Never say that smokers didn’t try to warn about fat tax, drinks tax and so forth.

We have had endless public information campaigns on smoking (still do, but fewer), recently it’s been alcohol (very similar to the anti-tobacco rhetoric) and now … hey, it’s fatty food!

On March 24, 2011, Time scored a double-hit on churchgoers and fat: ‘Why Going to Church Can Make You Fat’ (H/T: CAGE Canada).  So, Christians are the only fat people around?  Interesting. (Photo credits to lissparishchurch.co.uk.)

Time says (emphases mine):

Maybe it’s all the church socials, but a new study finds that those who attend religious activities are more likely to gain weight than those who don’t go to church as often.

Religious involvement is linked to many positive health outcomes, such as happiness, lower rates of smoking and alcohol use, and even a longer life. But research has also suggested that middle-aged adults who are more religious are more likely to be obese. Past data have noted only a correlation between religiosity and weight gain, however; they did not show whether participating in religious activities leads to weight gain, or whether overweight individuals are more likely to seek support in their faith.

So researchers at Northwestern University sought to find out how attending religious events is associated with weight gain over time. They analyzed data from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study, which followed more than 2,400 people aged 20 to 32 for 18 years. Over that time, the scientists reported at an American Heart Association conference, people who went to church or church activities at least once a week were more than twice as likely as people with no religious involvement to become obese.

… the authors speculate that those who attended church were more likely to have a broader social network, which in turn may lead to more opportunities to gather over food and drink.

The results also suggest that religious groups could benefit from targeted diet and exercise programs, says study co-author Matthew Feinstein, to counteract whatever trends may be promoting weight gain among church-goers.

Note the number of times ‘church’ and ‘religious’ are used in connection with ‘weight’ and ‘weight gain’.  This is subliminal: church is unhealthy and will make you fat.

I hope that the good people of Liss Parish Church don’t mind my borrowing their photos, but they do look like happy Anglicans, the type of people one would expect to meet in England.

The worldwide anti-smoking, ‘tobacco control’ campaigns are based on spurious sciencewhich is now being disproven little by little, although you aren’t likely to read about these studies in the newspaper.  From Sir Richard Doll, he of the lung cancer surveys involving smokers (because nearly everyone smoked in the 1950s), to Sir George Godber (Britain’s Chief Medical Officer from 1960 – 1973) to Stanton Glantz from Stanford University and the University of California San Francisco (current American king of anti-smoker — yes, anti-smoker — campaigns) to Gro Harlem Brundtland (who has never liked smoke and was able to start the WHO campaign against tobacco and, by default, smokers).

This has worked so well globally that numerous treaties have been signed hither and yon.  Incidentally, the climate change campaigns are based on the same tactics of the anti-tobacco campaigns.  Both have manipulated data — and the anti-tobacco rhetoric was so successful that the climate change folks began adapting it for their own use.  There, too, it’s difficult to expose; any ‘dissidents’ are vehemently criticised or banned from further research — fact might end up entering into it.  The cry in so many lectures and press conferences is, ‘Think of the children!’

Ditto drinks and now fattening food.  Never mind that, until recently, nutritionists have said that what matters is the number of calories we consume daily, not what type.  Recently, Professor Mark Haub of Kansas State University proved this once again.  Among other news outlets, the Daily Mail reported on his weight loss experiment (emphases mine throughout):

Mark Haub said that on the ‘convenience store diet’ his ‘bad’ cholesterol also dropped by 20 per cent and his level of triglycerides, a form of fat, by 39 per cent.

Professor Haub … lost 27lb, going from 14st 5lb to 12st 6lb …

He cut his usual daily calorie intake from about 2,600 to less than 1,800 by eating one Twinkie deep-fried cake – a mini-sponge cake with cream filling – every three hours instead of meals.

To add variety to the cakes, which are often sold deep-fried, he ate Doritos, Kellogg’s Pops cereal and Oreo biscuits, and had a daily double shot of espresso.

The final third of his daily intake came in the form of a multivitamin pill and a protein shake, along with some kind of vegetable such as a can of green beans …

‘It may be an issue of portion size and moderation rather than total removal. I just think it is unrealistic to expect people to totally drop these foods for vegetables and fruits.’

During the ten-week diet, Mr Haub’s body mass index went from 28.8, which is considered overweight, to a normal 24.9.

His body fat fell from 33.4 per cent to 24.9 per cent.

Before his Twinkie diet, Mr Haub considered himself a healthy eater with a diet including whole grains, fibre, berries and bananas.

‘I wish I could say the outcomes are unhealthy. I wish I could say it’s healthy. I’m not confident enough in doing that. That frustrates a lot of people. One side says it’s irresponsible. It is unhealthy, but the data doesn’t say that,’ he said.

I am pleased to read he said, ‘The data [don’t] say that’. (‘Data’ is the plural of ‘datum’.) He’s criticising knee-jerk, spurious, emotional reactions designed by people who want to control others’ lives.

But proper data just aren’t good enough for the healthist control freaks worldwide who want us to live 10 or 20 more years so that we can continue to be productive masses of atoms and keep paying our taxes! (Thanks to Ayn Rand for the ‘atoms’ reference — Phil Donahue interview early 1980s.)

So, what do we have — coincidental, I’m sure — it just happened to appear around the same time?  The Lancet, the well-respected English medical journal, is calling for a fatty food tax and moreThe Mail tells us:

Government measures to change diet are supported in the study by experts at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Health Organisation.

A key proposal suggests treating foods high in fat, salt and sugar in the same way as tobacco, where advertising is restricted and price has been pushed up to discourage use.

Oh, look. Notice any commonality there?  World Health Organisation and tobacco?

Dick Puddlecote warned about this back in August:

We told you so.

The floodgates are wide open now. Anti-smoking lunatics have picked the lock and every single issue fruitcake is queueing up to dictate the way you live your life. What’s more, they are very confident that – with the denormalisation of smokers as a guide – government, badgered by the joyless health-obsessed, will be happy to accommodate them.

At least in Niemöller’s observation each minority was targeted in sequence. The articles above [see DP’s post] span a mere couple of weeks, the last two were only published today. And there will be more in the next week, and the weeks after that, all becoming ever more shrill and urgent in their hyperbole.

The small matter of dictating to smokers has now become an avalanche of righteous ecstasy as every avenue of your life is now open to scrutiny and control.

Err, we did tell you so.

I am only too aware that fat people and drinkers despise smokers. ‘I might weigh a ton, but at least I’m not killing other people.’  ‘I might be a lush but at least I don’t stink.  Do what you want with smokes but don’t touch my precious drinkies.’ Okay … Whereas … smokers blogs around the world are trying to unite the three.

So, once again, we all have to fall in line with yet another diktat.  No, it hasn’t happened yet.  But that’s what people said about the smoking ban a decade ago.  And about alcohol.  And now look what’s happened there — the Coalition have given local councils permission to raise the price of strong drink. We are told there is ‘no safe amount of alcohol.’ Nudge, nudge. It’s the Big Society — thinking globally, acting locally.

Maybe next it will be ‘no safe amount of church’??  After all, you might eat together afterward!

Just as smokers are being increasingly denied employment, health and dental treatment, housing, hotel accommodation and sitting on a park bench, drinkers and the overweight are next in line.  It probably won’t be long now before you’re given an alcohol test (I know of one American company which did this routinely in London in the 1990s) or having your triglycerides checked as part of a job interview.  Oh, wait — if you live in North Carolina, your employer has the right to weigh you whilst he performs a nicotine test.  From a September 2009 post at Junkfood Science:

Employers will now perform random tests of employees for evidence that they’ve smoked outside of work and will weigh employees in the workplace and report their BMIs to the state. Employees deemed noncompliant with the State Health Plan’s employer wellness initiative, will pay one-third-more for health insurance. Employers believed that eliminating smokers and fat people would lower health costs.

I am not sure that the estimable Sandy Szwarc meant that last sentence to appear as it did, but the employers might have.

And, just to show you how tolerant anti-smokers are of the obese, here’s a pictorial from the Non Smokers’ Movement of Australia — ‘Fat Smokers’ (H/T: Tea and Cigarettes).  The type of person who likes that post probably also writes vile bile like this, spotted on Just Rage (I’ve cleaned up the language for you; H/T to Smoking out the Truth):

I hate smokers and I’m sure all other non-smokers hate them, too … I’ve hated smokers for many years and I am almost positive that one day, I will successfully kill someone who smokes. I encourage any non-smokers who are reading this to go out and kick the —- out of smokers.

‘Successfully kill’ — is there such a thing as an unsuccessful kill? I didn’t realise the world had so many perfect people.  But, isn’t saying things like that a hate crime?  Apparently not, with smokers as the object of one’s disgust.

Yet, many smokers’ blogs are empathetic towards their social drinking, overeating brethren.  Pat Nurse of Tea and Cigarettes is one of many smoking bloggers who supports others in the struggle against legislated societal control.  In ‘The Next Target’, she writes:

Now healthists have smokers under control they are swiftly moving on to the next target for profit and general propaganda using the same formula.

It took them 40 years of Big Pharma funding to make the lie of SHS a “fact” and then hype up its dangers year on year to the point where there is now an hysterical fear of smokers and smoking.

They had to make other people believe that smokers could harm them before Government would take them seriously. They are now using the same format on fat people who they’ve only recently started to persecute.

Apparently :

“It looks like obesity is becoming more infectious,” said Alison Hill, a graduate student at the Harvard-Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Sciences and Technology.

What next? Banning anyone over a certain size from entering public places in case we “catch” their fatness? Do they really think we are that stupid?

Stand FAST, a Canadian blog, also featured a post on this topic:

The pharmaceutical industry will be laughing all the way to the bank as demand grows for appetite suppressants and anti-fat vaccines in the wake of the new war on obesity.

But, if the science proves that obesity is a communicable disease . . .

Obesity may well be a legitimate public health concern.  But suing fast food joints and banning happy meals is not going to resolve the problem.  Neither is junk science.

Yep, and what appears in the news just a couple of days later?  A Telegraph article, ‘”Fat gene” may lead to a thin pill’:

People with two copies of the genetic variant — about 16 per cent of all Europeans — were on average 3kg (6.6lbs) heavier than those without it.

Gee. A whole 3kg (6.6lbs) heavier.  Definitely worth taking a pill for that. (Not.) What sort of side-effects will it have?  None, except (I bet) for loose stools, flatulence, headaches and blurred vision.  All the usual things you get with so many miracle tablets. Thankfully, researchers at Oxford University say it’s a long way off.

Frank Davis writes astutely about the ‘Four Horsemen’ — smoking bans, global warming, the European Union and the war on terror:

But they maybe share a number of characteristics. Firstly, 3 of the 4 are illusory threats. Tobacco smoke is no threat to anybody. CO2 in the atmosphere is no threat to anybody either. The War on Terror is a war against an illusory enemy. I’m not even sure that Al Qaeda even exists. Only the EU, as a bulwark against yet another murderous European war (which is the primary reason why many people have supported it, myself included), looks like it may not be a response to an illusory threat. But perhaps that’s illusory too.

Another shared characteristic of the Four Horsemen is that they all entail losses of freedom. The smoking ban has brought a profound loss of freedom. The Global Warming scam also proposes future profound losses of freedom, as carbon emissions are cut, and everybody has to use dimbulbs and crap. The EU is a veritable fountain of restrictive regulations, of which their impending European smoking ban is just one minor example. And the War on Terror has been the excuse for increased surveillance, policing, detention, scanning, etc, etc.

And a further characteristic is that our politicians, whatever country we live in, regularly act to enable these Four Horsemen. There was an almost Gaderene rush by MPs in the UK parliament to vote for the smoking ban 4 years ago. And almost all politicians are fully signed up to Global Warming. I think David Cameron even has windmills on his house. And they all voted for the Iraq and Afghan wars …

These politicians may as well be the Four Horsemen themselves, pale riders riding on these horses galloping from the horizon.

And another shared characteristic is that there is little or no popular support for any of them. Nobody really likes the smoking ban. Nobody is worried about CO2. Nobody likes the EU. And nobody supports the Afghan war. We just grieve for our soldiers who are being uselessly killed in it like their forefathers were uselessly killed in the trenches of Flanders 100 years ago.

I no longer understand our political class …

Back to everyday people, though. Our polarisation saddens me.  The push for — and, even worse, acquiescence to — this type of control concerns me.  Yet, few care, even the next set of victims.  Smokers have offered drinkers and the obese moral and activist support and will stand together with them.  After all, smokers have been ostracised for years.

Advertisements