Not playing nice, SBM

Feb 20th, 2016
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 14.10 KB | None | 0 0
  1. Not playing nice
  2. Expand Messages
  4. Anne Van Couvering

Message 1 of 7 , Feb 17 8:07 AM 

View Source

Hi all -
  6. We seem to be playing "pile on Dr. Yarnell".
  8. I, for one, am grateful that he sticks his neck out with an unpopular position - and cites good evidence to back it up - without the name-calling that usually happens in discussions around vaccines.
  10. If we don't agree with him, we get to practice having our citations and arguments in order - and he is gracious enough to answer them.
  12. We are lucky to have him. Even though he occasionally cites a questionable source (well, as far as I've been able to tell, all the sources discrediting Dr Johnson are somewhat questionable, so that IS a challenge).
  14. Anyway, play nice and we can all learn something.
  16. (And thank you to everyone for having these conversations)
  18. Anne Van Couvering, ND
  19. Berkeley, CA

  22. Adam Graves
  24. Message 2 of 7 , Feb 17 9:21 AM
  26. View Source
  28. I too would like to thank Eric Yarnell, He has always been a gracious to help me out when needed. and always takes his time to answer question and he is a kick ass ND. and Always given 200% to this profession. And for being strong enough to have this discussion with others that don't agree with him. He is an amazing person and doctor. 
  30. Adam Graves ND, LAc
  31. Castle Rock, Co 
  35. Michael Uzick, N.D.
  37. Message 3 of 7 , Feb 17 5:56 PM
  39. View Source
  41. I also agree with all of the great things mentioned about Dr. Yarnell . However, citing a "Science based medicine" criminals, who are actively trying to destroy our profession is shocking to me. This same group are using posts from this forum to damage individual naturopaths and our profession. To essentially post as evidence to support vaccination something Britt Hermes or her boss has written definitely begs the question of whether Eric is the mole?
  43. Michael Uzick, ND
  44. Tucson
  48. dryarnell7
  50. Message 4 of 7 , Feb 18 8:48 PM
  52. View Source
  54. Dr. Uzick,
  56. I need to specifically respond to your post in a little more detail.
  58. I am sorry, but I don't keep a map on my wall of all the opponents of naturopathic medicine. I don't look up the history of every source I cite. No one does this. And if I am to be banned and accused of being a traitor or a mole because of citing a source you or anyone doesn't like, then this list definitely needs to be shut down.
  60. I am sorry but now I have to get extremely patronizing and person, Dr. Uzick, because what you posted is, there is no other way to say it, wrong and a personal attack. Here's a little science 101 for you, since you seem unaware of the fundamentals of the process and how scientific debate/discussion works. Quoting a source doesn't imply you agree with everything that source is, does and has said for all time. If we stopped citing every source we disagreed with on one position or the other, it would quickly destroy all of science and all of naturopathic medicine (because we have all kinds of disagreements with others). Who is to decide which source is "good" and ok to cite and which one is "bad"? If someone 20 years ago said something racist out of context, should they never be cited again for all time? This isn't how it works, and I am certainly not going to be held to Dr. Uzick's standards of who I should and shouldn't cite. Whether or not someone is "shocking" to you as a source is immaterial to a scientific discussion.
  62. No, I don't like, support, or agree with the quack busters on issues of our profession. They are biased and uneducated about this. I don't know what Orac or some other specific people have said against our profession, but I know their ilk.  But I do know that the specific post Orac made regarding immunization that I cited has useful information in it and it supported how I came to my position about immunization. I both stand by the citation and my right to use it without buying in to the anti-naturopathic pap from the same source.
  64. Dr. Morstein, it has become clear to me from reading all the posts today and re-reading what you sent me (in which you falsely claimed that "some NatChatters" had pressured you when it is now clear it was only Dr. Uzick) that you did not have any reliable information you didn't share on the list about my being a mole or a traitor. Dr. Uzick's baseless, pathetic accusation is not sufficient for removing me or anyone from this list. If you really have some other evidence present it now or admit you were wrong and apologize as you said you would (in private or in public). Perhaps the fact that I was her professor at Bastyr and thereby am guilty by association? Maybe I'm the reason Britt went wrong! That has to be it. Let's see what Dr. Uzick thinks because he is obviously the arbiter of all knowledge and all that is good or bad.
  66. Eric Yarnell, ND
  67. Seattle, WA
  71. weyrich_comp
  73. Message 5 of 7 , Feb 18 11:58 PM
  75. View Source
  77. I would like to support Dr. Yarnell's posting of things from sources we consider unreliable (or even offensive).  It is good science to present all points of view.  It is also debate 101 - the good debater can present the opposing view better than his/her opponent (I was in a debate club in high school VERY long ago; I kept a file of arguments and facts supporting my chosen position, as well as a file of arguments and facts opposing my position).  
  79. I constantly teach this to my students - it is part of the critical thinking training that should go on in school (I have taught at SCNM, Phoenix Institute of Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine, and Grand Canyon University to name a few places where I have attempted to put forth this point of view; I must say that  PIHMA was most hostile to that point of view, and that GCU is the most receptive.  There were students who wanted my head on a platter at both SCNM and PIHMA - which is why I no longer teach there. But neither do many of my teachers in the Basic Sciences at SCNM or faculty I supervised when I was head of the department of Western Sciences at PIHMA) - purges seem too common in alternative medical schools.
  81. If we are to successfully defend our "art and science of naturopathy" we must know and understand the attacks leveled against us better than even our attackers do, and then formulate appropriate responses to "bust" the "quackbusters."
  83. Or we can hide under a rock and suck our thumb.
  85. Just My Not So Humble Opinion
  86. Orville Weyrich, Jr PhD NMD
  87. Phoenix/Payson AZ
  88. SCNM 2007
  92. Michael Uzick, N.D.
  94. Message 6 of 7 , Feb 19 12:40 AM
  96. View Source
  98. Dr. Yarnell,
  100. My question was provocative and I apologize to you and all in this forum who feel it was undeserved. I obviously sincerely felt it was deserved. I am not without reason here. Simply, these people have one intention, to destroy naturopathic medicine. I'm a naturopath and thus I'm offended by them and anyone who would use as credible the blogs of the most biased, unscientific and vicious opponents of naturopathic medicine.
  102. There have been a lot of erroneous assumptions put forth today. Perhaps the most important is my assumption that you were aware of who the science based medicine/quackbusters are and Britt's connection with them. In addition, her long list of activities fighting against our legislative efforts, regularly slandering our profession in articles and blogs, attacking individual doctors and engaging in the exact same tactics the quackbusters have always used.
  104. Of course you are free to cite who ever you like. But if you cite in a professional medical forum,  tobacco industry "research", Nazi eugenicists blogs, ISIS medical hypothesis or the quackbusters that slander you and our profession and who are bent on its destruction, you might expect a provocative response in return.
  106. You're a leader in this profession and your approach I believe is a sincerely science based one. Yes, I believe this about you in spite of your sloppy blog citations. I agree with your right to post anything you want, I just don't think it's becoming of the man whose receiving so many accolades from his colleagues, including myself. Sources are worthy of critique and no more worthy are the quackbuster blogs in this forum.
  108. It seems apparent now that you didn't fully understand who they are and what's going on? I wish I could have informed you in some other way. My hope is you can see why I and others were upset with your post.
  110. I never thought you were the mole, I never thought you would intentionally harm the profession. I was essentially saying, Eric what the hell are you doing?! I think it's reasonable to assume that if you thought it was appropriate to post their blogs here, that perhaps you were unwittingly communicating with them and serving as their mole. This seems like an obvious concern on Mona's part.
  112. It was a mistake by many to assume Mona's actions were about your stance on vaccination. It was a mistake to assume that criticizing you for a dubious action, means that Mona believe you are an evil and worthless person. I think Mona deserves an apology for both of these erroneous assumptions and thankfully has received several sincere ones. I don't want to assume this is what you told people in order to cause the upset and misunderstandings that have occurred. But clearly these false assumptions were abounding and absurd.
  114. Again, I never asked for you to be banned. It was never even a thought. Rather, what I did do was write to Mona and asked if it was appropriate to send my response to you? I was trying not to cause a problem. I was surprised by your removal, but it was obvious to me Mona's stance was sincere and she was bending over backwards to explain herself and apologize if she made a mistake. How can you not see that she's genuine? I heard one good additional reason for her action against you, but that's for Mona to share. But does she need more reasons? Especially given her forthrightness about everything.
  116. Mona and our profession are being terrorized. She was thinking of the greater good and has been through a lot. You may not have understood that Britt is working for them and who they are, but Mona does know and cares about this profession.
  118. I'm sincerely sorry for the degree of upset you appear to have over my question to you. It's not about you Eric. It's about our enemies. We are on the same side and there has been confusion, assumptions and hurt feelings that are obscuring the truth.
  120. I would ask you to assume for a moment that we all are trying to do the best we can, to do good in this world and towards each other. None of us are perfect. We all make mistakes, we make erroneous assumptions, we offend and don't always listen carefully. We all do these things. I believe the best we can do is apologize sincerely for the mistakes we make and forgive completely all sincere apologies. Please consider this truth, the true reason for all of the upset, is miscommunication, misunderstanding a whole lot of sensitive egos.
  122.  Sincerely,
  123. Michael Uzick, ND
  124. Tucson
  128. Colleen Huber, NMD
  130. Message 7 of 7 , Feb 19 5:10 AM
  132. View Source
  134. Very well said, Dr. Uzick and everybody else.  We have no need to demonize each other.   It really is not all about each individual.   Both you and Dr. Yarnell, and all licensed naturopathic physicians, well deserve a place on this forum.  The forum would be poorer without the contributions of everyone. 
  136. However, I have a different point of view than everybody who wrote:
  138. E-mail is notoriously leaky.  No mole required!  With 3300 people engaging with NatChat, many through their e-mail servers, there's the leak(s).  A software/mechanical problem.  Not a problem of human malice, at least not within NatChat.
  140. But so what if there were a mole?  Naturopathic physicians have nothing to be ashamed about.  So what if our views on public health issues diverge strongly?  Regarding vaccines, some of us think civil liberties are more important; others think protecting public health is more important.  Both are valid, defensible views.   As long as we disagree respectfully, it is really okay if we disagree vigorously.   Core naturopathic principles, and our comprehensive medical education, and our board exams that no MD has EVER passed (without also going through ND education), even though our clinical questions on NPLEX are indistinguishable from those on USMLE    -- all of that is the basis that is fundamental to each of us, and *that* is our light that shines brightly past our detractors' smears.
  142. What intelligent person can look at the work of the disgraced ex-naturopath in Germany without disgust and pity?  So she smashes an antique measuring scale and some antique herb bottles, leaves the shards lying around and photographs them and posts them.  Then she and her idiot husband cackle over how disrespectful they are to us.  Only a "quackbuster" could be impressed by such antics, and those few seem to be the only ones who bother responding to her posts. By the way, please be sure if you do google her, look by way of her name, Britt Marie Hermes, rather than from another search term.  She can have SEO for her own name; please don't donate SEO to her for any other keyword. 
  144. Letting the disgraced Hermes silence us, in any way, is letting the terrorist win.  She does have control over the Wikipedia page, but intelligent laypeople can see past the desire to label any evidence that is inconvenient as "pseudoscience."   Wikipedia can tell you how many kangaroos in Australia, or how long the Mississippi River is, but it is notoriously untrustworthy and inadmissible as reference in universities and even now in some high schools.   Intelligent laypeople I think are mostly on our side whenever they go to any effort to see what we are all about.  We know that the average naturopathic patient has a higher level of education than the average American; they can see through nonsense.
  146. So as I always say, trite though it is, don't hide your light.  I write this as though the BM may also read it, and I don't care if that's the case or not.
  149. Colleen Huber, NMD
  150. Naturopathic Oncologist (FNORI)
  151. President, Naturopathic Cancer Society,
  152. Secretary, ANRI / NORI / INCRI,
  153. Medical Director, NatureWorksBest Cancer Clinic,
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment