Two things this article highlights that ought to be really obvious to epidemiologists, if they were scientists rather than activists:
1. After decades of having epidemiologists and nutritionists demonising fat and meat, and telling people to eat a "healthy" high-carb diet instead, and medical practitioners dutifully passing on this old cobblers to their patients, the number of morbidly obese people has skyrocketed. Does this suggest to epidemiologists, nutritionists and medical practitioners that perhaps those dietary guidelines need looking at? No, it suggests to them "Oh my God! Major surgery is the only answer!" Feel free to bang your head on your desk at this point...
2. The article points out both women featured in it are at risk of the effects of type 2 diabetes, such as gangrenous limbs or blindness, but attributes the cause of this risk to their being overweight and asserts bariatric surgery would solve the problem by removing the excess weight. This is a serious and obvious correlation=causation error. To see it, consider the possibility (hell, the extreme likelihood if you study this shit) that morbid obesity and type 2 diabetes are not a cause and its effect, but are both symptoms of a different problem - if they are, just removing the excess weight obviously isn't a solution to that problem.
The kicker in all this for the long-suffering taxpayer, who is footing the bill for publicly-funded bariatric surgery, is the dietary recommendations for people who've had bariatric surgery. One site sums it up as "for the rest of your life, protein will be your top priority when making food choices." Well, yeah - if you do that, the weight won't come back. And if this dietary advice had been recommended for the general population the last 40 years or so, the weight may not have turned up in the first place, and we wouldn't be seeing demands for public funding of bariatric surgery. The power of a false premise firmly believed in, huh?