New "Mission" of RPF
-
@wrl said in New "Mission" of RPF:
Archived page of a fresh post with an pro-A stance.
How long will it stay up for‽(Archived rpf webpage)
https://archive.ph/j900lScreenshots of post excerpts...
Oh Mary, turn off the fucking caps lock. Anyone who uses the term thrive shouldn't be allowed on the internet anymore. I wonder if she even knew who Ray Peat was, as per the forum name.
-
There is going to be a Medical Board hearing for Dr. Smith May 9. I will post the results.
-
Thank you Matt
-
@Matt1951 said in New "Mission" of RPF:
There is going to be a Medical Board hearing for Dr. Smith May 9. I will post the results.
What is your goal for the complaint you filed with the board? And what is the basis of the complaint?
-
Why does the board exist. And what is the point of licensing.
-
I read that post but don't really understand the basis of the complaint. That Smith is endangering children? It reads to me like a personal attempt to destroy Smith's livelihood.
This same logic from that post could be used to go after someone who promotes discarding "essential fatty acid" PUFAs or anything else.
I suppose the board will be able to handle it however they feel appropriate but I disagree strongly with the idea of going after someone's license over dietary disagreements such as this.
-
@jjk_learning said in New "Mission" of RPF:
I suppose the board will be able to handle it however they feel appropriate but I disagree strongly with the idea of going after someone's license over dietary disagreements such as this.
Yes, they will. That's the point. To ask structured questions that require structured responses. On record.
The issue is a bit more nuanced than "dietary disagreements". But you're entitled to indignation at the thought of it.
-
@ThinPicking In what way is it more nuanced?
-
Other sources of cognition are available.
-
@jjk_learning said in New "Mission" of RPF:
I read that post but don't really understand the basis of the complaint. That Smith is endangering children? It reads to me like a personal attempt to destroy Smith's livelihood.
This same logic from that post could be used to go after someone who promotes discarding "essential fatty acid" PUFAs or anything else.
I suppose the board will be able to handle it however they feel appropriate but I disagree strongly with the idea of going after someone's license over dietary disagreements such as this.
Iirc it’s that Smith has “prescribed” low Vitamin A to children.
Developing…
children….Do you have children?
I do
And if that’s true of him
It’s probably not a bad idea for him to back off therehttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7832048/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221339842030083X
Reprobates gonna reprobate
But
Baseless data given authoritatively probably needs checks and balances -
@jjk_learning said in New "Mission" of RPF:
It reads to me like a personal attempt to destroy Smith's livelihood.
I have no horse in this race, but that's exactly what that is lol.
All because of forum's change in direction.
-
It’s not a horse race so that’s understandable, me neither. But I’m not seeing any thought at all here.
A licensed physician has a livelihood before they may appear to sharply deviate from standards of conduct, may appear to commercialise that deviation and may appear to silence debate while continuing to stand under credentials wrapped in a PLLC. Many in the going public could probably use a hand making sense of something like that before they consider making drastic alterations to their dietary behaviour. Particularly on the tail end of a (metaphorical) Westworld on the internet. I wouldn’t know though, because I’m not making claims, conducting an investigation and bringing suit. Just musing.
A case like this is probably just an example in a much bigger conversation. Without anyone alluding to etiquette and dishonour of diseased on social media. What could be wrong with a formal chat if nothing’s wrong.
-
somebody doesn’t complain and Smith gets a notification to appear before the Medical Examiners Board.
They vet the complaint or complaints.
There is an “investigation” prior to this process.
Therefore (and im speculating here because I know nothing about said case) this licensing agency or medical board - THEY have deemed there is something to look into.This isn’t about Booboo on the RPF got his feelings hurt
This is the Board determining if anything needs addressing.
And if it’s about protecting children- I support it. -
@Jaffe Agreed. Tattling on a man whose personality and dietary strategy they don't like to try to destroy his livelihood. Because an internet forum changed course to promote that dietary strategy.
-
Your frame of mind does not appear conducive to learning jjk.
-
Someone possibly losing their pretentious title of doctor for whatever reason isn't something to spend much time on. The ND quacks are as bad as the MD quacks.
-
@Hando-Jin said in New "Mission" of RPF:
Someone possibly losing their pretentious title of doctor for whatever reason isn't something to spend much time on.
Agreed.
@Hando-Jin said in New "Mission" of RPF:
The ND quacks are as bad as the MD quacks.
Agreed.
But if there's a road to bring Dr Peat's rightful inquiry about the necessity or order of licensing, hierarchy and profession to the fore. It probably involves a stepping stone or two.
Medicine should probably be closer to home than it is. But where's home. Exactly.
-
@ThinPicking said in New "Mission" of RPF:
Medicine should probably be closer to home than it is.
Agreed.
@ThinPicking said in New "Mission" of RPF:
But where's home. Exactly.
The heart. IME, medicine is better insourced than outsourced.
-
A Jennifer... Wild horses? (A reference to a quotation that landed.)
-
@Peatful said in New "Mission" of RPF:
somebody doesn’t complain and Smith gets a notification to appear before the Medical Examiners Board.
They vet the complaint or complaints.
There is an “investigation” prior to this process.
Therefore (and im speculating here because I know nothing about said case) this licensing agency or medical board - THEY have deemed there is something to look into.This isn’t about Booboo on the RPF got his feelings hurt
This is the Board determining if anything needs addressing.
And if it’s about protecting children- I support it.Lol since when do we trust the Board to make a just decision?
I watched Dr. Paul Thomas in real time get his license suspended, lose his practice, and ultimately forced into retirement by the Board over his vaccine beliefs. Something we all align with. He wasn’t even anti-vaccine. Didn’t matter. The Board made his life hell. It’s all documented on his YouTube channel.
We all know Board investigations are just making sure you’re inline with their status quo.
Sending complaints of Garret to the Board has nothing to do with patient safety concern, but some vendetta stemming from the RPF drama earlier in the year.
