The Problem is not Their Illusion, It is Your Dis-illusion

It's a strange feeling when a statement prima facie has merit, yet.... knowing from that will flow only horseshit. "'Fatphobia' and 'fat activism' are helping no one", in terms of overturning quackery in favour of science, that has some truth, however, what follows confirms suspicions,

In my late teens and early twenties this idea of 'combatting fatphobia' became prominent on the left — what did listening to this nonsense get me? Type two diabetes

So, not due to you being on course for that diagnosis, with no real means to alter that trajectory then? I've never met a group of people in my life, who are so totally about insisting the way people talk about this is the issue, rather than the state of the science and the lack of it producing effective means doing something about it. 

It's beyond a joke now or bizarre and is entering into a territory above my intellectual pay grade. It is either the rank insanity of brainwashing, cynicism or both.

This nonsense could have been written by any template fascist tool, give or take a few" socialisms" thrown in here and "capitalisms" thrown in there.

Times have changed, the Morning Star used to be the Communist Party of Great Britain's paper of record. A look at the bottom of the article tells you everything you need to know, "Tom Flanagan is communications and media officer for Scottish Young Labour."

Well there you go. 

The Labour Party, the clowns who just threw the last election-when they didn't even need to bother-and expect to own the vote of anyone remotely Left of Ghenghis Khan, whilst droning on about "reaching out of your comfort zone".

As is usual with 'obesity' promoting clowns, he drops the usual massive clangers-along with the relatively more minor ones. These people are so unchallenged, they don't have to try. One, makes absolutely no mention of science needing to be used to understand how to alter metabolic function and its outcomes, Two asserting that the Left gets it. Three, that they came a cropper health wise due to ceasing to pathologise their body. Four, acts as if CRIWL is fit for purpose and not a pathology in itself.

Fashioning this typically, as a 'debate' between doing or not doing it, rather than finding a method that does what it is supposed to do is not the stance of anyone who's explored self acceptance with any real thought. It's not an opinion, it's a shift in your internal consciousness. It should change your view about a lot of things and give insight.

The phoney debate posture, is the stance of every fatphobe and yes, fat phobia, despite being a neologism is a thing, it is the learned and/or trained hysterical response to fatness. One of the earliest things a lot of fat people do when they are getting done with inhabiting other people's psychotic delusions is to decompress their learned reaction to their own bodies.

I remember doing this myself, years ago. I looked at myself in the mirror, repeatedly, over months, until I no longer responded with the learned revulsion I'd cherished

The opposite of fat phobia is how we look at slim people. When we see a person  who is slim, we see a person, not a pathology. If they are well, they are well, if they are sick, they are afflicted by something, they are not themselves the affliction.

At one point he says, 

Imagine we dealt with any other disease this way?

He's talking about diabetes, so yes, but overall, imagine we treated any aim scientific or otherwise this way. This is a problem, so we aren't just going to solve it, instead, we're just going to keep telling everyone how bad this is, and promote a illusion of  a solution that has failed. By using every lever to press people to keep up an endless cycle of this non-solution, we will somehow, bring reality to its knees.

Imagine that.

Imagine, insisting the problem is not this whole non-strategy and its fail "solution" but people pointing out that the reality of its failure.

In other words, the problem is not the illusion, but the disillusion.

He cannot grasp for himself-because no one has told him-that when you have a kerfuffle like this about something that started off as a simple question of physiological function-how do we reset the body's weight regulation-you have to look at the science that should be at the heart of any question of human biology and ask, why are the professionals making such a mess of this?

When investigating any matter of physiology, one looks to the science to explain and understand what is going on. If that leads to such a lack of clarity and more specifically action that demonstrates grasp, then you know that is the problem, not those it is aimed at.

The fact that this could have been written by anyone in any UK party, is a statement of exactly where UK politics is.

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?

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*

Indivisible

The current school of thought droning on about how people have never been so divided tend not to bother with no disagreement but one or other parties insist there is/are.

Ad hominem-literally, to the man or person.

Everybody signed on to slim down or become slimmer under their own steam. Nobody disagreed. The disagreement came when the results of a particularly singular method were deemed biologically (and politically) incorrect.

 This is the major sticking point, not simply quarrelling with biology, but blocking the proper use of biological function.

Currently George Monbiot "We’re in a new age of obesity. How did it happen? You’d be surprised" et al are saying;

.......food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defences, including through the use of subliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance.

Meaning, we have the capacity to strengthen our natural appetite control mechanisms, build up our defences against them being breached, can use psychology to trick ourselves into eating less than we need, and to use the latest neuroscience findings to triumph in leaving our resistance untroubled.

By reversing the effects purportedly achieved by Industrial Food.

The great thing about using the same mechanics to reverse his assertions is this will either uphold them or not. Which is science's usual starting point. Be sure and mention this to your medic or otherwise healthcare professional, sundry fat phobes and such.

Metabolism can be manipulated using non-drug means and Industrial Food knows all about it, according to George Monbiot. Call him.

He also mentions using "subliminal scents" to alter metabolic settings. I myself have said use of light (and probably darkness, separately and in concert) should be tried as a means to alter metabolic function via the eyes, brain and ergo neuro-endocrine glands.

Starvation and drugs are not simply too crude to do this in the right way, they are irrelevant and they poison the body as collateral damage. Plus surgery, is just violent assault. 

Roxane Gay recently reminded us of how far back this rage against the body goes with the case of Sancho I (935-966),

Sancho would....have to travel to Cordova to undergo the slimming treatment; First of all, the physician shut Sancho up in a room, where he lay on a bed with his feet and hands tied. He only left his captivity to take long walks during which he was pulled with ropes by slaves, while leaning on an assistant. When the exercise was over, Sancho was obliged to take endless steam baths.... To prevent food intake, Hasday ordered that Sancho's mouth be sewn up, with only a small opening being left so that with the aid of a straw he could sip liquids (“Hebrew herbs”), which gave him continuous diarrhea. It appears that Sancho was only fed fluids throughout his stay at Cordova, receiving daily seven infusions combining salt water, orange-flower water, water boiled with vegetables, and fruit. These very probably contained theriac, a drug consisting of a variable number of ingredients, sometimes more than 70, including opium. 

Starvation, forced labour and drugs and even some mutilation, albeit reversible, unlike the kind currently being promoted by the likes of Monbiot.

Why do 'obesity' peddlers insist on framing this as a whodunnit? How about they try whogivesafuq?

I saw a photo of myself only a few weeks ago, as a preteen already diet veteran. You would have had trouble picking me out of the photo, on the grounds of body mass. I don't know why slim people never listen to what they project onto us, as if this by definition excludes them, "Normalisation of Plus Size etc.,". If not being able to notice size fattened, Monbiot himself would be a target of his own cultism.

And if dieting had worked, I would never have been one myself. That's how it happened George. I feel like Kano, I lived it.

Cults tend to degenerate into doom laden paranoia. Self correction comes hard to them. Their articles of faith do not engage critical faculties. Round and round and round circling the same themes, tightening all the time, until there's a massive shoot out with the FBI or some such.

Sorry old bean, some of us got off that merry-go-round a long time ago.

Sated

This "Insatiable" trailer ruckus gives us an opportunity to look at  'obesity' really is about.

....the main character, Patty, is ....Debby Ryan wearing a fat suit.
In the trailer, an overweight Ryan (wearing a prosthetic fat suit)

That split between a (slim) person inside a fat suit is the 'obesity' construct. The entreaty heard across the globe-'obesity' is bad for you, requires a "you" that is separate from 'obesity'. The "you" is a slim person "living in a fat body".

It's non-anatomical take on a fat(ter) person's body, through the eyes of someone that isn't, but is trying to conceptualise it, from the outside.

Before we were familiar with the notion of our bodies as an arrangement of self-regenerating parts. The brainfart of imagining a person ensconced in fat, rather than a body that is simply bigger means there is a lack of separation found in Munchausen's-by-Proxy, when a carer uses someone else to be the vehicle for them to falsify illness.

Think Eminem's lines about being made to believe he was sick when he wasn't in "Cleaning out my closet".

'Obesity' is the stigma-not stigmatised as promoters of it are currently trying to pretend to salvage their dead conceit. That which is forbidden is taboo. Being substituted means you don't appear.

Incidentally, prosthesis; "an artificial device that replaces a missing body part".

The target is sci-fi but real people have become fodder for drugs and mutilation, to the extent that an NAFLD crisis is cheerfully being predicted-for when even more aggressive drug pushing is in play.  How coy of them not to mention the liver and kidney failure that accompanies being treated as a drug silo.

All blamed on 'obesity' of course, a biological non-entity.

The drive to define people as slim person in fat suit is not hatred of fat people, it's never losing the reflected image of slimness, eerily like the myth of "Narcissus". A fat person coming into view interrupts that reflected/reflection of slimness. That must be kept intact at all times, unlike fat bodies.

Antipathy is both reaction and facilitator of force. What it doesn't explain is insisting on a means that cannot deliver such a universality of reflection. And appearing enraged by this, even whilst continuing to rigidly enforce this.

Refusing to accept the failure of CRIWL seems to have given people a sense of weight hierarchy, making what would have been fleeting, feel permanent, and somehow right. These fee fees have overtaken and subsumed all else.

We're so accustomed to being this welded to your size-indeed the assault on fatness is always based on the notion that recognising your size with above equanimity preserves it- "Normalization of Plus Size and the Danger of Unseen Overweight and Obesity in England"-we don't realise that its probably abnormal to be this attached, psychologically speaking.

Fat people's response-holding little allegiance to their size, which seemed like a weakness, is what a proper sense of perspective looks like. It's not that you aren't permitted to notice your size or even to want to preserve or alter it. It's the fetishization of particular size as representing a whole set of inherent value(s) without which you know longer feel like or recognise yourself.

If you are unhappy or dissatisfied about your size, that shouldn't have any affect on how you fundamentally value or view yourself. You should be focused solely on how the body works and how to change it efficiently. Not on propping up a brutal and failed method, by mutilating and/or drugging. 

Even if others take issue, it shouldn't have that much of a hold over your idea of self. Any desire to be able to alter weight, merely demands an understanding of the mechanics of the body.

Activists like Sofie Hagen have managed to cotton on to what 'obesity' is, but think they can bump the slim+ fat suit out of the way and step into its place. 

Let fat people play the role of fat people. .....it’s much nicer to look at a thin person in a fat suit – it gives the illusion that fatness is a thing that we can just take off, removing the awfulness that is before your eyes. 

That's 'obesity' cultism to a tee, make fat people play a person in a fat suit. Robbing fat people of their own idea of self. If something is there not to see you, but to maintain contact with a fractured volatile (weight-based) self, then stepping in front of that will merely obscure that view, you won't be looked at any more than now. That suit may look unconvincing to us, but I'll bet that's closer to the composite in people's heads.

It's not sight but thought that is the issue. The only way to change that is to refuse to play the slim + any more, disregard and block it at every turn. Whether that's pointing out that 'obesity' has nothing to do with you and you won't have it used on your medical records et al, always batting it back and defining yourself as a person.

This is in the hands of fat people, not slim. They've shown you their hand. They're prepared to do anything they can get away with to preserve you forced to play slim + and the insistence that you must build your life around calorie restriction.

No matter how they brand change or window dress, pretend to be sympathetic, fight "obesity stigma" and so on, that will never change until you wear them out trying to press it on you.

If we all do that, what can they do? Civil disobedience should be our default.

Fat actors should play what they are, people Becky Williams in Empire or even, "Sierra Burgess is a Loser". The premise of the latter one has its issues, but it appears to be about a person. The trailer even features a response I can't remember being highlighted when someone comes at you with ire that should knock you over, only to respond in a calm even distracted manner. 

Whoever wrote that seems to be observing someone closely enough to spot that. Whether good or bad that's the most important thing writers need to grasp with any people. Leave your stereotypes, jettison 'obesity' its bollocks and has nothing to do with real people.

Observe people, truly observe, you will be surprised and inspired. If you wrote from there, you would blow everyone away.

Fat people are bullied, unbullied and even bullies, but all fat people look at themselves through this lens-until they stop, against the grain, including their own. This would not be happening if this was simple bullying. The rage shown in the trailer for Insatiable is about that, not being fat. It comes from being subject to what you know is unjust treatment and the frustration of not knowing how to stop it.

Fat people don't want revenge, their own lens the same as its other people's, they feel what is being said is fair comment. They wish to resolve their "faux pas" as swiftly as possible. The pain is similarly acute, but its of feeling that you are falling short morally or ethically.

That's another difference full of possibilities for those keen and clever enough to observe it. 

Not being able to look through oneself as a whole being, creates a basic dissonance at the root of one's sense of self that 'sensitizes' making other things stick that otherwise wouldn't. 

Ministering to Bodies does not Equal Ownership of People

A few weeks ago a certain health authority announced that it will breathalyse smokers to make sure they've stopped smoking for 8 weeks before they can be referred for assessment for "non-urgent surgery".

They said the changes were being brought in after 85% of people who responded to a public consultation agreed that smokers should be required to quit before being referred. 

This transparent attempt at buck passing shows the architects of this know they are in the wrong, they don't want to own it. Instead they try to stick it on the usual targets, the public.

Smoking is a habit. It is not addictive, it's is not even particularly faddictive-folks still woefully underestimate the power of the human mind in real life.

Smoking has never been more self-selecting than it is today, so if anyone wants to truly make further inroads into the numbers remaining, they need to come up with techniques that actually work for those who smoke and resist urges to indulge in power games expressions punitive fee fees or crackpot vigilante justice.

To use that brilliant-as-it-is-skewif expression, check the optics: anti-smoking professionals targeting people for; reaching for a cigarette-reaching for a cigarette-reaching for a cigarette, by reaching for self righteous shock tactics-reaching for self righteous shock tactics-reaching for self righteous shock tactics.

If phoned in anti-ism equalled expertise in the formation and cessation of habits, that wouldn't have happened now would it?

If health professionals and bureaucrats wish to truly engage in public health, they need to engage with healthy behaviours to bring about that end. They can do their; "Bad for you, bad for you act, in an emergency, in the initial stages of any real or perceived health crisis- if they've not thought of anything better. After the initial loosely aligned are shaken off though, they'd better put some effort into how to actually alter what compelling about what they're complaining about.

With real demonstrations of efficacy, that can be repeated, not assertion or pseudo-science statistically massaged 'studies', or other so called "evidence-based" hocus-poci. No stupid chewing gum or horrible-as-they-are ineffectual drugs "support" either. If you are criticising using material things, why is that all you've got? If you think the answer to problems is things, what are you looking down your nose at?

Why aren't you more concerned about how to alter the behaviour and performance of your mind/body, using your mind/body? That is a real anti-thesis of habitual consumption of material objects.

If that sounds like a tall order, that's the sort of feeling you invoke in your targets.

In the past Public health was honourable and progressive. It improved society and was led by knowledge such as an understanding of the true value of hygiene and of the nature and transmission of disease.

Public health must again be about raising the health of the populace, not a pretext to assaulting mental health, inducing self hatred, creating social/moral hierarchies, or a cover for weird politics/ morality social engineering and the vaunting of one's own personal hatreds. 

Incidentally, no cure-all but smokers or trying to be ex-smokers should consider making a practise of yogic style or other breathing exercises. Even that famous warm up stretch where you take deep breaths as you raise your arms from your sides into the air- really open your chest [it's famous but I can't find a link.] And when you lower your arms whilst exhaling, really empty your lungs-without strain- and pause before taking another breath.

This won't suit everyone but it's worth a try. If your body knows its going to get some invigorating breaths, that might weaken that aspect of the attraction of fags, just don't bring that to smoking!

I can hardly finish without mentioning;

The CCGs also require obese patients to reduce their weight by 10% over nine months or reduce their BMI (body mass index) to less than 30, whichever is greater, before being referred for non-urgent surgery.

Again, whomever wrote; "reduce their weight" knows the only means made available for that-CRIWL is harmful and doesn't work. Euphemise away, you are not even fooling yourselves. Effectively this is seeking to force people to starve off weight against their will. It's seeking to mandate the ceaseless repetition of self harm and self abuse.  

Let's refresh on medical ethics;

• Respect for autonomy – the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment. (Voluntas aegroti suprema lex.)
• Beneficence – a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. (Salus aegroti suprema lex.)
• Non-maleficence – to not be the cause of harm. Also, "Utility" - to promote more good than harm
• Justice – concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment (fairness and equality). (Iustitia.)

That's a fail on all four and more.

Fat people have taken the initiative, we have done the dieting, that's how we know the results are not satisfactory to anyone.

Patronising nonsense about how people need 'support' to impersonate anorexia, be damned, this is a medical dispute.

There's an obvious vacancy here for science that seeks only to properly understand and manipulate metabolic function. That doesn't concentrate on pointless categorising of people by weight as if being above or below their arbitrary lines makes your bodily functions unrelated to each other.

Look at what that has produced. 

If medical professionals et al want to continue their blocking of real science that actually works, and promotion of pseudo-science that doesn't, they need to explain their motivation for this. They need to become accountable for the outcome.

Either way, doctors don't own fat or any other people. They can't tell us black is white and white is black or try to press us to support their science fiction.

I repeat, fat people have always wanted to slim, we have been prevented by the lack of proper method. Medics et al can only continue to bypass that for so long.

"Obesity scientists" as others choose the area of knowledge they wish to pursue, which is their right. That doesn't co-incide with the needs of those they treat as their personal quarry. No-one signed up to be their puppets, we signed on for altering weight/metabolic function in good faith. That has not been provided and is not on offer so that is that.

Neither they nor medics nor society is owed anything by fat people. We've done what we can with what we've been given.

Nor for the record, is mutilation of the stomach any more a viable option than smoking yourself slim.

"Weight as Disease" = Munchausen's-by-Proxy

"Accepting the concept that obesity is a chronic disease process is important for several reasons,"

Oh what a tangled web is being woven.

There's far more to being asked to swallow a false "concept" than meets the eye [is that noshing on ya fees?] You are being asked to pretend you are a disease/sick when you aren't either. How could you even be the former, you might ask? May I remind you of "food/eating addiction".

A refresher- the American Medical Association's attempted declaration;

That our AMA: (1) recognize obesity and overweight as a chronic medical condition (de facto disease state) and urgent public health problem

It should be said that even if the latter point were true, it would make no odds. A disease is a disease whether it's a purported "public health crisis" or whether it's affected 5 people in the history of record.

Terms, medical ones certainly do not exist for their potential to warp minds and manipulate emo's. Pretending to be sick/unwell/unhealthy when you aren't any of those things is not only a lie, it's a diagnosable condition. It's called Munchausen's Syndrome, more recently named factitious as in presenting fiction as fact.

Factitious disorders are conditions in which a person deliberately and consciously acts as if he or she has a physical or mental illness when he or she is not really sick.

This is of course what the AMA is in effect demanding of every person above a BMI of 30 actually 25 as it includes the term "overweight". They never thought of this, there's little to no sense of consequence when entering this particular playpen.

The interesting rub here is that it is in a sense 'obesity' crusaders, the AMA included, who have the Munchausen's, what they're seeking to do is to force people under their influence and charge to act this out. That puts them under the influence of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy.

Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP) is a mental health problem in which a caregiver makes up or causes an illness or injury in a person under his or her care, such as a child, an elderly adult, or a person who has a disability. Because vulnerable people are the victims, MSBP is a form of child abuse or elder abuse.  

Holy Farka Touré. How much does that not sound like this imposition? That's it in a nutshell! Mental health problem eh? Ha, ha, they said it!

Difference is instead of developing MS personal inclination or neurosis, you're having it forced on you, which is even more peculiar. MSBP has always been a tad controversial. The typical scenario-though this makes me think that's a stereotype-is a mother pretending their child is sick by manipulating them physically or injuring them to produce what could be deemed symptoms.

In that case it seems to be the extension of the womb, lack of separation between mother and child, whose being deemed an object that belongs to her, even still a part of her. In the case of 'obese' because that's wholly a creation of slimz, it's as if we are in their heads as a product of their imagination.

I must admit, on first hearing, I dismissed it on sight as a form of abuse given a fancy name. I can't remember when I caught on, though I can say the crusade brought it to mind. The enigma has always been motive. The motive for MS has been to draw the kind of sympathy and attention we associate with being unwell, but what's gained by using a proxy as a vehicle for fake illness?

Factitious disease is defined as the intentional production (or feigning) of disease in oneself to relieve emotional distress by assuming the role of a sick person.

Which is exactly the payoff that's being sold to BMI 25+. 

"First, it removes the feeling that patients alone are responsible for their excess weight.

That's what they've got from years of the fatsphere, desperation to evade responsibility, despite spending a lifetime going out of our way to accept it fully in the most painful and ego-immolating ways.

They cannot see further than what they want. See all the insistence that doctors are not at the head of promoting this mess along with "obesity researchers". They are just affected by society's bias, rather than their professional standing helped legitimise and increase the state of rage that is the norm. Without the medical profession 'obesity' would be the joke it is.

I can say this confidently having predicted they'd weasel out of their responsibility for this ordure. Once the stank gas is loose, they claim only to have smelt it not to have dealt it.  

So in addition to being asked to adopt anorexia, exercise bulimia, body integrity identity disorder we are being asked to pretend to be sick, 'cos people will sympathise with us.

Trashing the worthless 'obesity' construct and getting back to concentrating on a proper science of metabolic function would do that far more completely. 

Not that I believe people will sympathise with fat people. You cannot feel for an object. Anyway, fat people don't need sympathy, they need people to stop being raving arseholes.

Subtle difference.

Now you may doubt this sort of diagnosis. I think that's a fair and valid instinct. Amateur diagnosis is almost invariably a bad idea. In this though, you have to recognise an unprecedented uniqueness.

You've got a group of people who have little real interest in their already contrived subject, who have other agendas, who refuse to ground it in the science of physiology and are openly disinterested in resolution. Instead they impose their peculiarly alien subjectivity on those who have no real desire for it.

Ergo, that's all that's on show, virtually all the time. 

The constant airing of their psychological hang ups without proper science and progress to distract from that ensures glimpses are hardly fleeting.

The refusal not simply to do the science, but also to completely impose whatever's knocking around in their heads on others, also means those 'others' have the right to say, this is what you are telling me about yourself. This is why you are wrong, this is why people change course when something doesn't work. Not doing so ends up with this sort of thing. The thing that might moderate that being absent, personal cost.

That's using proxies for you.

Appropriating Addiction

I'm having a bit of a Diane Abbott interlude right now. The crude ambushing of an intelligent, highly accomplished Black woman, to put her in the place assigned for her by the British establishment and its hmv media has been as brutal as it is bracing. It's easy to forget yourself, getting caught up in making yourself a safe space for others, only to find that you suddenly cannot defend yourself against them, as effectively as you know you can.

Whether you are targeted and surrounded or no, it's not enough to be on your game. You've got to be on top of it at all times, one chink in the armour and you are a piñata.

Anyway, back to more trivial matters.

"A food addiction has defined my entire life. And it is slowly killing me"

Here’s a list of things I’ve done to try and fix my obsession with eating: four psychiatrists, nine psychologists, two hypnotherapists, three meditation workshops, one hospital stay, 10 dieticians, 18 personal trainers. I’ve moved house 28 times, countries twice, states six times, I changed schools four times. I’ve been on Weight Watchers so many times I’ve lost count, Jenny Craig three times, Dr Cohen’s diet twice, Atkins three times, Mayo Clinic diet once, vegan diet five times. 

This list displays a refreshingly direct grasp of efficacy for this area. You have a problem-real or perceived. You apply a solution to said issue, if said issue remains, you judge the [prospective] solution to have failed, end of story. You then move on.

In the case of calorie restriction, this basic rule is comprehensively rejected. The issue is weight-light or heavyweight- you apply the purported solution to it-calorie restriction dieting. Either you remain the same, or its temporary effects rescind themselves ending with you being back where you started. Ergo-this 'solution' has failed.

That's it, move on to a more righteous path. 

But no, we aren't allowed to. We must not see this failure, we must only see ourselves or our bodies as having failed this godlike principle. This refusal leads puzzled indoctrinates to ask themselves; "Why can't I starve?"

About a decade ago, a group of American psychiatrists studying obesity decided to look into whether some people's anecdotal claims of food addiction could be proven.

Answer; "[It's as if] we are physically dependent on food!!!" Round and round in the same circle. You simply cannot get away from a reality that stark and unyielding. Some of us aren't used to being told no, even by nature.

The attempt to distance the professionals is palpable here but distinctly implausible. Since when do these give a damn about what fat people enough to attempt to illuminate their experience? Unless it can be twisted to fit their agenda- see this is in the number of their pointless and ill conceived rat studies.

Even if you employ metaphors, the comparisons you make must be apt enough to be worthwhile. There's no use in saying I think the term 'football' is "too narrow". It should be broadened to include round fruits like watermelons, later on, if not melons, why not oranges and apples etc., "You hurt me if you don't allow apples in, I like apples. It feels like a football to me, who are you to say otherwise? etc.,"

Subsequently football becomes things that aren't footballs. Rather like disease no longer has an agreed definition due to its promiscuous emotive misapplication.

Real addiction happens because exposure to an outer supply of chemical agents disrupts our body's inner production of chemicals with a similar structure. That inner supply is made totally within us and is sufficient for us, all things being equal.

Even if you ignore the debate ending fact that we have an innate physical dependence on food, addiction doesn't work as a replacement/ metaphor for dependence because our bodies do not make the energy we need to survive, internally.

On that basis, the notion of food as an addiction appears to fundamentally violate the laws of physics, lmfao.

Hunger is the thing ob wallahs are desperate to phase out, denial of fact doesn't end it. The basis of their empire of falsehood is eating is purely a conscious act, like taking drugs or alcohol. No matter how much they seek to reformulate that using different terms.

Making people feel like addicts not only demoralises, depresses and disempowers them-the opposite of what is claimed-it makes it easier to sell them drug abuse. Food is the gateway, we've got better drugs for you.

Like your average neighbourhood junk peddler-but without the honour of not pretending its concern for your health.

Ironically, a more apt example of the unbalancing of internal function, by the introduction of an outer dissembler appeared in that proto-anorexia/anorexia editorial of the other week,

In their article, Gianini et al (2017) report that both individuals with anorexia nervosa and individuals on the NWCR:....Are physiologically primed for weight regain. Both groups have lower resting energy expenditure... than non-weight reduced BMI-matched controls.

Lower expenditure is the product of disrupting your energy metabolism through the bolt-on of extra energy wastage. It's like you've sprung a leak and your body is finding ways to slow down the rate of [energy] loss.

Compulsion on the other hand refers to neural posture that has been assumed by the conjunction of nerves used to carry out various actions and behaviours, to the extent that the action/behaviour is not as voluntary as before. It has become compulsive or a compulsion. That posture requires dismantling.

Again, eating starts from being naturally compulsive. We all in the main, eat the same way, we respond to our body's calls for energy. Hunger is the body's demand for energy, eating is the response to that demand for energy. Notion of 'addiction' to responding to your body's energy demands is redundant. Needing to respond to you vital needs is a given.

The best way to reduce intake of course, is to reduce hunger, thereby reducing the need to respond to it.

As for Melanie Tait, what are we to make of her utterances?

Astonishingly, the jury is still out on food addiction.

She expected this all to be a typical mindless phone-in that makes no sense but that we all submit to unquestioningly as if lies are the same as truth when it comes to certain quarters.  What does she even think 'food addiction' means?

...“substance-use disorders”. Twelve-step programs say an addiction is a physical compulsion, coupled with a mental obsession. Whatever addiction is, an addiction to food has defined my entire life.

How can a "whatever" define anything, let alone your life?

Food is killing me, slowly, clogging my arteries and raising my blood sugar. Increasing my risk of Alzheimer’s, cancer and diabetes. Still, I can’t stop.

Um, you can feel 'obesity' agit-prop in your body can you? Food does not "clog arteries" that's biological myth, but this isn't really about Tait's experience. It's more about selling this to the impressionable.

They [her parents] don’t believe I have a food addiction. They think I’m weak. That I can’t control myself. That I’m lazy. 

This is an ignorant person's idea of what they think a drug addict would talk about their experience. She even tries the old part of the addict narrative of stealing to feed their habit. In this case, Mel says she stole food from her parents so many times, why?

Most of the time I think they’re right; they know me better than anyone else. Why can’t I just stop eating?

All through this, she keeps clunkingly inserting aspects of the 'binge eating disorder' playbook, hilariously emphasising the ludicrous insistence on 'secret eating' and shame being the biggest telltale. Virtually every fat person feels ashamed to eat at some phase or other. Which calls to mind the desire in this to separate the failure of dieting in fat people from the failure of dieting in everyone else.

 To remind folk, I had a chronic disorder of hyperactive, hyper functioning hunger. When I first heard eating on your own was such a big deal I was genuinely stunned.

I had actually forgotten about eating alone, that's how much of an impression it made on me. If I was forced to name as many as 20 major bad things about hyper hunger function. I'd struggle with more than five obvious major ones, despite that, eating on my own wouldn't make the list.

And that ill conceived checklist consists mainly of, eating more than expected/wanted. So if you want to eat lettuce and you past the chippy and get a bag of chips, because you are hungry, that's supposedly a symptom of 'binge eating'.

But that's a 'symptom' of weight loss dieting. The reason you fail is not because you are 'out of control' its because your body is cleverer than dieting. You don't control your eating, that's a subjective interpretation of how you feel when your intake matches your outcome.

This is the norm, that's why people are so obsessed with telling fat people we're fat........ and greedy and lazy. We have to learn the harmony we feel is shameful and not acceptable. Yet this is the major symptom of 'binge eating'

The experience of genuinely hyper functioning hunger and nervous system was a real problem, not the imagined one fat hating puppet masters so desperately and strenuously want, sorry about that fat phobe Gippettos. There's something vain about this particular fixation.

This interaction is inherently abusive, with professionals seeking to gain such complete control of people that its easily to the extent of those relationship where one partner micromanages the other. What bugs these controllers is the notion that their handlee is doing anything independent.

The notion that you are eating away from their gaze is too suggestive of an inner life and will outside their control.

Fundamentally, the problem with all this the wish to impose their feelings on everyone else. The wish to pretend this is objective and universal. That this hasn't carried the day thus far is what's causing Ms. Tait's/her puppeteers "astonishment".

Binge eating disorder is a lot like 'obesity'. A construct that exists to be fashioned by the dominant fantasies of an already decided narrative. It appears to boil down to two things. Either the hunger generating aspect of weight loss dieting/calorie restriction-exercise bulimia disruption and blow back. It's still not routinely acknowledged that dieting deranges your metabolism and makes you feel like shit, not any "weight battle" with your greedy/lazy character.

When you keep dieting, and trying to diet, as fat people are more likely to, this can become a chronic disruption of its own. One that doesn't abate even between diets.  

There's not enough genuine detail to say whether she's referring to that or actual hyperactive hunger function. It shouldn't be but sadly lies are not conducive to sorting through sometimes elusive symptoms.

Mel has got some issues though. She makes a lot of her seemingly unwilling solitariness and mentions a sort of arrested emotional development. Together with the fact that she does feel her hunger is ferocious suggests she could have a problem with the centre of her brain-where the hypothalamus et al reside. Sounds to me like they could be the same source.

Maybe this is her brain/nervous systems way of pointing to this.

A New Old Life for Gabourey

The mutilation class action suit waiting to happen rolls on latest to step on board is Gabourey Sidibe. All wrapped up in using; self love, body positivity and aiming at straight at Black women as a target market for abuse of the surgical process.

After a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes she decided, no doubt on "medical advice", to go for peace of mind to save potential harm of diabetes playing on her mind. Similar factors went into Angelina Jolie's surgery.

The difference is the extent to which Gabby's story is utterly contrived by those who've striven to deny even the most minimal means of making positive adjustments to metabolic function. Jolie was seeking to head off an increased threat of a real pathology-cancer, though there are arguments about that. Whereas Gabby is doing it to alter function the wrong way, as that's the only way available. 

Everything that happened to Gabby was decided by ideology; being put on her first weight loss diet at the age of 6 by her parents, to the subsequent years of diet, regain, desperately trying to lose gains, until the (partial) nervous collapse of weight loss diet burnout.

With an often continual upward climb having to desperately embark on more wasted years often driving their weight ever upward, into the arms of mutilators.

The article says she'd been trying for 10 years to diet her weight down, as she's 33 that seems to mean she had a few years rest between burnout and that particular tranche of adult dieting career. That's how sane people can happily pay to have their healthy function butchered and feel better for it.

You can feel better for just about anything if what came before is made intolerable enough for you. Though how those falling for this hype will feel when they realise exactly what has been done to them is anyone's guess. My feeling has been the last to comprehend are likely to be the angriest, given what it takes [often unconsciously] to stay on board.

Gabby herself said this is a last resort, that it is any resort for is the decision of those who claim to care so much about health. 

From gun to tape this cult has complete control over you and your life-as a fat person- even to the way you perceive the reality of that. No-one should have this much control, it is as corrupting as it is evidence of corruption.

Getting you to act against your own interests as your default position is why it is a cult in all but name.

Unlike fat activists I say the ace held is not fat phobia, it's blocking the science.

Obfuscation, half-truths, misrepresentation, tendentious interpretation above all, a hegemony of collusion..... It perhaps this along with the extent of mercilessness that may be what ensures they do not get away with this-forever. Using alteration of hunger/appetite as a selling point is all very well, but that helps to point out that cal res is a dead duck,

“My surgeon said they’d cut my stomach in half. This would limit my hunger and capacity to eat. 

My surgeon said indeed! Same old ob wallahs speaking through fat people with their script. Prioritisation of cal res decided the removal of stomachs, this as a side effect reduced the body's ability to generate hunger and changed the way appetite functions. That wouldn't happen if hunger was all in the brain/mind-which is the basis of cal res-which was the excuse for cutting the stomach out in the first place.

They should have started from the point they're selling this mutilation on! The whole cal res experiment-including dieting- has been a waste of time. They would have started from here if they'd had any real interest in actual physiology or an ounce of compassion for real people.

Metabolic function is designed to be altered. It has to all the time just for your body to be able to maintain itself. Its just those in this business prefer to do that what they feel like. And as long as there is no alternative, they'll be able to continue to do just what they can get away with.
Here's the DM's health correspondent,

...they work by restricting amount of food the stomach can hold. With less space to hold food, the patient will consequently consume fewer calories. It involves removing 80 percent of the stomach.

Umm, not half,

"More importantly, the operation stablizes a number of gut hormones which are off-balance in obese people driving them to crave food when they don't need it. It also controls blood sugar levels....

If it's more important cutting out the stomach would be superfluous. As for hormones being "off balance" and the rest of that tendentious nonsense is the case, why is cutting out virtually the whole of a healthy functioning stomach required to 'normalise'? Don't slim people [Gabby's unlikely to become that] have whole functioning stomachs?

And why do many people regain lost weight as their bodies heal and regain function. 

So we can all agree, if you insist on reducing intake that dictates that you  reduce/alter hunger function.

We can also it seems agree cutting a stomach out to achieve this has been an irrelevant detour....

It's called H-U-N-G-E-R

"Sell high calorie foods in plain packaging to beat obesity, says brain prize winner", a brain prize winner, the Grete Lundbeck European Brain Research Prize to be precise, must know exactly what they're talking about.

We are to believe anyone who would even think of gainsaying anything Wolfram Schultz, to put a name to him, uttered on such matters would be some way out of their depth. An "anti-science" sort not worth listening to, isn't that so?  We are all cowered to be sure, 'til we get to the lols.

First, a bit of context,

“We should not advertise, propagate or encourage the unnecessary ingestion of calories,” [really?]

Then he utters the immortal line;

“There should be some way of regulating the desire to get more calories. 

What a fantastic idea, there should be. Wait a minute, there is. I've found it,

H-U-N-G-E-R!

Hand me mucho dinero. Give me a frackin' prize.

I almost don't want to go on as that sums up the mess that is the ob cult and its weight is cals in minus cals used underpinnings. That mes amis is toute-les-choses [I'm feeling all Hercule P]. You need little more to grasp just how much this type of ideology has the minds of its subjects utterly pinioned to the point where reason is wasted on them.

They don't want to deal with hunger, their compulsion to impose it, starvation and anorexia on others is only exceeded by their desire to deny this. Trying to convince everyone hunger doesn't really exist. You don't eat because you are hungry, you're not hungry, you're emotional. 

This man is a scientist but that gives no immunity from this neurosis. He shared a prize for his research into reward systems-not a coinage I've ever had a whole lot of time for, could be worse though. Yet he doesn't actually get that hunger exists to regulate intake.

If he or anyone else feels there's any problem with hunger, then that should be the target of adjustment, not food. I am literally thankful every day that I'm no longer troubled by relentless; hyper functioning, overactive, hypersensitive and implacable hunger I was in the past. Seeking to control what people eat to in this way seeks to replace the adjustment of hunger. They believe they can be your hunger better than your actual function. The one designed for the purpose.

Which doesn't go away, all that happens is the setting up of a clash with these artificial outside bounds. 

Are other people really designed to be your hunger?

Yes, it's true that food manufacturers seek to influence your eating, even to the extent of controlling it, in the sense of wanting you to chose their products over others-whether that works for you or not. However, these people do not arm folk against that, they merely become a counter extreme that turns you into a battleground for their skirmishes with each other.

The problem with the crusade and ci/co is it begins and ends it seems with eating, which is too late in the process. It comes after hunger. Eating is the response to that, not some sinister pathology or original sin.

De-contextualising eating in this way simply becomes a source of further disorder and dietary mayhem. Which intriguingly relates to an area of interest for Schultz, understanding how memories are formed, according to this geeze and others, this could help with learning how to unravel [undesired] memories. Like not being able to remember hunger exists or what its for.

All for the desire to control what other people eat.

Eat Drugs

Following on from yesterday's video illustration of how drug mis-use/ abuse and the mindless pursuit of cal res go together like piss and vinegar, here's a neat little satire on the- everything's chemical, drugs are just chemicals, so everybody take drugs for any and everything, 'cos you're all addicts anyway-malarkey we're increasingly subject to. Especially now with the typically derivative 'obesity' cult and its laughable fronting of "obesity medicine" with its pharmacotherapy- i.e. drug abuse by prescription. I cannot stop laughing at pharmacotherapy it's so stupid, yet cheeky and trying to hard all at once. If you want to swap an imaginery 'addiction to food' for a real abuse of drugs, say so.

The School of Life-How to be a Far Better Drug Taker

Note some relevant themes;

1. The bankrupting of terms: Definitions so loose and general that barely anything can be excluded. Meaning they implode as cogent definers (e.g. disease, [mental] illness, disability, treatment, [-]therapy, addiction etc.,)

From the video; Drug, "A thing that alters your mood, acting via either the body or the senses to make an impact upon the mind."

2. Pharmacophilia: You need more drugs in your life, no reason, you just need 'em.
b) Pharmacospecificity: Drugs work only for the purposes you intended-they don't affect other tissues, and/or they don't clash with each other or increase the toxic load.
c) Pharmacofreshness: Drugs are strangely antiseptic-clean.
d) Pharmacospirituality: Drugs enable you to do things you're capable of doing anyway-like alter your mood, thoughts, feelings, beliefs etc.,-but with the addition of the idea that you need drugs to do those things.
e) Pharmacoevolution: Drugs enable you to evolve to a higher quality of personage. Things like food are so plebian.

3. Bourgification of drug abuse: A po-faced, faux spiritual/intellectual rather than a pleasure-seeking rationale for drug taking means you aren't a junkie, you're somehow better.

4. The need for people to take far more drugs in our lives, those who want to live for drugs might feel judged otherwise, profit and such...

5. How impressed these junkies and junk-promoting hypocrites are with themselves

The best part of the vid was the definition of the task of a drug, to;

Alter moods in any positive direction compatible with fulfilling one's highest ambitions

Succinct yet flaccid, it could be 'obesity' pharmacotherapy's calling card. That's why a drug for epilepsy you don't have, is on offer because some people who take it for their epileptic seizures lose a few pounds.....as an incidental side effect. 

Certain people would rather sell you the notion that you need drugs to replace conscious intent. "You have a phony disease-by-committee, you need to take some/ it doesn't make you a bad person/This stigma against drug taking is problematic"

If this pusher act visits you, I'd consider the same mindset's use of drugs and addiction as to put people off eating food.

Stigma is not the issue. The reason people don't want to be drug abusers is their sense of autonomy. The same that resists oppression, abuse and seeks liberation and freedom. Drug dependence bolts you to something other than your aims and ambitions. It derails those in pursuit of something that's merely a perpetuation of itself, rather than in service to you. If you spent years in self- contempt because training like an athlete whilst half starved didn't pound your body into submission.

Drugs to sleep, drugs to wake up, drugs to be more alert, drugs to be more intelligent, drugs to be happy, drugs to be calm, drugs to keep believing this calorie restriction sortie will be the one are hardly going to trigger an inner geyser of self-adoration.

Rather than recognising that your body with its trillions of cells is basically an ecosystem replete with underused technology. That not simply how we use our brains is primitive, but the extent to which we suppress our own intellectual, mental and physical abilities.

It leaves us scared of machines created solely from our own minds who so often seem as alive as we are. We are surrounded by simple things we can programme, manipulate and alter with ease whilst we are told, its not remotely conceivable let alone possible that we could create a chain of effects, using our conscious minds and imagination to alter our own physical function.

sssmokin'

A feature of the tendentious body-wrecking crusade that is 'obesity' is its virulent infection of false equivalence, i.e. when smoking is treated as if it is like weight.

Now if it need be said for the easily offended, I do not feel superior to smokers, I don't hate them, look down upon them-unless they come with their specific or general tired fat phobic shizz, m'kay?

I reject this because it is false. As we have all witnessed regardless of stance, the 'obesity' field *lols* lies with a feeling of impunity that would shame all but the most dishonest.  So I'm sure that all conquering fact will hardly suffice.

What this has played up about smoking is the difficulty of apt comparison with it.

Smoking is errr..... somewhat of an eccentric activity. Even those committed to it, I'm sure would admit, considering sucking smoke through a lit tuber into your lungs [or throat for you pussycat puffers] and exhaling it with varying degrees of artistry-would be dismissed as fanciful, if it hadn't already been invented.

I don't know why this hasn't occurred before, but a better comparison is probably with a taking-drugs-for-phony-disease habit. I'll be blunt because I can't be bothered to tippy-toe today [yes, I do try, usually].

Percentagewise, few people are truly mentally ill, which I'd define as having a malfunctioning nervous [or other] system leading to symptoms of psychosis, or neurosis at the point where it enters that realm.

Like virtually every diagnosis that isn't rigidly objective, mental illness has been expanded to the point where it diagnoses those who are either experiencing an apt response to emotional/mental/physical trauma or temporary complaint/condition that's mostly a product of their own self- mismanagement.

Given human ego, the latter is intolerable to many if not most people, especially if they think rather highly of themselves. Though there's much pompous moaning about treating mental like physical illness, virtually no-one has a problem with the idea that in their lifetime, they might injure themselves physically in a way that is mainly their fault.

I for example most definitely made myself way more depressed than I'd have needed to be for longer than I'd probably ever experienced through my long term commitment to a fight with my hunger function, plus the attendant playing 'obese'. 

One way people have sought to deal with this very interesting psychological conundrum i.e. vanity is to erm, insist their neurosis/mental illness is a disease, because mental illness/crisis can make you feel become quite dysfunctional.

You see where I'm going. This is felt by those keen on this to express and validate their suffering as well as express their frustration with not being able to throw off their particular issue/s.

The fly in the ointment is, insisting mental troubles are 'disease' is inherently a downer. In the worst kind of way, it boxes you in. It's a trap of despair. The urge then becomes to find a way to lift that gloom, by taking pills.

Though much touted as 'treatment' for mental illness, their primary power is in the belief that the person is treating-therefore not diseased [temporarily], not trapped in a snare of their own making. That is the kind of self-mishandling that make us fall into a pit of neuroses, along with susceptibility of course.

It could be argued that this cognitive dance is similar to the imaginative hook of smoking as described most famously by the late Allen Carr. I hope I'm not misrepresenting his central theorem that smokers dependence on snouts is a product of them having imagined/convinced themselves that they are hooked on smoking.

Effectively, they're smoking to relieve the anxiety caused by the belief that they need to smoke.

It's easy to snicker, but actually, I'd lay good money that every single human being on earth lives exactly that same trap in some way or context, probably loads of them. Affairs of the heart for example, are a minefield for this sort of cycle of tendentiousness. 

So when 'obesity' hucksters and medics pretend weight is disease, they are setting up that very trap. Whatever drugs they have on offer-e.g. Topiramate, an anti-seizure medication are there to lift the gloom caused by the disease pretence. In case anyone's thinking, how is 'obese' supposed give you seizures-not even 'obesity' quacks are pretending that one [give 'em a chance!!]. 

No, you're supposed to take anti-seizure medication because it has been noted that some people taking it for their actual seizures happen to lose a few pounds-and I mean a few-as a side effect. So brilliantly health-sensitive 'obesity' hustlers think that's reason enough for people who have no seizures to take it.

In conjunction with a "healthy lifestyle".

There's another similarity in that drugs such as these also give organs like your liver and kidneys extra work, rather like smoking.

And smokers can afford a certain superiority over the 'health' establishment because they are only accused of taxing their lungs-not removing them. Unlike the "life saving" 'obesity' crowd who like to remove healthy functioning organs.

Not only that, many of us have made the argument that health cannot be the simplistic, add a brick of pure healthy action take it away for a unhealthy action. It's more of a balance of competing and at times incompatible factors.

But no-one would go as far as bariatric surgeons stating that directly removing health increases it. A brand new health protocol.

In fact, those self-harmers who cut themselves can feel a certain validation, given those involved in health and medicine-45 agencies no less-think mutilation-not merely cutting yourself is a route to health.

The Privilege of Being Fat

The venerable Stephen Hawking has decided to weigh-in [geddit] on the subject du nos jours.  

Witness agog,

 Stephen Hawking-Bigotry can dim brilliance

At the moment humanity faces a major challenge. And millions of lives are in danger.....I am here to address one of the most serious public health problems of the 21st Century.

Really? I'm sure scientists are working night and day to come up with the most efficient and effective solution to avert this crisis... no?

As a cosmologist, I see the world as a whole.

I'm sure you also view the human body in the same holistic way. How does the body create its own mass? Why would a person withdraw fuel, rather than adjust mechanics that exist to be adjusted?

Today too many people die from complications related to "overweight" and 'obesity'.

That would make even more of an incentive to find the most effective and efficient means of manipulating the function that creates and regulates body mass. I'm sure "obesity science" is desperately at it right now.

We eat too much and move too little. Fortunately the solution is simple....

Hey, anyone can fast/ starve or run around as they wish or are able, but real control of weight, requires pushing at the frontiers of current knowledge. I'm sure that's what's happening as we speak.

....more physical and a change in diet.

Yep, he said that, more physical activity. It gets better/worse though;

For what its worth, how being sedentary has become a major health problem is beyond my understanding.

I actually laughed out loud at that point.

It could be seen in two ways, the first is obvious, the other as an ironic statement-if read literally-on his own condition.

Here is a man who survived 50 + years past his own initial prognosis supposedly accepting the notion that being sedentary is the world's 4th largest killer, without it seemingly raising any red flags in his mind.

Why isn't he dead then? The man's 74 years of age.

Not only does he have some form of motor neurone disease, he counts as "sedentary," because that's measured as people who do not exercise. 'Obesity' wallahs exclude work and physical circumstances be damned. Ableist and classist, amongst other things.

He's also not exactly packing timber himself, so him claiming without irony, that the "answer" is to get off your arse feels like a spoof. This signals the real echo chamber that is 'obesity' it is imposed on others and has little to do with reality.

This shows us again that anyone who accepts 'obesity' is a thing, dies a death of the mind. I've said this times without number-it is a concept that is incompatible with rational thought.

If you want to avoid looking like a tool, abolish 'obesity' from your vocab. I think I've been very nice in giving folks the heads up on that one. But if they wish to keep showing themselves up, that's on them.

You'd think given that he is an actual physics master, that he could see through this at some point, but he either doesn't, or is feeling the "noble lie" horseshit authority tells itself. This is for youth, so it's mis-using authority to hoodwink them.

The real lesson for them to learn is-apart from SCIENCE WORKS dieting doesn't- it doesn't matter how much brilliance you have, you still have to apply it. You still have to exercise judgement. Plus it requires humility enough not to be convinced by the notion that other people are really are too stupid to grasp ELMM.

This is the privilege of being fat. Seeing the limits of human intelligence and character exposed before your eyes. I'd have to be far cleverer than I am to see this. Ironically, Hawking is supposed to have the kind of brain power that has left him in the position often in his life.

Not this time. This time he's been suckered.

From someone who has for so long defied medical prediction and platitude to fail this test is perhaps more forgivable than many.

Fat Handbags Have Already been Stopped

Continuing on from yesterday's post and the noteworthy attempt of 'obesity' promoters to decry any possibility of blocking a cell that has already been blocked. Looking back at research indicating the maturation process of our fat handbag adipose cells, can be stimulated to completion by a hormone called Adamts1.

Sentiments expressed by Dr. Brian Feldman-part of the research team concerned-about the purported implausibility of slowing fatty tissue genesis was backed up and emphasised by an NHS website,

The coverage by the Mail Online was generally accurate, highlighting the important fact that this research has not necessarily identified a target for anti-obesity treatment options.

"The important fact" eh? Why would that be either? Important to whom? It's not even about expectation management. If you say, eventually it seems like they'll be a means of stopping adipose tissue from increasing, you can go on to say, but not for a while yet if you want.

It's the enthusiasm for shutting that avenue down that is a red light.

If one steps back from puberty, it could be seen purely as an increase body mass. In healthy cells; bone, muscle and FAT [etc.,]. By dint of that, blocking or slowing puberty effectively does the same for adipose as part of that repression,

Initiating the treatment early for a child who experiences gender dysphoria has greatest effect; the body of the patient is less developed and later, the need for surgery such as mastectomy or “reduction thyroid chondroplasty and voice modification therapy” is avoided.

Avoid mastectomy? Okay, this is the brotherhood of wikistan, I haven't looked further into it yet, still, I think we can confidently state the human breast has fatty tissue.

Puberty blockers supposedly work by suppressing the release of chemicals that launch the process of puberty into effect. They are released from the pituitary gland. Incidentally, one of these hormones is called "follicle-stimulating hormone" or (FSH), yes, that relates to the troublesome, poly-cystic ovary, follicles. This could go to explain why PCOS can now seemingly be diagnosed without the presence of challenging follicles.

I'm not here to recommend nor decry puberty-blocking, initially a treatment for precocious puberty. This is really about being told what isn't supposed to be possible or likely, when it has already happened however imperfectly.

Even if it hadn't, it would hardly be an outlandish possibility to be able to modify the extent/speed of one cells proliferation, given the body already does this. If you've ever dieted for any period, you'll know that it can speed up your body's capacity to gain weight like no-ones business. How can that happen if gain is all one speed?

And where you can slow, you can look to stop, or at least slow even further. So if any 'obesity' wallahs are struggling with this concept, why don't they mosey on over to those working in the area of arresting puberty and ask them for a clue?

It slightly recalls the suggestion that "weight loss" is supposed to be hard, when the body already goes down (and up) in weight, daily, with consummate ease. One might humbly imagine attempts to figure out the ways it manages this impossibility/immorality/unlifestyle generated action. Only for that also to be mysterious improbable.

As I've repeatedly stressed (oops), "obesity science" doesn't actually have to reverse weight. It can merely settle for subduing replication of cells. The spluttering response...

'If you block fat formation, extra calories have to go somewhere in the body, and sending them somewhere else outside fat cells could be more detrimental to metabolism.

...when confronted with this notion fails to grasp-stopping a person's weight/fat mass where it is. Which is the norm for most people fat to thin alike, it's homoeostasis, all you're doing is seeking to help that along. When it comes to blocking fat, of course we are talking about the activity that promotes its genesis /proliferation.

We are talking here about outliers who are enduring aggressive symptoms that include/lead to swift unending gain. 

And blocking or suppressing adipose cells can equally have an affect on other metabolic features including hunger and appetite. Because fat cells are "metabolically active" sending as well as receiving messages.

You may be asking why in the midst of a supposed adipocalypse of urgent proportions, is there this continual urge to deny possibility of the obvious target to save us from this impending hellacious fate? In favour of such cutting the sugar in soft drinks.....no less....

Idle 'Science'

I happened to be reading "Why stress can make you overweight" because I'm a glutton for punish... oh look, I've finally faced the truth, now I can take action against the terrible addiction to what humans cannot live without...

The article is about stress triggering release of a hormone called Adamts1, I don't know why that sounds cute to me. Apparently, this chemical is contained within fatty tissue sites and has the power to influence stem cells contained within- to become* new fat cells.

Now you may have noticed certain researchers are going around telling everyone within earshot that they now know fat cells aren't just handbags to keep your spare junk in, oh no, they're cells that interact with the brain, nervous system and metabolic function,

It was once believed that fat cells were just passive bags of calories, but recent research shows they send and receive important hormonal signals.

Note the phrasing "It was once believed..." More like assumed. It was once assumed, by scientists and researchers [they're the "it" bit], that fat cells were greedy and lazy, did nothing, because they were fat cells. I was even told this myself by a certain person on this site,

A lot of FA people seem to express they believe their fat is just there, a blob sitting on their body without consequence. This couldn't be further from the truth. Fat is metabolically active. It alters hormone levels, releases inflammatory cytokines, disrupts leptin signalling. The more fat you have, the more hormonal imbalance and inflammation, and the more likely to have diabetes, insulin resistance, and heart disease (from inflammation). 

I parked my suspicions there, though the scent of bull was on this. Fat people having embraced the notion that our bodies are whole not slim + and act in concert were ahead of a lot of these researchers. When this happens and your tormentors straw version of you allows no honour, they just lecture you with their new found sense of reality, as if you were insisting on the fibs they strenously advocate.

Any fat person who believed/s in the handbag cell would have got it from 'obesity' constructivism, same as the assumption that weight loss and CRIWL are one and the same. Anyway, I assumed the attempt expressed here to represent the fat cell as if it was some kind of rogue cell had enabled 'obesity' wallahs to finally let go of their silly emotional dependence on adipose handbags. Subsequently, it is clear that they haven't managed this at all, still, because of this Adamts1, I thought this might have been a new dawn for at least the duration of this article,

So when I read this, I was genuinely taken aback,

On anti-obesity treatment options, Dr Feldman said: 'That won't be a simple answer.

'If you block fat formation, extra calories have to go somewhere in the body, and sending them somewhere else outside fat cells could be more detrimental to metabolism.

Back to fat handbags again!!!!

That's not the half of what makes this shocking. Not only is has the research concerned already suggested you can block the formation of the fat cell by being less stressed. Formation of the fat cell has already been blocked and is out there.

* Correction: according to NHS Choices, "they had already started to become fat cells and the hormone [Adamts1] finished the maturation process."

Settled Points

Whilst trawling for something else, I landed on a blog representing a notion that epitomises the divide between the fat standard and what the mainstream applies to itself.

This blog was going on about how set point theory was ultimately condescending and infantilizing to, in this case, women. Keeping them from taking responsibility for their weight (and this was part of why fat acceptance was losing its way).

Another one of her posts spoke about a certain neurotic condition, in the usual way, as if it was an illness.

That represents nervous imbalance as a set point. And that looks exactly as condescending, infantilizing, shifty and vanity serving as you think acknowledging CRIWL is not the right way to achieve weight loss does.

In case of any need of a reminder, as CRIWL is the only route to weight loss. Most people will have to accept the size they are.

If that's confusing, I'm saying that the idea that an imbalanced nervous system is some kind of an illness is in the main, vanity serving drivel. Remember, one of the chiefest foes of dealing with neurosis=vanity.

Yes, there are a minority of people who have functional disorders of some kind, that make them more likely to become mentally unbalanced in this way. Either in terms of the formation of their nervous system, or their organs.

Mainstream therapy culture has advancing this comforting gesture of a set point, for decades. Therapy's efficacy is, shall we say, someone moot [tact-c'est moi; today]. Ergo, someone has to explain why, someone goes into therapy, on the premise that they have an issue, therapy is supposed to solve this. It how shall we say, doesn't. How to explain that?

Therapy doesn't work?

The decision was made to define neurosis as something that is like an infectious disease. Things like depression etc., can make you feel very unwell, they can actually make you sick, but they aren't like illnesses. They aren't a set point, they're more a settled point.

It's often strange when others see in fat people how they themselves act all the time, but don't seem to notice, or remark on. Probably as they know they'd be challenged.

If anything, it was this attitude that was belatedly applied to fatness-which is why its named and why its so contested. Fat people are not subject to the rules applied to others. Whereas those rare people who have a neurosis based on internal fillips become the template for anyone diagnosed with that condition, no matter how far away they are from there.

Fat people are defined by people who are ill and fat, and they're defined as people who would be well, if they weren't fat.

And before those who are fat and neurotic and think this is an outrage get excited, you have already accepted what I'm saying, you just don't apply it to your neuroses-same as everyone else. Anyone accepting the notion that weight or health can be controlled by changing your thinking, eating and activity has accepted the idea that a settled point is not a set point. That your neurosis is open ended and can change in an instant and/or remain for a lifetime. Potentially by your own actions.

The biggest noise made about neuroses is not; just calm down is wrong, its that just calming down is real hard when your nerves are in that state. You do actually have to calm down, cheer up, stop checking, etc.,

You can be fat to thin for anything from a lifetime to a short or no time. Ditto your nervous/mental state. You've all already accepted this, via the fat standard.