SHARE
TWEET

Yarnell is booted off NatChat

naturowhat Feb 20th, 2016 757 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. Dr. Yarnell
  2. Expand Messages
  3.  
  4.         flanagan.laura

Message 1 of 8 , Feb 17 9:50 PM 



View Source

I am very disappointed in the decision to kick Dr Yarnell off of NatChat.  He is a dedicated ND who has given more to our profession than just about anyone I can think of. I appreciate his wisdom and always read his posts ( except for this week because because I am really tired of the vaccine bickering) with extra care.  He has great knowledge that he shares generously.  He is not a traitor to our profession and I think the accusation was a mean spirited, uncalled-for attack.   
I hope that his banning will be recinded soon.
Laura Flanagan, ND
Spokane, WA




  5.        
  6.  
  7. Dr. Nan Dunne Byington
  8.  
  9. Message 2 of 8 , Feb 17 10:28 PM
  10.  
  11. View Source
  12.  
  13. WHAT!?!? Yarnell is banned?! for his contributions to the vaccine discussion??!? Is this true?
  14.  
  15. If this is true, I’m gone. Intolerant of intolerance, I will seek community elsewhere.
  16.  
  17. Nancy Dunne Byington, ND
  18. www.PCOSConsultations.com
  19.  
  20.  
  21.  
  22. Shiva Barton, ND
  23.  
  24. Message 3 of 8 , Feb 18 4:28 AM
  25.  
  26. View Source
  27.  
  28. So,
  29.  
  30. According to Eric he was not removed for his pro-vaccine views. He was
  31. temporarily removed because Mona thought he might be the Britt mole
  32. because evidently he cited some research from her group. De-listing him
  33. is misguided - McCarthyism at its finest. Now, I can see banning Eric
  34. because he is really pale (we should be tanning him, not banning him) or
  35. because has a bad sense of humor, but the guilt by association thing is
  36. a little scary. I know that Mona deeply cares about NatChat and it bugs
  37. her no end that there is a mole. However, it is not a logical conclusion
  38. that citing that research equates with moledom. So, Mona, please let the
  39. dude back in so I can continue to skip over all this back and forth
  40. vaccine stuff and steal Eric's clinical pearls when he responds to other
  41. posts with his continued very useful information.
  42.  
  43. PS: The history of espionage indicates that is unlikely that you will
  44. ever find your mole, unfortunately.
  45.  
  46. Shiva Barton, ND
  47. WInchester, MA
  48.  
  49.  
  50.  
  51. Rick Cooper
  52.  
  53. Message 4 of 8 , Feb 18 6:28 AM
  54.  
  55. View Source
  56.  
  57. Please apologize and  reinstate Eric. I am uncomfortable with unilateral banning unless clear evidence exists. Eric is a major contributor to  Nat Chat and our profession in general. We as a profession  have disagreements concerning philosophy which we need to resolve amicably. Power moves that split us up are a delight to our foes. 
  58. Rick Cooper ND
  59. Norwalk CT         
  60.  
  61.  
  62.  
  63.  
  64. Mona Morstein
  65.  
  66. Message 5 of 8 , Feb 18 6:33 AM
  67.  
  68. View Source
  69.  
  70. I always wish to have NatChat be transparent.   It is true I have temporarily removed Dr. Yarnell, but not due to his innate views on vaccines, food allergy testing or whatever.  NatChat welcomes all views on topics.  However, without going into details, behind the scenes (and yes, also due to his using Gorski as a reference) some concerns have risen about Dr. Yarnell.  This is a test removal.  If the flow of information to Britt is not stopped by Dr. Yarnell’s removal, I will offer a very sincere, heartfelt public apology to him and Natchat.   However, I feel it is my responsibility to try to do whatever I can with whatever clues come my way to staunch the flow of information to Britt Hermes.  
  71.  
  72. I do not wish for this to cause people to be upset or resentful.  We need to keep our profession together since many outside people are against us.  Please trust me that I do not do anything willy-nilly and needed to accumulate information before taking this step.  Like many on the list, I also respect and admire Dr. Yarnell for his breadth of knowledge and his teachings to our profession.  I may be making a huge error with this action and time will tell. If I have, I will indeed own up to it.  Please be assured that my intent here is always doing the best I can for NatChat and our profession. 
  73.  
  74. Mona Morstein, ND, DHANP
  75. Tempe, AZ
  76.  
  77.  
  78.  
  79. dr_sacha_elliott
  80.  
  81. Message 6 of 8 , Feb 18 7:38 AM
  82.  
  83. View Source
  84.  
  85. Hi Mona,
  86.  
  87. I get it.  You're doing the best you can do with the information you have (that we don't have).  Your intentions are the best they can be (protect Nat Chat and protect our profession). 
  88.  
  89. I appreciate you always trying to do the best you can as the moderator of Nat Chat.
  90.  
  91. I am hoping we'll have Dr. Yarnell's wisdom and experience back on the list soon.
  92.  
  93. Sacha Elliott, ND
  94. Maple Ridge, BC
  95.  
  96.  
  97.  
  98. Dr. Coleen Murphy
  99.  
  100. Message 7 of 8 , Feb 18 1:33 PM
  101.  
  102. View Source
  103.  
  104. Hi Mona, 
  105.  
  106. I agree with Dr. Elliott-
  107. I get it. You're doing the best you can do with the information you have (that we don't have). Your intentions are the best they can be (protect Nat Chat and protect our profession).  
  108. I appreciate you always trying to do the best you can as the moderator of Nat Chat. 
  109. I am hoping we'll have Dr. Yarnell' s wisdom and experience back on the list soon. 
  110.  
  111.  
  112. ~Dr. Murphy Assalian
  113. Orange County, CA
  114.  
  115.  
  116.  
  117. Sally Boyd-Daughtrey
  118.  
  119. Message 8 of 8 , Feb 18 1:54 PM
  120.  
  121. View Source
  122.  
  123. HI Mona,
  124. I, too, have enjoyed learning from Dr. Yarnell, and have been surprised but intrigued by his strong 'pro CDC vaccine schedule' opinion.  I am sorry you have felt the need to take this action, but I understand that with responsibility comes the power required to, well, to be responsible. I know that I could not manage the time and energy required to run this thing.  Obviously you have more information than I do to take such an action. 
  125.  
  126.   
  127. Accepting that you do, therefore, I respectfully ask:
  128.  
  129. What are the criteria for testing this hypothesis (Yarnell = mole)?
  130. How long will this experiment be conducted?  (I get that we regular NatChaters may not be able to know these answers or it would ruin your experiment. But have you decided this for yourself?)
  131. Have you talked to Eric in person about your concerns?  Is there a chance for offline mediation or another action that we as a community could take to create more unity rather than discord?  I know Dr Yarnell is speaking at Doc Talks this weekend.  Perhaps someone from the NatChat community could meet with him over this issue and get some clarity?
  132.  
  133. I also would like to point out to those that want to unsubscribe over this that Mona is clear that open debate on vaccines is welcome and Eric's opinions on it are NOT the reason for the temporary ban.  Also, if those who disagree simply drop out, how can we as a community evolve?
  134.  
  135. Thank you.
  136. As an isolated' Doc on a Rock' I really, really appreciate all of you on NatChat and do not want this forum to go away!
  137. Sally Boyd Daughtrey
  138. Pahoa, HI
RAW Paste Data
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy. OK, I Understand
 
Top