I didn't use any of those words, and saying "whatever Bogeyman you fear most is trying to get you to eat more often?" is a bad faith characterization, so basically: fuck you. You and your people are so horny to get on anyone or anything that can be characterized as a "conspiracy theory", you miss the point of what people are saying.
I didn't use any of those words, and saying "whatever Bogeyman you fear most is trying to get you to eat more often?" is a bad faith characterization, so basically: fuck you. You and your people are so horny to get on anyone or anything that can be characterized as a "conspiracy theory", you miss the point of what people are saying.
Your critique of me is entirely an embodiment of your own inner dialog. You don't need any "deep state" explanations to see the obvious. I have dozens of posters, I know what a poster is. Publishing a news article based on a poster is deeply irresponsible.
Don't school me on what is "helpful" or not. If you don't understand how these issues are essentially part of a big advertising-propaganda complex, you need some basic history lessons.
I get your frustration with much of modern medicine, but let's not forget it's a systems problem, and it appears most medical providers are equally frustrated with it. As for what you said, the words you used that I was responding to were these words (I'll include the entire sentence this time): "Things like these aren't just 'click bait' -- they're a political, ideological weapon meant to keep people in line." If you want to explain more specifically what you meant by that, I'm all ears. I simply don't see how such a silly article as this could ever serve as a "political, ideological weapon" that will "keep people in line." I agree with you that publishing a news article about a non-peer reviewed poster, especially one as deeply flawed as this, is very irresponsible of the publisher.
I didn't use any of those words, and saying "whatever Bogeyman you fear most is trying to get you to eat more often?" is a bad faith characterization, so basically: fuck you. You and your people are so horny to get on anyone or anything that can be characterized as a "conspiracy theory", you miss the point of what people are saying.
Your critique of me is entirely an embodiment of your own inner dialog. You don't need any "deep state" explanations to see the obvious. I have dozens of posters, I know what a poster is. Publishing a news article based on a poster is deeply irresponsible.
Don't school me on what is "helpful" or not. If you don't understand how these issues are essentially part of a big advertising-propaganda complex, you need some basic history lessons.
I get your frustration with much of modern medicine, but let's not forget it's a systems problem, and it appears most medical providers are equally frustrated with it. As for what you said, the words you used that I was responding to were these words (I'll include the entire sentence this time): "Things like these aren't just 'click bait' -- they're a political, ideological weapon meant to keep people in line." If you want to explain more specifically what you meant by that, I'm all ears. I simply don't see how such a silly article as this could ever serve as a "political, ideological weapon" that will "keep people in line." I agree with you that publishing a news article about a non-peer reviewed poster, especially one as deeply flawed as this, is very irresponsible of the publisher.