Criticize with care [was: Andy Weil supporting vaccinations

[Shannon Nelson]

Sheri,
You wrote: "Great way to make money off people needing help after injury."
That's a truly despicable thing to say. If you *believe* it, well, that's your right. But to *say* it on a public list--unless you have actual proof that it's true--is just really, really poor. It's in outrageously bad taste, and I would think legally touchy too, tho i admit it's unlikely to be pursued. *But* that doesn't change the fact that it's in just horribly poor taste even to say it *once*, let alone to repeat it. I don't know the man, haven't even read much that he's written (tho i admit to having liked some of that little bit), but IMO that is absolutely, completely, totally irrelevant to the fact that it's an outrageous comment to make, *unless* you actually *know* it to be a fact. (Which I'm certain you don't. And even then it's legally dicey unless you have actual proof.)
Pointing out *ideas* or approaches or whatever that someone advocates, that one doesn't agree with, that's fine. And even e.g. pointing out that he advocates vaccination and has apparently declined to look further into the facts of the matter--and let people draw their own conclusions. But to go beyond that and criticize the *individuals* themselves, I think is really not wise. For one thing, because it can make *you* suspect in the eyes of any readers who *do* like (any or all of) what he says and does, and also in the eyes of those who interpret (as some people definitely do) lack of judgment in specific areas (and I'm thinking I am not the only one who takes that comment to show a definite lack of judgment), with lack of credibility more generally; and in that, you do yourself an injustice, undercutting the valuable ideas that you do have to share.
It's also a bad idea because it takes the discussions away from the *useful* topics *that we're here for* (re-check the purposes of this list!). I believe "ad hominem" attacks are specifically on Minutus' list of things not to do.

Shannon

[Joy Lucas]

Oh Humbug - here you go again chastising people who are offering insight and evidence into those who are either damaging or who are anti homeopathy. We have a right to know about that and form our own opinions.

One really has to question your motives here.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

[Shannon Nelson]

Sheri, if I were moderating the list, I assure you that post of yours would not have appeared, nor the first one where you made the statement.

[Shannon Nelson]

Yup Joy, once again you've got me pegged, and quite rightly question my motives.

Actually I hate homeopathy, have only been using for the past 23 years because I can't stand my family, and have been searching out ways to damage my own health too. What a nuisance that it's helped us instead of harming us, oh well. Yep, I'm just here trying to undermine homeopathy by treating people respectfully. Pretty wicked plot, huh?

Sheesh.
Bye.

[Tanya Marquette]

Shannon,
I have to disagree with you. We all put out our interpretations and philosophies and
world views/understandings. What seems to get people going is when the wording
appears too blunt for some sensibilities. But that doesn't take away the veracity of
what is being said, nor the right to put out one's opinions or feelings on a subject.
Sheri has voiced an opinion often put out on this list about how the medical profession
has been set up and developed to sell drugs and profit from them. The only difference
here that I can see is that she has applied it to a particular person who is supported by
another who also happens to be well known himself.
What you claimed to be despicable truly is despicable. Unfortunately it is very true.
Recently we have had a number of whistleblowers who address this very nefarious motive
of large corporations. Wendell Potter the PR veep from Cigna has been testifying
to this very point. There was another man, a chemist from one of the big pharma corps
who has said this very point on video. It is quite clear that health care is a commodity
to be bought and sold on the open market for whatever profit can be made. The patient,
or consumer, is the pawn in the deal. If we can point to Merck or Lilly, why not point to
an individual who is making fortune and seeking power while selling defective health
information; one who pretends to be a friend of holisitic health care, but who is selling us
out in subtle and not so subtle ways. While I spoke of my personal feelings based on
my experiences, Sheri has taken the time to gather quotes to demonstrate her position.
tanya

[Shannon Nelson]

No Tanya, what I objected to was not bluntness, but libel (accusing someone of illegal behavior *for which the accusor does not have proof).

I have never objected to the airing of *ideas*--that's what I'm here for!
But I have repeatedly objected to personal attacks. The fact that this person is *known* to someone on the list is a peripheral matter; what makes it despicable, is that it is defamation of the *person*, and esp. with a libelous statement. That is a whole different thing *either* from exploration of ideas and offering of opinions, or of the sharing of *facts*.

Now if someone can identify some of the individuals who *are* knowingly suppressing information, and/or preventing research and attempts to *determine* the truth of the matter, that is extremely useful information. If someone has *facts* about that--that will stand up in court--it would be great to spread that.

But does anyone honestly believe that Andrew Weil *believes* vaccination is harmful, and yet continues to advocate? Oh come on. I *seriously* doubt that. Does the man have children? If so, have *they* been vaccinated? Does he advise his own family members to vaccinate, does he get them himself? That would be useful information--but good luck getting it.

Whatever. Have fun with your mudfest.

[Sue Boyle]

Sheri and Tanya,

Opinions are fine, but how would you like it if someone said the same awful things about you ? The Golden Rule should apply in some way when one airs an opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to voice it, but no one is entitled to so libel another person especially not in that way. Sheri feels strongly about vaccinations, as do most of us but come on there is a fine line. I definitely agree with Shannon on this issue.

Sue

[Jean Doherty]

Ditto. , Jean

[Shannon Nelson]

Thanks for clarifying that.
So the "great way to make money" off of people who follow his advice is not intentional on his part--as by my reading was implied in your statements, and evidently I was misreading. Irony I can live with.

It *is* a hard thing, that there are people of honestly good intentions and even good education and careful thought, on both sides of this question. Sorry for misunderstanding your intent, Sheri.

[Shannon Nelson]

Again, i it's a crime only if it's deliberate, or at least done in absence of a normal degree of care. Which can't really be said of someone who is only following the "prevailing wisdom" to the best of their ability.

One of the many reasons it's such a shame that homeopathy isn't taken seriously by "the mainstream medical system" is because of the clues to "cause" that come out of homeopathic cures of some conditions--when the patient has to get potentized vaccine in order to fully recover, it does look like a pretty strong implication of the vaccine--IF you "believe in" homeopathy. (And if you don't "believe in" homeopathy, then of course it proves nothing at all.) But it does seem that the more of these cases can be written up, published, and *documented*, could eventually be a very good thing--once any of the key people become willing to listen and consider.

Also, it seems important to have statistics about disease rates and health outcomes broken down into vaccinated and unvaccinated. I wonder what it would take to have that done.