And this connection actually killed them, since they had no survivors at all in the hospital after being connected to a ventilator. And this was in stark contrast to the way coronavirus patients were treated in Florida, where this nurse worked before new York, where they were treated like regular flu patients, without using a ventilator. And they didn’t have a single dead person.

But in new York, the mayor forced them to “treat” this way, threatening doctors with revocation of their medical licenses. Accordingly, the doctors at the hospital laughed: “Why should we try, because these people are already not residents.” (Note that the mayor of new York, a political opponent of Trump, Democrat bill de Blasio, on may 16, 2020, announced his candidacy for President of the United States).

On the one hand, the message of the nurse Erin Marie Olszewski is a convincing evidence that such “treatment” under the noise of the Scam of the coronavirus epidemic is an outright murder of patients by doctors, with the dead listed as “victims of the coronavirus”. But on the other hand-on the statistical side of this epidemic, as it were – the nurse said nothing new.

Long before her, Dr. Cameron Kyle-Saidel, who was fired from the hospital for this frankness, had told the public about the difference between this disease and classic pneumonia and the murderous nature of the ventilator. By the way, his speech was included in his interview (on 20-26) with Dr. Kaufman by the journalist Del Bigtree

PROSPECTS FOR CREATING A UNIFIED STANDARD FOR COVID TESTS

Да, собственно, общая статистика говорит о гибельности исскуственной вентиляции легких

THE EPIDEMIC OF THE CORONAVIRUS – THE GLOBAL PSYCHOSOMATIC OPERATION

According to an Associated Press report from April 10, 2020, in new York, 80% of COVID-19 patients who are connected to artificial ventilation devices (ventilators) die, although the usual death rate of patients with breathing difficulties is 40-50%, in China’s Wuhan, the mortality rate with coronavirus on a ventilator is 86%, in the UK about 66%.

And for me, an additional proof of the veracity of the reported data is the behavior of the lackeys of the organizers of the coronavirus Scam, who, in order to please the owners and clearly for money, try to pass off the coronavirus Scam as a real threat to humanity. So, these unscrupulous scoundrels, who are ready to kill their countrymen for money with their chatter, never refute the essence of the reported information – no! Having no arguments to refute, they try to drown out or at least throw shit on those who report this information.

(And for morons, this is all that matters, because the moron doesn’t understand what it’s about, and has to choose who to believe. Therefore, if the source of objectionable information is poured with shit, then in the moronic understanding, the information from this source also becomes false. One of my opponents constantly reminds me that he believes only information from peer-reviewed scientific journals and assures his readers that only such information can be trusted. And it does not bother him that he himself looks like a moron who is not able to understand the truth of information as such, so he is forced to believe that the editors and reviewers of scientific journals are honest people. So to speak, substitutes for Christ, identical to the natural one. What can you do – a moron is not able to jump above the belief in something and this is taken into account).

Moreover, he also says that he does not discuss the information in substance, because “he is not an expert”. And it turns out that he – not an expert in medicine – is a “specialist in medical specialists” (as another commentator aptly noted). And this RAM in medicine assures everyone, for example, that the mayor of new York is an outstanding medic, and a certain “doctor” Kaufman is an illiterate fool. That bill gates, who finances who and all similar organizations abroad, is a medical genius who needs nothing but love for humanity, and that nurse Olszewski is a fool who wants to be famous. And, accordingly, that he is not a vile scoundrel, but an honest commentator.

Here’s a look at what he gave out on this nurse and estimate the volume: “Well, super, congratulations to Mukhin. Another fraudster was found; last time it was “doctor” Kaufman, this time “nurse” with the complex name Erin Marie Olszewski. This young fraudster has been trying to attract attention for a couple of years now by fighting against vaccinations, spreading the well-known lie that vaccinations allegedly cause autism. According to her, her son (she has three children), who initially developed normally, received the MMR vaccination and immediately became autistic. She founded not just one, but two anti-vaccination organizations: “Nurses for Vaccine Safety Alliance” and “Florida Freedom Alliance”, spoke at congressional hearings, participated in protest demonstrations, etc., etc.”

And this is a comment on the article ” What virus caused covid panik? “in which I quoted facts, starting with this: “More than 500,000 American children currently suffer from autism, and pediatricians diagnose more than 40,000 new cases each year. The disease was unknown until 1943, when it was detected and diagnosed among eleven children born within a few months after thimerosal was first added to children’s vaccines in 1931.”

He continues: “Like “Dr.” Kaufman, she did not immediately appreciate all the possibilities that the outbreak opened up for her. At first, she was limited to writing almost hourly posts on Facebook and Twitter on the usual conspiracy topics: the Government is using a fake alleged epidemic to take away our rights, the virus is artificial, and even that the diseases are caused by vaccinations; against all experts in the field of immunology, for trump, against the who, the usual nonsense about gates, well, everything is as usual.

In April, however, she had a fresh idea. She decided to get into the center of the impending disaster – new York-and expose the fake epidemic there. Armed with a hidden camera, she took a job at a hospital in one of the poorest neighborhoods in new York.

There, however, she was disappointed. The disease was real and the epidemic was terrible. It’s bad, but good can’t be lost! Armed with recordings on a hidden camera (which is a blatant violation of medical ethics and where it concerns patients, and the law) and contacting, like “doctor” Kaufman, greedy for sensationalism unscrupulous journalists, she rolled out her “exposure”.

What is it about? Yes, for the most part, the chatter of nurses among themselves, complaints about poor provision of protective equipment, and all sorts of other problems (known without her “revelations” and quite expected in the midst of an epidemic in such a place). The only non-trivial claims were that (a) patients with a negative test result are treated with covid-19 because the hospital receives money for it, and (b) they are also kept close to the patients, thus, without having the virus when they arrive at the hospital, they become infected already there. There were also some other “revelations” that untreated patients are returned to nursing homes, exposing their residents to the risk of infection, etc.

Note that this is infinitely far from the original “there is no epidemic, the globalists led by gates want to chip everyone”; but nevertheless, the charges themselves are quite serious.

The hospital had to respond. The hapless “nurse” was told, among other things, that about 40% of patients have a negative test result; this is also due to the fact that when a noticeably ill patient enters the hospital, so as not to injure him unnecessarily, the sample from the nose is not taken too deep, and sometimes it does not get enough viral RNA for the test. Anyway, patients with symptoms of infection with the virus are treated accordingly, regardless of the negative test, which is logical.

In General, this “help” cost the hospital dearly, but in the end they managed to get rid of the “nurse”. But her task was completed: she has already become a” star “of American” right-wing ” TV shows, and finally her book is published in August.”

Well, you saw how much he gave out immediately! What an excellent knowledge of Olshevskaya’s biography, how fully revealed all her insidious plans! Is this man going to write a book with a biography of Olszewski?

But note that in this verbose comment, there is not even a hint that at least one fact from Olshevsky’s message is false. In the United States – in the “state of legal litigators” – no one is going to bring Olshevsky to court, not even for libel, but at least for defamation of the hospital. Whether this commentator understands it or not, this comment completely confirmed the authenticity of everything that Olshevsky reported. Before that, Dr. Kaufman reported. Namely, they reported about the murder of American medicine patients under the sauce of ” a terrible epidemic.

So covid alarmists should not just sum up “those who died from coronavirus”, but allocate from this number how many unfortunate people were killed by doctors in a thirst to earn “freebies”.

Speaking of summation. Almost always, any data is given for equal periods so that it can be analyzed, and the results of the analysis can be used to improve the situation. For example, the same population mortality (General or for separate reasons) is given separately for each month or separately for each year. Analysis is the construction of a curve, and to build it to the ordinate axis, you need the abscissus axis, not a single point. And in this “epidemic”, as you can see, the numbers are not intended for analyzing the situation and fighting the disease – the numbers are not given for a day, week or month – they are given as the sum of a certain “beginning of the epidemic”. And why so? What does this” statistics ” give? How can I use it for analysis?

And “COVID-19 pandemic statistics” is not intended for analysis, it is intended solely to intimidate the population. The speech has long gone beyond a medical issue – it is a political action from the very beginning.

Now about the murder artificial ventilation devices

Of all the Russian medical theorists, I deeply respect Dr. Buteyko for the fact that he is the only doctor I have met in history who really understands chemistry. So, the specialists of his clinic quite sensibly and reasonably protest against the treatment of lung problems with artificial ventilation and, of course, explain why it is deadly. http://www.buteykomoscow.ru/articles/34/

But it is clear that among the Russian intelligentsia, which has all the “light in the window” in the West, there is no prophet in their homeland. And since the West uses a ventilator to treat lung problems, we will also use a ventilator.

And always, and stupidly!

Doctors kill – this is undeniable. But even in this case, the fault of ordinary doctors, who do not have the right not to follow the recommendations (orders) of medical superiors, takes a back seat, and the fault of who and its associated medical superiors in all countries rises to the fore. After all, they, funded, by the way, by bill gates, forbade autopsies of the dead and establish the true cause of death during this epidemic. Because of this ban, it was too late to determine what exactly affects the lungs in this flu.

Remember: “As established by Italian scientists, it turned out that the terrible disease is not pneumonia, and people die, to a greater extent, from diffuse venous thrombosis (thrombosis). In this regard, the treatment protocols for coronavirus patients in Italy were urgently changed. Along with antibiotics, antiviral and anti-inflammatory drugs, anticoagulants were also used. According to information from Italian pathologists, ventilators and intensive care units were not needed.”

During the Vietnam war, initiated by the then US President Lyndon Johnson, a demonstration protesting against the war students have adopted the chant, “Hey, Lyndon Johnson, tell me, quail, what killed you today, children?”

At the time to arm themselves with chants: “Hey, mean who, say, don’t be shy, how many killed today?“.

Yu. I. MUKHIN

P.S. Michael Levitt, winner of the Nobel prize in chemistry, summed up on may 23 this year: “The quarantine did not save any lives and perhaps the decision to introduce it cost other lives. The problem with epidemiologists is that they see the meaning of their work in intimidating people into isolation and a policy of social distance. If they say that there will be a million deaths, but in fact there will be 25,000, they will answer-it’s good that you listened to our advice! It’s just part of the madness.”

To confirm that the quarantine really kills, I will tell from the doctor who returned from Italy to Dnepropetrovsk his version of where so many died in Italy.

Italy is a country of old people, especially helpless children are not particularly eager to take care of, so they hire nurses from Ukraine. However, at the very beginning of the panic, the Italians, introducing quarantine measures, forced all Ukrainians to leave Italy, as a result, thousands of old people were left without care, and children handed them over to nursing homes. It was in these crowded houses, from which the staff had also fled in a panic, that the most outstanding death rate “from coronavirus”began.

But the same mortality rate would have been due to the flu if all foreign nurses had been suddenly evicted in the midst of its epidemic. So it wasn’t the coronavirus that killed it, it was the quarantine that killed it.

The post HOW MANY PATIENTS WERE KILLED BY DOCTORS UNDER THE GUISE OF FIGHTING THE CORONAVIRUS first appeared on Global Policy.

“Well, just a shot…”

This time, Alexander Poletaev, an immunologist, doctor of medical Sciences, Professor, scientific Director of the Immunculus medical research center, agreed to talk to Tsargrad about vaccination as such. Calling himself a supporter of vaccination in General, he nevertheless emphasizes that there are many nuances that are not known today not only by patients, but also by doctors themselves.

To begin with, a little historical literature from Professor Poletaev

Vaccination was the first attempt of mankind to artificially tune the immune system to create targeted immunity (resistance) to certain infectious diseases. This is a kind of training of the immune system to recognize the antigens of the microbe or its toxins for subsequent destruction. The goal is to form the body’s immune defense against infectious diseases for years to come, and ideally for life. But here it is worth noting at once: any manipulations by which changes are made in the body for a year, by definition, very seriously affect it and cause long-term changes in its functions. Therefore, the phrase “Well, just think, prick – prick and go” from the Soviet cartoon is very far from the actual state of things.

The very idea of vaccination was born hundreds of years ago, probably in China and India. It was based on observations that after smallpox or plague, survivors developed a persistent immunity to the disease, which prevented them from developing the corresponding diseases for a long time. This was also noticed in the plague epidemics in medieval Europe – the survivors and recovered patients acquired resistance to the disease, no longer infected with it and did not get sick. Hundreds of years ago, people were able to observe, analyze, and draw conclusions just as well as we are! And long before the discovery of viruses and bacteria, before the discovery of the immune system and the formulation of the very concept of anti-infectious immunity, humanity has found a way to create resistance to diseases.

” I am not afraid to be treated: if necessary, I will bite!”

Tsargrad: So the idea of preventive vaccination can be called a progressive and useful undertaking?

Alexander Poletaev: Yes, but the idea and its practical implementation are not the same. Therefore, today the very idea of vaccination, in addition to sincere supporters, has a large number of convinced opponents. I do not mean negative – minded people who are ready to deny the usefulness of any medical manipulations, but professional doctors-immunologists, biologists.

It was found that vaccinations can induce various kinds of undesirable side reactions, usually mild, the frequency of which after vaccination reaches 1-2% (according to Japanese doctors). This also includes fairly rare (no more than 3-4 cases per 50,000 vaccinated) severe post-vaccination complications that lead to persistent health disorders, disability, and even death. Serious complications are rare. However, such cases are real and it is unacceptable to discount even isolated cases of post-vaccination death or disability.

Presumably, the mass distribution of preventive vaccinations is associated with negative trends in the health status of the population of developed countries. For example, in the report of the former chief obstetrician-gynecologist of Kazakhstan, Professor R. S. Amandalove at the session of the Russian national Committee on bioethics of the RAS, it was noted that although mass vaccination of children reduces the incidence of infectious childhood diseases, at the same time, approximately 60-70 years of the twentieth century, a growing pathological sensitization (acquiring the body’s hypersensitivity to foreign substances – allergens and irritants. – Ed.) children and in the progression of allergic and autoimmune diseases spread. And I wonder whether such a fee is justified for reducing the incidence of such usually easily occurring childhood diseases as measles, scarlet fever, mumps, or rubella. There is no clear answer.

But there is an established fact: the frequency of allergic and autoimmune diseases in the “civilized” States covered by mass vaccination is 25-50 times higher than their frequency in the “uncivilized”countries.

There are other observations that indicate certain correlations between the mass introduction of preventive vaccination and the growth of detected cases of epilepsy, encephalopathy, demyelinating diseases (diseases of the nervous system in which the myelin sheath of nerve fibers is damaged. – Ed.), autism, arthritis, kidney diseases, and some others.

ISSUES OF COMPULSORY VACCINATION. VACCINATIONS IN THE USSR AND TODAY

Tea With mumps

Tsg: There is a common opinion that, having been vaccinated, you get a lifetime of immunity from the disease…

A. P.: This is not true. On the contrary, once-passed childhood diseases usually leave a stable, usually lifelong immunity, and ;vaccination (three or more times), for example, against rubella or measles, allows you to create immunity to diseases for about 3-10 years.

Vaccine manufacturers indicate higher numbers, but this is usually not true.

As a result, many girls who have received the entire set of childhood vaccinations, by the time of marriage and pregnancy, have a real chance to get sick again, for example, rubella with all the resulting negative consequences for the fetus, which would not have happened if they themselves had been ill in childhood. Here it is appropriate to recall an old English custom that was widespread 100 years ago: if a little girl of 5-10 years old had rubella, all her friends were invited to tea with her. It is also known that mumps (mumps), carried by young men (often previously vaccinated) at puberty or after puberty, is often complicated by male infertility, which almost does not happen if they have the same disease in early childhood.

Tsg: obviously, the material from which the vaccine is made is also of Considerable importance?

A.P.: Definitely. Many vaccine viruses (to a lesser extent, bacteria) are grown on media with the addition of veal serum, the main protein of which is bovine serum albumin (BSA). Insufficient cleaning of the vaccine preparation from BSA (and a very high degree of cleaning is expensive!) it can cause the synthesis of antibodies to this albumin in a vaccinated child or adult. At the same time, vaccinated patients often experience a steady rise in the synthesis of antibodies to insulin, since the structure of BSA and insulin molecules have similar sites. As a result, some vaccinated children may have an increased risk of developing diabetes.

it is characteristic That in the last 50 years a progressive increase in the incidence of diabetes has been registered. According to some researchers, one of the reasons for this is the mass introduction of different types of preventive vaccinations.

But I would not touch on the controversial issues of whether vaccines contain trace amounts of mercury added as a preservative, or aluminum hydroxide, which increases the immune response. These technical problems are easily solved with relatively small additional costs. It is much more difficult to deal with the fundamentally unavoidable biological aspects of vaccination. These questions are almost never raised by non-specialists – because of their ignorance of the subject, and by specialists from vaccine manufacturers – for other, quite understandable reasons.

Where are the vaccination dogs buried?

Tsg: What are these aspects and do neurachs need to know them?

A. P.: Reasonable people, of course. The trouble is that many doctors do not know them today.

Any vaccination is the introduction of weakened or killed infectious agents (viruses, bacteria), their antigens or synthetic analogues of such antigens into the body of the vaccinated person. Recently, DNA vaccines have also appeared: not the antigen itself is introduced into the body, but its genetic matrix, from which the pathogen’s antigen is read and synthesized in the human body.

So, today, the vaccination procedure is carried out without taking into account the individual characteristics of the response of the immune system of a particular child or adult to a particular vaccine drug. These features directly depend on the individual sets of the main histocompatibility complex (GKGS), available for each and setting the vector of the individual’s immune response to fragments of any antigen.

It is THE gcgs molecules that provide our immune identity. this is Where the first “dog” is “buried”. Any antigens entering the body can induce health disorders in some patients – this is how their immune system works. One person who is bitten by a bee will forget about it in two days, and another person may die after the bite. Differences in the response to the microscopic amount of bee venom antigens, as well as the antigens of pathogens of measles, whooping cough, and flu, lie in the features of immune reactivity.

This kind of feature in most vaccinated people leads to resistance to a specific pathogen, but in others it can trigger, for example, post-vaccination multiple sclerosis, diabetes, T-cell leukemia or something else.

Even if the latter group is very small, they should never be discounted! That is why everyone should decide for themselves whether to get vaccinated or not no directives on this matter are allowed in principle. Because it can cause someone to die.

Tsg: Is it possible to calculate this “histocompatibility complex” for each person in advance?

A. P.: Today, the characteristics of a particular individual’s response to a particular vaccine drug are not taken into account in any way – this is not technically possible yet. After all, to do this, you need to understand how the features of gkgs sets (and this is 1-2 million options!) determine which fragments of the antigen the immune response in a given person will be directed to.

Tsg: and the acceptable dose of the vaccine is probably also a strictly individual parameter?

A. P.: Exactly. And here “buried” the second “dog”. The added dose of antigen or antigens must be sufficient to induce a “small inflammatory disease”, otherwise creating resistance, that is, resistance, will not work. In this case, the specific immune inflammation caused by vaccine antigens is repeatedly amplified – sometimes to dangerous limits, if the body of the vaccinated person already has additional foci of inflammation.

Immunologists are well aware that if vaccination is performed against the background of the so-called non-specific polyclonal activation of the immune system, the risk of pathological reactions increases many times. Any active inflammation is always accompanied by an increased secretion of molecules called Pro-inflammatory cytokines, which contribute to the development of complications.

Tsg: What is it and how common is it?

A. P.: Often! Any acute or chronic inflammatory process-sore teeth or throat, pancreatitis has worsened-is necessarily accompanied by an increase in the activity of many cells of the immune system, clones of lymphocytes, lasting from several days to several weeks.

Including autoreactive lymphocytes interacting with their own body’s antigens. Such lymphocytes are important for regulating a variety of physiological processes, as well as for cleaning up “garbage” – cleaning the body from constantly forming harmful products and dying cells.

It is essential that the activity of autoreactive lymphocytes is maintained within strict limits. Otherwise, the activity of these “cleaners” can turn into autoimmune aggression that destroys the body. And if vaccination is performed against this background, it is fraught with pathologies: the development of various, including very serious, complications – autoimmune diseases and malignant tumors. This factor can and should be controlled when planning any vaccination today.

There are already ways to assess the presence of inflammatory processes of a certain localization with the determination of the level of activity of the immune system, for example, simple and cheap methods of ELI tests developed in our center. An abnormal increase in the activity of lymphocytes and macrophages detected with their help should be the basis for temporary withdrawal from any vaccinations. This will eliminate not all, but a significant part of post-vaccination complications.

Tsg: Don’t they know about it in the” vaccination offices”?

A. P.: Unfortunately, not all doctors who are professionally engaged in preventive vaccinations know about the dangerous role of inflammation. And if you have heard something, then for lack of knowledge, skills and equipment, few of them are ready to take into account this important risk factor. Hence the “national vaccination calendars” – an absurdity that greatly facilitates the life of medical officials and enriches vaccine manufacturers, but does not contribute to the health of the vaccinated</strong>. Not according to formal “calendars”, but only based on the health status of each individual child or adult, you can plan or not plan their vaccination. And the Russian vaccine is used or the French-this is the tenth case.

Health against the interests of the vaccine lobby

Tsg: Should we get vaccinated or not?

A. P.: without any doubt, vaccination is a very promising approach that will find an important place in the medicine of the future. Provided that it is carried out with the mind, that is, not according to the prescriptions of the powerful vaccine lobby, but based on real knowledge and experience that has yet to be obtained and made the medical norm. It is necessary that the production and composition of vaccine preparations should be monitored with greater care, and the medical staff in the mass of its significantly better than today, understand General and particular issues of immunology.

It is important to understand that today we are not able to reliably predict individual reactions to the introduction of a particular vaccine.to do this, we need to have information that is not available today. However, some prognostically important points are not only possible to consider, but also necessary.

If you are going to hot countries where there are viruses Ebola or yellow fever, vaccination is necessary. If you are suddenly bitten by a Fox in the forest-vaccination is necessary. If there is an unfavorable epidermis for diphtheria, vaccination is necessary. In each case, it is useful to weigh the ratio between the risk of suffering from a particular disease, taking into account its population prevalence, current treatment options, the frequency and severity of complications, and the risk of suffering from the consequences of vaccination itself.

Perhaps it would be wise to review the existing strategy by eliminating the preventive vaccination of children against a number of diseases that are not really dangerous and that, on the contrary, are preferable to get sick in childhood.

It also seems reasonable to cancel mandatory vaccination with those drugs whose preventive effectiveness was low, which are not able to create a long-term stressed immunity.

With the current practice of vaccinating millions, these measures alone will avoid hundreds or even thousands of tragedies and save large amounts of budget funds. Finally, based on the knowledge of the stages of formation of the immune system in the fetus and child, in my opinion, any vaccination of children up to 6 months of age, that is, until more or less complete maturation of the immune system is unjustified.

by the way, in order to create anti-infective resistance in children under 6-12 months of age, it may be more reasonable to vaccinate the expectant mother 8-12 months before the planned pregnancy, rather than the child: individual features of the mother’s immune system are effectively “imprinted” by the emerging fetal immune system. Naturally, such approaches require careful experimental study.

Tsg: In this regard, how do you feel about the discussions in the media and half-hints from some officials and official structures about the “mandatory” upcoming vaccination against coronovirus, and almost this fall?

Poletaev, Aleksandr Borisovich — doctor of medical Sciences, Professor, is a leading specialist in the field of immunology, immunobiotechnology, neuroimmunochemistry

A. P.: Such statements can only be made by ignorant and far from disinterested people. I assure you that it is possible to create from scratch what could formally be called a “vaccine preparation” (synthetic, recombinant or some other) in a couple of months. And to assess the real benefits and real risks of its use, it will take at least 5 years. Let me remind you that an effective vaccine against tuberculosis or AIDS has not been created for many decades…

It should be borne in mind that mandatory preclinical tests on laboratory animals – for toxicity, Carcinogenicity, etc. – provide only very approximate information, since the biological difference between mice and humans is too great. Until the drug is tested on thousands of volunteers, talk of its supposedly proven safety will border on crime. it is Useful to remember the story with thalidomide. This insufficiently tested drug, advertised “as a safe sedative for pregnant women”, in the 60s of the last century caused the birth in Germany of 10 to 20 thousand “pinnipeds” (newborns with fused or underdeveloped arms and legs). Are our manufacturers and promoters of a new vaccine prepared to take responsibility for something like this?

We can end this conversation with a detailed and very remarkable quote from the famous infectious diseases doctor Charles Cyril Okell, who wrote in the Lancet magazine back in 1938:

When Jenner and Pasteur developed the idea of artificial vaccination, they did more than make a scientific discovery; they founded a faith, and, as often happens with faith, it was mixed with superstition and quackery. None of these great innovators approached this issue as a completely unbiased observer. They wanted to be missionaries as well as scientists.

Mass immunization was started with almost religious fervor. The enthusiast rarely thought about how it would end and whether the excessive promises made would be fulfilled. Without propaganda, of course, there can be no mass vaccination, but it is dangerous to mix propaganda with scientific facts.If we were to tell the whole truth openly, the public would hardly agree to vaccination. ( … ) When we give a healthy person an injection, we always roll on thin ice.

The post OPINION OF AN IMMUNOLOGIST ABOUT THE UPCOMING COMPULSORY VACCINATION AGAINST CORONAVIRUS first appeared on Global Policy.

The introduction of market relations in the social sphere means that the direct responsibility of the subordinate to the authorities is replaced by the legal responsibility of limited liability companies. In order to regulate these market relations, a huge bureaucratic staff is required, but even the richest countries of Western Europe could not avoid grandiose corruption scandals. In all countries where market relations in medicine have expanded, the percentage of administrative costs has increased. In the US, in the health model imposed on countries around the world by The world Bank, WTO, and neoliberal governments, this percentage is one — third of all health spending-a giant waste of money, the top of inefficiency. But in poorer countries like ours, this drop in spending efficiency will lead to unprecedented levels of corruption. It is enough to imagine that all the internal work of the hospital will be built on the market principle of procurement, with which all public institutions are already suffering. Or a multibillion-dollar black hole like SKOLKOVO, this time in health care.

Private medical companies exist everywhere largely at the expense of public funding. The strangulation of the public system is followed by heavy infusions into the private sector, which is declared a panacea. Public-private partnerships, concessions, contracts for the construction of hospitals, construction of hospitals for Bank mortgage — story neo-liberal politicians know many ways of siphoning off billions of dollars of funds from the budget to private pockets. In a crisis, access to the budget means guaranteed profits at a level above the average in the economy.

Businesses in all countries have the same interest: to open up the market and gain access to budget funds and government orders. Business and the authorities acting in its interests are limited only by the organized resistance of citizens and independent trade unions, as well as by the publicity of independent journalists, because everywhere these anti-people measures are discussed behind the scenes and carried out as secretly as possible, under the cover of distracting campaigns in the media.

We publish a translation of an article describing the opening of the medical market in Spain and the resistance, in which for many years the main role played by ordinary citizens and non-medical unions.

Juan Antonio Gomez Laban, member of the coordinating Council of the movement against the privatization of the health care system in the Madrid Autonomous region.

Unbelievable, but true. In just six years since Esperanza Aguirre was elected in October 2003 to the post of Chairman of the government of the Madrid Autonomous region by the votes of two defectors from the Socialist party — Eduardo Tamayo and Maria Teresa SAEs — the model for the provision and organization of health care guaranteed by the Universal health law has been radically changed.

There is now talk of the existing Madrid model of health care, meaning no more, no less private sector involvement in the provision of specialized health care to two and a half million inhabitants, who accounted for 42 per cent of Madrid’s population in 2008.

In Madrid, the secondary and supporting role assigned to the private sector in the provision of medical services by external forces, together with the state network of medical institutions[1] through the agreement[2], is a thing of the past. With the support of the Spanish socialist workers ‘ party (PSOE), the Concord and Union of Catalonia, the Basque nationalist party and the Canary coalition, the people’s party of Spain (NPI) passed law No. 15 of 25 April 1997, which destroyed the previous framework of cooperation between the public health system and the private sector in the spirit of neoliberal ideology. Only the coalition “United left” and the nationalist bloc of Galicia voted against the bill. The ruling people’s party of Spain took full advantage of this law.

The organization and management of health care centres, services and institutions for the provision of medical and social assistance may be carried out directly or indirectly through the establishment of structural units with state or other forms of ownership permitted by law (Law 15/1997, article 1, paragraph 1).

With little or no resistance from opposition parties, the government of the Madrid autonomy has adopted a number of measures as part of a deliberate strategy. The inevitable and predictable effects of these legislative measures on the health system were then barely visible, as they were not immediate. Unfortunately, today they are obvious to many, as noted in the report of the Commissioner for human rights[3]: the number of complaints in the Madrid autonomy is much higher than in other Autonomous regions, and the nature of complaints is significantly different.

Over the years, public health spending in Madrid per capita has declined and the capital is now trailing the Autonomous communities. The gap from the Autonomous regions with the highest spending on health care is now 300 euros. At the same time, budget allocations to the private sector (subcontractors financed from the state budget) gradually increased to such an extent that in 2007. every sixth Euro from the health budget was paid to private companies With these two factors in an obvious way related and specific policy with regard to the medical staff: the former freezing work rates or even their abolition, despite the fact that opened a new clinic, and the number of inhabitants has grown in 2003-2008 on 552 696 people[6]. In the same vein, there was a strange call for the redistribution of staff, a desperate attempt by the Ministry of health to ensure the work of new hospitals, but, unfortunately, in addition to the mass of abuses[8], the policy provoked the Exodus of 5,000 employees (doctors, nurses, midwives, physiotherapists) from public hospitals, resulting in a change in the organization of their activities, and in some cases the list of services provided.

The natural consequences of this policy are a consistent, malicious and self-serving deterioration of the public health system at the local level, a dangerous drop in the quality of medical care, dissatisfaction of doctors, the growth of lawsuits and civil protest, splashed out on the street.

Course of events

In January 2003, Esperanza Aguirre, candidate of the people’s party of Spain for the post of Chairman of the government of the Madrid autonomy, promised to build 50 medical centers and 7 hospitals (more precisely 8, if you count the hospital in Valdemoro) at the party conference to “solve the structural problems of the health system in Madrid and to create the health of the future”. And all this is within the framework of the so-called Plan for the restructuring of the medical infrastructure in 2004-2007, which provided unprecedented injections of 1.1 billion euros.

Immediately after the elections, the Ministry of health of the autonomy starts negotiations with the municipal authorities on the allocation of land for the construction of future centers, and it is no accident that the first city in this process was Parla. Thus, with the tacit consent of the main opposition party, the public opinion of local residents who demanded the opening of a state hospital in Parla and opposed the silence of the main opposition party was neutralized. The mayor of Parla Thomas gómez Franco, candidate for the post of Chairman of the Madrid autonomy of the Spanish socialist workers ‘ party (opposition), considers it appropriate to use the scheme of “public-private cooperation”, though only calculated them “14% of all cases.”

In a hurry during the year in the official Gazette of the Madrid Autonomous region published the terms of open tenders for the right to participate in the construction and operation of public facilities. The hospitals of Mahadaonda (Puerta de Hierro hospital, 22 September 2004), Parla (1 December 2004), Coslada (21 January 2005), San Sebastian (9 February 2005), Vallecas (4 March 2005), Arganda del Rey (17 March 2005) and aranjues (23 March 2005) apply a concession for the construction and operation of public buildings and facilities: the design and construction of hospitals, the administration and execution of thirteen non-clinical services and the operation of commercial premises. The administration undertakes to settle accounts with subcontractors by means of one-time payment or annual payments. In the case of the hospital in Valdemoro (10 August 2005), applicable administrative concession: a contract includes the provision of specialized medical care in clinics and hospitals, except in pharmacies, the supply of oxygen, the provision of medical transport, the hospital design and construction, equipment of retail space and exploitation. Each year, the autonomy administration pays private contractors a certain amount for each resident attached to the centre.

A few months later the winners in the competition to become a construction company with no experience in the medical sector (“Action”, “Sacir”, “Dragados”, “béjar”, “Plager”, “Designer Hispanica”, “CAPI-Apax partners”, “EFA-Xie-Xie”…). It is noteworthy that two firms from this list are being investigated for corruption schemes involving officials of the Autonomous government headed by members of the people’s party of Spain. The firm is a “Designer Hispanica”[9] and “behar”[10], sub-contractors on the construction of hospitals in Aranjuez and in Vallecas, respectively.

It was not an accident, but a cynical deception, that the media unleashed in March 2005 a hysteria around the so-called “Leganes hospital case”, which the Minister of health of the Madrid autonomy, Manuel Lamela, inflated until January 2008, when “the court denied this newspaper duck and banned any mention of alleged abuses by the medical staff”. Inevitably, the “Leganes hospital case”, due to the nature of the alleged abuses (the premeditated killing of terminally ill patients in the emergency Department of the North Ochoa state hospital in Leganes), has captured the minds of the public. While everyone was furiously arguing about decent care, palliative care and euthanasia, the privatization of the health care system began. It is surprising why this shameful campaign to divert attention found full support of the branch trade Union, which helped to inflate this scandal in the all-Spanish press, and first also Rafael Simancas, head of the Socialist party of Spain in Madrid, who naively demanded a thorough investigation of “the continuing practice of active euthanasia of patients without the consent of their relatives”.

Technology distraction public attention was born not today. The labour government of great Britain used the war in Iraq in a similar way when it was necessary to start privatization of the national health service of Great Britain.

The promises made to two million citizens to build new hospitals have made it possible to calm down the municipal authorities in the affected settlements, because it is almost impossible to abandon the construction of a hospital in your area. In the meantime, in order to gain the support of unsuspecting citizens and to avoid any questions, the administration of the Madrid autonomy is launching an expensive and massive advertising campaign “Health of the future is already a reality”, unveils a plan for the restructuring of the medical infrastructure for 2004-2007 and thus wins the support of the public, at the same time neutralizing the emerging opposition of more informed circles.

In the same spirit, behind the back of health workers and the population, the strategy of “agreements” with trade unions, academia, medical institutions is being implemented. This provides the Ministry of the Madrid autonomy with zero opposition from these groups. Heads of trade unions sign more than thirty agreements, one of which contains the condition of “public truce” until December 2007 (the deadline for the completion of the construction of new hospitals). A significant increase in payments provides silence on the part of senior and secondary medical personnel-accelerated “professional retraining” can increase wages by about 30%. In the public sector, it becomes possible to combine work at two rates for one day. (Even before it was cancelled is a constraint that provides a premium for the waiver part-time only workers in the public sector, so that allowance could get and those working in private clinics). Medical institutes for the training of doctors and nurses sign the “plan to improve the work of the polyclinic in Madrid for 2006-2007”, including also the “assessment of other forms of management”, which provides for the possibility of doing business in medical institutions. Certain positive aspects of the plan, such as an increase in the number of work rates, are violated in most cases.

The terms of the special contract of 28 December 2006 at the hospital in Valdemoro between the health service in Madrid (CERMAS) and the joint Venture Fund jiménez Dias, a private company that won the tender, where most of the package belongs to the transnational group “Capio”, owned by “Apex partners”, are striking. The new contract entrusted the private subcontractor with the full provision of medical care to 400,000 residents, compared with 234,975 from the previous contract (concluded in April 2003 for a period of 10 years). In practice, the expansion of the contingent was accompanied by the dismissal of employees of specialized clinics in Pontones and Quintana (property of the General Treasury of social protection), their replacement by employees of private companies and the subsequent use of the obtained real estate by a commercial company for profit. Despite the protest of the trade unions of health and social workers, the Ministry of labour has not taken any steps to return the property.

During Esperanza Aguirre’s second term in office, privatization has been going on with great shamelessness, though more slowly. At the presentation for companies and insurance companies in the hotel “RIC”, the Minister of health of the autonomy Juan Jose Guemes presented the plan of updating the medical infrastructure for 2007-2011 under the motto “Business, do not miss your chance”. The entrepreneurs suggested a budget of millions of euros, the construction of four new hospitals (Well, Collado-Villalba, Carabanchel, Mongolese) and 55 clinics, as well as participation in the reconstruction of old large public hospitals — Gregorio marañón, La Paz, DOS de Octubre, Ramon and Cajal, which, as expressed by the Director-General of hospitals Antonio Burgueno should “uzhatsya” 2 times.

“If you want to get an idea of the model of participation of the commercial sector in the management of hospitals… read the terms of reference approved for the hospital in Valdemoro, and the contract signed by us with the company “Capio”.” (Juan Jose Guemes, health Minister).

The words of the official leave no doubt that the government of the Madrid Autonomous region plans to transfer the management of almost all specialized medical care to private hands.

However, the economic crisis, it seems, makes its own amendments in the draft of the government team and only in the spring of 2009 the Ministry of health of the regional government of Madrid publish the conditions of the competition “the concession Agreement in the sphere of specialized medical services in the municipalities of torrejón de Ardoz, Ajalvir, Daganzo, Ribatejada and Fresno-de-Torote”. In the contract two points guard. First, the administration of the autonomy entrusts the re-profiling and disposal of a specialized clinic in Torrejo, formerly under the patronage of the social protection Fund, to a private subcontractor for profit (once again the government transfers the property of the social protection Department to a commercial firm). Secondly, the payments are divided into two forms: contingent payments — the amount that the subcontractor receives for each Valdemoro resident who has an individual medical card and a fee for the provision of non-clinical additional services (as is usually the case in concessions). In total, the Ministry of the community of Madrid for a fee of 2 127 651 697,17 Euro and for a period of 30 years placed on the business group “Ribera Salud”, “Assis” and “EF-CE-CE” the administration of all specialized medical care in these five municipalities, where 150 thousand people.

For a period of eight years, the Department of the Central diagnostic laboratory in Madrid entrusted for a fee of EUR 172 million company “Ribera Salud”, to have a share or fully controlling all the new hospitals in Valencia, which is given to the administrative concession (Valencia, Elche-Crevillente, Torrevieja, Denia and Manises).

“Central diagnostic laboratory” will process the tests sent from new hospitals… the task Is to accelerate the issuance of test results, improve management and reduce costs. The quality, availability and efficiency of resources will improve (Ignacio gonzález, representative of the autonomy government).

Having concluded a profitable deal, the company received free state money and guaranteed profits. Laboratory diagnostics is one of the medical services giving “the maximum surplus cost”. In six of the eight new hospitals, the laboratories are actually mini-labs. According to the technical conditions of construction projects, these mini-laboratories process only a negligible amount of all analyses compared to what passes through the large laboratories of public hospitals. Mini-laboratories produce results after at least 6 hours, so they can not work with tests when an urgent result is required, and urgent tests are 80% of their total number. The Ministry insists that the Central diagnostic laboratory began its work in June 2009, because at this moment will close lab in Coslada, Aranjuez and in Vallecas.

In April 2008, the center for radiology was opened, the state company for the”administration and provision of high — tech diagnostic and therapeutic care in public hospitals-North, South, enares, Vallecas, South-East and Tahoe, as well as in other hospitals by the decision of the Ministry of the Autonomous region.”

At the same time, the Institute of health and the Directorate-General for health and nutrition in the Madrid autonomy[20] are being abolished, designed to develop plans for health protection and prevention, and the regional government does not respond to this.

In July 2009, after months of negotiations with trade unions and academia, the legislative Assembly of the Madrid autonomy voted in favour of the draft law “on freedom of choice”. This is another step that provides the market with a decisive role in health policy. The law is not specific, but it allows almost everything. The pompous phraseology in the introductory part of the law States that it is intended “to regulate the right to choose a family doctor, pediatrician and nurse in primary, specialized and inpatient care, excluding home care and emergency medical interventions” (article 1). Instead of regulating the right to choose (the problem of “free choice” of specialists and district therapists existed for a long time, only relevant legislation was required), the new law does not give any specifics. It seems to be used as a lever to abolish the existing territorial division of the Autonomous region into 11 medical zones and to redistribute resources: “the health system in the Madrid Autonomous region is organized into a’ Single medical zone ‘ and includes the territory of the autonomy “(article 2.2). The promise made in July 2006 to divide the territory of the Autonomous region into 15 territorial zones has been forgotten without any explanation. Thousands of requests from political parties, municipal authorities, district organizations and individual citizens do not find their answer.

Is freedom of choice possible in the field of medical services? The answer is no. In addition to the well-known “information asymmetry” between the patient and the doctor, which makes freedom of choice a fiction, the “illusion” of choice would have to provide citizens with the necessary information. This means not only the name of the company, but also the capabilities of the medical institution, the terms of consultation and the situation with the queue for diagnostic interventions or planned operations. Freedom of choice is unthinkable and incompatible with the completely opaque information policy to which we are accustomed by the Ministry of health.

What are the reasons for the new law? Meet the needs of the majority of citizens? Again, no. According to the Ministry of health itself, only 5-10% of local residents used the right to choose their doctor.

Yes, there are reasons to cancel the regulatory framework, which limits the forced movement of medical staff for health needs within one large area. The creation of the” Single medical zone ” makes it possible to send medical workers, including against their will, to work in any medical center or in new hospitals, where, despite the redistribution of staff, there is a shortage of professionals. Even a year and a half after the opening of new clinics need “protectionism” on the part of the administration of autonomy and “personnel support” from public hospitals.

This encourages the government of the Autonomous region to load new hospitals at full capacity, so that the budget of each health facility is determined by the number of patients treated and that there is competition between hospitals (“internal market”). The selection of the most profitable patients is a risky business, which was repeatedly pointed out by doctors from the countries where such reforms were carried out. Not to mention the increased costs of the swollen administrative apparatus necessary to ensure the flow of financial transactions between medical institutions and control them.

It is reasonable to expect that in the medium term, the existing second — tier health centres, as if charitable, will serve unprofitable patients, or that the primary link of polyclinics — about 400-will play the role of checkpoints or gateways that restrain the flow of patients to hospitals where specialized medical care is provided.

Financial incentives for medical staff, mainly doctors, who have the ability to reduce health care costs, is a private sector strategy. There is a state of experience that confirms this. Hospital in Alzira, when its Director was Antonio Burgueno (currently Director General of the Ministry of health hospitals), dedicated a significant part of the wage Fund to “pay for limits the number of hospitalizations in emergency departments”. The owner of the hospital in Torrevieja generously paid polyclinic therapists 18-24 thousand euros per year to limit the direction of patients to narrow specialists or inpatient treatment.

Political reasoning, theoretical advantages and tangible results

The restriction imposed by the Maastricht Treaty — that the state budget deficit should not exceed 3 per cent of GDP — is an irresistible argument that governments of any political colour often use in the European Union to justify public-private partnership schemes. This argument, respectively, is used by the ruling people’s party of Spain in Madrid, which proclaimed a number of benefits when using the public-private partnership scheme.

“This saves the government of the Autonomous region from having to resort to credit and financial transactions-debt issuance, etc. — which would increase the aggregate public debt of the Autonomous region in excess of the standards set for regional governments to control the public deficit (Eurostat).»

“The participation of private companies in all spheres of public works optimizes the spending of taxpayers ‘money” – “Modernization of public administration, growth of efficiency and effectiveness in the health care system”. The existing state system is presented to the public as an outdated system full of loafers-bureaucrats.

“The risk during construction and commissioning is transferred to private enterprises managing new hospitals, with a more efficient use of investments, since the cost of construction and the timing of its completion are stipulated from the beginning.”

“Construction and commissioning of new medical centers in a shorter time.”

“The model ensures the quality and availability of these services, as the deterioration of the criteria for the quality of treatment entails a reduction in payment.”

Today, there are enough publications about public-private partnerships, their characteristics and risks. International experience shows that there are serious objections[28] to this model and doubts about the benefits, which, as it turns out, exist only in theory. For example, T. Sackville, one of the proponents of public-private partnerships in the UK, says about the “negative assessment faced by economically and financially questionable strategy of public-private partnerships. Some hospitals built according to the new model are experiencing serious difficulties. For example, Queen Elizabeth’s hospital in Greenwich was on the verge of bankruptcy, where annual expenditures exceeded the planned budget by 19.7 million pounds. For St. Bartholomew’s hospital in London to work, its budget, which was estimated in 2005 at 8.62 million pounds, had to be increased 8 times.

Private investment in the financing of these projects does not lead to an increase in public debt and does not bear a direct burden for taxpayers, but this scheme is expensive for the budget. The full cost of building a hospital with public-private partnerships could be six times more expensive than using purely public schemes. Ultimately, the public-private partnership model is nothing more than a set of schemes that change the timing of payments and financial flows. The fact that the private sector makes advance investments does not add “new money”to the administration. “Private capital here is distributed in the same way as ordinary government bonds, otherwise this mechanism, caused by accounting considerations, differs only in the rate of repayment of financial obligations by the government.” The choice of this mechanism is a political decision that has little to do with public expenditure, its limitation or legislative restrictions (which are often overcome). Managers, auditors, consultants, lawyers of large banks and companies competing with each other for a share of budget money benefit from this decision. Thus, for private enterprises, severely affected by the collapse of the speculative sector, the level of profit is provided for many years ahead above the average market (in the case of Madrid for 30 years with the possibility of extension to 60).

British construction firms involved in private financial initiatives, expect to extract from them 3-10 times more income than from ordinary transactions. Their profitability ranges from 7.5% to 15% (for holders of ordinary shares) and 10-20% for firms participating in consortia. The British newspaper ” guardian “published in 2003 the statistics of the construction industry in Europe, pointing to” private financial initiatives ” {Private Finance Initiative, Private financial initiative — a public program in the UK, in which the private sector can build and operate public facilities, such as roads, etc., and the government pays for the services provided; operates since 1992 — Approx. TRANS.), the Construction of hospitals private companies with subsequent long-term purchase and pay for the operation that turns the medical institution from property owners to tenants, obliged first to pay the mortgage and pay for the operation that far exceeds the actual construction costs. For example, construction cost per bed built for such a program in hospitals, the Royal London and Barts (St. Bartholomew’s) in London amounted to £ 5 million (approx. 450 million rubles at the exchange rate of March 2015) (John Lister, Health Policy Reform, 2013, p. 194-195-Approx. ed.)} as the main reason for the 8% rise in the construction sector in the UK compared to 2.5% in Germany and 0.7% in France for the same year.

Experience also calls into question the “shifting of risk” from the state to private enterprises. There are disputes about how to assess such a risk and how to calculate it. The perceived risk does not go beyond the construction phase. Penalties in contracts for violations of the quality and availability of non-clinical services, which are imposed with great difficulty and with significant costs, are usually simply not imposed. As a last resort, the risk passes to the public sector when a private clinic cannot provide the necessary medical care. If there are losses or the level of profit is less than we would like, we can always threaten to close the medical institution and put pressure on the administration of the Autonomous region to get favorable conditions.

The practice of public-private partnership schemes and private-financial initiatives in Madrid confirms what is happening in the UK and Canada: the cost of construction increases 4-5 times compared to traditional schemes and it undermines the state budget. For the management of the hospital Puerta de Hierro in Majadahonda, which was entrusted to the private sector for 30 years, they will pay at least 1.2 trillion euros (1 200 000 000 000 Euro). For comparison, HISPANA, the Agency in charge of state property, the same operation hospitals in Asturias, where for 200 beds more than at the Clinica Puerta de Hierro in Majadahonda, only 400 million euros. Because of HISPANA is a state Agency, it has taken at optimum financial benefits of a loan from the European investment Bank 165 million euros for 28 years at zero interest. Investors who have invested Bank funds in the Madrid model expect a return of 12-18%, which is provided by an annual fixed fee, as well as income from the operation of public utilities (Parking, catering, shops), the amount of which is kept in the strictest confidence.

The 2008 budget for the rental of new hospitals is approaching 138 million euros, an amount that has a negative impact on the budgets allocated to conventional health centres and the recruitment of professionals. This amount would allow the hiring of 3,500 employees 700 physicians and 1,300 graduates of medical schools, 300 technical staff and 1 200 employees of auxiliary services.

As a rule, the team of the Ministry of health of the Autonomous region uses the phrase “turnkey hospital”, when it declares another advantage of the private sector that “the subcontractor will not receive money until the hospital begins to receive patients”, i.e. payment will begin from the moment of functioning of the hospital. As convincing as this phrase is, the reality behind it is just as sad in Madrid. In 2007, 54 million euros were paid by the autonomy administration to the concessionaires, with only one hospital, in Valdemoro, partially opened at the end of the year, on 25 November 2007. The question arises — what was paid for? The government does not feel obliged or does not consider it necessary to answer this question.

We will discuss another important issue-the loss of public control over health institutions and the transfer of government powers to the private sector. For example, in the Madrid Autonomous region established a Department of technical control, the authority of the Department of health, whose responsibilities include control, accounting and supervision over the withdrawal of the state, and the introduction of subcontracting. However, this work, which should be done exclusively by civil servants, is provided to a private company for a period of 2 years. Other methods of supervision and control, such as external audit of reports and consumer surveys, will be carried out by “external companies”, that is, again public works are entrusted to the private sector.

Another claimed advantage of the private sector in medicine is efficiency. This word is worn out by politicians, bureaucrats and intellectuals from health care. Deceptive word, behind which hide the real problems: job cuts rates, processing, adverse clinical outcomes, reduction in cost of treatment, and, surprisingly, the increase in total medical costs.

There are many publications covering the results of similar reforms in the countries of the Organization for economic cooperation and development. The privatisation of the cleaning service in many health care facilities in the UK was accompanied by a significant reduction in staff: from 100,000 employees to 55,000 for 15 years and a simultaneous increase in nosocomial infections. In Vancouver, Canada, 86% of emergency room staff where the cleaning service was privatized said in a survey that the office was less frequently washed. In addition, evidence suggests that 30-50% of all hospital-acquired infections could have been prevented and that they were linked to policies to reduce the cost of washing and cleaning. On the other hand, since the total cost of work for in-hospital cleaning is 93%, it is easy to understand that the declared “efficiency” of privatization of this service is reduced to a reduction in the number of cleaners. Privatization of the cleaning service does not reduce costs, as the deterioration of hospital hygiene leads to additional costs, when patients are again hospitalized, their stay in the hospital lengthens. Such patients are more likely to get into intensive care units, there is a need to use expensive drugs for the treatment of nosocomial infections, to repeat operations, to close departments and operating rooms for disinfection, and other interventions are postponed to later dates. And these costs, estimated at 14,360 euros per patient, are borne by the state and not by private subcontractors.

An investigation into the effects of the construction of hospitals by private mortgage companies (the “private Finance initiative” model) at the privatized Durham University hospital in Northern England found that in order to pay for the mortgage on the new hospital, the average medical staff was reduced by 12 %. The older sister of the clinic told the newspaper “guardian” what happened to one terminally ill patient, who was over forty:

“I took care of him for 7 years, from time to time he went to the hospital for treatment. So we moved to a new hospital. He died soon after the move… four hours Before I noticed. I just didn’t have time to notice it before. He didn’t call me, I was called by other sick people, so I just didn’t have time. Four staff members — two nurses and two nurses-care for 32 patients. The nurses were sent by the Agency and they’re not on the staff at our clinic. It’s common. That’s not what they taught us. I devoted my life to nursing because I wanted to help sick people.”

The safety of patients in the hospital the higher the number of health workers, especially nurses, providing round-the-clock care. This ratio in Spain is scandalously low compared to the rest of the European Union. The opening of 8 hospitals without improving this indicator (the lack of awareness of the Ministry of health here is complete) explains the difficult working conditions of medical staff in the new clinics. The problems of quality and adequacy of the number of health workers to the number of patients do not concern the leaders of CERMAS.

The more work time is covered by highly qualified nurses, the lower the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, thrombosis, respiratory failure and infection of the genitourinary system, complications, which are so expensive hospital. The number of hours spent by one nurse per patient with acute myocardial infarction is inversely proportional to total mortality. The 10% increase in nursing staff prevents an additional 17 deaths per thousand patients. Or if you increase the nursing rates by 25 %, it can prevent 6700 deaths and 60 thousand severe complications. Maintaining a nurse-to-patient ratio of 1: 4 can save 72,000 lives per year and is more cost-effective than therapeutic interventions such as the use of thrombolytics to treat myocardial infarction or PAP smear for early detection of precancerous cervical disease. Other authors cite data that up to 20,000 in-hospital deaths per year may be associated with understaffing of nursing staff and that an increase in the additional burden on the nurse by four patients increases the risk of overall mortality in the hospital by 31 %.

On the other hand, despite the fact that the interests of managers are associated with lower costs, there is no doubt the fact that if the workload of the nurses would be more appropriate, the total costs would decrease because the lack of staff increases the risk of nosocomial infections, the treatment of which spent thousands of dollars. If the intensive care units do not have enough nurses for night shift duty, the hospital-wide costs increase by 14%. With the adequate filling of working rates by nurses, the stay of patients in the hospital is reduced by 3-6%, and, consequently, the total costs.

With regard to mortality, the work of P. J. Devereaux give on this point clear data. He conducted a systematic analysis of 15 observational studies involving 38 million adult patients on a clinical basis in 26 thousand hospitals showed that the total mortality in commercial hospitals is more by 2% than in public. This absolute difference in total mortality may seem small, but it is comparable to the proportion of deaths from injury or colon cancer in total mortality in Canada. In the same Canada, an epidemiological study was conducted involving 1,642,000 newborns in 243 hospitals: the risk of total infant mortality is increased by 9.5% if the child is admitted to a commercial hospital rather than a public hospital. In another canadian study in the dialysis Department with the participation of 500 000 patients with renal failure showed an increase in mortality by 10% (2,500 deaths in absolute terms) in private clinics compared to public. The authors of epidemiological studies explain the increase in total mortality in commercial hospitals by the need to benefit shareholders who expect 10-15% of profits from their investments, measures to increase profits, reduce highly qualified personnel, and cut costs for patient care.

Recent event — emergency situation in the new hospital Puerta de Yero in Majadahonda, infinite turn on the recording for what was supposed to be a “health future”, the availability of treatment for patients with the outcome of the gynecologists from the hospital in Arghanda, problems with gynecological assistance in Aranjuez, Coslada and the situation with ambulance in Ramon and Kahala and intensive care in Aranjuez, a statement of pulmonologists of new hospitals, inspection reports on labor protection about the numerous violations in six new hospitals, the death of the newborn Ryan Gregorio Maranon other examples of the degradation of the health care system is only the tip of a huge iceberg.

If we add to this the 15 per cent cut in staff costs announced by high-level officials of the Ministry of health of the Madrid research Institute for epidemiology and chronic disease prevention, as HAS already happened with a similar institution in the UK, the future is even more bleak.

The response to the attack is mobilization. To protect what belongs to everyone!

Opening of the medical market at 6 trillion. Euro (for Madrid; 60 trillion. at the level of the whole of Spain) had far-reaching consequences for politics and business. This explains the silence of systemic political and public organizations, yellow trade unions, which made it possible to avoid serious opposition to the process of privatization of medicine at the stage of distribution of future hospitals on tenders. Later, when the situation became apparent and the hospitals themselves began to show all the specific shortcomings of the chosen model, these organizations reacted sluggishly and refused to protest against the privatization process. The statements of the Socialist workers ‘ party of Spain (SRPI) were cynical when it constantly accused the People’s party of the privatization of medicine. However, the people’s party does not transgress the law, which was supported by the SRPI itself.

Only small, deprived of any financial support, trade Union, social and district groups that have criticized the Madrid model since its launch have tried to fight back. Thus, in 2004, The coordinating Council of the movement against the privatization of health care in the Madrid autonomy conducted several information campaigns on the harmful effects of the Madrid model on medicine, which was implemented by the government of autonomy from the people’s party of Spain. Subsequently, the coordinating Council of the movement against the privatization of the health system created a coalition MATUSALEN (from Spain. “Madrileño Tu Salud en Peligro”, ” Madrid, your health is in danger!”), and it included many non-system left. The relative success of the demonstrations in 2008, when a complete blockade in the media and with minimal costs at one of the rallies managed to gather 20 thousand people can be explained by the fact that then managed to unite different segments of the population — those who understood the essence of the problem, and people that had the misfortune to experience the consequences of the deterioration of the health system.

The key themes of the MATUSAL campaign were the condemnation of the main cause of the growing problems (the law allowing the privatization of medicine), the disclosure of symptoms (concrete examples of the degradation of the system of medical institutions), and the identification of those responsible for this — all those who voted to bring commercial spirit into the health care system. It was the only way to establish contact with people, to help them understand the meaning of what is happening and see how involved in this business and politics. So it was possible to collect 400 thousand signatures under the appeal to the parliamentary parties with the requirement to withdraw the law 15/97″ on the inclusion of new forms of management in the Spanish health care system”, which the Spanish socialist workers party has not canceled for two parliamentary terms, contrary to its current rhetoric.

There was complete silence and inaction on the part of the trade unions built into the system. Yellow trade unions adopted the Madrid model and went even further, signing an agreement that allowed the administration in an order to transfer employees of the state laboratories in Aranjuez and Vikase to work in the Central laboratory of “Ribera Salud”, which got the download thanks to the closure of these state laboratories. Combined with the salary increases mentioned above, this has led to a split and a struggle for small concessions, rather than formulating a response from all sector workers, including those already affected by the reform.

In response to each aggressive initiative of the Ministry of health, some groups, to the amusement of the authorities, tried to defend only their narrow interests separately (heads of laboratories, primary care, pediatricians, technicians). They did not focus on the root cause (privatization of health care through law 15/97) and failed to reach out to the population and patients in narrow professional disputes. Because of the reluctance to speak with one voice, all these narrow initiatives were doomed.

It seems that since the beginning of the reforms on the commercialization of medicine, the so-called scientific societies, which are heavily dependent on external funding and whose work resembles generously funded trade unions, refrain from criticizing the degrading medical care (the increasing queue for diagnostic interventions and surgical operations, failures in the work of ambulance crews) and keep a dead silence.

Now, when commercial schemes are imposed not only by the ruling people’s party of Spain in Madrid and Valencia, but also where the administration is headed by The Spanish socialist workers ‘ party, there is still time to save a quality public health system, free from the spirit of profit. But for this purpose it is necessary to unite various organizations, employees of the medical sector, patients, the public. Only in this way, increasing pressure on politicians, it is possible to reverse the process, as has already been achieved in several countries.

The post “HEALTHCARE OF THE FUTURE” HAS ARRIVED first appeared on Global Policy.