Response to Moore/Kosloff Podcast I: My Un-annotated Blog/Email Exchanges with Adam

I plan to respond to LLVLC Episode 559: Adam Kosloff Says It’s Time To Move ‘Beyond Caloriegate’ in more detail tomorrow or over the weekend.  However for now I felt that the way Adam sounded in the podcast when discussing me didn't reflect the details/spirit of our exchanges here on the blog and in our emails.   So I thought I'd collect those all in one place, without further comment from me at this time, for those readers interested in filling in a few blanks.

The Exchange began with the Salvaging the Hypothesis blog post where, in the context of discussing the dying TWICHOO, I referenced a post of Adam's.  I've C&P'd the relevant content:

There are other attempts afoot to rescue and put a new spin on this notion of  HGHD.  For example there's a fairly new website www.caloriegate.com launched in recent months by Adam Kosloff (Yale University educated blogger ... so?) .  He recently penned the the following appeal to the LC masses:  Dr. Atkins’ Diet Revolution Is Getting Routed. How Do We Fight Back?  Kosloff is the same guy behind the original GCBC for Dummies website:   www.why-low-carb-diets-work.com .   Ironically, Kosloff may be partly responsible for the flagging sales of WWGF, after all, he already put GCBC into the lay-friendly format.  Now he's peddling a new book -- Beyond Caloriegate -- (I've heard of cruisegate, but there's a caloriegate??) .  For $15 (just $9.99 through Jimmy Moore promotional code) you, too, can learn the secret of the "black box" and what you should be counting.  Kosloff hopes to eradicate obesity by 2022.  Where Atkins and his heirs failed for four decades, Kosloff will martial the troops for success in only one more.  The black box.  I have better uses for $9.99, thanks.  This would be merely amusing were it not for the ads on the page.  Right now those include one for $480 No Surgery Gastric Bypass (basically fiber pills that blow up in your stomach) and not one, but two duplicate ads for Jillian Michaels of Biggest Loser fame.   I mean c'mon folks.  If you feel as strongly as Adam supposedly does based on his appeal ...STOP TAKING A SINGLE CENT FROM ADS FOR PRODUCTS/SERVICES YOU NOT ONLY DON'T PROMOTE BUT REPEATEDLY DECRY AS FRAUDULENT.   If true believers like Kosloff, and Carpender and Naughton can't pass up a few cents for the sake of the cause, what does that say? These people are promoting a specific diet while repeatedly telling their readers that CICO doesn't work but accepting ad revenues for products and programs that promote just that.  Sigh.

Here's the comment exchange (there are others but I included Beth's for context):

Adam KosloffJan 18, 2012 12:31 AM

Hi Evelyn,

I do agree that the gastric bypass and Jillian ads are more than a tad preposterous. Hope to rectify that at some point.

I created the Black Box model in part to try to bring peace to the Insulin Wars -- to decouple lipophila from the CIH, if you will.

I've been kinda curious about what you and James Krieger and others in the Anti-Taubes camp would say about the Black Box. I passed the idea by Stephan Guyenet at the AHS, right after his famous battle with GT. Guyenet said (at least at the time) that he agreed with the model. And, as you know, he's no booster of the CIH.

I believe there's a way to reconcile our factions and come together to really help people. There's tons of stuff we agree on, already. (Frankly, that may be part of the problem!)

In any event, I'm looking forward to continuing this dialogue with you and James and Stephan and others.

Best,

Adam

Beth@WeightMavenJan 18, 2012 06:16 AM
Adam, I wonder how much you were able to discuss with Stephan. Certainly the idea that the black box (i.e., the fundamental problem) is the cause of what you call the "calorie surplus" rather than the result is one thing, but I find it unlikely he agreed with the details of the model.


For example, on p. 16 of your Caloriegate marketing brochure for your e-book you say "The fundamental problem is: your fat tissue is sick!" and on p. 22 it's "What Failed Calorie Counters fundamentally want -- desperately crave -- isn't weight loss or even fat loss; it's HEALTHY FAT TISSUE." Finally, on p. 23 you say "I also urge you to pick up a copy of Gary Taubes’ Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It –
and give one to your doctor, as well."


And then there's your website, where you state "The rules of the Diet Wars are stacked against low carb/paleo, permanently. Our problem isn’t our science. It’s our marketing!"


I'm not exactly sure which part of this that Stephan agreed with, but it sure doesn't seem like it's the part where it's our "sick" fat tissue that's the problem, nor the part where the solution is WWGF, nor the part where the problem isn't the science, it's the marketing.


As all your details are behind your e-book paywall, I suppose we'll have to take your word that this isn't just CIH regurgitated. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck?


Why not give Evelyn or James Krieger a review copy? If it's the bridge you say, then that would be a great step forward.

Evelyn aka CarbSaneJan 18, 2012 08:48 AM
Welcome Adam!

I would be happy to review your Beyond Caloriegate book. I'm glad Beth responded here because I was thinking much the same things as she articulates in response to your post here. Separating CIH (we call it TWICHOO here - grin!) from lipophilia does not seem possible or consistent with the evolution of your dietary philosophy/approach.

I recognize that you would have to trust me not to divulge what this "black box" is. Which is part of the problem I suppose, because any review would necessarily require discussing some of the concepts involved. My kneejerk reaction was that you are selling some new way of saying the same old same old. I'd love to be proven wrong. If you've been interested in my thoughts on things, why did it take you so long? My email is public in my profile, and we've discussed many many related topics here. I don't bite ;)

A warning: I do not subscribe to (simple epidemic) obesity as a horizontal growth hormone disorder. That is untenable even considering epigenetics, as it would require en masse genetic shift. There is no more one hormonal cause of obesity than there is one dietary component responsible. Many become obese without being insulin resistant. Some become IR without being obese. That sometime circa mid-80's there was some dietary agent introduced that caused our horizontal growth hormones to go whacked seems far-fetched.

Lastly, your plea mentioned Atkins. If not his insulin theories, how can your black box revive the Atkins diet? After all, his original hypothesis was based ultimately on the fact that huge numbers of calories were peed out as ketones -- a claim easily dismissed at its inception.

Adam KosloffJan 18, 2012 10:25 AM
Hi Evelyn and Beth,

Thanks for your responses. I'm looking forward to having a (sane!) conversation about these issues, which clearly fascinate people like us more than they do the average bear. I'd be happy to forward BCG to you for review. I'm actually in the process of revising it (trying to tone down some of the language -- e.g. the gratitutous use of words like "fatty"), so if you would bear with me for a week or two, I'd appreciate it. But I do think you and James and other TWICHOO (ha!) critics might at least find it novel (and hopefully somewhat amusing).

My Caloriegate report -- the one Beth read -- is free for download on my site. Feel free to "divulge" what the Black Box is, btw. My goal is to try to start a productive discussion about it :]

Beth, in response to your question: Stephan and I only chatted briefly. He agreed with the idea that the Black Box controls Calories, not the other way around. But no more than that.

In response to your point to the effect of "let's not oversimplify this" I heartily agree. I wrote two short posts to that effect that you may find interesting:

http://caloriegate.com/carbs-insulin-hypothesis/the-black-box-is-not-just-the-atkins-diet-reheated

http://caloriegate.com/the-black-box/what-to-count-if-not-calories

At the end of the day, I'm not convinced it's "all carbs." For instance, we've collectively been consuming a massive boatload of anti-depressants and other meds that seem to be damn obesogenic. Could that be an important key? I'd bet on it.

Basically, my current stance is: beyond the "reverse causality" business (that the BB "counts"), I'm flexible. We can (and need to) effectively litigate the CIH. But that's another ball of wax.

In any event, looking forward to chatting about this further, and it's good to finally connect. Okay, back to work for me...!

Adam

Evelyn aka CarbSaneJan 19, 2012 09:05 AM
Looking forward to learning what's in the box. I do think you'll have a tough sell separating lipophilia from TWICHOO given that your other website remains intact. It may be too much to correct all that Taubes himself has corrected, for example a search on that site for glycerol phosphate got quite a few hits: https://www.google.com/search?q=glycerol+phosphate+site%3Awhy-low-carb-diets-work.com
In a way, the lipophilia part of TWICHOO is all that remains and it is based on taking the role of insulin in fat tissue regulation out of context. Insulin doesn't regulate fat tissue mass. It's ultimate role is to regulate circulating substrate levels: glucose, fatty acids and amino acids (some more than others). See: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-does-insulin-regulate-anyway.html

Still, I look forward to your take on things.

Cheers!

Adam KosloffJan 19, 2012 03:27 PM

Thanks Evelyn. It's been over a year since I've even attempted to edit why-low-carb-diets-work. The glycerol phosphate stuff is just the tip of the iceberg that I'd like to change, starting with the name of the website itself. (Try spelling it out loud to someone, with all the dashes.)


I appreciate your openness and hold out hope that our factions can find some detente. Seems to me like we both have a pretty passionate drive to help people tease out fact from fiction. I'd be surprised if we couldn't find a lot of stuff to agree on.


My fam and I are going on a trip next week, but when we get back, I'll send you an email and forward you the Caloriegate stuff (if you're interested). I had the thought that it might be interesting to examine your biggest criticisms of TWICHOO through the prism of this Black Box thing. Might make for an compelling blog post series.


Adam


p.s. don't tell the carborati, but I ate a bowl of white rice with lunch just now!

The ensuing email exchange:

Adam to me:

Hi Evelyn,

Hope all is well out there. Wanted to follow up on our chat the other week to see whether you’d like a copy of my report and eBook. If so, let me know. (No pressure, of course.) 

I hope at least you’ll find it interesting and provocative, in spite of its pro-Taubesian and pro-CIH bent. I believe there’s space within the whole Black Box framework to accommodate both a pro-insulin view and the view that you, Guyenet, Krieger and others appear (at least to me) to support. 

Basically: we don’t need to chose between “pure” ELMM and “pure” CIH. There is space between these ideas. For instance, in your response to me on your blog you wrote that: “There is no more one hormonal cause of obesity than there is one dietary component responsible.  Many become obese without being insulin resistant.  Some become IR without being obese.”  Sure!

I’d be happy to do a Q&A on your blog (or mine) about the Black Box, if you’re interested. Another possible project: collecting all the critiques you and Krieger and others have about the CIH, organizing them, and then having the defenders of CIH respond. Right now, it seems like our two camps are just shouting at each other without listening effectively. There has to be a better way of discussing these issues than what we all (myself included) have been doing. Food for thought at least.

Best,  Adam

Me to Adam:

Hi Adam,

Nice to hear from you!  I have a copy of the report which I read back when I cited your website on my blog.  I would be very much interested in the Beyond Caloriegate ebook.  I'm intrigued by the "black box" idea.  To be honest, I have a hard time imagining how it can marry my views and Taubes, but I promise to keep an open mind.

The biggest impediment to any forward movement on this is Gary Taubes himself.  He will never agree to actually answer to his critics.  In my email exchange Taubes repeatedly refused to address the most basic scientific issues.  It was similar to his exchange with James.  His public rebuttals to critics like Bray or Kolata are rife with calling them vitrioloc or other personal attacks.  He didn't answer to one of the issues I raised in my interview with Jimmy, because Jimmy didn't ask.  He was the one who declined to go on Jimmy's podcast after his altercation with Stephan at AHS.  He does not respond to questions on his blog.  He has never admitted that HE was wrong on G3P, and only eluded to it in audio format (note:  he ultimately blames the textbooks for being wrong when they were not).  This list could go on.  My point being perhaps as someone with LC cred you can get him to talk and address the SCIENCE of his critics, but I don't hold out much hope.  

If you intend to follow in the footsteps of Jimmy Moore's Insulin and Safe Starches blog posts, please be a better man about it.  Because both of those series served to be not much more than pile-ons of the LC masses on one opposition voice.  Better to ask one TWICHOO supporter to address a comprehensive argument against the hypothesis than to compile the responses of several to one criticism.  Maybe some will agree to be interviewed by you.  I know they wouldn't have the balls to come onto a podcast with me! 

Anyway, I look forward to reading the ebook!  Take care, Ev 

Adam's reply:

Hi Evelyn,

Thanks for your email. And glad to finally be having a conversation with you. The two of us probably represent the most polar opposite extreme reactions to Taubes’ work.  My reaction was, whoa this guy’s a genius; I need to tell the world. And yours apparently has been... Shall we say, slightly different. :)  I wish you had had a different experience, both with him and his work. But irrespective of that, I believe we’re both doing what we’re doing because we want to help people who are confused and frustrated. 

I am a fan of the acronyms, btw, and I don’t mind being labeled a TWICHOOB. That’s pretty funny. My friend calls them (me included, perhaps?) the Carborati, which I also like.

In terms of addressing the science of the critics... Totally agree. We collectively need better ways of doing this. Right now, it seems to me like it’s tribe vs tribe, and there’s not a lot of listening and empathy going on. I’m guilty of that, too, frankly. It’s also, for me, a function of “too much to do, not enough time to do it,” which partially explains why my page on G3P (among others) has remained unedited for 1.5 years and why my blog advertises Jillian Michaels instead of, say, Qwest bars or something. 

Also agree: when Jaminet came on Jimmy’s blog, the Carborati did indeed descend en masse. 

I like your idea of having one TWICHOOB systematically address all the arguments against the hypothesis.  And then, ideally, we could have the TWICHOO critics respond with a rebuttal, point by point. And so forth. Organize the discussion, in other words, so that no stone goes unturned. Not sure exactly how to do that. But we need a better structure, so that all the critics are heard and acknowledged.

In terms of Beyond Caloriegate... I’m a bit nervous to send it to you, since a) it is very pro-Taubesian and b) I do poke fun at the ELMM crowd and c) a lot of what I write is speculation; and I’d like to avoid offending you and closing down our dialogue. If you could manage to read it with an open mind, I would appreciate it. As I wrote in the preface, the only idea I’m willing to go to the mat for is the Box itself. Everything else, including the CIH, is fair game.

Hope you enjoy it — or at least find it somewhat provocative! — and let me know your thoughts, whenever. (also, would you mind emailing me, just to let me know you got the file?)

Best, Adam

Me to Adam:

Hi!  Thanks for the book.  I'll probably not get to the full thing until sometime next week.  Maybe today, but tis a busy weekend.  Have a great one!  TTFN,  Ev  

Adam's Reply: 

No worries. I hear ya! It’s chaotic round these parts as well.

Two other thoughts. These actually woke me up at 5:30 this morning! 

1. I was rereading Beyond Caloriegate yesterday, trying to picture the experience from the perspective of someone with strong objections to the Taubesian POV. Frankly, I feel embarrassed. Now, I know you don’t exactly have a reputation for pulling punches, either :) But I wish the book had a less snarky and divisive tone to it — something to fix in the next drafts.  

2. I’ve been puzzling over the meta-debate. I.e. How is it possible that smart, well-intentioned people can have such polar opposite reactions to this subject? And I recalled something that James Krieger mentioned to me in a forum a while back. He said something to the effect of “Taubes is oversimplifying things.” At the time, I brushed that off. My thinking was to the effect of “Dude, GCBC is anything but a simple read. What are you talking about?” But now I believe I may understand his objection... As well as the source of at least some of the acrimony of the Calorie-Insulin Wars.  It’s the whole “Blind Men and the Elephant” thing. (According to the fable, a bunch of blind men try to identify an “elephant” by touch alone. Because they can’t see, they each think whatever part they’re touching is the whole animal. So the guy touching the leg thinks he’s found a giant tree. The guy touching the trunk thinks he’s found a hose. Etc.) 

The point is, obesity is a vastly complex problem, like the proverbial elephant. We’re not supercomputers. We need rules of thumb to deal with it — to simplify the problem, so we can make progress. ELMM is one possible rule (like a blind man finding the leg of the elephant). So is CIH (like finding the trunk). 

But both, I would contend, are oversimplifications. So if you’re a critic of ELMM, you can say “I object. ELMM makes no sense, because of A, B, and C!” And if you’re a critic of CIH, you can retort “But come now! CIH makes no sense because of X, Y, and Z!” In a way, they [i.e. we] can both be right. I’m not exactly sure how this insight can lead towards détente (if that’s possible). But it seems like it should be able to.

Anyway, enough blathering. Have a good weekend. Enjoy the book, and feel free to email whenever.

- Adam

After which I read the Beyond Caloriegate ebook Adam graciously sent.  I replied:

Hi Adam,

I've had an opportunity to read (quickly, and frankly, I skimmed a lot) your book.  I have to say, you seem like a nice, well-meaning person, but I'm at a loss to figure out basically what you want with me.  The book seems to offer no real new actionable information (something I think folks who pay for it will be expecting and might be very disappointed to learn).  For example what DO I count??  You never really say.  As I said in my post to which you responded -- it all seems like a big rallying cry to save TWICHOO from the trash heap.  

It seems your "agnostic" black box is nothing more than another way to say that calories don't count, and anyone who believes they do is an idiot.  {formatting with C&P didn't go too well, Adam's BCG quotes are in italics}

Principle #1. Black Box Über Alles

We cannot allow ourselves to get suckered back into the "calories count" mentality, no matter how hard the Calorie Wizards wave their magic wands at us. Like I said, the Black Box is agnostic. It doesn't tell us what makes our fat tissue sick or better or sad or giggly. It just says that fat tissue health is important and that's what we need to look at – not calories.

and

Remember: the Black Box does not discriminate! It's agnostic. It doesn't care whether you're a vegan, a corn syrup lobbyist, a hardcore Paleo dieter, a USDA official, whatever. All the Black Box says is that we MUST abandon "calories count." It says nothing about what comes next.

I, for one, cannot abandon reality Adam.   Everyone from Eades, to Westman, to Feinman, to Atkins, to Taubes himself has acknowledged that calories ultimately count.  Heck ... Taubes now says that insulin and carbs probably don't count so long as you stay away from sugar!   You freaking eat less on LC ... that's why you lose weight.  PERIOD!  And if you don't eat less? You're Jimmy Moore.   If there's a "black box" tissue/organ that gets sick in all of this, it is the hypothalamus.  

I am honored to be listed with Stephan and JamesK in your list of bloggers against TWICHOO.  I also find it insulting how you describe our blogs.   For crying out loud, although I'm the worst offender of the bunch, I've posted some 700+ posts on real freakin' science Adam that just so happen to include a pile of information/evidence that refutes TWICHOO.  I think that hypothesis was a non-starter ... should never have been RE-proposed ... because it was rightly abandoned long ago.  Sorry to be blunt, but this position shouldn't surprise you.

In reading about the black box and calories and all that I started getting this deja vu nagging feeling.  Then it hit me.  I've already spent my time on this.  I'll have bumped and reposted a post from over a year ago in response to your contribution to Jimmy's anti-Kreiger data dump (that's the best description of his posts of that nature).  This post cites another "manifesto" of mine if you will:  http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2010/12/of-thermodynamics-complexity-closed.html

I'm sorry, this is probably not what you had hoped for.  My bottom line is that I did try to discuss the SCIENCE with Taubes.  As have so many others before me and since.  He'll have none of it.  Taubes' hypothesis is irreconcileable with the evidence.  Period.  If you can ever get him to agree to some sort of live roundtable discussion, more power to you, and I would love to participate in something like that.  I doubt he would do it.  Only an hour or so out of his life to devote to wiping the floor with my garbage nonsense and be done with my annoying blogging for once and for all, right?  Wouldn't that help people?   Assuming he wants to help people .....   I believe helping people begins with not wasting their time and money on nonsense.  

Have a nice weekend Adam.  I welcome a response if you feel like addressing anything I've said, I in no way want to generate hard feelings here.  I just have to stay true to myself and I have goals inconsistent with those of yours and Taubes'.   I've got a ton of blog posts that are 80% done that I want to get out there, so if you email me and go MIA for a bit, it's not b/c I'm ignoring you.

Ev     PS Are you going to AHS12? 

The final exchange from Adam sent Feb 11.  I don't know the timing of the podcast taping w.r.t. all of this, perhaps Adam will comment.

Hi Ev,

First off, thanks for writing back. I had feared that you were going to read the ebook and have a reaction like, “okay, this guy’s a froot loop. I’m done here.” :)

I agree with your critique about actionable info. I was trying to avoid the Herman Taller/Atkins type trap of oversimplifying. I.e. “forget about calories, just count carbs (or insulin) or whatever, and your belly fat will melt away and your life will be full of rainbows and happiness.” Because it may not be that simple for many people. There may be different types of obesity, etc, as I believe you alluded to on your blog. Perhaps it is possible to use an Occam’s Razor to say, in effect, “fine, it’s complex, but it’s basically about XYZ (calories, carbs, what have you).” But rather than immediately cure as I diagnose — what my friend once dubbed the Seven Simple Steps for Stupid People approach -- I wanted to acknowledge the complexity. Then again, how useful is that? Good question. Maybe it’s not.

I do feel regretful about how I described your, Stephan and James’ blogs. If you’ve written 700+ posts and received deafening silence and/or outright dismissal on points you believe are important... Well, that sounds frustrating and aggravating. How do we work it, so that everyone gets listened to and understood? I’m not sure. But I’d bet the point you’re making is at the root of much of the acrimony (e.g. The Colpo-Eades Wars, Taubes-vs-the-World, etc). On some level, it’s not about the quality of the rhetoric or even of the science but of the listening. 

As for the post you wrote on TFLOT... I believe our two positions are pretty damn close! Not identical, obviously. But I am a believer in conservation of mass. It doesn’t matter how you get from 120 pounds to 150 pounds, that 30 pounds of excess mass had to come from somewhere! I’m trying to figure out where we diverge. And it may be the part where you write “Our day-to-day inefficiencies and the minutia of metabolic paths, etc. do not need to be understood in order to work with this simplified understanding.” Maybe in the language of my metaphor, what you’re saying is that the overlap between Calories and the Black Box is, for practical purposes, complete. In other words, you’re basically saying the Venn diagram on pg 19 of Caloriegate is way too exaggerated; to a first order and perhaps beyond, we can just say Count Calories and call it a day. Not sure if that makes sense or just confuses the issue even more. Will have to think about it.

Any interest in continuing this conversation on one of our blogs? Like, do a Q&A with each other or something. We could talk about not only where we disagree but also where we DO agree. I’m sure it would attract attention in the Paleosphere, given that we represent the polar extremes of our factions. If that appeals, let me know, but no pressure.

In any event, thanks for the read, and let’s stay in touch. There has to be a better mousetrap for how to bring the Carborati and anti-Carborati together. Add that to the to-do pile!

Adam

P.s. Hoping to go to AHS, if I can convince my wife to take the kids for the weekend. You going? If so, we should meet up.

---

After which I listened to his podcast early this morning:  http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/6039/559-adam-kosloff/

---

I then sent this email:

Hi Adam,

I just listened to your podcast when a reader emailed me that I was mentioned. Maybe it's your tone or whatever, but I was displeased with how you made our email exchange sound. 

Can I have your permission to publish our exchange? I'll be publishing my side of things.

Very disappointed really. I'm not frustrated that nobody listens to me. Rather I'm gratified that lots of folks listen to me. So don't worry over how to reach me with psychobabble about trying to understand what I'm feeling or imagining that I'm frustrated. If I'm frustrated by anything it's that I have to WASTE time rehashing the same stuff when just about anyone with credibility has come out against TWICHOO. I'd rather blog on what improves IR, what causes diabetes to progress, approaches to help people who hit plateaus as I have to move past them, and on whether long term low carb is indeed healthy over the long run which was my original impetus for researching this stuff and starting my blog in the first place. It was not to "destroy Taubes" giggle giggle. That part of your interview was most off-putting really.

Adam's  response:

Hi Evelyn,

Thanks for your email and for coming to me directly with this. First of all, you’re welcome to publish our exchange. Secondly, to the extent that my comments came across as insulting or annoying or whatever, I sincerely regret it. I haven’t yet listened to the podcast, but my intention when bringing up our email exchange was to demonstrate how it’s so easy for opponents in the Diet Wars to view each other as enemies or allies — and how this kind of categorization blinds us to one another’s humanity. I mentioned you because the two of us seem to represent the polar extremes of the “Is Taubes’ Theory Right?” question. And I was trying to illustrate that, given our passion and our convictions, we could so easily fall into the trap of seeing each other as enemies instead of paying attention to the common humanity that binds us (e.g. Our common frustration of feeling like we’re wasting our time re-proving the obvious). 

Of course, unfortunately, I apparently fell into that very trap, when I made the “destroy Taubes” comment — and possibly the tone of the whole bit! Sigh. 

Just to clarify: while I consider myself at war with an idea (CICO), I do not consider myself in any way above or smarter than or better than the people who believe in and advocate for this idea (Team CICO includes most of my own family). My sincere goal is to find consilience — ways in which we can all “win” so we can all come together to stamp out obesity, diabetes, etc.

So to the extent that my comments came off as non-compassionate or insulting, I was operating outside my core values and I regret it.

Does what I’m saying here make sense?   Adam

So ... that's where we stand at this point.  I have some commentary to add later, and I hope readers will read the comments on Jimmy's blog with Adam's responses as well.   You may also want to read Flashback! Adam Kosloff Edition of Insulin Wars Series.  I hope the formatting isn't too farkled!

---

Follow-up:  Response to Moore/Kosloff Podcast II: Commentary