A sugar tax is to pay for quacks, fund SCIENCE instead

The slimstream got what it wanted over the term of the current 'obesity' crusade. What all humans want, for food that it likes to be widely available, amongst other things. Its very own 'obesity' construct helped, there's much citing of "personal responsibility" as being the locus of weight control-for fat people anyway. Therefore acting in the face of requiring an evisceration of calories was fine until......getting what they wanted brought them a greater sense of clarity. 

Slim people previously allowed themselves to believe their slimness is down to some vigourous yet invisible exercise of self control on their part.  Now they're concluding their mythological will isn't what's keeping them slim or enabling them to become as thin as they wannabe, after all.

What do you know, its time to control the food environment via the proposal of a sugar tax. Apart from laughable cries of faddiction, they advance this volte face behind their beloved conceit.

I say suddenly sugar, but way back in the day it fat was the enemy, on the grounds that fat in your food meant fat or your arse: pause and let the elegance flow through you again. Fat was to be reduced from an horrific 30% or thereabouts of one's intake, to half that and even 10% when of course that didn't make fatz low-fat.

This caused industrial food to obey by accelerating its mis-use of sugar to compensate for qualities lost by the removal of fat. It has also obediently reversed this. It's accused of doing nothing as fat people are, due to it not having the demanded effect.

This morality play is presented by the slimstream as dirty tricks upon its poor innocence (i.e. belief it can walk on water when it comes to weight) as if taste is not in their mouths. Et voila we have another little turn of the macronutrient whirl. 

If you want to talk about the so called 'evidence' in favour of this nonsense (give me strength). I haven't had the heart to abuse my brain with it anymore. There's no more appalled, hate reading style fun, its just risible. I do not like to make a habit of not reading what I criticise. In spite of this, I can confidently sum up from the premise laid out is that it consists of; lots and lots and lots and lots of sugar in your diet is 'bad' for you ergo sugar is {{{{poison}}}}.

Look closely at anything written about this currently and I think you'll find that summation punches way above its little weight in doing justice to the sugar ist poison hoodoo.

Suffice to say this will "work" just as well as any other intention of the 'obesity' agenda, but the most salient and sinister fact is the real agenda behind this tax is to establish funding streams (this would just be the start) to promote and enable even more invasive interference in people's lives.

Not being able to thus far has held them back. Heaven help us all-regardless of weight- if they get their grubby mitts on a steady stream of filthy lucre. 'Obesity' quackery has always struggled to gain secure funding so that it can abuse people in a more sustained all encompassing way.

Whatever nonsense is spoken about Mexico, France and Scandinavia, countries like the UK and America aren't them. Even if shame taxes did the job which they don't, the will just isn't there.

Permitting people to perish trying to trap and keep any and all [fat] people trapped into starvation either free form or surgical, but that too has trapped these societies into a certain course.

Science.

Certainly it would not only have been he right thing to do, it would have been far cheaper than tormenting people with lifestyle anorexia, butchering and mutilating them and leaving their weight unchecked to go where it may, whilst vigourous attempts are made to block, block, block things that would seem just as challenging on the face of it.

Why is their no means to block weight from getting higher if that's oh so offensive "unhealthy"? How much of this 'obesity' fuss would not have been if that was available? Oh right I'm answering my own questions again aren't I. Taxing food does not give anyone personal control. 

The locus of control of shame taxes is firmly in the hands of those proposing and seeking to gain from them.

Just as there's a pretense that becoming fat as a child must seal your fate, so should the insistence on allowing industrial fast food into schools, hospitals, every nook and cranny should been seen as having sealed the actual fate of the 'obesity' lobby.

Quackery has run its course, truth is the only way out of this false consciousness.

Fighting to get money to interfere with the big business you liberated, the reasons you went along haven't really abated, is frankly a futile waste of time. 

This has all gone way beyond anything but progress through objective research into metabolic function. So remember to give the 'obesity' industry, public and private what it desires so much to give to especially to fat people. Starvation.......of funds.

Starve the bastards of funding, what they call "the costs of obesity" (i.e. them).  Remove any being given to the worthless slimming industry and instead fund teams of the best and brightest minds to help us all grasp how our bodies produce weight.

Stumbling on how my body produced excess hunger was the way I ended the tyranny of hyperhunger. That was effectively a rebalancing of a certain aspect of metabolic function.

The control must be put in the hands of people. If you wish to campaign to control the food people eat, do that in the open. It's interesting that some openly say they wish to abolish tobacco products, but wouldn't have said that from the start.

The logic of low fat and/or low sugar was actually the end of the food industry as we know it.

The advice to cut fat was intended to direct us to the naturally low-fat foods that existed at the time, namely vegetables, fruits, beans, lentils, whole grains, and lean meats.

Whether you think that's good or bad, that has to be the endgame. That and the insistence that weight is "behavioural" is at the heart of the why of micronutrient whirl really.

Metabolic manipulation is entirely feasible, logical and achievable, to manipulate it more effectively and painlessly. It's also potentially good for way more than mere metabolic function. It simply requires honest sustained effort. Something no one involved in such as 'sugar taxing' should be allowed anything to do with.

That in itself would be a refreshing change. 

World 'Obesity' Promotion

World 'obesity' promotion day has passed without much ceremony. Let's face it, everyday is 'obesity' promotion day. In case of any confusion. The term "obesity promotion" is one of those blurted confessions fat phobes sometimes leak out.

It's when you promote the ideology that focus on the false construct of 'obesity' somehow makes sense, rather than it being a toxic pathology inducing cul-de-sac that circles round and round leading nowhere, acting purely as distraction from real knowledge and better ways.

Barely reading a phoned-in farticle containing the usual, how fat everyone is definitely going to be in a few years hence, because there is not a cat in hells chance that "obesity research" will be interrupting that, in the ever fat phobic guardian.

I was stopped in my hazy tracks by this,

“Like climate change, we know the answers to the obesity crisis. We know that tough policies will need to be implemented, and we know that such policies are challenged by powerful commercial interests. But we have no choice if we hope to meet those 2025 targets.”

That's was Tim Lobstein The World Obesity Federation's Director of Policy (lols). Just before that he's quoted as saying,

“Preventing obesity means tough government action to limit the promotion of junk food, especially to children, to ensure healthier food is offered at work, in schools and institutions, and to encourage physical activity through better urban design and transport systems.

We of course do not know how to alter metabolic function so it reverses weight and "maintains" that state itself. Cos we can't impose that through the anorexia method. 

The article includes the entirely predictable fact that weight is also increasing in developing countries too (the clock is ticking on praising black and brown people for their extremely moral hunger). It's a side effect of progress.

Certainly in Western model countries, a lot of these conditions existed and were undermined or jettisoned during the crusade. Indeed, often using the crusade's folklore of individuals design and make their bodies, to do this. This now looks bad even among the most shameless 'obesity' wallahs.

The "policies" he speaks of have been and gone. They used to be just the way life was. Now he wants to bring them back, despite people chosing to get rid of them/bring them in on the grounds of cost. Either saving money or making it to fill in the cracks of funding cuts.

Now that too many people have washed-up on the rocky shores of a dieting career to sustain that delusion....for a while, it's assumed by slim people that all fat people want is for blame to be directed at someone else, instead of us.

Don't be fooled, that can't happen as long as calorie restriction induced weight loss (CRIWL) is the only way and that is what a lot of this is really all about. Blaming "Big Food" can make little dent in the culture of blaming fat people.

As long as we're expected to starve, we'll be to blame. What would happen if they said, "It's not your 'fault' you're fat" or that "We've deliberately not bothered with any better means to lower weight. But starve anyway."

Whaddya say, self hating fatz, would you be so up for that?

Industrial food has benefited hugely from the 'obesity' crusade and its calories in/out insistence. Not simply due to its money-for-nothing slimming industry that was not only held up and legitimized by the medics/"obesity science" axis, it was saved from going under  by the same too.

It's also profited from entering seemingly every nook and cranny of the public environment on the back of weight = "personal responsibility." Bullying and profit motive. Why should fat phobes ever deny themselves?

Blaming industrial food for "causing obesity" is an attempt at window dressing for susceptible fat people. They're actually trying to get us to blame the food industry for doing our bodies to us!!!! The notion that this incredible entity called the human body, one that grows from a speck to yourself or myself, following its own innate pathways is not one to be deemed blameworthy, doesn't compute.

Another pathetic attempt to prop up the legitimacy of CRIWL which can be seen in itself as the supreme avoidance of learning how to tweak metabolic function. Something that's being studiously [geddit] avoided.

The reference to climate change cannot be taken as read or even seriously. 'Obesity' wallahs are always desperate to legitimize their credo, despite saturation acceptance and an eye watering level of hegemony. I swear dictators would not expect this level of adherence.

But it is quite a take down of climate change to raise it in such comparison. The so called "tough action" flies in the face of a lot that is in the economic model. It was obvious which suspects would struggle with the required collective action required to put cals in/out to the fore. Though that wouldn't have stopped fatness it could have at least slowed its course.

Nor would it empowered individuals to regulate their own bodies. Something usually absent from this. 

This is not motivated by an anti-capitalist desire to remake society-that's looking at it the wrong way round. Calories in/out makes this "anti-capitalist" head on collision inevitable. Targeting eating must be about curbing those who produce, make and sell food. Whether indirectly through potential customers or directly by government regulation.

It's the same source (ideology). It's not either government regulation, or "personal responsibility". It's find the right way to do it, or don't. What we have now is the latter and what is being proposed is more of that.

Either you suppress aspects of the food business, or you put people out of business. You may say that healthy eating can make lots of money. So what explains industrial food's reluctance? It has bought up and destroyed numerous wholesome products in order to get more milk out of its cashcows.

It is extraordinary that people have been sold a personal problem that's solution requires the co-operation of people whose rampant hostility has been stoked up almost beyond their ready control. One that involves perfecting society along your own lines.

The question is, is this at all the case for proposed policies to fight climate change?

Are we being sold an activist utopia at the expense of the most practical workable, accessible ways that could be discovered?

I hope not. 

Missing METABOLISM arrives when pseudo-science leaves the room

For years, I've been banging on like sister from another planet about weight being all to do with METABOLISM?

METABOLIC ANATOMY

Yes?

All WEIGHT is produced by such. 

And no, that does not refer specifically to disorders of, or disordered metabolic function, it refers correctly functioning metabolism, its anatomy, function, physiology.  Just as referring to the anatomy and physiology of your limbs is assumed to be about said limbs, rather than disorders or diseases that can affect those limbs.

Just as the pathologization of fatness has merged somewhat with physiology of fat bodies, therefore of all bodies, and as it is also conflated with diabetes. Increasingly, metabolism has become suggestive of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance (whatever the latter two especially actually are) and so on.

Nor is it another way of presenting digestion or nutrition.

It is,

The sum of chemical reactions that go in inside your body:a. Metabolism b. catabolism c. anabolism d. canabalism 

Now if this seems all encompassing to the point of becoming indistinct. Science to the rescue. Here's an example of how obvious and easy it can be to grasp the role of metabolic function.

"Taller people more likely to get cancer, say researchers"

Did you dare to dream for a second that I was going to link to something about 'obesity'? Lols. If you can delay gratification no further, give yourself a mental massage by putting weight in place of height, or more specifically, fatter in place of taller.

Here's what stood out,

The creation of height is automatically acknowledged as METABOLIC

.....taller people have a larger number of cells in their body......

Metabolism is in essence, the anatomy, processes and pathways that create maintain and destroy the cells of your body. Weight is just a more active aspect of metabolic function, so it is even more apt that it should be centered around what creates and maintains it. Like hunger though, this erased by 'obesity' promotions inc.

Metabolism is referenced in a very accessible way.

It is gradated for hoi polloi. First mentioning that tall/er people have a greater number of cells. Then onto the processes of the production and growth of those cells, honing in on an active aspect of that- growth hormone.

“We know that in humans growth hormone not only stimulates bone growth during our growing years, but stimulates cell growth in general and blocks cell death. So the level of growth hormone someone has could affect cancer risk by pushing up cell numbers,” 

 My emphasis. Four lines is all it takes.

An earlier study showed that people with genetic dwarfism had very little cancer. “People with genetic dwarfism have a mutation in their growth hormone receptor and we know that growth hormone and growth hormone receptor are critical to tumour growth too,” he said."

A study on mice where their genes were manipulated to make a high or low level of growth hormone was said to increase and decrease their cancer rates accordingly. Which brings me to another fundamental point.

Height is easily acknowledged as a SCALE

Each end of any scale informs understanding of either by comparison and all in between. "From 100cm (3ft 3ins -225cm 7ft 6ins)", one scale produced by the same anatomical processes. The shortest i.e. dwarfism automatically informs the taller end. Weight is the same, the thinnest informs the fattest and vice versa. Segregated focus creates an obstacle. There are bound to some at one end and some at the other.

Immediate and repeated reassurance

Taller men and women need not worry.

Swedish study sheds new light on link between height and disease – but smoking, obesity and poor diet are still greater risks

Indeed they need not. That would only do them harm. Don't be put off by the usual false equivalence. The point is to note is the keen desire to avoid upsetting tall/er people.

It's clear about the source and quality of the information.

despite taller men and women being more likely to develop cancer, according to this study of 5.5 million people born between 1938 and 1991

No declaration of "proof" from a dozen people. No confounding factors were included in the study, so how good this is, may be up for some question. That's made clear. If you are making emphatic claims, quality is requisite. 

Tallness is not framed as some abnormal growth happening to a 'normal' body

a) That is the construct that is 'obesity' and b) Tallness could lend itself just as well to such a faux pas, or not.

No false moralism is invoked

I include concern trolling about "stigma". The real and apt sense of morality is in the reverence for any potential impact of this news on tall/er people. This sense of potential consequence is very humanistic. Despite mentioning "higher energy intake" they go out of their way not to mention food showing how pronounced that obsession is elsewhere.

It is possible to mention higher intake without invoking that great meter of objective diagnosis- the 7 deadly sins. 

Perhaps the acme of this for me is,

The current state of knowledge is freely acknowledged along with the need for MORE RESEARCH 

And of what kind.

“The mechanisms for this effect are not clear and are worth further study. They may relate to the fact that the growth hormones related to height also are in some way stimulating cancer cells, but details are lacking.”

Not junk science such as increased risk according to your bedtime, but not hours sleep. WTH? Obviously not designed to be of any use. Except to those getting paid [well done].

The findings are properly contextualized.

Dr Jane Green, clinical epidemiologist at the University of Oxford, said: “In general, I would caution against interpreting a link as causal – however for height and cancer there is considerable evidence that suggests that the link is not explained by other known factors.

Context also lends itself to pacifying potential anxieties. Special mention to,

No problem with paradox

“......it is worth noting that taller people have lower risks for heart disease and a lower risk of death overall."

Paradox is often a fundamental part of reality fact and truth-it doesn't require special categorization.

The effort to jettison potential false causality

Clearly, adult height is not itself a ‘cause’ of cancer, but is thought to be a marker for other factors related to childhood growth.

Rather than the use of this to continue pathologization. Nor is there any pretense that a generalized catch all risk relates the same to each individual-innumerate as much as anything. 

just because a woman is tall, doesn’t mean they will definitely develop breast cancer,” said Carolyn Rogers, clinical nurse specialist at Breast Cancer Care.

For the record,

“We must stress that the biggest risk factors for developing breast cancer are being female, getting older and for some, a significant family history of the disease.”

This is pretty much how I see weight. It is 'obesity' that is deviance from basic rational standards. It doesn't take genius to work out that the absence of the above standards are malicious in intent.

Obese Extremist

A priceless lesson in how the fake evil of pathologization punctures perception of true evil. If you turn people into a joke, you cannot become serious about what them via the same source.

Perversely, only through re-humanizing them-dropping the 'obese construct' -can the truth of the evil a person does come to the fore unimpeded by slapstick.

Witness DM's extraordinary ability to do something I didn't think possible. To make 'obese' sound cool.

• Obese executioner
• Obese extremist
• Mammoth Extremist

Every single one sounds like one of those fascinating anti-heros.

I stand corrected.

Up until this point the evil acts of ISIS have only chilled me to the bone. That is now over thanks to the DM who've managed to contrast themselves with a pre obese-stimming consciousness. Terrorists apparently nicknamed this "tubby" executioner the "Bulldozer".

A mainstream news organ ends up sounding like those who sark any horror.

Strangely this is one of the first times the DM has failed to redundantly insert 'obese' into its headline. The need to disconnect you from this person is removed by their own actions. It reads: "ISIS's masked 20st monster."*

Now I don't know about you, but that doesn't provoke much emotion. The whole point of neuro-typical obese stimming is to present fat people as monsters, beasts. I've been called that numerous times, not to mention the frequent terminology using large mammals (such as mammoths) favoured by banal trolls.

To make it clear this particular "obese extremist", who has tortured and murdered people, execution style. It's not the usual reference to a self aware kind of "obese extremist". This terrorist amputates the healthy body parts of those who do not fit into his particular worldview. He and his cohorts feel they need to have parts of them missing in order to fit in. 

How extraordinary.

He's also described memorably as "one of ISIS's most unsightly executioners", there was a beauty contest to decide: Mr ISIL? Note the order in that quote and tell me again that "body dysmorphic disorder" comes out of nowhere like a 'disease' or is induced by how many likes your selfies garner.

The "unsightly" nature of this "obese individual" is used to serve as reflection of his evil. As with Bond villains, there's confusion here. And no, I'm not going to act like I need to prove anything by hastily adding how deeply against this or that I am. That too has been debased. I'll take for granted that you can tell.

If only I hadn't reacted so much to the insistence that Freud was science all those years ago, then I'd be able to say with authority rather than instinct that this reads Freudian-like with the shadow of size=beauty (or absence of)=morality replacing sex or the pleasure principle as motivational subtext.

This conflation of morals with size doesn't explain "healthily weighted" ISIS.

It brings back the way 'obese' finally alerted me to one way socio/psychopathy can be invoked in a person. By convincing a child that they're evil, when later child catches on that they aren't, their feeling about real malice and evil can be undermined, blunted. Because they believed they were evil and now they know that real feeling wasn't. 

Like exposure to constant friction creates a callous that numbs the area.

I'm neither, but I must confess, evil doesn't feel quite the same as it did before the extent of fake evil became obvious. If that sounds odd or even a little shocking, that's because it hasn't become so to you.

The person writing this article couldn't find a way to talk about a fat person any other way. Seems they felt that this because this person was actually bad, saying their worst would be apt. That 'worst' is not what hurts people.  Fat phobia causes hurt because people are upset that you are upset with them. They hurt because you appear hurt. They hurt because of love not hate.

Remember fat isn't evil.  It's not even a misdemeanour. Hatred is a product of the mind of the hater, not a reading of truth. It's an act of imagination.

This maniac is not.

Only in the last two paragraphs does this article retain gravitas commensurate with the of evil it reports, when it focuses on one of this man's victims. A 14 year old boy who had both his hand and foot cut off with a sword, in front of an audience.

Its final paragraph forgets weight all together and concentrates on a murderer, killer and psychopathic zealot. Something those who aren't can only yearn for. 

More ironically still, the comment section is not unpleasant to read, featuring only one attempt at humour. 

* This has been subject to subsequent amendment the whole headline now reads

ISIS's masked monster: Revealed, the tubby jihadi executioner dubbed The Bulldozer who's part of terror group's 'Chopping Committee' bringing horror to captured Iraqi towns

Again "tubby jihadi" derails the seriousness of what the headline is talking about. The history is indicated in the address bar.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3263008/ISIS-s-heavy-weapon-fear-Revealed-20st-executioner-dubbed-Bulldozer-s-terror-group-s-Chopping-Committee-bringing-horror-captured-Iraqi-towns.html