Danny's crusade against Mercola on Progest-E

[Mephisto]

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.

He re-posted his apology to Danny on here and once again repeated the BPA claim, I assume when Danny got the message he corrected him so he shouldn't have repeated it again, and then when people on here corrected him he didn't acknowledge it either, seems like a non apology to me since no effort has been made to undo the damage or even get the facts straight. There's a reason Ray never worked with any big influential names or millionaires, and it's not because they didn't know about Peat before he passed.

 

[Truth]

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.

I'm not stuck

You're implying that if people express their perspective on the subject without it improving the situation, and potentially deteriorating the situation, then they shouldn't do it, and you're using negative connotative labels such as "blind crusade" to qualify these actions with disdain,

when you yourself have already written comments that seem to be full of negative emotion, disdain, and negativity towards others, comments that seem to have no positive potential, and no positive impact, except to have allowed you to express your negative emotions

I suggest you reconsider that if people expressed their views on the subject in this way, including Danny, it was potentially the lesser evil for themselves

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.

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.

which of these two claims, as they seem to be opposed

The fact is, you were talking about your perception of the "bioenergetic perspective", and after listing the negative potential of certain carnivorous diets, you said that we can put aside the calcium/phosphorus ratio because there are no human studies that determine the optimal ratio, and that if the animal is eaten whole, and the meat is fresh enough, then it's "perfectly fine", so yes, from what I've seen/heard from Raymond, including the words you associate with it, it's not what he thinks,

and there's a concrete, potential negative impact if people associate this idea with "ray peat" or "bioenergetic" labels, specifically if it spreads, and the number of people who can be negatively impacted by this idea increases

 

[haidut]

which of these two claims, as they seem to be opposed

My mistake/typo, should not have said "for a lot of people". Should have said for you only, in that first comment. So, the second statement takes preference - i.e. nobody except you interpreted that video as me advocating for carnivore.

 

[haidut]

You're implying that if people express their perspective on the subject without it improving the situation, and potentially deteriorating the situation, then they shouldn't do it, and you're using negative connotative labels such as "blind crusade" to qualify these actions with disdain,

"Shouldn't do it"? It's already done. I am saying that given the abysmal results, and pretty much worst-case scenario outcome we have currently, this approach should not be pursued further. The "disdain" is actually just frustration that now that the damage is done and we have worst-case outcome, we are still arguing about whether the original approach was a good idea.

 

[Truth]

"Shouldn't do it"? It's already done. I am saying that given the abysmal results, and pretty much worst-case scenario outcome we have currently, this approach should not be pursued further. The "disdain" is actually just frustration that now that the damage is done and we have worst-case outcome, we are still arguing about whether the original approach was a good idea.

I suggest, the original approach was an excellent idea for each individual whose least harm to themselves was to express what they thought and felt, in the way they did, even if you think it didn't improve the situation, even more specifically for those who had certain emotions such as gratitude and sympathy towards Raymond, and felt combative and/or animosity toward M's claims, which they perceived as false and potentially malicious

I suggest, those derogatory labels you've used these actions of "blind crusade", "immature" are absolutely inappropriate in a good part of the cases, "maturity" doesn't imply never expressing your negative emotions, or your animosity against others, under the pretext that others think it doesnt improve the situation

I suggest, you should know this considering that you yourself have already written comments on the forum loaded with negative emotions, dedaim, and negativity with what seems to be no positive impact, on people who have done nothing to you

I suggest, M's actions are more legitimate to make you feel frustration, than those of the people who expressed themselves against it, specifically if M doesn't say on the same platform at least that his claim on Progest-E containing bpa is false,(if progest-e doesn't contain BPA)

 

[haidut]

loaded with negative emotions, dedaim, and negativity with what seems to be no positive impact, on people who have done nothing to you

Please share those comments I have made, with disdain and other negative emotions, and who are the people who have done nothing to me the comments were directed to. Not sure how you perceived my emotions, but maybe the comments' language will reveal that.

 

[Truth]

Please share those comments I have made, with disdain and other negative emotions, and who are the people who have done nothing to me the comments were directed to. Not sure how you perceived my emotions, but maybe the comments' language will reveal that.

I can do that:

I don't think they are afraid of the virus. They are simply afraid of life - i.e. a new condition soon to be entered into the DSM V known as "vitaphobia". Infantilized zombies that they are, when they are faced with reality they freeze and cannot move unless daddy comes to hold their hand and take them across the street. There is no hope for such people. We need to move on and build a new life without them.

seems clearly filled with disdain, animosity, negativity, potentially a feeling of impotency, you call people who are vaccinated and afraid of the virus "infentilized zombies" without excluding women and children from your comment, while claiming that there is no hope for them, and that we unvaccinated people will have to live our lives without them

Mass formation by Mattias Desmet, or why the people still believe the COVID narrative no matter how absurd

tldr video: View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU_lg7gT-H8 Full video: View: https://youtu.be/uLDpZ8daIVM And a written explanation: Mass Formation – Crowd Formation Professor Mattias Desmet came to the conclusion that society was suffering from mass formation or crowd formation. This...

raypeatforum.com

My mistake/typo, should not have said "for a lot of people". Should have said for you only, in that first comment. So, the second statement takes preference - i.e. nobody except you interpreted that video as me advocating for carnivore.

There's no interpretation on my part, I quoted what you said in the video, in context, I'm suggesting that there's no point in going on about this part specifically, it's all been said on my side

 

[haidut]

seems clearly filled with disdain, animosity, negativity, potentially a feeling of impotency, you call people who are vaccinated and afraid of the virus "infentilized zombies" without excluding women and children from your comment, while claiming that there is no hope for them, and that we unvaccinated people will have to live our lives without them

Any others comments you can share? You said comments, not comment. I will address even that single comment but just curious to see if you based your claims on something more than single statement. And please spare me your psychological analysis. You don't know what emotions I made those comments with.

 

[Truth]

Any others comments you can share? You said comments, not comment. I will address even that single comment but just curious to see if you based your claims on something more than single statement. And please spare me your psychological analysis. You don't know what emotions I made those comments with.

it's the one that came to me at the time, i suggest it's abundantly sufficient for my point that you did the same thing, or worse (according to your own criteria) than Danny's and others' s comments/posts, who expressed themselves in a certain way against M's actions, comments/posts you called "immature"

I suggest, it's absolutely not a psychological analysis, it's an observation in this context, it's negative, it's disdainful, it implies feeling a certain degree of impotency when it comes to your perception of our ability to live with vaccinated people

 

[haidut]

it's the one that came to me at the time, i suggest it's abundantly sufficient for my point that you did the same thing, or worse (according to your own criteria) than those actions the comments/posts of Danny and others who expressed themselves in a certain way against M's actions, comments/posts you called "immature".

I suggest, it's absolutely not a psychological analysis, it's an observation in this context, it's negative, it's disdainful, it implies a feeling of impotency when it comes to your perception of our ability to live with vaccinated people

Well, in that case...I rest my case. Once again, just like the carnivore video, you picked a single comment out of myriad of others I have made on this forum (and elsewhere), and used it to make a general claim. Not to mention, that you continue to presume my emotions. Seriously, how do you know what/how I feel? Have I ever presumed your emotions?
On a more practical note - out of the few "negative" comments I have made online, to my knowledge not a single one has resulted in even remotely similar negative outcome as the one this thread discusses. So, at worst, I have said (very rarely) something mean, but inconsequential, yet largely mimicking what Ray also said about such people, also calling them "infantilized", "microcephalic" and "spoiled children". In fact, his assessment of the social situation was darker and more negative than mine, and he shared that sentiment multiple times with people who asked him about it. I believe one of the direct quotes was about "killing fields" (@Peatful has it, I think) that await the Western world precisely because of its zombified population. Oh, and the "zombies" have certainly caused me much direct harm (during the pandemic) by effectively cancelling my right to work, destroying the academic life of my children as well as all other children of the same age, banned my moving around the city, getting into a store to buy food, engage in social activities, travel, visit relatives, etc. So, I made a negative, but inconsequential, comment about people who came close to destroying my life, my children's life, and the lives of many others like me, and this is comparable with the current situation? Yeah, I don't think so.

 

[Truth]

Well, in that case...I rest my case. Once again, just like the carnivore video, you picked a single comment out of myriad of others I have made on this forum (and elsewhere), and used it to make a general claim.

I made absolutely no generalizations in these two cases, I quoted facts, things you said on video, or in writing, in their context, verifiable, I shared the link, I was very specific, and it's very clear, probably very clear for the majority of people who read the comments

Not to mention, that you continue to presume my emotions. Seriously, how do you know what/how I feel? Have I ever presumed your emotions?

you said that above:

Please share those comments I have made, with disdain and other negative emotions, and who are the people who have done nothing to me the comments were directed to. Not sure how you perceived my emotions, but maybe the comments' language will reveal that.

implying that we can perceive the emotions of others from the language of comments, so if according to you "Infantilized zombies" by talking about vaccinated people without excluding women and children from your comments, doesn't allow us to perceive the emotions you were feeling at the time you wrote this, disdaim at the very least, what you're saying here seems contradictory

you yourself said that Danny had taken certain "emotional" and "immature" actions, probably referring to some of these posts/comments, so it seems obvious that you yourself infer the emotions of others by reading certain comments

On a more practical note - out of the few "negative" comments I have made online, to my knowledge not a single one has resulted in even remotely similar negative outcome as the one this thread discusses. So, at worst, I have said (very rarely) something mean, but inconsequential, yet largely mimicking what Ray also said about such people, also calling them "infantilized", "microcephalic" and "spoiled children". In fact, his assessment of the social situation was darker and more negative than mine, and he shared that sentiment multiple times with people who asked him about it. I believe one of the direct quotes was about "killing fields" (@Peatful has it, I think) that await the Western world precisely because of its zombified population.

i suggest that we dont have to behave like Raymond, that it is not necessarily optimal to behave like him, that Raymond's actions does not necessary legitimize our own actions,

I'm simply pointing out the contradiction of saying that these actions you've called "immature" and "blind crusade" should stop because you seem to believe that it's not the way adults solve problems, that these actions have no positive impact, potentially a negative one,

Whereas you yourself, in the comment I quoted above, wrote an emotional, negative comment, which is not useful, and potentially negative for readers

Oh, and the "zombies" have certainly caused me much direct harm by effectively cancelling my right to work, move around the city, get into a store to buy food, engage in social activities, travel, visit relatives, etc. So, I made a negative, but inconsequential, comment about people who came close to destroying my life and the lives of many others like me, and this is comparable with the current situation? Yeah, I don't think so.

I don't want to arouse any negative emotions, it seems to me that you perceive and/or represent yourself as a victim in this context, and that you consider that vaccinated people are responsible and/or at fault if their life has impacted your life, whereas it seems obvious that there are various factors, which explain why people are more docile, less sovereign, and conform to authorities, factors present since birth for many of us, factors that you say you denounce,

do you expect the majority of children, women, and men who don't feel an optimal degree of sovereignty, in our sub-optimal environment for many of us, to rebel against authority despite all these factors? if so, it's not realistic

I suggest, yes it's absolutely comparable, with Progest-e, we're talking about the potential impact on people's health and the potential financial impact that M's claims can have on the people who receive money from the sale of progest-E

 

[HumanLife]

I suggest, yes it's absolutely comparable, with Progest-e, we're talking about the potential impact on people's health and the potential financial impact that M's claims can have on the people who receive money from the sale of progest-E

Wasn't M just talking about what he thought were Progest-E's flaws, not against Progesterone itself? If he thinks he could do better, he can try a new product and then let the market try it out and decide for themselves. Anyone can disagree with him and give evidence as a counter to it. I feel like this is making a mountain out of a molehill. As already said, we do not even know Katherine's stance on the matter. If she wanted to be competitive, she could always listen to genuine feedback of Progest-E and see how to improve it, but that's her responsibility, and that's if she even agrees with it.

 

[sunny]

Wasn't M just talking about what he thought were Progest-E's flaws, not against Progesterone itself? If he thinks he could do better, he can try a new product and then let the market try it out and decide for themselves. Anyone can disagree with him and give evidence as a counter to it. I feel like this is making a mountain out of a molehill. As already said, we do not even know Katherine's stance on the matter. If she wanted to be competitive, she could always listen to genuine feedback of Progest-E and see how to improve it, but that's her responsibility, and that's if she even agrees with it.

He certainly can produce a product and let the market decide, I wish he would have left it at that. But when he primes the market with his "advice", knowing that his word is taken as gospel by many, because he is - by his own words- "one of the leading health teachers in the world ". I don't think many people would believe he is unaware that his gigantic platform, marketing machine, and social reach can inform people's opinions and choices by the statements he makes.

If I were not already a user of progesterone and was looking for one, and I heard the discussion on that podcast, I would choose Health Natura. After all, if a world leader in the health space is making the comment he did, he must know what he is talking about, right?

And the harm does not come from this forum, which is a speck compared to the sphere of influence the M platform has. This forum immediately knew M had spoken falsely, the rest of the world does not.

While I applaud the reported apologies, how does that correct the untruth in the podcast and the continued harm by everyone that hears it? (I am assuming he has not edited it. If he has, then that is the best course of action. A private apology, though warranted, does not repair public economic harm).

 

[Mauritio]

He also offered to apologize to Kenogen/Katherine who, frankly, is the only party here that deserves an apology. It is not up to me (or you) to determine what needs to be done here, it is between Kenogen/Katherine and M, and M has said repeatedly he wants to talk directly to Katherine to make peace. Danny is not even a party to this issue and him escalating it is what makes this whole situation even more absurd. He does not represent Ray, his wife, or Kenogen, and neither do I, and neither does anybody else outside of Ray's family.

I think its obvious that Ray was Danny's god. And I dont say this lightly or in a mocking way.
Everybody has a god and just because you dont know who or what it is, does not mean you dont have one.

When you hear Danny talk about Mercola and the incidence it sounds like a religious person that has witnessed blasphemy. And I think danny wants to take a stance as a martyr, to showcase his devotion.
Thats why he does all this eventhough he doesnt benefit from it financially, because it is not about the money.

 

[Nfinkelstein]

Thats why he does all this eventhough he doesnt benefit from it financially, because it is not about the money.

are we sure about that?

 

[questforhealth]

Wasn't M just talking about what he thought were Progest-E's flaws, not against Progesterone itself? If he thinks he could do better, he can try a new product and then let the market try it out and decide for themselves. Anyone can disagree with him and give evidence as a counter to it. I feel like this is making a mountain out of a molehill. As already said, we do not even know Katherine's stance on the matter. If she wanted to be competitive, she could always listen to genuine feedback of Progest-E and see how to improve it, but that's her responsibility, and that's if she even agrees with it.

Just saw a post on reddit and twitter that Truth got banned so he can no longer reply.

He shared this screenshot. No idea if it's true though. Maybe a fake.

 

[Peater]

n fact, his assessment of the social situation was darker and more negative than mine, and he shared that sentiment multiple times with people who asked him about it. I believe one of the direct quotes was about "killing fields" (@Peatful has it, I think) that await the Western world precisely because of its zombified population.

I would love to see this quote and any others relevant if you have it @Peatful (Who I cannot tag for some reason)

 

[Archon]

I would really like to commend Haidut for the extreme level of patience and tolerance he's shown (after seeing roddy's last post)
Made me think how far I am from being diplomatic. He's the only winner here, I also hope Dr. Mercola stops getting hysterical attacks directed at him. Respectful criticism on the other hand is constructive

 

[charlie]

A truce/peace has been called!

Happy to announce there is now peace

Enough said. Moving forward without bad blood. View: https://twitter.com/haidut/status/1751706539679683049

raypeatforum.com

 

[Nfinkelstein]

Just saw a post on reddit and twitter that Truth got banned so he can no longer reply.

what a relief. Thank you @charlie for putting that account out of our misery.