Yarnell is back

Eric Yarnell
Expand Messages
Mona Morstein
Message 1 of 14 , Feb 18 1:52 PM
View Source
He has been re-admitted to NatChat.

Mona Morstein, ND, DHANP
Tempe, AZ
www.diamend.info
Official Sponsor of NatChat--Doctors Data Labs


Adam Graves
Message 2 of 14 , Feb 18 2:47 PM
View Source
Thanks, I can only imagine managing this list is a thankless, time consuming, exhausting task. Thanks for all your hard work and devotion.
Adam Graves ND, LAc
Castle Rock, Co


Emily Kane
Message 3 of 14 , Feb 18 2:48 PM
View Source
Yay!
Thanks :)
What about Dr Piscipo?
Emily Kane ND
Just landed in Orlando for LDN conference

www.DrEmilyKane.com


Susan Roberts
Message 4 of 14 , Feb 18 3:31 PM
View Source
I appreciate all  your hard work

Susan Roberts
Naturopathic Physician


Rick Cooper
Message 5 of 14 , Feb 18 3:39 PM
View Source
Thank you Mona.  We are  all upset about the attacks on our profession.  We can get through this together.  How can we help?
Rick Cooper ND
Norwalk, CT


tnkaczor
Message 6 of 14 , Feb 18 4:05 PM
View Source
Mona,
You are a gem! It cannot be easy to maintain the 3300 ppl on this list, reading all of the posts, checking licenses, etc., etc.
A million thank-you's for your dedication.  Your ability to change your mind and listen to the voices of the community garners even more respect than ever from me.

You, too, are one of our leaders.  And we thank you for being you!

Tina Kaczor
Eugene, OR


Jill Evenson
Message 7 of 14 , Feb 18 5:26 PM
View Source
I wonder if the take home message from all of this is that Mona could really use some helpers.
NatChat is a an enormous job – and one Mona has taken on as a labor of love. But love can only take you so far when your overextended.
When a person is overcommitted, guiding a project like a child, I think these over-corrections can occur --- just like a tired driver who's veered off the shoulder only to correct into oncoming traffic.
And frankly, asking for help can seem like more work than doing it yourself. I've been there.

I propose we take this on like NDs and TREAT THE CAUSE.
The cause is not moles. They're a symptom. More helpers, just like an informed and robust immune system, can address those pesky invaders - or at least serve as guides to help us as members navigate our postings, or just simply keep it in perspective.

I propose a few potential solutions.
A) pay for an assistant,
B) rotational 'helpers' role - where 2-3 people help monthly, on a rotational basis with the running of NatChat. Someone could take on license verification. Someone tech savvy could take on security. Etc etc. If job descriptions are well circumscribed, we can each move in and out of these support roles with ease. (Mona, I realize this is work as well - but it's short-term loss for long-term gains).

I've read quite a few pleas to continue this forum as it has served as such an important resource for practitioners in the many lonely corners of the globe. And, I've also seen seasoned docs react in the extreme - asking to be removed; those who, if they calmed themselves, would be very willing to recognize the true cause and rather than retreat, dig in and help get our car back on the straight path (back to the tired driver analogy). It's time for us to match our efforts with what we care about.
Please let me be the first to volunteer money and/or time to help prevent (ah, philosophy) another such mishap. Let's bring our ND-ness beyond the clinic and turn it out benevolently in support of each other.

Jill Evenson, ND
Wisconsin


Ian Bier
Message 8 of 14 , Feb 18 6:46 PM
View Source
Mona,

Acknowledging again how much you put into NatChat, and the best of intentions that you had, I think it is important that we recognize that what happened here was very damaging. Based on people's posted messages and other emails I've seen (yes, of course people are emailing about this off NatChat), significant damage to the trust in the process and within this group was caused. Although I am happy to see that people are being positive about the reinstatement, more needs to be clarified in order for proper closure to happen and hopefully leave this community in a better, more cohesive place, not to mention Dr Yarnell's reputation.

You had stated that you had significant reason to be concerned about Dr Yarnell, and that we needed to trust you on that. This is not a time where people have blind trust in the the opaque process of a benevolent authority, even when the intention is pure as I know yours was. I assume if you re-admitted Dr Yarnell you have found those significant reasons to not be accurate, and I think it is important for those to be clearly detailed. A person has the right to face their accuser, and to clear their name - without everything coming out into the light, some aspect of this will continue to hang over him in some people's minds.

With respect for your work and intention,

I

Ian D. Bier, ND, PhD, LAc, FABNO


Melanie Whittaker
Message 9 of 14 , Feb 18 7:31 PM
View Source
Thank you Mona for reinstating Eric,

I know you are really trying to do the best by the profession. We all feel that we need to speck up and help make a difference to keep our profession in checks and balance. I appreciate how much it takes on the forgiveness note. We are all human.

Melanie Whittaker, ND
Stanwood, WA


edievickers
Message 10 of 14 , Feb 18 7:51 PM
View Source
Thank you Mona..I don't know of anyone who would or could take on the job of running, managing and keeping the list going day after day, year after year...you have my heartfelt appreciation and respect...sometimes being at the top sucks =(

In Awe
Edie Vickers ND LAc
PDX OR


dryarnell7
Message 11 of 14 , Feb 18 8:18 PM
View Source
I have for the moment rejoined the list and want to thank everyone for their outpouring of support. Thank you to everyone who stood up for me.

However, I have conditions for returning to the list.

First, Dr. Piscopo must be invited back as well as anyone else who might have been banned for supporting me, raising questions about this process, or anything related. If I haven't heard directly from Dr. Piscopo (whom I will be in touch with personally) within a week that he's been invited back I will leave the group permanently.

Second, at a minimum some kind of due process needs to be created around banning someone from the list. This is a fairly provocative and strong power and I do not think Dr. Morstein alone can be entrusted with this power based on her actions. I propose that a committee of three people be elected (and no I do not want to be on the committee and would in fact refuse to be on it) and that a majority vote by the committee be required to ban someone, with clear rules drafted about what constitutes basis for being banned. More generally I think the list should discuss whether we are comfortable with Dr. Morstein having so much power over what has truly become a profession-wide resource. While I deeply appreciate Dr. Morstein having built the list, it is actually a community effort and I think it would almost certainly be better off with a different, democratic structure. I have considered but rejected the idea of starting a competing list because I don't want more fracturing of our community. But I have to say if I and others continue to be treated in the manner similar to how I have been treated it will become increasingly difficult for me to do anything else.

Third, I will need to clear something up with Dr. Morstein in private.

While I support everyone's right to do so, I hope anyone who might have left the list because of this mess would return as it was never my desire that anyone leave purely as a gesture of solidarity or to make a political statement. I would rather the community get better rather than fragment further.

All the best,

Eric Yarnell, ND (or Dr. Evil or whatever you want to call me)
Seattle, WA



Aaron VanGaver
Message 12 of 14 , Feb 19 6:14 AM
View Source
I absolutely agree with having a board ----- one person shouldn't have 100% control, for what is now a community resource.  I also do not want to be on the committee or board -- but I will be happy to vote.

I have never met Mona, and I know others who speak very highly of her ---- so I hope this is just a moment in bad judgement.  Lets get her some help, and take the burden of owning and running a business (NatChat).

Cheers
Aaron Vancouver, BC

--
Dr. Aaron Van Gaver BSc ND
Pssst..... care to check out my NEW website?
www.draaronvangaver.com


Eric Blake
Message 13 of 14 , Feb 19 8:33 AM
View Source
Thank God youre back Yarnell. You are one of my favorites to banter with here.

Part of why that is is just as you said today after we finally met in person  - it's ok to disagree. Actually for me it's more than ok. It's a genuine pleasure. Its  where knowledge breeds and opinions forged.

I feel obligated to comment here directed towards the group. As it was our debate as a subset of the vaccines and my last line of inquiry, with Dr Uzicks tongue in cheek,  that somehow triggered a distracting drama over the last few days.  ( and I do look forward to picking that back up. We were getting to some very worthwhile aspects.  )

I also feel obligated because I too was briefly excommunicated from natchat a few years ago.  The group was maybe 1/2 the size it is now. For those who don't remember I was sharing my research on the history of the profession and the nonsense about the 'always a 4 year' or even 'medical' program was well just nonsense.

And when I was booted Yarnell through his hat in the ring for me to be reinstated. He did not do that because he agreed with me. He had no idea and that didn't matter to him. I think piscopo may have too come to think of it. They believed in an open exchange. Trust is built on honesty and honesty means we won't always see eye to eye.

Someone else stood up for me too. But in a different way.

While temporarily banished I experienced the real sadness that excommunication feels like. I was embarrassed, frustrated, sad, angry, and quite frankly felt alone. I know it's just a chat group but it's a community and I enjoyed it. I think most of us do.

During that time I wrote an email on OnCANP group about cancer and iris diagnosis I believe regarding breast cancer.  Because of the natchat drama I took the time to try to educate the audience about its science. Michael Uzick responded on that list that it should be nominated for email of the year. I'm sure it wasn't that great and he was aware of the drama at natchat and was being overly kind to soothe my sadness. Especially from someone who is influential and an important contributor to naturopathic oncology.

When I read Uzicks response to Yarnell I thought it was tongue in cheek. I also saw his point that it was an odd post - out of context and an unreliable resource that distracts from the topic at hand rather than elucidating it. Surprising for what we would expect from Yarnell.

Of all the things I remember is their thoughtful consideration. Including Monas. Who reminds me of a passionate deeply caring well meaning Jewish grandmother from the east coast who isn't afraid to get it wrong some times and later admit it (such a rare trait these days!) if it means protecting her family. And I understood that after direct contact with her.

Yahoo groups is antiquated time consuming cumbersome and glitchy. There are numerous naturopathic FB groups - on a platform that is more dynamic and this and the personalization helps to reduce this type of drama and makes searching posting and adding files much easier. I

I post infrequently here anymore because it is time consuming even to follow a thread - u can't like, turn on notifications, find out about who is posting with a quick click, etc.

FB is thriving as a business while yahoo crumbles. It will not likely get better and one day yahoo groups may just be  MySpace.

Which gets me to my actual point. The first US naturopathic association crumbled into divisive infighting by its own design. Sure it had political enemies but the house of cards wasn't prepared for even a breeze in the 1940s. And when it fell the profession degenerated into a disaster.

I don't think natchat is as important today as the ANA was at that time, though it is important. And it has a similar organizational structure. It is centered around one person. Which is good for ramping up but it is not good for long term viability.

In the case of the ANA they put in democratic institutions and when a board was elected in the 1942 that was going to institute science based 4 year post high school curriculums and model it after the MDs the old guard including Lust bristled. They simply refused to accept the election results and threw a seperate convention elsewhere than the one planned with the new leaders. And so began the dive into 20 years of bitter fighting, a 15 year 'reprieve', and then the 'modern era' and the last gasp between the aanp and the anna.  75 years of 'who is the real naturopath'?'

My point? Democratic succession in professional groups is critical for viability. This drama is a symptom of improper structure for an org this size.

If Mona wants to abdicate or develop a board etc though it really is up to her. Without a phase 2 of succession the group has a limited life cycle no matter what. So probably she has been thinking of it anyway.

And the mole if there is one or is it just a server that has been accessed (most likely) may be the best thing ever for the group because now we know we are 1) accountable for what we write and say as professionals so get with it and 2)human - this has triggered a divisive paranoia that is fueling a witch hunt mentality and now that we all see it maybe that piece of our profession, fueld from decades of professional trauma , can begun to be let go collectively to some degree until it washes away to normal human or even better levels.

If that therapeutic catharsis happens  happens then natchat is truly a gift to our profession.


Sincerely
Dr. Blake

Eric Blake ND, DAc
Naturopathic Physician,


avwcdrgrp
Message 14 of 14 , Feb 19 1:07 PM
View Source
I think this is a very reasonable request. I would be willing to help in this regard.