Tuesday, 21 February 2017

The Social Model of Dis-Abling

When I first heard about the social model of disability, I was agahst about emphatic nature of those asserting it. The social model of disability is that disabled people are disabled only by society's lack of acknowledgement of their needs, rather than their actual impairments*.

The medical model of disability views disability purely in diagnostic terms, seeing that as the primary cause of the person's difficulties. The social model clearly had a profoundly liberating effect on many disabled people, freeing them from having a burden unforeseen by people like me. The medical model, probably unwittingly dumped the burden of society's neglect of their needs on individual people.

It took the social model for me to realise this.

Subsequently activists and others have found its limitations for themsevles, this doesn't invalidate the positive.

When I came to the fatsphere especially, I said that it was not fat acceptance that was radical or extreme, it was the 'obesity' cult that was outré. What everyone fears about extremists, that they'll set the defining standard, is exactly what 'obesity' cultists and food faddists have managed to do.

The 'obesity' industry's increasing promotion of gastrectomy has presented another surprise.

Gastrectomy disables healthy function to bring about its effects, not as collateral damage for something theraputic.

By this it establishes a notion of disability as healthier state than able-bodied.

As this conclusion is the product of social disapproval, it validates a premise in the social model of disability. That real disability isn't your function, it's in other people's attitude to it.  

* Impairment is a term used by Karen Hitchcock to refer to weight "....no drug can fix the functional impairment of being obese". Though she vociferously refutes the favoured lie that 'obesity' is disease. 

Friday, 10 February 2017

Fat isn't a Time Thing, its a Function Thing

I couldn't for the life of me tell you why I became fat-accepting that question only makes sense within the construct of 'obesity', which I've no time for. People are obsessed with their Holmesian search for the original culprit, it's more projected fiction because I couldn't tell you any why for sure. Nor do I know why that's supposed to matter.

Like 'obesity' construct in general, its largely irrelevant.

I can't even tell you for sure when I became fat. Others assert they cannot grasp why fat people don't notice pound upon pound building like brick upon brick of a wall. I started to think of dieting at 7. I was not what you'd call fat, but I certainly felt like I wasn't thin either. That feeling was relative to my experience of my size up to then.

Was it then? No.

When I was 11, I imposed a rigid diet plan proper-as opposed to "watching what I ate". Was it then? In the sense that I felt in the intervening years I'd reached a point where I had to go total wl diet. So I became fat at 11? So when was the actual moment? Was I fat at 10? Nope.

Somewhere between then and 11, I felt I became fat enough. I crossed a line, when was the moment though, when was the day? Why had I not noticed?

I had, but I was concerned about stunting my growth-seriously. So I concentrated on avoidance. For all I know, that saved me from even greater metabolic mayhem.

I'm not simply extrapolating from my own experience, I doubt becoming fat is a gradual day by day process for many-though those who fatten in adulthood may have a different experience. Either way, its more about the nature of your function. Its the moment when the arrangement of that, the posture of your function gets to a certain configuration.

What is day by day is the time for it to play out, from that moment. At times that process is elongated or condensed, often varying within the same person.

Thursday, 2 February 2017

Conscious Engagement is The Act

"...I have an eating disorder. Time to remove the stigma", the writer a self described middle aged person with anorexia and bulimia relays such a typical line in what anorexia/bulimia is that it could have been put together by committee. It's the same mindset that created and imposed the construct of 'obesity [slim-person-plus] on fat people;
1. Hype into assertion of disease/illness "Anorexia and bulimia are mental illnesses". Check AMA and check ABCD 
2. Concentration on how terrible this all is
"suffered from an eating problem," ".... I am hurting myself" Check sick fat and check poison fat, its bad
3. No interest in cure, only treatment 
"I’ve come to believe that eating disorders can never truly be cured" "The knowledge that disorders can flare up repeatedly throughout life,"
Check treatment no cure
This could be narrowed to a two-step; 1. Hype Phony disease/illness, 2. No resolution/cure.
The AMA traded in this act presuming it a universal- slim people set it and fat people have observed that. As usual its taken for granted fat people wish to emulate whatever slim people think or do. Slimming feels like aspiring to them and in their mind that becomes a global, want to be all like a slim person('s idea of themselves).

If you step back, its about; disease / [mental]illness validating the person's feelings. They're saying; "I suffer, recognise, acknowledge this" by deeming it disease/illness. Buuuut, don't take it away, completely.

I don't wish to be mean and imply, they want to suffer, they wish to be a martyr and complain about it. It's more invidious than that.

Eating disorders-and we all know that means anorexia nervosa and bulimia. Usually start with an intention-to reverse or preserve current size. They have a method which is to reduce your response to hunger signalling [eating is the response to hunger signalling] and possibly to increase output via voluntary movement. And/or to purge by vomiting etc., food from the body, before it can be properly digested.

Both [seek to] induce weight loss using the restriction of calories. That's a heck of a lot of conscious engagement. Intent, planning, action-repeatedly. It is this exposure that triggers this to become compulsive rather than merely voluntary-in those with such tendencies.

We all become a bit 'anorexic' if we diet hard enough-the fatsphere's "no diet talk" rule was an example of seeking to sidestep this funk. The difference between us and true anorexics was susceptible physiology-we didn't have it. Our bodies fought cal res and won, time and again.

This conscious engagement seems to be the root of the strange affection people with anorexia/bulimia have for their condition. They love and admire it and feel badly towards it at the same time. Rather like someone who rarely stops complaining about an abusive partner but won't leave them.

Such conscious engagement gives these conditions an oddly personal quality so many vocal anorexics/bulimics relay. It has been allowed to set the framing of what you're supposed to feel and say when you have an eating disorder. To the extent that people with other hunger/eating disorders attempt to mimic it.

In the case of hyper-functioning hunger [HFH] though, this conscious engagement is simply not there. HFH is physiological in operation. However you class it, it doesn't use the conscious mind. Heightened hunger is like heightened blood pressure in that way. That's not to say the brain or even the mind isn't involved, it is but as a part of the whole not a leading role.

Hence it has no narrative of the kind typical of anorexics, bulimics or even drug addicts and alcoholics. It's not impossible by any means, but it would be of a different type and quality, due to its differing nature.

The double whammy is fat people's inner stream of consciousness has also been heavily repressed, so there's also a missing narrative of engaging with experience over time. Almost like a kind of amnesia, except the memories weren't allowed to form in the first place.

In the best of cirumstance either would require a lot of focus and effort to overcome. But in the current climate it's virtually impossible. The collective (un)conscious aims to repress any thought, so it can impose its fictions in place of truth.

Hyperhunger doesn't require any intent; planning, or carrying out of action. It's a physical adjustment. And at the risk of re-enforcing stereotypes, that happens to be true for being fat too.

Now this is just stating facts to me though I'm sure this has another tinge. It'll seem [be made to seem] what people with anorexia/bulimia are trying to do. Claim a kind of innocence. Far from it. A fat person cannot be innocent anyway, such is the nature of the way we see weight.

I have to say this because its true and because it explains why I find anorexics and bulimics so utterly alien in their mannerisms. And have no interest in copying my idea of what they are doing.

Its of no use to me or fat people. I've mentioned that never at any point did I ever feel or think that hyperhunger [or anorexia/bulimia] was remotely unresolvable, even when I couldn't articulate my situation properly due to its non-appearance in ill-fitting barely relatable coinages like; binge eating disorder, compulsive eating disorder, food/eating addiction etc.,

I was also completely resolution-orientated, had zero time for 'illness' nor did I feel like I was "suffering from it" though I acknowledged that it caused me a lot of distress, frustration and at times outright despair. What I wanted most of all was to be heard, to be understood-that would have provided immense relief- the one thing that was and still is denied.

I didn't need nor want sympathy, I needed to find means to restore normal hunger function, the end. I really wish this could be enough to get across just how totally uninterested I am in the usual anorexia/bulimia pathos. Not zero, minus.

I don't see the use of it, I don't care for it, it has nothing to do with me,  it bores me, m'kay?

Now I do not claim to speak for fat people, I can say with confidence virtually all fat people felt/feel the same way about mere fatness. They're not interested in this faux disease/no resolution act, they wanted/want results.

May I remind people that the whole point of the fat phobic hatefest is [supposed] to 'motivate' people to escape fatness, as fast as humanly possible.

This moaning about it, but dragging it out is the momentum of conscious engagement and having no real need to move on. Whereas the shame fat people feel is not about what they're accused of doing, but that they aren't consciously directing matters, when they feel they should be. I'd say that's something for anorexic/bulimics to think about, in the sense that they assume if people saw them as less in control, they'd see them more favourably. When its precisely that much denied lack of control that is the basis of the contempt we are held in.

Except, the rules don't apply the same to slim and fat so pish.....

Friday, 27 January 2017

Eat Drugs

Following on from yesterday's video illustration of how drug mis-use/ abuse and the mindless pursuit of cal res go together like piss and vinegar, here's a neat little satire on the- everything's chemical, drugs are just chemicals, so everybody take drugs for any and everything, 'cos you're all addicts anyway-malarkey we're increasingly subject to. Especially now with the typically derivative 'obesity' cult and its laughable fronting of "obesity medicine" with its pharmacotherapy- i.e. drug abuse by prescription. I cannot stop laughing at pharmacotherapy it's so stupid, yet cheeky and trying to hard all at once. If you want to swap an imaginery 'addiction to food' for a real abuse of drugs, say so.

The School of Life-How to be a Far Better Drug Taker

Note some relevant themes;

1. The bankrupting of terms: Definitions so loose and general that barely anything can be excluded. Meaning they implode as cogent definers (e.g. disease, [mental] illness, disability, treatment, [-]therapy, addiction etc.,)

From the video; Drug, "A thing that alters your mood, acting via either the body or the senses to make an impact upon the mind."

2. Pharmacophilia: You need more drugs in your life, no reason, you just need 'em.
b) Pharmacospecificity: Drugs work only for the purposes you intended-they don't affect other tissues, and/or they don't clash with each other or increase the toxic load.
c) Pharmacofreshness: Drugs are strangely antiseptic-clean.
d) Pharmacospirituality: Drugs enable you to do things you're capable of doing anyway-like alter your mood, thoughts, feelings, beliefs etc.,-but with the addition of the idea that you need drugs to do those things.
e) Pharmacoevolution: Drugs enable you to evolve to a higher quality of personage. Things like food are so plebian.

3. Bourgification of drug abuse: A po-faced, faux spiritual/intellectual rather than a pleasure-seeking rationale for drug taking means you aren't a junkie, you're somehow better.

4. The need for people to take far more drugs in our lives, those who want to live for drugs might feel judged otherwise, profit and such...

5. How impressed these junkies and junk-promoting hypocrites are with themselves

The best part of the vid was the definition of the task of a drug, to;
Alter moods in any positive direction compatible with fulfilling one's highest ambitions
Succinct yet flaccid, it could be 'obesity' pharmacotherapy's calling card. That's why a drug for epilepsy you don't have, is on offer because some people who take it for their epileptic seizures lose a few pounds.....as an incidental side effect. 

Certain people would rather sell you the notion that you need drugs to replace conscious intent. "You have a phony disease-by-committee, you need to take some/ it doesn't make you a bad person/This stigma against drug taking is problematic"

If this pusher act visits you, I'd consider the same mindset's use of drugs and addiction as to put people off eating food.

Stigma is not the issue. The reason people don't want to be drug abusers is their sense of autonomy. The same that resists oppression, abuse and seeks liberation and freedom. Drug dependence bolts you to something other than your aims and ambitions. It derails those in pursuit of something that's merely a perpetuation of itself, rather than in service to you. If you spent years in self- contempt because training like an athlete whilst half starved didn't pound your body into submission.

Drugs to sleep, drugs to wake up, drugs to be more alert, drugs to be more intelligent, drugs to be happy, drugs to be calm, drugs to keep believing this calorie restriction sortie will be the one are hardly going to trigger an inner geyser of self-adoration.

Rather than recognising that your body with its trillions of cells is basically an ecosystem replete with underused technology. That not simply how we use our brains is primitive, but the extent to which we suppress our own intellectual, mental and physical abilities.

It leaves us scared of machines created solely from our own minds who so often seem as alive as we are. We are surrounded by simple things we can programme, manipulate and alter with ease whilst we are told, its not remotely conceivable let alone possible that we could create a chain of effects, using our conscious minds and imagination to alter our own physical function.

Thursday, 26 January 2017

When Food Becomes a Drug, Drugs Become Food

Here's some apt musing from College Humor. I can't recall coming across this phenomena so succinctly put. It reads as a comment on the public health brigade-and the class milieu's they're rooted in's increasing hatred of food and love affair with drugs. Unless its nature's junk; low cal veg and such. I like greens, but they're low in what the body needs most to survive, energy.

It's perfectly okay to turn this on its head and make believe the opposite, as long as you don't expect that to re-design human anatomy and physiological function or to impose it on the unwilling. Alas, 'obesity' constructivists feel exactly that, even if they have to "cut a bitch", lols, to prove it.


College Humor: Your Healthy Friend Who Does Drugs 

It's as if vanquishing the meaning of something as central as what feeds us, leads that meaning to migrate to something else-it can't just disappear. Reminiscent of what's dubbed 'addiction transfer', unsurprisingly yet another product of wrong thinking. That term by the way refers to when a substance is being used for a certain purpose or purposes. On ceasing to imbibe the substance, the purpose remains and some other substance or thing else takes over. The person's 'solution' migrates.

What's really on point is the way the 'healthy' junkie feels drugs are clean and food is dirty, even alcohol which is a food as well as an intoxicant. Ironically, this is treated solely as a drug, which enables her to ingest it liberally, despite it also being a food. It also notes the way 'eating health' leads people to feel healthy. Something fat haters never get about fat people who follow healthist eating diktats/life models. That feeling has led so many fat people to resist weight patholgization-as it conflicts with the health they've been eating (and creating/storing through activity). Fat phobes struggle to grasp that attacking haes, is attacking this feeling in anyone who feels it along with its whole psychological basis.

There's the development of a cognitive black hole where drugs are not only clean but somehow a substitute for dirty old food, when food is being cleaned out of ones life. Food gives energy, certain drugs have a stimulant effect, so drug abuse lends itself to dodging hunger, hence 'obesity' wallahs are peddling "pharmacotherapy"[one shizzes you not], that's drug abuse to "treat" your dimwitted battle with hunger.

Despite spending decades trying to persuade us cake is dirt, there's no shame whatever in trying to push drugs onto fat people, who would normally avoid pushers like the plague (that weight will never be). Somehow taking them to help sustain a fantasy weight loss diet success means they won't attack; your liver, kidneys, eyes, ears, brain etc., Despite them being straight out toxins, if they support the idea of your diet, they're cleansed-Oh Hallelujah!

Any damage they do can be blamed on 'obesity', so w/e's and kar-ching.

This associative impressionistic sensibility was handsomely revealed by the 'clean eating' *shudder* trend. I told people the 'dirt' comes from being associated with FAT/ness, not from anything in these foods. Or else the drugs being peddled to fatz would be deemed unspeakably filthy. Synthetic approximations of all sorts promises another Oxycontin nightmare.

I can't even swear that the real motor for trying to get fat people hooked on drugs is so drug fanciers can finally break the silence on their peculiar attitudes to drug mis-use. Fat people's problem isn't too much gravy, its too little "pharmacotherapy"-every junkie is really into that. Therapy through pharmaceuticals from the disease that is the intolerable feeling of existence.

Which is of course what 'obesity' sets out to achieve, making fatness such an unbearable experience that you'll willingly give up your body parts on promise of escape.

Oh the irony, old time junksters labelled withdrawal "getting clean" now fat has out dirtied junk and slim has cleaned trash up. That could have been the final word on how 'obesity' hysteria has far outstripped even the utility touted by its devotees promoters.

More than anything, the establishment's favoured degeneracy must become everyone's, how can an illusion of faux superiority be maintained if those deemed en bas aren't doing more drugs than you?

Wednesday, 11 January 2017

sssmokin'

A feature of the tendentious body-wrecking crusade that is 'obesity' is its virulent infection of false equivalence, i.e. when smoking is treated as if it is like weight.

Now if it need be said for the easily offended, I do not feel superior to smokers, I don't hate them, look down upon them-unless they come with their specific or general tired fat phobic shizz, m'kay?

I reject this because it is false. As we have all witnessed regardless of stance, the 'obesity' field *lols* lies with a feeling of impunity that would shame all but the most dishonest.  So I'm sure that all conquering fact will hardly suffice.

What this has played up about smoking is the difficulty of apt comparison with it.

Smoking is errr..... somewhat of an eccentric activity. Even those committed to it, I'm sure would admit, considering sucking smoke through a lit tuber into your lungs [or throat for you pussycat puffers] and exhaling it with varying degrees of artistry-would be dismissed as fanciful, if it hadn't already been invented.

I don't know why this hasn't occurred before, but a better comparison is probably with a taking-drugs-for-phony-disease habit. I'll be blunt because I can't be bothered to tippy-toe today [yes, I do try, usually].

Percentagewise, few people are truly mentally ill, which I'd define as having a malfunctioning nervous [or other] system leading to symptoms of psychosis, or neurosis at the point where it enters that realm.

Like virtually every diagnosis that isn't rigidly objective, mental illness has been expanded to the point where it diagnoses those who are either experiencing an apt response to emotional/mental/physical trauma or temporary complaint/condition that's mostly a product of their own self- mismanagement.

Given human ego, the latter is intolerable to many if not most people, especially if they think rather highly of themselves. Though there's much pompous moaning about treating mental like physical illness, virtually no-one has a problem with the idea that in their lifetime, they might injure themselves physically in a way that is mainly their fault.

I for example most definitely made myself way more depressed than I'd have needed to be for longer than I'd probably ever experienced through my long term commitment to a fight with my hunger function, plus the attendant playing 'obese'. 

One way people have sought to deal with this very interesting psychological conundrum i.e. vanity is to erm, insist their neurosis/mental illness is a disease, because mental illness/crisis can make you feel become quite dysfunctional.

You see where I'm going. This is felt by those keen on this to express and validate their suffering as well as express their frustration with not being able to throw off their particular issue/s.

The fly in the ointment is, insisting mental troubles are 'disease' is inherently a downer. In the worst kind of way, it boxes you in. It's a trap of despair. The urge then becomes to find a way to lift that gloom, by taking pills.

Though much touted as 'treatment' for mental illness, their primary power is in the belief that the person is treating-therefore not diseased [temporarily], not trapped in a snare of their own making. That is the kind of self-mishandling that make us fall into a pit of neuroses, along with susceptibility of course.

It could be argued that this cognitive dance is similar to the imaginative hook of smoking as described most famously by the late Allen Carr. I hope I'm not misrepresenting his central theorem that smokers dependence on snouts is a product of them having imagined/convinced themselves that they are hooked on smoking.

Effectively, they're smoking to relieve the anxiety caused by the belief that they need to smoke.

It's easy to snicker, but actually, I'd lay good money that every single human being on earth lives exactly that same trap in some way or context, probably loads of them. Affairs of the heart for example, are a minefield for this sort of cycle of tendentiousness. 

So when 'obesity' hucksters and medics pretend weight is disease, they are setting up that very trap. Whatever drugs they have on offer-e.g. Topiramate, an anti-seizure medication are there to lift the gloom caused by the disease pretence. In case anyone's thinking, how is 'obese' supposed give you seizures-not even 'obesity' quacks are pretending that one [give 'em a chance!!]. 

No, you're supposed to take anti-seizure medication because it has been noted that some people taking it for their actual seizures happen to lose a few pounds-and I mean a few-as a side effect. So brilliantly health-sensitive 'obesity' hustlers think that's reason enough for people who have no seizures to take it.

In conjunction with a "healthy lifestyle".

There's another similarity in that drugs such as these also give organs like your liver and kidneys extra work, rather like smoking.

And smokers can afford a certain superiority over the 'health' establishment because they are only accused of taxing their lungs-not removing them. Unlike the "life saving" 'obesity' crowd who like to remove healthy functioning organs.

Not only that, many of us have made the argument that health cannot be the simplistic, add a brick of pure healthy action take it away for a unhealthy action. It's more of a balance of competing and at times incompatible factors.

But no-one would go as far as bariatric surgeons stating that directly removing health increases it. A brand new health protocol.

In fact, those self-harmers who cut themselves can feel a certain validation, given those involved in health and medicine-45 agencies no less-think mutilation-not merely cutting yourself is a route to health.

Thursday, 5 January 2017

Organ Strippers Dissatisfied, Run for the Hills

Happy 2017!!!


Hey, better late than nevvah.

Snatching a look back on 2016 there are a lot of articles I've not published responses to, so forgive me if things feel a tad recherche for a bit.

For instance, "Americans Blame Obesity on Willpower, Despite Evidence It's Genetic" features a survey measuring whether the propaganda delivered by 'obesity' crusaders' is serving the end of the crap-drug pushing, mutilating interests of the 'obesity' cult.

Here's a case where funding, the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, tells you more or less everything about its purpose. 

To recap, the 'obesity' crusade is a cultic quack effort brought to us by a mixture of researchers, public health doctors and medical professionals. Such decided to use the (non-fat) public as enforcers of un or dis-ease in fat people, as if fat people weren't sufficiently uneasy about not fitting in sizewise.

The views of this misdirection amounted to a collective consciousness, underwritten by the brazen abuse of the profound trust in science and the medical profession. Everything about 'obesity' from the term itself to the so called beliefs and notions expressed by anyone and everyone about it comes directly from the crusade in its honour. It's hardly a colloquial term.

Take the obsessional blame framing [somebody please do]. Culpability is central to morality. When you commit an act or acts you either know to be wrong or find out is/are wrong, as a moral being, you then seek to make amends for your transgression.

That formed a consensus as much in fat people as anyone else.

Essentially, this survey is measuring the strike rate of 'obesity' crusaders own agitation and propaganda. What slimz especially choose to ignore is we are all its tools whether we are its [nominal] targets or not. It mis-uses us all.

I shouldn't need to tell anyone with more than a functioning brain cell that this is particular initiative is profoundly disturbed. I can't decide whether this is up there with female genital mutilation. My mind has passed over the thought of the proverbial gun to the head; excision of clitoris or stomach?

Would you have your vulva sewn into a tiny hole, or the nub remnant of your stomach connected to lower down your intestine? Both could lead to your death. Both attack health for other people's fee fees rooted in their hateful ideologies.

Before anyone tells me how nice these people are, nice equals having nothing to do with this. Nice at least starts to wake up when its indulgence hits the organs people need to function properly.  Think paedophiles and the removal of their genitals.

Does that sound better than this, worse, the same, what?

This cutty outfit informs us of the public doing what they're been given permission to do, undermining fat people's social standing and mental/physical health, in order to "motivate" us to futile attempts at inducing our bodies to let go of weight via calorie restriction.

Since enough of us have been literally dis-illusioned, they wish public and medical professionals-to switch from free-form calorie restriction to calorie restriction implemented by surgery and/or backed up by drug delusion.

To switch from pretending fatness =bad person, to fatness =disease. From un/dis-ease to disease. According to these, both public and medics appear to be balking at that particular lie.

Just because the public and medics are perfectly prepared to regurgitate lie after lie, doesn't mean any old lie will do. Over the last few years, agit-prop insisting weight is a serious threat to health has intensified. According to this, weight is now tied with cancer, amusingly demoting a real disease- cancer-to a "health threat" and promoting a product of metabolic function into pretend disease.

I say demote/promote, because the Internet classes have taught me virtually anything can be viewed solely in terms of status/non-status.

All this suggests the public and medics are on board with the crusade as a moral one, not as a money making scheme for organ stripping and crappy-drug peddling. Oh the nuance.

'Obesity' has always been a collaborative affair. People know its all bullshit, they collude with it because it satisfies some aspect of their tedious on-going psychedramas. What does pretending weight is disease do for that? Cutty-druggists are offering the pretence that weight is a disease can be "treated", but that game of fake disease and taking drugs isn't illness/treatment. It's fake disease is depressing and crappy-drugs lift the gloom. They act as placebos to lift the demoralizing notion of fake disease.

The best way to avoid that is to not demoralize yourself by pretending states are disease when they aren't.

What's more, unlike neuroses/mood disoders, weight is a product of normal function. You cannot treat the product of normal physiological function/ reaction.You don't need to, you need to find out how to take hold of the reins so to speak.

Think of one "obesity treatment" that doesn't attack healthy function. The 'obesity' cult targeted people's self esteem and mental health. Cal res attacks hunger/appetite function. Drugs attack healthy organs and surgery removes them.

If weight is so bad why can't they attack the badness trumpeted so relentlessly? 'Obesity' wallahs are like guerrillas claiming they're fighting the bad guys all via friendly-fire. When are you going to hit your enemy? The purported unhealth rather than health?

Probably never within this construct, because its "enemy" is human function. Instead of directing that medically qualified people prefer to wreck it so it cannot perform properly.

Branding the body "disease" is supposed to enable everyone to get on board with this insanity.

Eeek.

Malevolent and stupid. The one leading to the other. A reminder of why the most truly intelligent tend to have a supple and unyielding compassion.

Self-help is one of the few things that have come out of this. All around us we see the desire of people to change their health, putting paid to the lies told by those wishing to take over our lives in the name of 'health'.

Individuals should be able to "summon enough willpower", or link conscious intent to shift their own bodily function. We should have the right techniques. That's all we wanted, not endless assaults on our health.

All I learned in 20 years of dieting was seeking to induce weight loss by cal res is a fool's errand. That's it.

I never had a problem with self-help and not bothering the doctor with stuff they don't need to be involved in. On the contrary, nothing could persuade me to be willingly at the sole mercy of those promoting this degeneracy.

The alternative that's missing from all this is to find a way or ways to adjust the destination of homoeostasis. The focus should not be on an arbitrary weight line but on physiology, like real science.

Something that needs to be said every time anyone mentions weight.