-
@rawPrimalBube1 You demand proof, then make three unproven claims of your own. "Half the formulas don't work" quantified empirical claim, no evidence. "The pain formula is placebo" mechanistic attribution, no evidence. "There's no fix rather than medicine" a universal negative, the hardest claim there is. So either your standard applies to everyone, and your post fails it worse than anything you're attacking, or it doesn't apply, and "there's no proof" was never an argument.
"No proof it works" also isn't the same as "it doesn't work." That inference only holds if everything true is already documented and known to you.
You contradict yourself on pain: nothing relieves it but the body, and eating well long-term relieves it. Food isn't the body. So either external inputs can act on pain in which case the formula needs evaluating, not dismissing or they can't.
"Eat what your body craves" undercuts you as well. You said generations of bad eating shaped people's bodies. Then cravings are corruptible, and can't be the final arbiter you need something to restore them first. Which is what protocols are for.And "anyone who disagrees is low iq. Debate me" debate assumes a rational person could disagree. You ruled that out in the previous sentence. Also worth noting: a post that opens with "no hate against his ideas" and closes with "no brain," "brainwashed," "low iq" is attacking people, not ideas.
-
@rawPrimalBube1 He is right about many things but not all. It wiuld be delusional to say he was fully right as he is not god or super genius like if he was super genius he would have like 10s of thousands of pages of analysis on health topics and practical studies and knowledge. He has not that much. I think he just got lucky when he tried raw animal foods and the other stuff is kinda eh idk. Could work though but I find the nutrients are what make raw animal foods beneficial not some combinations and rigid rules.
We can still learn a lot from him.
-
@rawPrimalBube1 You demand proof, then make three unproven claims of your own. "Half the formulas don't work" quantified empirical claim, no evidence. "The pain formula is placebo" mechanistic attribution, no evidence. "There's no fix rather than medicine" a universal negative, the hardest claim there is. So either your standard applies to everyone, and your post fails it worse than anything you're attacking, or it doesn't apply, and "there's no proof" was never an argument.
"No proof it works" also isn't the same as "it doesn't work." That inference only holds if everything true is already documented and known to you.
You contradict yourself on pain: nothing relieves it but the body, and eating well long-term relieves it. Food isn't the body. So either external inputs can act on pain in which case the formula needs evaluating, not dismissing or they can't.
"Eat what your body craves" undercuts you as well. You said generations of bad eating shaped people's bodies. Then cravings are corruptible, and can't be the final arbiter you need something to restore them first. Which is what protocols are for.And "anyone who disagrees is low iq. Debate me" debate assumes a rational person could disagree. You ruled that out in the previous sentence. Also worth noting: a post that opens with "no hate against his ideas" and closes with "no brain," "brainwashed," "low iq" is attacking people, not ideas.
You make some good points about the importance of evidence, but I think there is a misunderstanding of my actual argument.
The issue is not that I can prove every formula is ineffective. The issue is that claims about effectiveness require evidence proportional to the strength of the claim. Saying "there is not enough evidence to conclude this works" is not the same as saying "I have proven this cannot work." Those are completely different positions.
You correctly mention that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." However, that principle is often misunderstood. It does not mean that a claim becomes justified simply because it has not been disproven. It only means we should remain uncertain.
There is a difference between possibility, plausibility, and demonstrated efficacy. A thing can be biologically possible without having enough evidence to support confidence that it actually produces the claimed outcome.
This is where the burden of proof comes in. If someone claims that a specific formula, protocol, or combination of ingredients creates a meaningful effect, that claim requires supporting evidence. But the same standard applies to negative claims as well. Statements like "this is mostly placebo" or "half the formulas do not work" are also empirical claims and require justification. The standard has to be applied consistently.
Your argument about pain also makes an important distinction disappear. Yes, external factors can influence pain. Nutrition, sleep, stress, and many other variables can affect physiology. But moving from "external inputs can affect pain" to
"therefore this specific formula is effective" is an example of a logical leap. A mechanism can explain why something might work, but mechanistic plausibility is not the same as clinical validation.
For example, many substances have a plausible biological explanation behind them. That alone does not prove they produce meaningful results in real-world conditions. This is exactly why evidence-based medicine separates hypotheses, mechanisms, and demonstrated outcomes.
The same applies to the craving argument. There is no contradiction in saying that cravings can be influenced by environment, habits, and previous dietary patterns while also acknowledging that appetite regulation can improve over time. Human physiology is dynamic, not static. A system can be temporarily influenced without being permanently unreliable.
I also think there is an issue with the standard being applied. You criticize people for accepting claims without enough evidence, but some of your own conclusions rely on assumptions rather than direct evidence. Pointing out that something is possible does not prove that it is effective. The evidential burden works both ways.
Regarding the "low IQ" and "brainwashed" comments: I agree that personal attacks do not strengthen an argument. Ideas should be judged by their reasoning and evidence, not by insulting the people who support them. My criticism was aimed at claims and the level of evidence behind them, not at someone's value as a person.
Ultimately, the question is not "could this work?" Almost anything is theoretically possible. The question is whether the available evidence justifies confidence that it does work. Remaining skeptical until that evidence exists is not being closed-minded; it is applying a consistent epistemic standard. I was trying to create a debate against my argument against Aajonus, and not to insult people. You don’t see much posts on this forum speaking against Aajonus, alltough not everything was Perfect. -
You're right while he was the smartest nutritionist oat he's not a god and is capable of getting things wrong, you shouldn't blindly follow someone on all of their work just because they got some things correct
-
You're right while he was the smartest nutritionist oat he's not a god and is capable of getting things wrong, you shouldn't blindly follow someone on all of their work just because they got some things correct
@aiden everything he put out is true.
-
You make some good points about the importance of evidence, but I think there is a misunderstanding of my actual argument.
The issue is not that I can prove every formula is ineffective. The issue is that claims about effectiveness require evidence proportional to the strength of the claim. Saying "there is not enough evidence to conclude this works" is not the same as saying "I have proven this cannot work." Those are completely different positions.
You correctly mention that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." However, that principle is often misunderstood. It does not mean that a claim becomes justified simply because it has not been disproven. It only means we should remain uncertain.
There is a difference between possibility, plausibility, and demonstrated efficacy. A thing can be biologically possible without having enough evidence to support confidence that it actually produces the claimed outcome.
This is where the burden of proof comes in. If someone claims that a specific formula, protocol, or combination of ingredients creates a meaningful effect, that claim requires supporting evidence. But the same standard applies to negative claims as well. Statements like "this is mostly placebo" or "half the formulas do not work" are also empirical claims and require justification. The standard has to be applied consistently.
Your argument about pain also makes an important distinction disappear. Yes, external factors can influence pain. Nutrition, sleep, stress, and many other variables can affect physiology. But moving from "external inputs can affect pain" to
"therefore this specific formula is effective" is an example of a logical leap. A mechanism can explain why something might work, but mechanistic plausibility is not the same as clinical validation.
For example, many substances have a plausible biological explanation behind them. That alone does not prove they produce meaningful results in real-world conditions. This is exactly why evidence-based medicine separates hypotheses, mechanisms, and demonstrated outcomes.
The same applies to the craving argument. There is no contradiction in saying that cravings can be influenced by environment, habits, and previous dietary patterns while also acknowledging that appetite regulation can improve over time. Human physiology is dynamic, not static. A system can be temporarily influenced without being permanently unreliable.
I also think there is an issue with the standard being applied. You criticize people for accepting claims without enough evidence, but some of your own conclusions rely on assumptions rather than direct evidence. Pointing out that something is possible does not prove that it is effective. The evidential burden works both ways.
Regarding the "low IQ" and "brainwashed" comments: I agree that personal attacks do not strengthen an argument. Ideas should be judged by their reasoning and evidence, not by insulting the people who support them. My criticism was aimed at claims and the level of evidence behind them, not at someone's value as a person.
Ultimately, the question is not "could this work?" Almost anything is theoretically possible. The question is whether the available evidence justifies confidence that it does work. Remaining skeptical until that evidence exists is not being closed-minded; it is applying a consistent epistemic standard. I was trying to create a debate against my argument against Aajonus, and not to insult people. You don’t see much posts on this forum speaking against Aajonus, alltough not everything was Perfect.Also, upvoting his post without reading everything is not a good idea. @88 @elliott87 @veloman
-
@Elliott87
You cant generally say everything he said is true when there’s no prove. You have the worst answers in this thread. Your just insulting other people’s believes and following Aajonus like a god. Be more open minded. -
@Elliott87
No human being is capable of getting everything right, alltough he’s the best nutritionist. -
@Elliott87
With the diet you eat you can fix many things, at the medicine part i just wanted to say that medicine always has a mechanism and heals no matter what, diet is not causality a mechanism because body’s are different, some medicine is not healthy but it can help a malnourished body. -
@Elliott87
No human being is capable of getting everything right, alltough he’s the best nutritionist.@rawPrimalBube1 dude, everything he put out was “right”. He made sure it was before putting it out
-
@Elliott87
You cant generally say everything he said is true when there’s no prove. You have the worst answers in this thread. Your just insulting other people’s believes and following Aajonus like a god. Be more open minded.@rawPrimalBube1 Ok tell me something you doubt about aajonus, something ridiculous and I’ll give you the process behind it. You don’t know anything and your just calling aajonus fake
-
@rawPrimalBube1 Ok tell me something you doubt about aajonus, something ridiculous and I’ll give you the process behind it. You don’t know anything and your just calling aajonus fake
@Elliott87
Please just stop insulting. We can have a conversation like a man. So i think the nut formula is bs. -
Also, upvoting his post without reading everything is not a good idea. @88 @elliott87 @veloman
-
@rawPrimalBube1 what post
-
-
@rawPrimalBube1 it was a good post
-
@veloman
Yeah but read mine… -
@rawPrimalBube1 DNR moid
-
@rawPrimalBube1 DNR moid
