Lack of studies

(ianrobo) #1

Fascinating thread here

And our own @MarkGossage involved against one guy -Sam Macoroa who is very anti us for reasons he never states

(J) #2

Certainly interesting (the numbers, I didn’t read the thread), but most full-time clinicians (thinking of Dr Fung here as I am not familiar with everyone on the list) don’t have time to do research too. I would say that Dr Fung’s successes speak for themselves. He doesn’t need a paper to prove anything. :wink: I’m a full-time clinician and I can tell you that between work and my family, there is little time for much else (and I do squeeze in time for my hobbies and exercise in the fringes) but full-on research? No way. As much as I would love to, it’s just way too big a bite for me to take right now.

(Chris) #3

[spoiler]Bullshit[/spoiler] thread with a lot of namecalling. Seems like a guy worth ignoring, not engaging. I can see why everyone’s blocked him.

Never argue with idiots. They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

(Bob M) #4

Yeah, that guy is crazy. I blocked him years ago.

#5

Why on earth would someone like Ted Naiman have research output?

(less is more, more or less) #6

Twitter, the devil’s candy for debaters.

(KetoQ) #7

Where’s Baytowvin when you really need him?

(ianrobo) #8

if you do not engage they get away the BS, only see politics now if you do not challenge lies and misrepresentation of ideas

(Bob M) #9

I gave up on Twitter a while ago. It was 24/7/365. I learned a lot, but it’s overwhelming.

You can’t really debate Mr. McAlpine. He’s irrational. And I doubt you’d influence many if any people, since most of them get out of the conversation.

Even looking at the original post from above, I could think of 100 things as to why this is wrong or useless. But if Mr. McAlpine took any time to think about this, he would too. Then you realize he doesn’t care. He’s out to “prove” a point, and he’s not going to back down no matter what. Then you realize that you’d rather sit and watch grass grow than “debate” someone who does not give a crap what you say.

#10

I’m enjoying reading through the intelligent replies to this “hater.”

(ianrobo) #11

that really is the key to this, he won’t be educated or even listen but some of his followers may do and thats the beauty of Social media now

(Running from stupidity) #12

[spoiler]Bastard[/spoiler] is hiding from us, because his love for Katie is overwhelming.

[spoiler]Bloody[/spoiler] Katie.

(KetoQ) #13

Juice, tell us how you really feel. Don’t hold back.

(ianrobo) #14

Who is Katie

(Running from stupidity) #15

Katie is @ava_ad0re , the woman who drove TJ away because of her ridiculous amounts of allure.

I believe.

(Vladaar Malane) #16

Well one might guess, that a reason they have no studies is the sugar industry, or food industry doesn’t want to send money their way for expensive studies proving something they don’t want known?

Also, these guys aren’t all scientists rather doctors of actual patients?

(ianrobo) #17

In the example the main one is a researcher into physical heAlth

(Bob M) #18

The issue is that you really have to have a lot of extra time on your hands to counteract idiots like him. It’s a time sinkhole into a morass of stupidity. I can’t tell you the number threads like his that I had to mute. They go on and on and on and on… (And I’ve posted many posts against him…but he appears to have unlimited time, whereas I do not.)

And if you’re a follower or other observer and look at that original post and think it’s valid, then we have a lot of teaching to do. In blocks of140/280 characters.

I barely have time to post here, let alone on a medium that’s 24/7/365. This is why I’m no longer on Twitter.

I’d rather take my limited time somewhere people might actually (a) have a clue and (b) be willing to entertain an alternative hypothesis if they don’t have (a). Even better is if they © have lots of clues and (d) have an alternative theory with which I’m not familiar that (e) might be valid.

That’s why I’m here and not there.

The other problem is I know too much. I know all of those people (not personally). I know what their beliefs are, I know how they got to be where they are, I know whether I agree with them or not. I know what a meta-analysis is, what relative and absolute risks are, what epidemiological evidence is, what the healthy user effect is,… To select the appropriate one of those and to distill it down so that a raw newbie understands it and to put it into 140/280 characters is challenging. And then he starts with a premise that is so idiotic and wrong that for someone who knows a lot, it’s hard to know where to begin. How do you attack something so sublimely stupid? :thinking:

(Central Florida Bob ) #19

This is a great example of the logical fallacy called cherry picking. He picks clinicians who don’t do clinical research (one or two exceptions) and says they don’t do clinical research. One exception is Dr. Fung, who he gets wrong: Fung has had papers published. He totally doesn’t go near Eric Westman who has published a lot of research for a clinician. That goes for both of them. Ivor Cummins is an biochemical engineer: no medical journal is going to publish him without really unusual circumstances.

I’m sure we could come with an equivalent list of people recommending a HCLF diet but have no published studies.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #20

Notice that the list somehow fails to include Phinney, Volek, Lustig, Ludwig, Harcombe, Diamond, Ravnskov, Enig, Kraft, Berson, Yalow, Mann, . . .