Going Large? The price is your children

Well, one more day to meet the unreasonable self-imposed deadline to get Longrider’s book out. It’s still possible. I’ve sent the first draft covers and as long as they are OK, we’re good to go. I have all day tomorrow to make changes because the pelmet lies dead at my feet after a two-day battle. It’s intact, I can re-use it but it’s off the wall at last.

I didn’t even have to bleed for this one. Result! It has surrendered for the glory of the Sontaran empire. Oops. Did I say that aloud?

 

Anyway. The modern world despises those of generous waistline as much as it despises smokers and anyone who likes a glass of sherry once a week. I’m okay on the last one, I rarely drink sherry.

Obesity, the Department of the Bleeding Obvious has finally discovered, is at least partly genetic.

Parents account for about 20% of the total fatness of their kids. The idiot reporting this says this means that each parent contribute one-fifth of their kids’ future BMI measure. They didn’t listen in school.

Bollocks. Parents each contribute 50% of the rancid little monsters’ genes and if one has the ‘conserve food as fat in case you don’t get any more’ gene, the kid has a 50% chance of being a fat one. If both parents have it then the kid has the gene for sure.

The actual science would be that around 20% of chubby children are genetically made that way. It isn’t something that applies to every family.

Yet it’s enough to have the Righteous in a tizzy. They don’t like this idea that the thing they want to control can’t be controlled. Who will pay them if that is the case?

Oh, ‘intervention’ is still needed. Fancy word for ‘control’ but that’s all it is. It also means that the righteous can claim that every – EVERY – parent is responsible for a fifth of their kids’ fatness and therefore take them all. It’s a lie, but aren’t we used to that by now?

Some people retain energy better than others and that means they can get fat. It has always been so. In times of plenty, those people do indeed get fat but when times are hard, they are most likely to survive a time of famine.

It’s how the human race has survived. By having people who are different. Crops like bananas and chocolate and wheat are clones. All the same. A disease that kills one will kill them all. They have no differentiation so they cannot get past a killing stroke.

Humans come in different types. That’s what keeps the race going. Some of us are immune to certain diseases, some are susceptible. Some of us are not affected by heavy drinking and smoking, some are killed by it. We’re different and that’s what keeps us going through tough times.

The medics want to make us all the same. Kill the deviant. Make the British Standard Human.

When they’ve done that, one small virus will kill the entire human race. If one is affected, all are affected.

Don’t be wheat.

 

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Going Large? The price is your children

  1. Leggy, for your next trick we need three different commentators. One needs to get the message over about how Lamarckianism is a complete load of rubbish,one needs to educate the Righteous about epigenetic factors (gene expression promoters that can be inherited, but which aren’t part of the genetic code).and finally the last of these needs to concentrate on how the microbiome of people in their guts tends to affect how well they absorb food and put on weight.

    All three of these memes will be entirely correct in and of its self.

    All three of these memes will contradict the others, and all three will conflict with the idea that genetic factors are partly to blame for obesity.

    The final thing to get across to the Righteous is just how the energy budget of a mammal, any mammal, is actually spent. Most of the energy you and I expend is spent on maintaining our body temperature. The biggest rise in obesity has come in the last thirty years or so, and by no coincidence at all, this is when central heating in houses became commonplace.

    I remember when I was growing up. We had a very nice semi, but it was only single glazed and the only heating was two gas fires downstairs, and later a small gas heater in the hallway. We had no heating upstairs at all, except for an electric heater I wasn’t allowed to have on because it was costly to run. In winter, ice on the insides of the windows was a common occurrence, and condensation so thick my dad had to go round with a wash-leather was an everyday occurrence in the mornings.

    Compare and contrast that to now; the upstairs of my house only gets down to 15 C because I keep the thermostatic radiator valves almost shut. I never see ice indoors, and most of my house is 18 C or above most of the time.

    I and everyone else with central heating expends much less energy on keeping warm than my counterparts a couple of decades ago. Hell, even house pets are getting fatter now, and for exactly the same reason!

    Throw in that meme as well, and the Righteous will be in a complete quandary, especially with the Government initiatives to insulate houses to a better degree to combat warble gloaming.

    Go on, get out there and proselytise! The intelligent life on the planet needs your help!

    Liked by 1 person

    • They don’t contradict really. The primary effect can be any of them, the others could be running in the background but not having the effect of the primary one.

      If you have the gene for blue eyes but also the gene for brown eyes, most likely you’ll have brown eyes. The gene for blue eyes is still there and still making blue eye proteins but the brown eye gene is making more noticeable ones so that blue eye gene is pretty much wasting its time. It still keeps doing its job anyway, like a group of Council workers moving a hole down the street.

      Something the Righteous cannot grasp, because they are basically stupid, is that contradictory things are happening all the time. Inside the body and outside in the world at large. Both sides of the fight are happening but you only see the winning side.

      And… today’s winning side might not be tomorrow’s 😉

      Liked by 1 person

    • Depends what you put in it. Shop fridges are cleaned about once every 6 months but that is a total strip down and clean. Right down to the fans, the cooling fins and water drain. I know, I’ve done it. A domestic fridge would take me about 30 minutes to clean to near-sterility after dealing with one of the supermarket fridges.

      The shop fridges are worried about Pseudomonas fragii mostly. Fairly harmless, but makes a smell like a telephone box tramps have used as a warm place to pee. It’s not likely to do any harm but who wants to buy food from a fridge that smells like tramp urine?

      The real danger is in the food, not in the fridge. Six months is okay, earlier if it starts to pong or looks like there’s something spilled.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. When the Scientific Method died.

    The Lalonde Report – 1974

    A New Perspective On The Health Of Canadians
    A working document
    Marc Lalonde
    Minister of National Health and Welfare

    The Health Field Concept

    “The ultimate philosophical issue raised by the Concept is whether, and to what extent, government can get into the business of modifying human behaviour, even if it does so to improve health. The marketing of social change is a new field which applies the marketing techniques of the business world to getting people to change their behaviour, i.e. eating habits, exercise habits, smoking habits, driving habits, etc.

    It is argued by some that proficiency in social marketing would inevitably lead government into all kinds of undesirable thought control and propaganda.

    The dangers of governmental proficiency in social marketing are recognized but so are the evident abuses resulting from all other kinds of marketing. If the siren song of coloured television, for example,is creating an indolent and passive use of leisure time, has the government not the duty to counteract its effects by marketing programs aimed at promoting physical recreation?”

    Chapter 9. Science Versus Health Promotion

    “The spirit of enquiry and skepticism, and particularly the Scientific Method,so essential to research, are, however, a problem in health promotion.
    The reason for this is that science is full of “ifs”, “buts”, and “maybes” while messages designed to influence the public must be loud, clear and
    unequivocal.

    To quote I Corinthians, Chapter XIV, Verse 8:
    “If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?”

    “The scientific “yes, but” is essential to research but for modifying the behaviour of the population it sometimes produces the “uncertain sound” that is all the excuse needed by many to cultivate and tolerate an environment and lifestyle that is hazardous”
    http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/pdf/perspect-eng.pdf

    One year before George Godber’s speech to the WHO in Geneva.

    Liked by 1 person

    • It is argued by some that proficiency in social marketing would inevitably lead government into all kinds of undesirable thought control and propaganda.

      He was right. Government obviously didn’t listen to that part.

      Or maybe they did and saw an opportunity…

      Liked by 1 person

      • They did.

        Reinventing public health: A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians and its international impact
        2007

        “In the 1970s all the English‐speaking developed nations were facing deficits as curative costs rose. Adopting health promotion policies permitted them to shift responsibility back to local governments and individuals while limiting their expenditures.”

        The international impact: the British response

        “Without crediting the Canadian model, this document paralleled it in terms of structure and focus, emphasizing the role of personal responsibility for nutrition, leisure activities, smoking, drugs, alcohol and sexual behaviour.”

        “Indeed, the speed with which these governments moved to adopt the rhetoric of the health field concept may have been prompted by the desire to cut funding but its impact is still being felt. National and international programmes to curb smoking, control drinking and driving and eradicate drug use have all evolved in the wake of the New Perspective. The greatest impact lay in challenging the hierarchical dominance of the biomedical model. By demonstrating the limitations that this posed for prevention, the Canadian document enabled the international public health movement to reinvent its role for the 21st century.”
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2465617/

        Incidentally, Tony Blair gave up smoking because his wife made him, from what I’ve read, Cameron and Clegg still smoke, but unlike in other countries, they still implimented everything the WHO FCTC demanded.

        Like

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're 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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s