As far as a bias exhibited across all moderators against NR by the moderators, I do not buy it for a moment.
Michael who has been quite active in the threads related to NR and other NAD+ related discussion, has regularly posted rebuttals to anti NR comments, and pro NR comments with their rationale, and fact based analysis refuting claims, in defense of claims and when appropriate, questioning of the validity of the results based on study parameters.
mrkosh1, it is unfortunate that you were threatened with being barred. I hope the moderators learned from the mistake.
Unlike the work of Michael, the tireless spamming of threads by one of the participants in this thread has been a waste of many members time, and has polluted some threads to the point of them becoming difficult to mine for the information within them. I have seen this as a strategy at times in other forum discussions. They bury facts behind overwhelming repeated B.S.
I see an irony in what that poster has done. In my view they have marginalized their position on NR which is sad. They have a lot of great information to share on the general NAD+, and specific NR knowledge. I had hoped that they would cut back, and emphasize by regularly sharing the quality of supported information which they know.
As to why the thread still stands, I think it is likely complicated by the content in ways we do not realize.
Edited by Heisok, 26 September 2017 - 05:55 PM.