I came across The Big Fat Truth a few days ago:
The report, a meta-analysis of 97 studies including 2.88 million people, had been released on 2 January in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)1. A team led by Katherine Flegal, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Health Statistics in Hyattsville, Maryland, reported that people deemed ‘overweight’ by international standards were 6% less likely to die than were those of ‘normal’ weight over the same time period.
The result seemed to counter decades of advice to avoid even modest weight gain, provoking coverage in most major news outlets — and a hostile backlash from some public-health experts. “This study is really a pile of rubbish, and no one should waste their time reading it,” said Walter Willett, a leading nutrition and epidemiology researcher at the Harvard school, in a radio interview….
But many researchers accept Flegal’s results and see them as just the latest report illustrating what is known as the obesity paradox.
So, a study finds that people who are deemed ‘overweight’ live longer than than ‘healthy’ or ‘normal’ people, and lots of ‘health experts’ promptly fly off the handle.
If they were genuine researchers, they wouldn’t get angry. They’d be interested to learn more. But these people aren’t genuine scientists. These are people with an agenda. They’re engaged in a moral crusade. They want to rid the world of ugly fat people. And stinky smokers. And obnoxious drunkards.
A hundred years ago, they would have belonged to Christian temperance organisations and quoted from the Bible. But these days, when people don’t pay much attention to preachers and clerics any more, but completely believe whatever any ‘scientist’ or ‘researcher’ or ‘expert’ tells them, they’ve become scientists and researchers and experts, and produce ‘papers’. Apart from that, their agenda is indistinguishable from their puritanical Christian precursors. You don’t burn in hell any more, but you will instead die a premature, slow, lingering, and extremely painful death that is the secular equivalent of hell.
They all have identical moral convictions. Fat = gluttonous = wrong. Drunken = sinful. Smoking = self-indulgent = naughty. Sex = very, very naughty. And they have all known this from their earliest childhood, most likely. And they have known it with perfect and immutable certainty. And they have lists of things that are right and wrong, good and bad. Lettuce = good. Cheese = good. Meat = bad. Sugar = bad. And so on. And these are all things that they’ve been told by adults.
But for myself, I believe that something is wrong when it causes other people harm. I look at the consequences of what people do. And the way I see it, being fat does nobody else any harm. And getting drunk/stoned does nobody any harm either. Neither does smoking tobacco/grass/whatever. Neither does more or less every sex act, apart from those that entail coercion. They’re all harmless. And so, in my view, they’re all perfectly legitimate behaviours. I don’t mind if people are fat, drunken, libidinous smokers. They’re doing me no harm.
And the people who are doing very real harm, it seems to me, are the antismoking, anti-alcohol zealots who shatter communities, close down pubs, and depress the economy. I think that anyone who sets out to demonise smokers, and deprive them of their jobs and homes, are doing tremendous harm. What these moralistic bastards are doing is deeply immoral.
But then, for them, morality is just lists of right things and wrong things. They don’t have any idea of morality as being concerned with the consequences of actions. They are, in many ways, devoid of genuine morality. They are incapable of moral reasoning. And they are amoral.
They are, in fact, children. And theirs is a children’s morality, of rules of right and wrong impressed upon them by adults, teachers, or other authorities, but never actually understood in any meaningful way as to why something is right, and why something else is wrong. And it’s because they are children, that they identify so readily with children, and are always ‘thinking of the children’. And it’s also why they look up to authority figures as readily as children do. They are child-men and child-women, even if some of them are older than I am. And all their beliefs are childish wishful thinking.
Anyway these moralistic ‘public health experts’ will never be able to accept that being fat could possibly have any health benefits. Because they’re not concerned with health. They are concerned with morality. And they think it’s wrong to be fat, and wrong to smoke, and wrong to drink, etc, etc. And they’ll never change their minds.