WE HAVE WAYS TO ASSIMILATE STUPID PARENTS!

Some Washington and Minnesotan white coat healthists, have surveyed 46 parents of allegedly overweight children and declared that parents underestimate the weight of their offspring and are insensitive to the possible future consequences this excess weight might bring.

Unacceptable cry the healthists! Parents must be taught (read brainwashed) how to recognize pre symptoms of eventual diseases due to the overweight of their children. The naked eye and the parental protective instinct don’t count in the war against obesity. Never mind that the child does not look overweight, never mind that the child is healthy, never mind that permissible BMI levels have been brought down to new lows, never mind that many of these children will grow out of their pre-puberty excess fat, only 13% of the parents surveyed recognizing that their child is overweight is totally unacceptable. So unacceptable, that it is indisputably worthy of a plethora of articles in the media worldwide. This is a serious public health problem! These indignant parents must be assimilated, they must learn! And we have ways to make them learn: More fear mongering, more junk studies, more collaboration with the media, more government grants, more pharma grants, more repression, more…taxpayers money and direly needed human resources wasted on useless studies, polls and surveys!

In the real world, children of the third world starve, bulimia and anorexia are ravaging an ever increasing number of our youth, children throughout the world are physically and mentally abused and exploited, but our white coat ‘’lords’’ are struggling to gain control over our parental authority on the basis of a few pounds of weight over what they define as ideal.

You can read the article at Science Direct: Parents Foster Significant Misperceptions Of Children's Weight

DAIRY PRODUCTS WILL CARRY SHOCKING WARNINGS

More nanny tactics from the UK. Dairy foods will now carry shocking warnings similar to tobacco warnings. And to think that some didn’t believe that the smoking campaign would set a precedent! How far will this go and how long before public opinion becomes so far corrupted that we would find demonizing the obese perfectly normal? How long before instead of a smoker, this sign

portrays an obese person getting punched? It all depends on how active citizens become in the battle against health nannies and interest group agendas. We have now moved from the anti-tobacco campaign, to the ‘’unhealthy’’ eating habits campaign at a record speed. There are concrete actions happening on banning all ads aimed at children, on getting rid of the happy meal, on taxing junk food, on parents losing custody of their obese children, on making restaurants inaccessible to the obese, on mandatory monitoring of children’s mass index , on refusing to operate on the obese.

And who once again stands out in this anti-obesity hype? None other than the pharmaceutical industry directly, or through their charitable front groups. Let’s take a look at a few sources highlighting the involvement of Big Pharma in this issue.

From Sandy Swarcz’ blog: Sponsors of the obesity crisis , Cradle-to-grave customers

Who funds the Canadian Obesity Network? Following are their industry funders as listed on their website:
Abbott Laboratories Ltd.
Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd.
Glycemic Index Laboratories Inc.
Innovus Research Inc.
Isotechnika Diagnostics
Johnson & Johnson Medical Devices Division
JSS Medical Research
Eli Lilly

Medtronics Inc.
Merck Frosst Canada Ltd.
New Era Nutrition

Novartis
Nutrition

Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Pfizer

Sanofi-Aventis

TM Bioscience
University Technologies International
Wyeth

For $ 3598.00 for a single user license you can buy a book titled: Anti-Obesity Treatments 2007 to 2012 A blockbuster target market , written as a guide to the pharmaceutical industry and the golden opportunity that the obesity alleged ‘’epidemic’’ presents to them. Take a look at the contents here.

It leaves no doubt that anti-obesity is big business and the stakeholders will do anything and everything in their power to make obesity as unacceptable as smoking in order to force people to use their drugs, unless of course they’re stopped before they go too far. How can they be stopped? Politicians should be made to feel the heat from concerned citizens, by writing or phoning them regularly. Obese people should not bow their head in shame but stand proud of their bodies and warn the government that their body is personal property and government should keep out of their lives. That universal healthcare means that everyone should be covered and segregation of illnesses deserving of treatment, will not be tolerated. That children are under their parents’ authority and unless there is undisputable proof that parents are hurting their offspring, government has to get out of the family dynamics and stay out. Citizens who want to lose weight should find natural methods and not give in to the miracle pill solution who have been proven useless unless real will power is accompanying them.


Citizens should learn from the anti-smoking campaign and fight this anti-obesity offensive with all their energy. It will not go away unless we all get involved to make it go away.

Dairy products to carry cigarette-style health warnings as Government uses 'shock tactics'


Popular dairy foods like cheese and butter could soon have to carry cigarette-style warnings in a bid to slash Britain's soaring levels of obesity and heart disease, according to reports.

The hard-hitting government health warnings would be aimed at urging people to cut down on the amount of saturated fat they eat and make their favourite dairy products an occasional treat rather than regular part of their everyday diet.

According to trade magazine The Grocer, the government's Food Standards Agency is considering using shock tactics to persuade Britons to cut down on their consumption of saturated fats.

But the controversial crackdown is set to spark a furious outcry from the dairy industry as it could target a range of regular snack staples such as cheese sandwiches and buttered toast which watchdogs warn are high in saturated fats.

The Grocer says that the food watchdog is also considering asking manufacturers of products high in saturated fat, such as cheese and butter, to put cigarette-style warnings on packs which would urge consumers to eat such products in moderation or as a rare treat.

The move would form part of a publicity campaign developed under the FSA's strategy to cut consumption of fat, says The Grocer.

A consumer study conducted for the agency by CMI Research found that an approach based on shock tactics was considered "successful in challenging complacent attitudes and preconceptions of saturated fat".

It added: "'Shock tactics' show potential to cut through the crowded media environment, are likely to be memorable and could potentially have talk value."

The researchers said that graphic images of fat - the kind shown on popular TV shows about food and health - had a big impact on the consumers they spoke to.

"Dramatising the amount of saturated fat in foods in an unexpected and unappetising way proved effective, as almost all were repulsed by the idea of eating lard " said the researchers.
"Furthermore, it created a strong emotional response via the shocking visual images and so acted as a wake-up call to many."

The FSA which presented the findings to industry stakeholders last week, insisted any plans for a campaign were at "an early stage".

"Any activity in this area is not due until 2009, " an agency spokesman told The Grocer.
"As part of its planning process the FSA is likely to undertake further research and discussions with a wide pool of stakeholders to explore how best to proceed.

"At this stage it is too early to speculate about the form such activity may take."

However, The Grocer says that it is understood the agency is about to test messages designed to reveal that everyday foods - primarily meat, dairy, snacks and confectionery - are much higher in saturated fats than people may realise.

These include the claim that two slices of buttered toast contain more saturated fat than four doughnuts, and that one cheese sandwich contains more than half an individual's guideline daily amounts of saturated fat.

The FSA is also to consider messages that illustrate the damaging effect saturated fat can have on the body.

But reports that the FSA is contemplating such a high-profile approach has caused consternation among supplies of dairy products likely to be targeted amid fears that their sales would be hit.
Ed Komorowski technical director of Dairy UK said there was a danger that simple messages could switch people away from balanced diets that included healthy food such as cheese, which is high in calcium.

He told The Grocer: "Tactics designed to shock people could actually mislead them. Comparing the saturated fat content of hot buttered toast with doughnuts is not giving the full picture of the nutritional qualities of these products."

He also warned that such an advertising campaign could fall foul of the Advertising Standards Authority.

Clare Cheney director general of the Provision Trade Federation told The Grocer: "Diet is a complex thing. It's not like cigarettes, where you either smoke or you don't and if you do it's bad for you.

"With diet, it's about eating a combination of different things in different quantities."

UN PEU DE SÉRIEUX S.V.P.

Il est aberrant de constater à quel point les medias et journalistes d’aujourd’hui n’ont, en grande majorité, aucun sens critique, ne font pratiquement aucune recherche et publient n’importe quoi à la hâte. Par surcroît, certains journalistes ont le culot de mettre la population en garde contre les ‘’journalistes improvisés’’ et ‘’blogueurs’’ de l’internet! Et bien, nous, comme citoyens et ‘’journalistes improvisés’’, risquons de rechercher la vérité derrière ‘’la grande nouvelle de l’heure’’ et la présenter sous un œil beaucoup plus critique et objectif que ces supposément professionnels du journalisme.

L’article qui suit a été puisé dans Agence France Presse et a paru dans Cyberpresse.

L’étude en question est mieux expliquée au medscape à l’adresse http://www.data-yard.net/10h3/ets_bs_allergy.pdf en anglais.

La conclusion qui nous a valu cette ‘’grande nouvelle de l’heure’’ digne de publication, est basée sur un facteur de risque tellement bas (1,28) que n’importe quelle autre étude sur un autre enjeu autre que les enjeux politisés comme le tabac, n’aurait même pas été rapportée en raison d’une conclusion basée sur un facteur de risque trop faible. En plus, les auteurs même de l’étude déclarent ceci (traduit librement de l’anglais Limitations of the study include difficulty in distinguishing the effects of tobacco exposure in utero and postnatally; reliance on questionnaire data on children at age 2 months; possible disease-related or recall bias, or both; lack of objective assessments of smoke exposure; and possible uncontrolled confounding.) : Les limitations de cette étude, incluent la difficulté de distinguer les effets à l’exposition du tabac in utero et postnatale ; la fiabilité des données du questionnaire sur les enfants à l’âge de 2 mois ; des possibles biais en ce qui a trait aux relations avec des maladies ou les biais de mémoire, ou les deux ; le manque d’une évaluation objective de l’exposition de la fumée, et la possibilité que certaines confusions n’ont pas été contrôlées.

Bravo pour le sérieux de l’étude ! Bravo pour le sérieux des journaux qui l’ont publiée !

Aussi, avant que les médias reprennent cette publication de Agence France Presse, ils auraient dû se servir de logique et poser des sérieuses questions sur le pourquoi que les allergies des enfants augmentent continuellement pendant que le tabagisme baisse à un rythme beaucoup plus rapide. Tout au moins ils auraient pu se référer à des nombreux articles que l’on trouve sur l’internet à ce sujet : Nos enfants, toujours plus allergiques? Une maladie en plein boom Childhood allergy epidemic on the rise worldwide Prevalence of childhood allergies increasing worldwide

Est-ce que quelqu’un voudrait s’aventurer à nous donner des explications logiques ?

Le tabagisme passif favoriserait le risque d'allergies chez l'enfant

Agence France-Presse

Paris

L'exposition à la fumée de cigarette dans les premiers mois de la vie favoriserait le risque pour l'enfant de développer des allergies, selon une étude suédoise publiée mardi en ligne par la revue spécialisée Thorax.

Le Dr Eva Lannero (Karolinska Institute, Stockholm) et ses collègues rappellent que l'exposition à la fumée de cigarette augmente le risque de maladie respiratoire chez les enfants.

Pour leur étude sur la sensibilisation allergique, ils ont analysé les réponses de plus de 4000 familles à des questionnaires sur les facteurs environnementaux auxquels avaient été exposés leur enfant avant et après la naissance et les symptômes allergiques (à 2 mois, un an, deux ans et quatre ans). Les facteurs environnementaux incluaient le tabagisme des parents, les animaux domestiques et les produits alimentaires.

Les chercheurs ont également réalisé sur quelque 2600 enfants, à l'âge de 4 ans, un dosage des anticorps IgE, dont un niveau élevé indique une sensibilisation aux allergènes.

Leurs travaux ont montré que l'exposition dans les premiers mois de la vie à la fumée de cigarette «peut être associée à un risque accru de sensibilisation allergique», indiquent-ils. Le tabagisme passif du petit enfant «augmente le risque de sensibilisation aux allergènes inhalés de l'environnement intérieur et aux allergènes alimentaires», précisent-ils.

Les chercheurs n'ont en revanche pas établi d'association manifeste entre le tabagisme de la femme enceinte et le risque de sensibilisation allergique de l'enfant.

Treating people like luggage for the sake of Highlighting the Obesity Crisis

From Australia, the trend setters for ‘’nannyism’’, comes this story about how the obese should be billed a ‘’heavy load’’ surcharge when buying their plane ticket.

In a society where everything has to make money sense, it’s not surprising, but appalling nonetheless, that a leading nutritionist would suggest that people be treated the same way as luggage. As some commentators to this story suggested, it should be pointed out to Tickell, that according to the latest international standards for ‘’normality’’ in weight, thin people are the minority. Aren’t we constantly told that majority rules and the minority should just shush up and put up? Tickell had better start piling on these calories if he wants a say in the issue!

Sorry but just couldn’t resist the sarcasm this morning.

Australia airline 'fat tax' urged

A leading Australian nutritionist has urged airlines to charge obese passengers more for their seats.

Dr John Tickell believes a "fat tax" would highlight his country's obesity crisis and make commercial sense, as heavier loads increase fuel costs.

But health groups have warned that to single out people with weight problems could cause them emotional stress.

Recent studies estimate that 67% of Australian men and over half of women aged over 25 are overweight or obese.

Experts have warned that by 2030 half of the country's children will be overweight or obese if the problem goes unchecked.

In March, Australian health officials were forced to equip their fleet of ambulances with heavy-duty stretchers to cope with the sharp rise in overweight patients.

Too precious

Dr Tickell, a leading nutritionist and author, told the BBC that society should take a more hardline stance against obesity and get tough on fat airline passengers.

He said that Australian airlines should impose charges on their overweight clients, as they do for excess baggage, because heavier loads increase fuel costs.

"I fly Sydney to Perth - five hours - and being totally disadvantaged by some huge person next to me literally flopping over into my seat. Why should I pay the same as them?" he asked.

Dr Tickell said it was important to start highlighting Australia's obesity crisis.

"I think we're a bit too nice, we're a bit too precious about minority groups. I think the majority group must have something to say too," he added.

But the chief executive of the Australasian Society for the Study of Obesity, Dr Tim Gill, said penalty charges should not be imposed on overweight passengers.

"It's not fair to single out those people who have a problem, which is already impacting greatly on their life, and make them feel like pariahs," he said.

A spokesman for the Australian budget airline, Jetstar, said it had no plans to charge larger passengers more for their seats.

Airlines are, however, monitoring long-term trends in the size and shape of their customers, the BBC's Phil Mercer in Sydney says.

IT IS TIME EPIDEMIOLOGY TAKES A FEW STEPS BACK

The ink of the latest report from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research urging us that in order to stay healthy we should maintain a body mass index as close to 18 as possible isn’t even dry yet, that a new study is now telling us that actually cancers are not associated with being somewhat overweight and higher weights are associated with better survivals when we get sick. How can we possibly trust any of the advice these so called scientists give us about our personal health? How can governments continue to rely on epidemiological studies to legislate? Isn’t it time epidemiology takes a few steps back and performs what it was meant to perform – studies of infectious diseases?

Clean your plate: a few extra pounds won't kill you

Weight helps to beat some illnesses, study finds
SHARON KIRKEY, CanWest News Service
Deaths studied were grouped into three major categories: cardiovascular disease, cancer and all other causes.
For each cause, the team estimated excess deaths in each category of body mass index, or BMI. A BMI of 25 to less than 30 is considered overweight; a BMI of 30 and over is obese.
Someone who is 5 feet, 10 inches tall and weighs 174 to 208 pounds would be considered overweight, according to their BMI. More than that, and they're obese.
Obesity - but not overweight - was strongly associated with an increased risk of dying from coronary heart disease, stroke or other forms of cardiovascular disease, accounting for 112,159 excess deaths in the United States in 2004.
The team estimates that obesity is associated "with somewhere between nine and 13 per cent of all cardiovascular mortality," said lead author Katherine Flegal, senior research scientist at the Centres for Disease Control in Hyattsville, Md.
Overall, the team found no association between obesity and cancer deaths when all cancers, including lung cancer, were grouped together.
"We're not trying to say overweight is protective," Flegal said, but there is some evidence higher weights are associated with better survival when you get sick.


We have in the past referred you to Sandy Szwarc’s , BSN, RN, CCP blog, who in her own words performs ‘’ Critical examinations of studies and news on food, weight, health and healthcare that mainstream media misses. ‘’ . She has analyzed the latest report from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research that appeared this week in the news everywhere. Chances are you won’t read her analysis anywhere in the mainstream media so we invite you to read it at: http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/11/jfs-exclusive-whats-evidence-cancers.html