Nostr Web Client

Ideological subversion: "...what it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American so such an extent that despite the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions..." - Yuri Bezmenov

"Basically all scientific research is done poorly & with an agenda." - AgoristView

"I think Russia succeeded." - Mike Dilger

Jeff Swann 1y ago

Yeah, the sword of truth cuts both ways, so I can play that game too.

He also talks about how the subversion starts in universities themselves - the source of most research. Despite being shown evidence that eating steak every day improves health (which ought to spur some desire to investigate if you believe it destroys health), you think it's impossible because "the 'experts' can't all be wrong." I have been eating 2-3lbs of fatty well salted steak every day for 6+ years & I weigh less than I did in high school. I was never really overweight, but my blood pressure dropped from ~130/80 to 110/70. My health issues, which all got worse when following doctor recommendations, have all gone away.

You should start actually looking into some of the scientific research & the way it is being done. Most of it is a joke.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

StackSats.IO 1y ago

Remember when we figured out 15+ years of research into Alzheimers costing Billiona of dollars was founded on complete bullshit?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/alzheimers-study-controversy-what-does-it-mean-for-future-research

And that is just ONE example out of dozens

Jeff Swann 1y ago

What's always so frustrating about the people who are still mentally broken by the system, is that it usually really won't do any good to tell them anything. They seem to just "feel" that you must be wrong & I think there's probably some Stockholm Syndrome like fear preventing them from even entertaining questions.

I have a friend who seemed to only become further motivated to get boosted as questions came up. Like doing the wrong thing harder might somehow drive away the need to face the reality that her trusted authority figures weren't what she thought. She got cancer. My asking if she thought the two might be related almost made her flip out on me. Idk if there's a way to ever get through mental walls like that.

StackSats.IO 1y ago

I can’t name the phenomenon, but it boils down to the recipient not “trusting” the messenger. And I don’t mean trust in the dictionary definition sense, I more mean the weight that the recipient ascribes to the messenger.

For some that means they will default “trust” messages from authority figures, or anyone boasting credentials. For others it is the polar opposite, they’ll default distrust messages from authority figures or credentialists. And don’t be fooled into thinking this is some big grey area where people don’t know how to categorise trusted vs untrusted messengers, it’s instinctive on an individual level, almost automatic, and it takes a lot of introspection to understand one’s own biases and why one is rejecting certain messengers whilst accepting others.

We saw this a few months ago with the Nostrich who got upset at users being pseudonymous - his mental model ascribes very little trust to messages from “unknown” entities, he would lend messages more weight if the account appeared to be a “real person” identifying themselves by name and using a pfp. He couldn’t grok from the pseudonymous users that we don’t place weight on that, that we value the substance of the message far more than the messenger and are willing to sift through shit to find it, even if it’s potentially less efficient.

I don’t know Mike but I have formed a profile of him in my mind in a year on this platform. He’s more trusting of authority figures than you or I (not hard when comparing to “ancap”).

He’s also not a Bitcoiner so he won’t grok the “connection” that Bitcoiners have on this message/messenger dichotomy - Bitcoiners have a shared experience of knowing how much effort it took to study and learn things we hold to be true, how we had to unlearn things, how we were humbled by certain learnings etc. So when other Bitcoiners speak on something with authority we tend to lend them more weight because we feel a shared sense in the proof of work which is ultimately where the “cult” rhetoric comes from.

For Mike I suspect if he is ever to come around on this topic he’ll either first have to become a Bitcoiner, or he’ll have to find a different message/messenger path from the type of figures he instinctively trusts (even if he hasn’t thought about why he trusts them).

Something more like this quote from the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell

Jeff Swann 1y ago

This article is probably relevant.

In much the same way that, during covid, being told "this is a dengerous virus" while getting paid $40k per death meant there was zero incentive for doctors & hospital officals to question the covid treatment protocol that was actually killing people, there's little incentive for anyone to question a system that has rewarded them in some way. Who wants to believe their success or things they are proud of might actually be undeserved or built on a fraud of some kind?

https://www.citadel21.com/why-the-yuppie-elite-dismiss-bitcoin

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

There are all kinds of problems with science. I am a natural skeptic, despite the arguments I make here. Because my views are complex and nuanced and not hard on one side or the other. There are some good books. See Ben Goldacre on "Bad Science" and "Bad Pharma". I used to have a poster diagramming dozens of different biases. I could go on and on about the specifics, far beyond just funding bias, but I'd be preaching to the choir. You can dig into https://retractionwatch.com or consider https://brokenscience.org or any number of other efforts at fixing science.

But if all science is just thrown out, then we know nothing. Everything is just a guess. You get to pick what you wish were true. Personal experience is a poor replacement.

Let me bring that home. You have lost weight and lowered your blood pressure. But have you supressed cancer growth? Have you stopped the progression of atherosclerosis? Are you going to make it to 90? How would you know? The published science doesn't disagree with what you have discovered. Losing weight and lowering blood pressure on an all-meat diet are not in conflict with the nutritional science.

Jeff Swann 1y ago

You don't really have to throw everything out, just the stupid conclusions. If you take the same studies & data that supposedly show high LDL causes heart disease & you control for low triglycerides you find there is actually a negative correlation between high LDL & all cause mortality. LDL can be separated into different quality lipid particles, those poorly formed from conversion of sugar & carbs into fats (which form plaque), or those from healthy stable saturated animal fats. Low trigs are the best indication that most of your LDL particles are the large fluffy kind from animal fats rather than from sugars. So when you control for the thing that indicates lower carb consumption you get longer life. And it lines up with lots of other stuff, sugar rots your teeth, sugar feeds cancer - they literally dye glucose to identify cancers in scans because cancer cells consume glucose faster than everything else. So a low sugar diet reduces cancer growth. Sugar consumption causes diabetes & pancreatic issues. Steve Jobs (the sugar addicted fruitarian) died of pancreatic cancer.

There are lots of really intelligent doctors & medical professionals doing great work & studying this stuff, but much like Austrians in the economics world they are censored & attacked & treated like black sheep.

We aren't starting from zero, you just don't want to let go of the BS you think you know.

Jeff Swann 1y ago

There was also quite a bit of scientific explanation in the info graphic I included before.

On top of animal foods being more nutritious & more bioavailable, plants protect themselves by producing inflammatory toxins & anti-nutrients:

glycoalkaoids, sulforaphane, salicylates, lectins, phytates, cyanide, trypsin inhibitors, oxalates, tannins, saponins, etc

There really is no lack of availability in scientific info on this subject, just a lack of financial incentive to acknowledge & promote what is true & a lack of desire to hear the truth on the part of carb addicted & brainwashed normies.

Nobody 1y ago

Thanks I've enjoyed the conversation as someone who has gone almost completely carnivore and enjoyed some health benefits. It's nice to hlread what you had to say. I've only heard parts of it referred to before.

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

I have one other suggestion.

Let's throw out all of the science and start over. Presume it's all untrustworthy, right? Let's do our own research.

Here is a study you can do for yourself: Find all the famous nutrition researchers and famous diet promoters you can find. Group them into people promoting meat and people promoting plants. Then find out when they died. Plot these against each other. I won't suggest any particular people because I don't want to bias your results. I'd be curious to see your results.

Jeff Swann 1y ago

Shawn Baker is 7 years older than Dr Greger... Which one of them looks older & which looks healthier? But why limit it to well known people when there is already better data available?

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

One person among two, both being still alive, is far too little data. What is this better data? I'm all for doing this with better data. Please show me. I'll show you my results of the first experiment if/after you do it. Otherwise let's just move on to the better data.

Just in case you think I'm in line with Dr Greger let me adjust that notion. I think Dr Greger is an extremist, as are Dr Ornish and Dr Esselstyn. I'm not an extremist.

This comment "you just don't want to let go of the BS you think you know" isn't accurate. I am open minded. I actually want meat to be healthy - I have a flock of sheep. Just because I'm arguing for one side doesn't mean I'm not open minded. If you show me to be wrong, I will change my mind. It's just that I've looked over dozens of large studies, read 4-5 books, done literature searches, and so I've already got a lot of data in my head. So to turn the tables on that there has to be something overwhelmingly convincing, not just stories of people who look buff and lost weight (which is a strongly coorelated marker for a salesman).

Jeff Swann 1y ago

Well, that sounds like you are looking for reasons to dismiss Dr Baker rather than investigate what he has to say. Dr Ken Berry is good on the subject too. You could actually address any of the arguments I have made here rather than deflect away from them.

All of the friends & family that have done what I have suggested have lost weight & improved their health. My health has improved even after being an omnivorous paleo dieter for some years prior to carnivore. I'm not selling anything. Real world experience seems far more valuable than any sort of corruptible data from clearly biased sources. But Dave Feldman has done a lot of great collection & re-analysis of available data. Dom D'Agostino has lots of great info on cancer & ketosis. Kelly Hogan's stuff is good. Joe & Charlene Anderson have been carnivores for decades now & as far as I know they aren't selling anything.

And again, the prevailing narrative for decades has been that red meat would make people fat, raise blood pressure, & ultimately kill them. Doesn't the shift to "well you might lose weight, lower your blood pressure, & feel better, but you're still gonna die" just sound like a massive cope?