Here's something instructive. The Nuremburg Code. It comes from the famous trials of Nazi's after WW2. It contains a 10 point list of requirements for ethical clinical trials to be carried out.
Now the question is, is the 'obesity' crusade's insistence that all weight must be lost via caloric deficit restriction, an experiment? I think honestly, we can say it is. Certainly, it is not based on fact, but hypothesis. Not physics, but that because starvation leads to weight loss, if you call it something else-weight loss dieting/lifestyle/weight management etc., that it can become fit for human regulation.
So far it is clear that this is false, yet still the experiment trundles on.
Let's see how well it adheres to the code;
No1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential
Voluntary consent are the words that leap out. With 'obese' we're expected to put our bodies into starvation mode, with as much coercion as it takes us to 'volunteer'. "The new smoking" [isn't everything?] is the latest gambit supposed to negate any need for consent.
No2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good
of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not
random and unnecessary in nature
No, no and no. Properly objective study of actual physiological function rather than fitting stuff into a rigid unscientific construct-'obese' will undoubtedly produce better that starvation induced weight loss. Which let's be honest is why its being avoided. Therefore one can cheerfully say with confidence that we can do better, "we" just doesn't want to.
No3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal
experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or
other problem under study, that the anticipated results will justify
the performance of the experiment
May I say, lols. If we include humans in the "animals" of animal experimentation, that is exactly what isn't being properly studied. In this case, the study is of a constructed view of how humans (don't) function. Positing fatness as disease helps with this mis-direction of searching for something that isn't there and pressing what you find into that model. It's physiology not pathology.
No4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, I think we can say that's a no. Recent developments have induced enough self consciousness to provoke the appearance of a volte-face. Now, we need [we are instructed] "support". Support is acquiring an increasingly sinister tone, have you noticed? Like an actor always playing goody-two shoes roles suddenly getting to play the baddie.
No5. No experiment should be conducted, where there is an apriori
reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except,
perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also
serve as subjects.
*Snigger* for the first part. Bariatric surgery fails that "disabling injury" bit. That's the whole point of it. Love the idea of physicians experimenting on themselves. Every doctor who pretends dieting works should be permanently on one themselves. Including the slim ones. Let them "keep off" fourteen/seven/five whatever pounds below their comfortable weight. This should be known and they should be weighed at their patients request and be distractingly hungry at all times, before, during and after eating. We'll take notes on their undoubtedly superior coping strategies.
No6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by
the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the
Humanitarian doesn't apply if you are an 'epidemic'. Here lies the reason for 'obesity' hype. The risk of being is so baaad that you must attack yourself consistently.
No 7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to
protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of
injury, disability, or death
There are tears of laughter in my eyes.
No 8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified
persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through
all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the
Not really, no. Everyone's an expert. Except of course, fat people themselves.
No 9. During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at
liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the
physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seemed to
him to be impossible
I can only repeat ".....should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible." Don't let the gender specificity fool you. I couldn't have summed up better why so many people decided to choose self acceptance. It is the experiment, not what they feel about their size.
There's something truly bracing about the insouciant disregard with which other people take other people's psychological, physical, spiritual and mental exhaustion. You'd think they had no regard for their own comfort.
No 10. During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be
prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable
cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and
careful judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment
is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental
That means if your assumptions are not working out, it is in the exercise of "good faith, superior skill and careful judgement required of him," that the professionals terminate it.
Read it and weep.