Obesity Is Not A Disease

Some days the world seems to have gone mad. Actually, most days the world seems to have gone mad.

Chris Snowdon in the Spectator:

In the pages of the Guardian today, George Monbiot claims that ‘obesity is an incurable disease’ that ‘resembles cancer’. Needless to say, capitalism and advertising are to blame.

He goes on to dispute with Monbiot whether it’s curable or not.  But, whether it’s curable or incurable, I don’t think obesity is a disease. I don’t think being fat is any more a disease than being thin is a disease. Or being tall. Or short.

The simple truth of the matter is that some people find fat people ugly and unsightly. They have a set of ideal physical shapes and sizes for both men and women. Particularly women. Not too tall, not too short, not too fat, and not too thin. With a full set of brilliant white teeth. And good head of hair. But no hair on their chest. Particularly in the case of women.

Purely aesthetic judgments are in operation here. It’s got nothing whatsoever to do with ‘health’, and everything to do with appearances.

Disease entails some lack of comfort. Disease is dis-ease: lack of ease. And it is thus the diseased or distressed individual who must declare themselves ‘well’ or ‘unwell’, because only they know how they are feeling. Nobody can tell you that you are unwell: that’s up to you. You have to be asked.

And so the only reasonable question to be asked of fat people (or thin, short, or tall people) is: “Do you feel unwell? Are you in any pain?” And to the best of my knowledge, when fat people – even very fat people – are asked this question, they usually respond by saying that they feel perfectly well. For it seems that being fat is not in itself a painful condition. And if it’s not a painful condition, then it’s not a disease.

Anyone who calls being fat a disease is really just saying they don’t like seeing fat people. And anyone who calls smoking a disease (it isn’t, and as one of life’s pleasures is in fact the opposite of disease) is really just saying they don’t like seeing people smoking. And if vaping is now being lumped in with smoking for legal purposes (i.e. bans), it’s purely because vaping looks like smoking.

Medicine has ceased to be concerned with disease, and has instead become obsessed with superficial appearances. It has become cosmetic medicine. It has become fashion. And the fashionable man or woman is not just kitted out in the latest clothes and shoes and hairstyles and wristwatches, but has to have a fashionable body to go along with the clothes (not too fat, not too thin, etc, etc.) The body has become a fashion accessory. And the aim of medicine is to make everybody look like Charlton Heston or Marilyn Monroe (or whoever the latest pin-ups are).

Tomorrow morning I should receive a copy of Jung Chang’s Wild Swans, which documents the lives of her grandmother, her mother, and herself. Her grandmother had her feet bound to keep them fashionably tiny. In the talks she gave about the book, Jung Chang explained that binding the feet was the least of it: all the bones in the feet were broken (except the big toe), and not allowed to mend. Jung Chang’s grandmother lived a life of agony. But keeping up desired appearances was more important than lack of ease. And that’s exactly where modern ‘medicine’ is now leading us back to: ancient China.

It’s not hard to see the likely outcome of this madness. It was prefigured in Africa last year with the Ebola epidemic, which was raging at its height while the WHO ran a week-long antismoking bash in Moscow. They weren’t ready for that epidemic, and they won’t be ready for the next one either. Smoking bans won’t prevent the next plague. Nor will slimming pills. Running marathons won’t help either.

With luck, it’ll carry off the top echelons of our insane medical establishment. And if it doesn’t, an angry world will dispose of the useless survivors, and reconstruct a reformed medical profession that treats painful and debilitating diseases, not superficial appearances.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Obesity Is Not A Disease

  1. roobeedoo2 says:

    ‘Wild Swans’ is a fantastic novel. You might also like ‘Memories of a Geisha’:


    • beobrigitte says:

      ‘Memoirs of a Geisha’ was made into a film which I enjoyed watching. Would like to read the book!
      ‘Wild swans’ sounds interesting; I’ll order this, too!

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    O/T Currency War

    China’s move has raised the risk of a “currency war” as export rivals seek a weaker exchange rate to stay competitive, according to Stephen Roach, a senior fellow at Yale University and former non-executive chairman for Morgan Stanley in Asia.

    “It’s hard to believe this will be a one-off adjustment,” Roach said. “In a weak global economy, it will take a lot more than a 1.9 percent devaluation to jump-start sagging Chinese exports. That raises the distinct possibility of a new and increasingly destabilizing skirmish in the ever-widening global currency war. The race to the bottom just became a good deal more treacherous.”


  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    60 years of junk lifestyles science and for what?

    So a few Nazis can claim we outlawed those ugly people…………

    Lest we forget


    2008 Regular Session

    To: Public Health and Human Services; Judiciary B

    By: Representative Mayhall, Read, Shows

    House Bill 282


    SECTION 1. (1) The provisions of this section shall apply to any food establishment that is required to obtain a permit from the State Department of Health under Section 41-3-15(4)(f), that operates primarily in an enclosed facility and that has five (5) or more seats for customers.

    (2) Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.

    (3) The State Department of Health shall monitor the food establishments to which this section applies for compliance with the provisions of this section, and may revoke the permit of any food establishment that repeatedly violates the provisions of this section.

    SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2008

  4. Jude says:

    To me this whole “obesity is a disease” nonsense is just more of the pathologising of differences. It suits those who want to not take responsibility for their own choices, (they are “victims” of corporations etc), and it suits the medical and pharmaceutical industries, and greedy governments, as it always means more money from drug sales, and people are willing to pay big time for cosmetic surgeries, and governments have the excuse they need to put in place extortionist taxes on “sinful” products.

    For those who never believed that the “healthist” , high priests and zealots would move down that slippery slope some of us warned about, in order to control every aspect of human existence, (it cannot be called life, as there is little life to be had under the healthist puritan boot), I will say a big fat “I told you so”.

    Perhaps this accelerating madness of puritan “healthism” will finally bring people to the realisation that they are being duped, though I wont hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The Eugenics never ends


      Researchers Discover Possible Obesity Gene

      Aug 11, 2015 by
      An international team of scientists, led by Dr Gareth Lim and Dr James Johnson from the University of British Columbia, has discovered a gene that could be an important cause of obesity. According to the scientists, the gene, which encodes a protein called 14-3-3zeta, is found in every cell of the body.

      But when they silenced the gene in mice, it resulted in a 50% reduction in the amount of unhealthy ‘white fat,’ which is associated with obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

      The fat reduction occurred despite the mice consuming the same amount of food. Mice that were bred to have higher levels of the 14-3-3zeta protein were noticeably bigger and rounder, having an average of 22% more white fat when fed a high calorie diet.

      “Until now, we didn’t know how this gene affected obesity. This study shows how fundamental research can address major health problems and open up new avenues for drug discovery,” said Dr Johnson, who is the senior author of a paper published in the journal Nature Communications.

      Earlier this year, a consortium of scientists found over 100 regions on the human genome that correlate with obesity, likely through regulating the brain’s perception of hunger and the distribution of fat throughout the body.

      That study, however, did not identify the gene that encodes 14-3-3zeta, which controls the production of fat cells – known as adipogenesis – and the growth of those cells.

      Discovery of this direct link between a protein and fat production points the way to a possible drug therapy.

      Dr Lim, Dr Johnson and their colleagues from Canada, Australia, and Germany, theorize that by suppressing the gene or blocking the 14-3-3zeta protein, they could prevent fat accumulation in people who are overweight, or are on their way to becoming so.

      “People gain fat in two ways – through the multiplication of their fat cells, and through the expansion of individual fat cells. This protein affects both the number of cells and how big they are, by playing a role in the growth cycle of these cells,” Dr Lim said.

  5. Joe L. says:

    Imagine that: naturally occurring fats aren’t bad for you, but man-made fats created in labs are. This is the most sensible health-related study I’ve seen in a while:

    Saturated fat found in butter, meat or cream is unlikely to kill you, but margarine just might, new research suggests.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Mummies’ clogged arteries take smoking, fatty foods, lethargy out of the mix

      By Tom Valeo, Times Correspondent

      Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:30am

      You do everything right: You exercise every day, include lots of fruits and vegetables in your diet, never smoke, minimize the stress in your life and take medication to keep your cholesterol and blood pressure under control. You’re preventing modern life from ruining your heart, right? • Well, maybe modern life isn’t as much of a problem as merely living. CT scans of 137 ancient mummies from three continents show that our ancestors had plaque in their arteries, too, even though they never smoked, never tasted ice cream or pork rinds, and had no choice but to exercise vigorously every day of their lives.

      According to the study, which appeared recently in the Lancet, at least one-third of the mummies, who lived as long as 5,000 years ago, had arteries that had narrowed as a result of atherosclerosis — the buildup of fatty deposits in the arterial wall. Apparently the cardiovascular system has a tendency to clog up over time.

      “Our research shows that we are all at risk for atherosclerosis, the disease that causes heart attacks and strokes,” said Gregory Thomas, medical director of the MemorialCare Heart & Vascular Institute, Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, and one of the authors of the study. “The data we gathered about individuals from the prehistoric cultures of ancient Peru and the Native Americans living along the Colorado River and the Unangan of the Aleutian Islands is forcing us to look for other factors that may cause heart disease.”

      The diet of the mummies varied widely, but contained ample protein and vegetables (and presumably no cupcakes or pork rinds). Aside from the few Egyptian mummies who lived their lives as pampered royalty, these ancient people used their muscles constantly.

      Yet, the atherosclerosis was found in mummies who died in what we today would consider middle age (almost none made it to 60). And just as today, their arteries became more narrow as they got older. CT scans of modern people have demonstrated that after the age of 60 for men and 70 for women, some degree of atherosclerosis is all but universal. One large study found that teens ages 15 to 19 showed early signs of atherosclerosis, and 50 percent already had conspicuous accumulations of plaque.

      “All of us age in every tissue of our body,” says Dr. Donald LaVan, a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and a spokesman for the American Heart Association. “It’s just a question of how rapidly it happens. There’s nothing you can do to stop aging. All you’re trying to do is prevent it from advancing faster than it should.”

      The authors of the paper agree. “Although commonly assumed to be a modern disease, the presence of atherosclerosis in premodern humans raises the possibility of a more basic predisposition to the disease,” they concluded.

      So what can we do to thwart that predisposition?

      Above all, don’t smoke, says LaVan, and engage in regular physical activity.

      “After that, we’re in the realm of treating disease,” he says. “If your lipids are up or you have hypertension, take care of it. If you have problems with rhythm disturbances, that must be treated, too, because it impairs the ability of heart to pump efficiently. We’re looking at common sense here, but getting patients to do these things is tough.”


      • harleyrider1978 says:

        The above is what started all the conventional new wave shit thinking since the 1950s over lifestyles to be questioned and the result is the study you just posted. Now the US may or has dropped saturated fats from the list of causal things for heart disease. At least stories said the government was dropping it.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Saturated fat DOESN’T cause heart disease after all | Daily …


          Daily Mail

          Mar 17, 2014 – … Aide to President Obama ‘shoots at her cop boyfriend with his own gun in argument … Guidelines urging people to avoid fat to stave off heart disease ‘are wrong’ …. race corner · The moment a woman was shot after refusing to drop her knife … If the chemical composition of butter had to be listed on the …

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    The Questionable Link Between Saturated Fat and Heart Disease

    Are butter, cheese and steak really bad for you? The dubious science behind the anti-fat crusade

    Our distrust of saturated fat can be traced back to the 1950s, to a man named Ancel Benjamin Keys, a scientist at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Keys was formidably persuasive and, through sheer force of will, rose to the top of the nutrition world—even gracing the cover of Time magazine—for relentlessly championing the idea that saturated fats raise cholesterol and, as a result, cause heart attacks.

    This idea fell on receptive ears because, at the time, Americans faced a fast-growing epidemic. Heart disease, a rarity only three decades earlier, had quickly become the nation’s No. 1 killer. Even President Dwight D. Eisenhower suffered a heart attack in 1955. Researchers were desperate for answers.

    As the director of the largest nutrition study to date, Dr. Keys was in an excellent position to promote his idea. The “Seven Countries” study that he conducted on nearly 13,000 men in the U.S., Japan and Europe ostensibly demonstrated that heart disease wasn’t the inevitable result of aging but could be linked to poor nutrition


  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    Fighting unhealthy products: where’s the limit? – Iman Pambagyo – The Malaysian Insider

    If the WTO Dispute Panel finds that governments can justifiably implement the plain packaging measures on tobacco products, we then need to prepare for the proliferation of plain packaging measures on other products.

    This could be the beginning of a slippery slope to fundamental disruption of global consumer markets with unprecedented consequences.

    Indonesia, together with Cuba, Honduras and the Dominican Republic, is challenging Australia’s plain…


    • harleyrider1978 says:

      But looking around the corner, it is surprising to learn how discussions on ways to curb so-called unhealthy products or diets have evolved in a strikingly similar way to that of tobacco products. In May 2014, for example, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, called for a new global agreement to regulate unhealthy diets. He insisted that “unhealthy diets are now a greater threat to global health than tobacco. Just as the world came together to regulate the risks of tobacco, a bold framework convention on adequate diets must now be agreed.” Earlier in March 2014 the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a public consultation on its draft guidelines on sugar intake. Further, in February 2015, The Lancet, one of the world’s oldest and best known medical journals, published a special edition on obesity prevention and called for greater government control and advocated bringing about a healthier environment through social engineering. Similar calls have been made to curb the consumption of alcoholic beverages in countries like Ireland, Thailand, the United Kingdom and Turkey. Back in 2012, the UK Parliamentary Health Committee held an inquiry on a government proposal related to health issues, and in particular looked at plain packaging and marketing bans on alcoholic beverages. It is interesting to note that the European Alcohol Policy Alliance, Eurocare, finds that alcohol scores worse than tobacco in terms of risk for a third person, number of persons at risk, cost to the economy and society, appeal to young people and children and social acceptance, and scores better only in terms of level of regulation. Those are just a few examples how discussions on curbing unhealthy products have been evolving, and it can be expected that they will follow the same path as curbing the prevalence of smoking: first, mandated labelling, followed by the adoption of mandatory graphic warnings to provide illustrations to the public of the adverse impacts of the product in questions. If graphic warnings are not deemed enough, plain packaging will be seen as the next step to limiting the consumption of the product. Interestingly, this trend does not finish with tobacco products. In addition to tobacco, there are already calls to follow the same path with a long list of other products, from infant milk formula and vegetable oils, to alcoholic beverages and products associated with higher blood pressure, obesity and diabetes. There are a huge number of public policy priorities being considered or adopted by countries around the world. If a plain packaging requirement with the elimination of trademarks is deemed appropriate to pursue a public health objective, it will certainly be adopted to pursue others. This is, as shown above, not mere speculation but a clear reality. Hence, the importance of the ongoing WTO case to determine what can be done. Like other countries, Indonesia has adopted or is considering the adoption of measures to combat unhealthy products including tobacco. With regard to the latter, Indonesia adopts graphic health warnings on 40 percent of packs – stricter than half of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control’s signatories. Indonesia also has stricter regulations on tobacco billboard advertising than G8 countries like Germany and the US, as well as a ban on smoking in public places. Challenging the implementation of Australia’s plain packaging measures on tobacco products is not by any means to be interpreted as Indonesia not considering tobacco smoking as harmful to human health. Rather, Indonesia believes that the measures are more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective. If the WTO Dispute Panel finds that governments can justifiably implement the plain packaging measures on tobacco products, we then need to prepare for the proliferation of plain packaging measures on other products. This could be the beginning of a slippery slope to fundamental disruption of global consumer markets with unprecedented consequences. –

  8. Joe L. says:

    Thought-provoking, Frank. I agree that the word “disease” no longer encompasses its original definition of “disorder of structure or function.” It is now newspeak for “being uncomfortable with another person’s lifestyle that happens to differ from your own,” i.e., “dis-ease.”

  9. jltrader says:

    The RSPH says nicotine by itself is no more harmful than caffeine – a fact its research suggests is misunderstood by 90 per cent of the population. But smoking tobacco, which contains tar and other chemicals, kills 100,000 people a year in the UK.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3195854/Call-smoking-ban-OUTSIDE-pubs.html
    And here I thought its addictiveness was on par with cocaine and heroine and it caused all sorts of problems, cardiovascular in particular. LOL

    • mikef317 says:

      The word “tar” gets me hysterical.

      Tar refers to “mouse painting” experiments. Take 100,000 + cigarettes. Have “smoking machines” smoke them. Filter the smoke (and chemicals in the atmosphere) until you get a “condensate” (or “tar”) – a gummy substance somewhere between vaseline and asphalt. Add a “thinning” agent to dilute this into a liquid. God only knows what you’ve got (certainly not smoke), but paint this liquid on the skin of mice, and five percent might develop skin cancer. Tar is a “weak” skin carcinogen for mice. It NEVER “caused” lung cancer, emphysema, or any other “smoking related” disease in animals.

      Known since the 1950’s, to date this is the “best” evidence that “smoke” can “cause” cancer. But skin cancer is not a “smoking related” disease in humans. (!) Worse, there are many substances that you can paint on mouse skin; some “cause” cancer, and in more than 5% of mice.

      In the 1970’s, U. S. Tobacco Control zealously ranted about tar (2.5 micron particulate matter) in smoke. Laws compelled tobacco companies to document the tar levels of their products. (Creating “lite” tobacco.) Tar filters were introduced, and most smokers switched to them. AND ALL OF THIS WAS A FOOL’S ERRAND.

      Thirty years later, the 2000 Surgeon General’s report concluded that filtered cigarettes had no effect on smoker’s health. It was another evil plot (what else?) by The Merchants Of Death to addict another generation of children by making them believe there was a safe (low tar) cigarette.

      God damn lunatics. Given a substance that only “causes” skin cancer in 5% of exposed mice, why would any sane person expect a reduction in tar to effect the human diseases of lung cancer, emphysema, bronchitis, or any of the other 100 + ailments supposedly caused by cigarette smoke?

      Today, 15 years after the 2000 Surgeon General’s report found “low tar” filtered cigarettes worthless, people still brazenly blame tar in smoke for any “smoking related” disease you care to mention.

      The idea that “tar” is dangerous is the product of pseudo-science. Tobacco Control assholes. God damn prohibitionist lunatics.

      Of the “other chemicals” in smoke, which one causes lung cancer?

      • Rose says:

        “The still was filled with a.5 kg. of dry tobacco: the asbestos gasket, soaked in water-glass (liquid sodium silicate), put in place; and the lid fastened tightly so as to prevent the escape of fumes.
        The still was then slowly heated to 700° C. Six to 8 hours were required for a distillation.”

        Click to access 262.full.pdf

        Very realistic, using the same method you could turn a strawberry into an instrument of death.

        • Frank Davis says:

          An asbestos gasket, eh? I guess that back in 1941 they didn’t know that asbestos was carcinogenic. Google.com:

          Lung cancer can be directly caused by asbestos exposure, and some studies have suggested a link between exposure and other types of cancer.

          The asbestos gasket at the top of the still would have had hot gases flowing past it. Since asbestos is a fibrous material which can break up into tiny pieces, it seems highly likely that over 8 hours, quite a few asbestos fibres might have been drawn into the condenser, and to have entered the resultant condensate liquid that was painted on the mice.

        • Rose says:

          I guess that back in 1941 they didn’t know that asbestos was carcinogenic

          Apparently not, they used it to make gas masks in both WW1 and WW2

          Asbestos danger in gas masks, warns MP
          Oct 2013

          “Potential dangers to children of asbestos in First World War gas masks has today been highlighted by North Thanet MP Sir Roger Gale.
          He is urging schools to take the utmost care when dealing with the antique masks for illustrative and educational purposes.
          His warning comes as Britain prepares for major commemorations of the centenary of the Great War.

          MP Jim Sheridan, chairman of the All-Party Group for Occupational Health and Safety, has flagged up concerns that the masks can release asbestos fibres when they are pulled over faces or handled.”

          “Asbestos was used in the filters on masks from both world wars. Blue asbestos is a substance later found to cause potentially fatal pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma in a high proportion of factory workers who were exposed to it.”

          Women to sue over asbestos illnesses: Wartime factory workers seek compensation for pain and suffering after exposure to risk during assembly of gas masks.
          July 1994

          “Many of those at the site were employed by the Chief Inspector of Armaments through the Ministry of Supply. Mr Lester approached the MoD during the 1970s about setting up a no-fault compensation scheme. The MoD refused, and Boots has consistently denied liability.”

          “Boots produced gas masks between 1939 and 1945 at two sites in Nottingham. The women packed asbestos filters into the masks and stitched these in place.

          They produced civilian and military masks. The military units used blue asbestos, a good defence against a potent arsenic gas called Blue Cross. Blue asbestos, or crocidolite, is many times more dangerous than the white form.”

          Professor Jones said: ‘The disease they were getting (mesothelioma) is a very painful one, and inevitably fatal. I took the view that rather than worry them they would have to take their chances. Until they got the disease most of them were able to lead a full life.’

          A spokesman for Boots said: ‘This is not a Boots matter. We were one of a number of manufacturers of gas masks making these to a government specification.’”

          When they did know, they tried to blame the tobacco companies.

          Smoking and Health Review: Volume XI Number January-February 1981

          Asbestos vs. tobacco.
          “Standard Asbestos Manufacturing and Insulating Co. of Kansas City has filed suit against major U.S. tobacco companies, arguing that the tobacco companies are responsible for the lung damage suffered by asbestos workers.
          Thousands of suits have been filed against Standard and other asbestos-related companies by “workers who claim that asbestos is responsible for their injuries and disabilities.
          An attorney for Standard said that “Asbestos workers who smoke have approximately 92 times the risk of death from lung cancer as asbestos workers who do not smoke.’
          https ://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=xpdp0146

          “E. Cuyler Hammond, Vice President of the American Cancer Society, blazed the trail in the 50’s with his study zeroing in on smoking as the cause of lung cancer. He hasn’t stopped since. Regarding another possible cause, he said:. “There is no relationship whatsoever between lung cancer and air pollution.”
          He has said that the danger from asbestos is limited to only those workers who also smoke”.
          http: //tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIMN0141199-1201.html

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          FUNNYthe studies done on smokers and asbestos d they sowed more lesions in those workers who smoked………lol look at the asbestos in your test bong Frank and then they dosed it at 10,000 times normal dose and still couldn’t get anything.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          So if a mouse can withstand a 10,000 fold increase in dose of tar a human must be able to withstand billions times more……………

    • roobeedoo2 says:

      How incredibly helpful and farsighted it was of the NHS to produce a TV advert (charged to the tax payer, natch) showing just how smokers, going about their daily business, are set upon and beaten up by Public Health…

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    You want to see the dirtiest low life editorial ever written since Joseph Goebells read an look at the pictures they use………….ITS TIME TO START SHOOTING THESE NAZIS

    It’s time to ban junk food for kids. Before it’s too late

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    Its still up I don’t know whats going on…………….

  12. Rose says:

    Here’s a rather desperate correlation released just in time for The Royal Society for Public Health demands for smoking bans “around pubs, in parks and at the entrances to schools”

    Smoking ban saves hundreds of babies’ lives: Number of stillbirths and newborn deaths falls in four years after legislation
    13 August 2015
    “The research comes in the same week as calls for the smoking ban to the extended to include the area outside bars and restaurants.
    The Royal Society for Public Health wants ‘exclusion zones’ around pubs, in parks and at the entrances to schools.

    It argues that reducing the ‘convenience’ of smoking will prompt more people to give it up, as well as prevent them from setting a bad example to children.”


    I have a similar correlation

    Smoking Ban – 1st of July 2007

    3 days earlier –

    Blair resigns as prime minister
    27 June 2007

    Perhaps it was caused by the collective sigh of relief.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Spot the utter, utter nonsense:
      Overall, an estimated 1,500 babies’ lives were saved and the long-term health of another 5,500 was improved in the four years after the ban on lighting up at work and inside pubs, clubs, restaurants came into effect

      Con-artists!! An ‘estimated’ 1,500 babies’ lives were saved….
      REALLY????? So, these people have problems with basic maths and on top of it, they have been to the future and came back? *Laughing*!!!!!
      Then, the miraculous health improvement of 5,500 people after the dictation of the smoking ban?

      Indeed, Debbie’s megaphone (BBC) announced that the Royal Society for public Health (might this “society” consist of people who unquestionably accept any nonsense?) indeed is going for a smoking ban OUTSIDE.
      What startled me is, that all of a sudden there is a u-turn when it comes to vaping….

      The Royal Society for Public Health said smoking should be seen as “abnormal” and more controls are needed to cover areas where people gather.

      Its report said people needing a fix of nicotine should use e-cigarettes

      …Its report calls for the ban “to be extended further to include school gates, the outside areas of bars and restaurants and all public parks and squares”.

      Unlike the original smoking ban the focus is no longer on the dangers of second-hand smoke.

      I really doubt that the vapers have been given a reprieve. Once the smoking ban OUTSIDE has been forced onto the public, it’ll be the vapers’ turn next.

      Fear, especially HEALTH FEAR, obstructs rational thought; vaping ‘reminds’ of SMOKING – and that is enough for the fearful!!!
      Perhaps these fearful compensate their ?lack of REAL achievement by displaying the side effect: The Helper Syndrome? It might be a good idea to ASK the members of the public IF they want to be “helped”!

      Today I shared a bench with another elderly smoker who brought up the subject of the Debbie’s megaphone bleat and I noticed that he laughed about this “news” as much as I did.
      In a way it might be a good thing that we have these idiotic demands. People who bought into the nonsense of smoking bans are changing their minds.

      • Joe L. says:

        What percentage of pregnant women spend copious amounts of time in pubs and clubs such that a ban on smoking would have an impact on the health of their unborn children? Even if this were true, apparently Public Health condones pregnant women hanging out in environments that will cause them to be tempted to drink alcohol, just as long as there’s zero tobacco smoke in the air.

        Regarding the pub garden ban: There’s no U-turn on vaping. It’s part of the whole “Look, we’re not evil, we’re giving smokers an alternative!” ploy to make people comfortable with what amounts to a draconian proposal. It’s obvious that that sentiment will fade quickly once the law is effected. We’ve seen it many times before, and hell, these two consecutive sentences are direct contradictions, simply because vaping “resembles” smoking:

        “The Royal Society for Public Health said smoking should be seen as “abnormal” and more controls are needed to cover areas where people gather.
        Its report said people needing a fix of nicotine should use e-cigarettes.”

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Chalk that junk science right up to the same as asthma reduction bullshit too………..

      The myth of smoking during pregnancy being harmful

      Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:51 CDT

      In about 1999 I was asked to analyze the data of pregnant women with respect to smoking for a major health insurance company. They were running a campaign to get pregnant women to stop smoking and they expected to find interesting data to support their case.

      I used to teach college courses covering the topic. The text books said that smoking causes underweight premature babies. Because of this babies of smoking mothers are more likely to have birth defects. With alcohol, two drinks a day was considered safe, but with tobacco, there was no safe threshold. I thought this was rather strange. You smoke one cigarette while pregnant and you are more likely to have birth defects? Even for a hard core health fanatic that is difficult to believe.

      Here is what was found in the data. Babies of smoking mothers average weight was 3232 grams (7.1 lbs.). Babies of non-smoking mothers averaged 3398 grams (7.5 lbs.). That is about a half pound difference and it is statistically significant. Seven pounds is a good healthy birth weight that does not set off any alarms. Babies are considered underweight if they are less than 2270 grams (5 lbs.). 4.5% of smoking mothers babies were underweight and 3.3% of non-smoking mothers babies were underweight. This difference is not significant. There is no indication here of a health risk from smoking based on weight.

      The other risk factor is length of term. Normal gestation is 253 days. 4% of smoking mothers did not go to term and 7.8% of non-smoking mothers did not go to term. Smoking mothers did better than non-smoking mothers but the difference was not significant. There was obviously no risk from reduced term for smoking mothers.

      Because the non-smoking mothers had heavier babies one would expect more C-Sections from the non-smoking mothers. There were about 20% more. This is significant at the .05 level but not the .01 level so you could argue the significance either way depending on your bias. The data here is limited because only 5% of pregnant women smoked but the trend for smoking mothers was toward less babies retained in the hospital, less C-Sections, insignificantly fewer pre-term deliveries and an insignificant increase in clinically underweight babies.

      This data can be explained by assuming that when pregnant women are stressed, they self medicate to relieve the stress. Non-smoking women tend to eat more causing the baby to be larger and more difficult to deliver. This can also cause other problems. Smoking women tend to light up when under stress. This is less harmful to the baby than over-eating. For this reason smoking mothers tended to have better outcomes for baby and mother. They also cost less for the insurance company.

      You might be interested in knowing that this information was not used. I was told that the medical insurance business is highly regulated by the government. The company was not allowed to tell the truth about these results even though it was better for the insurance company and for the patients.

      I do not think these results suggest that women should start smoking when they get pregnant. I do think it indicates that it is very poor practice to try to get smoking mothers to stop smoking when they get pregnant.
      About me

      I have a Ph.D. in experimental psychology and have worked in both research and teaching. I am a health nut and do not endorse smoking or care to be around people smoking. I was shocked by these results. My bias if any is certainly against these results. However I think it is horrible to withhold information form people and intentionally give them bad advice to advance a political agenda.

    • prog says:

      Pity for them that the smoking ban wasn’t introduced until 2010-11…


  13. garyk30 says:

    overweight individuals were 17 percent less likely to die than normal weight folks

    The relative risk for obese people was nearly the same as for people of normal weight.


    Underweight people and those who are extremely obese die earlier than people of normal weight — but those who are overweight actually live longer than people of normal weight.

    The study examined the relationship between body mass index and death among 11,326 adults in Canada over a 12-year period. (BMI uses height and weight to estimate body fat.)

    Researchers found that underweight people had the highest risk of dying, and the extremely obese had the second highest risk.

    Overweight people had a lower risk of dying than those of normal weight.

    For this study, researchers used data from the National Population Health Survey conducted by Statistics Canada every two years.

    During the study period, from 1994 – 95 through 2006 – 07, underweight people were 70 percent more likely than people of normal weight to die, and extremely obese people were 36 percent more likely to die.

    But overweight individuals were 17 percent less likely to die.

    The relative risk for obese people was nearly the same as for people of normal weight.

    The authors controlled for factors such as age, sex, physical activity, and smoking.

  14. beobrigitte says:

    The simple truth of the matter is that some people find fat people ugly and unsightly. They have a set of ideal physical shapes and sizes for both men and women. Particularly women. Not too tall, not too short, not too fat, and not too thin. With a full set of brilliant white teeth. And good head of hair. But no hair on their chest. Particularly in the case of women.

    MEN nowadays are having their chests waxed (which I think is hilarious!). NO chest hair is fashion. And fashion rules!
    Every now and then ‘Debbie’s megaphone’ blasts out that youngsters DIE from this health&beauty lark. I do know a case of this – which, like MOST of these cases, wasn’t made public. I do wonder if there is a stigma attached: not only were they FAT (and with that “ugly” in the eye of the healthists), they also FAILED in becoming “normal” and died trying.
    Collateral damage???
    Most ‘overweight’ people I know are perfectly happy with their weight and looks. And, they are getting fed up with the finger of the (scared to death) healthists pointing at them!
    And, if they do want to lose weight, they do so. This “food addiction” lark serves only to insinuate that they can’t help themselves and that they NEED “help”.
    The things done to a “fat” body sounds like something out of Frankenstein; the long term side effects can be a real problem!
    Yet, when a previously very overweight person looses all the so-called excess weight by themselves, they will get little/no help if they wish to have the excess skin left dangling on them, removed.
    Punishment for being and adult and acting according to common sense?

    It’s not hard to see the likely outcome of this madness. It was prefigured in Africa last year with the Ebola epidemic, which was raging at its height while the WHO ran a week-long antismoking bash in Moscow. They weren’t ready for that epidemic, and they won’t be ready for the next one either. Smoking bans won’t prevent the next plague. Nor will slimming pills. Running marathons won’t help either.
    People die running marathons…. Even without the little, invisible, “buggers” which are far advanced in ‘adjusting-to-changing-life-circumstances’.
    I do believe (if I CAN believe what we are being told!!) that the Ebola epidemic is beginning to burn out. >11 000 death due to the virus alone in less than 2 years just isn’t important to the WHO. After all, Ebola appears to be an African disease.
    The naivety of the WHO is priceless!!! WHAT makes them think that the first world will survive previously harmless bugs becoming killers? Better hand the WHO more red caviar and champagne!!! (Obviously they need to conjure up more nonsense about smokers!)

    • Rose says:

      Oh it all makes work for the working man to do..

      Orthorexia: when healthy eating goes too far
      “As National Eating Disorders Awareness week begins, we look at what happens when the ‘perfect diet’ becomes an obsession – a condition called orthorexia

      For some people, the desire to eat healthy, “clean”, unprocessed foods becomes a life-ruining compulsion. The condition is known as orthorexia, a term coined in 1997 by Dr Steven Bratman.

      “It can, in fact, often bear more resemblance to obsessive-compulsive disorder in that it is characterised by a fixation on righteous eating, eating only ‘pure’ foods and trying to avoid contamination by food,” says Susan Ringwood, chief executive officer for eating disorder charity Beat. Anecdotally, professionals are reporting an increase in individuals suffering from symptoms of orthorexia, but the condition still does not have a formal medical classification and, as such, isn’t regarded as an “official” eating disorder. Yet, having seen orthorexia in action several times, I know only too well that it can be just as harmful and upsetting as other major eating disorders, because it involves the same intense, joy-sucking preoccupation with food and body.”

      Listen to the words, Brigitte and you’ll see what I mean : )

      The more they try to fix you, the more they break.

    • Joe L. says:

      “The research suggests nine out of 10 people falsely believe nicotine is very harmful to their heath, when in fact it is no more dangerous than the caffeine in a cup of coffee.”

      Christ! They claim 90% of people have fallen for the anti-smoking propaganda! I knew the number was large, but … 90% of the population is that gullible and/or ignorant? If that number is anywhere near correct, we live in frightening times: “Martial law? Absolutely!” … “Police state? Yes, please!”

      • Rose says:

        Frightening, isn’t?
        Remember, when you are driving down the road, these people are coming the other way.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Seriously nothing ever gets that high and I mean nothing………….they lied seriously one might rationally believe 20% of the population buys the propaganda but not 90% no way no how

        • harleyrider1978 says:


          Just as Mike pointed out they word their polls to get the outcome they want and here they openly admit as much:

          Reliable Opinion Pollsters Public opinion polls are an effective way to deliver the message to politicians that the public supports strong enforcement. The most effective messengers to deliver that news are professional pollsters. Of course, professional poll takers cost money, so if this is not possible, we can conduct our own surveys. We need to think carefully how to phrase our questions. “Do you think smokers should be heavily fined for smoking in public places?” may, for instance, get less support than the question “Do you think our law protecting children and other nonsmokers from smoke in public places should be properly enforced?” While the first question focuses on punishing the smoker, the second fixes on enforcing an existing law. Stronger still may be questions that also focus on the rights of children and other nonsmokers to be protected from smoke.


        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Now how can We believe CDC numbers on smoking rates when even the Federal Government knows they are UNRELIABLE!

          Survey experts agree that survey respondents understate the true extent of their cigarette consumption. If taken as true, the responses in the surveys we examined, would suggest that, on average, only 70 percent of purchased cigarettes were reported to be actually consumed, which strains credulity. The substantial uncertainty surrounding the degree of underreporting of cigarette consumption in survey data necessarily generates large uncertainty about the magnitude of the federal tax receipts lost due to the illicit cigarette trade. Any estimate of federal tax loss based on survey data therefore should be regarded as only broadly indicative of actual receipts lost.4


          Read more at http://guardianlv.com/2014/12/smoking-on-the-decline-in-united-states/#FKdH61RKor0MKSgv.99

      • harleyrider1978 says:

No need to log in

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.