Re: Re: Breast Milk

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > So as you can see, total dissolved solids doesn't vary even remotely

> > linearly with nursing frequency.

> >

> > Apologies if the tables don't come out right, but I formatted them in a

> > monospaced font, so if they look wrong, just display this message in a

> > monospaced font like Courier.

>

>No, from that list it doesn't. Still, it has nothing to do with the

>issue at all.

Which issue? suggested that solids as a percentage of wet weight

vary with nursing frequency, with greater frequency being associated with

lower levels of total dissolved solids. I found a chart which demonstrates

that it's not so.

-

[Guest guest]

>

>Probably, but it should be kept in mind that modern Holsteins have

>such low-fat because they've been artificially bred for yield.

>

>

Good point! Women haven't yet been bred for yield or other factors like

livestock have. <yawn>

Nighty night. Let's get some more data driven discussion, eh?

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Yes but so what? Does anyone really know how many seek out support? And

even if they did you can't just assume it would fix the problem. Many of

the issues you list like having a C-section can't be undone after the fact.

I can assure you that I did everything possible. And even if it had worked,

I might well have needed something in the meantime for supplementation.

I think the bottom line is that WAPF has something to bring to the table no

one else has which is a healthy alternative to commercial formula so that

is what they emphasize. Quite frankly the FAQ on NT formula article is not

written for the woman who can and wants to breastfeed. It is written for

people who are going to use formula for whatever reason and want to do the

best possble. And they do it without trying to second guess why the

decision was made. I know Radiant Life gets lots of calls from frantic

mothers wanting more information on NT formula AND some assurance and

advice from woman that have used it. I am willing to bet that is the reason

for all the personal stories.

Irene

At 07:45 PM 8/26/2005, you wrote:

>There are many factors other than nutrition that can lead to a low milk

>supply....including stress, birth trauma, c-sections, lack of hydration,

>physical issues with the infant such as poor sucking relex, muscle tone,

>teething, etc. Many women seek out a health professional during their

>pregnancy and delivery. Most wouldn't think of doing it any other way but

>then do not seek help when they have nursing problems.

>

>

[Guest guest]

< Yes but so what? Does anyone really know how many seek out support? And

even if they did you can't just assume it would fix the problem. Many of

the issues you list like having a C-section can't be undone after the fact.

>

No many issues can't be " undone " but they don't have to cause a women to not

be able to breastfeed. If given proper support I believe that many more

mothers would be able to nurse successfully than currently do. There are so

many other reasons to breastfeed other than pure nutrative value. That is

why I think it is essential for women to get proper support throughout their

breastfeeding relationship.

I see how organizations like LLL can cause many other problems by not having

a balanced view point either. They do not even want to discuss the

nutrition of a mother and how it can effect a child.

I think the members of lists such as these can go out and make a real

difference in this world be helping to support each other with real

information.

Blessings,

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>The issue from which that tangent arose. The purpose of positing that

>relationship was to show that human milk has a seemingly watery

>consistency using Holstein milk as a standard due to increased feeding

>time, when in fact the total solids are not lower than Holsteins. So

>even were the posited relationshiop true, it still wouldn't effect the

>argument within which it arose-- a point on which I'm sure we agree.

Yes, but it seemed like you were suggesting my post on the subject of

frequency and solids was irrelevant to any issue, while I consider the

frequency/solids issue a legitimate one unto itself.

-

[Guest guest]

Well maybe, then again maybe not. I don't know what evidence you have for

this. But be that as it may, you original statement that I was commenting

on was the WAPF was negative about breastfeeding. Since they say repeatedly

that breast milk is best I don't feel you can really say they are negative

about breastfeeding. And I have to say I really appreciate that the

information about NT formula is given without judgement, second guessing

the decision to use it or making women feel like failures if they resort

formula.

Irene

At 08:51 PM 8/26/2005, you wrote:

>If given proper support I believe that many more

>mothers would be able to nurse successfully than currently do.

[Guest guest]

I don't think I ever said anyone was a failure for choosing to use formula.

I think you are taking my comments personally.

I feel that many women from my personal experience and extensive reading on

the subject do not get proper professional support when beginning to nurse.

Many women think it should be " easy " and " natural " . I do not think this is

true.

Like I have stated many many times now, I am very happy to see that WAP is

making information regarding homemade formula available. I personally have

given out this information to several mothers. Most women I know have never

heard of this and if they have it has been spoken of as a very dangerous

option.

I just think we need to give more women the ability and support to nurse

their children as their bodies are intended to do. This involves education

and practical on-going support throughout the nursing relationship.

I don't see why you would need evidence to support this statement. Would

you expect a women to be able to give birth without ongoing professional

support? Yes, it can be done but this is not expected. I think our society

currently does not support and encourage breastfeeding. Yes you often

hear.....breast is best. BUT in that same article/magazine/bag you are

getting TONS of info on supplementing. I feel this is also true on the WAP

site. Their is far more information on NT formula and supplementing than on

supporting a mother and helping her to have a healthy nursing relationship.

I do not think it all is negative. I am sorry if I was used absolutes when

I spoke earlier.

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

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Irene Musiol

I don't know what evidence you have for this. But be that as it may, you

original statement that I was commenting on was the WAPF was negative about

breastfeeding. Since they say repeatedly that breast milk is best I don't

feel you can really say they are negative

about breastfeeding. And I have to say I really appreciate that the

information about NT formula is given without judgement, second guessing the

decision to use it or making women feel like failures if they resort

formula.

Irene

At 08:51 PM 8/26/2005, wrote:

>If given proper support I believe that many more

>mothers would be able to nurse successfully than currently do.

[Guest guest]

On 8/26/05, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> I suspect the issue is a matter of misplaced emphasis, probably

> accidental. The reaction on the chapter leaders list seemed to

> indicate that none of the chapter leaders understood the Foundation's

> position to be the one that many on this list are perceiving it to be.

I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps this time around the chapter

leaders are positive about the WAPF view, but IIRC there has been a

LOT of negativity on BOTH lists about the perception that the WAPF

seems to give about breastfeeding and supplementation. It would

necessarily be less on the chapterleaders list just because Sally

posts there, but it has been there nonetheless.

Deanna's perception is not unusual and it is not far from the

*overall* impression I got when reading the WAPF material concerning

breastfeeding. Singer even wrote a letter to the editor to Wise

Traditions chastising WAPF for their seeming celebration of no night

feedings, which according to everything I have read is very important

for the baby AND the woman. That seems a rather critical and important

error on the WAPF's part which seems to me would only be missed by

folks who are not all that enthusiastic about breastfeeding even while

saying it is best.

I think, given Sally's experience, it is a question of emphasis. I

think her experience definitely colors the WAPF in this area. And I

think the impression many people seem to get is that the WAPF is a

little too quick to emphasize supplementation, and really is not at

all that crystal clear about the superiority of breastfeeding. Sure

they say its best but I can certainly understand someone not walking

away with the feeling they are champions of breastfeeding, and that

supplementation is something that should be reserved for special

cases, even though that is said when the issue is pressed.

I doubt anyone in this discussion doesn't really think there is a

place for supplementation, just that WAPF's official view seems wishy

washy and confusing on the subject. Perhaps that is inaccurate, but it

comes up again and again and again and again, from both insiders and

outsiders.

FWIW,

[Guest guest]

At 09:38 PM 8/26/2005, you wrote:

>I don't think I ever said anyone was a failure for choosing to use formula.

>I think you are taking my comments personally.

No you didn't and I know you didn't mean to imply it either, but all the

" if only " does imply failure intended or not.

>I feel that many women from my personal experience and extensive reading on

>the subject do not get proper professional support when beginning to nurse.

>Many women think it should be " easy " and " natural " . I do not think this is

>true.

I agree that many, probably most woman don't get good support, but it

is a big assumption so say that someone who doesn't have an adequate milk

supply would have adequate milk if only they had the " support " . I really

have my doubts about that. Simply because I never met anyone who had a

serious milk supply problem who was able to turn it around. Not that it

never happens but I sure haven't been seen it. Everyone that I have come

across who has that believes that lack of support is the big issue in most

milk supply problems, have themselves not had serious problems breastfeeding.

>Like I have stated many many times now, I am very happy to see that WAP is

>making information regarding homemade formula available. I personally have

>given out this information to several mothers. Most women I know have never

>heard of this and if they have it has been spoken of as a very dangerous

>option.

>

>I just think we need to give more women the ability and support to nurse

>their children as their bodies are intended to do. This involves education

>and practical on-going support throughout the nursing relationship.

I agree that would be lovely. However I see no need to get on WAPF's case

about it. I was a member of LLL before and after I gave birth. They were

nice people and all but it didn't help my situation at all.

>I don't see why you would need evidence to support this statement. Would

>you expect a women to be able to give birth without ongoing professional

>support? Yes, it can be done but this is not expected. I think our society

>currently does not support and encourage breastfeeding. Yes you often

>hear.....breast is best. BUT in that same article/magazine/bag you are

>getting TONS of info on supplementing. I feel this is also true on the WAP

>site. Their is far more information on NT formula and supplementing than on

>supporting a mother and helping her to have a healthy nursing relationship.

>I do not think it all is negative. I am sorry if I was used absolutes when

>I spoke earlier.

Well you said this:

" if you read all of the articles list on the WAP site. None of them have a

completely positive view of breastfeeding. At least none that I have found.

They are all negative and encourage supplementation. "

So I took it to mean you thought WAPF was negative on breastfeeding.

I have to say that I don't agree that our society does not support or

encourage breastfeeding. At least not anymore. When I was pregnant there

was a lot of pressure to breastfeed. We took a chilcbirth/parenting class

at the hospital. Very mainstream stuff and they were very hot on

breastfeeding. They even (if you can believe this) had us hold a plastic

baby to our breasts for practice. Over our clothes of course. I also saw

probreastfeeding everywhere in articles and magazines given to pregnant

woman. Of course there were also the ads for formula as well but

breastfeeding certainly did not get shortchanged. Anyway my son is 3 years

old and that was my experience.

So I just think that WAPF puts so much emphasis on NT formula because that

is their unique contribution to the situation not because they are down on

breastfeeding.

Irene

>

>

>

>

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

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Irene Musiol

>

>

>I don't know what evidence you have for this. But be that as it may, you

>original statement that I was commenting on was the WAPF was negative about

>breastfeeding. Since they say repeatedly that breast milk is best I don't

>feel you can really say they are negative

>about breastfeeding. And I have to say I really appreciate that the

>information about NT formula is given without judgement, second guessing the

>decision to use it or making women feel like failures if they resort

>formula.

>

>Irene

>

>At 08:51 PM 8/26/2005, wrote:

> >If given proper support I believe that many more

> >mothers would be able to nurse successfully than currently do.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

<I agree that many, probably most woman don't get good support, but it

is a big assumption so say that someone who doesn't have an adequate milk

supply would have adequate milk if only they had the " support " . I really

have my doubts about that. Simply because I never met anyone who had a

serious milk supply problem who was able to turn it around >

I think it is our personal experiences that vary widely here. I have not

know a mother with a low milk supply that got proper support and made

adequate changes that " wasn't " able to turn around her issues and have a

successful nursing relationship. So I think we are just speaking from very

different perspectives.

< I agree that would be lovely. However I see no need to get on WAPF's case

about it. I was a member of LLL before and after I gave birth. They were

nice people and all but it didn't help my situation at all. >

I think many times the reason LLL is unable to help mothers with a low

supply is that they are usually not willing to address nutrition instead

speak more to frequency and proper attachment only.

<I have to say that I don't agree that our society does not support or

encourage breastfeeding. At least not anymore. When I was pregnant there

was a lot of pressure to breastfeed. We took a chilcbirth/parenting class

at the hospital. Very mainstream stuff and they were very hot on

breastfeeding. They even (if you can believe this) had us hold a plastic

baby to our breasts for practice. Over our clothes of course. I also saw

probreastfeeding everywhere in articles and magazines given to pregnant

woman. Of course there were also the ads for formula as well but

breastfeeding certainly did not get shortchanged. Anyway my son is 3 years

old and that was my experience. >

I think you had a very different experience. Mine is always that " breast is

best " is said yes but just to CYA. This is told to you while they are

handing you a BIG bag of infant formula. Usually the words " breast is best "

is found in an advertisement for formula. Most of those " baby magazines "

that you see are sponsored and paid for by formula companies. I find that I

did not have support for nursing unless I personally went to seak out that

help. Most pediatricians/hospital/nurses in my area encourage

supplementation regularly.

I think basically we are coming from a very different perspective. I have

had many issues personally with nursing (I have to date nursed 3 children

for 12+ mos). Low supply was not one of them but it certainly has not been

an easy undertaking for me and took a tremendous amount of outside support.

Blessings,

[Guest guest]

,

>I just think we need to give more women the ability and support to nurse

>their children as their bodies are intended to do. This involves education

>and practical on-going support throughout the nursing relationship.

>

I agree. I had an unplanned c-section and subsequent fever with the

birth of my first son. It was a very difficult recovery, yet I was able

to nurse him from the start because the hospital I was at had support

staff for this very purpose. That, and I am a tough cookie.

For those who haven't read this Wise Traditions yet, I have seen a

sentence or three on the " breast is best " idea (almost like a

disclaimer, really), then a total trump of this idea by the rest of the

information. For instance, from the " FAQ on Homemade Baby Formula " :

" Some breastfeeding advocates have also criticized our stance, claiming

that providing a more healthy alternative to commercial formulas, we are

discouraging breastfeeding. Make no mistake: the best food for baby is

breast milk from a healthy mother. However, many situations call out

for a good substitute: adopted and orphaned babies, babies born to

mothers with serious health problems, and babies whose mothers do not

have enough milk (a situation that does happen occasionally) deserve to

receive something better than commercial formula. " by Bishop, Fallon and

Enig - page 19 WT, Summer 2005

I don't think the list of " many situations " is really that many.

Mostly, women should nurse and should be encouraged to do so. The fact

that no success stories of nursing are found within the pages of this

quarterly demonstrate a bias against breastfeeding, imo.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

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

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Deanna Wagner

>I think it's personal bias infiltrating policy, which knocks credibility

>for me big time. The foundation has a confusing maze of info on the

>site about this. WT is pro formula in my eyes, and this is flat out

>wrong for most women. I won't support WAPF any longer, financially or

>otherwise.

So I guess this means you are resigning as a chapter leader? OK, I'll remove

you from the chapterleaders list then.

>>In any case, it is even more interesting that the reaction on the

>>chapter leaders list (from women) was one that perceived it to be

>>obvious that breast feeding is best, that most chapter leaders breast

>>feed, but that it is important to provide for alternatives, while the

>>reaction on this list seems to be a perception that the Foundation is

>>anti-breast-feeding and that it needs to do more to educate that

>>breast feeding is best.

>>

>>

>But that's because Sally is on *that* list. If the guru worship

>(eggshells, what have you) were here, it would be different I am sure.

Please point to ONE incidence of " guru worship " that you've witnessed on

that list.

It seems like there's a lot of knee jerking going on lately.

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]

>Rather than this knee-jerk reaction, why don't you propose to Sally

>that you write an article about traditional wisdom on breast feeding,

>and traditional methods of inducing breast feeding.

>

It is not a knee jerk reaction. Kathy talked me into this (as

DFW is huge and time consuming), and I have had qualms about it ever

since, mainly due to time constraints. Besides, Suze used her reflexes

and dumped me off chapter leaders' list, so it's official. Thank you,

Suze, Kathy will be thrilled. I'll still work on a local level about

those areas I feel strongly about, like local food and lifestyles and

the local chapter website (maybe), but I can not ethically support

policies I disagree with and recommend them to others. I don't have

time to write a proposal and subsequent article in rebuttal. The issue

of WT should have been more balanced. Too late now.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

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

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Deanna Wagner

>

>>Rather than this knee-jerk reaction, why don't you propose to Sally

>>that you write an article about traditional wisdom on breast feeding,

>>and traditional methods of inducing breast feeding.

>>

>It is not a knee jerk reaction. Kathy talked me into this (as

>DFW is huge and time consuming), and I have had qualms about it ever

>since, mainly due to time constraints. Besides, Suze used her reflexes

>and dumped me off chapter leaders' list, so it's official.

Well, you said you weren't supporting the WAPF anymore in any capacity, so

clearly you don't belong on the Chapterleaders list anymore since it's a

support group for Chapterleaders. However, if you change your mind, you can

always reapply and just let me know you've decided to stick with it.

Having said that, there's nothing about one's official chapterleader

capacity that has anything to do with the chapterleaders' list. Only a

fraction of the chapterleaders are actually on the list, so not being on it

in no way inhibits one from her chapter duties.

Thank you,

>Suze, Kathy will be thrilled.

I didn't do anything that affects Kathy in anyway. YOU said you were no

longer supporting the WAPF, (obviously this translates to no longer being a

chapterleader) so I acted accordingly to remove you from the chapterleaders

list. And again, the list has *nothing* to do with one's chapter duties,

it's there simply to help chapterleaders network with each other. If you are

no longer a chapterleader, why would you want to remain on the

chapterleaders' list anyway?

I'll still work on a local level about

>those areas I feel strongly about, like local food and lifestyles and

>the local chapter website (maybe), but I can not ethically support

>policies I disagree with and recommend them to others. I don't have

>time to write a proposal and subsequent article in rebuttal. The issue

>of WT should have been more balanced. Too late now.

It's never too late. The organization is capable of growth. There will be

other articles, discussions and WTs on infant nutirtion. Why don't you write

a letter to the editor of WT? It seems to me that complaining about an issue

of WT here on NN isn't all that constructive, especially if you feel so

strongly as to withdraw all support for the organization without even

telling them why. Why don't you put your energies towards changing that

which you don't like in the organization, rather than dumping it wholesale?

Especially if you agree with many of its foundational principles? There are

many of us chapterleaders who don't agree with *everything* the WAPF

advocates, but we do support the foundational principles of Weston Price's

work on traditional nutrition. This is why I stick with it, despite some of

my disagreements with the WAPF on some areas - even ones I feel strongly

about.

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]

Suze,

>

>Well, you said you weren't supporting the WAPF anymore in any capacity, so

>clearly you don't belong on the Chapterleaders list anymore since it's a

>support group for Chapterleaders. However, if you change your mind, you can

>always reapply and just let me know you've decided to stick with it.

>

I am not immovable (to my credit). I might be swayed or change my

mind. It's happened many times before. You take one sentence and run

with it. It is obvious that I was asking for more input in my post on

the chapter leader's list " WT - The Children's Health Issue. " For a

self-professing libertarian to jump on that in an authority role so

quickly and exclude me from the list, and to also mention criticism

without constructive measures is rather ironic. I am a chapter leader

today. You dictated based on my sentence and threw me out of the

group. If we could have constructive dialogue and clarify the

foundation's position, I might reconsider. But you have taken away my

right to this dialogue by the knee-jerk reaction to a remark.

Dissenting voices need not apply is what I read by your actions.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Really. Well I would really like to know more about that. Because even

though I am not likely to need it again know people who might. When you say

" low " , how low is low.?50% or more low? I never produced more than 50% no

matter what I did. People kept telling me that the baby is more efficient

at getting milk than the pump so finally to find out exactly what I was

producing I bought a baby scale. I weighed him before and after nursing and

sure enough it was the more or less the same as when I pumped. I say more

or less because the scale was only accurate to 1/2 ounce and of course the

wiggling baby factor.

Anyway, what did these people do that worked to turn the situation

around? How much did the milk supply increase? How quickly? How many times

have you seen this? I would very much like to know.

Irene

At 06:07 AM 8/27/2005, you wrote:

>I think it is our personal experiences that vary widely here. I have not

>know a mother with a low milk supply that got proper support and made

>adequate changes that " wasn't " able to turn around her issues and have a

>successful nursing relationship. So I think we are just speaking from very

>different perspectives.

[Guest guest]

-

>But what makes you think the fact that there was less fat in the milk is

>bad. I don't see why the fat content in breastmilk would need to have the

>same amount of fat content as cows's milk. A cow is meant to grow in MUCH

>larger proportions than an human infant.

First, we know that low-fat diets are harmful for humans. Second, we know

that fat and associated nutrients are essential for brain

development. Third, the chart provided actually indicates that human

milk should contain MORE fat than the milk of many breeds of cows,

particularly Holstein milk, which is the benchmark the vast majority of

people would be able to use in comparing the fat content of human milk to

that of cows' milk. And fourth, growth and body size are associated with

protein requirements, not fat requirements.

-

[Guest guest]

If even we are not " that many " we still deserve a good substitute.

Irene

At 06:15 AM 8/27/2005, you wrote:

>I don't think the list of " many situations " is really that many.

[Guest guest]

-

>Why would you ever recommend supplementation for ANY mother if they are

>properly producing milk and their infant is thriving?

>

>I am beginning to highly doubt your education on this area. I really think

>you you need to read up on infant nutrition and breastfeeding before you

>ever recommend this advice to a nursing mother.

I'm trying not to react angrily here, but the only charitable conclusion

I'm able to draw at the moment is that you haven't read a single word I've

posted on the subject.

-

[Guest guest]

Seriously nutrition was not my problem. I don't blame the LLL moms. They

did the best they could with the guidelines they had.

Irene

At 06:07 AM 8/27/2005, you wrote:

>I think many times the reason LLL is unable to help mothers with a low

>supply is that they are usually not willing to address nutrition instead

>speak more to frequency and proper attachment only.

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>Nor do you or will you ever have experience with it. So this is the

>more precise line up: women with experience and single men without

>experience, for JC has expressed a preference with the ladies as his

>wife is nursing. But I bet that you would want a healthy woman to feed

>your child a natural diet. I'd bet money on that.

This is absurd. has already made it clear that he'd want the very

best conceivable nutrition and health for any children he might have. That

is not the subject of the discussion, and the fact that you and others

continue to attempt to make it personal indicates quite clearly that you're

either unable or unwilling to discuss it dispassionately and objectively.

-

[Guest guest]

>Well, you said you weren't supporting the WAPF anymore in any capacity, so

>clearly you don't belong on the Chapterleaders list anymore since it's a

>support group for Chapterleaders.

Come on, Suze. You clearly reacted emotionally and jumped the gun.

-

[Guest guest]

,

>

>This is absurd. has already made it clear that he'd want the very

>best conceivable nutrition and health for any children he might have. That

>is not the subject of the discussion, and the fact that you and others

>continue to attempt to make it personal indicates quite clearly that you're

>either unable or unwilling to discuss it dispassionately and objectively.

>

If that is how you see it, then it must be an inability to discuss it

clearly, for I am not trying to be stubborn about it. But then, it is a

personal experience. I would have no idea what asthma is like, but I

can try to understand it. But I apologize for coming across as

emotionally charged.

I think I'll drop the whole thing now and work on my Subaru dehydrator. <g>

Deanna

[Guest guest]

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

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Deanna Wagner

>

>Suze,

>

>>

>>Well, you said you weren't supporting the WAPF anymore in any capacity, so

>>clearly you don't belong on the Chapterleaders list anymore since it's a

>>support group for Chapterleaders. However, if you change your

>mind, you can

>>always reapply and just let me know you've decided to stick with it.

>>

>I am not immovable (to my credit). I might be swayed or change my

>mind.

Then perhaps making absolute statements like

" I won't support WAPF any longer, financially or

otherwise. It is a most important time for good nutrition, and they

should be clear on it and the policy based on science. Period. "

is not advisable?

You take one sentence and run

>with it.

Um, that one sentence declared your stance on no longer supporting the WAPF

with rather clear certaintly. I'm not a mind reader, so couldn't possibly

have known you'd change your mind.

It is obvious that I was asking for more input in my post on

>the chapter leader's list " WT - The Children's Health Issue. " For a

>self-professing libertarian to jump on that in an authority role so

>quickly and exclude me from the list, and to also mention criticism

>without constructive measures is rather ironic.

Huh, well it is news to me that I'm a " self-professing libertarian " since I

have never claimed to be such. Regardless, nothign you've said in this posts

addresses the real issue at hand. You said you would no longer support the

WAPF, which of course necessitates leaving one's supportive role as a

chapterleader, and accordingly, I unsubbed you from the chapterleaders list.

I'm not sure what is " ironic " about removing someone, who has made a clear

statement that they no longer support the WAPF, from a list that is

exclusively for those acting in teh supportive role as chapterleader? It's

not a list open to the general public, and if you don't fit the membership

criteria of either being a current chapter leader, or are serious about

becoming one, then you aren't allowed on the list. It's my responsibility as

the list owner to maintain this rather simple membership criteria.

I am a chapter leader

>today.

Then I guess your initial statement about not supporting the WAPF any longer

is not true.

You dictated based on my sentence and threw me out of the

>group. If we could have constructive dialogue and clarify the

>foundation's position, I might reconsider. But you have taken away my

>right to this dialogue by the knee-jerk reaction to a remark.

>Dissenting voices need not apply is what I read by your actions.

If that were the case then there would be a lot of chapterleaders not

allowed on the chapterleader list. On the contrary, ANYONE who is a

chapterleader is allowed on the list. You declared your non-support of WAPF

rather clearly here today, which obviously implies you wouldn't be

supporting the WAPF in the position of chapterleader.

The problem is, once you've made that clear statement, and I acted

accordingly adjusting a list membership that is reserved for chapter leaders

and those who are seriously considering becoming chapterleaders, you want to

backpeddle now and say, that you might not have really meant what you said

in the first place. Well, that's fine, everyone's allowed to change their

mind, but it doesn't serve the credibility of your position if you flip-flop

then try to deflect attention from it by trying to indict me for acting in

accordance with your own declarations.

In any case, as I said, if you have changed your mind and *will* continue to

support the WAPf in your capacity as chapterleader, then all you need to do

is tell me so, and let me know you'd like to be re-subbed back to the

chapterleader list. As long as you *are* a chapterleader, you are most

welcome on the list. But if you aren't, as your initial statements implied,

then you shouldn't be on it.

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]

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

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Idol

>

>

>>Well, you said you weren't supporting the WAPF anymore in any capacity, so

>>clearly you don't belong on the Chapterleaders list anymore since it's a

>>support group for Chapterleaders.

>

>Come on, Suze. You clearly reacted emotionally and jumped the gun.

Sorry, this is a misinterpratation. But I can understand why you might think

that.

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>

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