New "Mission" of RPF
-
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.
-
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.
