Re: Summer 2005 Wise Traditions -- a complaint

[Guest guest]

> What bothered me, though, was Tom Cowan's article. An etheric body?

FOUR

> bodies? I'm reluctant to loan people WT because of the floofy

nonsense he

> writes. There's obviously some useful information in his article, but

> inasmuch as the foundation is attempting to offer science-based dissent

> against dietary and medical orthodoxy, spouting spiritual

mumbo-jumbo, even

> if it's rooted in tradition and even if there might be some sort of

> metaphoric truth in there somewhere, is not productive.

>

> Is anyone else bothered by this?

,

Spiritual mumbo-jumbo? Not productive to whom--you?

What's with people and their sensory-based truths? Hope you never

lose the use of your gross senses.

B.

/ducks

//oh, you said " inasmuch "

[Guest guest]

On 9/10/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> So I finally read the current issue of WT, and I've got to say, I think the

> complaints about the formula issue strike me as slightly overblown. Yes,

> there should've been an article on how a mother can maximize the quality of

> her milk and what she can do to assure that there's enough of it, but the

> very beginning of the article on formula stated that breast milk is best

> when it's available.

>

> What bothered me, though, was Tom Cowan's article. An etheric body? FOUR

> bodies? I'm reluctant to loan people WT because of the floofy nonsense he

> writes. There's obviously some useful information in his article, but

> inasmuch as the foundation is attempting to offer science-based dissent

> against dietary and medical orthodoxy, spouting spiritual mumbo-jumbo, even

> if it's rooted in tradition and even if there might be some sort of

> metaphoric truth in there somewhere, is not productive.

>

> Is anyone else bothered by this?

I haven't read the latest Wise Traditions so I can't comment on

Cowan's stuff but my comments regarding WAPF's view of breastfeeding

versus formula were not based on this latest issue. It was my take

from reading nearly everything else that WAPF has put out regarding

the issue, and *nearly all the negativity* on the lists ocurred BEFORE

that issue came out. We all realize that WAPF says breast is best.

That has never been at issue.

--

Pleasure is a nutrient - Mati Senerchia

[Guest guest]

I haven't read the most recent issue, but I would generally say that

if someone is to write an article that makes me brush off the

inclination to give out a Wise Traditions to someone, Tom Cowan's

definitely the guy to do it ;-)

And yup, that's happened before.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I haven't read the most recent issue, but I would generally say that

>if someone is to write an article that makes me brush off the

>inclination to give out a Wise Traditions to someone, Tom Cowan's

>definitely the guy to do it ;-)

>

>And yup, that's happened before.

Yeah, this isn't the first time I've decided not to loan my copy to someone

because of his work.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>Spiritual mumbo-jumbo? Not productive to whom--you?

Not productive in persuading people that the foundation may be right about

what people should eat. Not productive in making the case for traditional

high-fat nutrient-dense diets featuring organ meats, butter, cream, egg

yolks and all the other gustatory demons of modern society. Not productive

in making the foundation and its works look rational and science-based.

>What's with people and their sensory-based truths? Hope you never

>lose the use of your gross senses.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

>//oh, you said " inasmuch "

What, is that an uncool word nowadays?

-

[Guest guest]

-

>It was my take

>from reading nearly everything else that WAPF has put out regarding

>the issue

Fair enough. It's certainly reasonable to weigh the gestalt of the

foundation's output.

>, and *nearly all the negativity* on the lists ocurred BEFORE

>that issue came out.

Is that really true, though? I've noticed that people get their issues at

pretty heavily staggered times, but I thought the current uproar was

sparked by the current issue. I don't suppose that matters that much,

though. I gather people are working on an appropriate counterpoint article

for a future issue.

-

[Guest guest]

,

>So I finally read the current issue of WT, and I've got to say, I think the

>complaints about the formula issue strike me as slightly overblown. Yes,

>there should've been an article on how a mother can maximize the quality of

>her milk and what she can do to assure that there's enough of it, but the

>very beginning of the article on formula stated that breast milk is best

>when it's available.

>

>

Talk about masochistic! Here you are resurrecting the breastfeeding

thread. Well, let me dominate you <weg>. No, um, I mean: the statement

" breast milk is best when it's available " is interesting. Breast milk

usually is available, or we wouldn't survive well as a species. AND, if

most WAPF moms are nursing, as I have been informed, then nursing

aspects should get appropriate billing. But I don't want to beat a dead

horse. Instead, I will upload this article to the files section of the

NN homepage so that others can beat you, um er, I mean read and discuss

the pros and cons of it. I am allowed to reproduce with proper credit

so I will, cuz I'm such a swell gal (and I am doing it for the NIN group).

>What bothered me, though, was Tom Cowan's article. An etheric body? FOUR

>bodies? I'm reluctant to loan people WT because of the floofy nonsense he

>writes. There's obviously some useful information in his article, but

>inasmuch as the foundation is attempting to offer science-based dissent

>against dietary and medical orthodoxy, spouting spiritual mumbo-jumbo, even

>if it's rooted in tradition and even if there might be some sort of

>metaphoric truth in there somewhere, is not productive.

>

>Is anyone else bothered by this?

>

No. Dr. Cowan has obviously soared through the space-time continuum

warp and mere mortals just can't grasp. Seriously, I think science

should rule the day if credibility as a bona fide science-based

foundation is to be kept. You say floofy, I say fruify - but emotional

and mystical ramblings are subjective to the extreme. They may have

value, but not in this context imho.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

,

> Not productive in persuading people that the foundation may be right

about

> what people should eat... Not productive

> in making the foundation and its works look rational and science-based.

Actually, you have a point: I gave an--uncensored--article by Cowan to

my father for his perusal and the man about had kittens and declared

me 5150.

OTOH he is a founder of WAPF so it seems what he has to say is part of

their mission.

> >//oh, you said " inasmuch "

> What, is that an uncool word nowadays?

No, it qualified your statements and voided my outburst.

B.

[Guest guest]

> So I finally read the current issue of WT, and I've got to say, I

think the

> complaints about the formula issue strike me as slightly overblown.

Yes,

> there should've been an article on how a mother can maximize the

quality of

> her milk and what she can do to assure that there's enough of it,

but the

> very beginning of the article on formula stated that breast milk is

best

> when it's available.

,

I also think the complaints about the issue were overblown, because of

a certain inflammatory element on this list.

B.

[Guest guest]

,

>

>Is that really true, though? I've noticed that people get their issues at

>pretty heavily staggered times, but I thought the current uproar was

>sparked by the current issue. I don't suppose that matters that much,

>though. I gather people are working on an appropriate counterpoint article

>for a future issue.

>

Yes, it is true. Search the archives of this list for outrage on the

*website* offerings alone (I have for my research project); better yet,

look at the first three articles on the website for yourself and tell me

what kind of factual content is found among the subjectivity. And for

the record, I will iterate more plainly that I was looking at the issue

at large, not just one article. And I quote myself from the past:

" I just wonder how many women become even more insecure about trying to

breastfeed after reading

some of the literature on the subject in the latest WT and the website.

I find it confusing myself. "

Check " Food Feature " and " Campaign for Real Milk: Recent Research on

Human Milk " as well. Both are vague in terms of truly promoting breast

milk first and foremost in a human population that exhibits on average a

very small percentage of true insufficiency in breast milk for

physiological reasons (feeding is a better term because recent research

shows (as Suzanne mentioned) that research shows that mum can indeed

detect pathogens in baby' mouth via nipple and create an appropriate

antibody response). I am sorry to not be able to provide citation on

what percentage, but I do think lifestyle issues are more at work than

anything else.

http://www.flinders.edu.au/news/articles/?fj10v14s04

" After analysing the samples she had collected, Ms discovered that

the milk samples collected from the mothers of the babies with RSV

contained more protective cells than the samples collected from the

mothers of the healthy infants.

" " What I found was that there were significant changes between the

samples, in particular there was a large increase in the number of

leukocytes, or white blood cells, that are present in the breast milk

from the mothers of the sick babies, " Ms said. "

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s877755.htm

" Obviously, there is some type of feedback in the mums being exposed to

the virus, " said . " The mum didn't need to be suffering from the

virus, but the feedback is still strong enough that the milk was

changing to help the baby. "

I haven't heard back from Dr. yet about any new findings.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

It really bothers me as well. Even though 90% of what WAPF says is

sound, the 10% that isn't is cause enough for many outsiders to dismiss

WAPF and worse, its ideas.

Tom

Idol wrote:

> What bothered me, though, was Tom Cowan's article. An etheric body? FOUR

> bodies? I'm reluctant to loan people WT because of the floofy nonsense he

> writes. There's obviously some useful information in his article, but

> inasmuch as the foundation is attempting to offer science-based dissent

> against dietary and medical orthodoxy, spouting spiritual mumbo-jumbo, even

> if it's rooted in tradition and even if there might be some sort of

> metaphoric truth in there somewhere, is not productive.

>

> Is anyone else bothered by this?

____________

Is it not better to place a question mark upon a problem while seeking

an answer than to put the label 'God' there and consider the matter closed?

-- ph , founder of Freethought Press Association

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>No, um, I mean: the statement

> " breast milk is best when it's available " is interesting. Breast milk

>usually is available, or we wouldn't survive well as a species.

Usually in a historic sense for sure, but the sense I have (without having

really looked into it) is that that's decreasingly true. Certainly there's

an awful lot of formula being sold, though obviously the main reason for

that is ignorant (cough cough monstrous cough cough evil cough cough should

be killed slowly and painfully cough cough) mothers not wanting to be

bothered with nursing.

>No. Dr. Cowan has obviously soared through the space-time continuum

>warp and mere mortals just can't grasp. Seriously, I think science

>should rule the day if credibility as a bona fide science-based

>foundation is to be kept. You say floofy, I say fruify - but emotional

>and mystical ramblings are subjective to the extreme. They may have

>value, but not in this context imho.

Not sure what you're saying. You think Cowan's articles in WT are cool, or no?

-

[Guest guest]

-

>Actually, you have a point: I gave an--uncensored--article by Cowan to

>my father for his perusal and the man about had kittens and declared

>me 5150.

5150?

> > What, is that an uncool word nowadays?

>

>No, it qualified your statements and voided my outburst.

I didn't really mean it as a qualifier, though, or at least not in the

sense you might be thinking. I might just as well have said " Because " .

-

[Guest guest]

Tom-

>It really bothers me as well. Even though 90% of what WAPF says is

>sound, the 10% that isn't is cause enough for many outsiders to dismiss

>WAPF and worse, its ideas.

That's exactly the problem. That sort of thinking (or non-thinking) is a

short-cut, but it's awfully widely used.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> What bothered me, though, was Tom Cowan's article. An

> etheric body? FOUR

> bodies? I'm reluctant to loan people WT because of the

> floofy nonsense he

> writes. There's obviously some useful information in his

> article, but

> inasmuch as the foundation is attempting to offer

> science-based dissent

> against dietary and medical orthodoxy, spouting spiritual

> mumbo-jumbo, even

> if it's rooted in tradition and even if there might be some sort of

> metaphoric truth in there somewhere, is not productive.

>

> Is anyone else bothered by this?

Believe it or not I completely agree with you.

My view is that while Cowan may well be correct, his subject is far beyond

the realities of most people and that articles like that detract from the

nutritional goals of the WAPF.

Sally has done great work but she is almost completely clueless as to how to

professionally market herself and her organization. And Bill Sanda is no

better for someone who supposedly has lobbying experience.

Ron

[Guest guest]

,

> >It really bothers me as well. Even though 90% of what WAPF says is

> >sound, the 10% that isn't is cause enough for many outsiders

> to dismiss

> >WAPF and worse, its ideas.

>

> That's exactly the problem. That sort of thinking (or

> non-thinking) is a

> short-cut, but it's awfully widely used.

Now here we disagree. Dismissing Cowan's conceptual framework by calling it

non-thinking is incorrect. It's very detailed thinking about a subject that

can not yet be verified or disproven experimentally. There are thousands of

years of thought that have gone into this subject and many of the people who

have looked at it are bright and genuine.

And as for it being a short-cut -- if Cowan is correct it is not a short cut

but is actually the primary way in to solve physical problems. As I've said

I think that energy trumps nutrition but I have freely acknowledged that the

preponderance of evidence, at the moment and for various reasons, supports

the opposite.

Ron

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>Sally has done great work but she is almost completely clueless as to how to

>professionally market herself and her organization. And Bill Sanda is no

>better for someone who supposedly has lobbying experience.

Yeah, considering Sanda's background, I'm surprised by how badly he's doing

at actual lobbying and PR. Maybe they weren't his areas of expertise.

-

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>Now here we disagree. Dismissing Cowan's conceptual framework by calling it

>non-thinking is incorrect.

That's not what I meant. I meant that dismissing everything WAPF has to

say based on Cowan's writing alone is non-thinking. It's a shortcut --

judgement based on apparently credibility rather than examination of the

argument.

>There are thousands of

>years of thought that have gone into this subject and many of the people who

>have looked at it are bright and genuine.

Historically, millions of people have come up with at least thousands and

maybe millions of different explanations for how the world works. Almost

every culture has had at least one creation myth, for example. And many

cultures have come up with detailed health mythologies too -- humors,

demonic possession, astral projection, magic, the light of the new moon,

etc. etc. etc. The mistake modern civilization made when it realized that

most of those mythologies were just as wrong as all the creation myths out

there was to throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak. Health

mythologies were tried and tested in the real world over many years and so

generally came up with some functionally useful ideas, even if the

explanations for those ideas were utter hogwash.

I seriously doubt we have four bodies. I seriously doubt any of the floofy

stuff in Cowan's article is correct. Why prefer his particular batch of

floofiness to anyone else's? Why assume it's turtles all the way down

instead of a giant hawk creating the world by excreting some dung? Or an

eternal omnipotent and omnicient being creating the world in seven days,

for that matter? That doesn't mean some of Cowan's practical advice on

herbs and whatnot might not be useful.

>As I've said

>I think that energy trumps nutrition but I have freely acknowledged that the

>preponderance of evidence, at the moment and for various reasons, supports

>the opposite.

In my estimation, only calling it the preponderance is a serious

underestimate. As I pointed out, which conferences showcase the healthiest

people, EFT or WAPF? WAPF. You responded with a fair point, which is that

people are generally coming to EFT to try to heal themselves, but the same

is true of WAPF. Maybe the starting baseline health of people starting

NN-type eating is better, but it's just as possible that it's not. And

more to the point, in light of the health of people attending the Wise

Traditions conferences, people are getting better results with nutrition.

I'm not saying EFT is useless. I'm just saying use the right tool for the

job. Horses for courses.

-

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Idol

>

>

>Ron-

>

>>Sally has done great work but she is almost completely clueless

>as to how to

>>professionally market herself and her organization. And Bill Sanda is no

>>better for someone who supposedly has lobbying experience.

>

>Yeah, considering Sanda's background, I'm surprised by how badly

>he's doing

>at actual lobbying and PR. Maybe they weren't his areas of expertise.

>

Why do you guys think Bill and Sally are doing a poor PR job?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Hey ,

I nursed for 3 1/2 years, and constantly encourage mothers to work through the

difficulties for the long-term benefits, so obviously I believe in it; but

here's a thought: if it's not your nipples blistered, cracked and bleeding, or

your breast insanely painful, hard as a rock and suppurating, or your ducts with

that lovely " broken glass " feeling from thrush... and I could go on... maybe the

harsh judgment isn't your place. Note that wet-nursing is an ancient custom,

signifying that women with choice have often rejected breastfeeding. Note, too,

that American women breastfeeding today have few of the traditional supports

that eased the transition; in a culture that does not support cross-nursing, in

which misinformation is rampant, skilled instruction rare, and attention to the

needs of the mother utterly inadequate, the learning curve can be - and I mean

this - torture.

Any opinions that you may have about prenatal diet, breastfeeding, drug-free

childbirth, etc. may be freely rendered in a humbly supportive tone, without

resorting to name-calling.

[Guest guest]

Subject: Re: Summer 2005 Wise Traditions -- a complaint

Deanna-

>No, um, I mean: the statement

> " breast milk is best when it's available " is interesting. Breast milk

>usually is available, or we wouldn't survive well as a species.

>Usually in a historic sense for sure, but the sense I have (without having

>really looked into it) is that that's decreasingly true. Certainly there's

>an awful lot of formula being sold, though obviously the main reason for

>that is ignorant (cough cough monstrous cough cough evil cough cough

>should

>be killed slowly and painfully cough cough) mothers not wanting to be

>bothered with nursing.

I agree with you as far as the ignorant [no coughing here ] mothers not

wanting to be bothered with nursing. I can't tell you how many people I have

heard say it's easier to bottle feed. Are they crazy? I hate when I pump and

use a bottle because both my hands are tied up. When I nurse I still have a

free hand to do stuff. Also, I never have to worry about the temperature or

clumps or sterilizing or....need I go on?

Another problem with nursing declining has been societies views of the

breast as a sexual object. When I nurse in public, I have always been

discreet covering with a blanket. My husband would probably have flipped if

I didn't. We were at a restaurant once and I saw a woman very casually

nursing right at the table totally in the open. As a supporter of

breastfeeding I thought it was wonderful...My husband and his parents

thought it was inappropriate and disrespectful on her part towards the rest

of the diners. So much of motherhood that is wonderful is so closely linked

by society to sex that it is often difficult for people to make any

distinction. We are forced to keep it in the closet or are viewed as odd by

anyone in the " mainstream " that we share " our beliefs " with. I have come to

the point where being labeled odd is far less important to me than educating

my children, and anyone else who will listen, the importance of nursing,

natural care, listening to our bodies, etc. (this is exactly why all 3 of my

children, even my 12 yo son, were at the natural birth of our newest).

Carli

[Guest guest]

I think the idea of breast as a sexual object one of the main reasons people

are so uncomfortable with nursing in public. I also have 3 kids who I have

nursed them ALL in public. I try to cover up " some " but not with a huge

blanket over my shoulder...to me that is many times more obvious. I usually

wear nursing tops or easy access clothing. Basically all my clothing is this

way now since I have now nursed for almost 4 years straight. LOL None of my

kids would ever allow clothing/cover ups over them either. They can't stand

even to have any cloth near them.

I have many friends that dress " sexy " wearing small spaghetti strap tops

that show lots of cleavage. They wear tops that barely cover anything but

their nipple and they have husband's what wouldn't allow them to nurse in

public for fear of someone seeing their breast. I just don't understand.

If I see women nursing in public, I make a point to go an compliment them

and let them know I support them. (Yes I would call myself a lactavist)

As for birth, Carli, it sound like we have a lot in common. My children

have all been at and see the birth of each of their siblings.

-----Original Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of carli tygart

Another problem with nursing declining has been societies views of the

breast as a sexual object.

I have come to

the point where being labeled odd is far less important to me than educating

my children, and anyone else who will listen, the importance of nursing,

natural care, listening to our bodies, etc. (this is exactly why all 3 of my

children, even my 12 yo son, were at the natural birth of our newest).

Carli

[Guest guest]

On 9/11/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Ron-

>

> >Sally has done great work but she is almost completely clueless as to how

> to

> >professionally market herself and her organization. And Bill Sanda is no

> >better for someone who supposedly has lobbying experience.

>

> Yeah, considering Sanda's background, I'm surprised by how badly he's doing

> at actual lobbying and PR. Maybe they weren't his areas of expertise.

What specific issues or shortcomings are the two of you speaking of?

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

I have found this same thing from talking to many men about why they feel

akward or uncomfortable. Many feel like you that they don't want to make

" us " feel uncomfortable by appearing to " look " or " see " something.

If I am around a man I will usually try to break the ice by mentioning

something like.... " I hope you don't mind but I need to nurse my child " or

something usually sarcastic about them always needing to eat. Usually men

will make a comment about they would be happy to leave or do something to

look the other way. I try to make them feel more comfortable by talking

about it. Most women are not embarrassed by nursing in public. They are

worried about being ridiculed or confronted about it. Personally I don;t

know many women who would be embarrassed even if someone saw a moments worth

of nipple (IMHO) because most likely you have just given birth. That is one

of the most UN modest experience of your life.

Maybe asking if their wife nursed or just general small talk....usually I do

all of this while latching the child on. It takes away that uncomfortable

silence. I do this with women too but usually we talk about something other

than the nursing.

-----Original Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Masterjohn

Interesting. I generally feel a little akward, simply because I'm not

sure how *they* expect others to react. I wouldn't want to do

anything offensive, and I'm pretty sure that without a lot of effort

I'd probably glance down, and I'm not sure whether that would be

offensive.

Although I get really pissed off at anyone who thinks that women

shouldn't freely breastfeed or even has ideas that are even remotely

discouraging to the practice.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 9/11/05, Stump <rstump@...> wrote:

> I have many friends that dress " sexy " wearing small spaghetti strap tops

> that show lots of cleavage. They wear tops that barely cover anything but

> their nipple and they have husband's what wouldn't allow them to nurse in

> public for fear of someone seeing their breast. I just don't understand.

, that is so absolutely hilarious. I've never quite understood

how, now that it has become appropriate to show more and more

cleavage, it has become the *nipple* that is the one thing not only

inappropriate, but even *illegal* to show.

This is outrageous, because the only reason women wear so much

cleavage is because it is so sexually attractive! And I think many

guys would find that a largely but not completely revealed breast is

more tantalizing than a fully revealed breast. We once had a thread

on the attraction to breasts a while back where an article was posted

hypothesizing that it was the resemblance of the *cleavage* to the

cleavage of the rear end that was evolutionarily responsible for the

attraction. I don't know whether or not that's true, but it's not

really the point-- which is that the cleavage and actual breast plays

at least as much a role in the sexual attraction as the nipple.

As a matter of fact MEN have nipples! But they are allowed to legally

show them off, in public and on tv, and there is only little social

discouragement of it, nothing like there is for women. What men

*don't* have is the rest of the breast!

> If I see women nursing in public, I make a point to go an compliment them

> and let them know I support them. (Yes I would call myself a lactavist)

Interesting. I generally feel a little akward, simply because I'm not

sure how *they* expect others to react. I wouldn't want to do

anything offensive, and I'm pretty sure that without a lot of effort

I'd probably glance down, and I'm not sure whether that would be

offensive.

Although I get really pissed off at anyone who thinks that women

shouldn't freely breastfeed or even has ideas that are even remotely

discouraging to the practice.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com