I asked for facts and methodology to determine those facts not an opinion stated by a discredited Chief Medical Officer over three years ago.

I rarely eat processed junk. My fats consist of dripping (beef & pork), butter, lard, goose fat and olive oil. I would never knowingly eat and margarine or any "healthy" spreads because I've seen the grey sludge that they really are before the addition of all the colourings and flavour enhancers.

Look for all the fatties out there, there'll still be plenty of Jim Fix characters. Starve yourself to the bone or run yourself into the ground if you wish. Don't tell me how to live my fooking life

Don't be daft, the NHS should only be there for healthy people

Of course, smokers already pay through the nose for the privilege as I alluded to before. You also pay increased tax on alcohol albeit a smaller amount when compared to cigarettes, it might need increasing?



All of the above are drugs, I take it you mean illegal ones? If so the cost to the NHS is negligible, especially when compared to the £6.2 billion figure. I say legalise them all and use the tax generated to cover rehab costs and the like. It will also be safer for users.



Ex-smoker and very occasional drinker, maybe a few pints once a month.

You ask me to prove something? You're the one making so-far unsubstantiated assertions and your comparison with the a US-style system of healthcare is pure bollox. I am paying (and have been for the last 45 years) for someone else's healthcare, whether that be caused by obesity, drug overdoses, sex reassignment or traffic collisions. I don't have a problem with that, I'm quite happy to keep contributing. What I don't need is some evangelical nutjob like you, telling me what I should or shouldn't be eating or how much exercise I should take. If I can still drag a bass or turbot off the sea bed and then put it on my plate, then I'm happy.

So government bodies who actually run the NHS are not valid sources of information on the NHS?

Ha-ha, if you say so m'lard. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, have fun!

Not without any explanation of the methodology to subtsantiate their claims, NO.

It's similar to Cameron describing yesterday's strike as a "damp squib". All you have evidenced so far are opinions, weighing heavily on a previously discredited political-medico, twisting his own "facts" to suit his personal agenda. Not unlike yourself in fact

It always helps to post what you actually mean, yes.



So the French are all dying at a younger age than they should, from these diseases, then? And the rates of death from such health problems in the UK has come down as we've successfully demonised natural saturated fats, yes?

I have no clue how they calculate the £4.2 billion, but if it is accurate then as UK consumers spend approx £14.5 billion annually on junk food (probably much more, if you widen the definition beyond the fast food chains, pizza Chinese and Indian takeaways) then I'm guessing the VAT take on that, plus the Tax and NI on the businesses and generated by the people who work in them, not to mention the business rates and corporation tax produced, the fuel duty on delivery vehicles then I would say financially HM Gov comes out well on the right side of the equation, wouldn't you?

Then you need to define "balanced" and also "in moderation". And WTF is "good phiz" when it's all at home?

I could easily follow Mintball's statement, yours left me totally confused.

People who post such semi-illiterate stuff as "good phiz" are clearly are not getting the right fatty nutrients to support their brain cell.

Reminds me of something my nan said a good few years ago when my grandad was alive

i remarked when he was eating fish that it helped develop your brain eating a lot of fish to which my nan replied in another room

"He must have been eating bloody goldfish all his life then"