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.

Monday, 19 March 2018

Happy

Apart from the general quietness of this blog, I must admit, I've struggled to frame a response to Cancer Research UK's recent marketing bombshell, linking human bodies with cancer. The major reason is 'obesity' is a failed term and the framing of weight in terms of risk of weight is dubious and in the finish, irrelevant. Everyone knows the issue is can we reliably and permanently alter weight or not? Secondly, I'm struggling to grasp what if anything the information given could be pointing to.

Have a look for yourself, Adiposity and cancer at major anatomical sites: umbrella review of the literature. In the meanwhile, my attention was caught by an article on bulimia, as an illustration of a certain mindset.

On my way to that though, I just saw "I have prostate cancer. But I am happy". It stopped me in my tracks. I was largely indifferent to Monbiot, until this "slim chance" ugh puke [no pun intended]. After that fiasco, I linked him with irritation. Despite that, I wouldn't wish cancer on him or anyone else for that matter. Sad to say that's becoming a somewhat lofty standard.

Under the circs, it can't help but be instructive to hear from someone who actually has cancer;
It would be easy to curse my luck and start to ask “why me?”. I have never smoked and hardly drink; I have a ridiculously healthy diet and follow a severe fitness regime. I’m 20 or 30 years younger than most of the men I see in the waiting rooms. In other words, I would have had a lower risk of prostate cancer only if I had been female.
Straight in with the difference between risk and occurrence. Weight is obviously described in terms of "risk", "association" and "linked with", as that can be controlled through, ahm, statistical determinism.

Disassociation, that is being associated with low risk and being unlinked to that which is baaad cannot though protect you from occurrence. Though clearly it feels like it does. 

What about his reaction to the news, will it be what CR-UK are jonesing for?
And yet … I am happy. In fact, I’m happier than I was before my diagnosis. How can this be?
Is this "denial"?
The reason is that I’ve sought to apply the three principles which, I believe, sit at the heart of a good life.
Um, so deciding and seeking to control the way you feel can change what you feel. Let's see those principles;
The first is the most important: imagine how much worse it could be, rather than how much better. 
Oh I'm feeling that, count your blessings. No matter what people want to say or feel about weight, compared to real illness, it's an embarrassment.
The second principle is this: change what you can change, accept what you can’t.
Well, we all know the changes wrought by decades of attempts at calorie restriction induced weight loss [CRIWL].
The third principle is this: do not let fear rule your life.
Lols;
Fear hems us in, stops us from thinking clearly and prevents us from either challenging oppression or engaging calmly with the impersonal fates.
You don't say? Preach son! No matter what the news, or the intentions of others, we all have to carry on in the way that makes sense to us.

Suffice to say, the intention behind George's rules are the opposite of what crusaders wish to impose on those they consider too weighty,
There are, I believe, three steps to overcoming fear: name it, normalise it, socialise it. For too long, cancer has been locked in the drawer labelled Things We Don’t Talk About. When we call it the Big C, it becomes, as the term suggests, not smaller, but larger in our minds. He Who Must Not Be Named is diminished by being identified, and diminished further when he becomes a topic of daily conversation.
This is interesting, George is saying cancer needs to become less scary. Using cancer to make fear larger not only goes in the opposite direction, it re-invigorates fear toward sufferers."Margaret McCartney: Cancer patients should not be shamed";
....Cancer Research UK has gone large on its publicity campaign about obesity. The plain layout with warning label is reminiscent of a cigarette packet. In what Cancer Research UK itself describes as a “PR stunt,” the charity also created “fake cigarette packets with chips in to visually represent that obesity is the second biggest preventable cause of cancer after smoking.” The effect of this has been somewhat predictable. Some people with cancer have told me that they have felt blamed. Other overweight people have written on social media of how they felt shamed.
Predictable indeed.

Hard though to believe though it may seem, there was a time was a time when cancer had a stigma as great as HIV/AIDS in its earlier days. Doctors even took pity on families-leaving it off death certificates. Sufferers were hidden away by their relatives who often lied about their sickness, for fear of repercussions.

People finally going from shame to anger at the lack of progress is credited as part of the momentum for Richard Nixon's famous War on Cancer, which led to a lot of advances in the treatment of the disease.

It's taken a lot for cancer stigma to be lowered to the point of now and there's obviously further to go. Those who like to fake pathology and disease also like to enforce the reactions of their targets to their various machinations. 

They can't make that realistic either because everyone responds differently to actual disease, often confounding the expectations of fakers.

Wednesday, 29 November 2017

The Calories in/out Lens

Secret Habits of Anorexics.

Because we rarely hear this and when we do, it somehow doesn't seem to stick in people's minds,
Theroux meets one woman, Rosie, whose condition left her unable to walk at one point and led to her contemplating suicide.
Her parents reveal to Theroux that she spends hours scrolling through social media pictures of food on her phone.
This is the lens everyone is looking through; anorexia-calories in/out. This is coins, "eating disorders", why "binge eating", why 'obesity' comes from to devour/eat away, why fat people are seen as walking larders who have no legitimate hunger function, why food taxes, sugar phobia, food paranoia, clean eating, orthorexia, why everything is obsesses with food, controlling food, food is good, food is bad, eating is unhealthy, eating is healthy...........

It's even why anorexia/thinness is somehow seen as against left-wing /anti-capitalist and fatness as conservative/pro-capitalist.

My problem is I don't see sufficiently through this lens as others, including fat acceptance people.This leaves me cold. I don't care about food in this way because my notion of weight isn't based on calories in/out which as I've frequently said is incomplete. Nor is the focus of this point of view capable of properly defining or describing the hyperactive hunger function I experienced. It actually gets in the way.

Though both are about excessive hunger function, one comes from deficit, the other from attempts to impose deficit.

Communication problems are rooted in refusing to acknowledge not everyone sees as you see, nor wants to.

Monday, 27 November 2017

Absolute Neurosis

"A lesson from the biggest losers: Exercise keeps the weight off" refers to that study of former biggest loser contestants.

It claims the key to staving off the rebound part of any calorie restriction induced weight loss cycle [the calorie-weight deficit/restoration of calorie-weight deficit is all ONE cycle] is exercise.
"Hope"
I wish the NYTimes would make room for other types of articles on health, providing us with indepth insight into various genetic illnesses, diseases, and other conditions. These constant articles about studies of how to lose weight and keep it off are tiresome. Diet and exercise works, don't we know that by now? Let's move on.
Hope and I do not agree on the viability of cal res, but we both agree it's time to move on with endless portentous repetition of nothing. It's the professionals who don't want to. They are the ones wanting to keep going round and round in their circles as long as they can, postponing that inevitable moment when science must stop being pseud.
On average, those who managed to maintain a significant weight loss had 80 minutes a day of moderate activity, like walking, or 35 minutes a day of vigorous exercise, like running.
Compare this with stopping smoking. This is of course, after spending the weight. This is a life sentence of the wrong means to achieve ends.

On average is not for everybody though,
For the four years after the show, he exercised more than two and a half hours a day and gained back just 40 pounds.Then the injuries began, forcing him to cut back his workouts to one and a half hours a day. His weight crept up to 235 pounds.
The next year, “my body just started breaking down,” he said. “I had a foot injury, a wrist injury. I couldn’t keep it up.” And he was exhausted.
More than two [one!] and a half hours a day to gain "only" 40 lbs, not to be slim let alone thin.

Physically breaking down under the strain of exercise purging, with injury piling upon injury to the point where you have to stop - usually comes towards the hospitalisation end of a thin/slim person's anorexia nightmare.

It's also calls to mind neurological weight loss diet burnout, where your nervous system is unable to tolerate the provocation of restriction and you just can't.  I say that not to be fancy, but because you want to keep dieting, but something has changed, your body blocks you, it's a rather eerie discovery.

Yet this too is perceived as failure of the person, not the method,
It’s a difficult task for virtually anyone, Dr. Kerns said: “The amount of time and dedication it takes to manage one’s food intake and prioritize exercise every day can be an untenable burden for many people.” “It’s totally unfair to judge those who can’t do it,” she added.
Doesn't multiple injuries or nervous system exhaustion with fighting off restriction show dedication? How can you get any more dedicated that actually exhausting your body's ability to continue with what you are doing?

Cahill could do it. He wasn't a can't do it! At the very least should be where even the most raving calorie restrictionists draw the line. It should be "Okay, you all have to train like athletes and starve like anorexics, until your body breaks down, then you must stop."

But no, apparently, you still haven't done anything. It is an extreme version of how the ideology in people's minds erases recognise fat people's efforts.

As has been pointed out, these "biggest losers" are the success stories. They are outliers in success. Biggest loser type dieters are like anorexics without the madness, their behaviour, not anorexics, is driven by pure will.

Neither are in control.

Nor is dieting hard its easy, it's the body blocking its action that gives it rigour, but that wasn't in the calculation. Ci/co cannot adjust to this.

What happened to Danny Cahill is what your defences are blocking, potential damage and injury. This erasure of fat people's efforts is a sign of deep neurosis. These people are hallucinating an absence, whilst looking directly at what is present.

I'll re-emphasise, it is normal for most of us to display signs that could be seen as or actually form part of a psychiatric diagnosis. Unless that's so pronounced as to pull other things out of alignment [or the reverse], the overall pattern is what makes up genuine diagnosis.

This should be enough of a warning sign though, even addicts going into rehab and coming out addicts will not be told-you didn't go there. Whether the failure is seen as one of those things or something the person did wrong, their presence is recognised.

Here's is a mindset which perceives doing purely on outcome. Do nothing + the desired outcome = activity, success. Do everything + undesired outcome = inaction, failure.

Calorie restriction has always been unlimited in this way, sure evidence of its inherent quackery. Every function has limits. Only in fiction are there no limits. In reality, not recognising any limits just puts pressure on your mind to erase the limits that will naturally manifest.

Dieting and exercise feel bad not because they are hard-they aren't-it's because they are bad

All this is also evidence of a profound failure of us fat people. Our refusal to set limits ourselves, on what we should expect to do is perhaps most shocking of all. What exactly is motivating us to allow such liberties to be taken with us? Why do we allow people to impose unending, unendurable labour?

Slim people, fat phobes maybe sinking under the weight [yes] of their own neuroses, but it is we that seem entranced by this. It is we that appear to be willingly sleepwalking to our own destruction.

Tuesday, 14 November 2017

I Don't Care How Much You Love Your Son, Your Fat phobia Will Curdle It

NB, if you are feeling delicate, you might want to give this a miss, frankly though, Giles Coren is not a person who is taken seriously so any anger is just missing the pointlessness. "I don't care what my son becomes as long as he's not overweight".

I've been at pains to point out that in spite of appearances, the 'obesity' industry are the ones blocking  the most efficient and effective means of altering weight. Science should deliver proper means of inducing weight loss for those who need or want it-and is free to, as it is to pursue any other methods or solutions it, or its paymasters decide.

It just chooses not to and will continue not to, as long as its under zero pressure to explain this decision. I recommend-as I always have-taking it up with them. If enough people do, that'll put some heat under their feet.

What's just as odd as that reluctance is the way fat phobes have followed the 'obesity' industry's lead in promoting failure ahead of that, no matter how desperate they claim to be or are for the same clear effective resolution fat people desire/d.

The suspense [lols] is seeing how long it's going to take for this penny to drop, amongst fat phobes and activists alike.

That's pretty much how I'm reading this offering for signs of mental fatigue. The article itself concerns Coren's attitude to his little son meeting those who wish to be the dis-ease of other people, like for instance, himself;
It's all very well to say that it's puppy fat.......but what if… IT DOESN'T GO AWAY?
Acknowledging the lack of proper method or approach, along with angst of knowing what we have is a whole lot of nothing- from someone who likes pretending otherwise. Home is where the heart is,
Adele's parents probably thought it was puppy fat too. And Paul Hollywood's. And Russell Grant's. No doubt Diane Abbott's family assumed that she would change shape when she was out of nappies. But the change never came. 
Wishing and hoping, oh the impotence, yet he still ventilates the trap people like him like to collude with;
It's reasonable to assume that the parents took their eyes off the ball, let their porky pups feast on a shitty diet and do fuck-all exercise into adolescence and now look at them: ostensibly successful, yes, but laughable to behold with their untucked shirts and stretched, shiny faces. The sort of people you want to follow down the street playing "Flight of the Valkyries" on a tuba.
Your eyes?
I'm worried as fuck that my little Sam could go the same way. Not only because of how it will ruin his life but because of how it will reflect on me.
I'll bet you are, you know the score. And ruin his life? That's a strong statement of the effects of being constantly surrounded by your mindset.

Unsurprisingly Coren doesn't hold back on the usual brain dead fat phobe memes, one thing that is a surprise is the rank paedo-gaze I thought people had finally let up on,
You're looking at that picture of my son and you're thinking, "Fat little bastard". Sure, he's cute. He's got a nice little face. Except he's fat. Arse on him like Vanessa Feltz and a full frontal presentation at bath time that puts one in mind of a Gavin and Stacey-era James Corden or a well-waxed Christopher Biggins, all giggly on too much rosé.
Yeucch. I was thinking cute Giles. Cute. When does the average parent speak of their infant child in these terms? This and various other inappropriateness dogs people their whole lives. 
....each actual fat person is blatantly just a badly brought-up, greedy little son of a bitch committing the unforgivable sin of gluttony in a world where there is not enough food to go round. I'd kill them all and render them down for candles.
Capitalist goes revolutionary with their crude and crudely misplaced anti-capitalism critique, [along with upper-mid parental inadequacy fears]. Your frustration is aimed at the wrong target you airhead. And unforgivable compared with what? Cold-blooded murder? Paedophilia?

As for that last line, it may help to know Coren is Jewish. It feels like something spit up (somewhere) from his cognitive basement. If other Jewish people don't object to it, I don't really see why anyone else should take it to heart. He's desperate for the attention,
But it's hard to know what to do about it. 
Say what?
...it's hard to know what to do about it.  
What about the usual starvation and hard labour you usually recommend? Does it feel less doable when looking into the eyes of a little mite trusting you not to hurt him?

How very normal.
I'd put him on a strict diet and buy him a hamster wheel but my wife is not the moral absolutist that I am and she is the one who does the Ocado orders. And cooks most of the food. But is a bit of a lazy tart. Sorry — a busy working mother with many other important things to think about, who knows her way down the path of least resistance.
Hiding behind your wife? Isn't that major league cuck in your world? Moral absolutist, proto-anorexia + exercise purging = morality, rather than standing up for your boy against disingenuous fanaticism?

And come on Giles, the path of least resistance has a heck of a lot of overlap with the greatest efficiency. I see your laptop isn't a windup one, do you feel morally sullied by its efficiency?
I say, "Can't you give him a carrot instead?"
And my wife says, "If you want him to eat carrots, you try feeding him a fucking carrot!"
So I let it go. And I feel ashamed. But then I see these middle-class kids with their weekday screen bans and their steamed fish and vegetables and no chocolate or sweeties and 10 hours' oboe practice a day and it makes me want to puke. 
I'm glad he said this because fat and/or working class people aren't allowed to feel this way by middle class 'obesity' upholders. Either they're failing to be nutritionally educated, dupes of the food industry or are criminally negligent, anything but disinterested in someone else prescribing their way of eating (and life).

This is a culture clash. The 'obesity' cult is about dictating the way you live, feel and increasingly, think. You aren't allowed to choose that on the pretext that you must surrender yourself for thinness-through-calorie-restriction-induced-weight-loss. And the way they want people to live, and the things they want others to prioritise isn't attractive.

The focus on scare stories rather than the usual understanding dynamics and how to direct them is supposed to scare us into living their way and evidence of the lack of interest in the purported subject. They're like others who don't feel they need to take "no" for an answer.

Weight change should have nothing to do with dictating diets, or sequestering huge amounts of your time and mental bandwidth- that's up to the individual. The issue is functional dynamics and the alteration of them. 
I try to look on the positive side. Such as the possibility that having a fat adult son — who I will unquestionably continue to love with all my heart no matter what — might help me to lay aside my prejudices regarding fat people and bring me to a more respectful place vis-à-vis the fat and ever fatter future we unquestionably face as a race.
Fantastic, you do that, because if you continue with such cultivated loathing, it could infuse the deep well of love you feel and you wouldn't like the possible consequences,
.....being grotesquely flabby, sweaty, knock-kneed and impotent would mean that Sam was unlikely ever to have a girlfriend or any mates or be invited to parties
How would you feel about love if it was mixed up with the feelings expressed here? Exactly.
 Time to do what fat phobes rarely have to do, choose which is most important to you. Your fat phobia, or your son.

Tuesday, 7 November 2017

Ministering to Bodies does not Equal Ownership of People

A few weeks ago a certain health authority announced that it will breathalyse smokers to make sure they've stopped smoking for 8 weeks before they can be referred for assessment for "non-urgent surgery".
They said the changes were being brought in after 85% of people who responded to a public consultation agreed that smokers should be required to quit before being referred. 
This transparent attempt at buck passing shows the architects of this know they are in the wrong, they don't want to own it. Instead they try to stick it on the usual targets, the public.

Smoking is a habit. It is not addictive, it's is not even particularly faddictive-folks still woefully underestimate the power of the human mind in real life.

Smoking has never been more self-selecting than it is today, so if anyone wants to truly make further inroads into the numbers remaining, they need to come up with techniques that actually work for those who smoke and resist urges to indulge in power games expressions punitive fee fees or crackpot vigilante justice.

To use that brilliant-as-it-is-skewif expression, check the optics: anti-smoking professionals targeting people for; reaching for a cigarette-reaching for a cigarette-reaching for a cigarette, by reaching for self righteous shock tactics-reaching for self righteous shock tactics-reaching for self righteous shock tactics.

If phoned in anti-ism equalled expertise in the formation and cessation of habits, that wouldn't have happened now would it?

If health professionals and bureaucrats wish to truly engage in public health, they need to engage with healthy behaviours to bring about that end. They can do their; "Bad for you, bad for you act, in an emergency, in the initial stages of any real or perceived health crisis- if they've not thought of anything better. After the initial loosely aligned are shaken off though, they'd better put some effort into how to actually alter what compelling about what they're complaining about.

With real demonstrations of efficacy, that can be repeated, not assertion or pseudo-science statistically massaged 'studies', or other so called "evidence-based" hocus-poci. No stupid chewing gum or horrible-as-they-are ineffectual drugs "support" either. If you are criticising using material things, why is that all you've got? If you think the answer to problems is things, what are you looking down your nose at?

Why aren't you more concerned about how to alter the behaviour and performance of your mind/body, using your mind/body? That is a real anti-thesis of habitual consumption of material objects.

If that sounds like a tall order, that's the sort of feeling you invoke in your targets.

In the past Public health was honourable and progressive. It improved society and was led by knowledge such as an understanding of the true value of hygiene and of the nature and transmission of disease.

Public health must again be about raising the health of the populace, not a pretext to assaulting mental health, inducing self hatred, creating social/moral hierarchies, or a cover for weird politics/ morality social engineering and the vaunting of one's own personal hatreds. 

Incidentally, no cure-all but smokers or trying to be ex-smokers should consider making a practise of yogic style or other breathing exercises. Even that famous warm up stretch where you take deep breaths as you raise your arms from your sides into the air- really open your chest [it's famous but I can't find a link.] And when you lower your arms whilst exhaling, really empty your lungs-without strain- and pause before taking another breath.

This won't suit everyone but it's worth a try. If your body knows its going to get some invigorating breaths, that might weaken that aspect of the attraction of fags, just don't bring that to smoking!

I can hardly finish without mentioning;
The CCGs also require obese patients to reduce their weight by 10% over nine months or reduce their BMI (body mass index) to less than 30, whichever is greater, before being referred for non-urgent surgery.
Again, whomever wrote; "reduce their weight" knows the only means made available for that-CRIWL is harmful and doesn't work. Euphemise away, you are not even fooling yourselves. Effectively this is seeking to force people to starve off weight against their will. It's seeking to mandate the ceaseless repetition of self harm and self abuse.  

Let's refresh on medical ethics;
  • Respect for autonomy – the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment. (Voluntas aegroti suprema lex.)
  • Beneficence – a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. (Salus aegroti suprema lex.)
  • Non-maleficence – to not be the cause of harm. Also, "Utility" - to promote more good than harm
  • Justice – concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment (fairness and equality). (Iustitia.)
That's a fail on all four and more.

Fat people have taken the initiative, we have done the dieting, that's how we know the results are not satisfactory to anyone.

Patronising nonsense about how people need 'support' to impersonate anorexia, be damned, this is a medical dispute.

There's an obvious vacancy here for science that seeks only to properly understand and manipulate metabolic function. That doesn't concentrate on pointless categorising of people by weight as if being above or below their arbitrary lines makes your bodily functions unrelated to each other.

Look at what that has produced. 

If medical professionals et al want to continue their blocking of real science that actually works, and promotion of pseudo-science that doesn't, they need to explain their motivation for this. They need to become accountable for the outcome.

Either way, doctors don't own fat or any other people. They can't tell us black is white and white is black or try to press us to support their science fiction.

I repeat, fat people have always wanted to slim, we have been prevented by the lack of proper method. Medics et al can only continue to bypass that for so long.

"Obesity scientists" as others choose the area of knowledge they wish to pursue, which is their right. That doesn't co-incide with the needs of those they treat as their personal quarry. No-one signed up to be their puppets, we signed on for altering weight/metabolic function in good faith. That has not been provided and is not on offer so that is that.

Neither they nor medics nor society is owed anything by fat people. We've done what we can with what we've been given.

Nor for the record, is mutilation of the stomach any more a viable option than smoking yourself slim.