Friday, 6 July 2018

'Obesity' Has Got Nothing To Do With You

I know people still think it has. Projection though, is not talking to, influenced or about you.
Being obese or overweight are NOT “medical conditions.” They are simply different ways for bodies to be.
Ob is not a neutral or objective term. If it just meant, fat or BMI 30+ then it wouldn't have been thought up. It exists not simply to pathologise the human body, but to force this alien thought pattern on everyone. It obliterates and seeks to replace the subjective experience of being.
The extent to which 'obesity' is the creation of those who promote it is displayed by the curiosity proposed in bill "H.R.1953 - Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2017".
This bill allows coverage, under Medicare, of intensive behavioral therapy for obesity furnished by providers other than primary care physicians and practitioners.

Additionally, it allows coverage under Medicare's prescription drug benefit of drugs used for the treatment of obesity or for weight loss management for individuals who are overweight.
The bill has not passed into law, though IBT4O has been coded [pdf].
When I refuse to be weighed the person asks me something like “do my mind if I make my best guess.” I did some digging. It turns out that insurance companies and Medicare have started to pay for something called “Intensive Behavioral Therapy for Obesity
The title; "Intensive Behavioural Therapy" intrigues, it sounds awfully specific, yet we know all 'obesity' grifters ever do is tell you to diet and get paid for these "efforts",
....this therapy was devised by Ivar Lovaas, a Norwegian psychologist, who worked in the 1960's on developing verbal communication with autistic children. The Lovaas therapy is an intensive therapy which takes place at home.
That threw me for a loop, did it you?
The Lovaas method involves one-on-one coaching lessons with a therapist.
One-on-one, finally, familiarity,
For Medicare beneficiaries with obesity....CMS covers:
  • One face-to-face visit every week for the first month;
  • One face-to-face visit every other week for months 2-6;
  • One face-to-face visit every month for months 7-12, if the beneficiary meets the 3kg weight loss requirement as discussed below.
One-on-one then, now, face-to-face, a slight but telling drift I fancy.
It is based on the assumption that autistic children need to be taught everything including communication, expression and socialisation. 
Silence.
Autistic children are said to be unable to learn how to do things by copying other human beings. 
Crickets.
With the Lovaas therapy each task is taught in a repetitive way until the child masters it completely. Children learn how to pay attention, how to copy behaviours, imitate sounds, understand what people say, play with toys, show emotions, and how to relate to other children.
Not even guessing. Application;
Intensive behavioral therapy for obesity consists of the following:
  1. Screening for obesity in adults using measurement of BMI calculated by dividing weight in kilograms by the square of height in meters (expressed in kg/m2);
  2. Dietary (nutritional) assessment; and
  3. Intensive behavioral counseling and behavioral therapy to promote sustained weight loss through high intensity interventions on diet and exercise.
Got that? Weighing, diet plan, telling you to ELDM. The same old CRIWL, in the style of  one of those employee assessment interviews. Which is apt, because you are their employee, except you're paying them.

Apart from this not being "therapy"-I know, I've blown the suspense- it's worth considering that any pretence of behaviourism or behavioural therapy  needn't have taken this particular inspiration.
Behavioral therapy is an umbrella term for types of therapy that treat mental health disorders. This form of therapy seeks to identify and help change potentially self-destructive or unhealthy behaviors.
That could be something of interest to those who've spent years of their lives as the subjects of a form of Munchausen's Syndrome-by-proxy. "Effects of Munchusen Syndrome by Proxy on the Victim"
With regard to the victims’ adult lives, two reported not being significantly affected by their childhood abuse; however, both of these subjects reported avoiding visits to doctors and ignoring health and medical issues.
Okay, this is only a couple out of a very small sample, also, one should be careful extrapolating from one symptom (out of a pattern). But you have to admit, that is an intriguing aftermath of the more intimate form of MSBP. And I don't doubt that isn't the only one.

Behavioural therapy; CBT-which is mainly used to reverse depressive, anxietous, compulsive and panic neuroses. Its list of cognitive distortions identify the 'obesity' playbook of pathologise, panic and pain.

Write/type out a list; all-or nothing thinking, overgeneralisation, reverse-halo effect, disqualifying the positive(s), jumping to conclusions-mindreading, jumping to conclusions-fortune telling, catastrophising, emotional reasoning, labelling/mislabelling, etc., and every time you hear anything about 'obesity' ask yourself if it fits into any of these categories.
System desensitization relies heavily on classical conditioning. It’s often used to treat phobias. People are taught to replace a fear response to a phobia with relaxation responses. 
This reminds me of something I've mentioned before.
A person is first taught relaxation and breathing techniques. Once mastered, the therapist will slowly expose them to their fear in heightened doses while they practise these techniques.
Try this, it could be used to reverse the effects of years of 'obesity' death threats, body and even self hatred.

Learn the relaxation first, then whilst in a relaxed state, bring to mind the things you wish to reverse the effects of. The moment they bring you out of your relaxed state, push them out of your mind and restore/go back to your relaxation. When you feel sufficiently calmed repeat a couple of times.

Practise this regularly, until you get to the point where this negativity doesn't bring you out of your relaxed state.

This kind of answers the question doesn't it? If these ob peddlers gave you anything genuine to reverse the effects of negative experience, you'd use it on the negative experiences they've loaded onto you. 

And those effects are the main things enabling them to roll over you without your consent or even conscious awareness.....

Friday, 8 June 2018

The Accusation of Suicide and Suicide

Few should be judged solely by the worst of themselves and if this is the worst the now late Anthony Bourdain has done he couldn't be said to have been as bad as all that. By the accounts of many, he was kind generous and supportive to them.

Still, I feel its entirely fair to revisit this video which illustrates the weird chasm that's opened up between our more typical reaction to an apparent suicide and how accusations of suicide are thrown at fat people as a justification for saying that our purported self destruction means we deserve abuse and death.

In the past, it was uncomplicated. The focus was on the loss of a life and the meaning of that to those left behind.

 

Now one has to ask, which reaction to suicide is the real one? As usual, folks can't hear themselves. It is typical of the double consciousness surrounding weight. The extent to which we live in different lanes remains unacknowledged.

How then should one view Bourdain's end, if indeed he has committed actual suicide? [Honestly, is there anything that doesn't split into real and false in this area?] There can only be one way really.

It would be nice though if from now on people dropped this stupid "slow suicide" meme and started to listen to what they are actually saying to (some) people.

Thursday, 7 June 2018

No Slimming for Channel Four

If I was bending over backwards, I'd say Channel 4's a mixed bag when it comes to representing the fatz. It commissioned the TV version of "My Mad Fat Diary", which gave us much joy. It has also featured another series with a lead that acts like a human being and not a saddo obot. I typed in Channel 4, female, northern, detective and it came up! "No Offence". I saw bits of it and it thought it seemed well made and had an interesting antagonist, it got away from me.

The other side of this however is far bigger. That's the side that made TV fatsploitation classic Supersize/Superskinny. It has continued with this level of class, upping the ante being a typical achingly bourgeois ghetto for scienterrific fat phobia [you're fooling no-one C4]. Usually featuring, the-you are totes unaware of how much you are pushing into your face-type premise. Specialising in humiliations of the gotcha kind- where people are set up with secret cameras, caught eating pies/cake etc., to then be lectured with the expected pompous yet insipid twit-toned nutritionista.

Every airhead diet trend is taken seriously, all dieting is the same Mao suit, no matter the fabric or colour.

So it was a complete surprise to hear this channel criticise one of their stalwart presenters- Jamie "Please can we not have any more" Oliver. "Channel 4 tells Jamie Oliver he's wrong on junk food ad ban campaign". Thunderstruck, I did the mental equivalent of falling over my feet desperate to find out what their objection could possibly be.

I couldn't even speculate, I was taken aback by their rationale. Money. Not that they said this outright from the get-go;
Channel 4 bosses have said Jamie Oliver’s campaign for a ban on airing junk food adverts before 9pm is wrong, arguing that it is anachronistic because children rarely watch live television.
Megalmao.
......Channel 4 said any such ban could have a substantial impact on its revenue and prevent it from funding programmes about healthy living.
Arrrhahaha..further, snorts, guffaws etc.,

They're not bothered about participating in the relentless dehumanisation and exploitation of people in the name of reducing the size of their bottoms. 

When it comes however to trimming their fat bottom line, they come over all fat positive max, butt only because it means they'll have less money available to produce more useless pseudo science fuelled crap. 

Isn't that well meaning of them?

This is the age we live in my friends. Real maltreatment is not being exhorted to starve on the demand of others neurosis, but the prospect of corporate loss of funds.

Call the UN.

To be candid though, this could pose a dilemma.

Oppose Jamie Oliver or support him and possibly reduce C4's budget for fat hating propaganda.  Tough choice.

Never did I think anything could even for a moment make me reconsider objecting to the Oliver that wants to give less rather than ask for more.

Tuesday, 5 June 2018

Reclamation

Oh dear, someone has called someone the cee word, pass the smelling salts Agatha! "Why is it so Taboo?" I must confess: I-do-not-know.  It's sechsual, so it's taken on baggage from that. It also reflects the status of men and the age old habit of labelling women unclean and/or inherently harmful. We can see this in terf [look it up], yeah, I know, handmaidens came up with that-so what?

Their whole point is they don't want to have a mind of their own.

What I do know for sure is that the word has/is being reclaimed by women themselves.

When you seize your body back from (internalised) misogynist utility, you tend to find it hard to be offended by titles for la chatte. Let me not mislead, there's something about the word.

It conveys power and is powerful. Vagina's a dear Latinate, but it's a bit wet [sorry, not sorry]. Vulva, sounds like it could be a character out of Star Trek, or possibly a volcano. It isn't well know and can't even be shortened as in Vag.

Cnut is also being reclaimed because of the reason behind the perceived insult. That the vagina was defined as a hole and it failed to be, because it is not. This biological mismatch frustrated the Man and this translated into a raging complaint that could be spat out any time a woman failed a patriarchal definition.

Part of this aspect has also survived and it is used by both men and women for someone they consider to not being doing what they should to the extent that they become an obstacle to right and proper aims. There is some etiquette. It's never sounds right for a man to call a woman this, though a woman can call a man this, it's probably not good either, from a psychological point of view.

Reclamation has been proposed for 'obesity'. That its just another word for fat. It isn't though. Nor does it refer directly to fat people. It exists as a rejection of acknowledging bodies bigger than slim bodies are as whole as slim bodies.

It's not as much to delegitimize fatter bodies as it is to keep slim in sight at all times. Imagine a slim person (always) standing in front of a fatter person, with the difference between the outline of the slim person and that of the fat person being the 'overweight/obesity'.

This difference is purportedly attacking the slim body and 'causing' harm to it. Nothing to reclaim in this sci-fi, it's got nothing to do with anyone but those who feel this. An 'obese' is not a person, it's an object lolling around waiting to be defined and programmed by those promoting this.

'Obeses' do not exist until this mindset takes aim at them, and they do not exist when it looks away. It is their life. Basically, a kind of zombie. Incidentally, slim people are increasingly becoming 'obese'. By that, I do not mean fat, I mean the remove they used to have from torturing food with negativity has gone. Remember when some of them retained a freshness from the default that food is a good thing?

Gone. They've now acquired the dull patina of stress about food that fat people have had all this time. Even when they try to be positive about food, like fat people, they sound increasingly strained and as if they're sinning. Noticed?

It hadn't occurred that this zombie puppet meaning could be of use if it was matched with such an implement. Amusingly, Donald Trump gets the meaning of 'obese'. His recent medical where his stopped a pound before 'obese' categorisation I think shows his instinctive recognition of the toxicity of this branding.

Yes, he's a fatphobe, but 'obese' is supposed to be medical/respectable. Yet Trump wanted nothing to do with it. His gargantuan ego sensed being danger and he opted to be mocked over being Jim Jones Kool-Aid level owned. And I suspect his doctor allowed it not simply out of any pressing, but because he too knows its a branding not befitting the office of the most powerful person in the US (nominally).

I don't blame any woman for not appreciating reclamation of cnut, but it pales besides worse.

Saturday, 2 June 2018

How Science Does and Doesn't Go

Here's an example of what you are missing.

"Potential new cure found for baldness" everything is clear in 6 words. The issue: baldness, the aim: to resolve it. Use of the term 'cure' is quaint, from a time when the desire for solutions was evident. It also tells us that anything remotely undesirable easily lends itself toward pathologisation and the language of disease as metaphor.

Along with issue and aim is the need for a target, in this case it happens to be a compound that acts as a brake on hair growth. Amusing given the amount of times I have said usually scientific protocol is to look to stabilise a condition or state-to stop it increasing/moving on/continuing, at the same time as seeking a reverse gear.

Tackling baldness is presented as being about manipulating the action of cells, in an understandable way. It's clear that scientists are doing this for lay people. There's no resentment on the part of the professionals, who do not feel they're being overburdened or taxed by being expected to want to practise what they trained for-in addition to freely choosing what field they wish to engage in. Of their own volition.

All despite the utter triviality of baldness. There's no sense that this is an unworthy investment of scientific resources. Doctors are involved, supporting in this case leading research.

Current remedies, their efficacy and lack of it are accurately rendered, in no sense is a failure of these remedies the failure of anything but those remedies. Reactions to baldness are also allowed to vary. It is made clear some 'suffer', there's a distinct sense that you don't have to.

It isn't required and you are not accused of anything, if you do not by your own initiative choose to suffer from baldness.

Overall the tone is cool, detached and interested in its subject. Shaped by the professionals involved.

Looking at a sample of the most recent article on weight, "Study casts doubt on 'healthy obesity'", it's easy to see it has no real sense of its issue, no desire to resolve, and clearly it is on the attack. It is unfocused, goes nowhere, is highly personalised and seeks only to create anxiety and to demoralise its targets. Not the functioning of the body and its cells, but people.

There is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to 'obesity'. The construct itself is the stigma and its operatives are the stigmatisers.

The public go along with this, including fat people, who also allow themselves to be trapped inside its terms.

Tuesday, 15 May 2018

Oh Look, a repost: from 04/04/15

Cancer!!!

Now I've got your attention......

Back in the day that'd be, "Seeeeex!!!!" Made you look. In these i-net days of jiggy at your fingertips, that's over. Now, it's the death part of sex 'n' death that really gets attention.

As I'm sure you've heard, @besity is erm- the terrible health threat/deadly disease-those raging loudest about it, don't wish to solve or cure. Remarkable. Oh they may pose otherwise, convincingly to some it seems. In action though, they can barely be arsed.

Insisting on a route that doesn't work, the mere implementation of which goes against their own highly favoured selves and their denied human impulses. Endless hypothesizing around a defunct ideology that refuses, no cannot-let's not mock the afflicted- generate any real progress.

Lies gives it away more than anything. If something is a disease that will be discovered because disease is a real entity, not a metaphor. The drive to fake disease, i.e. alcoholism, drug addiction etc., came from lay quacks. Not from actual professionals trained to deal in and uncover objective fact

Take cancer, no please do. Being fat is said to increase the risk of certain cancers. ....According to this, such knowledge has been uncovered in the last ten years.

Rather than admitting they don't know why. To account for this, the much adored go-to ideology is pressed into service;
  • adipose tissue generates oestrogen, yet oestrogen in the form of contraceptive pills can't raise your weight, at all, no never.
There's some more;
  • @beses often have more insulin. This could cause cancer in selective sites, rather than others of the same kind, because..... why....?
  • Adipose cells produce (other) hormones which stimulate or inhibit cell growth [what like metabolic function or something?] ....i.e. leptin [aaahhh, leptin]. That's more abundant in @beses, so it must be up to no good. 
  • @beses are inflammed. No not the state brought about by constant provocative accusations, endless threats of doom, social isolation, unemployment, plus death threats, but the "low-level inflammation" that @beses have, apparently. £tc.,
It's toxic adipose.  Adipose that decides to become toxic in fat bodies. Like you, its a baad fat.  Do you know they've named something called a "sick fat syndrome"? Yeah, that's where they want to go with this.

What annoys me about all this is not more of this or that chemical that is said to create this or that effect, it's the insistence on their pre-determined fix for no good reason but, who cares if they do? Adipose cells must be the baddies, because that's based on the almighty premise that adipose is iccccck. 

You'd think they'd have noticed all this long before. Where the body is affected to the good or ill is most likely to tell you something about the nature of your freely chosen focus of inquiry. Collectivizing fat people indiscriminately then individualizing from that is it gives an unrealistic picture to all fat people, regardless of their health status.

If you did the same thing to all under bmi 25, you'd have a similar kind of outcome. Sick people who are acceptably-weighted are sick people. It is not associated-with-weight even if they are the lightest on the size spectrum. It is defined by what's happening in their bodies, which is as it should be, it makes more sense. It's useful.

Fat people with or without disease are deemed the same, leading to the odd premise that all fat people would be healthy, if not for being fat. Illness and disease then have to be regarded nonsensically as "obesity-related," as they are both never absent nor present, but somehow, both. Yes, the paper below presents 'obesity-related' as above an estimated level of disease-we know all about @besity wallahs and their estimates.

Instead of clearing up this conceptual breakdown, we get "evidence" of how even if a fat person isn't sick, they are, because they will be in 5-20 years. Not meaning they'll actually be unwell but more will score on an index of associated-with risk factors.

Nor does this lead to where it should-let's move heaven and earth to resolve this scientifically. No, all this leads to, do what's already failed. Or let's change society. Oh you want to change society? Well you go ahead and do that, in the mean time. Save the lives you claim will be lost.

When I first saw this collection of cancers, apart from this I thought, what could possibly be the link between them? Mainly, parts of the digestive, excretory and reproductive systems?! Apart from oesophagus-which is connected to and has similar tissue to the stomach and post-menopausal breast that's mostly in the lower part of the trunk. Is there some underlying connection? If so, is it direct or theoretical like the link between those nerves and the brain?
In both men and women, body-mass index was also significantly associated with higher rates of death due to cancer of the esophagus, colon and rectum, liver, gallbladder, pancreas, and kidney; the same was true for death due to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Significant trends of increasing risk with higher body-mass-index values were observed for death from cancers of the stomach and prostate in men and for death from cancers of the breast, uterus, cervix, and ovary in women.
[Breast is of course, post-menopause, pre-menopause it lowers the risk. Watch out, the latter appears to "promote obesity."]

I couldn't see anything obvious, I mean, reproductive and digestive? So I figured, whatev's. Till I happened to be reading a book I had little inclination toward.......Future Mind by Michio Kaku then BAM!
  • The hypothalamus. This regulates body temperature, our circadian rhythm, hunger, thirst and aspects of reproduction and pleasure.
Now, I do not wish to jump to conclusions buuut, the hypothalamus has form when it comes to weight. Amongst fat people, there seem to more who may have some kind of compromised hypothalamic function, I know I have. Which is exactly the point-unusual function collects more among the outer reaches of either end of an active trait. 

So @besity wallahs love to keep it on greed and laziness. Actually finding stuff out makes this about something, the biggest danger of all is the risk of actually finding something out.

Wednesday, 25 April 2018

The Body Knows

I like this response to the usual drivel about weight, from "Barbyr"
I'm here to tell you I don't believe any of these scientists really have any idea what's going on. I'm boycotting these articles and studies. They are fluff pieces injurious to our mental health.
I'm feeling that last line especially right now. Some folks come back at her a bit and she responds,
Luck and genes keep me thin - will power has very little to do with it.
Indeedy. My body too keeps and has kept me from being 600lbs, my willpower has absolutely nothing to do with that, unless you mean avoiding the 'temptation' to follow orders. The message is getting out there though, people are sick and tired of other people's anorexic fantasies.

But that's not enough.

Scientists must be told to work out how the body regulates its weight and find a way or ways to key into that, preferably using the conscious mind, to trigger it. Or some other benign factor.

I don't care whether you call yourselves a fat activist, body positivist or are just a common garden person, or even someone who's had their gastric organs redesigned. Everybody needs to get on board with this message.

Even if you're happy with your body, doesn't matter, others aren't and if there is nothing for them but whatever is thrown at them, then more of them will be killed by these mutilations and poisoned by shit drugs.

So yeah, tell anyone and everyone you know that the key is science not social engineering, do it whether you are okay with your body/accept it, like it, love it or don't. Make it clear that the reason you've decided to make peace with your body is not "fat acceptance" its because the(ir) alternative is so much worse.

And it is, that is no joke. A life sentence of dieting for most people is not only not possible, it's questionable as to whether its worth living. That's a shocking thing to say I know, but having what you eat decided by others is way more than just 'advice', it's like being taken over by an eating disorder, somone else's. And we all know how eating disorders make people feel.

What makes people get cut is feeling trapped, no one should be forced to accept or mutilate.

Face it, the only way these fanatics will shut up is if there is a way to alter our weight properly. Only then will they have to find something else to gain significance. Don't you want Jamie Oliver to have to face his life?

Exactly.