Sorry, but I had a little browse of that fantastic blog, Junkfood Science, this morning and felt that there were a few articles which, well, concerned me, And they should concern us all, really. The articles spell out what it means, really means, when society as a whole starts to judge a person's worth based on their physical appearance, to the extent of assuming that their appearance and apparent health is entirely their own doing, their own choice.
It makes for disturbing reading.
And please, when reading this, keep in mind that the "overweight and obese" that all these modern scares are about are not the 800lb people that cannot leave their own house and get lifted out by crane in times of emergency (although those people also deserve humane and compassionate treatment just like the rest of us) but the chubby girl you had a crush on in school. Your sser who put on a bit "too much" weight after her second child. Your father who has middle-aged spread. The size 14 and size 16 people who, when vocalising about their weight, you assure are "not that fat". Many size 16 people are classed as obese under BMI charts. This shouldn't make any difference in your opinion, but I know from experience that the "health crisis" has been relayed out to the public with such a lack of clear definitions that a vast majority of people don't even know what different weights look like. "200lb" is touted as a scary, scary weight, but chances are you know more than one person over that whom you probably wouldn't imagine being at that weight.
It's easier to demonise the "other" when you don't get told who they really are.
So!
First, an article describing the lengths to which the medical proffession is prepared to go under government guidance. HERE
Next, a look into the last time that those who were deemed "unhealthy" or "unfit" were last expected to prove their own worth. HERE.
An example of absolutely abysmal reporting. HERE.
An example of an event in recent history where pseudoscience became science, not out of support from the medical establishment, but thanks to a vigorous and determined PR campaign. HERE.
The media rarely bothers to print articles from trusted medical sources or trained specialists that suggest the obesity epidemic isa bad thing, but hre is one article citing the importac ethat, at the very least, we stop harassing our children to be thin and desirable. HERE.
How many of the health scares and big medication-based movements are based more on "risk factors" than on actual risks? HERE.
An article showing how evidence can become skewed for the sake of marketting or promoting something. HERE.
A rather worrying example on the way in which overweight cildren are being bullied by the teachers, HERE, with an added link HERE for reference of the source material.
Oh, and this one, again about children. HERE.
***
Okay, so I lied when I said I was going to just linketty link and not say much.
It occurred to me that it might be worth me clarifying some things regarding science and how it works. I'm not being condescending, here. A massive majority of the population cannot be expected to understand the scientific terms used, what they really mean and how it differs from the way such words are used among laymen. One only has to look at the whole Intelligent Design issue to see that people misunderstand the scientific use of the words "theory" and "hypothesis", as well as "evidence" and "trial" or "test".
In science, the general understanding amongst scientists is that nothing is proven. Basically, however many tests we do, however thorough we are, there is always a possibility that we are wrong. All of the evidence we have at the time we start an experiment may lead one to the conclusion that, for example, faster-than-light travel is impossible. But even the most basic of experiements requires some postulates, some assumptions. Such as the assumption that light travels the same speed in all directions, that our basic calculations for speed following from momentum and therefore mass are correct, and that two observers with differing frames of reference will observe different results. But what if, a hundred or a thousand years down the line, one of those postulates is proven false? What if, as our technology becomes more advanced, we discover evidence that shakes the very basis of our understanding of the behaviour of light?
Not so long ago, we believed that phlogiston was the mysterious substance, inherent in all combustible materials, which caused them to burn, and that this could be proven by the fact that the ashes remaining after burning completed weighed less than the original substance; in theory, the lost matter was the "used-up" phlogiston. Now we know that combustion is caused by a reaction with oxygen.
A theory isn't "just a theory" in scientific cricles. In order to become a theory, one's hypothesis has to pass dozens of trials and tests and debates and discussions. There evidence must be great enough that we can confidently say "based on he evidence at hand, this is the most likely or most accurate description of events and their causes". And so the "theory of evolution" actually holds quite a lot of weight. But that is not to say it won't be disproved in another fifty years or so.
Just the same, the term"risk factor" does not mean what laymen have taken it to believe. If one was informed that, for example, being overweight was a risk factor for diabetes, it is understandable that, having no scientific background, one would assume this means that "if I gain weight I will be at a higher risk of diabetes" and that "being fat causes diabetes", and one would then take steps to prevent weight gain. But if one was then told that, for example, having grey hair was a risk factor for old age, would one believe that old age could be prevented by dying one's hair compulsively? No. One would reason that the grey hair and the old age are, in fact, both caused by the same thing, which is simply the inevitability of the passage of time. One could, perhaps, dye one's hair in order to appear younger, but the risk of "aging" would not be affected,
Additionally, many medical studies are not, necesarily, complete or have used a large enough groupd of test subjects to be considered conclusive, at the time that the results are released in the press.
Just a couple of things to keep in mind when reading the above articles.
