Why This Matters

Every writer faces criticism at some point. It's crucial to remain calm and transform the negativity into a source of strength. By using the energy from trolls, we can redirect it to our own advantage.

Moving Forward

In this article, I will analyze two specific instances of criticism I received, offering a framework for how to manage similar experiences. It seems I have earned the title of "the most dangerous writer" due to my views on statins, as pointed out by Dr. Lutz E. Kraushaar.

Criticism from Paul and Larry

Among my critics, Paul stands out with his harsh feedback. Another critic, Larry Lehmbecker, provided a more detailed critique. While I responded to his points, I believe they deserve broader attention.

Embracing Trolls

You might be surprised, but I find some enjoyment in the antics of my critics. This isn’t because I embody a saintly persona; rather, I see an opportunity in their negativity. Instead of engaging in pointless arguments, consider using their momentum against them, much like the principles of Aikido.

Understanding the Essence of Criticism

To effectively address criticism, it’s essential to recognize three key points:

1. Audience Reach: Attracting trolls signifies that your work has reached a significant audience. Congratulations! This is a milestone in your writing journey.
2. Unique Perspective: Finding your authentic voice is vital. Readers crave genuine insights rather than overly polished, bland content. If you can back up your arguments without resorting to falsehoods, you’re on the right path. Critics are simply part of the journey.
3. Psychological Benefits: Acknowledging the above points can improve your mental well-being and even impact your financial success. Use criticism as a springboard for new articles, just as I am doing here.

Section 1: Analyzing Paul's Critique

The rise of trolling on social media has led psychologists to examine the traits of those who engage in such behavior. Many trolls exhibit characteristics associated with the Dark Tetrad: sadism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism. A significant portion of adults in the U.S. report experiencing online harassment.

Paul referred to me as a "professional contrarian." While he didn’t mean it kindly, I take it as a compliment. Being professional in my field is essential, and I appreciate any acknowledgment of that.

Contrarianism has a rich history; figures like Galileo and Semmelweis faced opposition for challenging prevailing beliefs. I don’t claim to be on par with them, but I am comfortable questioning the conventional wisdom regarding statins. If that makes me the "most dangerous" writer, I’ll wear it as a badge of honor.

Section 2: Addressing Larry's Criticism

Larry Lehmbecker's lengthy comment on my post about statins raised several points, including:

1. Misleading Information: He claimed that my information about NNT (Number Needed to Treat) was misrepresented, arguing that statins are not prescribed to healthy individuals. However, guidelines do allow statin prescriptions for those with elevated cholesterol levels, even if they appear healthy.
2. Skepticism Towards Studies: Larry suggested that questioning the integrity of statin studies is unfounded. Yet, numerous studies demonstrate that industry-funded trials often yield favorable results for the sponsors. A significant number of trials with null outcomes are not published, and access to data is often restricted.
3. Accusations of Intent: Larry concluded by accusing me of seeking to build a following among anti-statin advocates. I won’t dignify this with a response, as it seems aimed at provoking a reaction.

As a parting suggestion, I encourage both Paul and Larry to share their perspectives on Medium. In the meantime, I’m content to hold my title as the platform's most dangerous writer.

How do you handle trolls and negative feedback? Your strategies and experiences can provide valuable insights for others.