New "Mission" of RPF
-
@Peatly said in New "Mission" of RPF:
@C-Mex
The Archive of Tomorrow: Health Information and Misinformation in the UK Web Archive
Between van der Linden and the archive of tomorrow (see those two links above) we have bingo as @ThinPicking said. I urge everyone to read the report detailing the project which can be found here
Section 1.4 The UKWA and Current Access is noteworthy
Also from the report
“The Technical Team archived web content within the UKWA and “Talking about Health” collection, identified and contacted website owners to clear rights, and carried out improvements to metadata to support search, discovery, and access. Workflows are described in the Appendix. This team reported to the Steering Group and then to the Advisory Board.”I hope people can see where I am going with this
The project website is
https://www.webarchive.org.uk/Good luck trying to view it – I’ve had problems getting access
-
P Peatly referenced this topic on
-
@T-3 said in New "Mission" of RPF:
Please continue undaunted, without embarrassment, and without being dismissed out-of-hand by those advocating the “lone gunman” hypothesis (which is equally speculative to the “operation” hypothesis).
Hear, hear. Personally I don't know what a "lone gunman" hypothesis is. I do know that people must talk to one another, whether they like it or not.
Whether or not an organisation like "Wellcome Trust" or other fronts a "conspiracy" or gross ignorance and incompetence probably doesn't matter. For the outcome ought to be the same for anyone who doesn't want the world around them to burn.
-
What I see is that Wellcome was involved in gathering digital online data from health-related websites. This seems to bolster my hypothesis. If I recall correctly, the 'bingo moment' was supposed to be that this is an explanation for how the RPF came to be associated with the Wellcome address at Cambrdige, but I don't see that at all. What am I missing?
-
@C-Mex said in New "Mission" of RPF:
What am I missing?
I'm not replacing Peatly in reply to you sir. But I don't think you're missing anything. And there really is something to be said of the phrase "just sleep on it". Which I apply a rule of three back to. Before I start scratching my head.
The excerpt from the posted report (which I've yet to read in entirety) suggests there may have been an authorisation, or at least a request to use information sent to the administrator. But if I were a wonk "data scientist" in Cambridge, operating under a corporate veil and somewhat void of humanity, I probably wouldn't hinge on that. If it went unresponded to.
-
Gibberish. I see another diversionary tactic, just like suggesting it is all about eugenics and global domination. One of the ways they try to discredit a group is by inserting grandiose ideas that sound ridiculous and even if there is a grain of truth would take forever to demonstrate and would exhaust the efforts of anyone trying to research it.
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.
-
@C-Mex
You're doing a spectacular job of discrediting yourself son.
Goodnight C-Mex.
-
@ThinPicking @C-Mex
Gibberish. I see another diversionary tactic, just like suggesting it is all about eugenics and global domination.
So how is Cambridge/Wellcome Trust involved in swaying public opinion about committing suicide (to save the planet) and making 'vaccine hesitancy' disappear from social media NOT about control or eugenics??? Sheesh..... . Also, yes, it is important that one examine potential angles in such a psychological operation.
- Billy G and exwife Foundation did give lots of money to : https://www.gatescambridge.org/about/the-trust/
*** The Gates Cambridge Trust was established in October 2000 by an historic donation of US$210m from the Gates Foundation to the University of Cambridge.**
So there is a direct connection for all to see.
I think that YOU BOTH are on to it, so please with courtesy and respect, carry on. -
Yes, this was established much earlier. What some members are proposing is something else they are trying to use to explain/dismiss the address connection and I am calling foul. If they can figure out a reason to explain it as some 'mistake' then they are suggesting that the Ray Peat Forum is not in collaboration with Wellcome after all. I know the writing is oblique, and I asked the member to elaborate and got nonsense in return from a person who has been stalking my every post. It takes a while to figure out who to ignore and I did ask for clarification. It's not disrespectful to call out an argument like I see it. It is other members who are resorting to personal attacks, not me.
Because the eugenics and world domination topics are Topic Dilution, add unnecessary complexity to the conversation, and people end up getting distracted by it or not seeing the immediate relevance to the topic. It would also provide a great talking point for Garrett Smith to start claiming that we Peaters think they're out for World Domination. That is why I try to stay on topic and not get caught up in personal conversations or broader subjects. I'm not saying they're not related, and I find them interesting, but it wasn't until this person starting aligning with the person stalking my posts and trying to argue that there is no connection of RPF to Wellcome that I really started to question.
-
It would be helpful if people picked up some of the leads/ideas for research and not monitoring whether people are being respectful to somebody else's argument. I've ignored much worse and we've got a moderator.
-
Here is proof that Matt Stone was the link between Garrett Smith and Grant Genereux.
“Since it was Matt Stone who introduced me to Grant Genereux's work on Vitamin A toxicity and I ran with it from there...”
-
@ilovethesea said in New "Mission" of RPF:
Here is proof that Matt Stone was the link between Garrett Smith and Grant Genereux.
“Since it was Matt Stone who introduced me to Grant Genereux's work on Vitamin A toxicity and I ran with it from there...”
180 Degree Health is another one that has done a 180 on Peat. Actually, I just did a quick Google and they have done a 360. I always thought of them as supporting Peat's work, but back in 2011 they were mocking Peat.
https://180degreehealth.com/ray-peat-starch-and-obesity/
But by 2013 they were listing Ray Peat quotes and aligning with Matt Stone (who I presumed was supportive of Peat's work as well, at the time).
https://180degreehealth.com/180forums/topic/ray-peat-quotes/
Now they're pushing the Vitamin A depletion nonsense, as the source of all chronic disease.
-
Grant Genereux's blog:
They'd need somebody to promote these theories based on personal anecdotes, not someone who would put their medical or scientific reputation at risk.
-
It seems Genereux started his 'journey' in 2014, two years after the establishment of the RPF. His topics seem to cover areas of interest for Wellcome Cambridge: Autoimmunity and Cancer.
-
@C-Mex said in New "Mission" of RPF:
Gibberish. I see another diversionary tactic, just like suggesting it is all about eugenics and global domination. One of the ways they try to discredit a group is by inserting grandiose ideas that sound ridiculous and even if there is a grain of truth would take forever to demonstrate and would exhaust the efforts of anyone trying to research it.
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.
You are literally doing the exact “inject grandiose idea” thing you’re accusing others of. The address was posted years ago in a normal context and COINCIDENTALLY that exact same address is the masterminds of RPF’s downfall? And you think this is more likely/plausible than an AI agent mistakenly picking up that address in a scrape of the site? Dude, with respect, get real.
Likelihood of RPF being victim of some kind of conspiracy? Very possible. But this specific rabbit hole requires a very large degree of coincidence to make any sense. I just don’t buy it. But now the thread is irreversibly derailed and new accounts are about to start doing gematria to “prove” a conspiracy. Weird how that happens…
-
The coincidences just keep racking up even if you forget that the Cambridge address was linked to RPF by an impartial third-party business reporting site. Now we're back to the old argument that it scraped user content. That would be one silly algorithm, I wonder how it decided on that one over all the other ones that might be included in the RPF, or how they get the addresses correct for so many other businesses. I don't think so. I won't be responding to any more arguments that don't make any sense.
-
@saturnuscv said in New "Mission" of RPF:
But now the thread is irreversibly derailed and new accounts are about to start doing gematria to “prove” a conspiracy. Weird how that happens…
What would you prefer to talk about? What a rotten guy Charlie is?
-
@C-Mex the fate of every dissident sphere is to be shunted down the path of schizophrenia, spurred on by bad actors. Happened to RPF. Happening here. I mentioned earlier in the thread that I’ve seen this happen many times.
Last thing I’ll say on the subject, but as someone who is educated in internet infrastructure, I think it’s very very possible that an AI is scraping user content and arbitrarily (or by some opaque parameter) deciding on a site’s address without any good reason.
In fairness, it’s totally possible that I’m wrong. I just really doubt it. Occam’s razor and all.
-
@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.
