The article we link to talks about a study that falls more into the category of the bizarre than that of junk science. Why do we get obese? As smoking is the cause of everything, logic indicates that it must also be a cause of obesity – and here it comes!

"Laboratory tests have found the same pattern in rats exposed to nicotine during fetal development." But the question still arises: if smoking mothers create obese children (despite the fact that their children have a lower birth weight), why weren’t previous generations obese? The study presumes that nearly a quarter of all pregnant women are smoking (we wish that intelligence were that common!..) in spite of the fact that “public health” touts a drastically lower number. However, we DO know that the number of smoking pregnant women was a lot higher than a quarter, especially in the first half of the 20th century. It follows that, if smoking were an even indirect cause of obesity, today we should be much leaner. Since it is obviously not so, smoking is not a cause of obesity, and this is an empirical – thus truly scientific – demonstration. But don’t let real science get in the way of the studies!

Fortunately the study does not depict smoking as the only cause. But don’t rejoice too much, for "common chemicals in everyday substances" can also trigger obesity. Even worse, those chemicals are “critical ingredient of polycarbonate plastics, widely used in food and drink packaging. It is also used to make resins to coat metals in food cans, bottle tops and water pipes.” When injected with these substances “exposed mice are normal-weight at birth, but grow fat with age”. But how much more of those substances where injected in mice when proportioned to the standard foetal exposure (have you noticed what kind of bad connotation the word “exposure” has taken in recent years? Doesn’t that make you cringe?) is not given to know, of course. We only know that the standard procedure ranges from several times to thousands of times more.

As zero is the only number people seem to be able to understand today, the implicit assumption is that, to be safe, a substance is to produce zero alterations even when administered in almost unlimited quantities.

Dead wrong and unrealistic, of course – but politically fashionable for the zero-risk, zero-tolerance, zero-exposure and zero brain generation. The solution? Slick and simple: ban those chemical out of existence along with smoking, and “health” will be back – where is the problem?… The debate is over!

This is the same spoiled-rotten, infantile mentality that:

Wants energy, but does not want pollution.
Supports globalization, but protests against the UN’s cultural, political and financial steamroller.
Wants transportation, but does not want the means of transportation as they are noisy and they pollute.
Knows that institutions are rotten with corruption, but always obeys those institutions with deference and respect.
Wants to feed 6.5 billion people but also wants to regulate food preservatives into extinction. How do I deliver healthy, fresh, preservative-free gourmet food to 6.5 billion consumers in time every day before it spoils, without wasting energy and trashing 50% of it because it’s gone bad? Not my department. I work for the ministry of “health”, not that of transports!
Wants to fight for its liberties without risking employment and preferably while remaining anonymous (exposure has a bad connotation, remember?…). But it is sure willing to help by making plans for others to implement.
Wants the money of smokers but not their smoke.
Supports crusades against obesity while making a living working for MacDonald’s.
Wants its absolute “right to health” – anytime, anyhow, and unlimited — but it cries against the taxes.

Long ago these contradictions in thought indicated schizophrenia, and therapies were attempted.

Today it is the proud mark of distinction of the “health-conscious environmentalist” – and all want to join the crowd.

It seems to be true: disease is a relative state.



Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder