Danny's crusade against Mercola on Progest-E

[haidut]

Are you ok to answer, or do you prefer not to?

I have not done any podcasts with M since this issue happened. Not sure if there will be others, after the legal implications and threats. And maybe, just maybe...that was the whole point of this charade
Again, neither you nor anybody else here gets to demand what M should do in regards to this. We can have our preferences and desires, but we do not get to impose them on others. Ideally, in my view, M would apologize to Katherine, which he repeatedly said he wants to do, and that would be the end of it, for me. Whether that will happen or not is anybody's guess at this point. But no, I will not let immature/insane behavior and direct ultimatums/threats dictate my work with anybody, especially when there is no commercial interests involved and it spread's Ray's message to as big a group of people as possible. That's all there is to it, and in fact he has said it many times directly - i.e. it is the spreading of the message/ideas that matters, even if people do not always like the messenger.

 

[Truth]

Well, if two adults are fighting over something, and you think it is absolutely fine for anybody who feels (but is actually not) a party to the case to jump in and throw in their perspective, thrash around emotionally and immaturely, demand taking sides, escalate the situation any way they see fit, to the point of legal threats being thrown around then...yes...it is their right to do so, but it is not how mature adults behave or how issues get resolved. I already stated in another comment further above that this is not the real issue here. The M issue was just an excuse. I have no doubt that, over time, the real story will come out.

I suggest it's not just "two adults fighting."

There are the listeners who were potentially influenced and misled by M's claims who absolutely have the right to express their perspective,

There are the owners and people who benefit from Progest-E sales who have a right to express their perspective,

There is Raymond's "memory", of which anyone has the right to express their perspective on how these M claims may impact Raymond's memory

I suggest, The "mature/immature" dichotomy is not specifically useful, and potentially reduces clarity for readers, you yourself have already written comments that seem loaded with negative emotions and animosity, I invite you to consider Danny's freedom to express what he thinks/feels The way he did, it was potentially the lesser evil for him

I suggest, it's absolutely not a false problem if Progest-E bottles don't contain BPA, that M has made false claims, that he still hasn't corrected on the same platform at least, you seem to be minimizing the thing

I suggest, when it comes to your speculation that this isn't the real reason Danny seems to feel animosity towards you, it's a possibility,

However, just the fact that you didnt speak out more and/or earlyer on certain aspects of this subject, could be perceived by others, including Danny (I've seen several people write that they think it's a possibility), as a lack of investment in and recognition of Raymond (eternal peace to him) and his interests, motivated by your own personal interest

It's a possibility that you think that in the long run the lesser evil for all is not to invest yourself further in this situation, Danny probably doesn't think so

 

[johnsmith]

There seems to be different cultures at play here. I'm pretty sure Danny was raised in a culture where if someone messed with someone in his group, there would be immediate consequences for doing so. Mercola messed with Danny by threatening a lawsuit, and I believe Danny is partially hurt (and very surprised) due to how one of his closest partners seemed to not even acknowledge this happening.

I believe Ray would like how Danny is trying to look out for his wife (and the truth), and I also think Ray would like how haidut continues to want to get information out to wider audiences.

 

[haidut]

However, just the fact that you don't speak out on certain aspects of this subject, that you prefer not to answer certain questions on the subject (that's up to you), could be perceived by others, including Danny (I've seen several people write that it's a possibility), as a lack of investment in and recognition of Raymond (eternal peace to him) and his interests, motivated by your own personal interest

Which aspects of the subject have I avoided/refused addressing or speaking about? I answered all of your questions. See above, including the one you asked if I prefer to not answer.
Again, everybody has the right to do what they want, but when the result is a deterioration for everybody involved then whatever is being done so far is not working and should not be pursued further. It is, objectively, odd that activist behavior continues without even consulting the actual offended party. It could very well be that Katherine does not like the current outcome and would prefer that people do not appoint themselves her defenders without her approval. It's actually quite patronizing, if you think about it.

 

[haidut]

I believe Ray would like how Danny is trying to look out for his wife, and I also think Ray would like how haidut continues to want to get information out to wider audiences.

I can live with that.

 

[Truth]

I have not done any podcasts with M since this issue happened. Not sure if there will be others, after the legal implications and threats. And maybe, just maybe...that was the whole point of this charade
Again, neither you nor anybody else here gets to demand what M should do in regards to this. We can have our preferences and desires, but we do not get to impose them on others.

Ideally, in my view, M would apologize to Katherine, which he repeatedly said he wants to do, and that would be the end of it, for me. Whether that will happen or not is anybody's guess at this point.

But no, I will not let immature/insane behavior and direct ultimatums/threats dictate my work with anybody, especially when there is no commercial interests involved and it spread's Ray's message to as big a group of people as possible. That's all there is to it, and in fact he has said it many times directly - i.e. it is the spreading of the message/ideas that matters, even if people do not always like the messenger.

You seem to imply that the spread of Raymond's "message" is necessarily positive, whereas this is absolutely not necessarily the case, depending on how Raymond's "message" is shared, depending on the degree of authenticity, depending on the nuances, the things that are commonly associated with the name "Ray peat" can be positive or negative for others, and so potentially the spread of the message can be a net positive or a net negative depending on these factors

You yourself said in an interview with Anthony Chaffie 6 months ago, when you were talking about the "bioenergetic pov" that a carnivorous diet is "perfectly fine" if we eat the whole animal, and that potentially the meat is fresh enough

do you think that what you said above authentically represents "Raymond's message" and that spreading your perspective of "Raymond's message" is a net positive?

 

[haidut]

You seem to imply that the spread of Raymond's "message" is necessarily positive, whereas this is absolutely not necessarily the case, depending on how Raymond's "message" is shared, depending on the degree of authenticity, depending on the nuances, the things that are commonly associated with the name "Ray peat" can be positive or negative for others, and so potentially the spread of the message can be a net positive or a net negative depending on these factors.

You yourself said in an interview with Anthony Chaffie 6 months ago, when you were talking about the "bioenergetic pov" that a carnivorous diet is "perfectly fine" if we eat the whole animal, and that potentially the meat is fresh enough,

do you think this is "Raymond's message" and that spreading "Raymond's message" in this way will necessarily be a net positive?

When "Raymond's message" gets spread by other people, it is inevitable that there will be things lost in translation, changed in nuance, misinterpreted, misunderstood, and even maliciously twisted by bad actors to push a specific agenda. None of that can be avoided, according to Ray himself. As long as the core message of promoting metabolism, and avoiding (whenever realistic) anything that is known to interfere with metabolism is being spread, Ray said, repeatedly, he did not care. There are multiple quotes from him on the forum where he was asked directly if he is alarmed that this or that politically radical person is now promoting his ideas and telling others to look into them as well. Ray repeatedly said he has no problem whatsoever. Ray said he is willing to give even authoritarians like Chomsky a pass due to his work on exposing the militarism and fascism trying to fully own the world, despite Chomsky's bizarre ideas on language and its genetic underpinnings that have poisoned multiple scientific disciplines, and the fact that Chomsky is very much part of this dark process he is criticizing.
I asked Ray directly, years ago, whether he has a problem with anybody (including me) talking about his ideas and spreading them to others. He said "Not at all, as long as the intentions are good. People will have to decide for themselves how to best implement what they hear about."

 

[InChristAlone]

You seem to imply that the spread of Raymond's "message" is necessarily positive, whereas this is absolutely not necessarily the case, depending on how Raymond's "message" is shared, depending on the degree of authenticity, depending on the nuances, the things that are commonly associated with the name "Ray peat" can be positive or negative for others, and so potentially the spread of the message can be a net positive or a net negative depending on these factors.

You yourself said in an interview with Anthony Chaffie 6 months ago, when you were talking about the "bioenergetic pov" that a carnivorous diet is "perfectly fine" if we eat the whole animal, and that potentially the meat is fresh enough,

do you think that what you said above authentically represents "Raymond's message" and that spreading your perspective of "Raymond's message" is a net positive?

Does Haidut have to repeat word for word what Ray taught to be in line with the bioenergetic pov? He is his own person with his own ideas and beliefs. Also Peat did say if you eat fresh killed meat it will have more glycogen.

 

[haidut]

Also Peat did say if you eat fresh killed meat it will have more glycogen.

And that's actually exactly what I said in that interview when we discussed the carnivore diet - i.e. that the glycogen in fresh meat makes it very much not a low-carb diet. But somehow, for a lot people, it came across as me agreeing that all carnivore and low-carbing is good.

 

[Truth]

Which aspects of the subject have I avoided/refused addressing or speaking about? I answered all of your questions. See above, including the one you asked if I prefer to not answer.

You didn't answer several times initially when asked if you were ok to make videos with M even if he wouldn't do anything more than a personal apology to Danny, you answered at the same time I wrote this comment

Again, everybody has the right to do what they want, but when the result is a deterioration for everybody involved then whatever is being done so far is not working and should not be pursued further. It is, objectively, odd that activist behavior continues without even consulting the actual offended party. It could very well be that Katherine does not like the current outcome and would prefer that people do not appoint themselves her defenders without her approval. It's actually quite patronizing, if you think about it.

There are the listeners who were potentially influenced and misled by M's claims who absolutely have the right to express their perspective,

There are the owners and people who benefit from Progest-E sales who have a right to express their perspective,

There is Raymond's "memory", of which anyone has the right to express their perspective on how these M claims may impact Raymond's memory

It would be patronizing if people claimed with certainty what Katherine felt and wanted, without having consulted her

When "Raymond's message" gets spread by other people, it is inevitable that there will be things lost in translation, changed in nuance, misinterpreted, misunderstood, and even maliciously twisted by bad actors to push a specific agenda. None of that can be avoided, according to Ray himself. As long as the core message of promoting metabolism, and avoiding (whenever realistic) anything that is known to interfere with metabolism is being spread, Ray said, repeatedly, he did not care. There are multiple quotes from him on the forum where he was asked directly if he is alarmed that this or that politically radical person is now promoting his ideas and telling others to look into them as well. Ray repeatedly said he has no problem whatsoever. Ray said he is willing to give even authoritarians like Chomsky a pass due to his work on exposing the militarism and fascism trying to fully own the world, despite Chomsky's bizarre ideas on language and its genetic underpinnings that have poisoned multiple scientific disciplines, and the fact that Chomsky is very much part of this dark process he is criticizing.
I asked Ray directly, years ago, whether he has a problem with anybody (including me) talking about his ideas and spreading them to others. He said "Not at all, as long as the intentions are good. People will have to decide for themselves how to best implement what they hear about."

Do you think the "Raymond message" includes that a carnivorous diet (meat only) is "perfectly fine" if we eat the whole animal and the meat is fresh enough?

 

[Truth]

Does Haidut have to repeat word for word what Ray taught to be in line with the bioenergetic pov?

I didn't say that or imply that,
According to Georgie a carnivorous diet is "perfectly fine" according to Georgie's perception of the "Raymond message", so I ask if he really believe it is part of "Raymond's message"

He is his own person with his own ideas and beliefs. Also Peat did say if you eat fresh killed meat it will have more glycogen.

Do you believe that Raymond's ideas contain that just because there's "glycogen" in fresh muscle meat, it's perfectly fine to eat a meat-only diet? If so, where did Raymond say this?

 

[haidut]

It would be patronizing if people claimed with certainty what Katherine felt and wanted, without having consulted her

That is exactly the end result when people continue their activist behavior without consulting with her. You seem to be somehow stuck on this "rights" issue, when I repeatedly said that yes, people have rights to do what they want, but when the situation escalates and they don't even know if Katherine is OK with the "strategy" it becomes a very much a blind crusade and it is obvious at this point there has been no resolution whatsoever as a result of the "benevolent" actions on people who are exercising their right to get involved. In fact, the current outcome is arguably the worst scenario - no apology to the offended, no retraction of any offending statements, no GE podcasts, no M podcasts, legal threats, and generally psychotic behavior on one side. In light of such "wonderful" outcome, I'd argue that the current approach is a failure and it should not be pursued further, at least not without K's blessing.

 

[haidut]

Do you believe that Raymond's ideas contain that just because there's "glycogen" in fresh muscle meat, it's perfectly fine to eat a meat-only diet? If so, where did Raymond say this?

He did actually say it, multiple times, that the reason a lot of people seem to do well on the carnivore diet is the glycogen in fresh meat, and the reduction of endotoxin when people cut down on eating resistant starch (as the current "optimal" diet recs are). He said it is not optimal in the long run due to the inflammatory aminos in meat, as well as its high phosphorus/calcium ratio, but that it is a better diet than what is currently being promoted by FDA/USDA. And btw, that pretty much verbatim what I said during that podcast as well as the podcasts with Dr. Saladino, who is a former/current carnivore as well.

 

[Truth]

He did actually say it, multiple times, that the reason a lot of people seem to do well on the carnivore diet is the glycogen in fresh meat, and the reduction of endotoxin when people cut down on eating resistant starch (as the current "optimal" diet recs are). He said it is not optimal in the long run due to the inflammatory aminos in meat, as well as its high phosphorus/calcium ratio, but that it is a better diet than what is currently being promoted by FDA/USDA.

This is totally different than the claim that "a carnivorous Diet is perfectly fine if we eat the whole animal, and the meat is fresh enough"(talking about your belief on Raymond's message)

Nothing you have quoted supports that Raymond ideas include that a carnivorous diet is "perfectly fine" ,

It's not just nuances or differences of interpretation

 

[haidut]

This is totally different than the claim that "a carnivorous Diet is perfectly fine if we eat the whole animal, and the meat is fresh enough"(talking about your belief on Raymond's message)

Nothing you have quoted supports that Raymond ideas include that a carnivorous diet is "perfectly fine" ,

It's not just nuances or differences of interpretation

Please share the exact quote form the podcast so I can see the context and what the overall message of the podcast is. I don't remember ever being a part of a podcast where the gist of it was that carnivore is "perfectly fine" as a long-term diet and I agreed.

 

[Truth]

Please share the exact quote form the podcast so I can see the context and what the overall message of the podcast is. I don't remember ever being a part of a podcast where the gist of it was that carnivore is "perfectly fine" as a long-term diet and I agreed.

I can share it:

At 23 minutes and 15 seconds for the claim, you were commenting on your perception of the "bioenergetic point of view" the minute before.


View: https://youtu.be/k_LFfSyUADQ?si=BQHMGFIaJ8YWuAhL

 

[haidut]

I can share it:

At 23 minutes and 15 seconds for the claim, you were commenting on your perception of the "bioenergetic point of view" the minute before.


View: https://youtu.be/k_LFfSyUADQ?si=BQHMGFIaJ8YWuAhL

The entire discussion starting around the 20min mark is how the carnivore diet is NOT optimal or at least less than optimal due to the high content of inflammatory amino acids, such as tryptophan, methionine, cysteine, etc as well as the suboptimal ratio of phosphorus to calcium. So, pretty much exactly what I said earlier in the thread. In fact, the entire podcast was staged and marketed as an argument for/against the carnivore diet with the other guy arguing for it and me arguing against it. Lol. it's the actual title of the video. In that interview I also go on to talk about the bad products of meat metabolism including putrescine and cadaverine and how they are implicated in many diseases, including cancer. Yet, one phrase, out of context and that is enough evidence that I am somehow twisting Ray's message.

 

[Truth]

The entire discussion starting around the 20min mark is how the carnivore diet is NOT optimal or at least less than optimal due to the high content of inflammatory amino acids, such as tryptophan, methionine, cysteine, etc as well as the suboptimal ratio of phosphorus to calcium. So, pretty much exactly what I said earlier in the thread. In fact, the entire podcast was staged and marketed as an argument for/against the carnivore diet with the other guy arguing for it and me arguing against it. Lol. it's the actual title of the video. In that interview I also go on to talk about the bad products of meat metabolism including putrescine and cadaverine and how they are implicated in many diseases, including cancer. Yet, one phrase, out of context and that is enough evidence that I am somehow twisting Ray's message.

You mentioned in the previous minutes the potential negative effects of a carnivorous diet, and you finalized by implying that these potential negative effects of a carnivorous diet are solved with by eating the whole animal, fresh meat, and organs, to the point where it's "perfectly fine as a diet" that way,

This is absolutely not out of context

you also said that we can put the calcium/phosphorus ratio aside, as there's no evidence of the optimal ratio in humans

Of the things I've heard/read that are associated with Raymond, it's not his ideas

"but If you are consuming organ meats, if you are consuming collagen, right, if you are eating the whole animal, wich is what traditionally is done in these primitive cultures, we call them primitive but they are Very smart, we are the primitive ones, i think it is perfectly fine as a diet"

 

[haidut]

You mentioned in the previous minutes the potential negative effects of a carnivorous diet, and you finalized by implying that these potential negative effects of a carnivorous diet are dealt with by eating the whole animal, fresh meat, and organs, to the point where it's "perfectly fine as a diet" that way,

This is absolutely not out of context

you also said that we can put the calcium/phosphorus ratio aside, as there's no evidence of the optimal ratio in humans

Of the things I've heard/read that are associated with Raymond, it's not his ideas

"but If you are consuming organ meats, if you are consuming collagen, right, if you are eating the whole animal, wich is what traditionally is done in these primitive cultures, we call them primitive but they are Very smart, we are the primitive ones, i think it is perfectly fine as a diet"

I have not had a single comment from anybody else who walked away with the impression that I endorsed eating carnivore as an optimal diet, in that interview. Again, the very gist of the entire video and its title is that I am for carbs and against low-carb, with most people perceiving carnivore to be the latter. If there was some discussion about how or why carnivore may be good in some contexts (e.g. when it is not low-carb) does not make it the main message of the entire video. If for you those several sentences or a single phrase negate the entire discussion in the video, then that is your "right", as you said. However, that's not the takeaway of either the host or the person I was debating. Feel free to ask them, and actually it is quite easy to see the discussion got confrontational several times precisely because I was ant-carnivore and pro-carb. Except you, not a single person of the ~28,000 who watched that video contacted me and said "hey, I thought you are a Peatarian, how come you endorse carnivore". Look at the comments below the video. Do you see even a single one saying they perceived me to be pro-carnivore? In fact, one reason there was no follow-up on this interview is that my views were perceived as too anti-carnivore/anti-low-carb and as such not much common ground can be found with the other debater for a follow up.

 

[sunny]

At the very least, has M edited the statement out of the podcast to prevent further harm?

There is no way to know the extent of damage done to kenogen

I would be very unhappy if this valuable company and product was driven out of business.

I hope it is not the case.