What's in it for doctors and other white coat professionals?
Being morbidly obese is a choice. There, I’ve said it. I know it won’t make me popular, that many will accuse me of "fat-shaming",From an article entitled "The cynical lie that "fat is fabulous" and why plus size bloggers should never be considered role models for young women." It doesn't matter what doctor or says, it's what biology does. Or has the grip medical professionals have gained over fat people made some of them feel those are interchangeable?
- Believing or showing the belief that people are motivated chiefly by base or selfish concerns; skeptical of the motives of others: a cynical dismissal of the politician's promise to reform the campaign finance system.
- adj. Selfishly or callously calculating: showed a cynical disregard for the safety of his troops in his efforts to advance his reputation.
- adj. Negative or pessimistic, as from world-weariness: a cynical view of the average voter's intelligence.
- adj. Expressing jaded or scornful skepticism or negativity: cynical laughter.
If anyone embodies the above, it would be a medical profession vis-a-vis fat/ness. Repeatedly claiming fat is a deadly threat to health yet rarely if ever querying the lack of efficient means of reversing said threat. This is too out of character to go unnoticed.
Usually when medics see a health problem they alert everyone, indicating what they feel is an effective remedy. If there's nothing effective, they tend to call for something to be found. They don't tend to fib about effectiveness, especially when it is this obvious. And they're usually clear on the difference between treatment and cure, the latter is usually mentioned. Along with the need for different if not better treatment, no matter how effective available treatment is felt to be.
The possibility of progress can be hard to envisage before it comes.
Rarely do they blatantly advance the acid test of quackery, that something is 100% effective, if it fails, you aren't doing it right. No doctor with any real judgement would expect anything to be done right by the whole of any group. Let alone something that takes on a force as powerful as human hunger.
Even if there was something anywhere near close to completely effective, i.e. certain birth control methods. They would not advocate that there should be one route and one route only. Usually, the more the options the merrier.
So they must have a motive in asserting it must be this way and this way only, what is that motive?
Doctors tend to be more aware than most about what does and doesn't work. Their position means they tend to meet consequences of any failings. Many's a time when hype has been punctured by a doctor's asides on the true merit of a much vaunted remedy. Prompting gasps as the air fizzes out of widespread expectations.
It therefore becomes rather obvious when they deviate from this. Advocating a purported solution they go out of their way not to implement themselves. Leading the insistence that something works when they know it does not. There's also a pronounced fiddling whilst Rome burns attitude that is out of keeping with their own desires, given medics primary objection to fatness is they feel it makes work for them.
Even if fatness failure of people-which it isn't- medics rarely seem interested in that. They happily dispense treatments for minor pains, neuroses and anxieties that can be solved by no one but the person concerned. I get the reasons for the departure, but not the lack of interest in getting the most effective solution for doctors!
That they're so prepared to use and lose their reputation for integrity to face down the prospect of getting beyond such continual and obvious failure, indicates promoting this failure is very important to them, to what end?
The cynicism is clear in that they obviously feel they can openly get away with predicting people will have health problems and die whilst showing an uncharacteristic disinclination for this to be arrested. That would be unsavoury behaviour in anyone, let alone a profession that sees itself as guided by the interests of its patients.
In lieu of that, what will act as a limit on their actions?
It seems distinctly cynical to be this confident that no one out of millions will perceive these differences. Including those who are being told they're about to perish with little to stop it.
Very much an emperor's new clothes situation, with them being the emperor(s).
The assertion of self inflicted "lifestyle" as a means of justifying this also rings a rather false note. Numerous medical conditions, states outcomes and conundrums are partly if not wholly inflicted by the person concerned. How many accidents and injuries could not be placed in that category? In many cases its the rule not the exception. Not only is that not an issue-except if its medically relevant-it's never conflated with them having a solution.
A loss of patience with that would necessitate a change in relationship between doctor and patient, with the latter being much more proactive and empowered. If that was desired, why didn't medics make better use of the opportunity afford by fat people's extreme willingness to keep trying weight loss dieting over so many years? This ready obedience is so out of keeping with usual behaviour, that it has led medics to lose sight of the humanity of fat people and see them as puppets who jump at their every beck and command. That has actually become an obstacle to progress in itself.
Dis-empowering and degrading people via social means just ends up having the opposite effect of taking the weight off medic's shoulders.
This makes the instigation of widespread calorie restriction more important than professional ethics and even the nature of the profession itself. There would seem to be a lot hanging on insisting on forcing people through the route of calorie restriction induced weight loss alone. Why is this?
Such fervent assertions of this and nothing else is possible, how can anyone assert something so utterly unconvincing?
The false set up and maintenance of either this or nothing.
Which in this case is the same as saying either nothing or nothing. Only the first nothing looks like something. The fervent assertion of nothing else is remotely possible. How can anyone claim something so utterly unconvincing?
I cannot say exactly what would reverse weight, but I've been able to reverse a chronically heightened state of hunger, via adjusting the overall state of my nervous system.
This is a form of manipulating metabolic function, as hunger is a metabolic feature. 'Tis clear that neither pills nor potions are needed to change the mechanics of metabolism function. Reversing weight is obviously achievable. Why be so keen to pretend otherwise? Why wouldn't finding proper means of altering metabolic function, to change outcomes be the overriding imperative?
Why do medics seem to feel that would be such a disaster for them, would it? How so?
Instead of getting angry with your failure to bully success into an inherently dysfunction method as in the above article.
Start explaining yourselves......