New "Mission" of RPF
-
@BioS Haidut mentioned trying an experiment based on what Charlie has suggested with the whole toxic bile theory. If he disproves it, you may see a mass migration especially if he doesn't post on the RPF and sticks to his website and X(twitter).
That being said, I don't know how you can possibly view this as an evolution of Peat principles. His work is based on hundreds of years of work. A true evolution would be something along the lines of megadosing aspirin(don't do it).
-
I was joking, but that's what they've been saying for a while now, the "story" of the face melting is Charlie's if I'm not mistaken
-
Do people outside of charlie's small cult still post there?
-
Sounds based
-
@Charlie delusional and megalomania is all that is
smoke and mirrors for the hopeless and desperate
-
@risingfire, hi.
Do you know the purpose of the experiment?
If it's to prove something to the poison A crowd, the proponents rejected a century-worth of research on this toxin, in a manner that's captured here. I wonder what unique it would have to offer to make any difference for them at all. May be animal sacrifice in vain.
The proponents have chronic afflictions on epithelial barriers (gut, lungs, skin), sites with high turnover (and poison A demands) and concentrated immune system. Observe their history, most of them report a past of gut problems, including the guy who rediscovered poison A as a toxin. Pathogens keep inducing aberrant responses, inflame the region, and worsen the disorder.
By depriving themselves of poison A, it's a form of partial immunosuppression. The body is signaled to conserve it, which can prevent the maladaptive immune response. When inflammation decreases, it's possible that less circulating poisonol is converted to poisonoic acids, and could explain the paradoxical elevation in serum poisonol, similar to an increase in the ratio of kilcidiol to kilcitriol when a problem lessens. Synthesis of proteins tends to be compromised in an inflammatory state, including those involved in the transport of poison A. With a relief from inflammation, the body must also able to mobilize the toxin better.
When people improve their condition and health markers in restricting poison A, I don't doubt it. But it's from relieving an inflammatory state, not because of lowering the poison A body load by itself. To infer that this makes poison A a poison is a little insane.
Consider these situations:
Take a nutrient that's important for sensation and a person who is suffering from severe localized pain at the extremities, that drives the person mad. By inducing a moderate deficiency of the nutrient, the core is spared, but the person is numbed at extremities and relieved of the pain to the point that it's possible to rest again, wake up refreshed, find motivation, regain appetite and so on towards improvement. Every time that the person consumes the nutrient, the pain returns and overall health deteriorates; conversely, its shortage leads to an improvement because it's possible to subsist on it for a long time from reserves. Is this nutrient a toxin?
Someone may be infected. Every time that this person eats, the infection is fueled and the symptoms flare to a debilitating extent. Fasting always works to fix the condition. Is food a toxin?
They think so.
If there's nothing unique about the experiment, it would only serve to lend some credibility in repeating what is already known.
In my opinion, the most compelling approach is to be able to replicate the improvement by suppressing the right inflammatory mediators through artificial means while maintaining the degree of poison A intoxication.
Without enlightening with alternatives, they will keep rejecting anything that you present to them, even if it contradicts reality.
The experiment would also need some attention in the design to not make it too easy to be dismissed.
-
Hi, lion.
Assuming that this is not a fake account, you’re probably not here to pollute somebody else’s platform in the same way that you wouldn’t want yours to be polluted.
As someone experienced with forums, what are the 12 most valuable tips (one per year of experience) that you have to offer Brad for his space to thrive? I know that you’ll read this message, so try to be sincere, original and constructive.
@yerrag! It's good to re-encounter you.
-
@Amazoniac I'm very sure this Charlie is a parody account - a rather amusing one at that
-
@Kvothe of course it's a parody.
-
People have different reactions to threat. Some will try to befriend a competitor, blend into the circle and then attempt to destabilize it somehow.
-
@Amazoniac True, but that would take patience, cunning, and subtlety, attributes of which Charles posseses none.
-
@yerrag Hi yerrag.
I agree. -
@Amazoniac Yes. It would be a defilement. And would track a pattern of behaviour.
-
Trying to understand what the hell happened... the whole thing just imploded? Where did all these “toxic bile”/low vitamin A zealots come from?? I take offense to the new message at the top implying the forum is now “improving” on Ray’s life’s work (so humble
). If that is the case how is it ethical to keep it going under Ray’s name? -
Only a matter of time until the PsyOp lion introduces a "Ray Peat wrong again" smiley.
I don't think it was a good idea to use Dr. Peat's name for that forum in the first place. But I have participated in the forum, so it would be hypocritical for me to criticize the name too much.
-
@Luke A good forum is it's members and what they contribute. As such, RPF was a very good forum for Peat's ideas, and if you search for specific things regarding Peat's ideas, you usually stumble on some post from the forum. Often they are a few key contributors, such as Haidut, who make it worthwhile.
The danger with centralized ownership of a forum is always that eventually the "owner" may use it for personal gain. I saw that often with other forums, and it never works. If there is an overriding personal agenda, the forum will die, and will be resurrected at another place. That place may be here, but one vcan only tell after a year or so.
-
@Razvan Hey bro, nice to see you here as well.
-
There is a natural cycle... (which can be prevented with a proactive approach)
Usually, early adopters/majority are highly engaged and interested in in-depth knowledge/understanding. And doing this with intellectual honesty and respect...
Then comes the rest... which usually prefers superficial understanding and easy mindless recipes.
And probably that happened in part to RPF, people with shallow/reductionist minds and a lack of systemic/holistic/dialectical understanding started to be the majority...
It also includes the commercialization of the forum... (as others already pointed out)
-
@Amazoniac good to see you here. I think you would have to ask Georgi directly as I can't speak for the man. He is a man that likes to experiment. He may be channeling WIlliam Blake in "the true method of knowledge is experiment."
-
@Charlie don't tase me brooooo