Battling obesity is fat shaming now

It is just so much fun when we can see different parts of the left – or perhaps the prodnoses – eating each other. The latest coming over a series of ads from Cancer Research. Being fat, wobbly, over-stuffed, is the second leading cause of cancer in the UK after smoking. This is simply factual – well, we assume it is. But apparently we’re not, they’re not, allowed to say this because fat shaming.

Yup, land whales are complaining because being told that they’ve upped their cancer risk by gorging is, umm, well, it’s, what is it? Unfair? Impolite? Potentially illegal?

An award-winning comedian has accused Cancer Research of “fat-shaming” after they launched a campaign against obesity.

Sofie Hagen, a Danish-born comedian who has lived in the UK since 2012 and appeared on the BBC multiple times, tweeted a picture of the poster, which spells out “OBESITY” with some missing letters, and asks readers to guess what the biggest cause of cancer is, after smoking.

Another advertisement in the campaign features chips presented in a cigarette packet.

She wrote: “Right, is anyone currently working on getting this piece of s— CancerResearchUK advert removed from everywhere? Is there something I can sign? How the f—ing f— is this okay?”

Angry campaigners have called for the campaign to be pulled, and some have said they will stop donating to Cancer Research because of the “fat-shaming” campaign.

We have no idea who Ms. Hagen is. But perhaps we have a clue in the fact that she came here rather than moving to the Faroes. Too much risk of being stripped for her blubber there?

Support Continental Telegraph Donate


  1. There seems to be a lot of people piling on on Sofia Hagen. What few people are asking is whether it’s a good thing that a cancer charity is now involved in lobbying government over what we should and shouldn’t eat, or whether “obesity causes cancer” should really be “obesity is correlated with cancer”.

  2. She wrote: “Right, is anyone currently working on getting this piece of s— CancerResearchUK advert removed from everywhere? Is there something I can sign? How the f—ing f— is this okay?”

    In this country for just six years. How her English must have improved.

    We need more fat shaming. Not less. A little bit of fat Danish lesbian shaming wouldn’t be amiss either.

  3. First they came for the smokers. Then the drinkers. Then the fatties. The latest pronouncement from she who must be obeyed (Dame Sally Davies – one glass of Chardonnay and your tits will fall off), is that noise and light pollution are injurious to public health. My Motörhead CDs to carry a health warning?

    • I am the perfect donor class for the American Cancer Society. I lost my first wife, the Good One, to cancer. The American Cancer Society gave me useful support. I am affluent enough to give them money.

      About 20 years ago, I got a thank you letter after a large contribution. They said my donation would be used to lobby the government. Now that’s a fine how-do-you-do. I can lobby myself; I don’t need you for it. If you are going to get the government to do something, then you serve no purpose whatsoever. I haven’t given them a penny since.

      Years later, I contributed to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, through Rush Limbaugh’s annual fund raiser. I got a letter from LLS, they too telling me my money would be used to lobby the government. No money for them anymore, either.

      U.S. cancer charities get no money from me. I’ve got the money. I have the interest.

  4. If you’re looking for a trustworthy cancer charity you could do a lot worse than Bloodwise. A friend of mine was diagnosed with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia. Bloodwise were the ones that actually helped him with support, practical advice and useful leaflets. He’s now heavily involved with their fundraising.

  5. The correlation between obesity and cancer is best explained by both being a result of longterm high levels of insulin. As the medical fraternity is still mightily infested by Ancel Keys fans pushing the food pyramid, they are rather quiet on this and prefer to blame obesity per se. I recommend the writing of Jason Fung who has compiled recent research on his blog

  6. Obesity is more serrious as a cause of heart disease than of cancer, so they’re both wrong.
    But BiND has made the best point – different people are *naturally* different shapes and the disgracefully stupid (and dimensionally unsound) BMI should be banned from any rational discussion. [When I was young and relatively fit I *did* look as if I was suffering from early stage anorexia and the fittest guy I knew carried less fat than I but was an inch-and-a-bit shorter and weighed just over one-third more]

    • BMI is a useful measure for populations; but is not accurate enough to be used for individuals. Anybody trying to use it at an individual level is a charleton and, if they are a medical professional, you should look at going elsewhere.

  7. Gamecock, science progresses one funeral at a time. See Wegener’s theory of continenal drift, stomach ulcers and helicobacter. There are plenty of examples across all evidence based disciplines where the Old Guard have tried to obstruct heresies.

  8. But obese people die early of heart attacks and complications from diabetes, so we are told, before they have time to develop and secumb to cancer.

    And it is a ‘known fact’ that fatties are mostly slobs with a poor diet who smoke and drink too much and don’t exercise, so with several confounding factors how can the ‘research’ tell that is was the fat wot did it and not the booze, fat and idleness or combinations thereof. Oh I get it… they die first from the fags, then they died a second time from obesity.

    And then there is my lifetime observation that I have never seen a fat cancer sufferer (usually they are borderline emaciated) and a lot of plump people do not have cancer.

    More then from the Global Warming school of science.

  9. “Being fat, wobbly, over-stuffed, is the second leading cause of cancer in the UK after smoking”
    Fact check. This is FALSE. But well done to CR-UK for getting a great many people to think it is. Whoever is doing their PR is good or the people that lap it up are gullible. Fatness is in 3rd place – after non-preventable causes, and then smoking.
    What’s more there is a HUGE gap between non-preventables and smoking and again between smoking and fatness, with fatness being just ahead of exercise ( or lack of ) bad diet and sunshine.
    I know this because CR-UK told me:

  10. “It is just so much fun when we can see different parts of the left – or perhaps the prodnoses – eating each other.”

    Prodnoses, yes. All authoritarians fight one another for the right to tell society what they’re allowed to do.

    “Being fat, wobbly, over-stuffed, is the second leading cause of cancer in the UK after smoking. This is simply factual – well, we assume it is.”

    People naturally get heavier as they get older. People get cancer more often when they get older. One would therefore expect cancer to be correlated with weight, obviously. So if you fit a straight line to the cancer-vs-weight graph, it’s got a slope on it where the ends are separated by 10% of its value in the middle. Like 95 at one end and 105 at the other. Then if everyone moved to the 95 end, cases would (supposedly) reduce by 5%.

    But given the typical messiness of medical data, I’d guess there’s some considerable spread on that slope estimate. Where are their error bars? It wouldn’t surprise me if the error bars were about 5%.

    Anyway, I look forward to their future campaign on women not breastfeeding, which according to Bongo’s link ’causes’ 2% of cancer cases in women. What photo will you be putting up for *that* one?

    • Good spot NiV and one I hadn’t noticed. The absolute numbers at risk from not breastfeeding are just under 1/7th for those of fatness. Given that half the population can never breast feed, and let’s say for the other half your breast feeding years make up 1/10th of your life then not breastfeeding when you can is about 3* riskier than fatness ( round numbers of course ).

  11. The sad part is that her genes ain’t that bad. Lose the weight, it goes from the face too, and you’re more shaggable.

    I think people like this have real problems, and I’m somewhat sympathetic towards them in that regard. It’s the likes of the BBC indulging them that I object to. The idea that this perspective is normal. And I’m not saying that girls teasing fat girls is OK, and I’m not saying that you can’t be fat if that’s what you choose to be. It’s this idea that being fat is healthy and/or outside of your control. Most people who are fat are so because they eat too much sugar and don’t exercise enough.

  12. “It’s this idea that being fat is healthy”

    “Most people who are fat are so because they eat too much sugar and don’t exercise enough.”

    There is a weak correlation between BMI and Calorie intake, but it only explains about 17% of the variance. It’s not the major cause.

    This makes sense because the actual relationship is that the change in weight is proportional to the difference between Calories in and Calories out. Virtually everyone eats almost exactly the same number of Calories they burn, within 1%. (Just calculate what 1% of the Calories you eat in 20 years would weigh to check that.) Some fat people burn less and eat less. Some thin people burn lots and eat lots. And as fat people have to carry more weight around with them, that’s like doing weight-lifting exercises and you would expect them to burn a bit more. It’s not at all clear which way round the causation goes.

    It makes as much sense that it’s caused by central heating, since people have to burn fewer Calories keeping warm! (That’s not a serious proposal, by the way. It’s wrong for the same reason the diet theory is wrong.)

    I suspect the main cause of increasing “obesity” is better nutrition. It’s the same effect as the dramatic increase in human heights.

  13. What Bernie G said. Where the hell was she when I was being told where I could and couldn’t smoke or drink? Or getting taxed to hell and gone? She probably wasn’t on my side then. Why should I defend her?

  14. People with Class I obesity slightly outlive people with “normal” BMI. The “overweight” more substantially outlive the “normal”. So if obesity is killing everyone from heart disease and cancer what is it saving them from? Death by ingrowing toe nails? Or is this fuss mostly just another of those modern quasi-religions, the priests of which get their fun by denying other people theirs?

    While we are at it, try to draw meaning from this bollocks. A doctor speaks:
    ‘The study focusses on the issue of the obesity paradox, whereby in a whole range of different populations obesity is associated with reductions in mortality, which is a complete paradox given that it is a known causal factor in ischemic heart disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome and premature death.’

    I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that it is distinctly unlikely that obesity is “associated with reductions in mortality” while simultaneously being “a known causal factor in … premature death.” My guess is that by “known causal factor” he means merely ‘a fashionable taboo’.