Politics

Well well well, there's me doodling on twitter and look what I found-from a side route. "Anorectic drugs: use in general practice" From, wait for it, 1976, nevermind 'obesity' this and that from the 1990's. The so called "obesity' spike" as it was called was predicted from the mid-70's, as I've repeatedly stated before it was said to have occurred, in about 1979.

And hasn't the slimming industry done a sterling "preventative" job of preventativating 'obesity'? Let's hava blast in the past;

The treatment of obesity is one of the major measures available today in the field of preventive medicine. In particular, the coronary epidemic of Western civilisation would be halted, and most cases of maturity-onset diabetes prevented, if obesity were to be treated effectively.

Yes, yes unicorns will fart rainbows, cancer and all other health problems will be solved if we can just "treat" a body mass of 30+, and not the kind of treat you like. At the same time, there's a certain sobriety to D. Craddock's abstract.

Anorectic drugs act mainly on the satiety centre in the hypothalamus to produce anorexia.

Satiety centre? That sort of talk has come back as new hasn't it? This time its just the brain. To produce anorexia eh? Possibly referring to the absence of hunger, which is the literal meaning of anorexia. The direction being the relationship between hunger and intake.

No 'lifestyle' bollox, no emo-fee fee shit, do you know what some twerp said the other week? Fatz eat to "numb our feelings", as an Irvine Welsh character might say, gittayfuq. Notice how our friend talks about the way the body actually functions, in '76, are you telling me "science" has forgotten about the endocrine system's interaction with the human nervous system? Or vice versa.

Not only that though;

Most of the drugs are related directly or indirectly to amphetamine and in addition act by increasing general physical activity.  

The urge to be active can also be increased through neural manipulation, like not being pressed into the total conviction that you're the literal representation of physical ineptitude. Not that I'm a fan of drugs, certainly not speed-this makes you wonder how many fat people have been subjected to diet drugs and what if any effect this may have had. The principle is that we need to learn how to use our system(s) better.

Certainly though, attacking and demoralising people isn't the way to increase the urge to move.

There is a direct relationship between the way we use our minds, imagination and our neural structures, we can use that as a launch pad to learn to alter our function using our own mind. But not with this crude circle of exortation.

This is somewhat of a testament to the way this quack crusade has gotten beyond any real urge to merely slenderise and is about something else entirely. It's become an outlet for the exercise of power. In other words, it is highly politicised and that's what its about. Politics.

Finesse Fail

Clarifying something I touched on in "Do Nothing Culture", breaking the phenomena into 3 sections makes it easier to reference, recognise and discuss.

1. Represents the Solution. 
2. Represents the Focal Point. 
3. Represents the Result.

Number 1. The Solution, refers to the method being applied to resolve; Number 2. The Focal Point. Number 3. the Result is the outcome of applying number 1 to number 2.

The "Do Nothing" I was referencing is when the proposed "solution" is more important than the actual result of applying it to no.2 the focal point. The result, in the case of failure, partial or total, has to be finessed. That is, made to look as if it hasn't failed.

Usually by diverting attention back to the focal point, redefining it in terms of the result. For example, insisting that it is disease ["call for obesity to be reclassified as disease", "The AMA declared alcoholism was an illness in 1956", "Disease Model of addiction"] or a very serious complex disease "obesity: a chronic relapsing disease* process". Either or alongside this, there tends to be the conveyance of a message that, the this is how things are supposed to be or there's no alternative to no.1. 

The sticking point with the solution is often cultural in nature, whether it's the kind of healing disciplines available, or some idea in the society at large of what the focal point signifies, or how to treat it. For example, no.1 can be more of a punishment, or test or rite of passage that must be negotiated, regardless of practicalities.

The FF tactic tends to be going strongest in fields that do not study an objectively material subject. For example, mental health, psychiatry, psychology study the mind, which is a construct, not say, a distinct organ or system.

The imperative behind FF is usually to shore up number 1 as a viable solution, to keep it in play.

Finesse fail differs from the scientific method, as that tends to centre around through investigation of the focal point, number 2, without fear or favour. This means solutions tend to arise out of observations gleaned from this. When the solution is applied, the results feedback into correcting, altering, jettisoning, the solution. Progress is through this self-correction.

Funnily enough, fat people have also been conditioned into such kind of rigour, in the sense that we held ourselves and are held to that account for the outcome of applying the solution to the focal point. The failure of dieting was regarded as our failure to spare dieting and keep it in play.

Finesse Fail leads to an open-ended cycle of repetition of the said 'solution', this repetition becomes a way of life or "lifestyle", an identity even, where those repeating can claim to be "in recovery" until they age out of it usually in middle age. "Most people with addiction simply grow out of it",

The idea that addiction is typically a chronic, progressive disease* that requires treatment is false, the evidence shows. Yet the ‘ageing out’ experience of the majority is ignored by treatment providers and journalists.

Time can deliver some finesse of its own.

*💩