Re: Hard to advocate WAP for some alternative groups

[Guest guest]

Naomi-

>I always seem to get entangled with (she's a major anti-dairy

>advocate) immediately got her guns up and started shooting. I just

>don't know how to respond, and am wondering if I should just not ever

>write anything relating to WAP again. I'm feeling very discouraged,

>and it doesn't help that it's a billion degrees (okay, " just "

>84Ëš) and I don't have air conditioning. <sigh>

I've always been a very argumentative person. Through most of my life, I

waded into combat with zeal, deploying facts and logic to the very best of

my not-inconsiderable abilities.

Finally, though, I realized that the only thing I was really accomplishing

was to hone my logic and argumentation skills and to help keep my brain

sharp. Most people are unswayed by facts and logic. They make decisions

emotionally. The relevant parts of their brains often just can't even

really " hear " what you're saying. What comes through is " nonsense nonsense

nonsense, gibberish gibberish gibberish " and sometimes " this person is a

dangerous idiot and must be stopped at all cost " . That's not to say some

judicious effort isn't worthwhile, and certainly you shouldn't discount the

value of keeping your mind in shape if debate happens to work for you, but

most people won't change their minds in response to external stimuli until

they first decide on some level (not always consciously) that they need to

change. Some small percentage of the population is readily open to

rational argument, but people like that are rare. Depressingly and

extremely rare, in my experience.

So what am I telling you? First, you might want to just accept that this

woman will never be persuaded, even by the most perfect argument. Maybe

some day her teeth will all crumble and her womb will dry up and fall out

and her bones will turn to dust and she'll collapse into a quivering

cancerous blob of diseased protoplasm and maybe THEN she'll finally change

her tune -- but more likely not. So don't get overly stressed about

it. Second, you should understand that the contest to sway people's minds

in that group (or any other) is not a battle of facts and logic, but an

election decided on emotional grounds. It's very likely that this woman

gains self-esteem and actual social power from the sway she holds over

people, so when you threaten her doctrine, you actually threaten

her. Therefore, if you're going to fight, understand what kind of battle

you're actually getting into and prepare for that one at least as much as

you prepare for the the theoretical struggle of facts and logic which

unfortunately has only secondary relevance to most people.

Honestly, though, I doubt it's actually worth your time and trouble. It's

generally much easier to search out like-minded people (as we have here)

and try to generate momentum through gathering than it is to change

people's minds in head-on confrontation.

>[Response]

>Hmmm, according to USDA, ounce for ounce, garlic has 14 times the

>selenium as butter and whole wheat has _71 times_ as much!!! The

>author

>of the below has a math problem. This sort of stuff keeps me from

>spending much time on Weston Price †" I can’t believe

>anything I see and

>don’t have the time to check it all out.

Well, this is an interesting problem, because Byrnes is no longer around to

ask where he got that pro-butter figure. Certainly the USDA database

agrees with your debate opponent, not Byrnes. More generally, the lesson

is that you can't rely on any source to be perfect, to have the whole

story, to be irreproachable in all particulars. There are no resources you

can point someone to which can't be found to have some faults -- and people

will always find faults where there are none anyway. I could speculate on

the numbers, but I don't see any reason.

If this message is depressing, you have my apologies, but... well, what can

I say -- bitter experience has turned me more and more pessimistic. And

yet even as many things get worse and worse, there are rays of hope to be

found. There genuinely is growing momentum in the WAPF-style natural and

healthy foods movement. But I think your time and energy would be much

better-served by finding fellow travelers and banding together than by

wading into a hostile environment and dreaming of converting

people. There's strength in numbers.

-

[Guest guest]

Naomi, I was part of a longstanding online natural parenting group that

essentially splintered in two over this issue. It was very, very sad for me

as the group has never been the same. The vegans and the WAPers just

couldn't keep from getting into snarls with one another. It is so, so, so

hard to keep quiet when a veg posts erroneous, inflammatory stuff. It simply

must be challenged! But i learned what we eat and what we feed our children

is akin to religion and politics. In this country it *is* religion and

politics. The curse of abundance. I say keep on posting bc there will be

that one person saying " why can't i get pregnant? " or " why are my toddler's

teeth crumbling and falling out? " Since the blowup on my once beloved group,

I know of two former vegans who are WAPers now due to health problems in

their children. So, by staying polite and trying not to get too caught up in

battles, maybe you can help a couple of the more subdued moms out. Isn't it

funny how aggressive vegs are? They're always going on about how meat eating

makes people aggressive. Must be all that soy!

Elaine

[Guest guest]

On 7/22/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> So what am I telling you? First, you might want to just accept that this

> woman will never be persuaded, even by the most perfect argument. Maybe

> some day her teeth will all crumble and her womb will dry up and fall out

> and her bones will turn to dust and she'll collapse into a quivering

> cancerous blob of diseased protoplasm and maybe THEN she'll finally change

> her tune -- but more likely not. So don't get overly stressed about

> it. Second, you should understand that the contest to sway people's minds

> in that group (or any other) is not a battle of facts and logic, but an

> election decided on emotional grounds. It's very likely that this woman

> gains self-esteem and actual social power from the sway she holds over

> people, so when you threaten her doctrine, you actually threaten

> her. Therefore, if you're going to fight, understand what kind of battle

> you're actually getting into and prepare for that one at least as much as

> you prepare for the the theoretical struggle of facts and logic which

> unfortunately has only secondary relevance to most people.

You've hit it on the head. She's the " expert " for this group, since

she's written some books and articles (good ones, generally) on

Attachment Parenting. She's even one of the experts you can ask

questions at Mothering.com.

On top of that, when vegans get their kids taken away by Child

Protection Services for being thin and sickly-looking (not that I

condone it, but what else are they supposed to do when they see kids

who look like they're starving?), she's the one they get to

testify/advocate on their behalf.

If that's not enough, she has a kid who was born with major food

sensitivities, and her husband has Crohn's.

>

> Honestly, though, I doubt it's actually worth your time and trouble. It's

> generally much easier to search out like-minded people (as we have here)

> and try to generate momentum through gathering than it is to change

> people's minds in head-on confrontation.

>

> >[Response]

> >Hmmm, according to USDA, ounce for ounce, garlic has 14 times the

> >selenium as butter and whole wheat has _71 times_ as much!!! The

> >author

> >of the below has a math problem.

>

> Well, this is an interesting problem, because Byrnes is no longer around to

> ask where he got that pro-butter figure. Certainly the USDA database

> agrees with your debate opponent, not Byrnes. More generally, the lesson

> is that you can't rely on any source to be perfect, to have the whole

> story, to be irreproachable in all particulars. There are no resources you

> can point someone to which can't be found to have some faults -- and people

> will always find faults where there are none anyway. I could speculate on

> the numbers, but I don't see any reason.

I agree. It just seems like she's looking for all the problems in the

articles, and ignoring the larger picture of what WAP found to be a

healthy diet. BTW, after a year of arguing on and off about WAP, I

found out she didn't know who he was! She thought he was still alive.

Can you imagine the temerity?

>

> If this message is depressing, you have my apologies, but... well, what can

> I say -- bitter experience has turned me more and more pessimistic. And

> yet even as many things get worse and worse, there are rays of hope to be

> found. There genuinely is growing momentum in the WAPF-style natural and

> healthy foods movement. But I think your time and energy would be much

> better-served by finding fellow travelers and banding together than by

> wading into a hostile environment and dreaming of converting

> people. There's strength in numbers.

I think you're right. Maybe I should look for community information

elsewhere. Otherwise I'll be subjected to these ill-informed messages

daily. Thanks for your answer, I was feelling down-in-the-dumps about

this, and my dh is tired of listening to my nutrition diatribes.

Naomi

[Guest guest]

On 7/22/05, Elaine <itchyink@...> wrote:

> Naomi, I was part of a longstanding online natural parenting group that

> essentially splintered in two over this issue. It was very, very sad for me

> as the group has never been the same. The vegans and the WAPers just

> couldn't keep from getting into snarls with one another.

Exactly, except I'm the only WAPer that'll say something. I know

there's people on there who drink real kefir, and someone else

mentioned getting NT. However, they are friends with the vegan

advocate, and won't go against her online.

> It is so, so, so

> hard to keep quiet when a veg posts erroneous, inflammatory stuff. It simply

> must be challenged! But i learned what we eat and what we feed our children

> is akin to religion and politics. In this country it *is* religion and

> politics. The curse of abundance. I say keep on posting bc there will be

> that one person saying " why can't i get pregnant? " or " why are my toddler's

> teeth crumbling and falling out? "

Teeth problems come up regularly on this list. I've posted multiple

articles on it, and usually get no response. The list's major attitude

is that it's " genetics. "

I recently posted " Successful Breastfeeding...And Successful

Alternatives " from the WAP site, since people were claiming how you

eat didn't affect your breast milk composition very much. No response

there.

> Since the blowup on my once beloved group,

> I know of two former vegans who are WAPers now due to health problems in

> their children.

The person I'm debating has a child with multiple food sensitivities.

> So, by staying polite and trying not to get too caught up in

> battles, maybe you can help a couple of the more subdued moms out.

That's what I was trying to do when I posted the butter and vitamin A

articles. But then the " expert " always comes in and spoils the whole

discussion with her half-truths and general misinformation, and that

ends it since no one wants to go against her (except me). It's so

annoying.

> Isn't it

> funny how aggressive vegs are? They're always going on about how meat eating

> makes people aggressive. Must be all that soy!

No kidding! There's an article in the " files " section for the group

called " The Joys of Soy, " and it blasts the WAP foundation for daring

to criticize soy's benefits. I should have unsubscribed when I saw

that, LOL!

Naomi

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 7/22/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Finally, though, I realized that the only thing I was really accomplishing

> was to hone my logic and argumentation skills and to help keep my brain

> sharp. Most people are unswayed by facts and logic. They make decisions

> emotionally.

Excellent post!! I would only add that once they do make a decision,

they will then defend it with facts and logic.

I was taught this in marketing long ago. People don't buy (a product,

service, idea) logically, they buy it emotionally, and then defend it

logically. In other words just because something is logically sound

doesn't mean its emotionally compelling.

Again, IMO, an excellent post!

[Guest guest]

Great! Here's the wonderful response to my posting of the " Successful

Breastfeeding " article

(http://www.westonaprice.org/children/breastfeed.html).

Naomi

**********************

[Fallon & Enig]

>> " Only one study carried out during the past two years found a clear-cut

benefit for breastfeeding. " <<

[response]

She sites this one study as from year 2001, so I've looked for studies

in year 2000. Below is just a small sampling: --- see also my article

here: http://www.babyreference.com/InfantDeaths.htm which has 100

fairly recent research study references on benefits of breastmilk.

Breastfeeding and asthma in children: findings from a West Australian

study. Breastfeed Rev. 2000 Mar;8(1):5-11

....substantial reduction in risk of childhood asthma as assessed at

age six years, if exclusive breastfeeding is continued for at least

the first four months of life

>>>>>Of course while Fallon found one study suggesting more asthma in

breastfed, there are at least dozens of studies showing the opposite,

and meta-analysis reviews of multiple studies confirm this

observation.

Influence of breastmilk on the development of resistance to intestinal

colonization in infants born at the Atma Jaya Hospital, Jakarta. Scand

J Infect Dis. 2000;32(2):189-96.

Inhibitory factors in breastmilk, maternal and infant sera against in

vitro growth of Plasmodium falciparum malaria parasite. J Trop

Pediatr. 2000 Apr;46(2):92-6.

Outcome of neonatal care in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea: a 19-year

review. J Trop Pediatr. 2000 Feb;46(1):57-61 strict adherence to

breastfeeding policies... appeared to have beneficial effects in

reducing the length of stay and increasing the rate of weight gain in

the very low birthweight babies.

Isolation of respiratory bacterial pathogens from the throats of

healthy infants fed by different methods. J Trop Pediatr. 1999

Jun;45(3):173-6 Isolation of respiratory bacterial pathogens from the

throats of healthy infants fed by different methods.

Her saying that observations of higher IQ's in breastfed babies is

likely only due to the fact that more-intelligent women breastfeed

(get a clue here?) shows that she doesn't know how to read the studies

or how advanced statistics works. This factor is compensated for and

factored-out very carefully in all but the first of these studies,

along with other possible contributing factors. That's how science is

(supposed to be) done.

Her " Diet for Pregnant and Breastfeeding Mothers " includes a minimum

of 1200 calories per day just from fat. Holy cow! (pun intended)

That's nearly my full caloric intake daily as a small non-lactating,

non-pregnant woman. One needs proteins too, and one cannot live

without carbohydrates in their diets, and there are many, many, many

other nutrients to be had that are not obtained from cow-stuff.

I'll try to take her writing in the manner in which it may have been

intended –- to encourage breastfeeding mothers to eat better –- (her

proof being that all breastmilks are different,) but it's difficult to

swallow her reckless cynicism which leads one to assume it to be the

writing of a bitter failed-breastfeeder.

[Guest guest]

Naomi,

I have dealt with this also. I hate to say but my advice is to just find

another group. It doesn't sound like you are going to be able to change her

mind on anything. You need a group to help support you and your way of

parenting. I am apart of many supportive crunchy AP mommy groups that

are not so anti-traditional diets. Some are VERY open to the WAPF way.

Blessings,

[Guest guest]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 08:53:03PM -0700, Naomi Giuliano wrote:

> No kidding! There's an article in the " files " section for the group

> called " The Joys of Soy, " and it blasts the WAP foundation for daring

> to criticize soy's benefits. I should have unsubscribed when I saw

> that, LOL!

If there is an automatic bias against WAP, point them to other

sources, like http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/ or

http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/.

I fear it's an anti- anti-soy bias, however.

Todd

[Guest guest]

Naomi Giuliano wrote:

>Great! Here's the wonderful response to my posting of the " Successful

>Breastfeeding " article

>(http://www.westonaprice.org/children/breastfeed.html).

>

>Naomi

>

>**********************

>[Fallon & Enig]

>

>

I just read that and I HATED it. I would certainly be off looking for

different studies to disprove the claims. It is written in an

antagonistic way, too IMO.

There is absolutely no way I would belive that anything other than

breastmilk is best for my baby no matter what my diet is composed of.

Plus it's cheaper and more convenient and all the rest.

[Guest guest]

I too has the same reaction. I HATE this article. I think there is some

truth in it but it is written and such a way that it doesn't support

breastfeeding. IMO. I am a strong believer in mnay of Sally/'s other

writting but this is NOT one of them. Breastmilk is best and that is the way

GOD created our bodies to work. I understand that Sally had some major

problems breastfeeding and I think that has tainted her writting on this

subject.

Blessings,

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

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of

Naomi Giuliano wrote:

>Great! Here's the wonderful response to my posting of the " Successful

>Breastfeeding " article

>(http://www.westonaprice.org/children/breastfeed.html).

>

>Naomi

>

>**********************

>[Fallon & Enig]

>

>

I just read that and I HATED it. I would certainly be off looking for

different studies to disprove the claims. It is written in an

antagonistic way, too IMO.

There is absolutely no way I would belive that anything other than

breastmilk is best for my baby no matter what my diet is composed of.

Plus it's cheaper and more convenient and all the rest.

[Guest guest]

-

>Excellent post!! I would only add that once they do make a decision,

>they will then defend it with facts and logic.

Thanks! And that's a very good point, except that the facts are often

bogus and the logic absurd. They're selected and assembled through the

distorting lens of the emotional decision. But you're right, after people

decide something, they will consistently (try to) defend it with facts and

logic.

>I was taught this in marketing long ago. People don't buy (a product,

>service, idea) logically, they buy it emotionally, and then defend it

>logically. In other words just because something is logically sound

>doesn't mean its emotionally compelling.

Lately I've been trying to learn how to successfully argue with people on

the emotional terms that actually sway them, but it's going to be a long,

hard row to hoe.

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/23/05, Stump <rstump@...> wrote:

> Naomi,

>

> I have dealt with this also. I hate to say but my advice is to just find

> another group. It doesn't sound like you are going to be able to change her

> mind on anything. You need a group to help support you and your way of

> parenting. I am apart of many supportive crunchy AP mommy groups that

> are not so anti-traditional diets. Some are VERY open to the WAPF way.

>

> Blessings,

>

Thanks, , I will search for some of these groups. I liked this

one because it's based in my town, so I could get a lot of local

information (LLL park days, for instance). However, the local

information is far and few between, while these annoying posts are a

semi-daily occurrence.

Naomi

[Guest guest]

On 7/23/05, Todd Slater <dontodd@...> wrote:

> If there is an automatic bias against WAP, point them to other

> sources, like http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/ or

> http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/.

>

> I fear it's an anti- anti-soy bias, however.

>

> Todd

>

Todd, it's helpless. This " expert " says the information on soy is

" inconclusive. "

Naomi

> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 08:53:03PM -0700, Naomi Giuliano wrote:

> > No kidding! There's an article in the " files " section for the group

> > called " The Joys of Soy, " and it blasts the WAP foundation for daring

> > to criticize soy's benefits. I should have unsubscribed when I saw

> > that, LOL!

[Guest guest]

-

>There is absolutely no way I would belive that anything other than

>breastmilk is best for my baby no matter what my diet is composed of.

>Plus it's cheaper and more convenient and all the rest.

What if you were unable to produce sufficient milk for your child? (And I

say child because as far as I can tell, kids should be breastfed up until

around the age of four, though of course for much of that time they ought

to be eating solids too.) I think I remember reading that Sally Fallon had

that problem, which is quite possibly why she takes the defensive and

aggressive tone she does on the subject. Also, there's a heck of a big

difference between replacing or supplementing breast milk with storebought

formula (which for all intent and purpose should be considered toxic waste)

and the sort of " formula " that NT describes, made from goat milk, liver and

other good stuff.

-

[Guest guest]

Naomi-

>On top of that, when vegans get their kids taken away by Child

>Protection Services for being thin and sickly-looking (not that I

>condone it, but what else are they supposed to do when they see kids

>who look like they're starving?), she's the one they get to

>testify/advocate on their behalf.

Sheesh.

And yeah, you're right, it's tragic that kids are taken away, and they're

certainly not going to be fed well afterwards except in the rarest of

instances, but OTOH, what on earth do you do when parents are killing their

kids with diet? A terrible conundrum.

>If that's not enough, she has a kid who was born with major food

>sensitivities, and her husband has Crohn's.

It's awfully sad that her personal and emotional investment in her dietary

orthodoxy has such consequences for other people.

>BTW, after a year of arguing on and off about WAP, I

>found out she didn't know who he was! She thought he was still alive.

>Can you imagine the temerity?

That's funny but hardly surprising, unfortunately.

It'd be interesting to see what she'd make of _Nutrition and Physical

Degeneration_. I once recommended it to a devout mainstream guy, and he

asked me whether it was a novel.

>Thanks for your answer, I was feelling down-in-the-dumps about

>this, and my dh is tired of listening to my nutrition diatribes.

Glad to be of some help.

-

[Guest guest]

That is just the problem I see. The article has an extreme bias to her

particular situation as if that is the norm. It is not. Most women, even

those on the SAD diet, can breastfeed their infant. Many times it takes the

help of a lactation professional but they are able to do it. I think women

give up to easily. Most women don't give birth without a professional (I

know some that do) but most don't so why do we think we can feed them

without consulting someone. I LOVE the NT formula recipes. I have nursed

all my children but LOVE to have the alternative in times of need. I have

just begun to supplement my son at 1 year and appreciate that I don't have

to give him the plain store bought junk as an alternative.

Blessings,

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

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Idol

What if you were unable to produce sufficient milk for your child? (And I

say child because as far as I can tell, kids should be breastfed up until

around the age of four, though of course for much of that time they ought

to be eating solids too.) I think I remember reading that Sally Fallon had

that problem, which is quite possibly why she takes the defensive and

aggressive tone she does on the subject.

[Guest guest]

To me that is an answer....inconclusive is not a good thing. I personally

would not feed myself, my husband or especially my infant anything that the

studies are " inconclusive " about. Maybe that's just me.

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

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Naomi Giuliano

Todd, it's helpless. This " expert " says the information on soy is

" inconclusive. "

Naomi

[Guest guest]

Are vegans regularly getting their sickly children taken away by CPS, or has

it been just a couple of sensationalized cases? This woman sounds like a

real pill. Perhaps you can address her directly and ask to please allow

differing information without throwing up a wall of fire. I'm on a local AP

group and one of the " experts " is also vegan. She recently had to have her

gallbladder removed after becoming extremely sick. She said the doctors were

all mystified due to her very low-fat diet, and she went on to tell us all

to eat low sat. fats. Then I posted the article from the WAPF site about how

low-fat can cause gallbladder attacks. I hated to dog her when she was

already down post surgery, but i just couldn't let that one slip by! It's a

pity that natural parenting is automatically associated with veganism. On

the group that split, it was dominated by vegans until one lone WAPer spoke

up, a lot of people converted and felt tons better and watched their

children grow like a foot in a month, and then the battles began with the

embittered vegans.

Elaine

> From: Naomi Giuliano <n.giuliano@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:53:03 -0700

>

> Subject: Re: Hard to advocate WAP for some " alternative " groups

>

> On 7/22/05, Elaine <itchyink@...> wrote:

>> Naomi, I was part of a longstanding online natural parenting group that

>> essentially splintered in two over this issue. It was very, very sad for me

>> as the group has never been the same. The vegans and the WAPers just

>> couldn't keep from getting into snarls with one another.

>

> Exactly, except I'm the only WAPer that'll say something. I know

> there's people on there who drink real kefir, and someone else

> mentioned getting NT. However, they are friends with the vegan

> advocate, and won't go against her online.

>

>

>> It is so, so, so

>> hard to keep quiet when a veg posts erroneous, inflammatory stuff. It simply

>> must be challenged! But i learned what we eat and what we feed our children

>> is akin to religion and politics. In this country it *is* religion and

>> politics. The curse of abundance. I say keep on posting bc there will be

>> that one person saying " why can't i get pregnant? " or " why are my toddler's

>> teeth crumbling and falling out? "

>

> Teeth problems come up regularly on this list. I've posted multiple

> articles on it, and usually get no response. The list's major attitude

> is that it's " genetics. "

>

> I recently posted " Successful Breastfeeding...And Successful

> Alternatives " from the WAP site, since people were claiming how you

> eat didn't affect your breast milk composition very much. No response

> there.

>

>

>> Since the blowup on my once beloved group,

>> I know of two former vegans who are WAPers now due to health problems in

>> their children.

>

> The person I'm debating has a child with multiple food sensitivities.

>

>> So, by staying polite and trying not to get too caught up in

>> battles, maybe you can help a couple of the more subdued moms out.

>

> That's what I was trying to do when I posted the butter and vitamin A

> articles. But then the " expert " always comes in and spoils the whole

> discussion with her half-truths and general misinformation, and that

> ends it since no one wants to go against her (except me). It's so

> annoying.

>

>> Isn't it

>> funny how aggressive vegs are? They're always going on about how meat eating

>> makes people aggressive. Must be all that soy!

>

> No kidding! There's an article in the " files " section for the group

> called " The Joys of Soy, " and it blasts the WAP foundation for daring

> to criticize soy's benefits. I should have unsubscribed when I saw

> that, LOL!

>

> Naomi

>

>>

>>

>

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

> FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message archive

> with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

> HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

> Idol

> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Does anyone have specific ideas on how, then, to appeal to one's emotions in

these kinds of debates? I have seen science wars with vegans and WAPers,

each hurling their studies and anecdotes, and I would say the results are

just more anger and division.

Elaine

>> I was taught this in marketing long ago. People don't buy (a product,

>> service, idea) logically, they buy it emotionally, and then defend it

>> logically. In other words just because something is logically sound

>> doesn't mean its emotionally compelling.

>

[Guest guest]

<Does anyone have specific ideas on how, then, to appeal to one's emotions

in

these kinds of debates? I have seen science wars with vegans and WAPers,

each hurling their studies and anecdotes, and I would say the results are

just more anger and division.

I agree those are the results of any kind of insistent evangelism, in

religion or in matters of health. I can understand wanting to change the

mind of someone you love when you see that person headed toward disease and

early death. In those cases it's reasonable to do what you can, at least

stating your case, before you leave them in peace to make their own

decisons. And, if you have a " platform " to advocate for WAP, or anything

else you believe in, great. But once you've said your piece, why continue

to press it? Why is it so important to convince those who won't listen, who

want only to fight you tooth and nail? We have some duty to speak the truth

and try to help others, but after a certain point, we are only casting

pearls before swine.

I think can influence people by who you are and by what they see when they

look at you and the way you live your life. And to those people, who show

signs of attraction and interest, your thoughts and experience will be

valued.

http://www.taichi4seniors.com

[Guest guest]

Hi and ,

The reason I posted the article is that people on the list were

maintaining that the quality of breastmilk didn't vary significantly

with diet and/or that simply having a " decent " diet without white

foods is good enough (this group is also anti-saturated fat, in case

you couldn't guess).

This despite the fact that their kids, and even the kids of some

friends of mine who've followed the " expert's " diet advice have

problems such as:

tooth decay: crumbling enamel, holes, cavities (very common);

strange intestinal, anal problems (my guess is whole, unsoaked grains

being the culprit);

behavioral problems, some bordering on autism, and Asperger's;

toddler hair falling out where it rubs against a pillow.

And that's what I can remember off the top of my head.

made this great observation, that vegans/low-fat vegetarians seem to

rely a lot on herbs and supplements to feel well, and that is

definitely the case with this group.

I don't like the tone of the article much, but there's only a few

articles talking about breast milk composition on the WAP site. If

you happen to have others, I'd love to see them.

Naomi

On 7/23/05, <harringtonwa@...> wrote:

> I just read that and I HATED it. I would certainly be off looking for

> different studies to disprove the claims. It is written in an

> antagonistic way, too IMO.

>

> There is absolutely no way I would belive that anything other than

> breastmilk is best for my baby no matter what my diet is composed of.

> Plus it's cheaper and more convenient and all the rest.

>

On 7/23/05, Stump <rstump@...> wrote:

> I too has the same reaction. I HATE this article. I think there is some

> truth in it but it is written and such a way that it doesn't support

> breastfeeding. IMO. I am a strong believer in mnay of Sally/'s other

> writting but this is NOT one of them. Breastmilk is best and that is the way

> GOD created our bodies to work. I understand that Sally had some major

> problems breastfeeding and I think that has tainted her writting on this

> subject.

> Naomi Giuliano wrote:

>

> >Great! Here's the wonderful response to my posting of the " Successful

> >Breastfeeding " article

> >(http://www.westonaprice.org/children/breastfeed.html).

> >

> >Naomi

> >

> >**********************

> >[Fallon & Enig]

> >

[Guest guest]

On 7/23/05, Stump <rstump@...> wrote:

> To me that is an answer....inconclusive is not a good thing. I personally

> would not feed myself, my husband or especially my infant anything that the

> studies are " inconclusive " about. Maybe that's just me.

>

>

>

Oh, the bad results are inconclusive, but since there's so many known

*great* things about soy...

I won't launch into preaching to the choir, LOL.

Naomi

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

> [mailto: ]On Behalf Of Naomi Giuliano

>

>

> Todd, it's helpless. This " expert " says the information on soy is

> " inconclusive. "

>

> Naomi

>

[Guest guest]

that people on the list were

> maintaining that the quality of breastmilk didn't vary significantly

> with diet and/or that simply having a " decent " diet without white

> foods is good enough (this group is also anti-saturated fat, in case

> you couldn't guess).

An interesting side note that came up on my mom's group: some of has breast

milk that stains horribly, others' doesn't stain at all. I think we all use

natural detergents so i'm thinking it's the fat content of the breast milk.

Elaine

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

> -

>

> >There is absolutely no way I would belive that anything other than

> >breastmilk is best for my baby no matter what my diet is composed of.

> >Plus it's cheaper and more convenient and all the rest.

>

> What if you were unable to produce sufficient milk for your child?

> (And I

> say child because as far as I can tell, kids should be breastfed up until

> around the age of four, though of course for much of that time they ought

> to be eating solids too.) I think I remember reading that Sally

> Fallon had

> that problem, which is quite possibly why she takes the defensive and

> aggressive tone she does on the subject. Also, there's a heck of a big

> difference between replacing or supplementing breast milk with

> storebought

> formula (which for all intent and purpose should be considered toxic

> waste)

> and the sort of " formula " that NT describes, made from goat milk,

> liver and

> other good stuff.

>

>

This article made me so mad I went to bed angry about it. It made me

feel the way it did when I had my first child. I used to be so very

very pro-breastfeeding and would NOT hear of anything else. I have

since wisened up and allow other people to have their own opinions and

choices without me saying much about it. I still think I'm right, I

just don't have the need anymore for them to know that I am right.

Anyway, that being said - I started breastfeeding bekieving that whilst

there were difficulties that they could all be overcome. I did not and

still do not believe that someone can have insufficient milk. To me

it's a case of " you're not trying hard enough " " keep it up and it will

come good " . Yeah, I'm sure there's someone out there who will have a

personal experience and insist that they didn't have enough milk, but

until I have been inthat position I cannot grasp the concept. Hopefully

no one here has taken offence to that. I would never tell someone

that. If they believe that they didn't have enough milk, then yes it

was true for them. Maybe I just argued the case for them. I don't know.

Also, yes, I can see the point of the article - that the quality of

breastmilk is affected by diet. But I can't believe that my SAD diet

would make it less nutritious than any formula.

I know I am way behind on this thread. I WISH that I could come and

join your list to help argue the case for WAP. This list has already

got too much volume for me to keep up with at the moment. Sadly, I want

to try and get into the off topic posts that interest me but I keep

falling behind.

That article freaked me out a bit too. I hope my milk is up to par at

the moment - my diet is not as good as it could be!

said:

> I have

> just begun to supplement my son at 1 year and appreciate that I don't have

> to give him the plain store bought junk as an alternative.

Oh? I'll have to look into this now...? Mine (13 mos) has only just

started drinking other liquids. I was going to try to get him to take

raw goats milk whilst I could get it, but he was spitting it out

everywhere. And now I can't get any for a while. He still having four

or five feeds. Not proper feeds I know. More for comfort I'm sure.

And the bugger will not sleep through!

What age did yours give up the breastmilk?

[Guest guest]

Elaine-

>An interesting side note that came up on my mom's group: some of has breast

>milk that stains horribly, others' doesn't stain at all. I think we all use

>natural detergents so i'm thinking it's the fat content of the breast milk.

I've heard sad stories from friends about how their wives' breast milk is

like skim or even nonfat milk -- very sweet, very low in fat.

-