Pee Pee a.k.a “Plant Positive” adds Paranoia to His Long List of Psychological Issues

Pee Pee Continues to Pump Out the Poo-Poo

Poor Pee Pee, a.k.a "Plant Positive" and "PrimitiveNutrition". He appears to have been so banged up my recent exposé of his fraudulent nonsense he's now suffering paranoid delusions. When a reader from Bristol in the United Kingdom recently protested the effeminate extremist's blatant lies over at YouTube, Pee Pee accused him of being me...me being Anthony Colpo of Adelaide, Australia (a long, long way from the UK)!

Folks, this is why you need to avoid having sex with people you're related to and why you should always include animal foods in your children's diets. Heaven knows there's already enough B12-deficient screwballs on this planet...

John writes:

Hi Anthony,

This ["Plant Positive"/"PrimitiveNutrition"] twat got so up my nose I had to post - I can't actually remember what the profanity was for the other video that he didn't post, but the one below is me steering people away from his drivel to your website to balance things out - I don't actually understand the remainder of his reply, could you enlighten me?

Cheers

John

[This is what Pee Pee wrote in response to John's comment]:

PrimitiveNutrition has replied to your comment on Anthony Colpo's Confusionist Mind, Part 2:

I can't let through your other comment with the profanity. Yes, if anyone out there is impressed with an guy who uses a cross-sectional study of two hundred men to say that Brown and Goldstein were "wrong", and by someone who seems to thing they won the Nobel Peace Prize, it's powerful.

Anthony replies:

Hey John,

his "cross-sectional study" comment is designed to neuter any criticism of Goldstein and Brown by claiming that my case against them is predicated entirely on a single study of 200 men (here's the link to the study he's whining about: http://www.bmj.com/content/314/7081/629.full).

Firstly, that study involved 210 men (not 200, but Pee Pee is probably as bad as math as he is the rest of the sciences) and provides strong evidence that Brown and Goldstein and Pee Pee are completely wrong.

His comment does nothing to refute the actual content or findings of the study. It's just another example of the sneering dismissal of conflicting evidence that the guy specializes in. The lipid hypothesists are more than happy to present cross-sectional data when they believe it supports their case, but suddenly this kind of data is a big no-no when it happens to flatly refute their untenable theories.

This was the study that compared men from Vilnius with those from LinkÖping. The men from Vilnius had lower LDL levels, which according to brainwashed victims of the lipid hypothesis - folks like Pee Pee - should have awarded them with lower CHD mortality.

Reality, however, has absolutely no respect for highly decorated and widely accepted theories. If they're wrong, they're wrong. And the lipid hypothesis, and it's "LDL = Bad Cholesterol" sub theory, are as wrong as wrong can be. It was actually the men from Vilnius who had the higher CHD mortality despite their lower LDL levels.

Pee Pee hates the antioxidant theory, because it flatly refutes the cholesterol theory he has become so attached to. What Pee Pee needs to do is a mature a little (a lot), and realize that theories are not entities to which one becomes emotionally attached. He needs to get a pet or find a girlfriend (boyfriend?) for that shit.

Theories are formulated in an attempt to explain phenomena for which we don't yet fully understand or have conclusive evidence for. When scientific evidence repeatedly fails to support a hypotheis, it needs to be discarded.

Despite Pee Pee's rabid hatred of the antioxidant theory, the results showed that men from Vilnius displayed higher LDL oxidation and lower mean plasma concentrations of lipid soluble antioxidant vitamins. As the researchers noted:

"The high mortality from coronary heart disease in Lithuania is not caused by traditional risk factors alone. Mechanisms related to antioxidant state may be important."

This is subdued scientist speak for:

"Total and LDL cholesterol had bugger all to do with CHD mortality, but we did find much higher LDL oxidation and lower plasma antioxidant levels in the blokes from Vilnius. This would suggest that the lipid hypothesis is utter crap, but because we don't want to ruin our chances of getting this paper published and wish to avoid raising the ire of the entire medical profession for disputing something they are so heavily committed to, we'll dramatically tone down our wording".

Secondly, it is most disingenuous to infer that my case against B&G rests solely on this one study when I have in fact cited numerous others, in my JPANDS paper, The Great Cholesterol Con, and the very article that appears to have sent Pee Pee into a typo-plagued hissy-fit. I guess all the other studies I cited - including controlled clinical trials - showing no connection between total and oxidized LDL levels (there were a half-dozen just in the article alone) must have magically disappeared from his computer screen...either that, or is he's just as big an evasive liar as he's always been.

I can't tell from Pee Pee's disjointed commentary if he's claiming B&G never won a Nobel Prize, or if he's claiming I stated they won the Peace Prize. If this fraudster is denying B&G ever won a Nobel Prize, he clearly needs someone with a tire lever to help remove his head from his culo:

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1985 was awarded jointly to Michael S. Brown and Joseph L. Goldstein "for their discoveries concerning the regulation of cholesterol metabolism"
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1985/

Or maybe he does acknowledge they won a Nobel prize, in which case if anyone is impressed by this anonymous pansy sneakily inserting the word "Peace" between "Nobel" and "Prize" to make it look like I claimed they had won the Peace prize instead of the Physiology and Medicine category, when in fact I did no such thing...then that's powerful LOL

The guy is, without question, an idiot. Like I said in the recent Pee Pee Smackdown, anyone who still believes a thing this guy says pretty much deserves the ill-health and premature mortality that very likely awaits them.

John, feel free to raise these points in your reply to Pee Pee. I might also include this in the next Reader Mail segment.

Cheers,

Anthony.

Anthony further replies:

Hey John,

BTW, just for your edification...a cross sectional study is where they take a healthy group and a group with the ailment in question, then question them about their dietary and lifestyle habits, and/or run blood tests on them, then see what differences they can find between the 2 groups. There's no observation period like there is in a prospective or follow-up study...it's more a snapshot in time.

A prospective or follow-up study is where they track a population for a given period of time, then analyze their blood work and questionnaires to see what patterns they can detect regarding the occurrence of a certain ailment.

Then there are clinical trials which are by far superior to the above-mentioned.

All three types have overwhelmingly failed to support the lipid hypothesis.

Cheers,

Anthony.

John replies:

Hi Anthony - apparently I'm Anthony Colpo 🙂

Cheers

John

[Pee Pee's reply to John]:

PrimitiveNutrition has replied to your comment on RaCCG3: Colpo's Journal Article:

The only person this interested in Anthony Colpo is Anthony Colpo. Nice of you to stop by. Your veil isn't concealing much.

Anthony replies:

So here we have a guy who has developed a rather unhealthy obsession with yours truly, has made a dozen or so videos about me, and goes to inordinate lengths to discredit my work and belittle me personally...then writes "The only person this interested in Anthony Colpo is Anthony Colpo."

I cannot find any reference to B&G other than in that Janet Brill bollox from earlier this year deriding you for attacking their work on LDL and atherosclerosis ("how dare you they won a Nobel prize" etc etc) - but I cannot find a direct reference to what you said if in fact you did - or was she just making a generalization?

Cheers

John (or Anthony Colpo - see previous email for clarification)

[Pee Pee's reply to John]:

PrimitiveNutrition has replied to your comment on Anthony Colpo's Confusionist Mind, Part 2:

Perhaps you could be specific and tell me what conclusions of Brown and Goldstein Colpo has disproven. They won the Nobel Prize for their description of the LDL receptor and that seems to be what Colpo is referencing. So start there. What did they get wrong about that and how was that addressed in Colpo's blog?

I agree, Colpo's agenda is not hidden. He's trying to make a few bucks selling his book.

Anthony replies:

Hey John,

here we again see Pee Pee trying to pull the old switcheroo - claiming it was I who referenced B&G and demanding that you explain "What did they get wrong about that [um, what is "that" exactly??] and how was that addressed in Colpo's blog?"

First of all, let's set the record straight - it was Pee Pee who brought up B&G in support of the cholesterol hypothesis, not me. It's there in his video when he starts tossing off about LDL oxidation. It would appear Pee Pee is now suffering statin-induced memory loss.

I don't normally mention B&G's work because it essentially establishes nothing, except that LDL has a receptor. Whoopdedoo. So does insulin, testosterone, estrogen, neurotransmitters and a squillion other substances in the body. Just because a substance has a receptor does not prove causality of heart disease or any other disorder.

The only time I discuss B&G is when desperadoes like Pee Pee and Janet Brill, seeking to capitalize on the Appeal to Authority phenomenon, mention them. They earnestly seem to believe the fact B&G won a Nobel Prize automatically negates the need for further debate or for any discussion of their actual findings and claims.

So here's what Pee Pee needs to do. Seeing as he is the one who cited B&G in support of his twisted pro-vegan, anti-cholesterol, anti-Colpo thesis, the onus is on him to explain:

1. How B&G's work in any way changes the indisputable fact that repeated studies show no connect between LDL levels and degree of atherosclerosis?

2. How their work changes the fact that the overwhelming majority of prospective studies have repeatedly failed to find any connection between saturated fat and CHD?

3. How their work in any way contradicts the numerous anomalies to the LDL theory of CHD that I present in my JPANDS paper?

4. How their work in any way changes the fact that the only cholesterol-lowering strategy to produce significant CHD mortality reductions are statin drugs...and they just happen to exert a whole host of pleiotropic effects not seen in other cholesterol-lowering drugs?

5. Why the most successful dietary intervention study of all time produced dramatic reductions in CHD and overall mortality despite no difference in cholesterol levels between the 2 groups?

6. How B&G's work changes the fact that vegan diets do not extend lifespan by a single day?

I could go on and on, but Pee Pee has shown himself totally incapable of answering even the above, so what's the point.

John, when you fight with someone, don't let them dictate the fight. If they are a boxer, pick them up and dump them on their head. If they're a grappler, sprawl on them and...well, you get my drift. The guy is trying to draw you into arguing about minutiae again. Just keep emphasizing the bigger picture, because ultimately that's what matters. And place the burden of proof on him.

People like Pee Pee are masters of evasion and bullshit, that's their standard currency. Pee Pee and you could keep going round in circles for the rest of eternity, and you still wouldn't get him to face up to the numerous contradictions that flatly refute his fraudulent claims. He'll just attempt to save face and divert the argument off on some other tangent that he hopes will allow him to avoid the humiliation of being proven wrong.

If you don't have the rest of eternity to entertain this twat, don't worry, I'll be making note of all this on my website. Judging by the view counts on Pee Pee's videos, there's a heck of a lot more people reading my website than the comments underneath his Youtube diatribes. I guess the guy needs to learn the hard way that you don't take on people telling the truth when all you've got to offer is lies and bullshit.

As for him claiming I have an agenda to sell books...good on ya Pee Pee. When you can't beat 'em with facts, roll out the unfounded libel. Pee Pee's claim that I'm only in this for the money is yet another pissy little ad hominem snipe for which he can provide absolutely no evidence; it's already been discussed, destroyed and dismissed, but the guy just keeps coming back to it. A clear sign of desperation, in which he again reveals more about himself than he would wish us to know.

I should also point out that while he casts aspersions on my motives, he still hasn't identified himself, so we don't know how he or his employers/sponsors make their money...

The guy really is an incurable little sleaze.

Cheers,

Anthony.

PS. John, for your edification, here's a paper by Dr Duncan Adams of the University of Otago in New Zealand. He may not have won any Nobel Prizes, but he does a pretty good job of dismantling B&G's erroneous assumptions. As he notes:

"Brown and Goldstein misunderstood the mechanism involved in the pathogenesis of the associated arterial disease. They ascribed this to an effect of the high levels of cholesterol circulating in the blood."

The claim that the higher the level of blood cholesterol the more of it will magically absorb into artery walls and start forming atherosclerotic lesions is, quite frankly, overly simplistic idiocy. People who believe this evidently equate the walls of human arteries with cheesecloth.

As for B&G's heavy reliance on the rare genetic disorder of Familial Hypercholesterolemia to support their claim for atherogenicity of LDL cholesterol:

"In reality, the accelerated arterial damage is likely to be a consequence of more brittle arterial cell walls, as biochemists know cholesterol to be a component of them which modulates their fluidity, conferring flexibility and hence resistance to damage from the ordinary hydrodynamic blood forces. In the absence of efficient receptors for LDL cholesterol, cells will be unable to use this component adequately for the manufacture of normally resilient arterial cell walls, resulting in accelerated arteriosclerosis."

This is what I've been saying all along - cholesterol is a critical component of our cells, and without it we'd be royally rooted. Listening to amateur hour Youtube scientists like Pee Pee is not a practice commensurate with attainment of optimal health. As Dr. Adams notes:

"Eating cholesterol is harmless, shown by its failure to produce vascular accidents in laboratory animals, but its avoidance causes human malnutrition from lack of fat-soluble vitamins, especially vitamin D."[My note: when he says "vascular accidents", he is referring to actual heart attacks, as opposed to 'fatty deposits" on the surfaces of their arteries, the latter being entirely predictable given that the herbivorous animals typically used in these experiments did not evolve to eat large amounts of cholesterol]

John replies:

Hi Anthony,

Thanks for everything you have recently sent me. The reason I and I believe many of your readers respect you so much is you are so damn thorough with your material and frankly mate, I trust you. Don't worry, I'm not getting drawn into this. This guy couldn't be convinced that lawn turf is best laid green side up let alone anything else. Frankly I wish I hadn't bothered commenting on the prick's YouTube drivel and I won't be again. I can hardly answer his questions in the text limit on YouTube anyway but I will put something together.

Cheers

John

Anthony replies:

Hey John,

thanks again for the kind words and confidence in my writings.

I guess the lesson to be learned here is tangling with bullshitters is an aggravating and time-consuming job best left to the professionals. I've long been toying with the idea of forming "Crapbusters" with a mate who looks remarkably like Dan Akroyd, all we need is a Bill Murray look-alike with a similarly low tolerance for bullshit, a big black hearse to show up at the right price on eBay, and we're good to go!

Seriously, even though you have not had any formal training in the ancient lost art of Wanker Dissection, you still did a pretty good job of drawing out Pee Pee's patently self-contradictory nature. I'm still cracking up over his "The only person this interested in Anthony Colpo is Anthony Colpo" snipe. What an outstandingly ironic comment from someone whose favourite topic is clearly Anthony Colpo LMFAO

Take care, and don't get slimed out there 🙂

Cheers,

Anthony.

Who you gonna call?

John replies:

Hi Anthony,

Yeah, "Who you gonna call" - I'll get to work on the lyrics....

I replied but he didn't post up any of it. It must be great to be able to be so selective, how very noble of him. His "The only person..." comment is still there however with precious little above or below it, what a silly sad fucker this guy is.

(Thanks for the Duncan Adams paper, that was really interesting)

Cheers

John

Anthony replies:

Hey John,

sleazy is as sleazy does. A big congratulations once again to all the people who have been swayed by Pee Pee's 'coherent' and 'cogent' arguments (I know there's at least 3 or 4 of you out there). It's gullible twits like you that have allowed lying assholes to run amok and make the world the wonderful, peaceful, harmonious place that it is today.

As for Pee Pee...how does it feel to be such a worthless lying slimeball, mate? Do you really believe the end justifies your sleazy, dishonest means? Has it ever even occurred to you that if you need to be so evasive, selective and downright dishonest in order to defend your chosen beliefs, maybe they are long overdue for a serious overhaul? I guess not...silly me, you're an incurable tool.

John replies:

Razwell The sane voice of reason!

Hi Anthony,

Guess what....

Don't worry I won't reply, anyway now I'm Anthony Colpo I'm far too busy spending the vast fortune accumulated from the sales from my two books.

Cheers

John

Razwell has sent you a message:

SCIENCE

To:veiled17

Colpo is NOT thorough. The man is a FRAUD. Google "Common Myths About Low Carb Diets by Anthony Colpo" He is a FLAVOR OF THE MONTH SCAMMER

Read Hawking, Einstein, THEY are smart. Colpo is ALUGHABLE AND MISREPRESENTS OBESITY SCIENCE

Google "Dr Jeffrey Friedman Modern Science vs The Stigma Of Obesity"

Over 400 genes regulate weight. COLPO IS WRONG. His MISINFORMATION is COMPLETELY AT ODDS with Dr Friedman

EDUCATE YOURSELF.

Anthony replies:

Awesome! When the biggest lunatic troll on the Internet takes your side, it pretty much marks the end of what little credibility you had on a topic (just ask Mikey Eades lol).

My work is done 🙂

Ciao,

Anthony "Flavour of the Month for the Last Ten Years" Colpo.

—

Anthony Colpo is an independent researcher, physical conditioning specialist, and author of The Fat Loss Bible and The Great Cholesterol Con. For more information, visit TheFatLossBible.net or TheGreatCholesterolCon.com

Copyright © Anthony Colpo.

Disclaimer: All content on this web site is provided for information and education purposes only. Individuals wishing to make changes to their dietary, lifestyle, exercise or medication regimens should do so in conjunction with a competent, knowledgeable and empathetic medical professional. Anyone who chooses to apply the information on this web site does so of their own volition and their own risk. The owner and contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm, real or imagined, from the use or dissemination of information contained on this site. If these conditions are not agreeable to the reader, he/she is advised to leave this site immediately.