Your Weight Takes Nothing From You, part II

The neurotic weight as identity premise is what the ob construct and its crusade rests on, if you copy it, you will end up doing the same thing-pathologising weight.

For some reason, people find this difficult to accept. They mis-attribute what is the product of being silenced, for absence of sufficient identifying with your weight. Fact is, IDying with your weight to the extent that is normal for many slimz is abnormal-they'd do well to reconsider. 

A few tweeters spotted the substitution of "thinness" for 'obesity' and complained about it, one in particular, @medicalinguist, nailed the point pretty well...

"Your thinness has taken so much from you" suggests that thin people are "defective" by default.

...for totally the wrong reasons😆. This is suggestive of how slim people know ob is trash and why, they're just going long with what's wrong.

An astute and sympathetic responder @nomilubin, explains the feelings behind this well,

As a thin person, I find it extremely painful to hear these realities. I don't want them to be true to the point where I can imagine denying them or diminishing them.

This is so on point, and generous, as I know many slim people can and will be-when fat people give them something to go on. It what's driving the professionals too who are abusing their professional sphere to enact this denying and diminishing.

It leads to a key question at the heart of this-what do lay people do when professionals who control and police everyone's understanding and perception of reality-go rogue?

The professionals engaged in this weight jazz, are as we speak trying to trade on an impression of the public as savages full of prejudices that need to be lanced by their enlightened selves, trying to absolve themselves of responsibility. This impression is possibly left by everything from civil rights struggles to scientific advances that challenge people's beliefs.

For some reason I cannot fathom fat activists keep getting on board with this line, positioning the white coats (doctors, when its actually all of them plus sundry sub-clinical types, along with the original quacktastic alt-med contingent) as merely influenced by contact with these lowly issue.

Hell no, it is them driving this, their stamp is all over it. Who decided BMI 30 meant anything? Your fat phobic mother? Who decided people would be deemed "the obese", until people was hyphenated to "obese-people", on-line mras? Which cretins are trying to get other bullshitters to say "with obesity" because it sounds virtue signally?

Why deny this?

The reason I make this point is what's happening doesn't make sense unless it is made clear that ob is a top-down effort and which particular group it is coming from. It's not the law or politics, its medics, researchers, scientists who are messing up.

That needs to be pointed out. 

No one has to confront anyone, but if you cannot tell the truth about who's poisoning the well, how can you stop it? If indeed people do want to put a stop to this mess. Another oddity is this over stating and understating at the same time.

On the one hand, we're oppressed-we aren't, what is really going on is more like "Learned helplessness",

American psychologist Martin Seligman initiated research on learned helplessness in 1967 at the University of Pennsylvania as an extension of his interest in depression. In Part 1 of this study, three groups of dogs were placed in harnesses. Group 1 dogs were simply put in a harnesses for a period of time and were later released. Groups 2 and 3 consisted of "yoked pairs". Dogs in Group 2 were given electric shocks at random times, which the dog could end by pressing a lever. Each dog in Group 3 was paired with a Group 2 dog; whenever a Group 2 dog got a shock, its paired dog in Group 3 got a shock of the same intensity and duration, but its lever did not stop the shock. To a dog in Group 3, it seemed that the shock ended at random, because it was his paired dog in Group 2 that was causing it to stop. Thus, for Group 3 dogs, the shock was "inescapable". 

We are like the group 3 dogs who act like we can't escape, when there isn't anything holding us other than this learned behaviour.

At the same time we suffer bias. Bias? That's when you favour red over yellow, not when you wish to starve people and mutilate their organs, that's malicious assault, that's iatrogenic. Since when do doctors make their 'bias' the subject of a phoney baloney 'science' and insist on "treating" a non-existent disease, i.e. assaulting and damaging health?

How to do self acceptance has already been discovered. Two examples, learning to embrace and acknowledge your own body and pointing out that-diets don't work.

None of these required any input from slim people, professionals, counsellors, dietitians or anyone else. They weren't about moaning about who is or isn't nice, they were about our feelings and our needs based on our histories.

The first is about restoring or even introducing a normal reaction to your body and your size, the latter was reality-testing.

Fat people need to learn that we have to dismantle the rubbish we've been taught, not so much internalisation as a single voice and mode of expression we were all taught. We have to unearth our own voice and that will not come from constructing a social justice frame that isn't really there.

Slim people will turn up for us, when we turn up for ourselves.

What's stopping us from pointing out that the professionals have failed? That we turned up for do it yourself, i.e. "personal responsibility"? What's stopping us from stating facts, barracking, bullying, insults, yes, I get that, but that's always been there. It didn't stop us from starting. It's we who keep stopping ourselves when we get any momentum.

People were told, if you jump on this "body positive" bandwagon, you will not be served by it. We were brushed off, because anything slim people do is where it's at. That warning turned out to be correct.

Finding our buried voices is what fat acceptance or w/e you wish to call it should be about. This is what "speak the truth to power" means. Our continued silence aides those who are doing us dirty. Only enter the ob fictionalisations, to lead trace a path from there to the truth, this is not a debate, this is (largely) fiction versus truth.

The Emperor's New Clothes

Before I get to part two of "Your weight takes nothing from you", I want to concentrate on re-visiting the fable of "The Emperor's New Clothes". It is a good way to grasp the weight mess regards who believes or doesn't believe what, why or whom.

I repeat what I said, there is nothing to believe. The truth is in plain sight. Millions of people have been told they must become slim, not "lose weight" actually become a slim person. Whatever else is going on is swimming around that. The upshot is the means given to people by the science/research/medical/HC establishment doesn't work, as well as being inherently pathological.

The primary activity of said establishment is to appear to rage against this failure, which is their own- as if it is the failure of their targets. In order it seems to get them to continue to keep repeating this failure, as if it reality isn't happening. 

This cannot continue. So the issue here is that this alternative to, the truth we can all see is being held in place by reputation of the establishment, aided and abetted by the refusal/inability of anyone/ group to consistently point to the truth and to reject focusing on the fiction being upheld.

How to focus on the facts has already been demonstrated by fat people/activists when they insisted on repeating the fact that "Diets don't work." This prompted attacks from all sides, mainly ad hominem, not to mention doubts within, but fat people kept at it, regardless.

The upshot of this is everyone has been forced to recognise this, whether they like it or not. Even if it means them starting a sentence with such as, "Of course dieting doesn't work....." before they tack back to acting like/insisting it does.

DDW for short, isn't enough to derail the crusade, but it has been forced to yield to that reality to some degree. If fat people did nothing but this, in response to any talk about weight, it would increase the pressure on those seeking to continue the lie.

The truth fight of crusaders is with human biology as it is, rather than as they wish it to be. Fat people are most caught in that crossfire, used to make it look less irrational. 

This is the basics of how to fight this crusade, or at least its lies. I'm not saying its all of it, but any less than this is something folks will have to explain. I don't give a damn how you feel about your size, pretty much every fat person should be able by now to point to and stick to the facts, pretty much at all times.

It doesn't matter whether you are desperate to exit fatness or to not. If you wish to be slim, you need the white coats to stop this fuckery, if you wish fatness to be a neutral descriptor/positive state, you need the same.

The crusade is shafting both those who wish to be slim and those who are indifferent or not interested. As well as blocking progress in other areas of metabolic function.

The story of "the Emperor's New Clothes" is about an exceptionally vain(glorious) fashionisto emperor, who becomes a career opportunity for a couple of ambitious grifters.

The two weavers promise him a set of clothes so fine and wonderful that only the great and good in society will be able to see it.

In a sense the highlighted is the white coated ones 'invisible', i.e. non-existing, alternative to truth. Fat people are told that we cannot see this alternative they call 'science', because we are unworthy, not because it isn't real. Effectively silencing and sidelining fat people from the common discoure. Whatever we say is wrong, so we can be utterly disregarded. That could be seen as upsetting, but we don't fit into the discourse others are having anyway.

They [the clothes] will be quite invisible to anyone who is stupid, incompetent or unworthy of their position in society.

The whole point of reaching a place of self-recognition/acceptance w/e is that we have either seen through this, or at least recognise the received 'wisdom' doesn't add up.

Such a set of clothes would be perfect for a great Emperor. They would suit his sense of self-importance, and their magical properties of invisibility, to the unworthy, would enable him to find out which of his ministers were unfit for their jobs. This is evident when the emperor says, "...and I could tell the wise men from the fools."

The emperor's fiction doesn't match the reality we can all see, only the worthy, everyone who is not fat, can see. 

When the Emperor finally walks out among his subjects in his non-existent finery, the crowds watch eagerly. They all want to see which of their friends or neighbours are so stupid that they cannot see the clothes. What actually happens, of course, is that none of them see any clothes. Still, no one says anything. Some are too embarrassed to tell the truth. They think that they must be too stupid to see the clothes. Perhaps others believe that to say anything derogatory would be to draw attention to the truth of the Emperor's own stupidity. Perhaps others simply do not wish to be the first to speak out with a contrary voice. 

This is about where we are with this weight foolishness. I don't want to wear it out, but we saw this the other week with a certain columnist, who knew the NHS was promoting crash dieting, but somehow could quite bring herself to believe this could be so, "Is an NHS-backed diet going to succeed when most others don’t?" The first line is,

Is a crash diet no longer considered a crash diet because it has been validated by medicine?

She knows the answer just as well as anyone else, a diet is a diet no matter who's backing it. But its hard to say in the face of the notion that it is unwise not to uphold white coat pretense.

If fat people are not the people to point to reality, then who? Complaining that others aren't is one thing, but not whilst you aren't yourself doing it. You don't even have to confront the white coated ones if you don't want. You simply have to call nakedness, nakedness, without equivocation or pretence.

Whether you argue with others or not, stick to reality. No matter how many times you get side-tracked, once you recognise you are drifting back to the fiction, stop yourself, then reset and repeat. Eventually, you will learn to stick with realism regardless of the pressure. Just like DDW.

Stick to your guns, until others realise at the very least that you will not be persuaded or coaxed back to supporting their fiction. Yes, it may not stop them as we see above, but what it will do is change you. And that has already proven to matter more than what others are or aren't doing.

If you screen out any bluff and bluster, you are likely to stop participating in someone else's folie de grandeur, at least make them do all that themselves. Let them sweat to maintain😅😏.

So, how does the fable end?

Only one small child, who is far too innocent of all this pretension and social convention, shouts out, "But he hasn't got anything on!" At first, the little boy's father tries to correct the boy, but gradually the news breaks out and everyone finally realises that they are not alone in their inability to see the clothes. Slowly, but surely, everybody finds that there is strength in numbers and they begin to admit there is nothing to see. Realizing how foolish they and the emperor have been, they begin to laugh. The Emperor cringes, but continues with the procession, because to turn back now would be to admit his own gullibility. Better to carry on thinking that he is the only one who has the wisdom to see the clothes than to admit ignorance. His courtiers, likewise, feel they have to continue to live the lie, so they dutifully follow their leader.

Don't let sympathy for the white-coated ones inhibit you. I have the utmost respect for many who wear the coat, so I say from a place of high regard, that this is proof that they're riding for a fall. That's a better description of real "tough love". 

Even if people continue to barrack you for dealing in realness, the truth will prevail. Will that be enough to stop the crusade?

We shall see.

Your Weight Takes Nothing From You

There I was struggling to get across exactly why the 'obesity' construct is a fail tern, that's damaged people and needs to be left to those who want it, when here comes this, "What Your Thinness Has Taken From You".

I haven't read it, my point is about the title. It's the exact same premise 'obesity' rests on. Which is, your size/mass/weight is somehow violating you.

This of course makes absolutely no sense, even as a metaphor.

Size, whether weight or mass measures the whole of you.

Weight is not the same as mass. Mass is a measure of how much stuff is in an object. Weight is a force acting on that stuff. Weight is the result of gravity. The Earth's gravity attracts objects towards the centre of the Earth and you feel forces like this as weight.

Size cannot at the same time be a separate abstract entity that's somehow attacking and degrading the quality of you. Exactly as in, "What your thinness takes from you." In case it need be said, neither thinness, slimness, inbetweenieness, nor fatness, takes absolutely duck fall from your essence. End of story.

This sort of mal-ideation tells us mostly about the teller, not the told upon. The former is feeling what they don't like about the subject and attributing it to their weight. If the oddness of this conclusion stands out better when used on the acceptably-weighted, then all this will not be in vain.

The difference between this instance and ob is the latter starts from a mind that can't cope with the reality of, a bigger person, it breaks down at slim and comes to a halt. Preferring to see big(ger) than they as, 'excess' thrown onto slim and somehow corrupting them-because everything is all about them, all the time. Or they die.

Just kidding, but that seems to be how they feel emotionally speaking. The appearance of bigger makes them feel sidelined, erased, so they erase in return.

These fee fees are then parlayed into becoming "disease", to make this seem like the issue is the other person, not they, oh no. This "science", is supposed to spare the blushes and make everyone feel better about it.

The fundamental question at the heart of this, is not so much of the, "Why does everybody hate fatz so much💔😭" kind, it's, what do you do when the well builders are poisoning the well? Who can stop those who usually correct themselves?

The last time I'm aware of a similar sort of thing being tried was when certain pathological homophobes tried to run the study of HIV/IDS into irrelevance so that gay men could just die. They were clocked and sent packing by gay people and allies-which included medical and HCPs by the way, in part because gay people were actually dying. That's the sort of thing that will rile even the most docile.

In the case of fatz, we are lucky, there is no actual disease to kill us. Problem is iatrogenesis, this fiction is being used to actually assault people and their bodies in various ways. Let's not forget, gastric mutilation takes bodies from being able to be fully nourished from food, to not being able to be.

Nor is it clear that their is informed consent or even consent at all, seeing as 'obesity' is a manufactured contrivance, unless they are aware of this, what is a person consenting to but fiction?

Utilitarian Hate: People Don't Really Really Hate Fat People

Our pre-FA default used to be to not take fat phobia and hatred seriously, now activists are deciding again that the opposite of this is to take it too seriously. The point is not our attitude to fatphobia, it's our attitude to our own experiences and defining those as they are, which will have to be outside the ob cult's framework.

Fat phobia is not at root a heartfelt reaction, it is strategy.

Strategy, A plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim. In addition, A strategy is a framework for making decisions about how you will play the game of business. 

For business read play the game of repressing other people's (and your own weight).

In a 2013 journal article, bioethicist Daniel Callahan argued for more stigma against fat people. “People don’t realize that they are obese or if they do realize it, it’s not enough to stir them to do anything about it,” he tells me. Shame helped him kick his cigarette habit, he argues, so it should work for obesity too.

Strategy. The most important thing about this essay-if you can find some way of accessing it, do-is it explains very well how the whole white coat brigade's weight strategy works. Hate-away-other people's-weight.

Other physicians sincerely believe that shaming fat people is the best way to motivate them to lose weight.

Strategy. There's nothing remotely sincere about it.

“It’s the last area of medicine where we prescribe tough love,” says Mayo Clinic researcher Sean Phelan. 

Strategy. Love of any kind is not a "prescription".

If you know you are not anorexic, yet are being pushed down that route. If you know you are not sick, but are being pushed to pretend you are, why would the fact of white coat professionals using the whipping up of prejudice as a tool and strategy for "weight management" be so beyond either your own or other people's perception?

Why does the need to take all this in an overly literal way keep coming back like a bad smell? What is it supposed to achieve?

Hatred of fat people is mostly falsified performance. Fat phobia is a trained response. That doesn't make it not disturbing, after all, we know that though acting is false, it can still affect us.

Going back to bioethicist Daniel Callahan, hatred of fatness is deemed ethical behaviour. A phobic level response is deemed the correct one. Anything less is deemed backsliding or even corrupt, i.e. "promoting obesity". I made this point more recently when this desire to take this behaviour as if it was somehow a natural response,

"I posted a link on Twitter to a 1969 interview with Jim Morrison, in which he said, “Fat is beautiful.” Minutes after posting the link, a friend responded angrily that being fat is unhealthy because it causes high blood pressure and other health problems. This response, I told the audience, is an example of what I call “Fat Derangement Syndrome,” where even people who consider themselves to be open-minded, critical thinkers become outraged if fat is spoken about in any positive way. "
"Fat Derangement Syndrome" is 'obesity'. It's the applied vigilante style, permanent chorus of disapproval, which is supposed to trigger feelings of unwellbeing in fat people. This can be pointed to as the expression of the pathology of 'obesity'/caused by 'obesity'.

That feeling that this is ethical is true internalisation. The feeling that it is somehow wrong not to harass fat people with (increasingly) health-trolling. It is interesting that mainstream activist types and cult promoters love to present the notion that this contrived barracking is deep feeling, 

There’s a grim caveman logic to our nastiness toward fat people. “We’re attuned to bodies that look different,” says Janet Tomiyama, a stigma researcher at UCLA. “In our evolutionary past, that might have meant disease risk and been seen as a threat to your tribe.” These biological breadcrumbs help explain why stigma begins so early. Kids as young as 3 describe their larger classmates with words like “mean,” “stupid” and “lazy.
........the most hard-wired problem of all: Our shitty attitudes toward fat people.

Do you see the same notion that constant pile-ons, health-trolling, hatred, and fat phobia are so natural even fighting with all our might does nothing? Not only that though remember, 'obesity' is fake, it has to be created. If people just let fat people be, we would not simply decide to make ourselves unhappy, tired and defeated for no reason.

It's also a psychological assault to manufacture an imagined pathological state called 'obesity'.

If this organised rancour, this weaponised "peer pressure" is so natural, why is it supported by an industry spitting out "studies" on how fat people are costly parasites draining everyone else dry? Why the creation and ceasless stoking of grievance?

There are plenty of gay fat people out there. How many of you have experienced those moments of extreme tension when there's a palpable threat to your life?

How many people have been beaten to death purely because they are fat? Now consider, what percentage of people wouldn't dream of harming a gay person for their mere existence? But can you find one person who doesn't agree fat people should be constantly harassed?

So why aren't fat bodies piling up in hospitals from life-threatening beatdowns?

The pain of being fat is more emotional attrition. It's the fear of being exposed, humiliated, piled-on, cornered, attacked verbally. The only likely exception to this is in healthcare settings, that's the only place where some fat people actually experience the sort of life threatening assault.

Recently I saw some of a programme which featured a young fat woman who was stuck, under pressure by the usual circling of the white coats. She was told she should be lined up for mutilation, that girl howled like a wolf. 

It's clear this is a topdown thing, no matter how much activists collude with their 'betters' to pretend otherwise. To gloam onto the notion that ordinary folks are just savages. That seems to be a class thing and its a little bit shocking how much bourgie fat activists want to go with this.

It's the other way around, people have been told they're supposed to behave towards fat people, by those who administer and influence power. They're doing what they're told. Look at Barbara Ellen the other week, not being able to unequivocally state the bountifully obvious fact of medics promoting starvation dieting.

People are scared not to fall in line. They're becoming like we . Suggesting the fear some of us felt and still feel is a product of being an unquestioning vessel for someone else's malevolent thoughts.

Now isn't that a doozy?

Something about being a container, someone else's tool and puppet shrinks your courage. 

The idea of the ob cult has always been, citizens can and should endeavour to control or influence people's weight from the outside in, through abuse and now trolling permanently unsettling them, making it unpleasant to merely exist. This will shove them into escaping to slimness as fast as they can, by any means you force them down, no matter how painful. Given that means is starvation,  the pain of being needs to outrank the pain of that. 

The complaining about "promoting obesity" happens whenever health trolling is felt to be lacking. Management has to be constant. It is after all supposed to be replacing the functioning of your own body.

It's in the nature of people that when they perform a response, feeling, emotion, notion repeatedly with enough vigour, it becomes more than mere performance. In other words, their attempt to re-size our weight from the outside has reshaped their minds and their emotional landscape. 

So no, people don't really, really hate fat people, they're performing their duty, like the good little boys and girls that they are. Just as we used to do with our quest to be slim.


You aren't arguing with their feelings, your arguing with their desire to do what they've been told is the right thing.

How To Deal With Gaslighting - Ariel Leve

Ariel Leve speaks here about the instinctive survival tactics she used to survive an abusive gaslighting mother. She speaks of a woman who had no boundaries and could not control her moods.  How many times have I said that crusaders are totally out of control?

Some of what she says hits home hard.

"Everything is upside down. Reality is being cancelled, nothing means anything." 

She defines gaslighting as when someone manipulates you into questioning your own sanity. I'd add health to that-defined though that is by Munchausens-by-Proxy. In case that doesn't make sense to anyone. 'Obesity' is a largely meaningless construct now being used to pretend disease that doesn't exist. That is the features of the above disorder and no one has to accept this, unless they wish to enter into this fiction.

It wasn't just that my reality was cancelled, but my perceptions of reality were overwritten. and one of the most incidious things about gaslighting is the denial of reality. Being denied what you have seen with your own eyes and you know to be true. Being denied an experience that you have had and you know is real. 

And, something I've often felt,

For me, the erasure of the abuse was worse than the abuse.

Remember you Are not the one(s) with the problem. 

It can make you crazy, but you are not crazy. 

Ariel Leve

The lessons are;

1. Remain Defiant

Don't give up or compromise your experiences and/or what you know to be true. Don't try to meet the gaslighter halfway. If the gap between reality and their stories is wide. Let it be, stop trying to close or reconcile it by bending the truth. Women especially are rooted to a performance of the latter to an absurd degree. You are not Gandhi, give it up.

2. Recognise there will never be accountability

The miscreants concerned will never accept accountability for what they have done and what they are doing to you. Cultists could very easily begin to make amends by telling the truth and sticking with it. They chose not to. 

3.  Let Go of the Wish for Them to be Different

Stop trying to make the wrongdoer be different. That's not your responsibility-it will drain you dry and leave you hollow. Instead, change your reaction to and estimation of them [even if only on this matter].

4.  Develop a Healthy Detachment

Distance yourself from cultists. Learn that there are two worlds - reality and the world of the abuser. You have to make a choice. Don't try to enter the abuser's world assuming they've made a space for you there because they're using terms like; "science, treatment, medicine or health". They haven't.

Why I Don't Have a "Relationship with Food"

The current reign of the diet deranged means a lot of their garbage jargon is being increasingly normalised, foisted on the unwary and the uninterested. One piece of empty phraseology that's achingly impressed with itself is "relationship with food", prefaced by such as "Your" or "What's your?" and the like.

To clear away any potential ambiguity.

I. Do. Not. Have. A. Relationship. With. Food: Full Stop.

Given the only people who appear to have less indifference to the word "NO", usually have to serve time if convicted. I'm going to condescend a few words to explain why folks need to miss me [and I've little doubt plenty others] with this one.

My idea of a relationship, and I'm sure most people's, is based on reciprocity. Meaning you can only have a real relationship with a living entity that has an inner life or consciousness. In other words a sentient being who can return or decline  (or indeed instigate) self-directed connection with your good self.

That doesn't have to be human, can be other animals of all types, as long as that creature is capable of responding to your attentions in some meaningful and measurable way.

Yes, a person might say; "Look how s/he goes" about a boat or car or whatever. But we all know that's just some anthropomorphising jazz. You cannot have a relationship with something that isn't alive or doesn't have some kind of neural structure.

If you do not have that, you are effectively engaging in what used to be termed, "mental masturbation". In other words, you are playing with yourself, your gratification depending on the imaginary device of projecting your own feelings onto an object.

s a device its fine, its when you start acting like you do not know this is not going on in your own mind. That said object is actually interacting with you in the real. The ventriloquist's dummy coming to life is always creepier than a talking doll.

This is perhaps another case of a verb "relate" turning into a noun "relationship" without recognising they aren't interchangeable. You can relate to someone without being in or having a relationship with said person.

You are never having a relationship with an object.

Yes, a person might say, "There s/he goes" about a car or a boat, but that's largely a self-amused reference to the amount of effort and or time the person has invested in said object. 

Cognitive snaggles of this kind torment stalkers and other miscreants d'amour. Feelings of sufficient ardour can leave the sense that this grand feeling must somehow be returned.The notable thing about sex pests is they are almost always acting  on this premise. Often refusing at first to believe the object of their affections could be oblivious to their affections.

The first step in their come down is usually acknowledging that their feelings are theirs and theirs alone. 

We've all fallen for this feeling in some way or t'other, we get over it, becoming aware that others think they're having a relationship with us-that they aren't having. We too realise we may well be in that position with others.

We have; ideas, experiences, myths, legends, tales, memories, associations even dreams about and around food, that's inevitable. Examining, altering, dropping them is a worthwhile notion. It doesn't require this infantilising nomenclature.

Women can have thoughts and ideas, we don't have to be treated, nor treat ourselves as infants to do an inventory of them.

Stop babytalking yourselves and other women and for goodness sake men, do not go down a rabbithole you have thus far escaped.

Being Beasty

Forcing perceptions, experiences, actions, results and other reality into the cult commandments has this effect, "How to avoid losing your memory in the digital age",

With Google taking the place of memory, many worry that a vital faculty is eroding.

What is assumed to be created by cyberspace is merely a(nother) example of said problem. Instead of goo-goo, read being the ob construct script.

I call it being an obot. The non-existent "food addiction" is an example of people making their experience fit the script. Their truth feels like the impostor. All realness is for them located with the cultists giving them orders. At its most extreme it becomes a kind of senility, which is pertinent given cultists continue to claim their construct is related to dementia. 

Regardless of size, each person has to decide whether they wish to be an obot or to retain their own minds.

"Is the NHS-backed diet going to succeed when most others don't?" The reference is to re-emergence of starvation or VLCD, 800 calorie a day soups 'n' shakes diet. It's being sprung on diabetics, by people with proxy-anorexia, on account of potential desperation to temper their condition. Ob was supposed to fulfil this role, but is floundering, on account of its evident falseness.

Not that there isn't an intent to  use this to starve off weight too, the acceptability of stomach amputation to achieve starvation is probably what has enabled both to be brought back.

Research, Medical and healthcare professionals, along with the rest of the white coated professions have always been the instigators and/or supporters of the starving of fat people and anyone who wishes to lose weight. The famous 1959 Stunkard/Maclaren-Hume study will tell you that. Go back further, centuries into history and you'll find the same ideas about torturing fat bodies.

Over the centuries, suggested strategies for losing weight have included bitter tonics, bleeding, sea air, amphetamines, Turkish baths, tapeworms, purgatives, low-fat diets, high-fat diets, cinnamon, more sleep, less sleep, and the “vigorous massage of the body with pea-flour.” The Roman emperor Aurelian advised rubbing cloth over body fat to get rid of it....In 1954, a Swedish doctor decided to bypass segments of dogs’ intestinal tracts. He hoped to curtail the time and space that the body had to absorb calories. The animals subsequently lost weight, and a research doctor observed, “This questionable method of controlling obesity will have the necessary experimental foundation.”

Nor is there anything new about being supervised by medics whilst starving, the 1959 study was prompted by the failure of those under the supervision of the study's authors.

Barbara Ellen knows the truth-look at the title of her piece, but, she too is wrestling with the surround pressing minds to force what they know into the ob lie mincer. A VLCD is the exactly the same whoever is pushing it. The same doctors warned us off for years, when they'd led to one too many injuries and deaths.

The slimming industry has faded before. The roaring twenties created conditions for commercialised slimming, that died down and came back in the 1960s, when Jean Nidetch came up with weight watchers.

All the while doctors where not only the contrivers and peddlers of all major imprints of eat less/move more, they routinely funnelled their patients to the slimming industry, not seeing it as their business.

It came crashing to earth some time around the 1990s, as people noticed they weren't getting any slimmer despite the efforts they were putting forth. Medics again stepped in to salvage it - health became the overriding emphasis to get people to keep repeating diet failure. Avoidance of death rather than other motives became the excuse.

Currently, the slimming industry is moving away from obvious endorsement of starvation, following the lifestyle line-which wasn't theirs either. Even fat people who had wanted to be slim at any costs learnt it is possible to exhaust your desire for something, if the obstacle in its way is too insurmountable.

Public awareness is the real motor for pushing starvation back into the medical sphere, to try and use that to force people to repeat their failure,

the NHS inadvertently endorsed crash dieting, lending medical authority to something that for so many leads to unsupervised, self-sabotaging, soul-destroying yo-yoing? I’d love to learn in, say, five to 10 years’ time, that this plan to reduce the numbers of British diabetics has proved wildly successful. Sadly, the continuing dominance of the global diet industry suggests otherwise.

Its direct not inadvertent, nor does anyone need to sabotage even if they wanted to, dieting fails on its own, it's just the wrong tactic. Try to stay up late by will and the urge to sleep will creep through your body, until it overtakes your body. 

Though drugs and mutilation are being added to the weight loss mix, it's unlikely to reverse weight much if at all. Diabetes will probably continue to increase. Incidentally, fatty viscera is associated with weight rebound and triggering diabetes.

Though the evidence is not conclusive-to my knowledge-it is serious enough to warrant settling once and for all. I'm talking of a real standard of evidence, not "seemingly mainly prompted by the results of a rather small trial from a year ago." This is honestly something I've only seen in this area, it is flagrantly unprofessional.

There are at least two pathways, one, the exhaustion of the glucose receptors that tends to occur in the early stage of a CRIWL effort-sometimes referred to as the "water weight" phase and the inducement of metabolic conservation, similar to aspects of hibernation in other mammals.

This "metabolic depression", an excellent way of putting it by the way, is also implicated as a trigger of fatty build up in the viscera;

The NHS plans to help people shed the fat that builds up around internal organs..

Visceral fat is an inherent feature of a rare condition called lipodystrophy. People with it have that and other metabolic problems on an unparallelled level and extent to the average target of the crusade. 

He* was interested in insulin resistance, the cause of Type 2 diabetes, and had assumed it resulted from obesity. But people with lipodystrophy had the most severe insulin resistance he had ever seen, and they were far from obese.

[*Dr. Simeon Taylor, who was the chief of the diabetes branch at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases]

The pioneering treatment for this turned out to be a discovery of a metabolic feature, Leptin. Discovered under the banner of 'obesity' yes, but dealing with physiological function, as it is. Leptin is a chemical made by the human body. Fat people are said-in the main-to have an abundance of it.

If the most effective reverser of fatty viscera is activating and altering the settings of metabolic features, usually built into the body, then it is more evidence of the body itself as the primary manager of its own metabolic function, which includes weight. Ditto metabolic snafus.

It's a question of accessing those properly and for some reason, the white-coated ones have never really wanted this. 

If we the public had not become so pitifully craven in an increasingly feudalistic era, we might realise this is a rare instance of the professionals caught slipping in a way that can be clearly seen by all.

By rights, this should be the moment when they encounter the humbling they've been way too happy to enjoy at our expense. Time and again, their discoveries have challenged and broken some of our most sacred and preciously held beliefs about ourselves and the ways we live. Shaking collective and individual awareness to its core.

We've had to wear it whilst they've mocked us with lofty disdain.

Now its their turn. 

For some reason, they cannot get over the failure of starving people, allowing fanatical failed anorexic dietitians et al to have their way with the unwary, whilst the more rational stand in the background allowing and enabling them. It's time for the public, for the lay(wo)man to laugh and point.

To give the white coats a massive well deserved wedgie. Believe me when I say, they need it. Though they'll object, nothing proves this more than their deranged psychotic breakdown over people's size.

In the end it boils down to a test of character. The Emperors are buck naked, with their bits swinging before our eyes.  How many of us have the self possession to be that little boy who points this out, refusing to permit ridicule, theirs or their tools to stop us?

On this one, balls in your court Barbara and you are on your own together with the rest of us who cannot pretend we don't know better. Sadly for now, this seems to be too little comfort.

Prove me wrong.