4 ms·
Summary at 6:30 of section 9 of 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tyaRnfGRV0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tyaRnfGRV0 The guy seems pretty sensible in his e
by pingswept 17y ago
Summary at 6:30 of section 9 of 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tyaRnfGRV0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tyaRnfGRV0
The guy seems pretty sensible in his explanations earlier in the video series, but his style is inflammatory. If he left out the bitterness toward the industry players that he's arguing with, he'd be more convincing.
- neilk 17y agoHe thinks he's uncovered a major medical emergency that affects maybe a third of American citizens, to the profit of giant corporations, with government agencies in collusion. I would doubt him more if (given his claims) he didn't feel strongly about it.
- pingswept 17y agoIf he's right, it does seem to be a major medical emergency, and so forth, as you describe. But it's not a sudden catastrophe, like an earthquake. He's surely held these same beliefs for at least a few months, right? Maybe I should be more specific. Calling sugar a poison is a good example. It may be true, in a sense, but it's definitely not true in the conventional usage. For example, if you call Poison Control and say you have eaten some sugar, they would not help you. That's what I'd call inflammatory. On the other hand, maybe it's just me. It's possible that I find dispassionate argument more convincing than most people.