Thu, Jan-03-13, 11:30
|
 |
Senior Member
Posts: 7,427
|
|
Plan: ZC
Stats: 260/222/170
BF:Huh?
Progress: 42%
Location: Texas
|
|
Hyperlipid vs Guyenet
Okay, things are getting testy (testier?) between these two. I'd love to hear what folks here think.
Quote:
Friday, December 28, 2012
Insulin: Are you hungry? Part 2
Well, over the years I have made the occasional serious blooper on Hyperlipid.
Perhaps the worst of these, to my intense shame, is the acceptance of insulin as a satiety hormone. This is complete bollocks and, thankfully, some deleted-expletive person in obesity research has finally opened my eyes to this. The gift was from Dr Guyenet of course. This is how he convinced me that insulin is not a satiety hormone:
|
Stephan Guyenet:
Quote:
Now that we've figured out exactly where Peter got his inspiration for the above post, let's review what we've established:
1) The above post, ad hominem attacks and all, was a reaction to a single sentence I wrote in the comments section of one of my own posts:
"But if you give them smaller doses of insulin that do not cause hypoglycemia, they do not gain fat, and often they actually lose fat."
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.c...ooks-on_13.html
In this single sentence of my comment, hastily composed, I mistakenly said that insulin causes fat loss, rather than prevents fat gain. This made no difference to my point, which was that low-dose insulin does not cause fat gain in non-diabetic animals. I had previously made my position on two of those papers abundantly clear in a blog post, which Peter is well aware of because he spent several of his own posts flailing around at it:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.c...er-nail-in.html
In my post, which Peter has read, and which is the only post in which I have described the papers in detail, I correctly described low-dose insulin as limiting fat gain rather than causing fat loss. Yet Peter chose instead to focus on the single sentence in my hastily written comment, using it as the basis of his whole insulting post (above), claiming I misrepresented the papers, even though he was quite aware of my actual position on the papers. Peter did not provide a reference to my statement in his post because he knew how ridiculous it would look.
This was a misleading tactic and can only be described as trolling.
2) By his own admission (above), Peter fabricated data about LIRKO mice in an effort to undermine my credibility, and undermine the relevance of LIRKO mice to the insulin-obesity question. Not only did he invent the idea that they have glycosuria, he even repeatedly used specific fabricated numbers for their blood glucose levels ("400 mg/dL") when the actual data are plain to see in table 1 of the paper he has referenced himself.
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot....mice-3-mcq.html
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot....rko-mice-1.html
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10949030
Peter has been flailing around at me in whatever way he can, including fabrication, misrepresentation, ad hominem attacks, and adolescent jokes, for more than a year.
Peter, this "debate" is over, and you owe me an apology
5:00 PM
|
.
Followed by:
Quote:
Now that this matter is settled, I'm going to open up a bit for my last comment.
I realize I said some insulting things about the people who read this blog. To those who didn't deserve it, I apologize.
The reason Peter's posts anger me is that ad hominem attacks like the ones in this post literally have the potential to endanger my personal safety and that of my family and friends. I'm not a particularly paranoid person, but there are some extremely intense zealots on the Internet, and some of them frequent Peter's blog. I won't exaggerate my own importance, but my picture is on the Internet and I am somewhat of a public figure, and it's not that hard to figure out where I work and where I live.
Folks like Peter and "ItsTheWoo" take particular pleasure in whipping others into a frenzy over my work. As a result you get extremely angry people accusing me of being a "bullshit artist" (above) etc. For example, here's one of the many ad hominem attacks Peter flung at me in the post above:
"BTW I notice over on Woo's blog that there has been some discussion as to whether Dr Guyenet is just dumb or being very deliberately misleading, ie conspiring to mislead. I don't do orchestrated conspiracy theories. I don't really do the financial drive thing either, not for some body who is still as wet behind the ears as Dr Guyenet certainly is."
Look, disagree with my views if you want, but my ideas get NIH grants, peer-reviewed publications, and presentations at professional conferences. I do make mistakes sometimes, but I am not a bullshit artist, nor am I dumb or attempting to mislead. With 11 years of full-time research experience under my belt, I am certainly less "wet behind the ears" than Peter who (as far as I know) has no research experience at all.
People post all sorts of nonsense on the Internet, and it isn't my concern. What is my concern is when people fire up the crazies and point them in my direction. I am literally concerned that someone is going to come to my door one of these days and hurt me or my friends/family because someone like Peter went beyond politely disagreeing and into ad hominem territory for his own personal amusement and/or ego defense. I am literally concerned that someone is going to try to stick a knife in my back at AHS while in a Hyperlipid- or "Woo"-fueled rage. It won't be Peter (might be Woo though), but as I said there are a lot of disturbed people out there.
To anticipate my critics, I realize that I went into ad hominem territory in my comments above, but please consider that 1) I do not make ad hominem attacks against Peter in my blog posts, nor do I plan to, and 2) Peter has been provoking me with ad hominem attacks, misleading claims, and fabrications for over a year. As Melissa McEwen said recently, "Sometimes it’s hard to tell if Peter is serious or just trolling". So yes, I was angry, and Peter got what he had coming for a long time.
So please, what I am asking this entire community with all candor, is that you feel free to disagree with me (including on my blog if you choose-- I welcome respectful debate), but stop the ad hominem stuff. It is irresponsible because it literally has the potential to put me and my friends and family in danger, and these kinds of attacks are not constructive and not necessary to make your point.
5:10 PM
|
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot....gry-part-2.html
|
|
Linear Mode
