![]() He was literally playing to Joe and to the audience the entire time trying to make him look foolish. ![]() The number of times he engaged in ad hominem attacks on Chris was ridiculously. The fact that James started out things talking about logical fallacies and then spent most of the time falling into them was extremely frustrating. This is honestly one of the more coherent comments on this whole debate. James doesn't like any research that shows he's wrong or that he isn't fully right. If you're ignorant of how academia works that's fine, 99% of people don't know how, but if you don't know don't take a fucking moron like James Wilks opinions as anything other than self promoting delusions of malevolence. The fact anyone walked away from that video and can condemn Chris over James is ridiculous. Talking to one high up academic is abso-fucking-lutely not any way to base such a statement - high up academics can often be the people pushing a wrong narrative that goes against the consensus, I've seen it in many different topics of my own research. Plus, he kept saying "the scientific consensus is xyz" which he absolutely is not qualified to say, and has not done the research to say. James was chopping and changing strategy and relevance to make any point that would make Chris look wrong, or that his research is flawed, while doing his best to suggest his research wouldn't suffer from any of the same criticisms. "I agree that vegans and vegetarians are 8 times more likely to be deficient in b-12 but that's not important because of supplements" is a horrible argument - and how he went about it by jousting at Chris for his comments which were largely only wrong because Chris didn't take into account highly mismanaged farms where animals are being mistreated and facilities are horrible (which is not something so common you should have to consider it when making a general statement). ![]() There were times during that research Chris should have told him to shut his mouth and lay down the law, but Chris kind of took a lot of shit and didn't stand up for himself. James was being deliberately fasciousious and deceitful, and then went about attacking Chris's credentials when his own are completely suspect. With someone like Alex Jones you know he's crazy and can ignore everything he says. James Wilks is quite frankly one of the most dangerous people Joe has ever had on the podcast. That is about as good as it gets for any researcher in my experience. He's not making up results and deliberately misrepresenting them, he is doing his research, and he is finding real studies and 95% of the time as far as I can tell he is coming to the correct conclusions from reading them. There is very little wrong with what Chris says, and he does not say he is an expert. With Chris Kresser being shown to be at least not be a reliable source for nutrition information, after 5 appearances on the podcast,
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |