Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Intermittent fasting - Dr Jason Fung
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »he also states that using insulin makes your diabetes worse over time. hes made a lot of false claims he just needs to stick with being a nephrologist.
Glucose management is WELL within the interests of a nephrologist.
This is a curious line of attack. Fung isn't a bariatrician or an endocrinologist so he's not entitled to comment on those fields... well are YOU a bariatrician or endocrinologist by chance? If not, what right do you have to opine?
When someone who doesn't have credentials in a field claims that they know better than people who do have credentials in that field, I think anyone has a right to opine that that's shady.
Fung takes a kernel of something that's in his wheelhouse, extrapolates it out to the nth degree, over dramatizes the conclusion, and then uses his own "case studies" as "proof", or cherry picks research that seems to support his claims while flat out ignoring research that refutes it.
And I'd like to add, as others have, that none of this is a knock on IF. It is a great plan for many people to get their diets under control. There are some theories out there that it has other benefits, which may or may not hold up to the necessary further studying and testing. And then there's a lot of miracle cure, click-bait science fiction out there about IF trying to cash in on it's current popularity.
Dodging the whole qualification debate but if he is suggesting a type of diet combined with intermittent fasting to reduce medication to control T2D and it helps in any way, isn't this a good thing? I am assuming that the individual would either be under a doctors care or knowledgeable in how to monitor their insulin levels so they don't exceed levels that could cause harm. I am very anti medication so if I am told I need medication I will try any method possible to correct the need for it if possible.
I think some criticisms of Fung come because people tend to forget that people with IR are his audience. If you forget that, it can come off that he is saying that insulin = evil for everyone because the main focus on his diet is to reduce insulin levels (through diet, weightloss and IF).
Books like "The Obesity Code" seem to be marketed towards everyone with a concern about their weight, not people with a specific diagnosis of IR.
Obesity code is marketed more towards everyone than the book we were discussing in this thread, which is called Diabetes Code.
The point is that he's marketing his IR-specific strategy as if it's the only key to weight loss for *everyone*. That's what I have an issue with. Anyone claiming that people with IR are his audience are ignoring that he is attempting to expand the definition of "people with IR" to anyone who has weight they'd like to lose.
I wonder what percentage of the overweight population is pre- diabetic, IR or pre IR if there is such a term? If it is significant he may not be as far off as you suggest. I don't know if numbers exist on this but was just throwing it out there. I would also guess that there is a huge % that doesn't even know they have any of these issues.
But you are just guessing. As you said, you don't know. So, why speculate?
IIRC, nvketokom was IR without being substantially overweight. Possibly I'm mistaken. But there are those in whom this is the case. Its generally a bad idea to draw sweeping conclusions based on a guess.
If Fung is saying it is true (and he is), then pointing out that it could be true and we just have no way of knowing for sure isn't a very good defense of Fung.
I have seen him in an interview on YouTube but I must admit I was not riveted to the screen. I know very little about his message but I get the sense that there is a knee jerk reaction around here to basically describe him as a unqualified liar intent on deception, practicing outside of his field and offering dangerous advice. He may not be the best doctor for all people but I suspect he has more redeeming qualities than most here are willing admit. Disagreeing with him is fine but when a group starts looking more like bullies using derogatory adjectives like quack, money grabber, unqualified, outside his field I get suspicious. MD's must study a great deal of medical information both in their specialty and outside of it. It is not unreasonable for his research to go outside of his narrow specialty especially if it may be related. I think it may be a bit much for a bunch of MFP armchair quarterbacks with a lesser degree to rip apart a MD and his qualification's because they dislike the message.
If you know little about his message, I'm unsure why you are doubting those of us who have paid attention to what he is saying and have concerns.
What basis do you have for suspecting that those who have concerns *based on listening to and reading his own words* are wrong and you -- who haven't -- are right? I think at this point you're just have sympathies for someone you consider to be of "your tribe" and feel compelled to defend him even though you aren't quite sure what you're defending.
Before concluding that those who have been exposed to his message and have concerns are bullies having a "knee jerk reaction" and you're the only one acting rationally (despite your admission that you aren't even sure what you're defending), maybe you could actually expose yourself to what he is saying.
Because this last post of yours right here, it's just how you feel about *us*. It has nothing to do with Fung. It can't because you don't know anything more about him than "Well, doctors study a lot and he's a doctor, right?" and "I don't like it when I think people are calling Fung a liar."
Do you have a response to the specific concerns people have brought up about Fung's statements? Keep in mind that people can be right in a critique even if the manner in which they express it rubs you the wrong way. I don't understand why you think your "sense" about Fung should override what he actually says and does.
I think I will check out more information on Dr. Fung. I didn't say that he should not be a topic of debate. It was when I saw the negativity that belittled his education and relied on derogatory names by some I became suspicious that anything he comments on is being taken in small parts to be bashed and not as a whole. I do not know him or his work but suspect he may not be getting treated fairly by people that are likely less educated in the medical field then his is. It is not his content I am talking about here but the way some choose to knock him down only by personal negativity. To agree with that I would have to believe he is doctor bent on destroying people to benefit his own wealth. Debate away and I will try to see how bad he really is.
You don't have to believe that someone has to be "bent on destroying people" to be wrong. People make mistakes in good faith all the time. People often think they are right when they are not.
There isn't really a point in debating as long as you don't know what Fung has said.
It wouldn't really be fair if every single person who decided Fung was wrong was treating him poorly due to their own lack of understanding and education. It also isn't particularly fair for you to conclude that those who disagree with Fung are uneducated, unfair, or engaging in personal negativity when you don't even know what Fung is arguing. Stop and think about that for a minute. You're accusing other posters of some pretty negative behavior. Yet you can't even assess the basis of their arguments.
It's possible to debate ideas without debating personalities. Fung may be a wonderful person, but I disagree with him that everyone who is overweight has IR and that obesity is impossible to resolve without his specific plan. I don't have specific insight into why he is arguing this when there doesn't appear to be sufficient evidence to support it. It could be that he is wanting to make money. It could also be that he is convinced he is right and that he alone can help these people. I will tell you what I have done: I have read what he said before making up my mind on his theories and debating them with other people. That's what I recommend to you.
I could not agree more. Moreover, I don't see anyone attacking him personally. Yes, he being called a quack but that is justified by his writings and claims. He may truly be sincere but, based on the evidence, he is sincerely wrong. FTR, I have read one of his books and enough of his online writing to understand his hypothesis and approach and their flaws. Before someone want to defend him, it would be helpful of they actually knew what he claims and why.
I wasn't so much defending him but pointing out that he, in my opinion may be getting some harsh treatment. I don't have to know you to determine that people are treating you harshly or disrespecting you. You are justifying classifying him as a quack because you disagree with his opinion or research. I will take your challenge to understand what he is about and see if I can find where according to him all obesity has IR and how it is impossible to resolve without his specific plan. It sounds narrow and far fetched but I will try.
Just for clarity, I have not called him a quack. I do think he is totally misguided. Especially in his assertion that calories don't matter that is all about triggering insulin with carbs. He sees insulin as evil. Quite honestly, without insulin, you die. It is how cells get nutrients. That's why diabetics take it when their body doesn't produce it.
I don't know his motives but his science and his hypothesizing are poor. His self promotion is pretty heavy. Those 2 things cause me to view him in a very poor light. I have read one of his books, The Obesity Code. If you are IR, his theories will work, even if they are for the wrong reasons. Increasing fiber and protein, decreasing simple sugars and reducing body fat will all have a positive effect on IR.
When he starts evangelizing to the non IR population, he is all wet.13 -
Just for clarity, I have not called him a quack...
I did, and I stand by it as my opinion.
He either has no knowledge of how energy balance works in the human body, or he knows and he's intentionally being disingenuous about it to sell his books to desperate, gullible people. His "science" has been completely disproven but he refuses to back away from it (just like Taubes), because he's painted himself into a corner and now he'd look like a fool to his followers if he admitted he was wrong. But he already looks like a fool to others who understand that what he's saying is not at all how things work.
Fung is a laughingstock amongst evidence-based researchers and has been the butt of their jokes many times. He once stuck his head into the Facebook page for the International Society of Sports Nutrition to promote one of his upcoming seminars and got torn to shreds and laughed out of the group.16 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »he also states that using insulin makes your diabetes worse over time. hes made a lot of false claims he just needs to stick with being a nephrologist.
Glucose management is WELL within the interests of a nephrologist.
This is a curious line of attack. Fung isn't a bariatrician or an endocrinologist so he's not entitled to comment on those fields... well are YOU a bariatrician or endocrinologist by chance? If not, what right do you have to opine?
When someone who doesn't have credentials in a field claims that they know better than people who do have credentials in that field, I think anyone has a right to opine that that's shady.
Fung takes a kernel of something that's in his wheelhouse, extrapolates it out to the nth degree, over dramatizes the conclusion, and then uses his own "case studies" as "proof", or cherry picks research that seems to support his claims while flat out ignoring research that refutes it.
And I'd like to add, as others have, that none of this is a knock on IF. It is a great plan for many people to get their diets under control. There are some theories out there that it has other benefits, which may or may not hold up to the necessary further studying and testing. And then there's a lot of miracle cure, click-bait science fiction out there about IF trying to cash in on it's current popularity.
Dodging the whole qualification debate but if he is suggesting a type of diet combined with intermittent fasting to reduce medication to control T2D and it helps in any way, isn't this a good thing? I am assuming that the individual would either be under a doctors care or knowledgeable in how to monitor their insulin levels so they don't exceed levels that could cause harm. I am very anti medication so if I am told I need medication I will try any method possible to correct the need for it if possible.
I think some criticisms of Fung come because people tend to forget that people with IR are his audience. If you forget that, it can come off that he is saying that insulin = evil for everyone because the main focus on his diet is to reduce insulin levels (through diet, weightloss and IF).
Books like "The Obesity Code" seem to be marketed towards everyone with a concern about their weight, not people with a specific diagnosis of IR.
Obesity code is marketed more towards everyone than the book we were discussing in this thread, which is called Diabetes Code.
The point is that he's marketing his IR-specific strategy as if it's the only key to weight loss for *everyone*. That's what I have an issue with. Anyone claiming that people with IR are his audience are ignoring that he is attempting to expand the definition of "people with IR" to anyone who has weight they'd like to lose.
I wonder what percentage of the overweight population is pre- diabetic, IR or pre IR if there is such a term? If it is significant he may not be as far off as you suggest. I don't know if numbers exist on this but was just throwing it out there. I would also guess that there is a huge % that doesn't even know they have any of these issues.
But you are just guessing. As you said, you don't know. So, why speculate?
IIRC, nvketokom was IR without being substantially overweight. Possibly I'm mistaken. But there are those in whom this is the case. Its generally a bad idea to draw sweeping conclusions based on a guess.
That's true. I was just at the high end of the normal BMI. Not over fat but not slim either. I gained more quickly once I already had IR. I also think I partially developed my IR (or it developed more quickly) due to repeated steroid use for autoimmune issues... and my high carb diet.
My guess is that a larger portion of the overweight population has IR than those with normal weight. Considering that IR includes T2D, prediabetes, NAFLD, PCOS and some dementia, the majority of the population will develop IR in their lifetime.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »he also states that using insulin makes your diabetes worse over time. hes made a lot of false claims he just needs to stick with being a nephrologist.
Glucose management is WELL within the interests of a nephrologist.
This is a curious line of attack. Fung isn't a bariatrician or an endocrinologist so he's not entitled to comment on those fields... well are YOU a bariatrician or endocrinologist by chance? If not, what right do you have to opine?
When someone who doesn't have credentials in a field claims that they know better than people who do have credentials in that field, I think anyone has a right to opine that that's shady.
Fung takes a kernel of something that's in his wheelhouse, extrapolates it out to the nth degree, over dramatizes the conclusion, and then uses his own "case studies" as "proof", or cherry picks research that seems to support his claims while flat out ignoring research that refutes it.
And I'd like to add, as others have, that none of this is a knock on IF. It is a great plan for many people to get their diets under control. There are some theories out there that it has other benefits, which may or may not hold up to the necessary further studying and testing. And then there's a lot of miracle cure, click-bait science fiction out there about IF trying to cash in on it's current popularity.
Dodging the whole qualification debate but if he is suggesting a type of diet combined with intermittent fasting to reduce medication to control T2D and it helps in any way, isn't this a good thing? I am assuming that the individual would either be under a doctors care or knowledgeable in how to monitor their insulin levels so they don't exceed levels that could cause harm. I am very anti medication so if I am told I need medication I will try any method possible to correct the need for it if possible.
I think some criticisms of Fung come because people tend to forget that people with IR are his audience. If you forget that, it can come off that he is saying that insulin = evil for everyone because the main focus on his diet is to reduce insulin levels (through diet, weightloss and IF).
Books like "The Obesity Code" seem to be marketed towards everyone with a concern about their weight, not people with a specific diagnosis of IR.
Obesity code is marketed more towards everyone than the book we were discussing in this thread, which is called Diabetes Code.
The point is that he's marketing his IR-specific strategy as if it's the only key to weight loss for *everyone*. That's what I have an issue with. Anyone claiming that people with IR are his audience are ignoring that he is attempting to expand the definition of "people with IR" to anyone who has weight they'd like to lose.
I wonder what percentage of the overweight population is pre- diabetic, IR or pre IR if there is such a term? If it is significant he may not be as far off as you suggest. I don't know if numbers exist on this but was just throwing it out there. I would also guess that there is a huge % that doesn't even know they have any of these issues.
But you are just guessing. As you said, you don't know. So, why speculate?
IIRC, nvketokom was IR without being substantially overweight. Possibly I'm mistaken. But there are those in whom this is the case. Its generally a bad idea to draw sweeping conclusions based on a guess.
If Fung is saying it is true (and he is), then pointing out that it could be true and we just have no way of knowing for sure isn't a very good defense of Fung.
I have seen him in an interview on YouTube but I must admit I was not riveted to the screen. I know very little about his message but I get the sense that there is a knee jerk reaction around here to basically describe him as a unqualified liar intent on deception, practicing outside of his field and offering dangerous advice. He may not be the best doctor for all people but I suspect he has more redeeming qualities than most here are willing admit. Disagreeing with him is fine but when a group starts looking more like bullies using derogatory adjectives like quack, money grabber, unqualified, outside his field I get suspicious. MD's must study a great deal of medical information both in their specialty and outside of it. It is not unreasonable for his research to go outside of his narrow specialty especially if it may be related. I think it may be a bit much for a bunch of MFP armchair quarterbacks with a lesser degree to rip apart a MD and his qualification's because they dislike the message.
If you know little about his message, I'm unsure why you are doubting those of us who have paid attention to what he is saying and have concerns.
What basis do you have for suspecting that those who have concerns *based on listening to and reading his own words* are wrong and you -- who haven't -- are right? I think at this point you're just have sympathies for someone you consider to be of "your tribe" and feel compelled to defend him even though you aren't quite sure what you're defending.
Before concluding that those who have been exposed to his message and have concerns are bullies having a "knee jerk reaction" and you're the only one acting rationally (despite your admission that you aren't even sure what you're defending), maybe you could actually expose yourself to what he is saying.
Because this last post of yours right here, it's just how you feel about *us*. It has nothing to do with Fung. It can't because you don't know anything more about him than "Well, doctors study a lot and he's a doctor, right?" and "I don't like it when I think people are calling Fung a liar."
Do you have a response to the specific concerns people have brought up about Fung's statements? Keep in mind that people can be right in a critique even if the manner in which they express it rubs you the wrong way. I don't understand why you think your "sense" about Fung should override what he actually says and does.
I think I will check out more information on Dr. Fung. I didn't say that he should not be a topic of debate. It was when I saw the negativity that belittled his education and relied on derogatory names by some I became suspicious that anything he comments on is being taken in small parts to be bashed and not as a whole. I do not know him or his work but suspect he may not be getting treated fairly by people that are likely less educated in the medical field then his is. It is not his content I am talking about here but the way some choose to knock him down only by personal negativity. To agree with that I would have to believe he is doctor bent on destroying people to benefit his own wealth. Debate away and I will try to see how bad he really is.
My problem with Fung is that he overgeneralizes. His work that shows that fasting and LCHF reduces insulin, IR and tends to promote weight loss in those with IR is good. I think he needs to make it more clear that it isn't a one size fits all solution. His ideas are great for some, but not all - like every diet.
If you want to look at his work, Obesity Code is his first book. He has one on fasting, and then Diabetes Code. I quite like his talks for the layperson. He is good at bringing it to a level that most will understand.5 -
I could not agree more. Moreover, I don't see anyone attacking him personally. Yes, he being called a quack but that is justified by his writings and claims. He may truly be sincere but, based on the evidence, he is sincerely wrong. FTR, I have read one of his books and enough of his online writing to understand his hypothesis and approach and their flaws. Before someone want to defend him, it would be helpful of they actually knew what he claims and why.
I wasn't so much defending him but pointing out that he, in my opinion may be getting some harsh treatment. I don't have to know you to determine that people are treating you harshly or disrespecting you. You are justifying classifying him as a quack because you disagree with his opinion or research. I will take your challenge to understand what he is about and see if I can find where according to him all obesity has IR and how it is impossible to resolve without his specific plan. It sounds narrow and far fetched but I will try.
When someone puts themselves out in public, suggesting they know the way, being critical when they are wrong isn't harsh treatment.
We hold people who present themselves as experts to a higher standard. They are the ones who make the claim that they hold some expertise. To hold them to their own stated standards is not treating them harshly, it is taking them at their word and holding them to it.
What would be cruel and harsh treatment is to not call out such statements when they exist. The harm that can be done to those who fail to critically analyze what is being presented is very real.
Being cruel is not the analysis and critique of his argument, but making fun of him for some unrelated aspect such as his appearance, or his spouse, or his heritage, or some other unrelated characteristic.
Being critical of his argument is anything but cruel.
11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »he also states that using insulin makes your diabetes worse over time. hes made a lot of false claims he just needs to stick with being a nephrologist.
Glucose management is WELL within the interests of a nephrologist.
This is a curious line of attack. Fung isn't a bariatrician or an endocrinologist so he's not entitled to comment on those fields... well are YOU a bariatrician or endocrinologist by chance? If not, what right do you have to opine?
When someone who doesn't have credentials in a field claims that they know better than people who do have credentials in that field, I think anyone has a right to opine that that's shady.
Fung takes a kernel of something that's in his wheelhouse, extrapolates it out to the nth degree, over dramatizes the conclusion, and then uses his own "case studies" as "proof", or cherry picks research that seems to support his claims while flat out ignoring research that refutes it.
And I'd like to add, as others have, that none of this is a knock on IF. It is a great plan for many people to get their diets under control. There are some theories out there that it has other benefits, which may or may not hold up to the necessary further studying and testing. And then there's a lot of miracle cure, click-bait science fiction out there about IF trying to cash in on it's current popularity.
Dodging the whole qualification debate but if he is suggesting a type of diet combined with intermittent fasting to reduce medication to control T2D and it helps in any way, isn't this a good thing? I am assuming that the individual would either be under a doctors care or knowledgeable in how to monitor their insulin levels so they don't exceed levels that could cause harm. I am very anti medication so if I am told I need medication I will try any method possible to correct the need for it if possible.
I think some criticisms of Fung come because people tend to forget that people with IR are his audience. If you forget that, it can come off that he is saying that insulin = evil for everyone because the main focus on his diet is to reduce insulin levels (through diet, weightloss and IF).
Books like "The Obesity Code" seem to be marketed towards everyone with a concern about their weight, not people with a specific diagnosis of IR.
Obesity code is marketed more towards everyone than the book we were discussing in this thread, which is called Diabetes Code.
The point is that he's marketing his IR-specific strategy as if it's the only key to weight loss for *everyone*. That's what I have an issue with. Anyone claiming that people with IR are his audience are ignoring that he is attempting to expand the definition of "people with IR" to anyone who has weight they'd like to lose.
I wonder what percentage of the overweight population is pre- diabetic, IR or pre IR if there is such a term? If it is significant he may not be as far off as you suggest. I don't know if numbers exist on this but was just throwing it out there. I would also guess that there is a huge % that doesn't even know they have any of these issues.
But you are just guessing. As you said, you don't know. So, why speculate?
IIRC, nvketokom was IR without being substantially overweight. Possibly I'm mistaken. But there are those in whom this is the case. Its generally a bad idea to draw sweeping conclusions based on a guess.
If Fung is saying it is true (and he is), then pointing out that it could be true and we just have no way of knowing for sure isn't a very good defense of Fung.
I have seen him in an interview on YouTube but I must admit I was not riveted to the screen. I know very little about his message but I get the sense that there is a knee jerk reaction around here to basically describe him as a unqualified liar intent on deception, practicing outside of his field and offering dangerous advice. He may not be the best doctor for all people but I suspect he has more redeeming qualities than most here are willing admit. Disagreeing with him is fine but when a group starts looking more like bullies using derogatory adjectives like quack, money grabber, unqualified, outside his field I get suspicious. MD's must study a great deal of medical information both in their specialty and outside of it. It is not unreasonable for his research to go outside of his narrow specialty especially if it may be related. I think it may be a bit much for a bunch of MFP armchair quarterbacks with a lesser degree to rip apart a MD and his qualification's because they dislike the message.
If you know little about his message, I'm unsure why you are doubting those of us who have paid attention to what he is saying and have concerns.
What basis do you have for suspecting that those who have concerns *based on listening to and reading his own words* are wrong and you -- who haven't -- are right? I think at this point you're just have sympathies for someone you consider to be of "your tribe" and feel compelled to defend him even though you aren't quite sure what you're defending.
Before concluding that those who have been exposed to his message and have concerns are bullies having a "knee jerk reaction" and you're the only one acting rationally (despite your admission that you aren't even sure what you're defending), maybe you could actually expose yourself to what he is saying.
Because this last post of yours right here, it's just how you feel about *us*. It has nothing to do with Fung. It can't because you don't know anything more about him than "Well, doctors study a lot and he's a doctor, right?" and "I don't like it when I think people are calling Fung a liar."
Do you have a response to the specific concerns people have brought up about Fung's statements? Keep in mind that people can be right in a critique even if the manner in which they express it rubs you the wrong way. I don't understand why you think your "sense" about Fung should override what he actually says and does.
I think I will check out more information on Dr. Fung. I didn't say that he should not be a topic of debate. It was when I saw the negativity that belittled his education and relied on derogatory names by some I became suspicious that anything he comments on is being taken in small parts to be bashed and not as a whole. I do not know him or his work but suspect he may not be getting treated fairly by people that are likely less educated in the medical field then his is. It is not his content I am talking about here but the way some choose to knock him down only by personal negativity. To agree with that I would have to believe he is doctor bent on destroying people to benefit his own wealth. Debate away and I will try to see how bad he really is.
My problem with Fung is that he overgeneralizes. His work that shows that fasting and LCHF reduces insulin, IR and tends to promote weight loss in those with IR is good. I think he needs to make it more clear that it isn't a one size fits all solution. His ideas are great for some, but not all - like every diet.
If you want to look at his work, Obesity Code is his first book. He has one on fasting, and then Diabetes Code. I quite like his talks for the layperson. He is good at bringing it to a level that most will understand.
Exactly what "work" would that be. And no cherry picked one sided books don't count and neither does a 3 patient case series.4 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
I could not agree more. Moreover, I don't see anyone attacking him personally. Yes, he being called a quack but that is justified by his writings and claims. He may truly be sincere but, based on the evidence, he is sincerely wrong. FTR, I have read one of his books and enough of his online writing to understand his hypothesis and approach and their flaws. Before someone want to defend him, it would be helpful of they actually knew what he claims and why.
I wasn't so much defending him but pointing out that he, in my opinion may be getting some harsh treatment. I don't have to know you to determine that people are treating you harshly or disrespecting you. You are justifying classifying him as a quack because you disagree with his opinion or research. I will take your challenge to understand what he is about and see if I can find where according to him all obesity has IR and how it is impossible to resolve without his specific plan. It sounds narrow and far fetched but I will try.
When someone puts themselves out in public, suggesting they know the way, being critical when they are wrong isn't harsh treatment.
We hold people who present themselves as experts to a higher standard. They are the ones who make the claim that they hold some expertise. To hold them to their own stated standards is not treating them harshly, it is taking them at their word and holding them to it.
What would be cruel and harsh treatment is to not call out such statements when they exist. The harm that can be done to those who fail to critically analyze what is being presented is very real.
Being cruel is not the analysis and critique of his argument, but making fun of him for some unrelated aspect such as his appearance, or his spouse, or his heritage, or some other unrelated characteristic.
Being critical of his argument is anything but cruel.
A doctor can debate another doctor and it is part of the normal process of getting published and proving or disproving a hypothesis. I doubt the robust debate starts with "hey you money grabbing self serving liar quack..." .
I wasn't supporting his content and you are free to rip it to shreds. It was only the use of insulting terms and belittling of his education I thought was over the top.
I did watch one of his lectures last night and I think I see what the problem is but I will need to read some books to get more background on Dr. Fung.1 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
I could not agree more. Moreover, I don't see anyone attacking him personally. Yes, he being called a quack but that is justified by his writings and claims. He may truly be sincere but, based on the evidence, he is sincerely wrong. FTR, I have read one of his books and enough of his online writing to understand his hypothesis and approach and their flaws. Before someone want to defend him, it would be helpful of they actually knew what he claims and why.
I wasn't so much defending him but pointing out that he, in my opinion may be getting some harsh treatment. I don't have to know you to determine that people are treating you harshly or disrespecting you. You are justifying classifying him as a quack because you disagree with his opinion or research. I will take your challenge to understand what he is about and see if I can find where according to him all obesity has IR and how it is impossible to resolve without his specific plan. It sounds narrow and far fetched but I will try.
When someone puts themselves out in public, suggesting they know the way, being critical when they are wrong isn't harsh treatment.
We hold people who present themselves as experts to a higher standard. They are the ones who make the claim that they hold some expertise. To hold them to their own stated standards is not treating them harshly, it is taking them at their word and holding them to it.
What would be cruel and harsh treatment is to not call out such statements when they exist. The harm that can be done to those who fail to critically analyze what is being presented is very real.
Being cruel is not the analysis and critique of his argument, but making fun of him for some unrelated aspect such as his appearance, or his spouse, or his heritage, or some other unrelated characteristic.
Being critical of his argument is anything but cruel.
A doctor can debate another doctor and it is part of the normal process of getting published and proving or disproving a hypothesis. I doubt the robust debate starts with "hey you money grabbing self serving liar quack..." .
I wasn't supporting his content and you are free to rip it to shreds. It was only the use of insulting terms and belittling of his education I thought was over the top.
I did watch one of his lectures last night and I think I see what the problem is but I will need to read some books to get more background on Dr. Fung.
The bigger issue is, Dr. Fung is not a scientist. He is refuted by scientist who have actually done research for decades. Dr. Fung cherry picks studies to align to his theory. This is fine if it helps people. But it is also often dishonest (i.e., his promotion of fasting increase testosterone).
Scientist are the ones who study and test theories. Doctors take those results, and diagnose and treat patients.
And heck, if you really want to understand fasting and/or ketogenic diets, look at the people leading the way. Lyle McDonald and Martin Berkhan have been involved in this for a long time.11 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
I could not agree more. Moreover, I don't see anyone attacking him personally. Yes, he being called a quack but that is justified by his writings and claims. He may truly be sincere but, based on the evidence, he is sincerely wrong. FTR, I have read one of his books and enough of his online writing to understand his hypothesis and approach and their flaws. Before someone want to defend him, it would be helpful of they actually knew what he claims and why.
I wasn't so much defending him but pointing out that he, in my opinion may be getting some harsh treatment. I don't have to know you to determine that people are treating you harshly or disrespecting you. You are justifying classifying him as a quack because you disagree with his opinion or research. I will take your challenge to understand what he is about and see if I can find where according to him all obesity has IR and how it is impossible to resolve without his specific plan. It sounds narrow and far fetched but I will try.
When someone puts themselves out in public, suggesting they know the way, being critical when they are wrong isn't harsh treatment.
We hold people who present themselves as experts to a higher standard. They are the ones who make the claim that they hold some expertise. To hold them to their own stated standards is not treating them harshly, it is taking them at their word and holding them to it.
What would be cruel and harsh treatment is to not call out such statements when they exist. The harm that can be done to those who fail to critically analyze what is being presented is very real.
Being cruel is not the analysis and critique of his argument, but making fun of him for some unrelated aspect such as his appearance, or his spouse, or his heritage, or some other unrelated characteristic.
Being critical of his argument is anything but cruel.
A doctor can debate another doctor and it is part of the normal process of getting published and proving or disproving a hypothesis. I doubt the robust debate starts with "hey you money grabbing self serving liar quack..." .
I wasn't supporting his content and you are free to rip it to shreds. It was only the use of insulting terms and belittling of his education I thought was over the top.
I did watch one of his lectures last night and I think I see what the problem is but I will need to read some books to get more background on Dr. Fung.
He is making money peddling nonsense to the uneducated so I really don't feel that calling him a money grabbing self serving liar quack is too harsh. You have repeatedly stated that you know little about him though, so I still don't understand why you are defending him. You are dismissing educated people's views simply because you yourself are uneducated. That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.10 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
I could not agree more. Moreover, I don't see anyone attacking him personally. Yes, he being called a quack but that is justified by his writings and claims. He may truly be sincere but, based on the evidence, he is sincerely wrong. FTR, I have read one of his books and enough of his online writing to understand his hypothesis and approach and their flaws. Before someone want to defend him, it would be helpful of they actually knew what he claims and why.
I wasn't so much defending him but pointing out that he, in my opinion may be getting some harsh treatment. I don't have to know you to determine that people are treating you harshly or disrespecting you. You are justifying classifying him as a quack because you disagree with his opinion or research. I will take your challenge to understand what he is about and see if I can find where according to him all obesity has IR and how it is impossible to resolve without his specific plan. It sounds narrow and far fetched but I will try.
When someone puts themselves out in public, suggesting they know the way, being critical when they are wrong isn't harsh treatment.
We hold people who present themselves as experts to a higher standard. They are the ones who make the claim that they hold some expertise. To hold them to their own stated standards is not treating them harshly, it is taking them at their word and holding them to it.
What would be cruel and harsh treatment is to not call out such statements when they exist. The harm that can be done to those who fail to critically analyze what is being presented is very real.
Being cruel is not the analysis and critique of his argument, but making fun of him for some unrelated aspect such as his appearance, or his spouse, or his heritage, or some other unrelated characteristic.
Being critical of his argument is anything but cruel.
A doctor can debate another doctor and it is part of the normal process of getting published and proving or disproving a hypothesis. I doubt the robust debate starts with "hey you money grabbing self serving liar quack..." .
I wasn't supporting his content and you are free to rip it to shreds. It was only the use of insulting terms and belittling of his education I thought was over the top.
I did watch one of his lectures last night and I think I see what the problem is but I will need to read some books to get more background on Dr. Fung.
He is making money peddling nonsense to the uneducated so I really don't feel that calling him a money grabbing self serving liar quack is too harsh. You have repeatedly stated that you know little about him though, so I still don't understand why you are defending him. You are dismissing educated people's views simply because you yourself are uneducated. That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.
I rest my case.14 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
I could not agree more. Moreover, I don't see anyone attacking him personally. Yes, he being called a quack but that is justified by his writings and claims. He may truly be sincere but, based on the evidence, he is sincerely wrong. FTR, I have read one of his books and enough of his online writing to understand his hypothesis and approach and their flaws. Before someone want to defend him, it would be helpful of they actually knew what he claims and why.
I wasn't so much defending him but pointing out that he, in my opinion may be getting some harsh treatment. I don't have to know you to determine that people are treating you harshly or disrespecting you. You are justifying classifying him as a quack because you disagree with his opinion or research. I will take your challenge to understand what he is about and see if I can find where according to him all obesity has IR and how it is impossible to resolve without his specific plan. It sounds narrow and far fetched but I will try.
When someone puts themselves out in public, suggesting they know the way, being critical when they are wrong isn't harsh treatment.
We hold people who present themselves as experts to a higher standard. They are the ones who make the claim that they hold some expertise. To hold them to their own stated standards is not treating them harshly, it is taking them at their word and holding them to it.
What would be cruel and harsh treatment is to not call out such statements when they exist. The harm that can be done to those who fail to critically analyze what is being presented is very real.
Being cruel is not the analysis and critique of his argument, but making fun of him for some unrelated aspect such as his appearance, or his spouse, or his heritage, or some other unrelated characteristic.
Being critical of his argument is anything but cruel.
A doctor can debate another doctor and it is part of the normal process of getting published and proving or disproving a hypothesis. I doubt the robust debate starts with "hey you money grabbing self serving liar quack..." .
I wasn't supporting his content and you are free to rip it to shreds. It was only the use of insulting terms and belittling of his education I thought was over the top.
I did watch one of his lectures last night and I think I see what the problem is but I will need to read some books to get more background on Dr. Fung.
He is making money peddling nonsense to the uneducated so I really don't feel that calling him a money grabbing self serving liar quack is too harsh. You have repeatedly stated that you know little about him though, so I still don't understand why you are defending him. You are dismissing educated people's views simply because you yourself are uneducated. That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.
I rest my case.
Do you have a problem with the term "quack" being used in any circumstance or just when it's applied to Fung?8 -
The things people have said are just simple English words with simple definitions. They're not merely content-free insults (even though they're pejorative), they're factual claims whose truth-value can be determined.
Quack = "an ignorant, misinformed, or dishonest practitioner of medicine"
Liar = "a person who tells lies", where lie = "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive; to create a false or misleading impression"
Money grabbing* = "very interested in money and trying to get as much money as possible"
Self serving = "serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or the interests of others"
Per Merriam Webster, except * per Macmillan Dictionary.
Is it a modern notion that we shouldn't say negative things about people, regardless of whether they're true?
Note: I haven't - yet - expressed an opinion about whether these things apply to Fung. I'd give decent odds on at least 1 of them, though.11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I could not agree more. Moreover, I don't see anyone attacking him personally. Yes, he being called a quack but that is justified by his writings and claims. He may truly be sincere but, based on the evidence, he is sincerely wrong. FTR, I have read one of his books and enough of his online writing to understand his hypothesis and approach and their flaws. Before someone want to defend him, it would be helpful of they actually knew what he claims and why.
I wasn't so much defending him but pointing out that he, in my opinion may be getting some harsh treatment. I don't have to know you to determine that people are treating you harshly or disrespecting you. You are justifying classifying him as a quack because you disagree with his opinion or research. I will take your challenge to understand what he is about and see if I can find where according to him all obesity has IR and how it is impossible to resolve without his specific plan. It sounds narrow and far fetched but I will try.
When someone puts themselves out in public, suggesting they know the way, being critical when they are wrong isn't harsh treatment.
We hold people who present themselves as experts to a higher standard. They are the ones who make the claim that they hold some expertise. To hold them to their own stated standards is not treating them harshly, it is taking them at their word and holding them to it.
What would be cruel and harsh treatment is to not call out such statements when they exist. The harm that can be done to those who fail to critically analyze what is being presented is very real.
Being cruel is not the analysis and critique of his argument, but making fun of him for some unrelated aspect such as his appearance, or his spouse, or his heritage, or some other unrelated characteristic.
Being critical of his argument is anything but cruel.
A doctor can debate another doctor and it is part of the normal process of getting published and proving or disproving a hypothesis. I doubt the robust debate starts with "hey you money grabbing self serving liar quack..." .
I wasn't supporting his content and you are free to rip it to shreds. It was only the use of insulting terms and belittling of his education I thought was over the top.
I did watch one of his lectures last night and I think I see what the problem is but I will need to read some books to get more background on Dr. Fung.
He is making money peddling nonsense to the uneducated so I really don't feel that calling him a money grabbing self serving liar quack is too harsh. You have repeatedly stated that you know little about him though, so I still don't understand why you are defending him. You are dismissing educated people's views simply because you yourself are uneducated. That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.
I rest my case.
Do you have a problem with the term "quack" being used in any circumstance or just when it's applied to Fung?
I wonder if Fung was promoting a high carb diet for everyone because carbs are very rarely stored as fat (true but irrelevant), and telling people to ignore calories the poster would still be so outraged by him being called a quack?
BTW - using quack is belittling his behaviour rather than his education. Being a charlatan is a career choice open to both the dumb and the clever.9 -
The things people have said are just simple English words with simple definitions. They're not merely content-free insults (even though they're pejorative), they're factual claims whose truth-value can be determined.
Quack = "an ignorant, misinformed, or dishonest practitioner of medicine"
Liar = "a person who tells lies", where lie = "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive; to create a false or misleading impression"
Money grabbing* = "very interested in money and trying to get as much money as possible"
Self serving = "serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or the interests of others"
Per Merriam Webster, except * per Macmillan Dictionary.
Is it a modern notion that we shouldn't say negative things about people, regardless of whether they're true?
Note: I haven't - yet - expressed an opinion about whether these things apply to Fung. I'd give decent odds on at least 1 of them, though.
For myself personally, I try to avoid pejoratives (work in progress) and attributing motives to people (also work in progress). That said, it's not a universal code that I consider others obligated to live by and using either of those techniques in an argument still doesn't undermine or invalidate the rest of the content of the argument.
If someone calls Fung a "quack" or a "liar" because he says "x," "y," and "z," you still have to address those points if you want to defend him. It's not sufficient to focus exclusively on the tone or someone using words you wish they wouldn't.13 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I could not agree more. Moreover, I don't see anyone attacking him personally. Yes, he being called a quack but that is justified by his writings and claims. He may truly be sincere but, based on the evidence, he is sincerely wrong. FTR, I have read one of his books and enough of his online writing to understand his hypothesis and approach and their flaws. Before someone want to defend him, it would be helpful of they actually knew what he claims and why.
I wasn't so much defending him but pointing out that he, in my opinion may be getting some harsh treatment. I don't have to know you to determine that people are treating you harshly or disrespecting you. You are justifying classifying him as a quack because you disagree with his opinion or research. I will take your challenge to understand what he is about and see if I can find where according to him all obesity has IR and how it is impossible to resolve without his specific plan. It sounds narrow and far fetched but I will try.
When someone puts themselves out in public, suggesting they know the way, being critical when they are wrong isn't harsh treatment.
We hold people who present themselves as experts to a higher standard. They are the ones who make the claim that they hold some expertise. To hold them to their own stated standards is not treating them harshly, it is taking them at their word and holding them to it.
What would be cruel and harsh treatment is to not call out such statements when they exist. The harm that can be done to those who fail to critically analyze what is being presented is very real.
Being cruel is not the analysis and critique of his argument, but making fun of him for some unrelated aspect such as his appearance, or his spouse, or his heritage, or some other unrelated characteristic.
Being critical of his argument is anything but cruel.
A doctor can debate another doctor and it is part of the normal process of getting published and proving or disproving a hypothesis. I doubt the robust debate starts with "hey you money grabbing self serving liar quack..." .
I wasn't supporting his content and you are free to rip it to shreds. It was only the use of insulting terms and belittling of his education I thought was over the top.
I did watch one of his lectures last night and I think I see what the problem is but I will need to read some books to get more background on Dr. Fung.
He is making money peddling nonsense to the uneducated so I really don't feel that calling him a money grabbing self serving liar quack is too harsh. You have repeatedly stated that you know little about him though, so I still don't understand why you are defending him. You are dismissing educated people's views simply because you yourself are uneducated. That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.
I rest my case.
Do you have a problem with the term "quack" being used in any circumstance or just when it's applied to Fung?
It really was not about Dr. Fung at all and I said that I don't know a lot about his work which also caused some to criticize me for that. I don't have a problem with someone being critical of a body of work, of a method of research or the way someone markets themselves. I choose to give respect to any Doctor until I see them in handcuffs or get their license yanked. I can still respect them and disagree everything else. I feel that the use of derogatory adjectives to describe the person can only weaken the argument you may have with his work. If I would't call a doctor a quack to his face then I won't do it in a post. I am probably a little old fashioned I guess.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I could not agree more. Moreover, I don't see anyone attacking him personally. Yes, he being called a quack but that is justified by his writings and claims. He may truly be sincere but, based on the evidence, he is sincerely wrong. FTR, I have read one of his books and enough of his online writing to understand his hypothesis and approach and their flaws. Before someone want to defend him, it would be helpful of they actually knew what he claims and why.
I wasn't so much defending him but pointing out that he, in my opinion may be getting some harsh treatment. I don't have to know you to determine that people are treating you harshly or disrespecting you. You are justifying classifying him as a quack because you disagree with his opinion or research. I will take your challenge to understand what he is about and see if I can find where according to him all obesity has IR and how it is impossible to resolve without his specific plan. It sounds narrow and far fetched but I will try.
When someone puts themselves out in public, suggesting they know the way, being critical when they are wrong isn't harsh treatment.
We hold people who present themselves as experts to a higher standard. They are the ones who make the claim that they hold some expertise. To hold them to their own stated standards is not treating them harshly, it is taking them at their word and holding them to it.
What would be cruel and harsh treatment is to not call out such statements when they exist. The harm that can be done to those who fail to critically analyze what is being presented is very real.
Being cruel is not the analysis and critique of his argument, but making fun of him for some unrelated aspect such as his appearance, or his spouse, or his heritage, or some other unrelated characteristic.
Being critical of his argument is anything but cruel.
A doctor can debate another doctor and it is part of the normal process of getting published and proving or disproving a hypothesis. I doubt the robust debate starts with "hey you money grabbing self serving liar quack..." .
I wasn't supporting his content and you are free to rip it to shreds. It was only the use of insulting terms and belittling of his education I thought was over the top.
I did watch one of his lectures last night and I think I see what the problem is but I will need to read some books to get more background on Dr. Fung.
He is making money peddling nonsense to the uneducated so I really don't feel that calling him a money grabbing self serving liar quack is too harsh. You have repeatedly stated that you know little about him though, so I still don't understand why you are defending him. You are dismissing educated people's views simply because you yourself are uneducated. That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.
I rest my case.
Do you have a problem with the term "quack" being used in any circumstance or just when it's applied to Fung?
It really was not about Dr. Fung at all and I said that I don't know a lot about his work which also caused some to criticize me for that. I don't have a problem with someone being critical of a body of work, of a method of research or the way someone markets themselves. I choose to give respect to any Doctor until I see them in handcuffs or get their license yanked. I can still respect them and disagree everything else. I feel that the use of derogatory adjectives to describe the person can only weaken the argument you may have with his work. If I would't call a doctor a quack to his face then I won't do it in a post. I am probably a little old fashioned I guess.
I wouldn't have a problem calling him a quack to his face which is why I didn't hesitate to call him a quack in this post. He is making money off of people peddling nonsense that has repeatedly been disproven. That means that he either is deliberately misleading people to make a quick buck, or he actually believes the nonsense that he is spouting despite what actual science says, and that would make him a quack. I shouldn't have to automatically respect someone just because they are a doctor and they haven't been arrested. There are plenty of doctors that put their own best interests ahead of their patients and I don't believe that these people should be beyond criticism for that.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I could not agree more. Moreover, I don't see anyone attacking him personally. Yes, he being called a quack but that is justified by his writings and claims. He may truly be sincere but, based on the evidence, he is sincerely wrong. FTR, I have read one of his books and enough of his online writing to understand his hypothesis and approach and their flaws. Before someone want to defend him, it would be helpful of they actually knew what he claims and why.
I wasn't so much defending him but pointing out that he, in my opinion may be getting some harsh treatment. I don't have to know you to determine that people are treating you harshly or disrespecting you. You are justifying classifying him as a quack because you disagree with his opinion or research. I will take your challenge to understand what he is about and see if I can find where according to him all obesity has IR and how it is impossible to resolve without his specific plan. It sounds narrow and far fetched but I will try.
When someone puts themselves out in public, suggesting they know the way, being critical when they are wrong isn't harsh treatment.
We hold people who present themselves as experts to a higher standard. They are the ones who make the claim that they hold some expertise. To hold them to their own stated standards is not treating them harshly, it is taking them at their word and holding them to it.
What would be cruel and harsh treatment is to not call out such statements when they exist. The harm that can be done to those who fail to critically analyze what is being presented is very real.
Being cruel is not the analysis and critique of his argument, but making fun of him for some unrelated aspect such as his appearance, or his spouse, or his heritage, or some other unrelated characteristic.
Being critical of his argument is anything but cruel.
A doctor can debate another doctor and it is part of the normal process of getting published and proving or disproving a hypothesis. I doubt the robust debate starts with "hey you money grabbing self serving liar quack..." .
I wasn't supporting his content and you are free to rip it to shreds. It was only the use of insulting terms and belittling of his education I thought was over the top.
I did watch one of his lectures last night and I think I see what the problem is but I will need to read some books to get more background on Dr. Fung.
He is making money peddling nonsense to the uneducated so I really don't feel that calling him a money grabbing self serving liar quack is too harsh. You have repeatedly stated that you know little about him though, so I still don't understand why you are defending him. You are dismissing educated people's views simply because you yourself are uneducated. That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.
I rest my case.
Do you have a problem with the term "quack" being used in any circumstance or just when it's applied to Fung?
It really was not about Dr. Fung at all and I said that I don't know a lot about his work which also caused some to criticize me for that. I don't have a problem with someone being critical of a body of work, of a method of research or the way someone markets themselves. I choose to give respect to any Doctor until I see them in handcuffs or get their license yanked. I can still respect them and disagree everything else. I feel that the use of derogatory adjectives to describe the person can only weaken the argument you may have with his work. If I would't call a doctor a quack to his face then I won't do it in a post. I am probably a little old fashioned I guess.
Nobody criticized you for not knowing about Fung. Plenty of people have no idea who he is and that's fine. The issue is that, not knowing anything about his work, you assumed that people who did know it and were discussing it were being "bullies" or "over the top."
You may choose to give blanket respect to all doctors until they are arrested for a crime or lose their license. But nobody else is obligated to live by your code. Furthermore, the doctor who is arrested or loses their license doesn't automatically become a different person at that moment. They were likely up to no good before that which is why it isn't necessarily a good idea to give blanket respect to someone just because they're an MD.
It doesn't weaken an argument to use words like "quack" or "liar" to describe someone. The underlying argument is still there, you're just choosing to disregard it because of your concerns about tone. It's irrelevant to the argument, although you can certainly form an independent opinion of the *character* of the person using those terms if you're someone who chooses not to use them yourself.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I could not agree more. Moreover, I don't see anyone attacking him personally. Yes, he being called a quack but that is justified by his writings and claims. He may truly be sincere but, based on the evidence, he is sincerely wrong. FTR, I have read one of his books and enough of his online writing to understand his hypothesis and approach and their flaws. Before someone want to defend him, it would be helpful of they actually knew what he claims and why.
I wasn't so much defending him but pointing out that he, in my opinion may be getting some harsh treatment. I don't have to know you to determine that people are treating you harshly or disrespecting you. You are justifying classifying him as a quack because you disagree with his opinion or research. I will take your challenge to understand what he is about and see if I can find where according to him all obesity has IR and how it is impossible to resolve without his specific plan. It sounds narrow and far fetched but I will try.
When someone puts themselves out in public, suggesting they know the way, being critical when they are wrong isn't harsh treatment.
We hold people who present themselves as experts to a higher standard. They are the ones who make the claim that they hold some expertise. To hold them to their own stated standards is not treating them harshly, it is taking them at their word and holding them to it.
What would be cruel and harsh treatment is to not call out such statements when they exist. The harm that can be done to those who fail to critically analyze what is being presented is very real.
Being cruel is not the analysis and critique of his argument, but making fun of him for some unrelated aspect such as his appearance, or his spouse, or his heritage, or some other unrelated characteristic.
Being critical of his argument is anything but cruel.
A doctor can debate another doctor and it is part of the normal process of getting published and proving or disproving a hypothesis. I doubt the robust debate starts with "hey you money grabbing self serving liar quack..." .
I wasn't supporting his content and you are free to rip it to shreds. It was only the use of insulting terms and belittling of his education I thought was over the top.
I did watch one of his lectures last night and I think I see what the problem is but I will need to read some books to get more background on Dr. Fung.
He is making money peddling nonsense to the uneducated so I really don't feel that calling him a money grabbing self serving liar quack is too harsh. You have repeatedly stated that you know little about him though, so I still don't understand why you are defending him. You are dismissing educated people's views simply because you yourself are uneducated. That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.
I rest my case.
Do you have a problem with the term "quack" being used in any circumstance or just when it's applied to Fung?
It really was not about Dr. Fung at all and I said that I don't know a lot about his work which also caused some to criticize me for that. I don't have a problem with someone being critical of a body of work, of a method of research or the way someone markets themselves. I choose to give respect to any Doctor until I see them in handcuffs or get their license yanked. I can still respect them and disagree everything else. I feel that the use of derogatory adjectives to describe the person can only weaken the argument you may have with his work. If I would't call a doctor a quack to his face then I won't do it in a post. I am probably a little old fashioned I guess.
I wouldn't have a problem calling him a quack to his face which is why I didn't hesitate to call him a quack in this post. He is making money off of people peddling nonsense that has repeatedly been disproven. That means that he either is deliberately misleading people to make a quick buck, or he actually believes the nonsense that he is spouting despite what actual science says, and that would make him a quack. I shouldn't have to automatically respect someone just because they are a doctor and they haven't been arrested. There are plenty of doctors that put their own best interests ahead of their patients and I don't believe that these people should be beyond criticism for that.
In a well functioning society, I wouldn't expect anyone to receive automatic deference of this type. Doctors are just people. They're well educated people with a license to do a specific type of work, but they're prone to every type of human failing. They've killed people deliberately and engaged in massive frauds. To act like they're immune from the temptation to make money unethically, something people in all types of careers are sometimes tempted to do, is silly.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I could not agree more. Moreover, I don't see anyone attacking him personally. Yes, he being called a quack but that is justified by his writings and claims. He may truly be sincere but, based on the evidence, he is sincerely wrong. FTR, I have read one of his books and enough of his online writing to understand his hypothesis and approach and their flaws. Before someone want to defend him, it would be helpful of they actually knew what he claims and why.
I wasn't so much defending him but pointing out that he, in my opinion may be getting some harsh treatment. I don't have to know you to determine that people are treating you harshly or disrespecting you. You are justifying classifying him as a quack because you disagree with his opinion or research. I will take your challenge to understand what he is about and see if I can find where according to him all obesity has IR and how it is impossible to resolve without his specific plan. It sounds narrow and far fetched but I will try.
When someone puts themselves out in public, suggesting they know the way, being critical when they are wrong isn't harsh treatment.
We hold people who present themselves as experts to a higher standard. They are the ones who make the claim that they hold some expertise. To hold them to their own stated standards is not treating them harshly, it is taking them at their word and holding them to it.
What would be cruel and harsh treatment is to not call out such statements when they exist. The harm that can be done to those who fail to critically analyze what is being presented is very real.
Being cruel is not the analysis and critique of his argument, but making fun of him for some unrelated aspect such as his appearance, or his spouse, or his heritage, or some other unrelated characteristic.
Being critical of his argument is anything but cruel.
A doctor can debate another doctor and it is part of the normal process of getting published and proving or disproving a hypothesis. I doubt the robust debate starts with "hey you money grabbing self serving liar quack..." .
I wasn't supporting his content and you are free to rip it to shreds. It was only the use of insulting terms and belittling of his education I thought was over the top.
I did watch one of his lectures last night and I think I see what the problem is but I will need to read some books to get more background on Dr. Fung.
He is making money peddling nonsense to the uneducated so I really don't feel that calling him a money grabbing self serving liar quack is too harsh. You have repeatedly stated that you know little about him though, so I still don't understand why you are defending him. You are dismissing educated people's views simply because you yourself are uneducated. That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.
I rest my case.
Do you have a problem with the term "quack" being used in any circumstance or just when it's applied to Fung?
It really was not about Dr. Fung at all and I said that I don't know a lot about his work which also caused some to criticize me for that. I don't have a problem with someone being critical of a body of work, of a method of research or the way someone markets themselves. I choose to give respect to any Doctor until I see them in handcuffs or get their license yanked. I can still respect them and disagree everything else. I feel that the use of derogatory adjectives to describe the person can only weaken the argument you may have with his work. If I would't call a doctor a quack to his face then I won't do it in a post. I am probably a little old fashioned I guess.
I wouldn't have a problem calling him a quack to his face which is why I didn't hesitate to call him a quack in this post. He is making money off of people peddling nonsense that has repeatedly been disproven. That means that he either is deliberately misleading people to make a quick buck, or he actually believes the nonsense that he is spouting despite what actual science says, and that would make him a quack. I shouldn't have to automatically respect someone just because they are a doctor and they haven't been arrested. There are plenty of doctors that put their own best interests ahead of their patients and I don't believe that these people should be beyond criticism for that.
In a well functioning society, I wouldn't expect anyone to receive automatic deference of this type. Doctors are just people. They're well educated people with a license to do a specific type of work, but they're prone to every type of human failing. They've killed people deliberately and engaged in massive frauds. To act like they're immune from the temptation to make money unethically, something people in all types of careers are sometimes tempted to do, is silly.
I totally agree! Why do doctors get some kind of pass? There are a lot of incompetent ones out there. And then there are the incompetents that are snake oil salesman like Mercola and OZ. My mother used to have 2 sayings about doctors (and she had many health problems, some self induced with smoking and obesity). "The rest of us have to live with our mistakes but doctors get to bury theirs." And, "What do you call the guy who graduated last in his class in medical school? Doctor."
I have a healthy scepticism of any profession that I get services from until they have earned my trust with their competence. You have to be your own health advocate and self educate as much as possible. One shouldn't blindly trust any doctor just because of their degree. To me, all this stuff about the derogatory adjectives used to describe Fung comes off as virtue signalling and holier than thou.6 -
This would be very dangerous depending what kind of diabetic a person is.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions