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.
No comments:
Post a Comment