Starvation: "Not Too Arduous", says Jesting Boffin

With narrow ideology holding all in its rictus grip, the only direction is round and round the same circle. The slimming industry has been routinely propped up, supported and rescued by medics and scientists etc., connected with the 'obesity' industry. Over the decades, doctors have routinely sent their patients to slimming companies, "They're the experts".

Doctors have been behind virtually every kind of diet there is. Name any form of dieting; low-fat, low carb, whole grain, high protein, partial or actual fasting, there's a doctor selling it. With the recent announcement of a slimming industry mainstay, weight watchers, moving away from at least, associating loudly with starvation induced weight loss.

Weight Watchers will now be known as “WW.” The 55-year-old company* just announced that it is rebranding to focus more on overall health. Its new tagline: “Wellness that works.” 

It's about time for the usual suspects to stage an intervention to stop the starvation punishment from becoming recherche. "NHS should prescribe crash diet replacing meals with shakes and nutrition bars to tackle obesity, scientists say", by "prescription", they mean, tell you-you are doing all the work. They are doing nothing.

Partnership with commercial weight loss firms should be extended nationwide to allow GPs to prescribe, scientists add

They don't routinely "prescribe" (very low calorie) VLCD liquid diets due to past experience "Liquid Protein Mayhem", From July 14 1978, an abstract;

...Singh et al (p 115) and Brown et al (p 120) report a total of three deaths of female patients who had adhered faithfully to a liquid protein diet (providing about 300 kcal/day in the form of protein hydrolysate) for five to six months. The immediate cause of death in every case was refractory ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. A fourth patient experienced repeated episodes of ventricular tachycardia, but, after a stormy course, her condition was controlled with phenytoin sodium. The patient subsequently recovered. The ECGs of all four patients showed gross abnormalities of repolarization characterized by prominent U waves and QT_c prolongation. All of the patients were relatively young women aged 27 to 35 years, and, except for their obesity, all had been in good health before undergoing supplemented fasting. 

Do note "had been in good health". That's being written out of reality so harms done by "starvation induced weight loss" can be filed under "obesity-related"-strictly speaking that isn't wrong, it is related to a construct and its morbid crusade.  It shows even this dubious area has degenerated under the duress of trying to enforce starvation as some kind of end in itself.

Dieting used to be all about the low cal. Folks tended to lose larger amounts of weight than in more recent years-if you insist on starving off weight, the closer to starvation dying and death, the better the thinning.

It [VCLD] is not an easy diet to follow. Apart from feeling hungry and low on energy, other side effects can include: dry mouth constipation or diarrhoea, headache, dizziness, cramps, hair thinning

Too much association with destruction and death was doing for the slimming industry, as well as evident failure of the starvation strategy, until doctors stepped in with "health". A healthy diet produced health, window-dressing dieting away from its morbidity [a proper use of that term]. This lending of medical/science legitimacy saved the on its arse grift from a descent into oblivion.

It meant people stopped losing the amounts of weight as before.

Eating shakes, soups and meal replacement bars for three meals a day helped obese patients lose nearly four times as much weight as those told to eat healthily and cut calories, a study has found. Oxford University researchers have reported “total meal replacement” diets, which restrict participants to just 810 calories per day for eight weeks, safely enabled more patients to lose more weight – and keep it off for a year with diet support.

These are the wrong wrong academics/researchers/scientists, obviously. We need ones who are actually interested in finding out how we can use our body's own abilities to regulate its own mass. So we are no longer at the mercy of this increasingly institutionalised iatrogenesis.

I hope this helps to illustrate why until this area is done and dusted, this cycle will continue, with or without self-acceptance. That is a start, a means to an end, not an end in itself. It's an attempt to begin to reverse damage done by this crusade, but it is not enough. Society needs closure and that will only come with finding out how to use our bodies abilities properly. There is nothing wrong with that and there never has been.

The survey results fly in the face of long standing criticism of “crash dieting”, amid fears it can lead to a yo-yo effect where people lose weight but immediately put it back on.

Seeing as professionals are happy to mutilate people into perma-starvation, the acceptance of that's rehabilitating starvation without mutilation.

.....the Oxford University report’s authors argue there is ample evidence such regimes can help combat a growing obesity crisis which is costing the health service billions of pounds to treat complications such as type 2 diabetes

The current message is still out there though. "Fitness guru Joe Wicks cautions against 'beach body' crash diets"

Social media health pro Joe Wicks has urged people to stay healthy and avoid “beach body” crash diets in the lead-up to the summer holidays.

It'll be interesting to see how people like Wicks incorporate this into their spiel. Probably the usual, one law for the subjects another for the objects. 

Professor Paul Aveyard, a co-author of the paper, said: “This study shows that GP referral to a total diet replacement programme in the community is an effective intervention which GPs can confidently recommend, knowing that it leads to sustainable weight loss and lowers the risk of heart disease and diabetes.”

What "intervention"? This is an imposition,  a sentence, a punishment. The targets have to endure this, the people starving them get paid.

After 12 months, the participants had lost an average 10.7kg. That compared to an average weight loss of 3.5kg for those who received their GP’s standard weight loss programme, including advice and support from a nurse and written information.

In other words, be confident docs, you now have the go-ahead, sorry. That's what 'studies' are used for nowadays.

Independent experts said it was striking virtually all participants stayed on the programme for the entire 12 months, and suggested sticking with meal replacement is not too arduous.

Independent of what? When there's only one ideology, there's only one way of thinking, unless we're talking about such as; "Marco Rubio condemns 'weirdo Salt Bae' after Venezuela president Nicolas Maduro dines at his restaurant"

Incident sparks outrage among Venezuelans, millions of whom struggle to eat three meals a day.“He is actually the overweight dictator of a nation where 30% of the people eat only once a day & infants are suffering from malnutrition.” Footage showed Mr Maduro dining on expensive steak at the Istanbul restaurant during a stop-off returning from a visit to China, drawing furore back home where millions struggle to get enough to eat and red meat is a rare luxury. Almost two-thirds of Venezuelans surveyed in a university study published in February said they had lost on average 11kg in body weight last year. 

Not too arduous**, leading to sustained weight loss and lowers the risk of heart disease, say scientists. How much has Venezuela's diabetes risk fallen by?

*  predates the "obesity crisis" yet somehow managed not to prevent it.
** I'd pay money to see & hear them tell Maduro's critics this.

Surrender Manqué

"Tom Watson: how I lost seven stone and reversed my type 2 diabetes" This man is deputy leader of her Majesty's Opposition. 

....it has taken more than 25 years to gain control over his diet and exercise.

Taken on face value, a person has taken over a quarter of a century to "control" their diet and exercise. That's subject to conformation, by explaining the nature of the day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year, decade by decade effort to arrive at this conclusion.

Or perhaps it is not a day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year, decade by decade effort, maybe its just time and then suddenly, the moment.

Either way, the big question is why not just find a way of shortening such effort to say, 25 months, weeks, days, hours, or even minutes? What about this process takes so long and cannot be shrunk into a more scientific size?

Question: Why is it okay for this "control" to be randomly acquired over a long stretch, but not for it to be brought about in good time through concerted action?

In case anyone needs reminding, science is appropriately and contextually time-limited. If you cannot achieve an effect in a timely manner, then you cannot test it, it cannot be said to fail. Exceptions are things like observing an effect like an eclipse or w/e is different, that is a natural phenomena.

When it comes to bringing about an effect, it cannot go on indefinitely. Your computer won't load, the person at the computer repair shop says it takes up to 25 years to tell either way, that's clearly tripe.

You don't want me to go through what this is all about again do you? Nyaaaaah, okay. Once more from the top.

You have committed a crime-taken more than your (fair) share.

You must payback your debt to society-in the form of starvation and enforced labour.

This however is outside jurisprudence, it's sort of 'moral' socially enforced. So, there is a purpose, you are doing this to slim. That was only sufficient for a while, so professionals came back with, it's for your health.

It is "unhealthy" to be BMI 25+, ergo you must starve and sweat. Even if this was genuine and not contrived, it is of course an argument for science. But science won't deliver punishment, equally, punishment doesn't deliver slimness.

Answer: Everything is about shoring up the notion of your criminality/pathologisation-the 'obesity' construct, pressing you to bread 'n' water + the treadmill and trying to force that into the appearance of a perfectly rational way to regulate body mass and/or health.

That's why over 25 years of mysterious process cannot be edited. You need to get smacked up by being set up for failure.

If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime. 

Currently, this pathologisation-punishment-metabolic derangement has moved from calories/ low-fat to sugar as arch villain. This enables the tired diet success stories we hear every day of our existence in the never-getting-slimmer-society, to be freshened up into-it succeeded this time because the problem is sugar.

I consider myself diabetic and a reformed sugar addict because I know that if I take sugar in again, the condition will come back.

You consider yourself to be something biologically insupportable. And in case you're wondering "reversing diabetes" means lessening the symptoms, not what is being implied.

And if you think after over 25 years of ______ this man had paid his debt to society, you'd of course be wrong.

It wasn’t a huge shock – there had been warning signs, such as his increasing weight and high blood pressure – for some time, but it was still a blow. The overwhelming emotion was shame,” he says. “I felt frightened and ashamed that I had come to this point, and guilty. I’ve only admitted it publicly now.......it was a combination of lack of knowledge and fear; for a year or two I was in denial.  ...he started exercising, which wasn’t easy because he was so heavy. “The first time I went up the steps, I felt I would probably need oxygen at the end of it. ......“The office would always laugh at me because I would cling to the wall when I got to the top.   ........he would attempt press-ups. “It was incredibly humiliating to start with. I looked pathetic.

Even that's not enough, he still has to serve his life sentence,

He now does two cardio workouts a week, such as running on the treadmill or doing 5km outdoors, or a boxing session; does weight-training a couple of times a week; and walks a lot. “I hate going to bed at night not having done 10,000 steps.”

...with poss an amputation down the line [I'll leave you to speculate on which kind], if it all falls down.

On top of that, he has to embarrass himself by publicly revealing just what a craven whipped pup he is. He is a forelock tugger, a knee-bender a lickspittle. And he wants to spread this good news to others.

Righty-o.

Though this is supposed to represent the left of UK politics. Someone who has so little respect for his own humanity.

One thing amputating the stomach has confirmed is that both hunger and appetite for certain foods can be altering via metabolic function- without buggering up, therefore altering the digestion.

It often leads to astonishing changes in the way things taste, making cravings for a rich slice of chocolate cake or a bag of White Castle hamburgers simply vanish. In contrast, patients who had bypass and sleeve operations reported that they were not particularly hungry afterward, and that their incessant urges to eat vanished. Even more surprising, their taste for food often changed. Dr. Lee Kaplan, an obesity researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, recalled a patient who asked him: “Are you sure they didn’t operate on my brain? Food does not call out to me anymore.” Another, who used to seek fatty and sugary foods, said, “I crave salads now.”

Ignore Kolata's 'hive-body' stance. It has been known for ages that your hunger levels and appetite-including your tastes and the balance of them, are defined by the external pressures and internal needs acting on and within you. By doing such as adjusting the activity in your nervous system, in the right way, you can reduce hunger and alter your appetite.

That's the way round it ought to be. It should not require suffering. Physical conditioning is one thing, but it should not be the way weight or health are regulated.

All this rigmarole is a product of punishment and mutilation is a product of trying to make punishment do what is demanded. How will everybody, health care professionals especially, be made to get over urges that defy all reason, yet find so little opposition?

The Frame

Early on in my fatsphere adventure I asked, "What are the sides?"

By that I meant, if fat people are on one side and others on the other, what do those sides represent in terms of ideas?

To make it even easier, what sides were during our dieting decades? We wanted to be slim and others claimed that too. Usually that means we agree.

It's another odd feature of this weight fandango, agreement doesn't mean agreement, and disagreement doesn't mean disagreement. [Debate also doesn't mean debate, but that's another story].

John Hickner MD MSc, October last year.
Is obesity a disease?

It depends on whom you ask. But if you ask me, obesity should not be labeled a disease.
I understand the rationale for calling obesity a disease—it helps legitimize the time we spend treating obesity and aids in getting paid for that time.

By "treating" he means telling people to diet/drug up/get mutilated. Either way, he agrees with fat activists, don't define weight as disease. "So what can we do?" he asks;

We need to recognize our limited, but important, role and remain nonjudgmental with our overweight and obese patients when they are unsuccessful at losing weight. It is easy to play the blame game, even in subtle ways. Recognizing that obesity is more of a social issue than a personal behavioral issue is a great place to start. Asking patients what they want to do and helping them set goals and find the resources to reach their goals can be helpful. Celebrating even small decreases in weight or increases in physical activity is always good medicine. Remember that a 5% to 10% weight loss has medically beneficial effects, especially for patients with diabetes.

Dude, that's what y'all want to get paid for!! And both 'overweight" and 'obese' are judgements.

In addition to recommendations (and referrals) to help patients reduce calories and increase exercise, we have other weight-loss tools to draw upon. Gastric bypass surgery is certainly effective—especially for obese patients with diabetes. And while medication is no replacement for proper diet and exercise, it is another option to consider. 

Ditto. D'oh!

..whether you consider obesity a disease, or not, we now have even more ways with which to combat it.

No you don't. You have the same old shit as ever, based on the same failed premise.

Whether we agree or not, things stay the same as long as 'obesity' is the frame. 

Do Nothing Culture

This is how its supposed to go, "'It looks like you're a lazy idiot': hoarders welcome medical classification".

A problem is identified-real or imagined.

A hoarding disorder is where someone acquires an excessive number of items and stores them in a chaotic manner, usually resulting in unmanageable amounts of clutter. The items can be of little or no monetary value.

It is named-"hoarding". It is medicalised-"hoarding disorder". It is categorized-mental illness.

It is sold to you as a means to get more positive attention from those around you.

The World Health Organisation this week classified hoarding as a medical disorder, in a move described by hoarders and psychiatrists as “extremely significant”.

Everyone's happy.

The subject is happy and grateful to be pathologised, medicalised, to have whatever distress they may or may have recognised and to transform it into playing the role of 'sick' person. It becomes more billable.  

No mention is made of swift means of arriving at a generalised resolution or means of cure. Another on the pile of "Do Nothing", by appearing to do something. No one cares, ultimately, none of these require proper resolution or cure as an absolute.

So hoarding disorder, drug addiction, anorexia etc., could all use proper efficient, effective, humane remedies, but they can appear to be solved without them, at least in some cases. Or to put it another way, partial resolutions will do.

Not only that, al these are actual mental imbalances, or mentally unbalancing, usually both. So, often times, this do nothing on the part of the person concerned is a symptom of what has a hold of them. E.g, the primary reason people who have anorexia nervosa wish to sever links with the cal res of wld, is the anorexia has gotten a hold of them.

Indeed, the desire to make this separation is a symptom that anorexia has advanced from proto- to actual anorexia. This feature of having certain elements of your nervous circuitry under the control of rogue elements is probably the cause of do nothing and is ergo a symptom. If it has got ahold of you, it doesn't want anything done about it.

The above model, if I can call it that, is model people again shuffling to put body mass into, well, 'obesity'. Which is far enough in the latter case, because it doesn't exist in anywhere but the heads of those who think it's a useful term.

'Obesity' is the name for centring wholly on weight on slimness and erasing the existence of bodies that are larger-without reference to slimness. The people this is projected in front of are pathologised. The enforced proto-anorexia is currently being systematised, in order to force what used to be left to the individual and the public.

You can see, it doesn't even fit the model on the terms dictated by the minds who are under the influence of this as any other neurotic. In this case, it's not the projected-in-front-of who are unbalanced, its those doing the projecting.

The former are the proxies for the latter's disordered mindset. In the usual model, the person concerned has got a real imbalance and is distressed-if they are, probably by the lack of any clear solution-the professional reaction is about coasting.

Fat people are being taught to 'identify' as sick, because weight in itself, doesn't make them so. That is never discussed. There is no discussion with this kind of imbalance as anyone who's had any kind of neurosis can attest. You can't argue with it, you always believe it in the end.

Thusly the same with those who have fatsuit Munchhausen's-by-proxy.

......also known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP), is a condition where a caregiver develops a long-term mental disorder of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behavior, leading to faulty perception, inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality and personal relationships into fantasy and delusion, and a sense of mental fragmentation. ....derived from the term Munchausen syndrome, a psychiatric factitious disorder wherein those affected feign disease, illness, or psychological trauma to draw attention, sympathy, or reassurance to themselves........in MSbP, the deception involves not themselves, but rather someone under the person's care.

How much of this is responsible for the lack of desire to find proper means of weight reversal is open to question. If a person was able to slim efficiently and effectively-which is what we signed up for-that would remove any need for the attentions of this mindwarp.......

Thin Women Are Not, And Never Have Been The Enemy

Dear fatphobes,

Kindly cease and desist from using thin bodies to attack fat ones, thanks.

I know you can do this with ease, seeing as you constantly tell us how much self-control you have.

And to clarify, when I say thin I mean thin, not slim-though they aren't the enemy either. Tbh, neither are you really, you're just messing yourself up in the head to the extent of entering your own special needs category.

Anybody who cannot recognise that a person cannot be 'disease' and the "host" of a disease that is themselves, because of defining humans as slim only, isn't entering the game with a full deck.

The notion that the kind of very slender usually very young women who appear on the catwalk harm impressionable gels by their appearance has never been mine for an instant. It has always been a convienient scapegoat and distraction for those who define humanness purely in terms of slimness.

I've never believed nor accepted the sight of a woman as the causal agent of anorexia or any other hunger response issue [yeah, I said that]. But even if it was the case that seeing a thin women triggered young girls to lose weight, proto-anorexia is the only option available. It's not far removed from saying a woman's appearance triggered a sexual assault on them or somone else. And that women's bodies should be covered/not appear to avoid such "provocation."

This from other women has always been largely mischevious, a way of getting back at women who are a size slim women often can't attain due to the punishing privation of the only route of lowering weight. 

That this should be the sole means of inducing weight loss, has been decided by, medical and health care professionals and by societies, acting under their direction, wishing to use proto-anorexia and forced labour to punish fat people and their bodies.

Punishing fat people, means punishing these young girls too. Supporting the former, is supporting the latter.

This is the major cause of revealing the anorexic susceptibility out there, spreading anorexia to become a prescence in demographics where it was largely absent.

Search it.

Anybody who doesn't mention this unequivocally, any time they mention 'eating disorders' or 'body image problems' is at best a lightweight-in the metaphorical sense- or a bullshitter and at worst, in active collusion with unearthing anorexia nervosa in as many people as possible.

Possibly a combination or all of them. 

The price paid for sentencing fat people to starvation and hard labour penance is mainly paid by them, but collateral damage of this is paid by the thinnest people, not least the always forgotten and ignored people who are battling illness and dying because they cannot retain sufficient weight to keep going. 

Medical doctors can go on the media all they want legitimising their eating/exercise disordered, proto-anorexia prescriptions all they want. And before any one tries to play on any pretence of their undivided saintliness on this issue, remember they are currently colluding with and pushing the  mutilation of healthy organs, for the aim of trying to make their favoured practise of dieting stick.

Relying on their politics of respectability-of the his versus her word variety, will only last so long for them. It will catch up with them eventually, hopefully, before too many more people are damaged by their mass sulky quack-ridden brainfart.

In the end, even if seeing a thin woman's body does make a young girl miss a meal, the burden cannot be placed on the often young woman who is often not much older than the young woman with the disorder, or her image.

The burden should be on efficient means of restoring hunger and a sense of balance to the ones suffering from the disorder. The only issue with thinness in the media is if the professional model or actor is under pressure to starve or in other ways abuse themselves to attain or retain and overly low weight for them.

Ceasefire On Your Phony War

"Britain is becoming a mascot for diabetes – it’s time to do something drastic about obesity". If Britain is becoming a mascot for stupid self-defeating behaviour-then wondering around all surprised after the fact, like a monkey who's lost its banana.

The war on obesity, which has not yet even been declared, will be won through a series of small victories and guerrilla skirmishes, just as it was against tobacco. 

How impressively butch. All reality will bow before you, no doubt. 

To your typical comparison of tobacco with fatsuity;


Both A and B, both the host and the 'disease' are is BMI 30+. As your hack-soul knows full well, there's no comparison between tobacco and the human body. It's about showing contempt.

Why that particular war metaphor though?

Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants, such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians, or irregulars, use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military.

A top down abuse of power is now a revolutionary insurgency against the odds?😵

Irregular warfare
...defined in US joint doctrine as “A violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant populations.

💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩

Even if this was the case, who has dictated things as they stand? As you can see in the diagram, your targets do not even appear in the term that you are using to attack them in your phony war! That obviously comes from the notion of a-slim person who has 'extra' that is with 'obesity' and is all about you.

You and your kind are in the driving seat. 

When a subject is not a study of you, negates everything you think, feel. say and do, when it doesn't know let alone respond to your needs, when it blocks even the most minor possibility of arming you with anything that will give you power or autonomy over your own body-It is not about you. It's about those writing the script.

 People like this, write the script, regardless of reality. When it comes to other people, they feel that entitled.

What folk like this want to continue with the current order where every BMI 30+ is a criminal who owes a debt to society that must be paid. That payment is a life sentence of futile diet 'n' exercise, aka starvation and hard labour. We all know, including op-ed, that this has failed, but it doesn't matter, it's about punishment above all else.

They're getting exactly what they want.

This fake war against civilians by the influential from elite classes, has been on for at least 40 years in its most recent incarnation. It never gets beyond inducing weight reduction using calorie restriction is defeated by the body's own self-regulation, because of the monstrous self-indulgence of the script writers. And their rejection of SCIENCE, in favour of turning "health" into a criminal justice model.

This is way worse than any climate change denial. Their failure and lies can be seen at all times. Climate change is not nearly so evident. 

The first line of this pile of tripe is, "You are what you eat, so the saying goes.". I'll see that twaddle and raise them an axiom, if the hypothesis doesn't match reality, change the hypothesis.

Don't change, nay mutilate bodies, change your approach, work with and use the body's own abilities. A proper physiologically honest grasp of how the body regulates itself, and means of resetting how much body mass the body sustains, is required in place of insisting people starve themselves.

How is it possible to hate science this much? Even right-wing christian conservatives don't feel this aversion. On the contrary, they've shown real respect for science in their some of their misguided attempts to reframe their holy books as filled with science. 

It's people like this who are truly anti-science. Anti-vaxxers aren't even on the same page of mess as them.

I'll put it to them in simple terms.

Either continue to do your punishment, or allow the science to be done-stop blocking it.

But you cannot turn your punishment into efficacy, no matter how much you mutilate and poison organs. And your increasingly deranged efforts to have your cake and eat it too will just cause massive penalties to be paid, and not by you, as usual.

Amputation(s)

One of the many things we've been taught during this 'war' against fatsuity is that an amputation is not an amputation if it is in service of trying to make calorie restriction induced weight-loss work. "NHS diabetic foot and toe amputations up 26%, Labour research claims".

Unusual to see modifiers "foot" and "toe" (why the latter isn't included in the former is anyone's guess). It had to though didn't it, because the war on fatsuits is pressing people to amputate their healthy stomachs, but is rather coy on the matter; "Offer weight loss surgery to diabetics"
What is bariatric surgery?

A range of techniques are used, but they are usually all based on the principle of surgically altering the digestive system so it takes less food and makes the patient feel fuller quicker after eating.

Ooh my giddy aunt. If that headline was written in the same fashion-

NHS diabetic foot and toe surgical alterations to bipedal bone structure, to save the patient from dying. 

Making the patient feel fuller quicker after eating and dying. You be the judge on which is and isn't appropriate use of amputation. "Weight loss surgery cuts diabetes risk in very obese", see how they snuck in "very" there? They don't offer it to only very, and verys become too very to be operated on. Best of all though perhaps, that should read;

"Amputation, cuts the risk of amputations". 😆

The National Health Service, which should be relabelled the National Punishment Enforcement Bureau, when it comes to targeted individuals, doesn't want to call amputation in the service of "feeling fuller quicker after eating" amputation. It wants to call it surgical alteration which isn't untrue.....

Incidentally, weight loss surgery/bariatric or treatment for fatsuittery should be called what it is (for), calorie restriction mutilation. It doesn't exist to save you, it exists to (try and) save your ability to starve yourself.

Nothing could express more a purported solution's unsuitability for the human body, than the body requires a "re-design" merely to put it into effect.

Hosed Down

I'm having a bit of a moment, right now, due a video on a propaganda technique here dubbed "Firehosing".

[Vox: Why obvious lies make great propaganda]

Vox's video refers to a Rand Corporation Report by Christopher Paul and Miriam Matthews, its point is about firing off such a powerful and constant stream of obvious lies-like a firehose-is a distinct technique. As opposed to the usual lying that tries to sound like the truth. Firehosers almost make a point of stream of conscious-lying.

The authors named for major characteristics of "Firehosing",

1. High Volume

2. Rapid, Continuous, and repetitive

3. No commitment to objective reality

4. No commitment to consistency

Highlighting the last two as the most definitive. 

They don't care that much about the truth, much of their propaganda is either completely false or has a kernel of truth.

Paul says he comes from a background where "...credibility is king and the truth will always win". I know that one. What is happening is not belief in the way we understand it. It's more, the people peddling this have credibility invested in them plus influence and power, everyone else is going along with it, so its okay. 

People know all this doesn't make any real sense. 

This doesn't mean though that continuing to go along with this day by day, year after year, decade after decade has not warped minds. We can see this with the current idea that mutilating millions of people-largely women so far- is perfectly reasonable alternative to changing what passes for your opinion. 

Imagine that instead of dealing with letting go of an assumption, you instead wished to remove the part of the brain that lets a person know you are lying and push for mass removal, to reduce the chances you'll meet anyone who'll give you the dissonance of truth. 

Not because that will work you understand, it'll buy you more time to continue lying for as long as possible. The brain comes to accommodate and adapt to this lying so it becomes increasingly numb to how stupid it sounds and how dishonest it is.

There's a bit where the presenter is illustrating this, using a-who ate my sandwich scenario. He says instead of lying and saying no, the sandwich stealer responds; "You didn't have a sandwich". Reminiscent of "You've never tried to lose weight/diet/get healthy", when it is actually quite easy to tell people have, not least by the change in attitudes people have developed towards eating and weight. 

Still, we're told, we haven't tried. Causing a split to occur between knowing what you've done, and having the feeling that you have done it. Something I didn't know could be separated. It is the norm for the latter to be absent. People feel they haven't done what they can tell you they've done. Taken seriously what they'll tell you they've taken seriously and tried, when they can tell you they've tried way too hard for way too long. 

Being willing to not be seen as credible is okay, how many times have you thought that about 'obesity' promoters? "Food addiction", "with obesity", and recently, the food industry employs scientists to enslave you with sugar...The latest is being a disease where you are both the disease and the "host" of the disease, which is you..... 

You don't have to be credible, when you have power.

What really got me about the video is not the main players under examination-Trump and Putin, or even the technique in and of  itself, weird though that may appear. What shook me is hearing the way it feels to be on the receiving end and what that does to you.

The person who really hit the nail on the head for me was Masha Gessen. 

They just create sort of this unmanageable volume of falsehood.  

She says telling and re-telling obvious lies isn't about persuasion-yes!!-it's about power. For real. The presenter explains the power play is,

.....asserting that they are not constrained by reality. That everything, even things that are totally obvious to us can be challenged.

Gessen goes on to say;

The way they lie makes the obviousness of the lie part of the power play. "Yes I know that you know that what I'm saying is absurd. And I assert my right to say whatever I want to whenever I want to"

This to me is what fat shaming really refers to. You are not really being shamed because you are being called fatty boom boom or even "unhealthy", but really, because you are outside the loop that can lie in this way.

That is your shame. You are powerless, you are weak, you are a victim. All you have is facts and truth. Really, your position is flipped, fat people telling the truth are branded lying, even though reality backs up what we're saying. There should be no argument against the failure of calorie restriction induced weight loss, or that the body regulates its own weight or that hunger is not emotion, but it makes little difference.

You are a "liar" because you are not telling the lies that have the power.

The usual response, to fact-check, or try to, when the people who produce the 'facts' are the ones lying, things get even trickier. At least people know Trump lies and others back up that observation, but what if virtually no-one ever backed that up most of the time and on the rare occasions they did, conditionally, sometimes overridingly so? Gessen again;

There's nothing so humiliating and disempowering as trying to prove the truth.

The presenter says; "It's kind of like a schoolyard bully, degrading you by forcing you to argue the obvious."

Exactly. Gessen;

And I think that's kind of how it feels like when we fact-check trump, it's sullying. 

Exactly. Exactly.  It is degrading to keep pointing out that people cannot be disease, and for that to be treated as an argument rather than an obvious fact.

You feel like you've engaged with something that actually shouldn't be a part of the public sphere.

Treemenduhs.

This is precisely how I feel about 'obesity' and its crusade. It shouldn't be part of anything to do with science, medicine, health or anything. The body should be studied as it is, not an idea projected onto it that's obviously wrong. No one should have any time for this sort of regression into obsolete notions.

So this very simple human assumption that you can know what's true, that assumption is taken away from you, you have to work for the truth. The hope is that you'll give up and get exhausted.

 In the case of health, that is the modus operandi. People laughed at the lie that alcoholism was a disease, but that didn't stop those peddling it. Now if you say anything else, people feel that's wrong somehow.

As it is with 'obesity', no matter what you or the public say, 'obesity' promoters will keep going, they'll keep promoting.

The ultimate purpose of firehosing is to rob concepts like facts and reality of their power. 

In the end Gessen says,

There is no truth and no lie. There is only positional warfare. Whoever has a better position. Whoever objectively has more power owns reality.

Absolutely.

The American Medical Association, The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Surgeons, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the American Urological Association, the Endocrine Society, the Obesity Society, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and by World Health Organization, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health. Finally, in 2015, the Nagoya Declaration identified ‘obesity disease’ as a pathological state caused by obesity and requiring clinical intervention 

This is the sort of thing you are dealing with. And they expect to prevail.

On Holliday Again

Here we go with the Tess Holliday Cosmo cover. The breakfast show panel consists of; the editor of the UK edition, Farrah Storr, co-hosts Susanna Reid and Piers Morgan, plus actress Tina Malone who was formerly 172lbs/78kgs heavier before having a gastrectomy [she was previously in the original "Shameless".]

The ahem "discussion" was pretty much as you'd expect. I can't be arsed to go into the ins and outs of it in minute detail, but basically, Morgan objected to TH being treated as a person, and not turned into any kind of cautionary tale, with no invasive warnings issued. He claimed this was not "responsible".

Storr was constantly put in the position of being goaded into accepting or denying "this isn't a healthy weight". Which is exactly what we are all supposed to do, assume our predestined positions, rather than ask what the heck is stopping scientists from finding out how to alter metabolic function. And why if its such an emergency, they are so languid about anything bar directly inciting this kind of to and fro, along with other theatrics of irrelevance.

In the meantime, they set about pretending to be a voice of "anti-stigma" and reason when they are the instigators and maintainers of a situation that likely wouldn't be happening if not for the interventions to block genuine progress.

'Obesity' cultists set all the terms, we know this because in the end, 'obesity' is their construct. Despite proclaiming a state of peril, any instinct to query the state of scientific enquiry and its lack of delivery is typically absent. As long as that is the case, 'obesity' promoters will settle for this, its a win for them.

[GMB discussing w/e 'obesity' peddlers tell them to]

As long as we are kept busy going at each other, we'll continue not to notice this, which is the object. 

What you'll also notice, if you need reminding is there is no difference between 'obesity' and a person. None. 

The person is the pathology, and the dis-ease is the person, and that is pretty much taken for granted by at least half the panel. At one point Malone referred to "embracing it" [her body] as the same as embracing a bottle of vodka or drugs. 

The historical precedent for defining people as disease is as a prelude to violence and genocide. As far as I know, it has no prior use as a health aid.

 

'Obesity' or Person?

"Tess Holliday's Cosmo cover sends an important body positivity message", reactions appear mixed, but in reality, whether folks insist its great or whether they insist it should not be because its "promoting obesity", *it ends in the same place*- note that means taking a picture of a woman's body. So those of you who follow the established idiocy of thin women cause me to be anorexia so must be banned, need to recognise the arguments they're trading in. Rather than assuming it must be right because it comes from the slimstream.

You know who you are.

Bopo vs. promotion is another example of non- debate, of the Manufacturing Consent kind.

They both amount to the same thing. Do nothing. 'Obesity' cultists want to (continue) to do nothing, by pretending CRIWL via diet, drug or mutilation is the only possible way-it obviously isn't- are saying the same thing as "body diversity".

I've never been here for do nothing. I know that as long as the science remains undone, 'obesity' cultists will always be able to revive their mess, any time there's a lull or people get bored with plastering a smile at the fat person, amidst a continual hurricane of lipogeddon meltdown.

I'm not here for another 10 centuries of this. The buck has to stop here, the hell these acting under the influence of this have planned is too awful for their limited minds to imagine.

Holliday herself mentioned that she wishes she was as accepting of herself 120lbs ago, before she had her first pregnancy, as she is now. 50 years of study apparently could do nothing to merely stop a fat person getting fatter. Whilst I understand the sense of plausibility you may feel on that-when you contemplate 'obesity' operatives, however, even they are not this incapable. 

If it wasn't for the fact that it was genuinely paradigm busting, these 'obesity' peddlers and their empty yapping sock puppets wouldn't be able to front. It's the lack of slimstream's need for science outside actual illness that builds the contextual surround for their continuous stream of falsehood.

I expect the likes of Piers Morgan to at last start contacting politicians and other persons of influence to advocate for proper science that produces something of value, instead of useless yet toxic and mutilating "obesity science", if they're so concerned.

*Edit*