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.
- @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.,
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.
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.