iow, so that doctors can get paid for dispensing their "obesity related" quackery. Further evidence if it were needed that it is this element in the medical profession -not the preferred baddies the slimming industry-who are amongst the most responsible for spreading fat hate.
And now they want to get paid more for this and turning all sorts of nonsense supplied by their class cronies onto fat people. Turning many more of them into the ranks of the prescription pill poppers no doubt."But it's for my disease of meeee!"
Well, it works for the supposedly svelter middle/upper classes. Which might be fine for neurosis. But weight isn't that. Changing it requires actual scientific progress to be made in the mechanics of human metabolism. Not the usual flummery one can get away with when it's about things that have a significant direct conscious input. Like thoughts, moods and levels of anxiety etc., Something that those in the field are crying off because weight is simply too objective in outcome to fudge with subjective feelings of "It's doing me good because I feel better." Instead these medics sought to;
"recognize obesity as a disease state with multiple pathophysiological aspects requiring a range of interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention."Yeah, if you insert people in place of microbes, bacteria or virus strains. And turn their lives into an unfolding of the life cycle of disease contaminants. Describing that in a biochemical fashion. Life does indeed become multiply "pathophysiological" in aspect, even if it's just human biology, in action. In a fat person.
As usual, it's all assertion scant worthwhile evidence. Cheekily claiming this will lessen stigma is typically sly, that could decrease in an instant by telling the truth about the results of calorie restriction and what we know about metabolic function.
This result went against the AMA's own experts in science and public health, who took against this contrivance. Amazingly, they summed up everything in a throwaway line;
..........the currently prevailing definitions of obesity do not specify its underlying causes.
Not all doctors were on board either. How noble you may think. They're disgusted at the idea of representing people as disease. They recognize this crosses an unacceptable line. Humbled by the realization that they have no right or authority to alter the status of human beings. No wait, it's due to that potentially being discourgey of our motivationalism. Boooo. Back to the same old nonsense that weight is some kind of neurosis.
It reminds me of the recent row about the latest DSMV. UK psychologists objected to human expression of things like grief being defined as mental disorders. How damaging they felt that was! Yet there's nothing to say about the psychological effects of undermining people's humanity in this way.
I have always found the lack of comment from others the most shocking of all. Especially when they then go on to protest about the same things said in other contexts. I shouldn't be though.
Now that I mention mind doctors, the same kind of scientism used to define the mental health of people in general is being piggy backed to alter the impression of the state of fat people's mental. I've never seen more linking of 'obesity' to psychiatric categorisations such as ADHD, BPD, OCD, anxiety disorders and even things like alcohol abuse.
You'll note these "emerging links" come by targeting specificity, fat women, fat men, men who have x issue in their childhood, the fattest white women and so on, (though the drugs prescribed for these conditions are not implicated as potential triggers for weight gain). Only things such as "impulsivity" probably disenables fatz to follow weight loss diets. Not our defences which thwart them in virutally all people.
All headlines are about 'obesity' linked with so and so though. It's clear that overall, fat people cannot be demonstrated to be any crazier than the acceptably weighted. This is a pisser when you've presented people as inferior and unable to cope with life because they're emotionally stunted.
They finally got round this by deciding if one 'group' of fat people can be found to do/have more of something than the overall or comparative group of acceptables, that counts as a link.
That's overlooking the fact that fat people are actually erm ya know, people so everything turns up in diverse groups of people. This is pish. And suits the purpose of continuing the perpetual cycle of going round and round in the predictable circles of hades that is 'obesity' rationale.
The intent is always to make doing nothing look like one is doing something. Things must stay the same, except, the mounting effects on fat people.