Joined July 2021
46 Photos and videos
I think I've been clear. I'm not here to do that.
Replying to @KayBwt

ALT Play Nice Woody GIF

1
10
779
Notice, several days have passed since I posted this, and not ONE refutation has even been offered. NOT EVEN ONE.
2
7
673
14 days, NOT ONE SINGLE REFUTATION of what I have said here.
2
235
youtube.com/live/o0c-cc14L1k Yes, this is what happens when the person behind this shit-posting LLM drivel-slop is confronted. How did he do? LMFAO.
rofl this mf genuinely just has AI run his account and isn't even reading anything "he" is posting. this has got to be a new low
1
1
15
3,489
Bart Kay retweeted
🚨BREAKING: Rupert Lowe has just VOWED to DEFUND the BBC on day one of a Restore Britain government 🇬🇧 In a response to yet ANOTHER hit piece on Rupert and Elon Musk by the BBC, Lowe said: “The BBC have run a sneering attack piece including both myself and Elon Musk…. A restore Britain government will DEFUND the BBC, day one - Let’s see who’s laughing then.” Brilliant news - DEFUND THE BBC 🚫 @RupertLowe10 @elonmusk
380
2,613
14,594
122,340
Well. if you come to me with a question, I'll do my best to answer it. If you post arrogant ignorant slop as it its a fact, I'll tear you seven new assholes for the education of those who are open to that. One gets the exact level of respect from me they show that they deserve.
2
10
577
PSA. I'm often accused by painfully stupid, egotistical, and ignorant people (or all three at once) of dismissing evidence. No, I dismiss that which is NOT in fact acceptable as evidence; and I provide my clear and unassailable reasoning for doing so. Deal with it, imbeciles.
5
3
27
883
Again, I have to cut & paste because this poor destitute could only cope by blocking me... but still wants to mouth off anyway. Sadly for her, this comment is simply slop. An argument requires substance, material value, and some sense of its own utility. I'd send that PhD back.
2
1
26
912
Nonsense: 1. many ARE in fact claiming MR can establish causality. It cannot, STILL. 2. There are NO extant studies with the capacity to inform on 'risk' of ASCVD. 3. Your arrogant and ignorant response does NOT affect the actual epistemological standards required, nor the facts.
3
1
23
1,061
Another "fearless" keyboard warrior without the stones to stand and defend his arrogant fallacious nonsense. Just shit-post and block. You're a coward, and an imbecile. You are beneath contempt. Jog on, you scientifically illiterate imbecile.
10
479
youtu.be/Q_DVd8xP56A Its time to talk about my health... in about 12 hours.
9
2
31
4,161
The refuge of the scientifically and intellectually destitute: A Case study... Make a scientifically and epistemologically unacceptable argument, and block the person who quite rightly points that out, citing her opinions on 'manners', and implying 'sexism'...
2
10
543
... Let me be clear: I couldn't care less what bits a person has between there legs, or elsewhere; as regards robust correct scientifically acceptable statements vs ignorant arrogant nonsense. I apply the same standard to all.
2
12
328
Way to make my point for me. Well done. Post a link to an opinion piece, as if that establishes anything, and bravely block me, because you think I'm 'rude', and claim that my 'rudeness' seems directed unevenly at your gender. Awesome. Well done.
3
1
19
761
PSA: "Muting" and "blocking" will soon be removed from 'X', I believe. That will be a shame for those who find being challenged on the facts unbearable, won't it?
5
23
607
PSA: Anyone lauding Mendelian studies as remotely capable of informing on cause and effect in ASCVD is telling you that they are scientifically and epistemologically illiterate, and are mindlessly regurgitating what they've read about it, because they simply do not understand it.
6
3
46
8,849
We've dealt with this already, Simpson. You are completely scientifically illiterate, and in NO position to comment on this topic: youtube.com/live/o0c-cc14L1k, your slop positing does NOT affect the facts. Not a jot. Get back in your lane, which is bariatric butcher.
An N=1 is not meaningless. It is how medicine often notices anomalies. But an N=1 also does not overturn decades of converging mechanistic, genetic, pathological, epidemiologic, and clinical trial evidence linking ApoB-containing particles and LDL exposure to atherosclerosis. Nick’s result is interesting precisely because biology is complicated. Some people with extremely high LDL develop disease early. Some later. Some appear protected for a period of time. That has always been true. Smoking works the same way — not every smoker gets lung cancer at 40. That does not invalidate causality. And importantly, children born with even higher LDL levels from familial hypercholesterolemia are not all dropping dead at age 10. What we typically see is accelerated atherosclerosis with premature cardiovascular disease — often major events in the 20s, 30s, or 40s depending on mutation burden, lifetime exposure, and treatment. The biology is cumulative exposure over time, not instantaneous punishment. We also do not have a complete lifelong exposure history here. We have selected data points and retrospective interpretation. We do not know what his LDL levels were throughout adolescence and early adulthood, what his ApoB burden was over time, what his inflammatory markers were, what his genetics beyond LDL may contribute, or how long he has actually maintained these extreme levels. That matters, because atherosclerosis is fundamentally an exposure-over-time disease. So the real question is not: “Can a person with LDL >500 have little plaque today?” Of course they can. The question is: “What happens to population risk as cumulative ApoB exposure rises over decades?” That evidence remains remarkably consistent. And the current LMHR/Keto-CTA work has another limitation people should acknowledge openly: the imaging tools being used were validated primarily in symptomatic or known-CAD populations, not asymptomatic low-plaque individuals where measurement noise becomes a much bigger issue. So curiosity is warranted. Premature declarations that “LDL doesn’t matter” are not. Medicine is full of exceptions. Biology always has outliers. But outliers do not erase base rates.
2
18
2,342