with any petrochemicals or derivatives, he becomes ill. Very, very ill.
- He has short term memory problems and has lost the ability to create crystalline (long term) memory unless he reads and rereads things over and over, but because he can't concentrate this makes him fall asleep, then his memory gets wiped clean. Are you beginning to see a few problems? Bill used to read anything up to 3 or 4 books a week. Now he can't even read a single chapter. Thankfully, memories from prior to the accident remain intact and very clear.
 |
| After the accident 2007. |
Meeting new people or going new places soon becomes a pointless exercise. After several days, trips meeting new friends become a vague memory, like something he was told a long time ago - then after about ten days, they may as well have never happened. His life is a bit like the character in the "50 First Dates" movie, but the total memory loss takes about 5-10 days, then it's all gone.
People and places and events just cease to exist. Ever since the accident Bill has made an effort to maintain a daily journal of what he did, where we went, with whom we went, anyone we met, so forth and so on. He one-finger types this into his (large keyed) lap-top. If he didn't, his life would not exist, except in a day to day fashion with memories greater than a week fading into oblivion.
From the point of view of his personality, he’s ok’ish. He has lost many inhibitions which were part of his charm - for instance, he never swore unless the situation was really bad - and now he does. He becomes very frustrated by his inability to use either of his hands, and is certainly a little less patient than prior to the accident. He is also very much less confident than previously, second guessing many of the things he does, instead of following his instincts. And finally, he’s lost over 5 stone (70lbs).
So far, however, we are lucky, he has no signs of dementia or confusion, however both doctors say he has now a 70% chance of developing both, plus or minus Parkinson's Disease in the not so distant future.
Sounds totally crappy, doesn’t it?
It certainly was. For many weeks following the accident, I was in fear of waking up to a corpse in the morning, he was so sick.
Our security and future seemed to become hazy and lost as we had to sell the house in Kansas City, firstly we had to pay for all the medical bills ourselves and secondly, the pollution levels there would have killed him within 5 years. We were now homeless and required a solution. Our choices were fairly limited too. With very little cash left, we had to decide whether we were heading for a trailer park in the Arizona desert or an isolated mountain cabin. However, after much consideration, we bought a boat to attempt to achieve our goal of living apart from mainstream society. Away from all the chemicals which pervade every single area of 21st Century living.
The doctor in St Louis had said to go somewhere we can find "Clean water, clean food and clean air" and avoid everything that is in common use in gardens, homes, malls, towns etc, and especially products which contained neuro-toxic and/or petrochemically derived substances.Our lives have been irreversibly altered.
As a direct result of the injury, we have to live as chemical free a life as possible.
So, here’s a little exercise for you. After you’ve read this walk around your home and remove every single chemical based thing in it. (Mentally… for now).
- Shampoo… many contain paraffin (kerosene, deoderised of course)- did you know?
- Conditioners… same as shampoo.
- Showers gels
- Body/hand/face lotions.
- Perfumes (cheap or expensive, full of toxic stuff.)
- Most toothpastes.
- Deodorants.
- Surface cleansers for kitchens or bathrooms.
- Furniture cleaners and polish.
- Cosmetics… all of them. For example, mascara is full of mercury and you’re slatherin that on/near a mucous membrane. Most cleansers, foundations, lipsticks etc, contain other nasty petrochemicals which may cause tumours or are neuro-toxic.
- Dish-Washing up liquid.
- Majority of washing machine/laundry detergents.
- All fabric conditioners.These cause the worst reaction at times, tremor, breathing problems, headache, blurred vision.
- Perfumed candles.
- Perfumed room fresheners (all of them including potpourri). Febreeze cause him really awful problems.
Now imagine you would like to visit us.
We’d have to ask you to prepare months in advance by changing your clothes washing habits and using a non toxic detergent, no fabric softeners allowed at all- sorry. You’d have to source chemical-free shampoos, conditioners and body creams, and not bring brand new clothing with you - they off gas formaldehyde and dyes.
When my Mum came over to visit us in the summer of 2007, I had to wash every item in her suitcase before she could wear it in the house. Even then, it still caused problems as fabric conditioner is designed to linger. Hopefully you'll be a non smoker too. Still want to visit?
Now how about us visiting you?
Get rid of any/all air fresheners; all the same above with the shampoos etc, not use any surface cleaners for at least a week other than 5% bleach solution. Make sure you do not purchase any new furniture, carpets, rugs or clothes for at least 6 months prior to us dropping by. Can see how this makes socialising a bit of an adventure?
Miscellaneous Socialising.
Restaurants are an assault course. Hopefully the server won’t be reeking of perfume, or a bunch of over-cologned people don’t get the table right beside you, or the restaurant uses automatic air fresheners, or house-keeping hasn't just cleaned out the lavatories with scented cleansing products and the food isn’t full of additives… and on and on and on ad-infinitum.
I haven’t even got to food yet, have I? All water has to be clean and filtered. All food has to fresh, non processed and organic. A scoosh… unless you live some where (eg the American Midwest) they don’t give a monkey’s fart about what they eat. By simply removing all non-organic and processed food from the diet, Bill's health began to improve dramatically, as toxins were being removed gradually and not being replenished by continual dietary top-ups. I think our diet is on the whole, much healthier now. And it would be hard not to agree, major alterations have been achieved, and maintained.
There is, of course, always the down side. We've been unable to go to the cinema for years. Parties and large gatherings are what I refer to as Chemical Pinball, so we don't. Even meeting up with friends or family is a fraught affair.
Before you start thinking "major pay-out/compensation".
Let me just say we had to go to court to get basic workers compensation, no lump sum, no massive pay out. The employer, The City of Kansas City denied liability despite a paper trail as long as the Missouri River, and claimed Bill was malingering despite the evidence of two very eminent doctors in their field.
I'll just remind you that Bill was only 46 at the time of the accident. We had our future all planned out in front of us. Obviously, that got lost in the struggle to pay for all the doctors and investigations ourselves. None of our personal medical insurances would wear it as this was an industrial accident, and as the employers were denying liability, Workman's Compensation Medical care wouldn't pay either. We were approximately $25,000 in the hole on medical care and investigations, accommodations and travel expenses!
We had to sell, to all intents and purpose, every one of our personal possessions to pay.
And that's why we stay on a boat. Ours choices were limited. Sit and moan and watch him die, or actually do something to make a future possible. Sitting blaming others and bemoaning our fate would have achieved or changed nothing.
My only additional comment would be this to my friends and family living in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Cherish the institute that is the NHS. It is far from perfect, I know from first hand experience - I was a registered nurse in a major Glasgow hospital - but, if we had had no money and no access to money, my husband Bill would without doubt be dead under the private USA system.
I believe the NHS would have dealt with this very unusual and rare type of brain injury effectively,. It would have been a learning curve for us all. But at least I think I would have had better support.
A Little Post Script:
Dr Kilburn told us the amount of damage caused by the injury could have been limited by the administration of 2 x $20 injections within 48 hours of the poisoning incident and given 1 week apart. This is protocol on the west and east coasts of America and in UK and most of Europe. Missouri and the Midwest had never heard of these injections. Following Bill's accident and the City of Kansas City losing the court case and found liable, this has since become protocol there too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)