SHARE
TWEET

ND In-fighting

naturowhat Feb 20th, 2016 433 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. Banning Eric Yarnell
  2. Expand Messages
  3.  
  4.         setarehtais‚Ä®‚Ä®Message 1 of 10 , Feb 17 9:54 PM ‚Ä®‚Ä®‚Ä®‚Ä®View Source‚Ä®‚Ä®Eric Yarnell was kicked off NatChat tonight because of his pro-vaccine views. He is being accused of being a "traitor" and a "mole leaking info to BMH" -- by banning him from Natchat, however temporary, you have silenced him and turned NatChat into an anti-vax echo chamber. I would like to be the first to say that this is ridiculous. I ask that he be reinstated and given an opportunity to defend himself.
  5.        
  6.         Also I created a safe place for NDs to respectfully discuss and learn more about vaccines from our colleagues like Eric who understand vaccines to be safe and effective. Please email me if you'd like more information or an invite to the group (where pro-vax NDs cannot be censored).
  7.        
  8.         Setareh Tais, ND‚Ä®‚Ä®‚Ä®
  9.        
  10.  
  11.  
  12. Kristin Cox
  13.  
  14. Message 2 of 10 , Feb 17 10:05 PM
  15.  
  16. View Source
  17.  
  18. Banning Dr Yarnell from NatChat is unacceptable. He is a brilliant, experienced ND. The vaccine issue is controversial and contentious issue with real life consequences for our personal lives, our practices and our profession as a whole. Silencing the discussion is doing disservice to the entire profession. I for one respect Dr. Yarnell and appreciate his contribution to the discussion. 
  19.  
  20. Kristin Cox
  21. Juneau, AK
  22.  
  23.  
  24.  
  25. Aaron VanGaver
  26.  
  27. Message 3 of 10 , Feb 17 10:17 PM
  28.  
  29. View Source
  30.  
  31. Is this serious? Yarnel is banned? I share his views on vaccination - I in fact immunize patients in my office. Shall I get kicked as well?
  32.  
  33. His responses are always well thought out. He cares about this profession. I am shocked and bothered at some of the ridiculousness I have just read.
  34.  
  35. Respectfully
  36. Aaron BC
  37.  
  38.  
  39.  
  40. Anne Van Couvering
  41.  
  42. Message 4 of 10 , Feb 17 10:36 PM
  43.  
  44. View Source
  45.  
  46. What?
  47.  
  48. Anne Van Couvering, ND
  49. Berkeley, CA
  50.  
  51.  
  52.  
  53.  
  54.  
  55. Jana Nalbandian
  56.  
  57. Message 5 of 10 , Feb 17 11:13 PM
  58.  
  59. View Source
  60.  
  61. I am very disappointed in Natchat for banning Dr. Yarnell, by far one of most brilliant ND's we have! And it is ridiculous and insulting to many of us in the profession that some are calling him a traitor. I suggest he is re-instated or I call to all fair minded ND's on Natchat to drop this format.
  62.  
  63. Jana Nalbandian, ND
  64. Anchorage, AK
  65.  
  66.  
  67.  
  68. Dr Rao
  69.  
  70. Message 6 of 10 , Feb 18 6:37 AM
  71.  
  72. View Source
  73.  
  74. The intellectual discrimination of Eric Yarnell is disgraceful.
  75. Banning a legitimate member of this group for intelligent discussion will now bias all further discussion within this group.
  76. Please remove me from this bias, ‚Äėcurated thought‚Äô group.¬†
  77.  
  78.  
  79.  
  80. Joshua Goldenberg
  81.  
  82. Message 7 of 10 , Feb 18 6:44 AM
  83.  
  84. View Source
  85.  
  86. Mona, 
  87. ‚Ä®
  88. I am grateful for all your work for NatChat and for your contribution to our community. It is because of this that I am truly flummoxed by these actions. This is surprising and upsetting and not in line with how you have moderated in the past. 
  89. ‚Ä®
  90. If Eric Yarnell is not welcome here then I choose not to be either. Please remove me from the list.
  91. ‚Ä®
  92. This feels like censorship. 
  93. ‚Ä®
  94. Joshua Goldenberg, ND
  95. Bothell WA
  96.  
  97.  
  98.  
  99. drmariotti123
  100.  
  101. Message 8 of 10 , Feb 18 7:39 AM
  102.  
  103. View Source
  104.  
  105. You have got to be kidding me.  Please remove me from this forum if this is true.  I know Eric Yarnell personally and professionally and I consider him a very sober, rational voice in a profession of...sometimes very irrational sorts.  Wow!  I'm amazed. 
  106.  
  107. Ron Mariotti, ND
  108.  
  109.  
  110.  
  111. tnkaczor
  112.  
  113. Message 9 of 10 , Feb 18 9:35 AM
  114.  
  115. View Source
  116.  
  117.  
  118.  
  119. Yes, it is true. Eric was kicked off due to referring to sources Britt Hermes has used in the past in his vaccination discussion. This banishment from NatChat was apparently due to pressure from other ND's who emailed Mona. It is a modern-day witch hunt. Paranoia combined with a religiosity of opinion on vaccination... the whole thing is really ludicrous.  
  120.  
  121. The accusation is that Eric is the NatChat "mole."  
  122.  
  123. Did I mention how ridiculous this is?
  124.  
  125. Mona, this is disappointing on many levels.
  126. The idea that Eric Yarnell would betray his fellow professionals is insulting and hurtful.  I cannot believe that our divisive culture has breached our little community.  If we cannot trust the leaders of our profession, who can we trust?
  127.  
  128. I like to think that perhaps this is due to Amazon Prime streaming the Americans, season 3, as of last week.  Watching that show makes you think your own mother is not to be trusted.  Perhaps the ND's that emailed you were binge watching?
  129.  
  130. Tina Kaczor
  131. Eugene, OR
  132.  
  133.  
  134.  
  135. Michael Uzick, N.D.
  136.  
  137. Message 10 of 10 , Feb 18 10:38 AM
  138.  
  139. View Source
  140.  
  141. I'm the one who asked Eric if he was the mole. I did not ask because of his vaccine stance. I do not believe Eric would intentionally harm this profession. I think that's absurd. I did not ask for Eric to be banned and I'm quite sure no one else did.
  142.  
  143. I was offended that he quoted quackbusters as legitimate in this forum. I don't think he's the mole, but I definitely think he deserved to be asked the question. Especially considering all that has transpired with these criminals and Mona has been particularly terrorized by them. For me, this is like someone offering to donate a million dollar painting to a Jewish synagogue, except it's a painting by Adlolf Hitler. It's offensive. The analogy might not be perfect, but the sentiment is. Eric knows I respect him greatly. He and I have no qualms about challenging each other. My apologies if my question to Eric was too provocative, what's transpired was definitely not my intention.
  144.  
  145. Mona has been very clear. She said she has reasons beyond Eric using quackbuster blog posts in our forum. I don't doubt she has additional reasons for her actions. I know that it's incredibly hurtful to her, intentionally or otherwise, the suggestion that her reasons are not true or not important or that people just didn't take the time to read them carefully.
  146.  
  147. She clearly stated that she might be acting hastily and that she sincerely apologizes to Eric and everyone if she has. You just can't be any more honest, sincere and genuine than that. Yet, I know these post will keep coming about the great disappointment in Mona because of confusion around half truths and assumptions, without bothering to read what she's clearly and simply written in multiple posts.
  148.  
  149. If our posts are freely read by Britt and her accomplices I can assure you they very pleased with themselves. But the truth is this is no rift in our profession. It's just a whole lot of confusion, assumptions, and soap boxes flying left and right.
  150.  
  151. Michael Uzick, ND
  152. Tucson
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