As I can’t reblog this, I’ll have to post it as a link instead, but I’m sure the person sending the messages will see it. Also, funnily enough @spiffmonstah followed me right around the time these messages came and low and behold had just reblogged the linked post with me in it! How strange?
Last thing, it’s funny how @ok2befat in that post was actually the one cherry picking, as they completely ignored NON alcoholic* fatty liver disease, in which obesity is a major risk factor.
Nothing in there said that being fat was a “major” risk factor. It is just one of them. NAFLD is something literally anyone can get including people who don’t have any “risk factors”. Literally anyone can get it for any reason.
Your opinion has yet again been proven to be trash. With the link you provided.
You are at an INCREASED RISK if you are medically obese. In-fucking-creased. This means more likely than in those without. You could even call it a major risk factor.
Do you literally think that because anybody can in theory get it that everybody has equal risk??
You’re at INCREASED RISK if you’re obese OR have type 2 diabetes OR have high blood pressure OR have high cholesterol OR or have a combination of the above (which seems redundant to point out) OR are over 50 OR smoke OR anyone who doesn’t have any of those risk factors at all because it’s even been diagnosed in children.
So it’s no more likely because you’re fat than if you’re literally anybody else on the planet. Just say you hate fat people and keep it moving.
What? Read the list again.
It lists the risk factors. You can get something without having any risk factors at all. What it means is that you are MORE LIKELY to get it if you have this risk factors than someone with no risk factors. It increases your RISK, not certainty. Just like how smoking doesn't guarantee you getting lung cancer. It does however INCREASE your RISK of cancer greatly. There are life long smokers that never develop cancer, and vegan marathon runners that get lung cancer.
