It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Should parents of extremely obese children lose custody for not controlling their kids' weight? A provocative commentary in one of the nation's most distinguished medical journals argues yes, and its authors are joining a quiet chorus of advocates who say the government should be allowed to intervene in extreme cases.
State intervention "ideally will support not just the child but the whole family, with the goal of reuniting child and family as soon as possible.... Despite the discomfort posed by state intervention, it may sometimes be necessary to protect a child.
After a year, she lost 130 pounds. Though she is still obese, her diabetes and apnea disappeared; she remains in foster care,
single mother who lost custody of her 555-pound 14-year-old son two years ago...Her sister has custody of the boy, now 16. "Even though good has come out of this as far as him losing weight, he told me just last week, 'Mommy, I want to be back with you so bad.'
Roughly 2 million U.S. children are extremely obese.
Source
Healthier food often costs more.
Adverse childhood experiences promote the development of both depression and obesity, and, presumably, their co-occurrence.
Originally posted by ararisq
reply to post by ladyjem
As I understand it - obesity is based on BMI or Body Mass Index. That means it does not matter whether you have fat or muscle. The government being a bunch of mind-numbed morons would then be grabbing a chiseled high-school kid preparing for college football or weight lifting and take custody of them. You could also just be tall and skinny and considered obese. They changed how we defined obese years ago so that they could start pushing the 'food safety' laws by doing away with the food that made us normal and replacing with food to make us fat.
Originally posted by BrianDamage
Just out of curiosity, what would your opinion be of parents that starve their children?
Would it then be ok to remove the child from their parents for the childs benefit?
In my opinion, it's amounts to the same.
...In the early half of the 20th century, petrochemical giants organized a coup on the medical research facilities, hospitals and universities. The Rockefeller family sponsored research and donated sums to universities and medical schools which had drug based research. They further extended this policy to foreign universities and medical schools where research was drug based through their "International Education Board". Establishments and research which were were not drug based were refused funding and soon dissolved in favor of the lucrative pharmaceutical industry.
In 1939 a "Drug Trust" alliance was formed by the Rockefeller empire and the German chemical company IG Farben (Bayer). After World War Two, IG Farben was dismantled but later emerged as separate corporations within the alliance. Well known companies included General Mills, Kellogg, Nestle, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Procter and Gamble, Roche and Hoechst (Sanofi-Aventis). The Rockefeller empire, in tandem with Chase Manhattan Bank (now JP Morgan Chase), owns over half of the pharmaceutical interests in the United States. It is the largest drug manufacturing combine in the world. Since WWII, the pharmaceutical industry has steadily netted increasing profits to become the world's second largest manufacturing industry; [3], [4] after the arms industry....
IG Farben & Auschwitz
Auschwitz was the largest mass extermination factory in human history. However, few people are aware that Auschwitz was a 100% subsidiary of IG Farben....
After WWII, IG Farben attempted to shake its abominable image through corporate restructuring and renaming. So great has been their success that the public has no idea that it many of the men responsible for such atrocities, were able to carry on their work even after the collapse of the Nazi regime. Namely, a medical paradigm that relies almost exclusively highly toxic drugs. Such men were in control of the large chemical and pharmaceutical companies, both well before and after Hitler. The Nuremberg Tribunal convicted 24 IG Farben board members and executives on the basis of mass murder, slavery and other crimes. Incredibly, most of them had been released by 1951 and continued to consult with German corporations. The Nuremberg Tribunal dissolved IG Farben into Bayer, Hoechst and BASF, each company 20 times as large as IG Farben in 1944. For almost three decades after WWII, BASF, Bayer and Hoechst (Aventis) filled their highest position, chairman of the board, with former members of the Nazi regime. Bayer has been sued by survivors of medical experiments...
History of agribusiness interests
American Farm Bureau
The myth that American Farm Bureau (AFBF) represents the interests of farmers is longstanding, though long debunked. In his 1971 book, Dollar Harvest: The Story of the Farm Bureau, Samuel Berger argued that the AFBF was:
"quietly and systematically amassing one of the largest business networks in America, while turning its back on the deepening crisis of the farmers whom it supposedly represents."
The AFBF is controlled from the top and its leadership is self-perpetuating, which is how it was designed. It was founded in the early 1900s by the New York Chamber of Commerce and funded by the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts via the Chicago Board of Trade. [7], The Farm Bureau was designed to counter the nonpartisan, populist farm movement that was emerging at the time. [8] See also American Farm Bureau.
The "Green Revolution"
A new look at international intervention came during the Indian famine of ‘65 and ‘66; the most well advertised famine to date and a major boost for RF's population control campaign. Since the Chinese Revolution, India had been the bastion of the “free (enterprise) world.” However, western businessmen had long worried over its "neutralism”, “socialism” and economic restrictions on foreigners. That ended in 1958, when India experienced a foreign exchange crisis. The World Bank intervened with the “Aid India Club” and one billion dollars a year in aid. International investors like RF and the Ford Foundation, immediately seized the opportunity. The Ford Foundation stepped in with a “food crisis” team, pushing agricultural spending at the expense of housing and social services. Undersecretary of Commerce Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr., led a delegation of executives to New Delhi for the purpose of "persuading the government to adopt policies more attractive to potential investors". Rockefeller’s Jersey Standard wanted price and distribution restrictions lifted on their Bombay fertilizer plant. Petroleum producers lobbied to set up fertilizer plants to utilize naphtha, an otherwise useless petroleum by-product. The Ford and Rockefeller foundations also wanted to expand the use of their new high yield seeds, deliberately bred for large fertilizer and pesticide inputs.[9]
Population: Rockefeller family plan
In of June 1952, John D. Rockefeller III, father of four and chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation, hosted a select conference on population in Colonial Williamsburg, restored to its pre-Revolutionary beauty by the RF. After two and a half days, 30 eminent conservationists, public health experts, Planned Parenthood leaders, agriculturalists, demographers and social scientists formed a group which described itself as “a coordinating and catalytic agent in the broad field of population". The group was christened "The Population Council" by John D III, who also appointed himself its first president..... www.sourcewatch.org...
Originally posted by BrianDamage
Just out of curiosity, what would your opinion be of parents that starve their children?
Would it then be ok to remove the child from their parents for the childs benefit?
In my opinion, it's amounts to the same.