onewheeldave

No you don't. You just need to ban the marketing of health destroying rubbish to kids. ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 22:06 ---------- Banning the advertising of cigarettes didn't stop the availability of cigarettes. What's your point? It's never too late dude

It's not a grey area. Currently we're marketing 'foods' that our science has established are extremely harmfull to health, to children and, to the legal guardians of children. This guarantees that more of those children will suffer heart disease, disease and obesity. Nothing controversial there, I think we can all accept the above as facts? (If not, please do state which of the above are flawed, and, a bit of reasoning as to why). All I'm adding to the above facts, is that marketing of said rubbish can end, and, ideally, have the same profound health benefits that banning marketing of tobacco did. Still no-ones come up with a single argument as to why we shouldn't ban marketing of rubbish to children (and/or their guardians). Makes me think it's maybe cos there's not one...

Right, so you literally thought you weren't in a logical debate?! That explains so much In reality, you were in a logical debate (there's no other kind) and now we've sorted that out, if you want to continue, you'll need to start making some logical point.

I've posted links to evidence if anyone's interested in following them up. I can't make people read a page, or watch a video.

Had to look it up- words aren't really my strong point. Well done- excellent bit of humour Fortunately, at least with word issues I can look them up and find the meaning- I'd imagine there's no similar resource available for those who have a deficiency in logical/rational ability .....maybe if you had a bash at trying to construct some kind of logic based 'argument' that attempts to show that there's any benefit to not banning the marketing/promotion of proven harmful substances to children and their parents/guardians, it might help sharpen up your issue with rationality and logic? Bit of exercise can't hurt, can it? plus, wouldn't harm the debate to have some actual reasons to not ban it, flying around.

I don't know if it's after the watershed (as I've not watched a tv for several years) and, given that you'd just previously told me that food ads for children weren't allowed on TV, you'll forgive me for waiting for someone to verify your 'belief' concerning watershedage. In the meantime, lets reflect on why you're even thinking it's relevant, given that you know as well as I, that many children watch tv after the watershed. Plus, as we are in danger of getting overly focused on tv ads, you may recall I was saying that we need a ban on all marketing/promotion of scientifically-proven-to-be-health-damaging 'foods' to children, which includes billboards, tv, magazines, online, etc, etc. So even if you can get your stance on tv/ads/watershed bashed into something resembling a coherent argument, I'd personally suggest you don't waste too much time on that, as it will not be that relevant to all the other forms of ads/marketing/promotion that children can see, and will continue to be influenced by, unless the ads are BANNED. ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 20:30 ---------- Yes, it's called moving on to one point after another. I've seized on food advertising as it's so clear that promoting/marketing/advertising 'foods' that our science has shown to be responsible for the obscene and unsane health of our obese/diabetic/heart diseased population, to children, or, the the parents of said children is a really, really, bad idea. And because I'm waiting for someone to make a good, valid argument as to why banning said marketing could be bad. ....and waiting ...and waiting

No thanks, I'll have to decline, your argument above is unassailable and I must bow to your clearly greater intellent and retire, defeated, from the debate

I've got no idea of what you're trying to say/show. Engage with my replies, by addressing the points made, otherwise there's no point in me trying to dialogue with you.

So, you not only understand that advertising does work, you understand how it works. Great, so it should be clear that, as advertising does work, that advertising children's 'foods' that are proven to be harmfull to consume, will lead to more harmfull foods being consumed by children (than would be the case were said harmful foods not advertised and marketed. Which is my point- why I want advertising harmful foods banned. ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 17:38 ---------- [/color] Children do buy foods they've seen marketed, and, they pressure their parents to buy those foods as well. What makes you think children don't buy foods? Why do you think that, when children see adverts that lie and pretend that 'foods' they (the advertisers) know full well are highly problematic, are actually fantastic and will enrich the life of anyone who eats it, they aren't in danger of being 'tricked'?

Thanks for those- I've not watched actual tv for several years and assumed that cyclone was on the ball with his claim that they don't advertise burgers and fast food on tv. It looks like maybe he wasn't?

I'm not after regulation- I want it banned. TV? What about cinema, magazines, billboards, online advertising. What about harmfull foods other than burgers that are advertised on TV? ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 16:05 ---------- [/color] Anyone with a bit of patience who can help this individual understand that advertising works? ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 16:09 ---------- We've banned smoking adverts full stop. What applies to promotion of toxic and addictive inhaled tobacco products should equally apply to harmful foods, especially as damage from 'foods' is now thought to exceed damage from tobacco.

Could you stop accusing me of being disingenious/a liar please? I'm not 'splitting hairs'- I'm distinguishing between bans and health campaigns. they are not identical and there's a world of difference between, say, a 'five-a-day' information campaign, and, a ban on smoking in public places. I'm aware of the fact that high functioning autistics can often see fine logical distinctions that many NTs cannot, but I refuse to believe that you are unable to differentiate between the two. ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 16:00 ---------- Equally, your opinion (or doubt, in this case) is not evidence. I believe a ban on advertising harmfull foods would help immensely, just as it did for smoking. What's your reason for believing that a ban on advertising harmfull foods would not have the same level of success as the ban on smoking?

No. I don't expect to be teaching intelligent adults how marketing and advertising is effective. If you really don't have a concept of how marketing/advertising change human behaviour, then I can't help you. ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 11:29 ---------- In contrast, I'm a huge fan of banning the marketing of toxic substances to adults or children. Seeing how successfull it was with smoking has made me a firm convert. I'm happy for other things to be done as well, but, in the absence of some action in getting the marketing of toxic 'food' ended, it's clearly not being taken seriously enough. Bans on advertising tobacco products clearly worked very well. Why are we still allowing the promotion of 'foods' our medical system has proved to be extremely damaging to health?

in 1939 Dr. Walter Kempner aquired a reputation for curing hypertension, back when it was often fatal (pre blood pressure drugs). A side effect of his diet based treatment was that patients also ceased to be obese, and many type II diabetics had their diabetes reveresed, or, required considerable less insulin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_diet I mention it, as his diet consisted of rice, fruit and sugar. The evidence against sugar is not of the scale of evidence against, say, meat/dairy/animal produce. It may be that sugar is harmless (other than it being 'empty calories' i.e. having no other nutrients).

I'm distinguishing between bans and campaigns. Bans are not campaigns. I consider, for diet/nutrition, that bans could well be very effective (as they were for smoking), but that the campaigns aren't very effective. You're right though, that, with smoking, in addition to the advertising ban, banning it in public spaces also helped a lot. The scare campaigns, IMO, didn't. To be clear, I'm not suggesting banning eating unhealthy food in public . I just want the adverts banned. I don't want our children being tricked by marketing into eating food that is proven to cause heart disease, diabetes and obesity. ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 11:13 ---------- But banning advertising and promotion of health destroying 'foods' isn't at all ridiculous. It's totally feasable. Why are we marketing products to adults and children that we know will lead to serious ill-health?

that wasn't directed at you, but, to sgtkate.

So, we're in complete agreement then- these campaigns do not work very well? If so, then surely it's time to put energy into trying other methods, and, making use of methods that have[i/] worked, such as bans on advertising (food in this case, as the bans on snoking clearly were effective).

No- it was an advertising ban (on smoking). If we can have an advertising ban on food, then I'll go quiet for a while and be happy that, at last, something usefull is being done.

Here's Dr Caldlwell Esslestyn giving a Ted talk on how heart disease is preventable and curable by diet. He's one of an increasing number of US doctors speaking very openly about the needless deaths arising as a result of the medical systems pre-occupation with profitable symptom mangement strategies.

IMO, the bans on advertising smoking were a prime factor in it's decline. I'd like to see bans on food advertising as well, because, advertising is proven to work- advertise/market junk/toxic 'food', and more people will eat it. So, if we're serious about modifying behaviours, we should recognise that. Smoking aside, I think you'll be aware that heart disease, diabetes and obesity, have not[/i] fallen massively?

As for other countries, when it comes to heart disease and diabetes, all those lacking a modern advanced healthcare system, without access to the modern western diet of processed 'foods', who are not living in unsanitary conditions, and not subject to starvation, have much, much lower levels of those conditions. For autism, it's true that the UK is far ahead of underdevolped regions in terms of recognising the condition- however, much of the stresses that are causing people to recognise their autism, are directly due to the increasing 'development' of society- things like automated phone systems that many autistic people cannot engage with, yet are necessary to access any kind of medical help, or, indeed, to live any kind of normal life.

Clearly, "massive public health campaigns aimed at changing behaviour to prevent disease" don't work very well then. Didn't work 20 years ago when they started, and don't work now. Innovativection is needed, not blindly repeating an approach which is clearly ineffective. ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 09:34 ---------- Equally, I'm not saying it should be perfect. I'd be totally happy with an adequate health service.

No. I've no idea what other countries have a better approach to autism than the UK. It may well be that the UK has the best approach to autism- that, unfortunately, would alter the fact that it's totally inadequate. Autistics and other disabled people are committing suicide in large numbers, due to the 'care' they receive here. Proof here- http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2014/10/21/uk-welfare-reform-deaths-updated-list-october-21st-2014/ The uk medical system is well aware that high-functioning autistics are 10 times more likely than the general population to engage in suicidal thinking. http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/10/13/suicidal-thoughts-10-times-more-likely-in-adults-with-aspergers/76016.html

I'm not ill- I'm autistic. I don't blame autism for 'all mistakes and failures'. I'm actually quite accomplished in many things, got some very highly developed skills. Everything I've failed at has one common factor- it involves basic social skills. Mine are, in comparison to neurotypicals, crippled. I quite literally lack the necessary neurological hardware. No, not perfect. Adequate. I do not. They're as much victims as the patients are. Low wages, bad working conditions, and hours wasted on paperwork to fuel an admin system too bloated to be anything but counterproductive, which, they probably realise, is itself the root cause of most of the problem. My criticism is not of the staff, but of the system, and, of apologists for that system. ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 01:36 ---------- Just to be clear, are you of the view that "the vast majority of heart disease is caused by wrong diet and is preventable by right diet.." is not true? ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 01:41 ---------- Like I said, the NHS specialise in symptom management. I don't know much about asthma, I've no idea if the NHS could have done more to prevent yours. But, clearly, your asthma is not a good example of prevention at work. Unlike your asthma though, heart disease is, in the main, entirely preventable, via diet. The NHS do not prevent the thousands of heart attacks that their own research shows are caused by the diets their patients are eating. No, the focus is on symptom management via expensive stents and drugs, with a criminal lack of attention to far more effective (but not profitable) dietary interventions. ---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 01:47 ---------- The only 'invoking' going on here is your tired cliche above. If anyone is seriously of the view that the pharmaceutical industry doesn't have a huge amount of entirely inapropriate influence on medical system decisions that adversley affect the health of billions, then I'll leave them to it

Fact is, that the vast majority of heart disease is caused by wrong diet and is preventable by right diet. I'm not saying it all is, I'm saying that the vast majority is. A lot of actual doctors are saying the same thing. ---------- Post added 01-11-2015 at 23:30 ---------- You can repeat that as much as you want, in the absence of evidence it's nothing more than a belief. Even if true, the fact remains the NHS could help many more people than it currently does (and hurt less people than it currently does), if it realised that good health is based on preventation, not symptom management.