New "Mission" of RPF
-
@C-Mex said in New "Mission" of RPF:
I'll be suspicious of some more 'concrete' thing show up later related to this, because nothing has been posted here other than innuendo, and I fail to see how there is any connection to a Business address to any entity that may have searched it. My god there must be countless numbers of searches on every health-related website there is.. Ridiculous. I have to wonder now if they're going to try to create some kind of phony 'record' to try to explain how the Ray Peat Forum shares a business address with the Wellcome Trust.
This paragraph is, definitionally, “pre-bunking” btw. Lol. Did you have an account on RPF?
-
This looks like Genereux's first blog post. A lengthy dissertation based on anecdote and a personal experiment, with a couple of charts thrown in. No citations of references to any scholarly or scientific literature. My first thought is that it set up to mimic Peat in the sense that it shows a long history, perhaps intended to lend credibility. Unlike Peat, the work is not based in science nor does it build on the work of any predecessors and doesn't likely doesn't show any evolution of thought. Repeat the lie over and over again. I do have to question when the site went up. The first comment wasn't until 2017 but the post is dated 2014.
-
@C-Mex said in New "Mission" of RPF:
This looks like Genereux's first blog post. A lengthy dissertation based on anecdote and a personal experiment, with a couple of charts thrown in. No citations of references to any scholarly or scientific literature. My first thought is that it set up to mimic Peat in the sense that it shows a long history, perhaps intended to lend credibility. Unlike Peat, the work is not based in science nor does it build on the work of any predecessors and doesn't likely doesn't show any evolution of thought. Repeat the lie over and over again. I do have to question when the site went up. The first comment wasn't until 2017 but the post is dated 2014.
I think that's been the major critique of the anti-A crowd from the start. It basically has no (or very little) scientific support. The few things that you can find is mostly hypervitaminosis toxicity, which is not what these anti-A people are really talking about because to hear them say it basically ANY level of vitamin A is hypervitaminosis, lol. I will say one thing, I find Genereux to be significantly less repulsive than Smith. Like dude is just a general guy not giving a fuck about our corner of the world. I can respect that. Garrett is the dude who's personally taken shots at Ray Peat.
-
I think these people are puppets. I just had to answer my question about what his background is. Nothing traceable, just your average guy cooking up a theory that just happens to take big pharma off the hook. The question is how and why his theories even appeared on the RPF in the first place. Doesn't seem logical unless...
-
@C-Mex I can see the logical connection actually. This view isn't really new at all, it's just became a trend as of late. There was a guy who ran an older blog named Matt Stone. He was into bioenergectics many many years ago and was an entry point for many people into Ray Peat's stuff. He started exploring other theories after a while and one of them was anti-A. So he served as a bridge connecting these ideas together.
-
@C-Mex Actually his blog is still technically online. His 3rd to last post was about vitamin A with Smith. So it's one of the last things he ever talked about, outside of some blue zone gibberish. https://180degreehealth.com/
-
I thought Matt Stone dropped off the face of the earth. He wasn't the one promoting these scientifically baseless theories on the RPF. How did they even take hold with the Ray Peat audience? After Peat's death, they were forcibly promoted. The question, in my mind, was how these supposedly science-based Peat followers suddenly became converts to this Vitamin A nonsense theory, unless they really weren't true followers seeking an understanding of Ray Peat's work to begin with. Yes, there's a connection between these people for sure, but I'm not sure it is logical. I'm more interested in the genesis of the RPF. If nothing else, the fact that Charlie has been deceptive about his identity and his online business throws a red-flag. The possible link to Wellcome and the remarkable coincidences are even more interesting. If nothing else, I'm learning a heck of a lot about social media manipulation sanctioned by some of the most prestigious universities, and it's easy to see some parallels for what we have witnessed at the RPF (and here, I might add).
-
@C-Mex No, I wasn't implying Matt started the post. I was just pointing out it's logical some follower of Matt's work and Peat's work would post about vitamin A on RPF. The person who originally started that thread was a user by the name of "franko."
-
I just find it remarkable that it took hold at all.
-
Here's a bit more about Cambridge Behavioral Insights Team (CUBIT). A lot of the lingo is steeped in jargon particular to the profession, but words like 'intervention' and 'ethical considerations' come up, and basically it is talking about influencing public policy. I have to wonder if the RPF wasn't some sort of experimental 'intervention' used to first get to know the psychology of the group, then introduce a narrative more friendly to the goals of government or desired public policy outcome.
-
They've got a Twitter account.
-
-
Looks like they work with van der Linden, probably using the same lab.
-
Is a British Uni studying interventions in US politics? Remember that the lab partners with CISA. https://www.cisa.gov/
-
@C-Mex said in New "Mission" of RPF:
Kind of like the 'crazed lone gunman' from the 60's?
@Hando-Jin said in New "Mission" of RPF:
I think Charlie is just BPD sufferer who's recent behavior should be understood as middle aged stress/crises accelerating his BPD.
Maybe you are right and he's a dark genius manipulator working for the military-pharma industrial complex.
But years ago when people were talking on other forums about how obnoxious he was, somebody talked about his father and posted and all the kooky metaphysical ideas he was into. Just completely insane stuff. I think it's simply a case of the apple not falling far from the tree. Nobody born to someone like that is coming out normal.
I think Charlie's personality could of course be separate from an effort to undermine Peat. Charlie has just got cocky now that Peat has departed and thinks he can slander him anyway he wants without the authority of Peat's own responses putting him back in his box. It's all behavior characteristic of a BPD person- sneaky, bitchy, underhanded, dishonorable, dishonest etc
-
@C-Mex said in New "Mission" of RPF:
an impartial third-party business reporting site
Amazing how you're willing to defend Zoominfo just because your entire silly conspiracy theory is hinged on it.
Why do you so unquestionably believe in it? If it had even the thinnest connection to pharma and health you would be calling them liers and claiming that they're getting paid by Bill Gates.
You're too deep in it to even maintain a facade of objectivity. And all while crying "topic dilution" you've shifted the thread from Charlie and RPF to Wellcome whatever.
-
@C-Mex And you still have to answer how it is possible to scrape RPF org. address when it's redacted on ICANN? Where did Zoominfo get their address from?
If you can't answer that then your entire theory is trash. (It is.)
-
@zawisza I don't know about the Zoominfo connection. But the disinformation takeover at RPF serves to keep people plugged-in to schizophrenic America First nationalist conspiracy politics. Which is the default strategy of delegitimizing opposition to the oligarchic state as well as committing the most eccentric thinkers to rabbit holes where they are funneled into different layers of criminalized hate speech. That Ray Peat was not an American nationalist is the main reason for slandering his legacy. It has the added purpose of keeping people plugged-in to the acceptable kind of patriot for their health advice rather than to an anti-establishment maverick with Marxist sympathies.
-
@zawisza said in New "Mission" of RPF:
@C-Mex And you still have to answer how it is possible to scrape RPF org. address when it's redacted on ICANN? Where did Zoominfo get their address from?
If you can't answer that then your entire theory is trash. (It is.)
Because most websites use a name service to protect their identify. ZoomInfo uses business records and other data for their reports.
Here's another forum similar in format to RPF, Websleuths. RPF uses Namecheap, but this one uses Identity Protect. These are identity protection services.
Here's Websleuths ICANN lookup:
Here's Websleuths Zoominfo. They get their info from business records, just read Zoominfo's website and they describe this. And please don't suggest that they found Websleuths' address by scraping user content.
Here's RPF's ICANN.
-
@AkJono said in New "Mission" of RPF:
I think that YOU BOTH are on to it
I don't know about that Jono. This chap seems to have a problem with my position. And I couldn't care less at this point.
Nor for these wonky organisations and their desperate attempts to craft new bullshit.
