- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Health
Vilma Soltesz, 425 Pounds, Dies After Being Kicked Off 3 Airplanes for her Weight
Vilma Soltesz, of New York City, recently died while on a holiday trip in Hungary after being refused a seat on three airline flights because she weighed 425 pounds.
On September 17, Soltesz traveled with her husband Jano from New York to Hungary to stay in their holiday home, reports the New York Post.
Soltesz planned to return on October 15 so that she could continue her medical treatment for her kidney disease and diabetes.
Jano Soltesz said his wife was already seated on the plane when they were asked to leave by KLM: "They tried to fit her into the back of the plane, but they didn’t have an extension to secure her."
The KLM airline staff said they did not have a seat-belt extender for her and that the seat back could not support her weight.
After leaving the airplane, the couple waited in the airport for several hours and then were told to drive five hours to Prague for a Delta plane.
In Prague, Delta told the couple that the airline’s plastic wheelchair could not hold her weight and the staff couldn’t put her on the sky-lift elevator.
The couple's New York travel agent finally managed to book them on an October 22 to New York via Frankfurt on a Lufthansa flight, which would be able to accommodate her size.
A local fire department was brought in to help move Soltesz into three seats assigned to her, but could not lift her out of her wheelchair.
Lufthansa spokesman Nils Haupt said: "We had 140 passengers on board, and they had connections and needed to travel. The question was never the seat belt. The question was the mobility of the passenger."
When the couple returned to Hungary to make another flight plan, Soltesz's condition worsened.
The couple chose not to seek medical help in Hungary as they felt the doctors would not be familiar with her medical condition. Two days later, Soltesz died and was buried in Hungary.
Jano Soltesz is now considering a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the airlines, accusing them of violating laws protecting the disabled.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Sue her husband.
Sue her husband.
Amazing how ignorant fat
Amazing how ignorant fat people are. The more food you stuff in your fat face the fatter you get... even a small dumb child can understand that simple fact.
Those that can't or won't defend themselves can only be slaves.
Having been fat (not that
Having been fat (not that fat, but on my way), it is about habits and easy access to calories. Given the tremendous rise in obesity in this country we must address it nationally. The philosophy of "leave it up to the individual" is failing. In fact, the problem is getting worse. For me, the answer was simple - put the fork down and get to the gym. I am still a little overweight, but my blood pressure and blood fats are normal so I don't have the gun pointed to my head to lose the rest. When I started losing, I couldn't touch my toes. Having been a marine, I was ashamed beyond words, but it was graduate school, kids, convenience meals in my car spread out over years that caused the problem.
Obesity is also growing fastest among the poor. Like smoking, obesity is becoming a problem of the poor. It seems that when life sucks, bad habits become the order of the day. Weight is also linked to access to fresh food, and isolated rural people and the urban poor have the least access to fresh food the highest rates of obesity.
You're right in that the formula is simple - more calories in than out leads to obesity. However, the factors leading to this imbalance are more complicated.
France has one of the lowest rates of obesity in Europe and some of the richest food. They attacked the problem decades ago nationally with great success. The US needs a similar approach.
Rich food is not what leads
Rich food is not what leads to obesity. It's food that is high in calories and low in nutrition that causes it, and that is 90% of what we eat today. The more processed our food is, the weaker our health will be in all aspects. I also believe strongly that the large amounts of GMO foods and things like rBGH in our milk are major contributors to obesity.
I would tend to disagree with you about isolated rural people having less access to fresh foods. We have far better access than in-city people for the simple reason that we can grow and raise our fresh foods ourselves! I raise poultry for eggs and meat, I am starting a garden, and will be getting a milk cow in the next few weeks. My kids have some of the least sick days of any students in their school because I make major efforts to avoid processed factory foods, sugars, bleached flour etc.
I feel certain that if we as a country were to get back to eating food as it was meant to be eaten, cancer rates would go down, diabetes rates would go down, heart disease, etc would all diminish greatly. Unfortunately, this will not happen the way our country stands now, there are too many powerful people making too much money off of us eating processed unhealthy foods.
Our hormone laden meat and
Our hormone laden meat and rBGH laden dairy consumption has trended down yet our obesity has trended up. I fail to understand why people are so scared of GMO's and new technologies. rBGH is a protien that degrades from digestion naturally and only binds to receptors in a bovines (specific lock and key to receptors), so there is no carryover into people. Most GMO's change proteins in a plant to fight off pests etc, yet what they produce is chemically the same as an organic product. Im honestly asking what scares you about these ag technologies? As a agriculturalist I want to get your honest opinion.
jmcv02
One of the things I've heard
One of the things I've heard is these genetic modifications could potentially infect your intestines with pesticide producing bacteria.
Our consumption of rBGH has
Our consumption of rBGH has gone down slightly, however our consumption of GMO foods have only gone up. The bovine growth hormone does occur naturally in cows and does not cause health problems this way. However, the genetically modified faux hormone is a very different story. The naturally occurring hormone peaks and then decreases during the cow's lactation, but the artificial rBGH keeps the levels at a level higher than even peak natural levels. Some of the problems with this is that it causes serious health issues for the cows: 1. Chronic mastitis, which is then treated with antibiotics which is also then passed in the milk. 2. It causes the cows to lose weight very drastically, weight which can not be put back on no matter how much feed is increased. 3. The cow's udder becomes so oversized it may even drag the ground, making even normal walking difficult, and again adding to the problem with mastitis. 4. Cows treated with rBGH develop large abscesses at the injection site. When these cows are later butchered, the tissue at the injection site will be black and necrotic, completely unsuitable for human consumption. On top of all this, the increased bgh in treated cows leads to an increase in another hormone, insulin-like growth factor-1 or IGF-1. Humans have this hormone naturally occurring as well, it is one of the most powerful growth hormones and causes cell division. Bovine IGF-1 is chemically identical to human IGF-1. Even Monsanto, the creator of rBGH, reported in its 1993 application to the British government for permission to sell rBGH that "the IGF-1 level went up substantially" in the milk. The FDA has admitted the same. It has also been found that IGF-1 is not destroyed by pasteurization. Some amount of IGF-1 is the body is necessary, however, elevated levels have been linked to breast, prostrate, and other types of cancer. The proteins in GMO plants ARE NOT chemically the same as a natural plant. In many cases, the nutritional content of the GMO plant is different from the organic plants. In the few feeding studies (done by someone other than Monsanto!)the animals involved suffered damaged immune systems, smaller and less developed brains livers and testicles, and enlarged tissues such as the pancreas and intestines. Rats fed GMO tomatoes developed stomach lesions. I would encourage you to dig in and research these things for yourself. Remember, the majority of the so-called studies done on these products were done by Monsanto itself, a company that stood to lose millions or even billions if these products were taken off the market. Let's also remember that Monsanto was the creator of the defoliant Agent Orange used in the Vietnam war, and they assured us that that chemical had also been thoroughly tested and was quite safe.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/recombinant-bovine-growth-hormone http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm130321.htm
I would encourage you to do more research, because it seems you didn't focus on more peer-reviewed studies that were repeatable, in fact I'm certain I found the exact site where you found most of that data because it was almost word for word in some of your statements. First you can't provide more rBGH then you naturally have receptors for, so rBGh works to provide a consistent level not a higher dose. The rBGH is thought to make the udder more sensitive to infection not cause it. Also if you want an easy way to lose your milk buyer just provide him a milk bulk tank with antibiotic residue, its not tolerated. Many dairy farms use Somatic Cell counts as a precursor to infection indicator. Cows with elevated cell counts are milked and their milk is set aside for consumption mainly by bottle calves. Its harmless to the calves especially since at this point their rumen isn't developed and their stomach is almost exactly like ours with strong stomach acids. The rumen doesn't really begin to function till about 3-4 months of age. Even with a functioning rumen cattle actually digest the volatile fatty acids & microbes that digest forage/feed not the actual feed. Elevated cell counts doesn't mean the cow has an infection, but it is a good indicator. Any cows with mastitis have milk discarded.You must also understand lactation, to understand cows will lose wieght to maintain lactation no matter the feed (unless it is extremely poor feed), the best you can hope for is to maintain body condition, lactation is the most energy intensive function besides the 3rd trimester of pregancy. If you make the feed too rich you end up with other dietary issues such as cutting out fiber, causing acidosis along with decreased feed rate passage etc. Dairy nutrition is the best researched so its the standard followed by others, and just about every nutrient needed is calculated in the ration sometimes to the grams per ton. Its not the rBGH that increases udder size its the selection for more production/big udders and loosening of the Median Suspensory Ligament that causes them to drag, most dairy farms would cull these animals because they are genetically inferior and would more then likely end up with other udder issues. Any animal including humans can get injection site abscesses and not only from rBGH, any injection not done cleanly can cause this,even reactions to antibiotics, vaccines,mineral/vitamin injections, or improper injection location, or giving intramuscular when it should have been subcutaneous. (especially on the hindquarters, its recommended to give any injection in the "triangle" area of the neck). The tissue also isn't necrotic in most cases but swells and becomes a hard ball of tissue (all meat not just dairy, necrotic tissue would most likely condemn the whole carcass), it is normally cut out though for quality control issues. In 1995 the Beef quality Assurance report said injection site abscesses were found on less then 98.3% of carcasses and that number has dropped even more today. IGF-1 may be chemically identical but the hormone receptors in each species are different & unique per species. Yes Monsanto and FDA both said it increases in milk, but you failed to mention it was statiscally insignificant and the average human produces hundreds more times daily of IGF-1 naturally then you could even get from milk. The proteins in GMO plants are the same with the exception that some may produce more specific proteins like BT corn to thwart pests, (there are many plant species that naturally exhibit this kind of "chemical warfare" such as milkweed,common reed etc) but in the grain it is exactly the same. The nutritional content can differ from plant to plant it the same field of any crop organic or gmo. It all has to do with differing soil types in the field, available nutrients, water, soil compaction, etc these are all highly variable. Feeding any single pure feed to any animal with cause health issues no matter what it is. It was also very strange that many of those studies were unrepeatable or were feeding doses so high no humans could physically achieve those doses without directly injecting chemicals into their body. The majority of those studies have to be conducted by Monsanto because they are legally required too, and no other credible researchers have attempted to put together a reliable, scientically valid experiment. It doesn't make sense to kill all your consumers either. Agent Orange was never meant to be safe, that was always a sham. All is fair in love and war sadly. I don't care if you prefer natural, organic, conventional, etc I just do not like them someone in agriculture defames another aspect of agricultures with statements that have been proven false. No one way is better then another, each type has its own pros and cons.
jmcv02
Hmm, well your link didn't
Hmm, well your link didn't work for some reason. You cannot have found any site where I got information though, because I didn't get it off the net. Being an old fashioned kinda girl, I have been reading actual books. :) Cows are not supposed to have a consistent level of BGH, naturally it peaks and declines towards the end of lactation. So yes, giving them doses of rBGH makes for higher than natural levels. Antibiotics are "tolerated" at levels of 1ppm. If no antibiotics were allowed at all, the calves you speak of would never be able to drink it all. The SCC counts are used as an indicator of mastitis, however the allowed count is far higher than it ought to be which allows milk from cows with low levels of infection to be passed for pasteurization/sale. The SCC count from commercially raised, confinement dairy cows is also always higher than that of a cow raised on pasture. Since when is "the best you can hope for" for a lactating cow to maintain condition no matter the feed? Begging your pardon, but that statement makes me angry. There is a herd of dairy goats and a couple of Jersey cows out in the barnyard that would beg to differ. The cows can only have so much feed per day, or they will, get this, GAIN weight. If your animals cannot do any more than just maintain their weight, you aren't caring for them properly. Although if you are talking about confinement animals, poor care would be a given. No farmer will select for oversized udders. The udder size is not an indicator of how much the cow will produce, even high producers of good breeding are quite capable of doing so with a high tight udder. THAT is where selection comes in. For "any animal" to get an injection site abscess is pretty rare, in most cases when a lump comes up from an injection it is a cyst. You don't seem to have read the quote I put in my last post. It specifically said Monsanto admitted that IGF-1 levels went up "substantially". I would like to know how you know the IGF-1 levels are statistically insignificant, when every study that has been done disagrees on how much the level increases? Your statement that "The proteins in GMO plants are the same" is patently false even by the poor studies done by Monsanto. There are many, many examples of genetic engineering gone wrong. For instance, when a Japanese company began to use GE technology when producing L-tryptophan and as many as 60,000 people became horribly ill with EMS? Or the horrible birth defects and arthritis, etc. that occurred when human growth genes were spliced into pigs? Why have New Zealand, Ireland, Switzerland, India, Greece, Hungary, Bulgaria, Austria and more countries banned GMO crops and animals because of safety concerns? The studies that have shown health risks from GMO are repeatable, and were more scientifically done than any studies done by Monsanto. Yes, legally Monsanto has to do safety studies on their own products. That doesn't mean they were done properly, or that they weren't twisted to make the products look better/safer. Yes, the "safety" of Agent Orange was a sham. That was my whole point, MONSANTO LIED and told everyone it was safe. Remember PCBs? Again, Monsanto told us they were safe, and kept producing and selling them even when it was starting to come out that they weren't. They didn't stop until the government actually straight out banned their production. You do not have to like natural/organic products. That is not the point. But for you to sit here and tell me that GMOs have been proven safe, is a flat out lie. Are you a biotechnology agriculturist, BTW?
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/recombinant-bovine-growth-hormone http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm130321.htm http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/NewsEvents/CVMUpdates/ucm130325.htm http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/IE/bgh+bst.php
I checked all the links and they work, read the information, it discusses all your concerns. Didn't know calves needed antibiotics to drink milk especially since its a natural response. Using rBGH avoids the peaks and valleys so levels are consistent, not higher overall, because if that were the case you would have to up doses towards the end of lactation, as the somatropin decreases to get the same level up response. Only 18% of dairy cattle are treated with rBGH too. Actually its 5 parts per BILLION and thats rejected by most processors. SC counts are "almost" but not always higher, mastitis can be an issue anywhere, I'll had pastured cattle get it under perfect conditions and theres a genetic componet youre ignoring. The avg commerical holstein is about twice the frame size and wieght of your avg jersey. Your avg Jersey doesn't even have the genetic potentional to match the avg commercial holsteins production. 4.2 gals vs 9.8 gal is the current avg for jersey vs holsteins in milk production. The size difference alone almost doubles your maintenance energy and twice the production only increases your energy needs. The avg holstein has a 45 gallon stomach thats what you have to fill each day. On an as-fed ration basis thats about 100 pounds of feed, not including water intake either. It can be very difficult for her to gain wieght burning so many mega calories in high milk production. Its basic ruminant nutrition, it doesn't mean she won't put on wieght its just alot harder when you have high genetic potentional and production. She can always gain wieght when she's dry and her nutritional requirements decrease, if rBGH was the cause of wieght loss, you would be completely opposite of what the hormone naturally does gaining muscle and cell mass not losing it. Your udder points didn't make any sense, those big uddered cows would be culled, rBGH doesn't make big udders, if it did dairymen would be selecting those cows that react in that way out of the herd, hence you reduce or eliminate that gene frequency. Cysts are on ovarian or mammary tissue, youre talking about an abscess improperly termed a false cyst. Injection site abscesses arent rare according the statement you made in your first response. You say that research is valid yet they were never supported by any peer reviewed assestments that werent anti-gmo groups, yet they were heavily criticized by peers with no connection to biotechnology for their lack of proper documentation, sop's, improper evaluation of research data, improper conclusions based on scientically invalid data, and invalid doses/levels that couldnt be reasonably consumed by humans. Patently GMO's have the same proteins as regular plants but what changes in some of the protein synthesis pathways and some DNA, they have the capability to produce more proteins that can restructure to defer pests. Please read the entire report on the Japanese incident, you blame it on GMO's entirely but its not that simple, and read up on the natural toxicity of L-tryptophan also. http://www.supplements-and-health.com/tryptophan-side-effects.html http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/L-tryptophan/contaminants
Most of those countries didn't even conduct research to support their decision and many of those countries also have heavy regulation to protect their agriculture from ANY sort of competition as does most of the EU.
You need also to understand more on Gene pharming, and if you find a better way to do it, by all means share it with the world.
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/pharming/index.html
Isn't it strange Monsanto collaberated with the goverment to make agent orange and the goverment happened to need it for the war? They didn't care if it was safe the goverment pushed it through so they could use it in vietnam, it was never meant to be used domestically or be safe. PCB's were safe for the research capability we had at the time, that changed with progress, that holds true for many things. Goverment has banned alot of things doesn't mean they were right (prohibition?). The US goverment banned DDT but in Africa its one of the most important pesticides to control mosquitos and prevent the spread of Malaria, everything has a purpose and a shortcoming. Its a flat out lie when you tell me GMO's haven't been proved safe, its just the research doesn't fit your ideals. Monsanto and anybody else who wanted to could do thousands of experiments, that was validated by everyone as correctly and properly done yet it still wouldn't be enough to convince you otherwise. You have a deadset ideal that won't be changed. I believe in all types of agriculture they all have their place but I can't stand when people claim one is better then the other. If going natural/organic was the best way biotechnology would have never been necessary in the first place.
jmcv02
Ok, your links work better
Ok, your links work better this time. But I already know what the FDA has stated about both GMOs and rBGH, and I neither believe it nor agree with it. Of course the rBGH keep the hormone levels from peaking and declining, THAT is the problem, like I said before, it is not natural and puts stress on the cow's body. BTW, where did I say that calves have to have antibiotics to drink milk? That makes no sense. Yes, any cow can get mastitis. And yes again, the commercial Holsteins are far larger and produce more than Jerseys. But like you said yourself, the Holstein consumes far more feed as well. A healthy, happy cow should not be underweight at the end of lactation, it doesn't matter what breed she is. You told me that "the best you can hope for is to maintain body condition". Then you said "it doesn't mean she won't put on wieght its just alot harder when you have high genetic potentional and production." Of course gaining weight will be harder during lactation, I never argued that. That is exactly why a cow should not be getting doses of hormones to push her to produce more than she naturally would. The few INDEPENDENT scientists who have actually read the Monsanto studies done on their GMO products rather than just reading the summaries could tell you there were many faults in those studies. However, the ones who have spoken out have been demoted, fired, threatened, etc. One such example would be: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18101.cfm
France is one country who has done research on GMOs and banned them because of the results. Then, shock! A campaign was begun to discredit said study. More info on that here: http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/gmo-free-regions/france/gmo-free-news-from-france.html Biotechnology wasn't ever NECESSARY! That is all hype, "We are solving world hunger!" Blah blah. Think of how corn is used here in the US: As a sweetener in sodas. As fuel for our cars. In plastics. Bath powders, adhesives, laundry starch, talcum powder, chalk. Yup, we don't have nearly enough corn to feed all those starving people.
I never said the government was innocent of wrongdoing in the creation and use of Agent Orange. Of course they didn't care if it was safe, isn't that what I said in the first place? Who cares if DDT kills mosquitoes? Preventing malaria is not all that helpful if what you are using to control it will cause liver cancer, reproductive problems, and nervous system damage. You are right about one thing, you won't change my mind.
You didn't answer my question, are you a biotechnology agriculturist?
This discussion would go alot
This discussion would go alot better if you read your own responses to me, so I wouldn't have to talk about the same thing over again. First off theres nothing that doesn't put stress on an animal, while rBGH does push the cow to its genetic limits, their production exceeds or is about at the level what they can consume in calories. A high producing cow can be happy as a clam but if her milk output energy costs can't be replaced by her feed consumption she will lose condition or matter how you treat her, its basic ruminant nutrition. You keep flipping back and forth, you said a cow shouldn't lose wieght during lactation but now youre saying its possible. One example of a scientist is all you have? I can find a whole assortment of people that have been fired, demoted, threatened for just supporting the possible use of biotechnology. NO GMO potatoes in the world being grown, except that one variety just got approved in the EU and its not even meant for food consumption. Yeah France just allowed GM corn to be approved, and a French high court overturned the ban. What a shocker scientists that don't even support GMO's had harsh things to say about the study, again too many critics to ignore. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/09/20/scientists-savage-study-purportedly-showing-health-dangers-of-monsantos-genetically-modified-corn/ I guess you knew 85% of corn is now gmo and since its inception yields have only increased per acre planted. Not to mention our yields are so high now we, figured out thousands of additional uses now that are more enviromentally friendly then using glass, metal, or oil products, the US has the luxury of excessive corn production. Too bad its not like this around the whole world, it was developed to produce more yield with the same inputs. In a place like Africa this could make a huge difference. Many drought tolerant varieties this year yielded 10-20 bushels more per acre then the control "natural" group. You still face the problem of economics though we can bump our yields up but theres people that still can't afford to buy any grain for food. You made the arguement that Monsanto lied about the agent orange safety, I was saying thats what they were told to say by the goverment those are two different points. I bet the people not dying from malaria care a whole lot, and exposure to a chemical still doesn't guartnee any of those harmful affects will happen. I really don't want to change your mind its not possible youre too self centered on your ideals. Everything has pro's and con's even gmo's but it doesn't mean we should get rid of it because we don't all agree with it. Theres too much potentional for gmo's to do some real good (Golden rice). http://www.goldenrice.org/ You seem to focus solely on yourself and the US but theres many countries that aren't as well off as us. I have answered that question many times now, I believe every aspect of agriculture has a purpose organic, natural, conventional and bio-tech, if disagree fine but your "ideals" aren't whats best for everyone. Its easy to complain with a belly full of food.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Cancer-row-GM-foods-French-study-claims-did-THIS-rats--cause-organ-damage-early-death-humans.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/15/us-france-environment-gmo-idUSBRE88E0E420120915 http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/crops/23.genetically_modified_potato.html http://www.potatopro.com/newsletters/20100310.htm http://www.livestrong.com/article/218439-what-varieties-of-potatoes-are-gmo/
jmcv02
Of course it's possible for a
Of course it's possible for a cow to lose weight during lactation, BUT SHE SHOULDN'T. How is that difficult to understand? There is no contradiction there at all. You are simply repeating the same things I said to you about feeding/nutrition. How am I focusing on myself in any way?
ARE you, or are you NOT, a biotechnology agriculturist?
Wow you must have figured out
Wow you must have figured out something none of these dairy nutritionists know because they state different. You must know something about ruminant nutrition/ lactation cycle that one no has figured out yet, but if you choose to remain ignorant on or not understand those facts thats something I can't fix.
http://www.livestocktrail.illinois.edu/dairynet/paperdisplay.cfm?contentid=548
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/livestocksystems/components/DI0469-05.html "Feed intake does not keep pace with nutrient needs for milk production, especially for energy, and body tissue will be mobilized to meet energy requirements for milk production."
http://www.thedairysite.com/articles/1512/feeding-dairy-cows-for-body-condition-score
http://fdsmagissues.feedstuffs.com/fds/Reference_issue_2012/07_Nutrition_Health%20Dairy.pdf
http://www.uaex.edu/Other_Areas/publications/PDF/FSA-4011.pdf "Cows will have a negative energy balance and tend to lose weight in early lactation; therefore, it is very important to get cows eating well as soon as possible after calving so that their weight loss is minimized."
You're focusing solely on yourself because you assume whats good for you is good for anyone else, which isn't true. You live (assuming the US) in country with exceptional agricultural productivity, which isn't true for every single country. We have the luxury of having a thousand different uses for different crops because we can produce so much, it absolutely doesn't hold true for every single country. Even then why not use the ability to produce more with the same amount of inputs or less. As I stated in a previous response this year over 1010 different experimental plots showed an average yield advantage of 16 bushels for gm drought resistance corn compared to a natural control on the dryland plots. That level of production difference is huge, and could make a big difference for a country with limited food production. Its not a concidence thats the poorest countries are based on "natural" subsistence agriculture, yields in a place like that make a huge difference. If you think its wrong to try any way to help increase yields so be it. Maybe you should read all my previous responses because I have said many times all aspecst of agriculture whether its natural, organic, conventional, or gmo have a place and I will use any method that maximizes my production while conserving our natural resources. If you don't understand what that means, I will state it for you,"whatever works best including biotechnology".
jmcv02
Are they using factory farmed
Are they using factory farmed cows to get this information from? If so, I already covered that in previous responses. Yes, I will continue to believe the evidence of my own eyes, if you consider that ignorant then so be it. Why do you refuse to answer the question I have asked you several times now?
NO theyre using normal cows
NO theyre using normal cows with a normal ruminal digestive tracts, I guess your cows are genetically modified to defy science since you state they don't lose any wieght during early lactation, which is impossible if they are normal ruminants, "factory farms cows" as you call them are antomically the same as your "miracle cows" they don't function any differently. I think the most likely explanation is you don't pay enough attention or you arent willing to admit it they lose some wieght. Losing wieght doesn't mean theyre starving or skin and bones either. Maybe you should pay attention to the responses because if you don't understand this youre hopeless, I said "whatever works best including biotechnology".
jmcv02
You seem to be getting
You seem to be getting frustrated, perhaps we should end this conversation. :)
The rural poor have much
The rural poor have much further to drive typically to get to grocery stores. This is not my opinion - this is published fact.
You are raising your own food. This is not the case in general.
Yes, of course we have
Yes, of course we have farther to drive to get to a store. I never argued that. And you might be surprised by how many people are either raising part of their own food, or are looking into doing so. It is a fast growing trend, especially as more and more people realize how we are damaging our health with the processed foods and GMOs.
I have two male friends who
I have two male friends who weigh over 450 lbs who have maintained this weight for years. They both have genius level IQ's & go to work everyday. One even had radical gastro-bypass surgery which ,as usual, only reduced his weight a few years. They must make special arrangements & pay extra when they travel. Someday their own skeletal structure will collapse under the stain & cripple them, but their contributions to their families, careers & to their country have been as great as millions of other normal-sized Americans. Morbid obesity is a complex medical problem no less deserving of public sympathy than anorexia or bulimia, which also have compulsive behaviors that lead to destroying their bodies. And it is no more prevalent than those diseases, just more difficult to hide. Unlike other compulsive behaviors, eating is only destructive to one person. It rarely prevents anyone from being a productive member of society or having a career, though it often leads to early disabilities & death.
None of us know what accomplishments this woman had in her life before she became disabled. Perhaps her income was the reason they could buy a holiday home abroad & afford to pay the extra costs for travel accommodations. Obesity prejudice is as ugly as any hatred for those who are different or live differently. It was HER body, HER money, HER risk and HER choice. THINK long & hard about what you will lose if you think the government, an insurance company or anyone else should be allowed to dictate what you put in your mouth.
I do agree, the husband may have a lawsuit over PRE-paid arrangements, but not cause of death. If she could be transported from airline to airline, she could have been taken to a hospital. I am sorry her last days were so humiliating and painful.
Your statements about IQ have
Your statements about IQ have nothing to do with their obesity,...so why are you argueing like it does? Would you say the same way if some geniuses were perverted child rapists, too? I hope not. BTW, being called a genius while being too weak or stupid to not over-eat so much...is stupid. Addictions of all kinds wreak havoc on people, and we all have our own problem areas that we each must deal with, or we look like fools.
I was simply pointing out
I was simply pointing out that obese people are as intelligent, hard-working, and productive as anyone else. Assumptions that overweight people are disabled, lazy and on welfare is statistically inaccurate. I mentioned the genus IQ level of my 2 friends because they are both millionaires and physical conditions will not change this. They both work in professions where they could continue generating large incomes from their beds if necessary, and they are both insured. My point is that Obesity may cause physical disabilities but not all disabled people are unemployed, unproductive or poor. Claiming every overweight person is weak & a food addict is another inaccurate, ignorant assumption. Your prejudice, HolySmokes, is evident in almost everything you post here. (Prejudice- An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand without knowledge or examination of facts).
Kudos to the airlines for
Kudos to the airlines for even ATTEMPTING to fit a tennis ball into a thimble.
I dont care what kind of
I dont care what kind of glandular issues you have, calories in/calories out. she is a prime example of what is wrong with this country. She wont take responsibility for her own health and now he wants to sue. Screw that, he should be arrested for accessory to manslaughter.
Now bring in Obamacare, and I a 42yo male nonsmoker, marathon runner will have to pay for her and her ilk to get lap bands, insulin and dialysis.
I also agree, put her on a pallet and throw her fat ass into the cargo hold
They couldn't have just
They couldn't have just walked onto to the plane to go to Hungary, so why weren't arrangements made for the return trip? When they decided not to seek medical attention for her in Hungary.....they made themselves completely responsible for what happened. This family needs to take responsibility for their own .....?
While tragic, I think the
While tragic, I think the fact that these people refused to seek local medical treatment pretty much removes any liability whatsoever on the part of the airlines. Unfortunately, the airlines will likely settle to make this "go away," which will be cheaper than a jury trial.
My question was why was she allowed on a plan on the US side of the trip? She looks like the Veruca Salt from Willie Wonka after she ate the "dinner gum" and turned into a blueberry.... How did she fit on any plane safe to fly?
Many people with such a level
Many people with such a level of morbid obesity have serious mental health issues. For those who don't have specific mental illnesses, there are still many psychological factors that contribute to such a condition. For most at that level of weight, it isn't simply a matter of putting down the fork.
If it were as simple as just going hungry or exercising more, how many people would willingly choose to be viewed by much of society with such scorn and contempt?
And no, I don't agree the airline is at fault here. I'm just amazed at how cruel some people hiding behind their computer screens can be.
Savannah-I know youre in the
Savannah-I know youre in the medical profession, so maybe you could answer this, wouldn't a doctor have recommended some way to control her wieght maybe such as lapband even if she had mental issues? I would like your honest opinion about that aspect.
jmcv02
Surgery is contraindicated
Surgery is contraindicated for people with some medical issues. Even though her health was clearly negatively effected by her weight, her other physical health issues could have made surgery an even bigger risk. Someone who has severe diabetes could definitely be a poor surgical choice.
The same is true for the types of meds that could have helped. Amphetamines, for example, may have helped but the cardiac complications can be severe, especially in someone who has diabetes. They're also highly addictive.
I really appreciate that you considered even asking the question. The person who most positively affected my life was someone who was a very large woman. She was kind, intelligent, and funny. I never heard her say a bad thing about anyone. She accepted people for who and what they were, something that definitely wasn't always offered to her in return.
People are complicated. It's really easy to judge people, but seldom are we able to comprehend even a portion of all the things that impact their lives. That doesn't mean what they do is something we must accept, but it seems to me that everyone could use a little compassion and understanding.
Take cruel and judgmental people. Typically, they have extremely poor self-esteems. I can find compassion for them even if I do not accept how they behave.
Duplicated post. Sorry :)
Duplicated post. Sorry :)
At some point - weight-wise -
At some point - weight-wise - you become cargo. You read about the morbidly obese who have been in bed for years and when an attempt IS made to leave, half the house has to be taken out and industrial forklifts and trucks have to be used to move them.
I am no fan of any aspect of air travel, not least of which are the airlines' skimpy seating and poor service. But what was this couple thinking, that an airline, any airline, with the seating typical of today's planes, would be able to accommodate her? The only thing that amazes me about this story is that she presumably flew to Hungary. The story doesn't say how they got there, only that they "traveled" to Hungary; maybe they took a boat. It seems likely that any itinerary from New York to Budapest would entail changing planes at some point, so I wonder, how did they get there in the first place?
This woman had reached the point where it was beyond human reasonablenesss that she be "assisted" with boarding and unboarding with normal means, irrespective of how many seats she booked and paid for. How does she even get through a plane's doors? In all seriousness, the couple should have investigated cargo flights or transoceanic ship if they were going to go at all. The bigger question is why they even went. They have a "holiday home" in Hungary? With her health issues and weight, they should have sold their holiday digs and stayed home.
Now the guy wants to sue over his wife's death. Yet she/they refused to seek medical treatment after her condition worsened. And what were they thinking in terms of contingencies if some delay occurred? I hope the guy's lawsuit gets tossed, and I suspect it will be.
"At some point - weight-wise
"At some point - weight-wise - you become cargo. "
Awesome. Says it all, right there. The airlines didn't kill her. It was slow suicide by food.
425lbs and she has
425lbs and she has diabetes... gee, shocker!
How do you let yourself get
How do you let yourself get this big? If anyone is to blame its her own health choices and anyone who enabled her.
jmcv02
If only she'd occasionally
If only she'd occasionally been willing to go HUNGRY in life, she might not now be buried in a foreign land, ironically a land called -er- Hungary.