Only in America: A Vaccine for Obesity

[Katana]

I recognize that obesity is a huge (no pun intended) public health issue and that I should appreciate anything that might help. But there's just something that bugs me about a potential solution being vaccinations that allow people to eat whatever they want and not gain weight.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5232150.stm

What the hell am I saying? That sounds great!
http://techhelpers.net/e4u/drink/trink11.gif

[HarryKeogh]

only in America: The vaccine will be available deep-fried.

[ImaginalDisc]

Not everyone who is obese is a glutton. Some people have metabolic problems (such as with their thyroid) which cause obesity. This might be really helpful for such people. It's just like the fact that not everyone who takes viagra is doing it to get something extra, some men are unable to sustainan erection without it. Both treatments have perfectly ordinary applications.

[chulbert]

But there's just something that bugs me about a potential solution being vaccinations that allow people to eat whatever they want and not gain weight. What is the basis of this position? That people should "just stop eating so much"?

By that reasoning, should I assume you're also against most science and technology advances that makes your existence a bit more comfortable?

[Beerina]

I recognize that obesity is a huge (no pun intended) public health issue and that I should appreciate anything that might help. But there's just something that bugs me about a potential solution being vaccinations that allow people to eat whatever they want and not gain weight.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5232150.stm

What the hell am I saying? That sounds great!
http://techhelpers.net/e4u/drink/trink11.gif

You're damned right it does! But I'll believe it when I see it, regardless of how much I hope.

As for eating whatever they want, so what? We didn't design these faulty bodies. We didn't start the war, but by god, we're gonna finish it.

Not everyone who is obese is a glutton. Some people have metabolic problems (such as with their thyroid) which cause obesity.

Although there was a study some years back that found out that only a very small percentage of fatsos were fat because of metabolic problems. The rest were fat because of good, old fashioned eating too much vs. how much activity they got. The amount of food I eat is perfect -- if I were working in a factory all day, which I did during summers in college, and lost weight.

[Mephisto]

I'm with you, Katana,

It's so American to create a disease (although obesity wasn't created by Americans, our fast-food corporations certainly helped us wade in), then to deliver a cure (at a high cost, I'm sure). That's what we do best, create a problem then find the solution. Here are a few good examples:

Nail fungus - the horror, the horror . . .

The Heartbreak of Psoriasis - I can't face my family, could you scratch my back?

Social Anxiety - you'd think that people in Iraq, Lebanon, or Israel would suffer from this most, but apparently they have other things to think about.

Erectile Dysfunction - Certainly we can't expect a brand new Hummer, lots of big guns and identifying with sports figures to do it all, can we?

(edited to add) WMD - We know where they're at, they're southwest of Tikrit . . .

I think a good solution to most of our domestic problems would be mandatory military service for EVERYONE between the ages of 18-40. It could be done much like the Reserves (back when they were actually the Reserves instead of regular Army) with one weekend a month combined with a summer camp. It would curtail obesity, it would curtail the willingness to believe that military knows what it's doing, and it would curtail the willingness to allow a group of idiots a carte-blanche for pre-emptive strikes. ;)

[chulbert]

Erectile Dysfunction - Certainly we can't expect a brand new Hummer... ROFL.

[thaiboxerken]

I find it interesting how obesity isn't a problem in places where there isn't enough food for people to be gluttons.

[Amapola]

I find it interesting how obesity isn't a problem in places where there isn't enough food for people to be gluttons.

.....or where they still work with their hands, farming by hand, milking by hand, spinning and weaving by hand etc.

[ImaginalDisc]

.....or where they still work with their hands, farming by hand, milking by hand, spinning and weaving by hand etc.
Do you have a point? Are you suggesting we ought to give up our more economically efficient society and go back to a fully agrarian economy? Ok, I'll wake up at dawn and milk the microprocessors, while you let the ambulances out of the barn so they can pick people up by themselves. Then I'll make sure the chickens run our telephone lines and the goats do our accounting.

[Mephisto]

Do you have a point? Are you suggesting we ought to give up our more economically efficient society and go back to a fully agrarian economy? Ok, I'll wake up at dawn and milk the microprocessors, while you let the ambulances out of the barn so they can pick people up by themselves. Then I'll make sure the chickens run our telephone lines and the goats do our accounting.

I think Amapola was making the point that developing countries rarely have widespread problems with obesity, whether it's because of their dependancy on walking (or biking) as a major form of transportation or because food (or crops) aren't massed produced. :)

[ImaginalDisc]

I think Amapola was making the point that developing countries rarely have widespread problems with obesity, whether it's because of their dependancy on walking (or biking) as a major form of transportation or because food (or crops) aren't massed produced. :)
Yes, and they also have lower instances of deaths from heart disease because people are mor elikely to die of other cuases first. A less advanced economy isn't better just because people are on average skinnier. If one of the problems with our society is that people get fat, how is it inappropriate that people would want to ameliorate that problem with an efficent soltution?

[Mephisto]

If one of the problems with our society is that people get fat, how is it inappropriate that people would want to ameliorate that problem with an efficent soltution?

Oh, it's not necessarily inappropriate, but you'll have to admit that only the rich and obese will reap the "benefits" of the new vaccine. I'm almost positive that most health insurance companies won't pay for the vaccine anymore than they would pay for cosmetic surgery.

As for an "efficient solution," I'll retain my skepticism. Have you ever read the possible side-effects of modern drugs? Most of the side-effects are worse than the initial problem to begin with. Why not just prescribe the obese Vioxx - it also cures obesity? ;)

[Amapola]

Yes, and they also have lower instances of deaths from heart disease because people are mor elikely to die of other cuases first. A less advanced economy isn't better just because people are on average skinnier. If one of the problems with our society is that people get fat, how is it inappropriate that people would want to ameliorate that problem with an efficent soltution?

I don't think it's innappropriate - and I don't think either society is "better" - I am pointing out that there are less "high tech" ways to solve the problem of obesity. I am glad they are developing the vaccine, I think technology and science are wonderful. So is physical exercise.

I am also pointing out how fortunate we are that science is actually developing a vaccine to keep us from getting fat. Not everyone has the luxury. Just trying to consider the rest of the world. :)

[Earthborn]

Only in America? No, it is not. Here (http://www.cytos.com/doc/Cytos_Press_050511_E.pdf) (PDF) is the press release by a Swiss company announcing that they are already going to put a similar vaccine through clinical trials from more than a year ago. You can read more about it here (http://www.gizmag.co.uk/go/4052/).

[Katana]

I think a good solution to most of our domestic problems would be mandatory military service for EVERYONE between the ages of 18-40. It could be done much like the Reserves (back when they were actually the Reserves instead of regular Army) with one weekend a month combined with a summer camp. It would curtail obesity, it would curtail the willingness to believe that military knows what it's doing, and it would curtail the willingness to allow a group of idiots a carte-blanche for pre-emptive strikes. ;)

It might also create an appreciation for what we have here in this country.


What is the basis of this position? That people should "just stop eating so much"?

Most obesity in this country is due to lifestyle factors such as living sedentary lives and eating too much. I realize that it gets more complex below the surface, but these are the basic issues. A vaccine that permits people to be gluttons with impunity doesn't make up for the fact that they still need to eat nutritious food and that exercise has value beyond what it does for your weight. A thin, sedentary person isn't necessarily a healthy one.


By that reasoning, should I assume you're also against most science and technology advances that makes your existence a bit more comfortable?


Chulbert, I never said that I was against it, but it does bother me on a philosophical level. Mephisto, I sense you and I feel similarly in this, too. Do I see a value in reducing obesity? Of course, but I don't like eliminating personal responsibility from the equation.

[thaiboxerken]

For the vast majority of obese people, "don't eat so much" and "exercise" is advice that would work. Parents are partly responsible for this as well, because many parents aren't instilling an active and healthy lifestyle to their children. Fat kids tend to become fat adults.

The vaccine might reduce fat deposits, however, if these people continue to eat unhealthy and are inactive, I seriously doubt that their risk for heart disease will be reduced. I think the vaccine is a good thing, for some people with genuine problems. But I suspect this vaccine will become a big cash cow for the pharm's.

I don't like the message that might be born of this vaccine though. "It's ok to eat crap and be lazy" is something I think is not good for society.

[chulbert]

Oh, it's not necessarily inappropriate, but you'll have to admit that only the rich and obese will reap the "benefits" of the new vaccine. I'm almost positive that most health insurance companies won't pay for the vaccine anymore than they would pay for cosmetic surgery. Insurance companies will pay for it if reduces costs. Insurance companies today pay for bariatric surgery for the severely obese.

[JamesDillon]

For the vast majority of obese people, "don't eat so much" and "exercise" is advice that would work. Parents are partly responsible for this as well, because many parents aren't instilling an active and healthy lifestyle to their children...
I don't like the message that might be born of this vaccine though. "It's ok to eat crap and be lazy" is something I think is not good for society.
And abstinence is 100% effective and preventing pregnancy and STD's; do condoms therefore undermine "personal responsibility"?

Food tastes good, and life is short. If there's a technology that would allow us to enjoy more food while preventing the serious health consequences that can be associated with it, I'm all for it.

[Katana]

And abstinence is 100% effective and preventing pregnancy and STD's; do condoms therefore undermine "personal responsibility"?


How is this comparable?

[chulbert]

How is this comparable? Not to put words into JamesDillon's mouth, but I imagine it goes something like this:

Birth control is technology that allows an individual to engage in a risky activity (sex) by reducing or eliminating those risks.

Edited to add the following...

In other words, we engage in lots of non-essential behaviors and use technoglogy to mitigate the risks of those behaviors. Why is this vaccine different from condoms and sunblock?

[ImaginalDisc]

How is this comparable?
How is it not?

Sex without condoms = high risk of STD's

Sexual abstinence = low risk of STD's

Sex + Condoms = low risk of STD's

"Hey," says Katana, who in this skit is being protrayed by a rabbit, "Why have condoms when you can just not have sex? It seems like a cheap cop out. Only in American do we try to have something and not pay the unfortunate conseqeunce created by an accident of poor adaptation of the human body to conditions of plenty found in modern society!"

Lots of food + little activity = obesity (note: lots of food + little activity /= obesity)

Et al

"Hey," says the rabbit, "Why have this vaccine when you can just eat less or run around? It seems like a cheap cop out. Only in American do we try to have something and not pay the unfortunate conseqeunce created by an accident of poor adaptation of the human body to conditions of plenty found in modern society!"

[Earthborn]

A vaccine that permits people to be gluttons...But the vaccine we are talking about here won't do that. Any ghrelin blocking agent will cause a strong reduction in appetite, as ghrelin's function is to increase it. The US researchers in the article you linked to seem to have studied only its effects on metabolism with a normal diet and found that the anti-ghrelin-vaccine they used increased metabolism. Something that is consistent with findings with the Swiss vaccine (which works pretty mucht the same way), even though that is usually advertised as a method to decrease appetite.

So the vaccine won't permit people to be gluttons without facing the consequences. It will make them less gluttonous and lose weight easier.

This (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050402/bob9.asp) is an interesting article on the role ghrelin plays in appetite, and even how it relates to sleep.

[Snide]

And abstinence is 100% effective and preventing pregnancy and STD's; do condoms therefore undermine "personal responsibility"?No.

Food tastes good, and life is short. If there's a technology that would allow us to enjoy more food while preventing the serious health consequences that can be associated with it, I'm all for it.Nothing in Ken's post suggests he would disagree with this. It hinges, as he notes, on whether the vaccine would also help with diseases associated with obesity, not just the obesity itself.

If a magic pill, vaccine, or whatever showed 100% of the benefits of eating less and exercising, with no negative side effects, then of course I'd be all for it too. Hard work for it's own sake is a waste of time, unless your a masochist. :)

[Katana]

"Hey," says Katana, who in this skit is being protrayed by a rabbit, "Why have condoms when you can just not have sex? It seems like a cheap cop out.

When you try to put words into my mouth, at least know a little bit better what you're talking about. Should have gone something like, "Hey, why have unprotected sex when you don't need to? Why not try to do something to prevent an unwanted pregnancy?" Sounds a little more like taking responsibility than shirking it to me.


"Hey," says the rabbit, "Why have this vaccine when you can just eat less or run around? It seems like a cheap cop out. Only in American do we try to have something and not pay the unfortunate conseqeunce created by an accident of poor adaptation of the human body to conditions of plenty found in modern society!"

Poor adaptation of the human body to conditions of plenty? Is that what you're calling it?

From the World Health Organization:
Increased consumption of more energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods with high levels of sugar and saturated fats, combined with reduced physical activity, have led to obesity rates that have risen three-fold or more since 1980 in some areas of North America, the United Kingdom, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific Islands, Australasia and China.The obesity epidemic is not restricted to industrialized societies; this increase is often faster in developing countries than in the developed world.

(my bold)
Come now. Let's take some responsibility for oneself.

[ImaginalDisc]

When you try to put words into my mouth, at least know a little bit better what you're talking about. Should have gone something like, "Hey, why have unprotected sex when you don't need to? Why not try to do something to prevent an unwanted pregnancy?" Sounds a little more like taking responsibility than shirking it to me.



Poor adaptation of the human body to conditions of plenty? Is that what you're calling it?

From the World Health Organization:


(my bold)
Come now. Let's take some responsibility for oneself.


That is what I'm talking about. Eating rich unhealthy foods is pleasant. The consequences are not. Likewise, sex is pleasant, but the consequences often aren't. The obesity vaccine is no more or less amoral than condoms.

[thaiboxerken]

I wouldn't say ammoral, just not a benefit to society. I think it will be detrimental to society and will ultimately turn people into sloths.

[ImaginalDisc]

I wouldn't say ammoral, just not a benefit to society. I think it will be detrimental to society and will ultimately turn people into sloths.
Letting people stay healthy in spite of poor eating and excersize habits, reducing deaths caused by complications of obesity is going to be a BAD thing? What's your logic to that, exactly? It's good for people to be so fat it kills them?

[thaiboxerken]

Letting people stay healthy in spite of poor eating and excersize habits, reducing deaths caused by complications of obesity is goind to be a BAD thing?

Yes. Because it will devolve the species.

[ponderingturtle]

I find it interesting how obesity isn't a problem in places where there isn't enough food for people to be gluttons.

Ah so the real way to solve it is inflate the price of food until most people are close to starvation? A good diet in this coutry is hard to do on a budget so as long as such people will be happy not only being malnurished but also now partialy starved it will all be good.

[thaiboxerken]

Ah so the real way to solve it is inflate the price of food until most people are close to starvation?

That's one way. Or people could simply not eat as much and exercise.

[ponderingturtle]

Oh, it's not necessarily inappropriate, but you'll have to admit that only the rich and obese will reap the "benefits" of the new vaccine. I'm almost positive that most health insurance companies won't pay for the vaccine anymore than they would pay for cosmetic surgery.


Why? If it treats obesity it would certainly be of benifit to health care companies to treat it, because real obesity has many medical problems it causes. So while it might not be permited to lose those 15 lbs to look good in the bikini, it might still be covered for people who need it

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes. Because it will devolve the species.
A statement worthy Luditism and eugenics.

People shouldn't have houses. Our modern construction industry coddles the weak. People should have to build houses for themselves.

People shouldn't eat food grown through agriculture. We should hunt our food, barehanded, 'cause weapons are for sissies!

Do you see how absurd it becomes? Every technological development to benefit or entertain a human being is subject to the same criticism you've raised, and frankly, your idea is based on a faulty premise. You think that this specific technology, allowing people who become fat to instead become thin will weaken the species. You're assuming that genetic propensity towards fatness will be harmful to humans in the future. You have no what future conditions will be like. No one knows what tommorrow will bring. You can't go around objecting to every new technological development because it makes people "weak." That leads directly to primitivism.

[ponderingturtle]

And abstinence is 100% effective and preventing pregnancy and STD's; do condoms therefore undermine "personal responsibility"?


Sure just like fat people most people with aids are entirely at fault for not leading healthy enough life styles.

[ponderingturtle]

I wouldn't say ammoral, just not a benefit to society. I think it will be detrimental to society and will ultimately turn people into sloths.

And what is the benifit to society of condoms then?

[thaiboxerken]

Do you see how absurd it becomes?

Yes, when you equivocate it to absurd statements, it sounds absurd. Try staying away from that fallacy, and it doesn't sound so bad though.

No one knows what tommorrow will bring.

Nice appeal to ignorance.

You can't go around objecting to every new technological development because it makes people "weak."

I'm not. Just this one because it's pretty obvious that it doesn't encourage people to actually become active and live healthy and could, in fact, motivate people not to care about being active or healthy.

[thaiboxerken]

And what is the benifit to society of condoms then?

Population control and disease prevention as well as the choice of when to be a parent or not.

What are the benefits of this vaccination?

[ponderingturtle]

That's one way. Or people could simply not eat as much and exercise.

Yes, and people could also practive abstenence and not have any of the issues involved with risk of pregnancy or STD's.

Though I suppose it does not take much practice to get good at abstenence.

[ImaginalDisc]

Sure just like fat people most people with aids are entirely at fault for not leading healthy enough life styles.

The following is a list of the sort of people who are not at fault for their own
HIV infection:

People who have unprotected sex only with their long time spouses and contract the disease because their partner has been sleeping around on them.

People who are born with it.

People who are sexually victimized.

People who get it from contaminated blood.

People who took evey conceivable precaution in safe sex, but had something go wrong (broken condom) anyway.

None of this invalidates the use of technology to make sex safer.

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, and people could also practive abstenence and not have any of the issues involved with risk of pregnancy or STD's.

And?

[ImaginalDisc]

Population control and disease prevention as well as the choice of when to be a parent or not.

What are the benefits of this vaccination?
Fewer deaths from heart disease and diabetes.

[thaiboxerken]

Fewer deaths from heart disease and diabetes.

Is that really the case?

[ponderingturtle]

The following is a list of the sort of people who are not at fault for their own
HIV infection:

People who have unprotected sex only with their long time spouses and contract the disease because their partner has been sleeping around on them.

People who are born with it.

People who are sexually victimized.

People who get it from contaminated blood.

People who took evey conceivable precaution in safe sex, but had something go wrong (broken condom) anyway.

None of this invalidates the use of technology to make sex safer.

I agree with you, I was just useing this to show that likely most people with aids got it through activities that could be controled. Just like most fat people could be thinner if they eat less and exorcise more. So why treat one set generaly as victims and revile the other?

If this helps people eat less then it is a good thing because some people are more predisposed to eating more, and in extreem cases it is a bit like an addict who must indulge a bit each day but must only indulge a little bit.

[ponderingturtle]

And?
And only in america would you see people tyring to come up with a vaccine to help such people of course

[ImaginalDisc]

Is that really the case?
Yes. People who are obese have substantially increased risks for heart disease and diabetes.

[JamesDillon]

How is this comparable?
I think this has been pretty well explained in my absence (during which time I was enjoying a delightfully unhealthy lunch), but it's comparable in that in both cases we have a behavior that human beings are genetically predisposed to find pleasurable, but which can in today's world lead to unpleasant or unhealthy consequences. In both cases, we have developed technologies to allow us to indulge in the pleasant behavior without suffering the negative consequences. It seems silly to argue that "personal responsibility" or self-restraint is a good in itself. Self-restraint is good insofar as it helps us avoid indulgences that are bad for us over the long term. If the bad outcomes can be avoided, there's nothing wrong, per se, with giving in to our hard-wired desire for food or sex.

Yes, when you equivocate it to absurd statements, it sounds absurd. Try staying away from that fallacy, and it doesn't sound so bad though.
ImaginalDisc's statement was not a fallacy; it was a reductio ad absurdum exposing the absurd result of following your premise to its logical conclusion.

[thaiboxerken]

Yes. People who are obese have substantially increased risks for heart disease and diabetes.

Yes, but will the vaccination reduce that risk?

[thaiboxerken]

ImaginalDisc's statement was not a fallacy; it was a reductio ad absurdum exposing the absurd result of following your premise to its logical conclusion.


No, it wasn't. But feel free to illustrate your point.

[ImaginalDisc]

No, it wasn't. But feel free to illustrate your point.
Look, I already did. If you're not getting it, I'll try again.

Your premise: Helping fat people to be thin through technology will make humans at large (no pun intended) weak.

My response: That same objection can be made about any technology used to improve the lives of human beings.

Incidentally, reducing an obese person's weight will lower their risks for many conditions, including heart disease and diabetes. What medical complications this vaccine may have remains to be determined.

[UserGoogol]

I wouldn't say ammoral, just not a benefit to society. I think it will be detrimental to society and will ultimately turn people into sloths.

What's wrong with slothdom? When you have machines, physical exertion is for suckers. I dream for a world where everyone spends all day curled up in a ball hooked up to a computer and a feeding tube.

[ImaginalDisc]

What's wrong with slothdom? When you have machines, physical exertion is for suckers. I dream for a world where everyone spends all day curled up in a ball hooked up to a computer and a feeding tube.
Don't you see? Excess exertion to achieve the same ends is better than a more efficient system. Efficiency is bad. We should all have to work as hard as possible for everything. Anything which comes easily through ingenuity is inherently bad.

[thaiboxerken]

Incidentally, reducing an obese person's weight will lower their risks for many conditions, including heart disease and diabetes. What medical complications this vaccine may have remains to be determined.

It might lower it, slightly. However, people that are inactive still have a higher risk of heart disease than those who are active. The foods that they eat will still have effect on the cardiovascular system as well.

[ImaginalDisc]

It might lower it, slightly. However, people that are inactive still have a higher risk of heart disease than those who are active. The foods that they eat will still have effect on the cardiovascular system as well.
Even if you're correct in your assessment a slight reduction in deaths is a good thing.

[slingblade]

There are people like me who once tended to be thin, but whose metabolisms changed for some reason (in my case, it was abrupt surgical menopause), making them more prone to easy weight gain.

Add to it a painful condition like bursitis, which I also have, and you get a gross reduction in ability to exercise. Combine these two, and you get a person who gains weight from eating a normal and healthy diet, but who finds it all but impossible to take off. I'd like such a vaccine, because I don't like the extra 50 pounds I've adopted and now can't get rid of. I miss my exercise very much, and hate being prisoner to a handful of irritated and inflamed bursas. I've had the treatment, which was possibly the worst torture I've ever endured, although it easily ties with the time I had an abcessed tooth pulled with no anasthetic. The treatment didn't work, and I can't afford another. Yes, I'd like to have this vaccine, though I probably can't afford it, either. ;)

But for those who don't have these or other similar conditions, people who could exercise, and whose metabolisms haven't all but shut down, it'd just be an exercise in gluttony-enabling, I think. Maybe in vanity, as well.

[NobbyNobbs]

Letting people stay healthy in spite of poor eating and excersize habits, reducing deaths caused by complications of obesity is going to be a BAD thing?


This vaccine doesn't make people stay healthy. It simply reduces appetite. If you still eat crap and don't exercise, you'll still be in poor health. Thin, yes, but in poor health.

[ImaginalDisc]

This vaccine doesn't make people stay healthy. It simply reduces appetite. If you still eat crap and don't exercise, you'll still be in poor health. Thin, yes, but in poor health.
Thin and in poor health is better than obese and in poor health.

[JamesDillon]

But for those who don't have these or other similar conditions, people who could exercise, and whose metabolisms haven't all but shut down, it'd just be an exercise in gluttony-enabling, I think. Maybe in vanity, as well.
Beyond the Ten Commandments, since when is enjoying food a moral failing? We advise against eating substantial amounts of high-fat foods because doing so can lead to health problems, but I see no reason to think that it's a bad thing in itself, as many of the posts in this thread seem to assume. If this technology enables people to enjoy food while diminishing the adverse health consequences, I can't see why its use should be in any way morally controversial.

[slingblade]

First, I don't adhere to the Ten Commandments.

Second, I'm entitled to even a wrong opinion, thanks, and it's my opinion that enabling yourself to eat more than your body can use, for the pleasure of it alone, is stupid. I'm not trying to stop you, for crying out loud. Go ahead. No skin off my nose.

I just think it's stupid.

[JamesDillon]

First, I don't adhere to the Ten Commandments.
My point was that there seems to be no rational basis outside of the Judaic tradition for considering "gluttony" to be morally suspect.

Second, I'm entitled to even a wrong opinion, thanks, and it's my opinion that enabling yourself to eat more than your body can use, for the pleasure of it alone, is stupid. I'm not trying to stop you, for crying out loud. Go ahead. No skin off my nose.

I just think it's stupid.
I am willing to bet a substantial amount that you do in fact consume more food than the minimum amount necessary to keep your body functioning. I'm also willing to bet that you probably do some things for the sheer pleasure you derive from doing them. What I don't understand is why you seem to think in this instance that there's something "wrong" with a technology that enables people to indulge their genetic predispositions toward enjoying food. Do you feel the same way about condoms? Are they an exercise in fornication-enabling?

[slingblade]

I am willing to bet a substantial amount that you do in fact consume more food than the minimum amount necessary to keep your body functioning.

I wish I could take that bet. In fact, I eat roughly one meal a day--dinner. I have few snacks--there's not much to snack on, here. It's now 3:54 pm where I am, and I haven't eaten anything yet. I've had one cup of coffee.

Last night my husband cooked fried chicken, butter beans, and mashed potatoes. I had some beans and potatoes. Later, I had a pudding pack. I don't eat much.

I'm also willing to bet that you probably do some things for the sheer pleasure you derive from doing them. What I don't understand is why you seem to think in this instance that there's something "wrong" with a technology that enables people to indulge their genetic predispositions toward enjoying food. Do you feel the same way about condoms? Are they an exercise in fornication-enabling?

Wow. So am I supposed to change my opinion to yours because you don't agree with mine? Nah. I'll pass.

We're not talking about everything of which I may or may not approve. We're talking about a vaccine for obesity. This is my opinion on it. And yes, I generally think excess is stupid. I prefer moderation. Actually, I'm rather forced to it, and have learned to make nice with it, since I have little choice.

[Katana]

This vaccine doesn't make people stay healthy. It simply reduces appetite. If you still eat crap and don't exercise, you'll still be in poor health. Thin, yes, but in poor health.

The vaccine does not reduce appetite. It blocks the effects of a hormone that reduces metabolism when you're hungry. The scientist quoted also felt that it impacted fat storage.

[fuelair]

How is it not?


Lots of food + little activity = obesity (note: lots of food + little activity /= obesity)

Et al

"Hey," says the rabbit, "Why have this vaccine when you can just eat less or run around? It seems like a cheap cop out. Only in American do we try to have something and not pay the unfortunate conseqeunce created by an accident of poor adaptation of the human body to conditions of plenty found in modern society!"

Please note THESE WORDS: "created by an accident of poor adaptation of the human body to conditions in modern society!" It's called "feast or famine" and people of many backgrounds whose ancestors came from places where food was comparitively easy to get during part of the year, but difficult to get the rest suffer from it. The bodies evolved (survivors of the hard to get periods tended to have) the ability to store more of the food intake as carbs/fats (i.e. to be fatter). We have not been long enough away from those times (still occuring even here into the 1930's or later) to start moving the other way yet. Yes, there are people who are heavy/fat because theyeat too much (period) - but there are many who have either the thyroid problem, the feast/famine problem or both. For those, the vaccine, Rimonabant and equiv. will be lifesavers. I am not , by the way, putting myself in those categories - I am some overweight because I eat too much and do not exercize as much as I should - but I know people in those categories and I truly sympathize with them.

[Mephisto]

That is what I'm talking about. Eating rich unhealthy foods is pleasant. The consequences are not. Likewise, sex is pleasant, but the consequences often aren't. The obesity vaccine is no more or less amoral than condoms.

Well by that reasoning, the life-long alcoholic baseball star deserves a new liver as much as the bright, young college student. Where does colon cancer rate on the amoral scale?

I can understand "better living through chemistry," but creating a vaccine so that people can plan a life of unhealthy living just seems stupid. Our bodies were never meant to consume such enormous quantities of food with little or no nutritional value. We were also not meant to sit around for hours staring at a computer screen or television screen. However, I think our bodies require a given amount of maintainance and unless we devote time to simple pleasures like a brisk walk around a park with a pet, a romantic conversation with a loved one on a nature path or grinding a two-flight stair rail into traffic. ;)

In other words, you can't assign a morality to a sickness. Just get out and do something if you can. :)

[slingblade]

I can understand "better living through chemistry," but creating a vaccine so that people can plan a life of unhealthy living just seems stupid.

Yes. That's my point, too. Thanks for saying it better than I did.

[JamesDillon]

I can understand "better living through chemistry," but creating a vaccine so that people can plan a life of unhealthy living just seems stupid.
But... if you eliminate (or significantly reduce) the health risks, it isn't an unhealthy lifestyle any more, is it?

Our bodies were never meant to consume such enormous quantities of food with little or no nutritional value.
That sounds suspiciously teleological, and rather as if you're trying to derive "ought" from "is." Our bodies are not currently capable of consuming large quantities certain types of food without adverse health consequences. What they were "meant" to do by the blind process of evolution doesn't seem particularly significant or relevant to me, where we have the opportunity to improve that design.

We were also not meant to sit around for hours staring at a computer screen or television screen.
No, we were "meant," to the extent that term is at all applicable, to be running around the African savanna hunting and gathering. Are you advocating a return to that lifestyle?

However, I think our bodies require a given amount of maintainance and unless we devote time to simple pleasures like a brisk walk around a park with a pet, a romantic conversation with a loved one on a nature path or grinding a two-flight stair rail into traffic. ;)
I think that all of the objections to this vaccine are edging close to the straw man error, by portraying anyone who would benefit from this as a lazy lout who sits around watching game shows and stuffing Doritos down his throat 18 hours a day. Most of us lead a sedentary lifestyle by necessity. I usually sit in front of a computer in my office 10-12 hours a day. That's not to say that I don't enjoy a brisk walk around the park when the opportunity presents itself, but when I'm leaving the office at midnight or later it's usually not the first thing that comes to mind. I'm overweight by only a relatively few pounds, and don't really look it, but I'd quite happily take greater advantage of New York's exquisite culinary opportunities if I thought I could get away with it. I don't see this as a moral failing on my part, or as a bad idea. If my current lifestyle isn't quite what natural selection "designed" me for, I see those design flaws as problems to be remedied wherever possible rather than "natural" traits defining what my life "should" be.

[luchog]

Letting people stay healthy in spite of poor eating and excersize habits, reducing deaths caused by complications of obesity is going to be a BAD thing?
Except that it won't do that. Reducing appetite will not make people healthier if they don't improve their diet and exercise habits. Instead of a bunch of obese, unhealthy people, you'll have a bunch of thin, unhealthy people. And very likely a resurgence of deficiency-related disorders (some are already making a comeback in certain parts of the US, due to poor diet).

Another news flash, reducing physical appetite signals will also not make all overweight people eat less. Many obese people eat despite the fact that they are not physically hungry. It becomes a habit, and with certain foods, even an addiction. "Comfort" eating will still continue, as will habitual eating and drinking of junk foods. Large amounts of refined sugars can have a strong drug-like effect as well. They eat for effect, not to control hunger.

On top of that, certain junk foods can stimulate the appetite, so will conflict with the effects of any ghrelin and reduce it's effectiveness.

[luchog]

But... if you eliminate (or significantly reduce) the health risks, it isn't an unhealthy lifestyle any more, is it?.
It doesn't eliminate the health risks, it merely subsitutes a few health risks for others; while not significantly impacting the rest.

[JamesDillon]

Luchog,

According to Katana's post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1814400&postcount=61) above,
The vaccine does not reduce appetite. It blocks the effects of a hormone that reduces metabolism when you're hungry. The scientist quoted also felt that it impacted fat storage.

It doesn't eliminate the health risks, it merely subsitutes a few health risks for others; while not significantly impacting the rest.
Does this relate to your apparently erroneous assertion above that the vaccine reduces appetite? If not, please elaborate.

[Mephisto]

I think that all of the objections to this vaccine are edging close to the straw man error, by portraying anyone who would benefit from this as a lazy lout who sits around watching game shows and stuffing Doritos down his throat 18 hours a day. Most of us lead a sedentary lifestyle by necessity. I usually sit in front of a computer in my office 10-12 hours a day. That's not to say that I don't enjoy a brisk walk around the park when the opportunity presents itself, but when I'm leaving the office at midnight or later it's usually not the first thing that comes to mind. I'm overweight by only a relatively few pounds, and don't really look it, but I'd quite happily take greater advantage of New York's exquisite culinary opportunities if I thought I could get away with it. I don't see this as a moral failing on my part, or as a bad idea. If my current lifestyle isn't quite what natural selection "designed" me for, I see those design flaws as problems to be remedied wherever possible rather than "natural" traits defining what my life "should" be.

I can certainly understand where you're coming from, I worked in an office for sometimes 12 hours a day, but I personally believe that the brisk walks I took at lunch or the quick visits to the gym helped my attitude and my levels of concentration far more than any perceived benefits I might have from over-indulgence in food. Before you ask, I'm not advocating that this works for everyone, but it IS far cheaper than a vaccine and there are relatively few negative side-effects.

Where do we stop then? A vaccine for heroin addicts? A vaccine for pregnancy? A vaccine for alcoholics? What behavior can't be excused if medical science develops a vaccine against the visual negative effects? And speaking of medical science, why are they even working on a vaccine like this when cancer and AIDS kills millions of people a year throughout the world? Who sets the priorities that allows medical science to develop a boner pill and a hair-growth pill before curing real diseases?

[JamesDillon]

Where do we stop then? A vaccine for heroin addicts? A vaccine for pregnancy? A vaccine for alcoholics? What behavior can't be excused if medical science develops a vaccine against the visual negative effects?
If there were a vaccine that could cure heroin addiction, would you not support developing it? I think a distinction can be drawn, in that drug and alcohol abuse often causes social or domestic problems, makes it more difficult for the person to hold a steady job, etc. Enjoying a good steak doesn't have the same effect; if the weight gain were eliminated, I don't see any lingering social problems that would remain. This would not be the case in your other examples.

(As for pregnancy, don't we already have anti-pregnancy pills and operations? Not to turn this into an abortion thread, but I don't view those as bad things, and a vaccine would probably be easier).

Edit: Just to be clear, if it were possible to develop a vaccine or pill that would cure physical addiction to drugs or alcohol, I certainly would support its development and use. As I noted, the behavior might need to be changed because it interferes with the addict's (and others') ability to lead a normal life, but I certainly wouldn't make an addict go through the pain of withdrawal simply to punish them, where a pain-free solution existed.
And speaking of medical science, why are they even working on a vaccine like this when cancer and AIDS kills millions of people a year throughout the world? Who sets the priorities that allows medical science to develop a boner pill and a hair-growth pill before curing real diseases?
I'm pretty sure that heart disease is currently the #1 killer in America. I could be wrong about that, and I didn't bother to Google it, but if that's the case, then this seems likely to save more lives than a cancer or AIDS treatment would. In any case, I think it's perfectly appropriate for medical science to pursue cures for more than one ailment at a time.

[Silly Green Monkey]

I do hope this vaccine can help all the obese people who die when they try to diet. Everyone seems to think only of those who need to lose just a few pounds, and never think of those who need to lose hundreds of pounds and will die if they try. There is no compassion here, only condemnation. "it's all your fault that you're fat, get out there and exercise!" Never mind that outside my be filled with health risks. Doesn't help to try exercising if someone hurts you, because then you're screwed--can't work OR exercise. Lose - lose all around.

[Katana]

Yes. That's my point, too. Thanks for saying it better than I did.

Ditto. Nicely said, JamesDillon.

As for vaccines to treat addiction, I would support them because it takes care of the problematic behavior. This vaccine does not.

[Earthborn]

According to Katana's post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1814400&postcount=61) aboveWhy refer to another's post when you have the original source (http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/073106.html)?

During the study, the rats immunized with Ghr1 and Ghr3 ate normally but, once antibody levels increased, accrued less body weight and fat, indicating an increase in the body’s use of energy, a finding supported by studies of genetically altered mice.

(snip)

The study did note, however, that the immunized rats were fed low-energy, low-fat, and relatively less palatable chow diets and were comparatively lean. “Whether active immunization against ghrelin would help prevent the development of obesity caused by… high-fat ‘Western’ diets or would facilitate weight loss once obesity is established” remains uncertain, the study added.Note that the researchers do not claim that the vaccine will allow people to continue to be gluttons without weight gain. It might allow for a normal diet without weight gain.

The press release also explains the differences and similarities between this vaccine and the Swiss vaccine I linked to above and its similarities with vaccines against various addictions. Interesting read, even if it is somewhat of an advertisement.

[Mephisto]

Beyond the Ten Commandments, since when is enjoying food a moral failing?

Oh, I don't know, since the 14th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins

[Mephisto]

If there were a vaccine that could cure heroin addiction, would you not support developing it? I think a distinction can be drawn, . . .

Certainly, I would support a vaccine that would cure drug addiction, but this is essentially a vaccine that allows the user to engage in the addiction with (as far as we know) no visual side-effects. I believe that this vaccine is concentrating on those members of society who feel pressured because they see themselves as obese or overweight. This vaccine is screaming for abuse by the anorexic (yet another eating disorder that is prevalent in the U.S.).

A similar vaccine for heroin or coke addiction would eliminate the visual "cues" to the addiction, but not curtail the addictive behavior. It's exacerbating the problem, not helping correct it.

[Beerina]

It might lower it, slightly. However, people that are inactive still have a higher risk of heart disease than those who are active. The foods that they eat will still have effect on the cardiovascular system as well.


Yes, but diabetes is a direct risk factor for heart disease (in addition to being a severe problem in its own right) and belly fat is a direct risk factor for diabetes. I admit it seems heart disease is more caused by sedentary lifestyle and food choices than obesity per se, but even with nothing else changing, a loss of weight, and specifically, belly fat, can lead to improvements in diabetse, and therefore improvements in heart disease.

[JamesDillon]

Oh, I don't know, since the 14th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins
Which would appear to support my point that there's no apparent basis for the moral condemnation of "gluttony" outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

[JamesDillon]

Certainly, I would support a vaccine that would cure drug addiction, but this is essentially a vaccine that allows the user to engage in the addiction with (as far as we know) no visual side-effects.
Again, you seem to be presenting a caricature of the overweight person. I don't think that enjoying a dinner out on occasion qualifies as an "addiction" to food on par with being a herion junkie. I'm not quite sure how you distinguish the "visual cues" from the addiction itself, or why being an "addict" is a bad thing (or in what sense one can even be said to be an addict) if all physical evidence of the addiction is eliminated. I just don't think that the drug abuse analogy works very well here, and outside of a very small portion of the prospective customer base, I don't think that people who could benefit from this can properly be described as "food addicts."

I believe that this vaccine is concentrating on those members of society who feel pressured because they see themselves as obese or overweight. This vaccine is screaming for abuse by the anorexic (yet another eating disorder that is prevalent in the U.S.).
That's a reasonable concern, and is something that would need to be discouraged. However, given the significant health risks of being overweight, it still seems that this drug would help more people than it would potentially injure.

A similar vaccine for heroin or coke addiction would eliminate the visual "cues" to the addiction, but not curtail the addictive behavior. It's exacerbating the problem, not helping correct it.
Again, I just don't think this is a fair analogy. If you're eating so much that it interferes with your relationships and ability to lead a normal life, then yes, this vaccine would just be curing the symptom rather than the disease. I don't think very many people fall into that category. If, on the other hand, you've put on a few pounds because you're sitting behind a desk all day and you still enjoy going out for steak or pizza once in a while, then I don't see how there's an underlying "problem" at all beyond the "visual cues" themselves.

[chulbert]

Wow. So am I supposed to change my opinion to yours because you don't agree with mine? Nah. I'll pass.

We're not talking about everything of which I may or may not approve. We're talking about a vaccine for obesity. This is my opinion on it. And yes, I generally think excess is stupid. I prefer moderation. Actually, I'm rather forced to it, and have learned to make nice with it, since I have little choice. No one expects you to change your opinion to match their own, per se, but to simply have a consistent position. And maybe you do, I just think a lot of these scenarios and posed questions are trying to determine that.

[chulbert]

Well by that reasoning, the life-long alcoholic baseball star deserves a new liver as much as the bright, young college student. Where does colon cancer rate on the amoral scale? Not quite comparable. Livers, or donor organs in general, are a highly critical resource that cannot meet demand. In such situations, I think it's reasonable to place them where they're the most good and give priority to patients that had no control over their situation.

I would hold the same true for an obesity vaccine. If the serum proves to be difficult to manufacture to the point where supply cannot meet demand, I would have no problem giving priority to patients whose obesity was out of their control.

[Mephisto]

Which would appear to support my point that there's no apparent basis for the moral condemnation of "gluttony" outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Again, where do diverticulosus, hernias, intestinal & stomach cancer, heart disease and diabetis rate on the morality scale?

There is a reason for not engaging in any behavior (exercise included) to excess - it's simply not healthy. To believe that medical science has "beaten" obesity is putting much more trust in the pharmaceutical companies than any skeptic should, and one that will undoubtedly, in the future, show the shortcomings of an Epicurean-to-excess philosophy.

I believe that we should be changing our ideas of what constitutes a healthy body. Some people are pre-disposed to being large (note: I didn't say overweight), but modern society pushes the notion of a slender image as the most desireable. Being overweight doesn't necessarily mean unhealthy, but being thin while eating anything you want, by the same token, doesn't mean you're healthy.

[slingblade]

Okay, that makes sense, JamesDillon. Thanks.

[Cuddles]

Incidentally, reducing an obese person's weight will lower their risks for many conditions, including heart disease and diabetes. What medical complications this vaccine may have remains to be determined.

Evidence?

Eating too much and not exercising cause many symptoms, including heart disease, diabetes, blocked arteries and obesity. I know of no evidence that obesity causes the other problems, only that the lifestyle that causes obesity also causes these other problems. A vaccine to stop people being fat will probably increase health problems since there will no longer be any incentive for people to eat healthily or exercise.

[Mephisto]

Again, you seem to be presenting a caricature of the overweight person. I don't think that enjoying a dinner out on occasion qualifies as an "addiction" to food on par with being a herion junkie. I'm not quite sure how you distinguish the "visual cues" from the addiction itself, or why being an "addict" is a bad thing (or in what sense one can even be said to be an addict) if all physical evidence of the addiction is eliminated. I just don't think that the drug abuse analogy works very well here, and outside of a very small portion of the prospective customer base, I don't think that people who could benefit from this can properly be described as "food addicts."

I understand your position completely, James, but has it been determined that the vaccine will be available for casual use (i.e. enjoying a dinner on occasion) or will its use be limited to those who are experiencing problems because of their obesity?

As we all know, there are currently surgical methods of curtailing obesity and they are finding out now that these procedures can cause long-term problems:

General Health Risks of Stomach Bypass

About 10-20 percent of patients undergoing stomach bypass require follow-up operations to correct complications, the most common complaints being abdominal hernias. More than one-third of patients who have gastric bypass surgery develop gallstones. Complication rates in the early post-operative period, such as infection, dehiscence, leaks from staple breakdown, stomal stenosis, ulcers and deep thrombo-phlebitis may be as high as ten percent or more. However, the combined risk of the most serious complications (gastrointestinal leak and deep venous thrombosis) is less than one per cent. Later, other problems may arise and may require corrective surgery.

http://www.annecollins.com/health-dangers-of-gastric-bypass-surgery.htm
________

I can't help but think of the potential damage this vaccine might cause in the near future. The U.S. already consumes far more than most countries and I see this vaccine as an impetus to consume even more if it's allowed into the general populace for casual use.

[MilwaukeeMike]

No one should forget that just because an obese or fat person becomes skinny their are at a lower risk level for heart disease. When someone becomes fat or obese, a layer of fatty tissue builds up around the heart. Yes, even your heart can get fat. This tissue never goes away and builds up the longer someone is obese or fat, and restricts everything from blood flow to rhythm of the heart. So the best cure for obesity is not to become obese. But that’s a no brainier.

[JamesDillon]

I understand your position completely, James, but has it been determined that the vaccine will be available for casual use (i.e. enjoying a dinner on occasion) or will its use be limited to those who are experiencing problems because of their obesity?
I'm not exactly sure what the contemplated clientele is, but would note that a fairly significant portion of the U.S. population fall within the medical definition of obesity:
Cynthia Ogden, PhD, a CDC epidemiologist, published the results of a study of weight in the United States that she conducted with other experts. The results were startling: 31% of adults are obese and 15% of children and teenagers age 6-19 are overweight. The proportion of obese people has been growing steadily for the last few decades. Although Ogden stresses that obesity is a problem for all groups and genders, it is particularly severe among certain ethnic groups. For instance, 50% of all non-Hispanic black women are obese.
http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/57/66035.htm?pagenumber=2
So part of my point is that the "obese" are not limited to lazy, unhealthy couch potatoes, but to a pretty substantial portion of the population whose weight could pose serious health problems.

As we all know, there are currently surgical methods of curtailing obesity and they are finding out now that these procedures can cause long-term problems:
Sure, and there may well be complications from this treatment as well. But many of the posts in this thread have appeared to take the position that the vaccine is a bad idea per se, regardless of any side effects it may have. That's the position with which I disagree.

I can't help but think of the potential damage this vaccine might cause in the near future. The U.S. already consumes far more than most countries and I see this vaccine as an impetus to consume even more if it's allowed into the general populace for casual use.
I do see your point, but that sounds a bit like the argument that we shouldn't distribute condoms in high school because it would encourage teenage sex. Maybe this vaccine would encourage overindulgence in a lifestyle that would continue to carry health risks, and I realize that this treatment would not be a substitute for the benefits of regular exercise. However, it still seems reasonable to think that the net effect on health would be positive.

[slingblade]

Sure, and there may well be complications from this treatment as well. But many of the posts in this thread have appeared to take the position that the vaccine is a bad idea per se, regardless of any side effects it may have. That's the position with which I disagree.

I have an excuse. I haven't been to bed yet. I've been up for....26 hours now, and counting!

IF there was a new vaccine that in some way allowed a person to eat as much of whatever he wanted to eat without gaining weight, I would think that a bad idea in principle, because it could easily encourage unhealthy habits.

IF there was a vaccine that "might allow for a normal diet without weight gain," then my objections would be void.

I plead insomnity (insomnia/insanity) and throw myself on the mercy of the court.

[Mephisto]

I have an excuse. I haven't been to bed yet. I've been up for....26 hours now, and counting!

Maybe you need a vaccine that will let you sleep as long as you like without missing out on any work you have to do? ;)

[shecky]

I still don't understand what the objection is. Better living through chemistry is still better living.

IF there was a new vaccine that in some way allowed a person to eat as much of whatever he wanted to eat without gaining weight, I would think that a bad idea in principle, because it could easily encourage unhealthy habits.

So what? Modern technology allows humans to do all manner of things that used to be unthinkable.

[mumblethrax]

Ghrelin is an appetite stimulant. It's unlikely that a therapeutic vaccine that targets ghrelin is going to be abused by people who want to be gluttons without consequence.

I don't think it's particularly difficult to formulate secular arguments against gluttony, but obesity and gluttony should be detached--the first is not necessarily caused by the second.

[Katana]

Why refer to another's post when you have the original source (http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/073106.html)?

The study did note, however, that the immunized rats were fed low-energy, low-fat, and relatively less palatable chow diets and were comparatively lean. “Whether active immunization against ghrelin would help prevent the development of obesity caused by… high-fat ‘Western’ diets or would facilitate weight loss once obesity is established” remains uncertain, the study added.


That's interesting because this is what the article that I originally cited said:
The reduction in weight gain occurred despite the rats eating and drinking normally, indicating that the inhibition of ghrelin was having an effect on the animals' metabolism.

I'm thinking that yours is the correct one.

The way the comments from your link are phrased, it sounds like they gave the immunized rats low-cal food that didn't taste so good compared to the diet of the non-immunized rats. That's a huge confounder, if I'm reading that correctly, the obvious issue being how they could attribute weight loss to the vaccine and not the rats' dislike of their diet. What is unclear is whether the vaccinated rats ate this diet and maintained their weight before being injected.

Or am I just reading this completely incorrectly? Perhaps they were trying to say that the rats ate a low-cal, crappy-tasting diet relative to Americans' as they go on to talk about the "Western diet" in the next sentence. If so, how do you determine that a rat's diet is less palatable than ours?

Thoughts?
(as if I had to ask)

[ImaginalDisc]

No one should forget that just because an obese or fat person becomes skinny their are at a lower risk level for heart disease. When someone becomes fat or obese, a layer of fatty tissue builds up around the heart. Yes, even your heart can get fat. This tissue never goes away and builds up the longer someone is obese or fat, and restricts everything from blood flow to rhythm of the heart. So the best cure for obesity is not to become obese. But that’s a no brainier.

Empahasis added.

Claus?

Sorry, I meant to say, "Evidence?"