Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of fru

[cliff]

Re: Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of

The person least reliable to figure out what Peat would want is the guy who is terrified that people might call him a name. frustrated has a completely different mindset from Peat. His brain was molded too well by authoritarians and he loves submitting to them and doing what they want.

 

[kiran]

Re: Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of

You say Peat would rather see his ideas get wings and be served by other young scientists and that he would definitely prefer to not be quoted? How do you know that? Is Peat not even human?

In a radio show he mentioned that people plagiarize his ideas, the parts that are more easy to accept in the mainstream. He didn't say it in an approving tone. The person least reliable to figure out what Peat would want is the guy who is terrified that people might call him a name. frustrated has a completely different mindset from Peat. His brain was molded too well by authoritarians and he loves submitting to them and doing what they want.

This makes so much sense. However, I don't think it's love, it's fear. Indeed, not referring to Peat at all is the "safest" course of action, for whatever that's worth.

“The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.” -Japanese Proverb.

 

[frustrated]

Re: Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of

Andrew literally can't reference Peat, because Peat has only published one, obscure, academic paper.

Hahaha, what an idiotic statement. One can cite wherever one got an idea from, and it can be an article too.

You don't even understand my point lol.

 

[frustrated]

Re: Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of

Why doesn't andrew link to peat in his recommended reading?

You don't have to say your inspired by peat but if your rehashing a lot of his ideas it would be nice to at least link to his website, maybe he does but I can't find it?

Not giving credit to peat in hopes that others won't judge you is such a ***** thing to do.

Pufa avoidance, sugar, and calcium are not Peat's Ideas. He writes about them. Here is a quote from your God:

"knowledge isn't a comodity"

 

[frustrated]

Re: Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of

So you're telling me that in the scientific community Peat is viewed as an outcast, someone like Candace Pert or Bruce Lipton, for instance? Or even worse, because those guys didn't go as far as to challenge the very existence of a cell membrane and they got more peer reviewed articles published, right?

The scientific community has no idea who Peat is. He doesn't publish papers for peer review.

What if Peat is a marginalized genius?

He could be! But I'm not sure who, specifically, is marginalising him.

More and more people figure out that he may have been right in many of his assumptions. Too many for comfort, actually...

Even scientists, like Kim. But, oh, he is so unfashionable to quote! Who'd want to be labeled a "Peatard"? What would peer reviewers say? They look at references first, so if Peat's name is there, we're instantly toast! Scientific suicide for the sake of what, of... Truth? No way!

Peat is not referencable in an academic sense -- this is simply because he doesn't publish papers that show anything. Saying you were influenced by Peat is different; I agree that if Andrew was selling something it wouldn't be in good taste to not mention Peat.

My bringing up of "Peatard" was to point out the problems that come with aligning yourself with a group or individual -- this is not exclusive to Peat!

A Peatard is someone who uncritically accepts everything Peat says as a fact, because of their experiences e.g., cliff, j. Just like a paleotard is a person who tries to justify everything that fits with their picture of evolution. Your writing can appear biased, in the eyes of others, if you align yourself with a 3rd party or belief system.

In an ideal world this wouldn't be an issue -- I mention this as a realist.

So let's pretend Peat never wrote a thing and that we are scientifically Peat-free, like Aphrodite rising from the foam of our own young observations and perceptions and (non-Peatard) reading.

How is Peat not a genius or at least an honest scientist and Kim not a hack in this case?

Andrew has put a huge amount work into finding his own references -- if you look at the reference section of his articles and Peat's there isn't much overlap. I could understand you calling him a hack if he was rewording Peat's articles and using Peat's references, but this is clearly not the case. It seems to me Andrew is critically evaluating some of the things Peat has mentioned.

Which leads me to ask; how do you know there are things Andrew strongly disagrees with Peat on that he simply hasn't mentoined? Such as serotonin, the essentiallity of pufa etc. Again, this is another problem with saying you are Peat inspired. Speaking of which, look at his newest blog post http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2013/02/dr ... mment-form

You say Peat would rather see his ideas get wings and be served by other young scientists and that he would definitely prefer to not be quoted? How do you know that? Is Peat not even human? That could be an explanation for his courage and totally out-of-the box thinking...

I'm inferring that because of what he has written. If you like I will post specific passages and quotes.

But even so, I am personally offended by a Peat-inspired blog that doesn't mention him. It is weak per se and a dead end for the non-connoisseur, even if you call it "scientifically stronger". I would have never changed my diet based just on Kim's advice, or even Jaminet's, for that matter. And I wish I had stumbled upon Peat's work sooner, but no, I had to run into the Paleo crowd, and read Shanahan and go destroy my thyroid first! (that advice is nowhere in her book, by the way... She is now heftily charging to advise people who may have gone into trouble from following the incomplete advice in her "Deep Nutrition" book. Her only excuse: "She never paid attention to that pesky little molecule (rT3)")

Well, I want Peat known and quoted, OK? Nutrition is more important to me than astrophysics, and I see it is more important to astrophysicists too. Why not treat it as science and treat readers as grown ups and pay less attention to the ugly world of the scientific community, with its petty interests, manipulated by Big Pharma and other industrial lobbies?

 

[Isadora]

Re: Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of

The scientific community has no idea who Peat is. He doesn't publish papers for peer review.

That's his choice. The scientific community could "bump into him" like we did, after all. What, they have restriction orders on what they can and cannot read?

What if Peat is a marginalized genius?

He could be! But I'm not sure who, specifically, is marginalising him.

Attention seekers like Andrew Kim, for instance.

Peat is not referencable in an academic sense -- this is simply because he doesn't publish papers that show anything. Saying you were influenced by Peat is different; I agree that if Andrew was selling something it wouldn't be in good taste to not mention Peat.

I think that especially that he is not selling anything (yet! I bet that time will come presto!) and he is in the process of building a future client base he should be fair and show his colors. Actually, I think he just did. My curiosity for his views has ceased, as has my budding sympathy. He is someone who takes a view and does research and proves/refutes it -- and sometimes, like in the last post, that is done in an emotional, spiteful manner.

My bringing up of "Peatard" was to point out the problems that come with aligning yourself with a group or individual -- this is not exclusive to Peat!

I never asked for Kim to "align" with anyone! I just asked for Peat's articles to be referenced. He sort of chose to align himself, joining Ray Peat Fans (looking for readership?), he catered to that crowd, so to speak, with his choice of articles and even artwork on the site, yet he doesn't reference Ray Peat's work anywhere? I looked at the post you recommended and he is just being obnoxious! He put Peat's name in the title, he claims to "fact check" him, he displays in big fonts a quotation from Facebook (!!!), he never refers to any other part of the article it came from (did he even read it?) he goes on to his up and coming scientist act, then lists four or five PubMed papers at the end. But "obvi, I am the lady", so I will refrain from calling such a person names.

A Peatard is someone who uncritically accepts everything Peat says as a fact, because of their experiences e.g., cliff, j. Just like a paleotard is a person who tries to justify everything that fits with their picture of evolution. Your writing can appear biased, in the eyes of others, if you align yourself with a 3rd party or belief system.

Well, then not many people qualify as "peatards" and nobody asked poor Kim to harbor such a position... We all want constructive comments and criticism of Peat's work.

Andrew has put a huge amount work into finding his own references -- if you look at the reference section of his articles and Peat's there isn't much overlap. I could understand you calling him a hack if he was rewording Peat's articles and using Peat's references, but this is clearly not the case. It seems to me Andrew is critically evaluating some of the things Peat has mentioned.

When the idea is there, it is easy to play around on PubMed. I can do that, too. Mary Shomon wrote tons of books doing just that, and she was just a hypothyroid patient. Mark Sisson is a PubMed regular. It's fun, actually, when you have something that interests you and a point of view to sustain/refute.

Which leads me to ask; how do you know there are things Andrew strongly disagrees with Peat on that he simply hasn't mentoined? Such as serotonin, the essentiallity of pufa etc. Again, this is another problem with saying you are Peat inspired. Speaking of which, look at his newest blog post http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2013/02/dr ... mment-form

Let him disagree with Peat a river, as long as he quotes (correctly and completely) what exactly it is he disagrees with. But in that post, again, he is just being arrogant.

To sum up: Peat's books and articles can be read by any young scientist, because they do exist, but Peat himself does not exist to the scientific community, so he cannot be quoted and referred to. Thou shalt read, but thou shalt not mention! Thou shalt pretend it was your idea to look in those directions and adopt any/all of those views!

Sweet deal for all the Andrew Kims out there!

How did Peat manage to pull that off? The invisible genius whose views inseminated unspeakably so many papers and books out there, generating immaculate scientific conceptions... No wonder people worship him, even if some Mary's out there claim he is not the Father!

Speaking of geniuses, I did a search on Leonardo Da Vinci on PubMed -- over 900 mentions. If he were to have lived in this day and age, I bet there would have been none. I highly doubt he would have chosen to play the scientific career game and there is a big chance he would have concentrated on nutrition and physiology on his own terms. He would have dared to say crazy things like cell membranes don't exist, sugar and CO2 are good for you, etc. And he would have blissfully ignored the likes of Kim.

 

[Andrew Kim]

Re: Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of

Hi Isabella,

I haven't been on the forum but someone sent me a link to it & informed me of what's going on.
I'll keep this brief because I have no interest in having a discourse with you. The ways you're characterizing me--attention seeker, looking for readership, financial motives, etc.-- and turning on a dime, without cause, on your opinion about me, shows me how clueless & crazy you really are. People have a tendency to project their own behaviors, traits, & personalities on others, don't they? I'm sorry that I've lost your 'sympathy', 'curiosity', & readership but I could really care less.

I have not read any of Dr. Peat's books (& I don't plan to) nor am I a current subscriber of his newsletters. I've skimmed the free articles on his website though.

You mention my recent article & the fact that I only provided a quote of Dr. Peat's. Was any more necessary in this case? In other words by not including a longer part of the quote, or by not linking to his article, did I misrepresent him in any way? If so, how (rhetorical question)? It's clear that you have not read his quote, my post, or if you did, you fail to understand either one. If I'm wrong, for the benefit of the other members of this forum, please, explain as to how I failed to fact check Dr. Peat; and for that matter, please explain how I was arrogant in my approach.

Sorry but your tirade against me is tiresome. But go ahead . . . you remind me of the kid at the mall who has to throw a tantrum, for no other reason but to burn off energy before he can stop being a pain & embarrassment to his parents and the other shoppers. I don't mind. I could go & point out some of the idiotic things that have been said but then I'd be sucked into your craziness, again; I have a feeling you'd want that.


Andrew

p.s. your interest in astrology is admirable, but your conception of how science works is twisted & oozes of undue cynicism.

p.p.s. "frustrated" appreciate the support & for providing some sanity.

 

[cliff]

Re: Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of

If it wasn't for peat you would still think co2 was a waste product. Linking to all those crappy books and not peat's website one time is pretty absurd. It's your website, I'm not gonna tell you how to run it but you should give respect where it's due. Your just a kid though, you'll learn one day.

You could learn a lot reading peat's views on culture and society.

By the way you did misrepresent peat in your latest article and you don't link to where the quote comes from so there is no context.

 

[Andrew Kim]

Re: Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of

(1) Cliff, I'm older than you are.

(2) Crappy books? Cliff, you're a zealot. You've said that you've fallen for other gurus in the past before (Brian Peskin, right?). You've also been told by your brother to chill out & by others in the general group to tone down your preaching.

(3) Thanks for unsolicited suggestion.

(4) HOW did I misrepresent him? You & Isabella are throwing around accusations but can't supply the beef. Why don't you comment on my blog, so that others can see how I did.


Andrew

 

[Isadora]

Re: Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of

Hi Isabella,

It's "Isadora"... Oh, the careless scientist, descending from the height of his blog, he can't even be bothered to mind what one's nickname is...

I haven't been on the forum but someone sent me a link to it & informed me of what's going on.

And I believe you. As I believe that your last post, in which you "fact check" on Dr. Peat, mentioning his name out in the open for the very first time, is just a chance happening and has nothing to do with the discussion here.

Mr. Kim, you are one childish person. I hope it works for you in real life.

May you publish many articles on PubMed!

I rest my case.

 

[Andrew Kim]

Re: Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of

Isadora (honest mistake before),

This will mean nothing to you but after reading through this thread, you're a mean-spirited person & most of the comments you've directed at me have been petty, unproductive, & more than anything, they've mirrored your own behavior & attitude. You veer from the issues at hand, too, and don't seem to grasp the concept of an exchange between two people. You make generalizations about my character & you assume to know my motives & what I'm thinking--all wrapped up in a desire for attention flying under the garb of of self-righteousness (Adopting an air of self-righteousness can make us all feel good about ourselves, right?) You're too caught up in yourself to realize it (or too thickheaded). Good luck to you too I guess.


Andrew

 

[cliff]

Re: Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of

Wow I didn't know you would attack me so hard hahaha.

Don't sweat it man, I don't care what you do with your blog. It might be of benefit to read ray's newsletters articles, they are a crazy wealth of info.

 

[Andrew Kim]

Re: Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of

Cliff, I like you but you called me a *****, ganged up on me, & talked to me condescendingly--like I was a child. Am I supposed to just take that like a jerk-off?

 

[cliff]

Re: Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of

I said if you don't link to peat's work because you are afraid what others will think you are a *****.

If that's why you don't link to peat's work then yes I called you a *****.

I didn't gang up on you either, I was mainly replying to frustrated. I have no idea what your intentions are.

 

[Andrew Kim]

Re: Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of

Cliff, have you ever read my blog? Really.

I've been biting my tongue on the blog because I have friends who depend on Dr. Peat being right about everything and for him to assume the highest position as far as purveyors of good, evidence-based information go, in order to maintain their business to support their families & themselves. **** it. I was originally going to stop the series at 3 when I originally conceived the idea with Karen, before this thread started, not after, like Isadora casually sprinkled in. Ugh.

And Cliff now that everything is out on the table, I was being generous in my statement about carbon dioxide & Dr. Peat. Any one whose read a physiology textbook knows well of the transport & metabolism of carbon dioxide, as well as its vasodilatory function and its propensity to carboxylate proteins--all biochemists (and students) know of reactions of this kind. Dr. Peat had me thinking about it again more closely, but this is as far as my posts, and the data on the topic, go.

The posts on stress are all a product of my own research. If you think Peat is influencing it, what can I tell you, I really don't care about your opinion at this point; I feel insulted that I have to go to these lengths to explain myself to you. I can tell you don't have a formal education in the sciences, so I guess you'll have to take my word for it for now.

As to my intentions, I don't feel like I have to disclose them to you but I will. The answer is I have none. I blog because it's fun. I proofread other peoples' ***t all the time, and they offer me money, but I always turn it down. I spend a chunk of my time answering emails everyday for FREE, and I have more qualifications than the self-proclaimed "RP practitioners" who can only boast about having a long list of bull-***t certifications. Believe me, if I wanted to, I could charge. And if I wanted to, I could call each & every one out on their shenanigans.

You gave me unsolicited advice so I'll give you one in return before I leave this discussion: Cliff, I like you, and you seem like a good person who's seeking the truth, as I am, but at times, you can get overly attached to things. Dr. Peat is great, and he has this alluring quality about him, but I would be weary of putting all my faith in him, and him alone, as is always the case. Anyway, I hope to see you around. Instead of bashing me here, bash me on the blog for every one to see



Andrew

 

[Andrew Kim]

Re: Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of

And Cliff, I didn't 'attack' you at all.

 

[Isadora]

Re: Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of

Mr. Kim,

"I haven't been on the forum but someone sent me a link to it & informed me" you might be done insulting me, at least for the day.

The ways you're characterizing me--attention seeker, looking for readership, financial motives, etc.-- and turning on a dime, without cause, on your opinion about me, shows me how clueless & crazy you really are.

My turning "on a dime" was based on intuition, as the discussion with frustrated made me see you in a totally different light. The fact that you consider yourself a superior form of scientist, in whose world Ray Peat is "unquotable" diminished considerably my initial regard for you. The fact that you then came and brazenly stated that:

I have not read any of Dr. Peat's books (& I don't plan to) nor am I a current subscriber of his newsletters. I've skimmed the free articles on his website though

...made me not regret it one bit. On the contrary.

It is a sad day when someone like you publicly displays such a low interest in reading someone like Peat. That's why we're all in such trouble with all these diseases creeping up on us and all the terrible advice we keep getting from our governments, based on the advice of scientists with attitudes like yours.

The snippets of interest I (and, rest assured, many others) had for your work were based then on an nonexistent openness of mind.

I'm sorry that I've lost your 'sympathy', 'curiosity', & readership but I could really care less.

I have zero doubts about that part, Mr. Kim. I do hope you care about... the rest of the world, let's say. Or at least I hope you give a damn about all your other readers, if not the world at large.

You mention my recent article & the fact that I only provided a quote of Dr. Peat's. Was any more necessary in this case?

This is plain unprofessional of you. Yes, Sir, the link to the entire article was absolutely necessary for anyone to even begin to take you seriously! Otherwise, stop wasting our time, OK?

In other words by not including a longer part of the quote, or by not linking to his article, did I misrepresent him in any way? If so, how (rhetorical question)? It's clear that you have not read his quote, my post, or if you did, you fail to understand either one. If I'm wrong, for the benefit of the other members of this forum, please, explain as to how I failed to fact check Dr. Peat; and for that matter, please explain how I was arrogant in my approach.

Mr. Kim, who were your teachers? Did they bother to instill in you some basic paper writing skills? How did they unleash you like that out on the internet?

you remind me of the kid at the mall who has to throw a tantrum, for no other reason but to burn off energy

Mr. Kim, energy is not something I have lots of, not yet. I hope I can recover following Dr. Peat's advice. Thank you, however, for helping me understand that I should not waste any on reading you, like, ever again.

p.s. your interest in astrology is admirable, but your conception of how science works is twisted & oozes of undue cynicism.

Yes. Undue cynicism. I'd show you my labs (no, not really) and then the literature available for those conditions. Lots of stuff to be optimistic about and a great believer in the PubMed hoard. There are plenty of memoirs of scientists who reflect upon that world and no, it's not pretty. I'd recommend you some books but then you'd snap that the advice was "unsolicited". Bad manners, bad scientific mores, you're bound for success!

 

[Dorito Loyalist]

Re: Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of

 

[frustrated]

Re: Carbon dioxide, glycation, and the protective effects of

Isadora,

I am not going to address all the points you made simply because they are straw men, tangents, sprinkled with character assassinations of Andrew (based on nothing other than the ideas in your head –e.g., you’ve pre-emptively attacked him because you assumed he’s going to “cash in” on Peat).

You are not a scientist. You have shown, repeatedly, that you don’t understand how referencing works. The reference section (the list at the bottom) doesn’t contain anything Peat related because Peat hasn’t published anything related to what Andrew is blogging about. Here is a list of the papers he has published http://www.functionalps.com/blog/2011/1 ... on-pubmed/. Peat is analogous to a science writer, there is nothing you should be referencing him for. This is the most effort I am going to put in to explain this – if you still don’t understand go down to your local University and ask the librarian nicely to explain (though god forbid, your brain might atrophy due to the scent of authoritarianism in the air ).

What you are so upset about is that Kim hasn’t either:

1) Included Peat in his recommended reading section

I have said before, how do you know Andrew recommends reading peat? You are asking him to align with him by putting him there. As I said, you have no idea what Andrew may actually disagree with Peat on. You did not have any reasonable reply to this.

2) Prefaced his articles,” Ray Peat has mentioned…”, or quoted Peat.

And? I learned about calculus through my math teacher -- Do I have to reference his name every time I mention calculus or can I not just mention Newton? According to Cliff I should. Pufa, calcium, sugar, etc are not Peat's ideas. Peat writes about them. “Knowledge isn’t a commodity”. (I’m still waiting for a reply on that Cliff – I know you must be shocked being refuted by your own bible).The cult-like following Peat, ironically, generates just gets upset when Peat’s name isn’t screamed from a megaphone.

I conceded that if Andrew was paraphrasing Peat’s articles or using Peat’s references this would warrant a mention of Peat’s name, or he’d be a hack. It is painfully obvious he is not. He has clearly written his own opinion. And if you think it’s so easy to hop on pubmed to write your own articles, without a science background, you are wrong. It’s incredibly easy to spot when someone is full of ***t – unless you are a gullible person who doesn’t think critically. And I can assure you, If Andrew was targeting these people he wouldn’t bother using APA citation and he would be sprinkling his writing with emotive words and superlatives.

You are entitled to think whatever you like. However you are, whether you know it or not, accusing Andrew of plagiarism, which is way out of line.

I will not be responding further to you in this thread, not out of dislike for you, but because this conversation cannot go anywhere else.

 

[Isadora]

Mr. Kim's Character

First of all, I don't consider charging for expertise a negative thing. I don't understand why you and Mr. Kim are so annoyed at the idea. Attention seeking is, again, a normal behavior for someone who might consider making a living in the future from such expertise. He also appears to be doing the rounds on forums and to have friends helping him become popular in certain circles. Fine. So I wanted to know where he stands on Ray Peat.

I did. We all did.

Again, fine.

As to the character "assassination", I beg to differ. There wasn't much "character" to begin with and the little that was there committed suicide, at least in the eyes of someone like me, with statements like:

I've been biting my tongue on the blog because I have friends who depend on Dr. Peat being right about everything and for him to assume the highest position as far as purveyors of good, evidence-based information go, in order to maintain their business to support their families & themselves. **** it.

(he might see this as generosity but, as a potential patient/client, I interpret it as knowingly misleading people in need of unbiased health advice)

And Cliff now that everything is out on the table, I was being generous in my statement about carbon dioxide & Dr. Peat.

As a scientist, everything should always be on the table. As a hack, all bets are off, he can support whomever he pleases and he wants to help make more money. That's how it works at the tiny, blogging for friends level, as it does when one joins the higher echelons and start selling one's "expertise" to the highest bidder in the industry.

I spend a chunk of my time answering emails everyday for FREE, and I have more qualifications than the self-proclaimed "RP practitioners" who can only boast about having a long list of bull-***t certifications. Believe me, if I wanted to, I could charge. And if I wanted to, I could call each & every one out on their shenanigans.

He could charge, he says. For what? He is not even a "RP practitioner". He only "skimmed" RP's articles on his blog, he doesn't intend to read his newsletter or his books... Charge for WHAT? He has no method of his own to speak of, no real body of work. Moreover, he seems to despise "RP practitioners". Again, as a scientist, if he thinks they are hacks, he should call them hacks. That's intellectual honesty! He would be doing many people who may be running into trouble for following what he thinks is incorrect advice a huge favor.

Cliff, I like you, and you seem like a good person who's seeking the truth, as I am

Yes, in the light of the above, Mr. Kim is indeed a truth seeker. Biting his tongue, refraining from exposing hacks, being generous in statements about people he doesn't really agree with and whose books he has no intention whatsoever of reading, etc.

If he thinks "blogging is fun", he should understand that people like me will read and scrutinize him and express their opinions.

But maybe he should be spending his time in a different manner, like finding a cure for cancer, or something...