US Health Care System Leading Cause of Death and Injury

Fat Bastard is finally out of the hospital and still recovering from the many many foul-ups and we suspect that some of his injuries at the hands of our corrupt medical system are permanent. For legal reasons we cannot go into the specifics of the case so for now let is suffice to say that my beloved friend Fat Bastard was simply one of many millions of victims of our genocidal health care system.

What does this have to do with fat acceptance? Not much. Bad health care effects everyone but it does impact more on the obese due to attitudes and the fact fat people get sick more often.

If Fat Bastard had simply gone home after his tumble down the escalator because other than a broken arm and some bumps and bruises Fat Bastard would have been fine. It was the many medical errors that nearly cost Fat Bastard his life. I believe it was Clara Barton that said, "first do no harm." Today's MDs and their brand of health care often do more harm than good.

During the litigation process the sleazy lawyers for the hospital will bring up Fat Bastard's obesity but a good judge will rule it irrelevant. We are hoping for a fat friendly judge. In the meantime, Fat Bastard and I have decided as a public service to our readers we should post some information about our deadly and greedy corporate run health care system.

We encourage our readers to read the following report and copy and paste it into their email and send it to everyone. We further encourage our readers to contact every elected official they can by phone, email and snail mail and tell them to stop this genocide. We encourage our readers to contact local, state and federal law enforcement and report this ongoing crime wave.

The US health care system is the most expensive and the most deadly on earth. We are currently ranked 39th in the world by the World Health Organization but if you were to rate the US health care system on dollars spent on health care it would be at the bottom of the heap.





The US spends 17% of its GDP on health care. On the other hand Europe spends about 6%. Italy and France are the top 2 countries for health care. Why is it that France and Italy spend far less on their government run health care and deliver health care that is safer and better while the corporate health care here in the US is expensive and deadly? It would seem that countries who have the best food art, food and wine also have the best health care.

Assholes like that cry baby Glenn Beck and that junkie Rush Limbaugh will tell you that the US health care system is the best in the world and that people from other countries come here for health care. That is mostly bullshit. The fact is, US health care sucks more than Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity combined. The other media whores like Lou Dobbs, and Kieth Olberman are simply silent on this holocaust. The other fact is many more US citizens go out of country for health than foreigners come here simply because American health care sucks and it is too expensive and deadly. Medical tourism is growing in leaps and bounds. Hopefully the Europeans and the Japanese will send hospital ships with their doctors and rescue us from this, the biggest threat since the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

How many other professions actually rake in more money by screwing up? Think about it. Would you be forced to pay some joker who you hired to fix your fridge if in his attempts to fix it he ended up causing more damage or damaging so badly it had to be scrapped? Do you think a reputable repairman would have the balls to charge customers for his blunders? MDs are held to a different and lower standard than your average working stiff. That is plain wrong!

Here is link to some personal stories of victims of sloppy and greedy medicine.
http://www.ralphhugheslaw.com/medical_mistakes.html

Contact you US senator here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm




Modern Health Care System is the Leading Cause of Death!
Doctors are in fact the LEADING cause of death in this country. Not heart disease, not cancer--doctors. In all fairness, doctors themselves are not to blame for all of this. The entire modern health care system, however, is to blame for allowing, even promoting, so many unnecessary procedures, drugs and mishaps. This illustrates precisely why the system is so desperately in need of change, and why facilitating this change is, and will continue to be the mission of the Advanced Scientific Health Research Team.

---

By Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, Dorothy Smith PhD

A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good. The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million. ¹ Dr. Richard Besser, of the CDC, in 1995, said the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections was 20 million. Dr. Besser, in 2003, now refers to tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics. ^{2, 2a}

The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million. ³ The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million. ⁴ The total number of iatrogenic [induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures] deaths shown in the following table is 783,936.

It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. The 2001 heart disease annual death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate, 553,251. ⁵

TABLES AND FIGURES (see Section on Statistical Tables and Figures, below, for exposition)

ANNUAL PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC COST OF MEDICAL INTERVENTION

Condition	Deaths	Cost	Author
Adverse Drug Reactions	106,000	$12 billion	Lazarou1 Suh49
Medical error	98,000	$2 billion	IOM6
Bedsores	115,000	$55 billion	Xakellis7 Barczak8
Infection	88,000	$5 billion	Weinstein9 MMWR10
Malnutrition	108,800	--------	Nurses Coalition11
Outpatients	199,000	$77 billion	Starfield12 Weingart112
Unnecessary Procedures	37,136	$122 billion	HCUP3,13
Surgery-Related	32,000	$9 billion	AHRQ85
TOTAL	783,936	$282 billion

We could have an even higher death rate by using Dr. Lucien Leape’s 1997 medical and drug error rate of 3 million. ¹⁴ Multiplied by the fatality rate of 14 percent (that Leape used in 1994 ¹⁶ we arrive at an annual death rate of 420,000 for drug errors and medical errors combined. If we put this number in place of Lazorou’s 106,000 drug errors and the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) 98,000 medical errors, we could add another 216,000 deaths making a total of 999,936 deaths annually.

Condition	Deaths	Cost	Author
ADR/med error	420,000	$200 billion	Leape 199714
TOTAL	999,936

ANNUAL UNNECESSARY MEDICAL EVENTS STATISTICS

Unnecessary Events	People Affected	Iatrogenic Events
Hospitalization	8.9 million4	1.78 million16
Procedures	7.5 million3	1.3 million40
TOTAL	16.4 million	3.08 million

The enumerating of unnecessary medical events is very important in our analysis. Any medical procedure that is invasive and not necessary must be considered as part of the larger iatrogenic picture. Unfortunately, cause and effect go unmonitored. The figures on unnecessary events represent people ("patients") who are thrust into a dangerous health care system. They are helpless victims. Each one of these 16.4 million lives is being affected in a way that could have a fatal consequence. Simply entering a hospital could result in the following (out of 16. 4 million people):

• 2.1 percent chance of a serious adverse drug reaction (186,000) ¹

• 5 percent to 6 percent chance of acquiring a nosocomial [hospital] infection (489,500) ⁹

• 4 percent to 36 percent chance of having an iatrogenic injury in hospital (medical error and adverse drug reactions) (1.78 million) ¹⁶

• 17 percent chance of a procedure error (1.3 million) ⁴⁰

All the statistics above represent a one-year time span. Imagine the numbers over a 10-year period. Working with the most conservative figures from our statistics we project the following 10-year death rates.

TEN-YEAR DEATH RATES FOR MEDICAL INTERVENTION

7,841,360 (7.8 million)

Condition	10-Year Deaths	Author
Adverse Drug Reaction	1.06 million	(1)
Medical error	0.98 million	(6)
Bedsores	1.15 million	(7,8)
Nosocomial Infection	0.88 million	(9,10)
Malnutrition	1.09 million	(11)
Outpatients	1.99 million	(12, 112)
Unnecessary Procedures	371,360	(3,13)
Surgery-related	320,000	(85)
TOTAL

Our projected statistic of 7.8 million iatrogenic deaths is more than all the casualties from wars that America has fought in its entire history.

Our projected figures for unnecessary medical events occurring over a 10-year period are also dramatic.

TEN-YEAR STATISTICS FOR UNNECESSARY INTERVENTION

164 million

Unnecessary Events	10-year Number	Iatrogenic Events
Hospitalization	89 million4	17 million
Procedures	75 million3	15 million
TOTAL

These projected figures show that a total of 164 million people, approximately 56 percent of the population of the United States, have been treated unnecessarily by the medical industry--in other words, nearly 50,000 people per day.

Introduction

Never before have the complete statistics on the multiple causes of iatrogenesis been combined in one paper. Medical science amasses tens of thousands of papers annually--each one a tiny fragment of the whole picture.

To look at only one piece and try to understand the benefits and risks is to stand one inch away from an elephant and describe everything about it.

You have to pull back to reveal the complete picture, such as we have done here. Each specialty, each division of medicine, keeps their own records and data on morbidity and mortality like pieces of a puzzle. But the numbers and statistics were always hiding in plain sight. We have now completed the painstaking work of reviewing thousands and thousands of studies. Finally putting the puzzle together we came up with some disturbing answers.

Is American Medicine Working?

At 14 percent of the Gross National Product, health care spending reached $1.6 trillion in 2003.¹⁵ Considering this enormous expenditure, we should have the best medicine in the world. We should be reversing disease, preventing disease, and doing minimal harm. However, careful and objective review shows the opposite. Because of the extraordinary narrow context of medical technology through which contemporary medicine examines the human condition, we are completely missing the full picture.

Medicine is not taking into consideration the following monumentally important aspects of a healthy human organism:

(a) Stress and how it adversely affects the immune system and life processes

(b) Insufficient exercise

(c) Excessive caloric intake

(d) Highly processed and denatured foods grown in denatured and chemically damaged soil

(e) Exposure to tens of thousands of environmental toxins.

Instead of minimizing these disease-causing factors, we actually cause more illness through medical technology, diagnostic testing, overuse of medical and surgical procedures, and overuse of pharmaceutical drugs. The huge disservice of this therapeutic strategy is the result of little effort or money being appropriated for preventing disease.

Under-reporting of Iatrogenic Events

As few as 5 percent and only up to 20 percent of iatrogenic acts are ever reported.^{16,24,25,33,34} This implies that if medical errors were completely and accurately reported, we would have a much higher annual iatrogenic death rate than 783,936. Dr. Leape, in 1994, said his figure of 180,000 medical mistakes annually was equivalent to three jumbo-jet crashes every two days.¹⁶ Our report shows that six jumbo jets are falling out of the sky each and every day.

Correcting a Compromised System

What we must deduce from this report is that medicine is in need of complete and total reform: from the curriculum in medical schools to protecting patients from excessive medical intervention. It is quite obvious that we can’t change anything if we are not honest about what needs to be changed. This report simply shows the degree to which change is required.

We are fully aware that what stands in the way of change are powerful pharmaceutical companies, medical technology companies, and special interest groups with enormous vested interests in the business of medicine. They fund medical research, support medical schools and hospitals, and advertise in medical journals. With deep pockets they entice scientists and academics to support their efforts. Such funding can sway the balance of opinion from professional caution to uncritical acceptance of a new therapy or drug.

You only have to look at the number of invested people on hospital, medical, and government health advisory boards to see conflict of interest. The public is mostly unaware of these interlocking interests. For example, a 2003 study found that nearly half of medical school faculty, who serve on Institutional Review Boards (IRB) to advise on clinical trial research, also serve as consultants to the pharmaceutical industry. ¹⁷ The authors were concerned that such representation could cause potential conflicts of interest.

A news release by Dr. Erik Campbell, the lead author, said,

"Our previous research with faculty has shown us that ties to industry can affect scientific behavior, leading to such things as trade secrecy and delays in publishing research. It's possible that similar relationships with companies could affect IRB members' activities and attitudes."¹⁸

Medical Ethics and Conflict of Interest in Scientific Medicine

Jonathan Quick, director of Essential Drugs and Medicines Policy for the World Health Organization (WHO) wrote in a recent WHO Bulletin:

"If clinical trials become a commercial venture in which self-interest overrules public interest and desire overrules science, then the social contract which allows research on human subjects in return for medical advances is broken."¹⁹

Former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Dr. Marcia Angell, struggled to bring the attention of the world to the problem of commercializing scientific research in her outgoing editorial titled "Is Academic Medicine for Sale?"²⁰ Angell called for stronger restrictions on pharmaceutical stock ownership and other financial incentives for researchers. She said that growing conflicts of interest are tainting science.

She warned that, "When the boundaries between industry and academic medicine become as blurred as they are now, the business goals of industry influence the mission of medical schools in multiple ways." She did not discount the benefits of research but said a Faustian bargain now existed between medical schools and the pharmaceutical industry.

Angell left the NEMJ in June 2000. Two years later, in June 2002, the NEJM announced that it would now accept biased journalists (those who accept money from drug companies) because it is too difficult to find ones who have no ties. Another former editor of the journal, Dr. Jerome Kassirer, said that was just not the case, that there are plenty of researchers who don’t work for drug companies.²¹ The ABC report said that one measurable tie between pharmaceutical companies and doctors amounts to over $2 billion a year spent for over 314,000 events that doctors attend.

The ABC report also noted that a survey of clinical trials revealed that when a drug company funds a study, there is a 90 percent chance that the drug will be perceived as effective whereas a non-drug company-funded study will show favorable results 50 percent of the time.

It appears that money can’t buy you love but it can buy you any "scientific" result you want.

The only safeguard to reporting these studies was if the journal writers remained unbiased. That is no longer the case.

Cynthia Crossen, writer for the Wall Street Journal in 1996, published "Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact in America," a book about the widespread practice of lying with statistics.²² Commenting on the state of scientific research she said that:

"The road to hell was paved with the flood of corporate research dollars that eagerly filled gaps left by slashed government research funding."

Her data on financial involvement showed that in l981 the drug industry "gave" $292 million to colleges and universities for research. In l991 it "gave" $2.1 billion.

The First Iatrogenic Study

Dr. Lucian L. Leape opened medicine’s Pandora’s box in his 1994 JAMA paper, "Error in Medicine."¹⁶ He began the paper by reminiscing about Florence Nightingale’s maxim--"first do no harm." But he found evidence of the opposite happening in medicine. He found that Schimmel reported in 1964 that 20 percent of hospital patients suffered iatrogenic injury, with a 20 percent fatality rate. Steel in 1981 reported that 36 percent of hospitalized patients experienced iatrogenesis with a 25 percent fatality rate and adverse drug reactions were involved in 50 percent of the injuries. Bedell in 1991 reported that 64 percent of acute heart attacks in one hospital were preventable and were mostly due to adverse drug reactions.

However, Leape focused on his and Brennan’s "Harvard Medical Practice Study" published in 1991.^16a They found that in 1984, in New York State, there was a 4 percent iatrogenic injury rate for patients with a 14 percent fatality rate. From the 98,609 patients injured and the 14 percent fatality rate, he estimated that in the whole of the United States 180,000 people die each year, partly as a result of iatrogenic injury. Leape compared these deaths to the equivalent of three jumbo-jet crashes every two days.

Why Leape chose to use the much lower figure of four percent injury for his analysis remains in question. Perhaps he wanted to tread lightly. If Leape had, instead, calculated the average rate among the three studies he cites (36 percent, 20 percent, and 4 percent), he would have come up with a 20 percent medical error rate. The number of fatalities that he could have presented, using an average rate of injury and his 14 percent fatality, is an annual 1,189,576 iatrogenic deaths, or over ten jumbo jets crashing every day.

Leape acknowledged that the literature on medical error is sparse and we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. He said that when errors are specifically sought out, reported rates are "distressingly high." He cited several autopsy studies with rates as high as 35 percent to 40 percent of missed diagnoses causing death. He also commented that an intensive care unit reported an average of 1.7 errors per day per patient, and 29 percent of those errors were potentially serious or fatal.

We wonder: what is the effect on someone who daily gets the wrong medication, the wrong dose, the wrong procedure; how do we measure the accumulated burden of injury; and when the patient finally succumbs after the tenth error that week, what is entered on the death certificate?

Leape calculated the rate of error in the intensive care unit. First, he found that each patient had an average of 178 "activities" (staff/procedure/medical interactions) a day, of which 1.7 were errors, which means a 1 percent failure rate. To some this may not seem like much, but putting this into perspective, Leape cited industry standards where in aviation a 0.1 percent failure rate would mean:

• Two unsafe plane landings per day at O’Hare airport

• In the U.S. mail, 16,000 pieces of lost mail every hour

• In banking, 32,000 bank checks deducted from the wrong bank account every hour

Analyzing why there is so much medical error Leape acknowledged the lack of reporting. Unlike a jumbo-jet crash, which gets instant media coverage, hospital errors are spread out over the country in thousands of different locations. They are also perceived as isolated and unusual events. However, the most important reason that medical error is unrecognized and growing, according to Leape, was, and still is, that doctors and nurses are unequipped to deal with human error, due to the culture of medical training and practice.

Doctors are taught that mistakes are unacceptable. Medical mistakes are therefore viewed as a failure of character and any error equals negligence.

We can see how a great deal of sweeping under the rug takes place since nobody is taught what to do when medical error does occur. Leape cited McIntyre and Popper who said the "infallibility model" of medicine leads to intellectual dishonesty with a need to cover up mistakes rather than admit them. There are no Grand Rounds on medical errors, no sharing of failures among doctors and no one to support them emotionally when their error harms a patient.

Leape hoped his paper would encourage medicine "to fundamentally change the way they think about errors and why they occur." It’s been almost a decade since this groundbreaking work, but the mistakes continue to soar.

One year later, in 1995, a report in JAMA said that:

"Over a million patients are injured in U.S. hospitals each year, and approximately 280,000 die annually as a result of these injuries. Therefore, the iatrogenic death rate dwarfs the annual automobile accident mortality rate of 45,000 and accounts for more deaths than all other accidents combined."²³

At a press conference in 1997 Dr. Leape released a nationwide poll on patient iatrogenesis conducted by the National Patient Safety Foundation (NPSF), which is sponsored by the American Medical Association. The survey found that more than 100 million Americans have been impacted directly and indirectly by a medical mistake. Forty-two percent were directly affected and a total of 84 percent personally knew of someone who had experienced a medical mistake.¹⁴ Dr. Leape is a founding member of the NPSF.

Dr. Leape at this press conference also updated his 1994 statistics saying that medical errors in inpatient hospital settings nationwide, as of 1997, could be as high as 3 million and could cost as much as $200 billion. Leape used a 14 percent fatality rate to determine a medical error death rate of 180,000 in 1994.16 In 1997, using Leape’s base number of 3 million errors, the annual deaths could be as much as 420,000 for inpatients alone. This does not include nursing home deaths, or people in the outpatient community dying of drug side effects or as the result of medical procedures.

Only a Fraction of Medical Errors are Reported

Leape, in 1994, said that he was well aware that medical errors were not being reported.16 According to a study in two obstetrical units in the U.K., only about one quarter of the adverse incidents on the units are ever reported for reasons of protecting staff or preserving reputations, or fear of reprisals, including law suits.24 An analysis by Wald and Shojania found that only 1.5 percent of all adverse events result in an incident report, and only 6 percent of adverse drug events are identified properly.

The authors learned that the American College of Surgeons gives a very broad guess that surgical incident reports routinely capture only 5 percent to 30 percent of adverse events. In one surgical study only 20 percent of surgical complications resulted in discussion at Morbidity and Mortality Rounds.²⁵ From these studies it appears that all the statistics that are gathered may be substantially underestimating the number of adverse drug and medical therapy incidents. It also underscores the fact that our mortality statistics are actually conservative figures.

An article in Psychiatric Times outlines the stakes involved with reporting medical errors.²⁶ They found that the public is fearful of suffering a fatal medical error, and doctors are afraid they will be sued if they report an error.

This brings up the obvious question: who is reporting medical errors?

Usually it is the patient or the patient’s surviving family. If no one notices the error, it is never reported. Janet Heinrich, an associate director at the U.S. General Accounting Office responsible for health financing and public health issues, testifying before a House subcommittee about medical errors, said that:

"The full magnitude of their threat to the American public is unknown." She added, "Gathering valid and useful information about adverse events is extremely difficult."

She acknowledged that the fear of being blamed, and the potential for legal liability, played key roles in the under-reporting of errors. The Psychiatric Times noted that the American Medical Association is strongly opposed to mandatory reporting of medical errors.²⁶ If doctors aren’t reporting, what about nurses? In a survey of nurses, they also did not report medical mistakes for fear of retaliation.²⁷

Standard medical pharmacology texts admit that relatively few doctors ever report adverse drug reactions to the FDA.²⁸ The reasons range from not knowing such a reporting system exists to fear of being sued because they prescribed a drug that caused harm. ²⁹ However, it is this tremendously flawed system of voluntary reporting from doctors that we depend on to know whether a drug or a medical intervention is harmful.

Pharmacology texts will also tell doctors how hard it is to separate drug side effects from disease symptoms. Treatment failure is most often attributed to the disease and not the drug or the doctor. Doctors are warned, "Probably nowhere else in professional life are mistakes so easily hidden, even from ourselves."³⁰ It may be hard to accept, but not difficult to understand, why only one in twenty side effects is reported to either hospital administrators or the FDA.^31,31a

If hospitals admitted to the actual number of errors and mistakes, which is about 20 times what is reported, they would come under intense scrutiny.³²

Jerry Phillips, associate director of the Office of Post Marketing Drug Risk Assessment at the FDA, confirms this number. "In the broader area of adverse drug reaction data, the 250,000 reports received annually probably represent only 5 percent of the actual reactions that occur."³³ Dr. Jay Cohen, who has extensively researched adverse drug reactions, comments that because only 5 percent of adverse drug reactions are being reported, there are, in reality, 5 million medication reactions each year.³⁴

It remains that whatever figure you choose to believe about the side effects from drugs, all the experts agree that you have to multiply that by 20 to get a more accurate estimate of what is really occurring in the burgeoning "field" of iatrogenic medicine.

A 2003 survey is all the more distressing because there seems to be no improvement in error reporting even with all the attention on this topic. Dr. Dorothea Wild surveyed medical residents at a community hospital in Connecticut. She found that only half of the residents were aware that the hospital had a medical error-reporting system, and the vast majority didn’t use it at all. Dr. Wild says this does not bode well for the future. If doctors don’t learn error reporting in their training, they will never use it. And she adds that error reporting is the first step in finding out where the gaps in the medical system are and fixing them. That first baby step has not even begun.³⁵

Public Suggestions on Iatrogenesis

In a telephone survey, 1,207 adults were asked to indicate how effective they thought the following would be in reducing preventable medical errors that resulted in serious harm:³⁶

• Giving doctors more time to spend with patients: very effective 78 percent

• Requiring hospitals to develop systems to avoid medical errors: very effective 74 percent

• Better training of health professionals: very effective 73 percent

• Using only doctors specially trained in intensive care medicine on intensive care units: very effective 73 percent

• Requiring hospitals to report all serious medical errors to a state agency: very effective 71 percent

• Increasing the number of hospital nurses: very effective 69 percent

• Reducing the work hours of doctors-in-training to avoid fatigue: very effective 66 percent

• Encouraging hospitals to voluntarily report serious medical errors to a state agency: very effective 62 percent

Obligatory fat girl eating a sausage wiener.

What Can You Do?

1. Don't get sick. Portly Ben Franklin said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Truer words were never spoken. Carolyn Dean is one of the MDs who wrote the article I quoted. It is easy to say, "Don't get sick." but Dr Carolyn Dean actually shows you how. She is like Dr Oz. She's one of the bold medical practitioners who cares more about good health than profits. Here's her site. http://www.drcarolyndean.com/content/?section=48_week_program&page=freesample


Dr Carolyn Dean

Dr Dean also authored several outstanding books.



Check out her outstanding site.

2. Avoid US health care when ever possible.

3. If you know of a dangerous and careless doctor picket his office.

4. Use the internet. Start a blog and blog hard about our horrible health care system. Start chain emails. Go in other blogs and forums.

5. Write and call your elected officials often.

6. Let doctors know how much you think they suck.

7. Write letters to your local paper about conditions in your local hospital.

8. Get as much dirt on them are possible.

9. Contact celebrities like Suzanne Somers and Susan Powter.

10. Attend town hall meetings, confront your elected officials with the facts and pass out information about this medical holocaust.

11. Start a medical blunders support group and mobilize your members.

Things You Should Not Do

I know you are pissed about Fat Bastard's treatment at the hands of these barbarians but do not go off half cocked. I know this is a holocaust that effects many millions of people of all ages, races, religions and sizes. In fact this is as bad as what the Nazis did but this is not a call to arms it is a call to action. The pen is mightier than the sword.

1. I know some people think violence is the answer and maybe some of our readers can make the argument that it is but we at Bigger Fatter Blog are lovers not fighters so if you are inclined to seek some do it yourself justice on these money grubbing murdering scumbags we would urge you to take a peaceful path like Gandhi did even though it may prevent countless deaths at the hands of these greedy butchers.

2. Don't fuck with their cars. I know it would be fun to spray paint butcher or murdering scum on their cars or slash their tires. If you make them late for a round of golf they will only take it out on their patients or cause them to commit more Medicaid and Medicare fraud than they are already doing. They are the terrorists and criminals. You are better than that, so as tempting as it may be to burn them out don't or you will be just like them. If you are a reader on this blog you are better than them. Let your karma run over their greedy dogma. They will burn in hell.

3. Don't send the name and addresses of the bastards causing this holocaust to the criminally insane.

4. Get sick or injured. Do your best to stay healthy.

5. If you smoke stop.

6. If you are a dare devil stop.

7. Don't include the anti-abortion kooks because they are violent and if they go off and start killing doctors, drug company CEO's and CEO's of medical corporations it will reflect badly on the true health care reform movement.

Please keep Fat Bastard in your thoughts and prayers. Work hard to stop this genocide.

Mike In GR Bariatric Surgery Flunkie and Asshole

He is!

Mike had WLS and actually got fatter. Only a total fuck-up can fuck up as much as this fuck- up. Mike can only have sex laying on his back because he's so fat so he can only fuck up. Get it? In spite of the fact that Mike got even fatter after his gastric bypass he is still an advocate for the butchery known as weight loss surgery. If Mike and other assholes like him would simply admit that they are greedy gluttons we food sluts here at Bigger Fatter Blog would have to give him shit and he would either lose weight of happily continue his glorious gomandizing and greedy gluttony.


Mike before surgery


Mike after WLS


As most of our readers know, BFB is totally against bariatric butchery. We are not usually ones to whine about fat hatred because most of the time the old fat acceptance distorts and exaggerates it. The old fat acceptance are the real fat haters.

The new fat acceptance has declared war on Weight Loss Surgery. We are not anti-diet but we are strongly anti-WLS. The main reason we are against it is not because it can potentially make people un-fat. We are fine with people wanting to be un-fat. We oppose WLS because is is a very very very deadly procedure that has no therapeutic value. I will say it again. We oppose WLS because is is a very very very deadly procedure that has no therapeutic value.

Unlike the crazy girls in the old fat acceptance we will provide factual information for why we oppose WLS and why it should be banned.

It is a documented fact that one in fifty patients die within the first month of having WLS. Here is the proof. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/21/earlyshow/contributors/melindamurphy/main668323.shtml

The WLS industry admits to 1 in 200 deaths due to WLS and the CDC figures say that 1 in 100 die after having the procedure.

Who's Mike in GR and why is he a Bariatic Surgery flunky and cock sucker?

Proud FA went to a WLS chat room and we were very effective in discouraging prospective WLS victims. We gave people the facts and while we met with some hostility from some very hungry, sickly and angry fat girls many people were with us and thanked us for desuading them from going into the meat grinder that is WLS. Like the good soldiers we are PFA and I did some recon. We found that many had not reached their weight loss goals but many many more are very ill as a result of having WLS. Then we targeted this asshole lying shit bum named Mike in GR. While many who had WLS actually gained weight Mike in GR was the only one in the chat room so we focused on him like a laser beam. We fucked with this lying nasty sack of shit unmercifully. Proud FA was brilliant.

We encourage our readers to fuck with WLS message boards and chat rooms because WLS is legalized murder. Here is where you can find that dick licker Mike in GR. http://www.obesityhelp.com/morbidobesity/members/chatroom.php

Keep telling the truth on the WLS industry and their pimps!

This is from Web MD:

Risks

Risks common to all surgeries for weight loss include an infection in the incision, a leak from the stomach into the abdominal cavity or where the intestine is connected (resulting in an infection called peritonitis), and a blood clot in the lung (pulmonary embolism). About one-third of all people having surgery for obesity develop gallstones or a nutritional deficiency condition such as anemia or osteoporosis. ^{3, 4}

Fewer than 3 in 200 (1.5%) people die after surgery for weight loss.

After a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass:

• An iron and vitamin B12 deficiency occurs more than 30% of the time. About 50% of those with an iron deficiency develop anemia.
• The connection between the stomach and the intestines narrows (stomal stenosis) 5% to 15% of the time, leading to nausea and vomiting after eating.
• Ulcers develop 5% to 15% of the time.
• The staples may pull loose.
• Hernia may develop.
• The bypassed stomach may enlarge, resulting in hiccups and bloating.

Here are some more facts from another source:

A Gastric Bypass not only staples the stomach but bypasses part of the small bowel INCLUDING the section in which a lot of digestion of vitamins and minerals takes place. This means that even with a small amount of intestine bypassed, the post op might develop vitamin and mineral deficiencies. The stomach "is a critical digestive organ and cannot be cut away or bypassed without compromising the digestive process." REF: Paul Ernsberger, PhD, Department of Nutrition, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, 10900 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44106-4906

Gastric surgery for weight loss causes nutritional deficiency in nearly 100% of individuals who have it done. The most common deficiencies are Vitamin B12, Iron, Calcium, Magnesium, Carotene (beta-carotene and other carotene vitamins) and potassium.

Several studies suggest that the gastric bypass may have a high complication rate. According to at least two major studies, the complication rate (serious and can be life threatening) was 20 -40 percent (Mayo Clinic Study - 20 percent in five years - proximal gastric bypass, Livingston studies - 800 patients in 8 years - 40 percent)

Dr Edward Mason, inventor of the gastric bypass: "For the vast majority of patients today, there is no operation that will control weight to a "normal" level without introducing risks and side effects that over a lifetime may raise questions about its use for surgical treatment of obesity."

***The RNY (gastric bypass) trades one disease for another: it trades obesity for malabsorption. By re-arranging your guts you sometimes have severe side effects, and can have long-term problems such as iron deficiency anemia, calcium deficiency leading to osteoporosis. (Dr Terry Simpson, MD, WLS surgeon)

"The American Society of Bariatric Surgery says weight loss surgeries have increased from about 20,000 in 1995 to an estimated 45,000 in 2001. It estimates a 7 percent complication rate. But [Dr] Livingston's own study of 800 patients found complication rates of 20 to 40 percent, with everything from intestinal leaks to nutritional deficiencies. "

ABC News story, March 2001 (note: later in 2005, the insurance company actuarials also found a 20 percent re-operation rate in gastric bypass patients)

A non bariatric industry study which CT scanned 72 gastric bypass patients and found by CT scanning, that 41 of the 72 patients (i.e. 56 percent) had some 62 "abnormalities" in their digestive tract.

3. Gastric bypass does NOT suppress the appetite in most people according to a clinical study of 61 patients presented at the 2009 ASBS convention. On the contrary, 80 percent of patients in the study a couple of years post op, not only got extremely hungry soon after a meal but also many had an "uncontrollable urge" to eat. This caused weight re-gain in several patients.
   
   

   REF: Dr Mitchell Roslin, MD Lennox Hill Hospital in NYC as presented at the ASMBS convention in 2009 (Dr Roslin found erratic blood sugar levels in most of the cohort (study taken out to 4 years) and feels that either the gastric bypass should be very much revised or abandoned in favor of another procedure

4. With a gastric bypass or BPD, you may have a high risk of osteoporosis. The place where the body absorbs most calcium, is bypassed. This means that no matter how much calcium supplements you take, it might not get into your body.
   

5. With a gastric bypass, your stomach might not make the enzyme to digest vitamin B12 which means you may have to take shots for the rest of your life - Many post ops learn to inject themselves and buy the B12 and syringes from their veterinarian because insurance sometimes does not pay for vitamin shots.




6. WLS does not CURE diabetes (no researcher used the word "cure").
   

   If you restrict calories mildly and exercise at least 5 times a week, regardless of size you will keep your sugar levels down for many years after diagnosis.
   
   Also, with modern medications like metformin, few people who have TYPE II diabetes, get the complications typically seen 40 years ago.
   
   Finally, diabetes type II is GENETIC and NOT "caused" by obesity. If you do not have the gene which causes insulin resistance (your muscles do not take up insulin from the blood easily) then you will not' get diabetes until you are old enough for your pancreas to "wear out" (a friend just got diagnosed at the age of 95). The poor food choices which can cause obesity in prone people, can also bring on type II diabetes in people with the diabetes gene earlier in life.

7. You might have to go back to the hospital for repeat surgeries for hernias, bowel obstruction, blockage of the opening between the pouch and the intestines (this is very painful until you have the surgery done) and scopes (tubes down your throat to see if all if ok).

8. Many WLS post ops end up still very overweight! Often from the quick weight loss, plastic surgery is required to remove a lot of loose skin.

"Weight Loss surgery does not make most people thin - it makes very obese people less obese" (REF: Flancbaum, Louis: THE DOCTOR'S GUIDE TO WEIGHT LOSS SURGERY (NY, 2001) )

At a 10 year study, the average BMI was found to be 35, still clinically obese (REF: Obesity Surgery, Vol. 11 No. 4 August 2001, pp 464-468)

Another 10 year study of gastric bypass patients found that 34% of those whose starting BMI was over 50, had regained all or most of their weight. (REF: Annals of Surgery. 244(5):734-740, November 2006. Christou, Nicolas V. MD, PhD; Look, Didier MD; MacLean, Lloyd D. MD, PhD)

9. Many Weight Loss surgery patients will gain weight if they eat less than 900 calories a day. If they have malabsorption, they may absorb even less.

Dr. Greg Adams, a general surgeon at Valley Medical Center in San Jose: "I think it's a plan of controlled starvation" ( http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11856 )

Dr Matheis Fobi, a WLS surgeon, calls the gastric bypass "induced bulimia".

10. With a gastric bypass, you may regain all or most of the weight.. Despite the low caloric intake of most gastric bypass patients (under 900 calories a day) are expected BY THE SURGEONS to regain 40-50 percent of the weight they initially lost. This may be due to the body getting used to the new arrangement of intestines and stomach.. (there are over 3000 members on the Yahoo groups Weight Loss surgery support groups for those who are fighting re-gain). Revisions are risky, painful and for most, ineffective (30 lbs weight loss average)
    
    

    A 2006 study found within 10 years post op, that 34 percent of those whose starting BMI was over 50, regained all or most of the weight. 20 percent of those with a lower BMI regained all or most of the weight.
    
    Annals of Surgery. 244(5):734-740, November 2006.
    Christou, Nicolas V. MD, PhD; Look, Didier MD; MacLean, Lloyd D. MD, PhD

    
    

11. Bad gut bugs: Disturbing the digestive system and compromising the stomach means you might have bad bacteria in the intestines which can escape into your bloodstream. This can cause many problems including lowered immunity, diarrhea, flatulance and immune disease like Lupus..
    

12. Restrictive diet and exercise: There are many foods you might not be able to eat. And many surgeons warn that if you don't exercise, you might gain back. If you didn't like exercise before surgery, you might not like it after. And if you dieted and exercised without surgery, you would lose weight also.
    
    "Measure TWICE, Eat ONCE and vomit NEVER" (Dr Terry Simpson WLS surgeon from his book)
    

13. You might be exchanging one set of problems for another.

Dr Edward Livingston, director of the University of California At Los Angeles Bariatric Surgery program wrote: "By doing this surgery, you're creating a medical disease in the body. Before you expose someone to that risk, you have to be absolutely sure that you are treating an illness which is equal to or greater than the one you are creating." Ref: p 175, Self Magazine, April 2001 "Would you have surgery to lose weight?"

If you believe this surgery will restore you to complete and normal health you are mistaken. You are trading one nutrition problem for another problem. Obesity alone, does not necessarily kill you. You need to understand that when researchers do studies on the obese and find that they are more likely to die, this does not necessarily mean that how much they weigh, killed them. Obesity is a symptom. It is just as likely that what they ate killed them. and also happened to make them heavy at the same time.

Kaiser Permanante release form for Weight Loss surgery

The RNY trades one disease for another: it trades obesity for malabsorption. By re-arranging your guts you sometimes have severe side effects, and can have long-term problems such as iron deficiency anemia, calcium deficiency leading to osteoporosis. (Dr Terry Simpson, MD, WLS surgeon)

7. Weight Loss Surgery (WLS) might not fix depression. Sometimes WLS can cause an eating disorder.

JoAnn Mann, RN and eating disorders specialist: "I've seen massive infection, I've seen people hospitalized for malnutrition. I've seen people obsessed with food. I've seen people unable to stop vomiting. I've seen people develop massive eating disorders, I've seen people who are terrified of gaining weight. Terrified. It runs their lives."

Dr. Jenn Berman, a Los Angeles psychotherapist and an expert on eating disorders, has counseled more than 70 gastric bypass patients in the past six years. The patients who come to her are unable to keep down food and suffer from chronic diarrhea and/or vomiting. Berman said some patients have developed eating disorders and are afraid that if they eat too much, they will be sick.

http://fresnobee.com/bypass/story/1391404p-1467981c.html

7. Prolonged strict dieting (lower caloric intake) can permanently damage your metabolism which means you may gain back weight faster. Your body does this by cannibalizing it's own muscles and even parts of organs. There is a growing body of evidence that starvation can cause brain damage and a lessening of mental abilities as well. This would make sense as the brain is not necessary to maintain life. (see Pool, Robert: FAT - FIGHTING THE OBESITY EPIDEMIC, also the studies of the Food Institute in UK on starvation or prolonged dieting or calorie restriction and permanent brain damage)

8. The gastric bypass is NOT a new procedure. It was invented in the 1960's and modeled on a surgery invented in 1880 for bleeding duodenal ulcers. When the gastric bypass was invented, scientists did not know how important vitamins are and how people can become very ill if they are lacking in even trace elements like zinc. Recently the inventor of the gastric bypass wrote for an article published by the U of I, that since the 1990's we have discovered that the digestive tract is in delicate balance and that he felt it was best to NOT disturb that balance by rearranging the small bowel or bypassing the small bowel.

The only thing 'new' about the gastric bypass is the mass advertising we see on TV featuring stars who are "new ops" who do not tell about what complications they have experienced.

7. Experts differ about how many die from the gastric bypass. Estimates of death rate range from 1 in 1000 ( http://www.asbs.org ) to many surgeons stating that the death rate within 2 weeks of surgery is more like .5 percent to 1 percent. (The David Flum study of 62,000 actual patient records found that 2 in 100 died within 30 days of surgery). Many deaths from gastric bypass are attributed to other causes mostly "obesity". This is due to the manner in which the M.E. investigates a death - the M.E. may not have access to the information that the patient recently had a gastric bypass. In the Fresno investigation (2001) investigators found some 27 deaths directly attributable to gastric bypass in the last 3 months of 2001 - none of them had been officially recorded as deaths from gastricbypass. Often the media tries to cover up a death from weight loss surgery. For example when the Detroit council person died after the insertion of an adjustable band, the news service reported that she had died "after minor abdominal surgery" and only when her family hired a very famous attorney to sue the surgeon did it come out that she had, in fact, died from Weight Loss surgery!

Dr Gary Anthone: "As a matter of fact, one patient out of 200 that has weight loss or obesity surgery dies."

Merkle, associate professor of radiology at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., worked with a team of investigators when he practiced at University Hospitals of Cleveland. They followed 335 patients who underwent a type of gastric bypass surgery known as Roux-en-Y between March 1998 and December 2002.

Among these patients, 57 had complications and 17 required readmission to the hospital within 30 days after surgery. Two patients, or less than 1%, died as a result of postoperative complications.

The complications included a leak in the juncture attaching the intestine to the stomach, which occurred in eight patients, and a disruption of the staple line compartmentalizing the stomach, occurring in five patients. Other complications of gastric bypass surgery included a blood clot in the lung, blood infection, bleeding, pneumonia, bowel obstruction, and injury to the esophagus.

Some physicians link some autoimmune disease like LUPUS and MS with WLS. This may be because the incoming food, not "sanitized" with stomach acid, retains the bacteria in it and that bacteria can get into the blood stream and cause different reactions to the body's immune system. Autoimmune disease can also be caused by vitamin deficiencies.

Gastric surgery for weight loss causes nutritional deficiency in nearly 100% of individuals who have it done. The most common deficiencies are Vitamin B12, Iron, Calcium, Magnesium, Carotene (beta-carotene and other carotene vitamins) and potassium.****

Kaiser Permanante Release form for gastric bypass

Reversing the procedure: Dr Flancbaum says it's like when you remodel your house, can you make it go back to the way it looked before you re-modeled it? (re: Flancbaum, Louis, MD: DOCTOR'S GUIDE TO WLS, NY, 2001). Dr Flancbaum states that the gastric bypass involves some permanent changes so even if they do a "takedown" you may have side effects remaining. Most procedures cannot be reversed - only the adjustable band can be totally reversed.

I am also put off when people say something is reversible -- because while we can change anatomy back, no surgery is truly reversible== kind of like remodeling the house-- try to put it back the same way -- doesn't happen.
--- Dr Terry Simpson, WLS surgeon

After a gastric bypass or duodenal switch which rearranges your intestines, you will have a "high Maintenance" body. You will have to be careful every day, to take vitamins, eat nutritious foods, eat in a certain manner, be closely followed by medical personnel. If you are not compliant to the after surgery rules, you will LIKELY get very ill and may die. The most common cause of illness and death after a gastric bypass is non compliancy. So if you couldn't stay on a diet, remember with Weight Loss surgery, compliancy won't be any easier but if you are non compliant, it will really bite you.

Liver failure: patients are told that the old 'intestinal bypass' is no longer done due to the high incidence of liver failure in patients. However, many post op gastric bypass patients have elevated liver enzymes, a sign of possible liver damage. Also high levels of vitamin B12 are observed in longer term gastric bypass post ops and this, too, can be evidence of cirrhosis of the liver (also seen in alcoholics). Presently, the long term effects of the gastric bypass have not been studied (over 20 years from surgery).

Stomach Cancer: According to medical books, anyone whose stomach is cut open, cut in two or surgically modified (called a 'gastrectomy') is of higher risk for stomach cancer.

What the American Medical Association feels about the gastric bypass and other Weight loss surgeries:

"Short-term outcomes are impressive-patients undergoing bariatric surgery maintain more weight loss compared with diet and exercise. Comorbidities such as type 2 diabetes can be reversed. But long-term consequences remain uncertain. Issues such as whether weight loss is maintained and the long-term effects of altering nutrient absorption remain unresolved."

They instruct their physicians to protect themselves from lawsuits by informing the prospective patient up front that weight loss surgery is investigational and that it is unknown whether Weight loss surgery will help that patient.

1762 JAMA, April 9, 2003-VoL 289, No. 14

Why Bigger Fatter Blog?

We know. People don't like the fact that we are highly critical of the movement we call the old fat acceptance. What is the old fat acceptance? I our opinion the old fat acceptance is the movement that began when Bill Fabrey the creator of NAAFA was forced out and replaced by a bunch of angry jealous far left man hating elitists. NAAFA under Bill's guidance meant National Association Aiding Fat Americans. Bill's vision for NAAFA was an all encompassing and inclusive one. If you were fat or a fat sympathizer you belonged. Since Bill's departure from NAAFA the letters N A A F A today mean National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance and under the current leadership the once great NAAFA of Bill Fabrey has become a joke. It was relevant when Bill was in charge but today it is a mere shadow of what it once was. It has failed miserably in its poorly defined mission. Today's NAAFA continues to lose members and funding. Today's NAAFA does not speak for fat people or their needs. Let's make a comparison.

Let's take the NAACP. The NAACP speaks for the concerns of the vast majority of Blacks. The NAACP remains relevant, focused and effective. It's mission is well defined and it's leadership is intelligent and thoughtful. NAAFA has poor leadership and it does not speak for the vast majority of fat people. NAAFA has become the ole girls club. NAAFA is wishy washy. NAAFA is bigoted towards men, especially fa men. NAAFA is to the fat acceptance movement what the Black Panthers were to the equal rights movement except that the Black Panther Party had a point and were marginally effective and most people would agree that in spite of their provocative and militant ways they did more good than harm. The same cannot be said for NAAFA.

Bigger Fatter Blog and the New Fat Acceptance is a logical scientifically based organization that would like to see the fat acceptance movement return to the vision of its founder Bill Fabrey. We seek to undo the damage that NAAFA and the rest of the loons in the fatosphere have done to the movement and to fat people. Everything has its pros and cons. Let's take a guy thing like cars. You can drive a Honda Civic. You will have a decent car but you will sacrifice comfort for good fuel economy some people are willing to do that where others are not. We don't judge people for what cars they choose to drive. Let's take the Cadillac Escalade. It is like a fatling in that is consumes fuel but it sure gets you from point A to point B in style and comfort. With its advantages comes a price that people who own Cadillac Escalades are willing to pay and they pay it at the pump and in higher insurance rates. Just like there are advantages and disadvantages to being fat, there are advantages and disadvantages to be skinny. Those of us in the New Fat Acceptance will take the good with the bad. In my case I don't enjoy the pleasures of greedy gluttony. I tend to be a bit more epicurian about food whereas Fat Bastard is a greedy and hedonsitic glutton as are all fat people. Fat Bastard has made greedy gluttony and art form and Teddy Bear of the Biggest Fattest Blog has made it is science. These are major advancements. Anyone knows how to get and stay fit but who really knows the finer points of gluttony and how to mitigate its often devastating consequences? The answer is simple, Fat Bastard and Teddy Bear know the finer points of greedy gluttony and unbridled food lust. I also put myself into that category because I am one of the few feeders who feeds with mono saturated fat and as I always say..."Fat fattens best."

Now let's speak to denial. Denial is what led to Fat Bastard's heart attacks and other health problems. He like many fatlings bought into the HAES lunacy and he blamed everything and everyone for his declining health. I too had been imbibing on the NAAFA Kool Aid and as a result I pretended to believe what I knew was total bullshit. I knew that the fat acceptance propaganda being spread by these strident and angry fat girls was not helping fat people or the movement but instead in was and is harming the movement and fat folks. Fat Bastard and I could no longer be a part of this insanity. Deep down we both knew that Fat Bastard and all fat people are greedy gluttons. Being that we are men we knew that the human body could not defy the immutable laws of physics. We knew that gluttony and nothing else made people fat. We simply ended the charade.



Today with 73% of Americans fat or obese and only a tiny tiny fraction of a percentage of them being represented by the the current FA movement we knew something had to be done and that is why we launched this Bigger Fatter Blog. We were sick of the censorship in the fatsophere. We would read Paul McAleer's Big Fat Blog and howl with laughter and then be disgusted at the single mindedness and the toxic venom spewed by the jealous fat girls. Here's another example of what we mean. Let's take the Tea Bagger movement. Tea Baggers and fat feminists are really cut from the same clueless piece of cloth. They are ignorant and easily led. They are angry but the cannot really express what it is that is pissing them off so much so the create paper tigers and other symbols to justify their discontent and they more they run their mouths and close their ears the dumber and louder they get.

The opposition is not our enemy. Let's take the case of NAAO and it's founder MeMe Roth. They hate MeMe. We don't. We see her as loyal opposition. We would like to have a spirited debate with Ms Roth but we would not resort to the vulgar name calling and sophomoric debating tactics that allow a woman MeMe to trounce the angry fat girls every time. When Fat Bastard and I watch MeMe debate on of the girls from the fatosphere we know its going to be a blood bath. MeMe sits there in a calm, dignified and ladylike manner. We want to see her get knocked out of the ballpark but it never happens. MeMe slaughters them every time. Fat Bastard and I could more than hold our own against MeMe Roth because the first thing we would do is show her some respect. Also, we are not intimidated by the fact that MeMe is a hottie. That's not entirely true. Fat Bastard stops shoveling in the chips and dip when MeMe is on the tube and keeps babbling, "She's hot She's hot. Don't you think she's hot" to which I say, "No Joy Nash is hot but she's an idiot. Now shut up so we can hear." As usual MeMe brings a gun to the knife fight and she wins hands down. Its like watching Mike Tyson get pounded. You used to like Iron Mike but after he became such an asshole you find yourself cheering for his opponent because you respect his opponent more than you do Iron Mike. Fat Bastard and I are lovers not fighters. We also know that hating MeMe Roth and attacking her personally only hurts fat people in the long run. It may feel good at first and the fat girls unleash their phony righteous indignation and blizzard of misinformation but in the minds of the people who matter (the smart and honest ones) MeMe wins by a mile.


This sort of insanity and venomous attacks against a member of the loyal opposition only serves to make fat girls look more and more like the jealous and pathetic creature they are.

As most of my readers know I, Proud FA, only pork fat girls and my blog partner Fat Bastard only bones skinny women as it is really tough for two fatlings to have intercourse. Fat Bastard and I both agree that MeMe Roth is not anorexic. In this photo she appears to have a BMI of around 21. So what she has no tits? We respect the fact that she accepts her body and did not opt for a silicone beef up. Maybe if the jealous fat girls would accept their bodies they way MeMe accepts hers they would understand what real fat acceptance is. MeMe looks damn good! When Fat Bastard saw this picture I had to feed him a waffle to sop up the drool. MeMe is like Ann Coulter in looks accept that MeMe is much more womanly looking and has normal hands and no Adams apple. That is because MeMe is a genetic female. From a Playboy Magazine standard MeMe has a smokin bod. She has an athletic build. She is not by any stretch of the imagination anorexic and knowing her workout schedule MeMe has to be eating like a horse. Sorry girls for alluding to the stubborn laws of physics. MeMe Roth simply does not eat to excess and she moves. So all you fat MeMe Roth haters either accept your sloth and greedy gluttony or get fit and lean like MeMe. Your jealous fat girl routine is old and ugly. It is just another reason so many gluttons think the fat acceptance movement is a joke.

Attacks on MeMe Roth will do nothing to advance fat acceptance and gluttony acceptance. We are trying to further normalization of sloth, gluttony and obesity. Making nasty tea bagger comments about Ms Roth only diminishes our righteous cause of sloth, gluttony and obesity. My father used to tell me that every knock is a boost. You fat girls in your misguided zeal and jealousy continue to raise MeMe Roth to greater heights and you sink fat acceptance to newer low. Admit it girls, you hate women like MeMe. She's bright, classy, ladylike, and attractive physically as well as intellectually. MeMe and women like her are the kind of women men want to see and fat girls want to be. The vary people crying for fat acceptance, you fat girls, are the ones who are least accepting of your own obesity, sloth and gluttony. You girls need to fish or cut bait. You either accept you gluttony and obesity or you don't so get off the fence and stop blaming MeMe Roth and other lean and pretty women for your inability to accept yourselves.

Just so your little pea brains will know the difference between anorexic, healthy, fat and obese bodies here are some pictures.


Anorexic


Normal/Healthy like MeMe Roth


Fat Slut but not all that unhealthy

BTW when you google image with search terms for fat girls all you find is sluts flaunting it. I'm not complaining after all I am a fat admirer.


Obese Woman Some Health Issues


BBW or Morbidly Obese


SSBBW or Super Morbidly Obese


Super Super Morbidly Obese

If the woman in the above picture had only listened to Kelly Bliss and followed the HAES protocol she would not be in a hospital bed but instead she would be running marathons and winning them and still be just as big.

Do any of you silly girls get the point now?