Monday, February 21, 2005


The belief that childhood obesity is at epidemic levels and is rising exponentially are no more than unsupported speculation, according to recent data from the annual Health Survey for England 2003, published by the Department of Health on 14 December 2004, and analysed by the Oxford-based Social Issues Research Centre. The new analysis shows that:

-- Body Mass Index (BMI) trends have been broadly flat for both boys and girls aged under 16 in the period 1995 to 2003, with very modest increases in average BMI of around 0.5 for boys and 0.6 for girls.

-- The UK National Standard for assessing child obesity used by the government's recent Public Health White Paper overstates the scale of the child obesity problem - 15.5 per cent obese - compared with the less arbitrary International Standard - 6.75 per cent obese.

-- Although the rates of increase of obesity under both measures are broadly similar (60 to 70 per cent), the difference between the numbers of children defined as obese is likely to have a significant impact on the appropriateness and scale of the measures to tackle the problem of obesity.

-- There is no indication of any significant change in the number of children with chronic illnesses, including type II diabetes, over the past nine years. The absence of any evident deterioration in the health status of children supports the conclusion that children are not becoming fatter as fast as is widely believed.

-- The prevalence of obesity is strongly related to age. The 16 to 24 year age group - both males and females - is substantially less at risk of becoming obese than older age groups, and the incidence of obesity for males in this age range has declined very slightly in recent years. Those aged between 25 and 34 have the second lowest rates of obesity. Middle-aged people and those of retirement age are the most 'at-risk' groups.

-- More young men and women in the 16 to 24 year age group have a 'desirable' BMI of between 20 and 25 than any other BMI category. Men of this age are twice as likely to be underweight as they are to be obese.

As the report concludes: 'We do no service to the people at risk of obesity-related morbidities in our society by "hyping" their plight, exaggerating their numbers or diverting limited educational, medical and financial resources away from where the problems really lie.

'Banning advertising of "junk food" to children and similar measures may be popular in some quarters, but they are unlikely to impact much on the generation of people in their 50s and 60s - those with vastly higher rates of overweight and obesity than children and young people.


Harvard Hates The White Race?

Is the multicultural campaign really about diversity? Or is it about stamping out Western civilization and the “white race” itself? College students will tell you that a university education today is a guilt trip for whites. The purpose is to prevent whites from appreciating and absorbing their own culture and to make it difficult for whites to resist the unreasonable demands (quotas, reparations, etc.) from “people of color.” To the questions, “who am I, what am I,” the white university graduate answers: “a racist, sexist, homophobic oppressor.”

Neither parents, trustees, alumni, nor the public are aware of the anti-white propaganda that masquerades as education. When someone who is aware tells them, they think the person is exaggerating in order to make a point.

Now comes Harvard educated Noel Ignatiev, an academic at Harvard’s W.E.B. DuBois Institute for African-American Research. Dr. Ignatiev is the founder of a journal, Race Traitor, which has as its motto, “treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” The journal’s purpose is “to abolish the white race.”

At the least, Dr. Ignatiev intends cultural and psychological genocide for whites. It is unclear whether physical extermination is part of the program. A statement by the editors on the web site says that the new abolitionists

“do not limit themselves to socially acceptable means of protest, but reject in advance no means of attaining their goal.”....

Where did he get this view? His only education was at Harvard where he received two graduate degrees. Is Harvard embarrassed? No. Dr. Ignatiev [] is showcased in the current issue of Harvard Magazine. Getting rid of whiteness is not controversial at Harvard, because it is the business of American universities. A white skin, you see, is a mark of privilege. It is not the privilege of being admitted to Harvard even though you don’t meet the entrance requirements. It is not the privilege of being hired independently of ability because of government enforced racial quotas. It is not the privilege of being able to sue whites and “white companies” if blacks are not proportionately represented in the work force. It is not the privilege of being able to call whites every name in the book and sue if a white replies in kind. The privilege of being white is that whites can secretly believe they are superior and, as long as they don’t mention it, be loyal to the white race.

But Dr. Ignatiev has an idea like Hitler. A race is guilty and must go. The communists said it was a guilty class that had to go. If you thought genocide was left behind in the 20th century, be apprised that today genocide has a home in the educational system.

More here

No comments: