Hosed Down

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

[Vox: Why obvious lies make great propaganda]

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

The authors named for major characteristics of "Firehosing",

1. High Volume

2. Rapid, Continuous, and repetitive

3. No commitment to objective reality

4. No commitment to consistency

Highlighting the last two as the most definitive. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They just create sort of this unmanageable volume of falsehood.  

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

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

Gessen goes on to say;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly. Gessen;

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

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

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

Treemenduhs.

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

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

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

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

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

In the end Gessen says,

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

Absolutely.

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

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

On Holliday Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

'Obesity' or Person?

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

You know who you are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Edit*

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.

A little Bit More 'Obesity' Agnosticism

Holy Guacamole!

Courtesy of estimable Linda Bacon, I just caught up with this,

Some might say that given obesity rates, we should give these obesity researchers the benefit of the doubt and let them collect more data. But here’s the thing: obesity researchers don’t deserve our trust. And despite decades of measuring and billions of dollars of funding, obesity research has not reduced obesity rates.

If these researchers want to come anywhere near our children, they need to come with more than a 50-year track record of failure.

Lols. Round of applause for Kasey Edwards.

Yes, she's restricting her fact-based dismissal to "when it comes to handing out practical advice on nutrition........" But it's a start. It should give activists a sense that slim people aren't so special needs that they have to be pandered to endlessly.

It would seem there is a limit to how much 'obesity researchers' can interfere with childrens' esteem and sense of themselves. They don't have open house.

Decades ago I assumed children would stop this cult in its tracks. One of the more shocking things in all this has been the utter disregard and even direct targeting of children as a route to getting away with things they couldn't get away with, with adults.

If anyone wanted to know how low these drug and mutilation peddlers are it should have been that, but, hey, some times we learn hard.

One of my main motivations for getting involved in the fatsphere was a deep sense that I didn't want another generation of children to grow up in the barren wasteland of negative propaganda with no adults really seeming to speak up to defend them from this.

So it's heartening to think peak 'obesity' could be on the horizon, even if only a prospect, and only in the case of children. I'll take that. I have always said, let's agree to leave children out of this. 'Obesity' shills won't though, they know that you can unseat people's connection with their own experience only in childhood.

They truly are some of the most dishonourable people I've ever encountered. It's not that they're evil, they're just empty. You can often hear them echooooooo.

The above highlight of the utter irrelevance and failure of this noise, ought to be the first sentence anyone mentions when speaking of 'obesity'. The fifty years useless/irrelevant/ineffectual/repetitious 'obesity' industry/science/research/public health whatever, wishes to tell us more of the same old shit its been telling us all that time and promises for ever more-with their ceaseless projections of their continued pointlessness.

The findings suggest that the proportion of individuals in the population defined as overweight will decline slowly in the next 20 years. However, the proportion of the population considered obese will increase substantially and could represent as much as 45% of the entire population by 2035. The proportion of morbidly obese will also increase considerably. These trends are likely to impact the actual costs of health care considerably.

Yes, because you can absolutely guarantee that 'obesity science' will produce nothing of any earthly use, despite the current touting of gastric evisceration.  That's because "public health" bullshitters know 'obesity' is a construct and a biological non-entity.

More 'obesity' agnosticism is only just. 

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. 

'Obesity' Has Got Nothing To Do With You

I know people still think it has. Projection though, is not talking to, influenced or about you.

Being obese or overweight are NOT “medical conditions.” They are simply different ways for bodies to be.

Ob is not a neutral or objective term. If it just meant, fat or BMI 30+ then it wouldn't have been thought up. It exists not simply to pathologise the human body, but to force this alien thought pattern on everyone. It obliterates and seeks to replace the subjective experience of being.
The extent to which 'obesity' is the creation of those who promote it is displayed by the curiosity proposed in bill "H.R.1953 - Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2017".

This bill allows coverage, under Medicare, of intensive behavioral therapy for obesity furnished by providers other than primary care physicians and practitioners.

Additionally, it allows coverage under Medicare's prescription drug benefit of drugs used for the treatment of obesity or for weight loss management for individuals who are overweight.

The bill has not passed into law, though IBT4O has been coded [pdf].

When I refuse to be weighed the person asks me something like “do my mind if I make my best guess.” I did some digging. It turns out that insurance companies and Medicare have started to pay for something called “Intensive Behavioral Therapy for Obesity”

The title; "Intensive Behavioural Therapy" intrigues, it sounds awfully specific, yet we know all 'obesity' grifters ever do is tell you to diet and get paid for these "efforts",

....this therapy was devised by Ivar Lovaas, a Norwegian psychologist, who worked in the 1960's on developing verbal communication with autistic children. The Lovaas therapy is an intensive therapy which takes place at home.

That threw me for a loop, did it you?

The Lovaas method involves one-on-one coaching lessons with a therapist.

One-on-one, finally, familiarity,

For Medicare beneficiaries with obesity....CMS covers:

• One face-to-face visit every week for the first month;

• One face-to-face visit every other week for months 2-6;

• One face-to-face visit every month for months 7-12, if the beneficiary meets the 3kg weight loss requirement as discussed below.

One-on-one then, now, face-to-face, a slight but telling drift I fancy.

It is based on the assumption that autistic children need to be taught everything including communication, expression and socialisation. 

Silence.

Autistic children are said to be unable to learn how to do things by copying other human beings. 

Crickets.

With the Lovaas therapy each task is taught in a repetitive way until the child masters it completely. Children learn how to pay attention, how to copy behaviours, imitate sounds, understand what people say, play with toys, show emotions, and how to relate to other children.

Not even guessing. Application;

Intensive behavioral therapy for obesity consists of the following:

1. Screening for obesity in adults using measurement of BMI calculated by dividing weight in kilograms by the square of height in meters (expressed in kg/m²);
2. Dietary (nutritional) assessment; and
3. Intensive behavioral counseling and behavioral therapy to promote sustained weight loss through high intensity interventions on diet and exercise.

Got that? Weighing, diet plan, telling you to ELDM. The same old CRIWL, in the style of  one of those employee assessment interviews. Which is apt, because you are their employee, except you're paying them.

Apart from this not being "therapy"-I know, I've blown the suspense- it's worth considering that any pretence of behaviourism or behavioural therapy  needn't have taken this particular inspiration.

Behavioral therapy is an umbrella term for types of therapy that treat mental health disorders. This form of therapy seeks to identify and help change potentially self-destructive or unhealthy behaviors.

That could be something of interest to those who've spent years of their lives as the subjects of a form of Munchausen's Syndrome-by-proxy. "Effects of Munchusen Syndrome by Proxy on the Victim"

With regard to the victims’ adult lives, two reported not being significantly affected by their childhood abuse; however, both of these subjects reported avoiding visits to doctors and ignoring health and medical issues.

Okay, this is only a couple out of a very small sample, also, one should be careful extrapolating from one symptom (out of a pattern). But you have to admit, that is an intriguing aftermath of the more intimate form of MSBP. And I don't doubt that isn't the only one.

Behavioural therapy; CBT-which is mainly used to reverse depressive, anxietous, compulsive and panic neuroses. Its list of cognitive distortions identify the 'obesity' playbook of pathologise, panic and pain.

Write/type out a list; all-or nothing thinking, overgeneralisation, reverse-halo effect, disqualifying the positive(s), jumping to conclusions-mindreading, jumping to conclusions-fortune telling, catastrophising, emotional reasoning, labelling/mislabelling, etc., and every time you hear anything about 'obesity' ask yourself if it fits into any of these categories.

System desensitization relies heavily on classical conditioning. It’s often used to treat phobias. People are taught to replace a fear response to a phobia with relaxation responses. 

This reminds me of something I've mentioned before.

A person is first taught relaxation and breathing techniques. Once mastered, the therapist will slowly expose them to their fear in heightened doses while they practise these techniques.

Try this, it could be used to reverse the effects of years of 'obesity' death threats, body and even self hatred.

Learn the relaxation first, then whilst in a relaxed state, bring to mind the things you wish to reverse the effects of. The moment they bring you out of your relaxed state, push them out of your mind and restore/go back to your relaxation. When you feel sufficiently calmed repeat a couple of times.

Practise this regularly, until you get to the point where this negativity doesn't bring you out of your relaxed state.

This kind of answers the question doesn't it? If these ob peddlers gave you anything genuine to reverse the effects of negative experience, you'd use it on the negative experiences they've loaded onto you. 

And those effects are the main things enabling them to roll over you without your consent or even conscious awareness.....