Child-men and women

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.

OBESITY_PARADOX_graphThe 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.


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Child-men and women

  1. Ripper says:

    I don’t think that these people even think [insert sin here] is wrong. They don’t even think, full stop. If they did, they would challenge the indoctrination passed onto them from the rent seeking faux scientists. Its neither about health or morals, its about fear. The same kind of fear that governments use with terrorism, in exchange for personal freedoms/liberties – ‘If you [insert sin here] you’ll die a horrible slow death’. Those faux scientists and bent professors actually get paid to demonise sections of the public by stirring up hysteria and hatred. Leg Iron is spot on when he mentions ‘mindless drones’. And none of it will end until the gravy train derails.

  2. Junican says:

    We have been going around the edges of ‘the morality’ for some time now. We have often compared the present Anti-Tobacco Zealots with the Anti-alcohol zealots of a hundred years ago without actually equating the two morally.
    Is it reasonable to say that the only real difference between now and then is that we now have more rapid and more extensive means of communication than was the case in 1920?

    “Mens sana in corpore sana”. “Healthy mind in healthy body” . (Quibble if you wish about the spelling). Erm … Define ‘healthy mind’ and define ‘healthy body’. Odd, is it not, that Public Schools like Eton actually believed such rotten slogans. The silliness is amply illustrated by Stephen Hawking.
    Morality has come to mean longevity. Which equates with ‘survival of the fittest’.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Is it reasonable to say that the only real difference between now and then is that we now have more rapid and more extensive means of communication than was the case in 1920?

      I certainly think this has got a lot to do with it. First newspapers, and then radio, and then TV, introduced powerful new ways of shaping public opinion. Putting a TV set in every home is like putting a church pulpit in every home. And because there’s always someone preaching from the pulpit, the message doesn’t need to be loud and shrill, but quiet and consistent in the way in which it articulates values and beliefs which in time become pervasive and accepted by everyone. All gradually become indoctrinated into a monoculture. And I think that this is probably most true of the TV generation (i.e. mine). That’s why we have so many of what Leg-iron calls ‘drones’. More or less all their opinions about everything have been manufactured and implanted in them.

      However, the rise of the internet over the past 20 years would seem to signal a change. The internet isn’t a monoculture, but a whole set of different cultures. It has a diversity of opinions. And it allows people access to alternative points of view. If, for example, I have become increasingly sceptical about supposedly authoritative claims being made about smoking, or global warming, and so on, it is very largely because I have gained access to new information about them via the internet.

      Anyway, I don’t think there is any real difference between the antismokers of today and the alcohol prohibitionists of a century ago. It’s the same beast, dressed in new clothes. The language changes, but it sends the same message. A century or more ago, these people would have been saying that smoking and drinking were ‘sinful’. Now they would say that these behaviours are ‘unacceptable’.

      • Junican says:

        Ah, yes. The Internet is not the beast that I was thinking about. I was thinking more about the way in which the radio was used very quickly after it was invented, to spread ‘approved’ propaganda.
        Thankfully, tyrants have found the net almost impossible to get total control of.

    • magnetic01 says:

      The Temperance/Eugenics Movements in America were both anti-alcohol and anti-tobacco. Nazi eugenics was both anti-alcohol and anti-tobacco.

    • melinoerealm says:

      The so-called “rotten slogan”, actually comes from ancient Greece. And from people who drank wine (and who knows what else), held symposia, pleased themselves in the wrestling gym and in the baths, pursued love affairs with pretty girls (or boys, for some) and in general enjoyed the life of a free-bred.

      That’s the kind of people who spoke about healthy mind in healthy body. And it is no “rotten slogan” at all, unless you’re taking it completely out of context.

  3. Rose says:

    Anyway these moralistic ‘public health experts’ will never be able to accept that being fat could possibly have any health benefits

    Oh I think they will, but grudgingly. It’s a matter of how they deliver this unwelcome news after years of denying any possible benefit.

    First the Good News – having removed all quotation and question marks designed to cast doubt on the subject in the mind of the reader, questionable references to nicotine as a cause and unrelated and disparaging remarks in general.

    Health benefits of smoking

    “Tobacco use confers a small degree of protection against several diseases and conditions, described in the sections below.”

    “research on the mechanisms by which smoking appears to confer a protective effect against development of certain disease processes may lead to therapeutic benefits”

    Ulcerative colitis

    “Ulcerative colitis is a serious bowel disease in which the inner lining of the colon and rectum becomes inflamed and permanently damaged.
    Current smokers have a lower risk of developing ulcerative colitis, compared to non-smokers and ex-smokers”.

    Parkinson’s disease

    An association between smoking and a lower incidence of Parkinson’s disease has been observed in a number of studies.
    An analysis of longitudinal studies found a protective effect against Parkinson’s disease for current and former smokers compared with those who had never smoked; the risk of Parkinson’s disease was reduced by about half among ever smokers (RR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43–0.61) and this protective effect was more pronounced among current smokers, where the risk was about one-third that of never smokers (RR 0.35; 95% CI, 0.26–0.47).9 Similar findings of a protective effect for Parkinson’s disease were also reported from a case–control study conducted in Japan”

    Endometrial cancer and uterine fibroids

    “Epidemiological studies have consistently reported that active cigarette smoking is inversely associated with developing cancer of the endometrium (the membrane lining of the uterus) in women who have reached menopause.

    A recent meta-analysis found that cigarette smoking was significantly associated with a reduced risk, especially so among postmenopausal women, where a 29% reduction in risk was found (RR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65–0.78).16 Very similar results have been reported from recent studies conducted in Poland although the researchers are at pains to point out their important finding that in postmenopausal women, obesity is an important modifier of the association between cigarette smoking and the risk of endometrial cancer.

    The Polish researchers found that obese women showed the greatest risk reduction for current smoking (OR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27–0.81)”

    Pre-eclampsia (hypertension in pregnancy)

    “Pre-eclampsia is a potentially serious condition in pregnancy in which the mother develops high blood pressure, fluid retention and abnormal kidney function. Smokers are less likely to develop pre-eclampsia than non-smokers”

    “Compared with non-tobacco users, light smokers experienced a one-third reduction in risk (OR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.61–0.71) and heavy smokers a halving of risk (OR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.44–0.58) with ORs lower for term than preterm pre-eclampsia.

    The study found that tobacco combustion products rather than nicotine are the probable protective ingredients against pre-eclampsia in cigarette smoke and further concluded that it is smoking behaviour in the middle or late rather than in the beginning of pregnancy that seems to have the greatest effect on the risk of pre-eclampsia.”

    Cognitive performance

    “A meta-analysis of research into the effects of nicotine and smoking on human performance found positive effects of nicotine or smoking on six domains: (i) fine motor, (ii) alerting attention-accuracy, (iii) response time (RT), (iv) orienting attention-RT, (v) short-term episodic memory-accuracy, and (vi) working memory-RT (effect size range = 0.16 to 0.44)”

    Psychiatric symptoms

    “There is evidence that the action of nicotine in enhancing mood and concentration is more pronounced in some individuals with depression and cognitive problems (issues relating to mental awareness and judgement), and also that nicotine can help relieve unwelcome side effects from medication, particularly among patients being treated with antipsychotic drugs.”

    Thyroid cancer

    “Some studies have suggested that smoking may be associated with a reduced risk of developing thyroid cancer, particularly for women”

    Skin cancer

    “Early epidemiological studies suggested a protective effect of smoking for melanoma.39-41 More recent analyses from two large prospective cohort studies provides limited evidence to suggest that smoking may reduce melanoma risk”

    Other possible health benefits

    “There is some evidence that smokers are less likely to develop aphthous stomatitis (common mouth ulcers). One recent study found that the possible protective effect of smoking was only present when there was heavy cigarette smoking or smoking for long periods of time and no significant associations were found between intensity or duration of smoking and clinical severity of aphthous stomatitis lesions.

    Transient increased incidence of mouth ulcers is commonly reported by individuals on quitting smoking.”

    Now read it in full to see how these inconvenient discoveries were really presented.

  4. Steve Kelly says:

    I’ve come across a number of such studies suggesting moderate “overweight” is not bad, and probably good, for you. Extremely fat people run higher risks (surprise, surprise), but even more so, very skinny people are likely to be sickly and have the highest risk of dying early (surprise, surprise again.) When I was researching for stuff I wrote, for FORCES and elsewhere years ago, I also found in longevity studies that moderate smokers statistically outlived tobacco abstainers. The study authors themselves overlooked or denigrated this suggestion but it stared right at you from their figures. Most “public health” workers are anything but scientists. They think they are but really they’re simply charlatans: bigots and hateful crusaders. Healthism or Antism is a new worldwide religion. It’s a debased cult, an insidious thing, a great evil.

    • Frank Davis says:

      very skinny people are likely to be sickly and have the highest risk of dying early (surprise, surprise again.)

      I’m very skinny, but I’ve never been in the least bit sickly. For about 40 years, the only thing I ever went to my doctor for was sleeping tablets. Since the smoking ban I’ve found that I don’t need them either.

  5. Frank Davis says:

    After reading about Mike Daube over at DP, I’ve realised that of course these moral simpletons not only believe that smoking is ‘bad’, but also that tobacco is ‘bad’, and by extension tobacco companies are ‘evil’ too.

    Daube thinks that tobacco companies are evil, and therefore that anything they do is evil too, including making e-cigarettes. Other people’s e-cigs might be okay, but tobacco company e-cigs are evil.

    The underlying morality is essentially a demonology. There isn’t anything that’s good. There are only varieties of evil. And theirs is a crusade against evil. They are not motivated by love of any good, but by hatred of evil. So theirs is a hate-driven creed.

    • Jay says:

      Your comment reminded me of Margaret Hodge’s astonishing accusation to Google that it was evil because it was paying only the amont of tax that it was required to by law devised by her fellow politicians which is akin to saying to a PAYE employee that they have a moral obligation to agree to more being deducted from their pay packet than is required.

      It seems to me that these days there is no rationality – every issue requires an emotional response and expression of that response is always emotive.

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    They want to rid the world of ugly fat people.


  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    An old german woman of 84 or 86 years was sitting behind me at bingo last nite and told a mutual friend of mine they found a spot on her lung and were doing a biopsy today on it. She has been smoking since before ww2 had started! Ya the rats were trying to get her to quit! She told em WHY!

  8. magnetic01 says:

    For anyone interested.

    Concerning the big island – Australia, that is quickly sinking into the sands of madness, allow me to introduce Peter FitzSimons.

    Pete the Ponce is a former rugby player that probably took too many shots to the head in his playing days. Since his on-field brawling, Pete has become something of a celebrity “opinionist”; he’s written a few books, pens newspaper columns, and makes the occasional appearance on “news” TV. Many describe him as a socialist socialite, a socially-connected left-leaner quite partial to the frequent drop of vino and other alcoholic thirst-quenchers. He is also an aggressively avowed atheist who doesn’t want anyone’s religion shoved down his throat.

    So why put this opinionated top-end wine-bibber under the spotlight? Well, our good friend Pete – seeker of “social justice” – has made it into the news for somewhat sordid reasons. It appears that Petey Boy signed on to the Master of Ceremonies job for a recent children’s cancer charity-function. What has some people riled up is that, in searching for “social justice”, the already wealthy Petey charged $8,000 for his services (the charity function ultimately made a total profit of $30,000). In addition, as MC he wasn’t all that good. If that wasn’t enough, given a steady intake of [free] plonk during the evening, Petey also made a first-class vulgar ass of himself away from the microphone:

    One would think that this oaf would be slow on the moralizing trigger. And maybe he is ….. except for one thing in which he is absolutely sure – Petey is an antismoker. Here’s a reference to some of Pete’s antismoking, alcohol-soaked, punch-drunk “pearls of wisdom”:

    But when I say that Petey is an antismoker, I may not be doing proper justice to the circumstance. We would have to say that the opinionated boozer is more that just an antismoker. He’s an antismoking activist.

    Enter another piece of oafishness, another pompous galoot – the professor of “public health” [giggle], Simple Simon Crapman. In the following article, Crapman explains how he had nothing to do with a mostly campus-wide smoking ban at Sydney University:

    We know that when Crapman says that he does not agree with large-area outdoor smoking bans (e.g., campus-wide), he is lying. There’s Crapman’s signature – on page 2 – of the ASH manual “Guide for a Tobacco Free Campus”:

    But I digress. What does Crapman have to do with Pete the Plonkmeister, I hear you ask. Patience, dear ones. Well, while Crapman attempts to divest himself of all responsibility for these baseless, spiteful campus-wide smoking bans, look at whom he points the fickle finger of accusation – none other than Petey Ploppo, another antismoking activist:
    “Last year, my university debated the introduction of a ban on smoking on all areas of its campuses, after the senate alumni representative and Herald columnist Peter FitzSimons led the charge….”

    Yes! That Peter FitzSimons.

    Now don’t be complaining about my raconteur skills. I charged nothing, let alone $8,000.

  9. magnetic01 says:

    Frank, have a comment awaiting mod.

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    The new health minister, I will liberalize the smoking ban

    I’ll probably go to relax the ban on smoking in public places, but will work for more control. It said the new Health Minister Tanya Andreeva in adopting the position of Professor Nikolai Petrov.

    Handover began with a large bouquet Professor Petrov gave Andreeva. “This bouquet is a sign of respect for you as a sign of hope for you and to wish good luck and God first,” said former health minister already.

    “I really like flowers, it is very colorful. I hope in this way to keep my job and the team that will create. We have many problems to solve. I hope that soon some of them to see the result because all expect it. Like all my colleagues, doctors, and all our patients, because ultimately that’s why health care is – people to be healthy and live a full life, “he said in response to Dr. Tanya Andreeva.

    “I’m sure not going to be easy, but with all your heart and with the knowledge that I will try to fast-forward to solve some of the problems, because there’s really no time,” added Dr. Andreeva.

    The new health minister has promised to clarify its priorities in detail next week. Then you probably will be presented and new deputy ministers.

    We have developed a detailed program. Priorities include addressing problems in emergency care, the problems of hospitals. Will begin work on the issue of regulation of drug prices, said Health Minister. In her words, any decision will be discussed in advance with the professional and patient organizations.

    Andreeva declined to say who will be the deputy ministers who will appoint, but said that among them there will be no obstetricians and it will remain the only representative of this specialty in the ministry.

    “It is no secret that in recent years many things were shrouded in a strange mystery. I particularly have more transparency and clarity about what is happening since the Minister Petrov minister, “said Dr. Andreeva.

    A former health minister Professor Nikolai Petrov said he was very pleased that it will not be a minister. “I am very happy. For quite some time I think, I hope you go, “he said. According to him, most likely to return to work at the Military Academy tomorrow and then will launch and leave.

  11. Marvin says:

    Another useless graph, the “probability of death” is 100% – not 0 to 10 – the science is settled.

  12. john the non smoker says:

    I think I qualify as obnoxios on at least two counts, but who cares. ?

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.