Guest guest Posted June 8, 2008 Report Share Posted June 8, 2008 > > > > > > If Dana's kids were fully chelated they wouldn't need any more > > supplements or special > > diets. > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > ***********8 > Thank-you Andy. I'm happy to know that when I'm done chelating my > children all other medical issues they may ever have will be completely > eradicated, No guarantees. > to the point that I will not need to ever offer them another > supplement or special diet. . . . On a routine basis, to control cognition and behavior, yes. There will be special occasions and you may choose to do it for other reasons, e. g. life extension, cancer prevention. > after all, the only potential ill that > will ever befall our children is heavy metal toxicity and more > specifically mercury poisoning. Now, I know you don't really believe > that. But you do reduce things to absurdity nicely! Always a good technique to use in argument. > I have the utmost respect for both you and Dana, and don't believe > either of you are playing troll. Neither do I believe that Dana needs > to start her own message board, especially since you can already see > that she is a moderator at this one > * /members?group=mod Yup. She can throw me off or delete my messages any time she wants to, so apparently she isn't TOO upset! > *Her help here has been invaluable to me, and my children, more so than > any MD or ND I've ever paid. I've also purchased Andy's book, since I > trust that has some answers too. Ultimately, the judgment call on how > much/when/how often is up to me as their mother though. I appreciate > knowing how all who have successfully chelated their families have done > it, and having access to those discussions. Also, if you go to the front > page of this group, you will see that nowhere does it say that this > group is intended to discuss only frequent dose chelation as a means for > dealing with Mercury-Autism (description below). Therefore, it would > seem that anyone who has done it differently should be welcome to > discuss what did work for them (or didn't) without being told they are > trolls or to start a different group for such discussions. > * > * P. > who, if she finds something that helps her children yet is contrary to > what others on this board offer for advice, will be as brave as Dana as > to post it so others will have another option to consider As long as you're brave enough to put up with the responses that is fine. > > > Description from Front Page of Group > / > > To discuss current issues related to the increasing incidence of autism > the potential link between excessive mercury exposure via thimerosal in > infant vaccines. Topics include: mercury detoxification ( " chelation " ), > mercury-related issues/news, and vaccination-related issues/news. Most > members are parents of children with autism, aspergers, ADD, ADHD, PDD, > PDD-NOS, SID, oppositional defiance disorder, apraxia, speech disorders, > and/or other related symptoms. There are many labels: you are welcome > regardless of particular label(s). In addition to mercury, we also > discuss other heavy metals (for example: arsenic, antimony, lead). Many > parents here are in the process of chelation, with a child. This process > is discussed in detail. Also welcome: mercury poisoned adults; other > disorders/issues related to mercury poisoning; other biomedical > treatments for ASD. > > Please be advised: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2008 Report Share Posted June 8, 2008 A troll is a fearsome member of a mythical race from Norse mythology. Originally more or less the Nordic equivalents of giants, although often smaller in size, the different depictions have come to range from the fiendish giants – similar to the ogres of England (also called Trolls at times, see Troller's Gill) – to a devious, more human-like folk of the wilderness, living underground in hills, caves or mounds. In the Faroe islands, Orkney and Shetland tales, trolls are called trows, adopted from the Norse language when these islands were settled by Vikings. This is from wikipedia. I find this totally unacceptable, and very insulting. I would hope that two very intelligent could disagree in a more professional and appropriate manner. I find this crude and totally insulting, not only to Dana, but to all of us women here on this board. Dana may have her faults and may do things differently...but I have yet to see her claim to share anything but what she knows from her own experience, in either her emails or her posts....it is up to me or another reader to make the call if she is doing something that is good or not for our own kids by doing our research. I use her information for a stepping stone or a starting point. I have a lot of respect for both of you. You both have a lot of wisdom and experience than many of us. It is very disconcerting to see you reacting in manner. There have been times, Andy when someone who has said off things against you and have been there to say this same thing to them. Neither of you are perfect and as such you can both be prone to error. I would seem to behoove you to discuss this in a more polite professional manner so those that are new are not scared off or are afraid to say anything for fear of your comments. Your heart is in the correct place I have no doubt...but if you scare off parents, then who helps the kids. Not all parents are able to let this kind of thing roll off em like water. Dana's method of chelation did not work for my kids....but my kids are very different than almost everyone's here. Nuttin works the way it does for other folks for them. But Dana has given me many excellent ideas and many of them have been a great help....as are your books. Each of you is precious and needed to this group...I think you had it right earlier...to leave each other alone and help those who want or need your help. Both you and Dana know how much I have appreciated your help. I have totold you both privately in emails and I will say it again here. Dana, you are a special lady...you have gone out of your way to help understand and hear me out. You have given me ideas and kindness and an ear when I needed it. You and Anita have been my inspirations and my friends. I love you both very deeply and appreciate you so much for all that you have both done. Andy, you remind me of a gruff and cranky bear. You roar and growl...but your heart for our kids is bigger than your roar and growl. You have spent much time and effort with your books and your efforts to help. You have spent lots of time on the boards and have offered many times much need albeit caustic advice...sometimes seeing your big heart is a challenge. I appreciate all of that you have done very much... just my two cents. Ronni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2008 Report Share Posted June 8, 2008 > > A troll is a fearsome member of a mythical race from Norse mythology. > Originally more or less the Nordic equivalents of giants, although > often smaller in size, the different depictions have come to range from > the fiendish giants – similar to the ogres of England (also called > Trolls at times, see Troller's Gill) – to a devious, more human- like > folk of the wilderness, living underground in hills, caves or mounds. > In the Faroe islands, Orkney and Shetland tales, trolls are called > trows, adopted from the Norse language when these islands were settled > by Vikings. > > This is from wikipedia. I find this totally unacceptable, and very > insulting. Here is the definition he most likely meant: " An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion. " From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll More simply put, it is an agitator, usually someone with a personal agenda, often someone who gets something out of punching other's buttons. I don't think it's an accurate remark about Dana and I wish it hadn't been used. But it really is not the same thing as calling her " a dragon lady " or " snake in the grass " or " ogress " or some other colorful insult. It's internet slang, with a specific meaning about specific behavior. Peace. Michele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2008 Report Share Posted June 8, 2008 I consider your reasoning valid; I just haven't witnessed anything, coming from Andy, that turned me off and see no reason why others should mistake his straight-forwardness for something undesirable. I won't profess that his approach can't be improved upon as there is ALWAYS room for us to improve, but I value what I've seen him write, because it has been written in a no-nonsense, understand this and let's make progress, move forward style. I also expect that it is not easy for him to negotiate time to help out here, so I have to empathize with anyone going above and beyond the call of duty. I hope you don't think that I view your comments as contentious - I don't believe I've felt this way. Also, it would probably be helpful for anyone making suggestions for Andy to find out what his past approach was - this way it would be possible to avoid offering suggestions that may be equivalent to saying, " you should revert back to a less effective approach. " I am a bit unclear as to why you chose to " constructively " criticize him publicly, though, as opposed to privately. Do you think someone would be more receptive to constructively critical comments if they weren't unnecessarily displayed to bystanders (not sarcasm - an honest question)? Take care, > > > > Do consider that people will never get as much out of this group > as > > otherwise if they havn't taken the time to read " Amalgam > Illness. " > > And, if they had read the book, it is much less likely that they > > would ask the kind of questions likely to encourage knee-jerk > > responses. I personally have had much success with a diplomatic > > and patient approach to helping (and receiving help from) others, > but > > there isn't always time for this, and we have all had different > > experiences which encourage different approaches. I will not > pretend > > to understand everything that Andy has experienced and contributed > to > > his current style. Also, I'm new to this group, have read all of > > Andy's replies so far, and have never thought any of his posts to > be > > innapropriate (often enlightening though). Of course, I've > > read " Amalgam Illness " so I don't know how I'd see the picture > > differently had I not. , if someone is motivated enough > to > > stick around despite the initial replies that you felt inadequate, > > they are much more likely to make progress. > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 > > I consider your reasoning valid; I just haven't witnessed anything, > coming from Andy, that turned me off and see no reason why others > should mistake his straight-forwardness for something undesirable. I > won't profess that his approach can't be improved upon as there is > ALWAYS room for us to improve, but I value what I've seen him write, > because it has been written in a no-nonsense, understand this and > let's make progress, move forward style. I also expect that it is > not easy for him to negotiate time to help out here, so I have to > empathize with anyone going above and beyond the call of duty. I > hope you don't think that I view your comments as contentious - I > don't believe I've felt this way. Also, it would probably be helpful > for anyone making suggestions for Andy to find out what his past > approach was - this way it would be possible to avoid offering > suggestions that may be equivalent to saying, " you should revert back > to a less effective approach. " I am a bit unclear as to why you > chose to " constructively " criticize him publicly, though, as opposed > to privately. Do you think someone would be more receptive to > constructively critical comments if they weren't unnecessarily > displayed to bystanders (not sarcasm - an honest question)? > > Take care, > > I don't post on this list consistently. I go for long stretches without posting at all. But my membership goes back several years. I was here before Andy became so bombastic. So I don't think I am completely clueless as to what he did before. Nor do I feel that my suggestions amount to " go back to what you were doing before that wasn't working " . He was always, as you said, " straight forward " . I don't think he was perceived as all that warm even before he conciously chose to experiment with some other means to try to communicate/present himself. I once intervened on an occasion when someone on list was saying things that could have been real trouble for Andy, with real world consequences. I did so off list but Andy knew of it. My assumption is that Andy most likely remembers the incident and from that most likely views me as someone who isn't " attacking " him. I have also spoken with him by phone. Again, my assumption is he remembers -- but perhaps not. Regardless of whether he remembers these things or not, his reactions to me have not suggested to me that he is in any way feeling threatened or concerned about my motives, etc. I have tried to discuss some of this with him off list. I don't think it works as well as I wish it did. His communication style and world view are vastly different from mine. The remarks he has found most useful were not things I really said specifically to him. That is part of what gets the conversation coming back to the public list, even after it died out privately. However, long observation indicates to me that Andy is not thin skinned and not going to have some huge personal issue with feeling " publically attacked " or " publically criticized " . So I did not worry particularly that he would make an issue of it. I did worry how it would be viewed by others on list and how it would impact them. So I did consider posting some of my thoughts to him privately. I wasn't sure what the best course of action was. Saying it privately would have prevented me from being viewed as attacking him. But it also would lose the opportunity for others to consider such ideas. From research-based texts in a class I took and from personal experience, the type of approach I advocate works best when all parties know the principles behind it. Secretiveness works when you are trying to take advantage of someone. But when you are trying to negotiate a civilized agreement of some sort for the benefit of all parties involved, being as open as possible benefits everyone involved and the more they know about how to make that work, the more likely it is that it will be successfully implemented. It's always a risk to introduce such ideas to a group and it routinely gets my actions misinterpretted as attacking people and so forth. However, over time, as a majority of people on list (or even significant minority) begin to adopt such approaches of their own free will, flaming and such tends to die down. So given a long track record of success and given that I know it is necessary for the group as a whole to adopt the principles I advocate, it just isn't logical to not pursue the course I know eventually works, in spite of often feeling burned in the process. So in my judgement, the best hope for helping this group is to post thoughts on the subject to the group, not just privately to Andy. Ordinarily, it does work better to constructively criticize someone privately. I am not particularly seeking to constructively criticize him. I am trying to put forth some ideas, ideas I know work remarkably well. I'm human and I have serious health problems My execution is often rather flawed because of it. I have considered only posting when I feel well enough to " know " I won't stick my foot in my mouth. But in reality that would mean never posting. Aside from my medical condition, I also simply see the world differently from most people I meet and that alone promotes quite a lot of misunderandings. I get a lot less misunderstanding when I post regularly on a list, something I have not managed to do on this list of late. Still, I have quite a long track record of using even very ugly misunderstandings as " grist for the mill " and am often (unfortunately) at my best when under fire. I hate it. I really hate confrontation and conflict and having people mad at me and all that. But some of my best writing has come out of being challenged to " prove " what I say, when facing a less than receptive audience. You don't need to write so rigorously if everyone already sees the world the way you do, basically agrees with you and so on. You can say things sloppily and still get agreement and still get pats on the head. I wish it weren't so. I'm a hedonist at heart. But it is so. Sorry if that is more rambling and introspective than I intended. It's 2am and I wouldn't know what to cut. <shrug> Peace. Michele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 > I am a bit unclear as to why you > chose to " constructively " criticize him publicly, though, as opposed > to privately. Do you think someone would be more receptive to > constructively critical comments if they weren't unnecessarily > displayed to bystanders (not sarcasm - an honest question)? I sent her a private invitation in response to her first post that she should feel free to discuss the topic with me either on the list or in private. We talked a bit in private, and later the list interaction evolved to the point she thought (and I agree) that it was appropriate to discuss it publicly. I don't take this kind of thing personally. I think everything did was totally appropriate - and I'm saying that even though I never would have done it that way and don't agree with a lot of it. But it was fine. I appreciated hearing it. I don't even really require that people phrase their criticisms constructively. I just want them to be honest and forthright. What I detest is trolling, sophistry, trying to turn matters of fact into popularity contests, etc. Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 Just want to say that I agree. whether you choose bombastic or respectful, you won't convince everyone. strong, assertive, but respectful will, in my mind, reach more people. You will always have the ones that are going to do what they want, no matter what, or who only will listen to what they want to hear. But, there are those you are really seeking to learn, who want real information. Why risk turning them away by being so condescending? Ruth On Jun 8, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Michele wrote: > > > > > > You are playing troll and you should behave yourself and stop it. > > > > If you weren't playing troll you'd already have started another > list to discuss the wonders > > of 8 hour DMSA dosing and devoted your efforts there. > > > > Andy > > > I don't think she is trolling. I think she is trying to say the same > thing I am trying to say: If people are assumed to be wrong, guilty > and stupid from the get-go for even admitting that they are doing a > different protocol, then you have no hope of helping them because > they won't post here. > > I think it's a mistake to make a big issue out of her using the > example of 8 hour dosing and act like she is trying to " promote " > that. I don't think she is. You could say the same things about > chelating with cilantro: people ask about it fairly regularly on > this list and typically get shouted down with " NO DON'T DO THAT " . > Some of them will do it anyway and just go elsewhere if no one will > have a reasonable conversation with them here. > > As an example, not long after I joined the list (with no intention > of asking questions for myself about chelation), my attempts to > understand why cilantro was helping me were initially shouted down > on this list with people saying " DON'T DO THAT!!! " and, worse, > people saying " don't do that to your kids " (implying I am a bad > parent etc. when this didn't involve my children at all). When I > did manage to finally get people to answer my actual questions > instead of responding in knee jerk reaction to their fear that I was > harming myself and my kids, some were apologetic for their > assumptions, their previous posts, etc. > > But I have a fairly long history of dealing effectively with being > the center of controversy on lists and that allowed me to get past > the initial response. Most people who come here won't have such > skills and will either not post at all (and apparently write > privately to Dana) or will argue with people briefly and then leave > and go elsewhere. Greeting their inquiries in a manner that is > experienced by them as strongly emotionally negative does nothing to > convince them of " the error of their ways " . It only convinces them > that folks here cannot be talked to about the issue and won't treat > them in a respectful and caring fashion. Help is much more readily > accepted from people who behave in a respectful and caring fashion > than from people who are being disrespectful, condescending, etc. > > Some studied showed that doctors could drastically reduce their odds > of being sued for malpractice by taking an extra 30 seconds or so to > have good " bedside manner " and ask questions like " How are you > today? " instead of launching coldly into the medical part of it. > So I would suggest that malpractice suits arise at least as much out > of hurt feelings as out of genuine wrong-doing medically. That's > essentially what is at issue here: Some people don't listen or > won't post at all because of how they feel about their treatment > (socially/emotionally) on list rather than because of the quality of > information here -- because they feel, and rightly so, that there > will be an agenda to talk them out of what they are doing before > anyone really listens to what is going on. > > If that hardline can be removed from the list culture, it would > further your goal of promoting frequent dose chelation. If you > can't effectively reach people who are doing other types of > chelation, then you wind up " preaching to the choir " rather than > getting " new converts " . Since your stated goal is to reach those > doing protocols that are harmful and help them to do something > better, then I suggest the path to that is to figure out how to talk > to them such that they do not feel you are saying they are " sinners > damned to hell " who are " at fault " for hurting their kids. Because > you are so knowledgeable and influential, your behavior will have a > strong impact on list culture. If you continue to choose to use > the " bombastic " approach, the list has a poor chance of becoming a > place that welcomes exactly the type of people you state that you > most wish to reach. If you find another manner that works for you, > your behavior alone will go a long way towards revising the list > culture and providing a model for others to follow. If that weren't > so, I would be far less concerned about trying to get through to > you, specifically, about what I understand works and doesn't work. > > Peace. > > Michele > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 Promotion would be starting your own group and constantly directing people to that group when topics like this pop up. Dana offers a link to the specific area of her Danasview site instead of regurgitating all of that information (it IS a lot!), but icludes no promise of Internet chat or even advice. Certainly, I've never heard her publicly say she is right and we are wrong. We all should know Dana isn't trolling. That is one person's assessement and it should be taken as such; even if it is Andy's. Might I take a moment for some LIGHTHEARTED observation: Andy, saying Dana posts just to stir the pot is really " The pot calling the kettle black " ! Both of you are valuable to us and you should be able to share the stage from time to time. Off to mop up our basement floor... AGAIN! These midwest downpours are getting old. Pam > > I don't think she is trolling. I think she is trying to say the same > > thing I am trying to say: If people are assumed to be wrong, guilty > > and stupid from the get-go for even admitting that they are doing a > > different protocol, then you have no hope of helping them because > > they won't post here. > > > You said this better than I did. > > > > I think it's a mistake to make a big issue out of her using the > > example of 8 hour dosing and act like she is trying to " promote " > > that. I don't think she is. > > > I promote " what works for a specific child " . If that is frequent > dose, then do that. If 3x per day, then do that. > > It is odd in a way, that I apparently am not allowed to " promote 8 > hour dosing " , but others here can promote frequent dose without > problems. This is, after all, NOT the frequent dose chelation list. > > I do believe that frequent dose is probably safest. However, if it > won't work, for whatever reason/s the parent believes are relevant and > important, I try to work with that parent to find something > " sufficiently safe " that will also work. > > Dana > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 Then again there are those of us that like people that cut to the chase and don't pussyfoot around. I also think its possible the bombastic approach just might wake a few people up. I also think when you take the softly softly approach there are a number of people who hear: " At the end of the day, you can do whatever you want, its all good. " But its not all good. Dan & Ruth Setlak wrote: > > Just want to say that I agree. whether you choose bombastic or > respectful, you won't convince everyone. strong, assertive, but > respectful will, in my mind, reach more people. You will always have > the ones that are going to do what they want, no matter what, or who > only will listen to what they want to hear. But, there are those you > are really seeking to learn, who want real information. Why risk > turning them away by being so condescending? > > Ruth > On Jun 8, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Michele wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > You are playing troll and you should behave yourself and stop it. > > > > > > If you weren't playing troll you'd already have started another > > list to discuss the wonders > > > of 8 hour DMSA dosing and devoted your efforts there. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > I don't think she is trolling. I think she is trying to say the same > > thing I am trying to say: If people are assumed to be wrong, guilty > > and stupid from the get-go for even admitting that they are doing a > > different protocol, then you have no hope of helping them because > > they won't post here. > > > > I think it's a mistake to make a big issue out of her using the > > example of 8 hour dosing and act like she is trying to " promote " > > that. I don't think she is. You could say the same things about > > chelating with cilantro: people ask about it fairly regularly on > > this list and typically get shouted down with " NO DON'T DO THAT " . > > Some of them will do it anyway and just go elsewhere if no one will > > have a reasonable conversation with them here. > > > > As an example, not long after I joined the list (with no intention > > of asking questions for myself about chelation), my attempts to > > understand why cilantro was helping me were initially shouted down > > on this list with people saying " DON'T DO THAT!!! " and, worse, > > people saying " don't do that to your kids " (implying I am a bad > > parent etc. when this didn't involve my children at all). When I > > did manage to finally get people to answer my actual questions > > instead of responding in knee jerk reaction to their fear that I was > > harming myself and my kids, some were apologetic for their > > assumptions, their previous posts, etc. > > > > But I have a fairly long history of dealing effectively with being > > the center of controversy on lists and that allowed me to get past > > the initial response. Most people who come here won't have such > > skills and will either not post at all (and apparently write > > privately to Dana) or will argue with people briefly and then leave > > and go elsewhere. Greeting their inquiries in a manner that is > > experienced by them as strongly emotionally negative does nothing to > > convince them of " the error of their ways " . It only convinces them > > that folks here cannot be talked to about the issue and won't treat > > them in a respectful and caring fashion. Help is much more readily > > accepted from people who behave in a respectful and caring fashion > > than from people who are being disrespectful, condescending, etc. > > > > Some studied showed that doctors could drastically reduce their odds > > of being sued for malpractice by taking an extra 30 seconds or so to > > have good " bedside manner " and ask questions like " How are you > > today? " instead of launching coldly into the medical part of it. > > So I would suggest that malpractice suits arise at least as much out > > of hurt feelings as out of genuine wrong-doing medically. That's > > essentially what is at issue here: Some people don't listen or > > won't post at all because of how they feel about their treatment > > (socially/emotionally) on list rather than because of the quality of > > information here -- because they feel, and rightly so, that there > > will be an agenda to talk them out of what they are doing before > > anyone really listens to what is going on. > > > > If that hardline can be removed from the list culture, it would > > further your goal of promoting frequent dose chelation. If you > > can't effectively reach people who are doing other types of > > chelation, then you wind up " preaching to the choir " rather than > > getting " new converts " . Since your stated goal is to reach those > > doing protocols that are harmful and help them to do something > > better, then I suggest the path to that is to figure out how to talk > > to them such that they do not feel you are saying they are " sinners > > damned to hell " who are " at fault " for hurting their kids. Because > > you are so knowledgeable and influential, your behavior will have a > > strong impact on list culture. If you continue to choose to use > > the " bombastic " approach, the list has a poor chance of becoming a > > place that welcomes exactly the type of people you state that you > > most wish to reach. If you find another manner that works for you, > > your behavior alone will go a long way towards revising the list > > culture and providing a model for others to follow. If that weren't > > so, I would be far less concerned about trying to get through to > > you, specifically, about what I understand works and doesn't work. > > > > Peace. > > > > Michele > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 If I were " softly softly " , I don't think this conversation would be dragging on so long and I don't think I would have such a long history of being the center of controversy on different lists and I don't think people would react so very strongly to the things I say. So I suggest that characterization is a misinterpretation of what I am trying to convey. (and, yes, I do realize you actually replied to someone else, not me, but her reply was one agreeing with my points, so it's much the same as rebutting my remarks) In fact, I have been told by some people who appreciate the " cut to the chase " approach that I am a person who cuts to the chase and doesn't do what they feel amounts to bullshitting them. Especially on a list where people are likely to have some aspie traits, I don't think it works to be too subtle. A lot of people simply won't understand what you are saying. But " blunt " and " disrespectful " (or obnoxious) aren't actually synonymous nor inseparable. It takes more effort to be blunt and also come across as respectful but it can be done. I read an article in a magazine years ago. It was a personal anecdote about a woman who had gone to " assertiveness training " back in the 80's when that was all the rage. The instructor was some Nazi-like woman and the class was instructed on how to yell at people, how to be very pushy, etc. At some point, the author of the article decided she didn't like yelling at people and being pushy and disrespectful. She liked being nice to people. The next it was her turn to practice yelling and being agressive, she told the instructor she didn't want to, she didn't feel like it, she liked being nice to people. The instructor berated her and insisted she had to do these things or she would never be able to stand up for herself, it's a tough world out there, etc. She politely declined and a few minutes later decided she had had enough of this class and quietly gathered her things and left. As she left, she heard one of women in the back row say to another " God, what a bitch " . I hope some folks can see how that anecdote might be relevant to my point. I'm off to try to nap some more as I have yet to sleep enough. Peace. Michele > > Then again there are those of us that like people that cut to the chase > and don't pussyfoot around. > > I also think its possible the bombastic approach just might wake a few > people up. > > I also think when you take the softly softly approach there are a number > of people who hear: > > " At the end of the day, you can do whatever you want, its all good. " > > But its not all good. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 I'm not really rebutting anyone's remarks. I guess what I'm really trying to say is: you have to bait the hook to suit the fish....... and there's cluster's of different fish out there that will respond to different bait.... Not that I know anything about fishing........... Michele wrote: > > If I were " softly softly " , I don't think this conversation would be > dragging on so long and I don't think I would have such a long > history of being the center of controversy on different lists and I > don't think people would react so very strongly to the things I > say. So I suggest that characterization is a misinterpretation of > what I am trying to convey. (and, yes, I do realize you actually > replied to someone else, not me, but her reply was one agreeing with > my points, so it's much the same as rebutting my remarks) > > In fact, I have been told by some people who appreciate the " cut to > the chase " approach that I am a person who cuts to the chase and > doesn't do what they feel amounts to bullshitting them. Especially > on a list where people are likely to have some aspie traits, I don't > think it works to be too subtle. A lot of people simply won't > understand what you are saying. But " blunt " and " disrespectful " (or > obnoxious) aren't actually synonymous nor inseparable. It takes > more effort to be blunt and also come across as respectful but it > can be done. > > I read an article in a magazine years ago. It was a personal > anecdote about a woman who had gone to " assertiveness training " back > in the 80's when that was all the rage. The instructor was some > Nazi-like woman and the class was instructed on how to yell at > people, how to be very pushy, etc. At some point, the author of the > article decided she didn't like yelling at people and being pushy > and disrespectful. She liked being nice to people. The next it was > her turn to practice yelling and being agressive, she told the > instructor she didn't want to, she didn't feel like it, she liked > being nice to people. The instructor berated her and insisted she > had to do these things or she would never be able to stand up for > herself, it's a tough world out there, etc. She politely declined > and a few minutes later decided she had had enough of this class and > quietly gathered her things and left. As she left, she heard one of > women in the back row say to another " God, what a bitch " . > > I hope some folks can see how that anecdote might be relevant to my > point. I'm off to try to nap some more as I have yet to sleep > enough. > > Peace. > > Michele > > > > > > Then again there are those of us that like people that cut to the > chase > > and don't pussyfoot around. > > > > I also think its possible the bombastic approach just might wake a > few > > people up. > > > > I also think when you take the softly softly approach there are a > number > > of people who hear: > > > > " At the end of the day, you can do whatever you want, its all > good. " > > > > But its not all good. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 I haven’t kept up with this thread but we recovered our son who is now 19 when he was 17-18. We did not fully chelate, probably only got ½ done through the andy cutler method before having to stop to pay for medication for our daughter with uveitis. We chelated 8 months. Here is an update: A few days ago he went to rockfest and had so much fun and came back sunburned from 14 hours in the sun. He has a car, and a job and is in college. He wrote a persuasive speech for his speech class on procrastination. He has other college students that want to roommate with him and they all went looking for apartments by the college but they would not rent to them because it was too many kids in a 3 bedroom so now they are looking for a house to rent. He is brilliant in his job with computers, helps me around the house, and has friends and goes out socially, he gives eye contact and can have conversations now. He interacts with his siblings and his “chore” is to motivate them to do their chores since he is so great at that. Yesterday he told me that while watching my younger son work, he found that he didn’t get any work done because he spent the day tattling on other people and annoying them so they couldn’t get their chores done. He shows great management skill potential and shows insight into others with his thinking. Prior to chelation, he didn’t bathe, didn’t leave his room (ocd) and didn’t have a conversation beyond “need food” or can you buy me such and such video game. This is the boy that was hardly verbal and relatives told me that setting a goal of driving was too ambitious of a goal to ever set for him. I still do not think we are finished Chelating him. My next step I think should be testing his adrenals and fixing them, and then he might feel like continuing on with chelation again when we can afford it. His sleep clock is off, so that is one gain that has regressed. Please understand that I get a lot of people wanting to know what we did so I can’t answer every private email as I would like. We did the andy cutler method of chelation with a strong continual rotation of yeast fighters (everything but the kitchen sink) protocol in place while he ate a diet of pizza hut, taco bell, burger king and subway. So, basically you can chelate successfully and eat crap which I find really interesting because I could go from all organic foods and eat crap to afford chelators then go back to all organic, in theory it would work… Most often we would do a 3 day round every 2 weeks for 8 months, taking longer breaks for illness if yeast got out of control but staying on supplements inbetween rounds as well as on rounds using dmsa/ala. Dmsa only for the first month or two. Starting with very low doses, like 12.5mg, dosed every 4 hours dmsa, every 3 with ala. We also had an extreme supplementation protocol (if he needed it, he got it, and he needed a lot because of his symptoms and diet), with high zinc, clo, and amino acids which was inspired by the Pfeiffer protocol. He also needed d-lactate free probiotics. Chelation is so individual. YMMV, your mileage may vary. Each supplement, and there was about 20 different ones, with like probably 100 individual vitamins/minerals/etc. a day or more, maybe 150. It was an amazing amount of pills. Fistfulls of pills. Not everyone will need that much. The vitamin C alone was fourty capsules a day (you give to bowel tolerance). He took 4 caps of C0-Q10 a day, we gave him lots of extra vitamins he needed. The CoQ was for his headaches. You will find the individual supplements your child needs, and test each one individually, so be prepared for that. I can’t emphasize enough how financially ready you have to be, and purchase supplements in bulk and own a capsule making machine. Then there are people who do it for much less money and use the basic supplements. I am just saying what it took to recover our son was on the extreme end of cost and amount of supplements. When we begin chelating again, he might not need all that. He eats a much healthier diet now, drinks water, and eats food at home. Ref list of supplements he took (to find your childs dosage and needs search onibasu.com) Vit C as sodium ascorbate (10,000 mg a day) Magnesium chelated Calcium Chelated zinc (54mg 4 times a day which is way over the RDA, FYI) Selenium molybdenum Vit e Cod liver oil Grapeseed extract with phosphodytlcholine We found phosphydyltcholine gave him gains so we switched to lethicin Metzger’s research states CLO/Combined with other supplements give gains and we saw this with our son. L Taurine Orthomega Pfeiffer aminos (search Pfeiffer protocol-they gave me their amino list over the phone when I explained my son’s gains) P5P Chromium Can’t remember all of them sorry Now B-50 L lysine (can’t remember why) Gut/yeast Houstons trio with food Custom probiotics away from food Candidase away from food Rotation of 2months of each MCT oil/Uva Ursi/GSE for yeast Super strength oregano away from everything dosed middle of night. Reducing sugar at times, sometimes on round. ALA stirs up yeast so 1 month prior get yeast protocol in place if your Child is yeasty. Reduce sugars prior to ala. Activated charcoal/bentonite clay/to absorb yeast dieoff given l hour after yeast fighters Bad breath/casket breath Silva solution then we switched to a better and more effective solution (andy does not agree with giving silver, so we found something that worked that was different, Chlorophyll) Chlorophyll for bacterial smell For sleep Inositol For migranes Co Q 10 I think he took 100 mgs 4x a day, buy powder from now for $100, cap it yourself in small caps He took 4 small caps a day. On the frequency of dmsa/ala we always used andy’s protocol of 3 or 4 hours on the half life depending on what we were giving ala, dmsa, or both together. We would fail the round if we missed a dose and stop the round. I find it shocking and appauling that people would use less frequent dosing…this is pointless in my opinion, displacing mercury and heavy metals rather than chelating them out. I probably have missed some things but this gives a general idea….My son is well now. His chemical sensitivity is gone and he is no longer receiving disability benefits because he said “He is no longer disabled”. He also used to be chemically sensitive and was receiving ssi for that and is no longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 Well, I don't think I proposed a softly, softly approach, but merely a respectful one. I find it interesting that people on this list serv often act as if there is not in-between. And, at the end of the day, they are the parents and will need to make their own decisions. I believe that if people are bulled, they are not acting necessarily on their own conviction, but to an external pressure. That often doesn't last. Educating, being as honest (but respectful in the process) as possible, and encouraging people to research because the risks are real, makes sense. Bullying does not. Better to empower than to disempower and control. You will NEVER get everyone. Go for the approach that will get you the best results. I've been on this list for years and this is a CONSTANT point of contention. And, there are always just a few that do the bullying. I think the majority respond better to accurate information and respect. You can be straightforward, not apologetic, and accurately state the risks without being rude, condescending, and manipulative, IMO. Ruth On Jun 9, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Reynolds wrote: > Then again there are those of us that like people that cut to the > chase > and don't pussyfoot around. > > I also think its possible the bombastic approach just might wake a few > people up. > > I also think when you take the softly softly approach there are a > number > of people who hear: > > " At the end of the day, you can do whatever you want, its all good. " > > But its not all good. > > Dan & Ruth Setlak wrote: > > > > Just want to say that I agree. whether you choose bombastic or > > respectful, you won't convince everyone. strong, assertive, but > > respectful will, in my mind, reach more people. You will always have > > the ones that are going to do what they want, no matter what, or who > > only will listen to what they want to hear. But, there are those you > > are really seeking to learn, who want real information. Why risk > > turning them away by being so condescending? > > > > Ruth > > On Jun 8, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Michele wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are playing troll and you should behave yourself and stop > it. > > > > > > > > If you weren't playing troll you'd already have started another > > > list to discuss the wonders > > > > of 8 hour DMSA dosing and devoted your efforts there. > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > I don't think she is trolling. I think she is trying to say the > same > > > thing I am trying to say: If people are assumed to be wrong, > guilty > > > and stupid from the get-go for even admitting that they are > doing a > > > different protocol, then you have no hope of helping them because > > > they won't post here. > > > > > > I think it's a mistake to make a big issue out of her using the > > > example of 8 hour dosing and act like she is trying to " promote " > > > that. I don't think she is. You could say the same things about > > > chelating with cilantro: people ask about it fairly regularly on > > > this list and typically get shouted down with " NO DON'T DO THAT " . > > > Some of them will do it anyway and just go elsewhere if no one > will > > > have a reasonable conversation with them here. > > > > > > As an example, not long after I joined the list (with no intention > > > of asking questions for myself about chelation), my attempts to > > > understand why cilantro was helping me were initially shouted down > > > on this list with people saying " DON'T DO THAT!!! " and, worse, > > > people saying " don't do that to your kids " (implying I am a bad > > > parent etc. when this didn't involve my children at all). When I > > > did manage to finally get people to answer my actual questions > > > instead of responding in knee jerk reaction to their fear that > I was > > > harming myself and my kids, some were apologetic for their > > > assumptions, their previous posts, etc. > > > > > > But I have a fairly long history of dealing effectively with being > > > the center of controversy on lists and that allowed me to get past > > > the initial response. Most people who come here won't have such > > > skills and will either not post at all (and apparently write > > > privately to Dana) or will argue with people briefly and then > leave > > > and go elsewhere. Greeting their inquiries in a manner that is > > > experienced by them as strongly emotionally negative does > nothing to > > > convince them of " the error of their ways " . It only convinces them > > > that folks here cannot be talked to about the issue and won't > treat > > > them in a respectful and caring fashion. Help is much more readily > > > accepted from people who behave in a respectful and caring fashion > > > than from people who are being disrespectful, condescending, etc. > > > > > > Some studied showed that doctors could drastically reduce their > odds > > > of being sued for malpractice by taking an extra 30 seconds or > so to > > > have good " bedside manner " and ask questions like " How are you > > > today? " instead of launching coldly into the medical part of it. > > > So I would suggest that malpractice suits arise at least as > much out > > > of hurt feelings as out of genuine wrong-doing medically. That's > > > essentially what is at issue here: Some people don't listen or > > > won't post at all because of how they feel about their treatment > > > (socially/emotionally) on list rather than because of the > quality of > > > information here -- because they feel, and rightly so, that there > > > will be an agenda to talk them out of what they are doing before > > > anyone really listens to what is going on. > > > > > > If that hardline can be removed from the list culture, it would > > > further your goal of promoting frequent dose chelation. If you > > > can't effectively reach people who are doing other types of > > > chelation, then you wind up " preaching to the choir " rather than > > > getting " new converts " . Since your stated goal is to reach those > > > doing protocols that are harmful and help them to do something > > > better, then I suggest the path to that is to figure out how to > talk > > > to them such that they do not feel you are saying they are > " sinners > > > damned to hell " who are " at fault " for hurting their kids. Because > > > you are so knowledgeable and influential, your behavior will > have a > > > strong impact on list culture. If you continue to choose to use > > > the " bombastic " approach, the list has a poor chance of becoming a > > > place that welcomes exactly the type of people you state that you > > > most wish to reach. If you find another manner that works for you, > > > your behavior alone will go a long way towards revising the list > > > culture and providing a model for others to follow. If that > weren't > > > so, I would be far less concerned about trying to get through to > > > you, specifically, about what I understand works and doesn't work. > > > > > > Peace. > > > > > > Michele > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 Wow. No wonder some of you come across as condescending.... On Jun 9, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Reynolds wrote: > you have to bait the hook to suit the fish....... > > and there's cluster's of different fish out there that will respond to > different bait.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan & Ruth Setlak Well, I don't think I proposed a softly, softly approach, but merely a respectful one. I find it interesting that people on this list serv often act as if there is not in-between. ====>Lots of lessons here, for me for sure but because it's always easier to start with someone other than yourself.... here goes. A lot of this has to do with cohort groups and their expectations. Each generation becomes more spoiled than the last, mine included. I am a baby boomer, there were a ton of us. Noone gave us the delusion that we were overvalued so we were taught to wait our turn, do the work for ourself, keep our mouth shut and if someone were willing to help us (other than our parents) noone would think about worrying about how the message was delivered. We were stupid enough to believe that the help was valuable. As the number of children a parent had lessened this has changed, maybe for the better. But maybe not if parents' are willing to do things to hurt their kids because the message is not in the tone they prefer. Yes, that will teach the person not to be rude. Really fail to see the logic here. And, at the end of the day, they are the parents and will need to make their own decisions. ====>Yes, this is the right of every parent, within reason, no doubt. However I do not think respect is something I can muster for parents' who chose to do things to hurt their children, sorry, can't do it. For parents' who are ignorant (meaning they don't know better) lots of patience..... for parents' who know better and chose to do things in the parents' best interests...I can't muster respect for that idea. Overconcern for the feelings of adults who have choices appear to be at the expense of little people who are helpless......something wrong here. You can be straightforward, not apologetic, and accurately state the risks without being rude, condescending, and manipulative, IMO. ====>No, you really can't be straightforward without a lot of unwarranted complaints that you are bashing and such. It's always interesting to me that after a conversation with Dana the only people who are whipped into emotional overdrive are..........Dana and I. You're correct in that you can't please everyone and I agree that the response should match the situation and rarely necessitates starting out with strong tactics....however, they are sometimes necessary. Ruth On Jun 9, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Reynolds wrote: > Then again there are those of us that like people that cut to the > chase > and don't pussyfoot around. > > I also think its possible the bombastic approach just might wake a few > people up. > > I also think when you take the softly softly approach there are a > number > of people who hear: > > " At the end of the day, you can do whatever you want, its all good. " > > But its not all good. > > Dan & Ruth Setlak wrote: > > > > Just want to say that I agree. whether you choose bombastic or > > respectful, you won't convince everyone. strong, assertive, but > > respectful will, in my mind, reach more people. You will always have > > the ones that are going to do what they want, no matter what, or who > > only will listen to what they want to hear. But, there are those you > > are really seeking to learn, who want real information. Why risk > > turning them away by being so condescending? > > > > Ruth > > On Jun 8, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Michele wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are playing troll and you should behave yourself and stop > it. > > > > > > > > If you weren't playing troll you'd already have started another > > > list to discuss the wonders > > > > of 8 hour DMSA dosing and devoted your efforts there. > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > I don't think she is trolling. I think she is trying to say the > same > > > thing I am trying to say: If people are assumed to be wrong, > guilty > > > and stupid from the get-go for even admitting that they are > doing a > > > different protocol, then you have no hope of helping them because > > > they won't post here. > > > > > > I think it's a mistake to make a big issue out of her using the > > > example of 8 hour dosing and act like she is trying to " promote " > > > that. I don't think she is. You could say the same things about > > > chelating with cilantro: people ask about it fairly regularly on > > > this list and typically get shouted down with " NO DON'T DO THAT " . > > > Some of them will do it anyway and just go elsewhere if no one > will > > > have a reasonable conversation with them here. > > > > > > As an example, not long after I joined the list (with no intention > > > of asking questions for myself about chelation), my attempts to > > > understand why cilantro was helping me were initially shouted down > > > on this list with people saying " DON'T DO THAT!!! " and, worse, > > > people saying " don't do that to your kids " (implying I am a bad > > > parent etc. when this didn't involve my children at all). When I > > > did manage to finally get people to answer my actual questions > > > instead of responding in knee jerk reaction to their fear that > I was > > > harming myself and my kids, some were apologetic for their > > > assumptions, their previous posts, etc. > > > > > > But I have a fairly long history of dealing effectively with being > > > the center of controversy on lists and that allowed me to get past > > > the initial response. Most people who come here won't have such > > > skills and will either not post at all (and apparently write > > > privately to Dana) or will argue with people briefly and then > leave > > > and go elsewhere. Greeting their inquiries in a manner that is > > > experienced by them as strongly emotionally negative does > nothing to > > > convince them of " the error of their ways " . It only convinces them > > > that folks here cannot be talked to about the issue and won't > treat > > > them in a respectful and caring fashion. Help is much more readily > > > accepted from people who behave in a respectful and caring fashion > > > than from people who are being disrespectful, condescending, etc. > > > > > > Some studied showed that doctors could drastically reduce their > odds > > > of being sued for malpractice by taking an extra 30 seconds or > so to > > > have good " bedside manner " and ask questions like " How are you > > > today? " instead of launching coldly into the medical part of it. > > > So I would suggest that malpractice suits arise at least as > much out > > > of hurt feelings as out of genuine wrong-doing medically. That's > > > essentially what is at issue here: Some people don't listen or > > > won't post at all because of how they feel about their treatment > > > (socially/emotionally) on list rather than because of the > quality of > > > information here -- because they feel, and rightly so, that there > > > will be an agenda to talk them out of what they are doing before > > > anyone really listens to what is going on. > > > > > > If that hardline can be removed from the list culture, it would > > > further your goal of promoting frequent dose chelation. If you > > > can't effectively reach people who are doing other types of > > > chelation, then you wind up " preaching to the choir " rather than > > > getting " new converts " . Since your stated goal is to reach those > > > doing protocols that are harmful and help them to do something > > > better, then I suggest the path to that is to figure out how to > talk > > > to them such that they do not feel you are saying they are > " sinners > > > damned to hell " who are " at fault " for hurting their kids. Because > > > you are so knowledgeable and influential, your behavior will > have a > > > strong impact on list culture. If you continue to choose to use > > > the " bombastic " approach, the list has a poor chance of becoming a > > > place that welcomes exactly the type of people you state that you > > > most wish to reach. If you find another manner that works for you, > > > your behavior alone will go a long way towards revising the list > > > culture and providing a model for others to follow. If that > weren't > > > so, I would be far less concerned about trying to get through to > > > you, specifically, about what I understand works and doesn't work. > > > > > > Peace. > > > > > > Michele > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 > Why risk turning them away by being so condescending? I suppose the flip side of this question is " Why do people risk turning away from a safer protocol by being too sensitive? " Anne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 Isn't the point to convince people? Convincing is usually best done when there is trust. ANd, bullying does not build trust. And, it does not really demonstrate concern. IT just feels like bullying. Gosh. There are tons of very convicted professionals out there. And, it can be very hard for the average parent to know how to discern the best approach. Few have the training that Andy does, that some of you on the list do. And it is hard to know which is the right answer. I have done a lot of research, but am no scientist. At the end of the day, I have to try to make the best decision for my child. So at the end of the day, it depends on the goal. If the goal is to really convince people, to help kids, to keep them safe, then I think that it makes sense to care about how you deliver the message and what the takeaways are. Otherwise, you could end of being right, but alienating the very people you wish to help. You can complain that people are missing out because they are too sensitive, but they are missing out. You are not reaching your goal. Kids are being hurt. So, while you are feeling so justified, the kids lose out, possibly in a very detrimental way. Ruth On Jun 9, 2008, at 11:47 AM, anneecbrynn wrote: > > > Why risk turning them away by being so condescending? > > I suppose the flip side of this question is " Why do people risk > turning away from a safer protocol by being too sensitive? " > > Anne > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 I guess I never understood it to be Andy's role to convince people, but rather to give sound chelation advice and to warn people of the dangers of improper chelation. You are right that at the end of the day, we each have to figure out who to trust. Bullying may not build trust, but honesty does, at least for me. I, personally, would rather not be told that whatever I choose to do is fine when, in fact, there are significant risks that should, however communicated, inform my decision-making process. Anne > > > Why risk turning them away by being so condescending? > > > > I suppose the flip side of this question is " Why do people risk > > turning away from a safer protocol by being too sensitive? " > > > > Anne > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 - Well, I don't see much of an effort to discern between those parents that " know better " and those that are " ignorant. " (No real discernment about what kind of fish is asking, nor what kind of hook would " fit " either.) People usually get a stern warning immediately (first post) without even an explanation. ANd, to me, " know better: would imply that they had information or experience that provided some sort of proof, which they are choosing to ignore. That is almost never the case on the list. Parents are usually seeking help, information,etc. They have little to no experience with chelation, and are trying to sift through the vast amount of conflicting information. If they have used a different protocol ( like Dana) but have no reason to believe it is harmful, then how is it that they " know better " ? Because you told them? Hmmm. People on this list will attack a parent who follows the advice of a DAN or other physician, claiming they are not thinkers, but rather are blind followers. But, it seems like many here are hypocritical. If we want people to be (or become) thinkers (and not blind followers), then we need to LET THEM GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. Ask provoking questions, challenge with research and science, explain your own personal experiences. Patience IS KEY. I absolutely believe you can be straightforward and honest about the risks of chelation, how to avoid them etc without being bombastic and resorting to personal attacks. One is called integrity, the other manipulation. Ruth On Jun 9, 2008, at 11:26 AM, wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dan & Ruth Setlak > > Well, I don't think I proposed a softly, softly approach, but merely > a respectful one. I find it interesting that people on this list > serv often act as if there is not in-between. > > ====>Lots of lessons here, for me for sure but because it's always > easier to start with someone other than yourself.... here goes. > > A lot of this has to do with cohort groups and their expectations. > Each generation becomes more spoiled than the last, mine included. > I am a baby boomer, there were a ton of us. Noone gave us the > delusion that we were overvalued so we were taught to wait our > turn, do the work for ourself, keep our mouth shut and if someone > were willing to help us (other than our parents) noone would think > about worrying about how the message was delivered. We were stupid > enough to believe that the help was valuable. > > As the number of children a parent had lessened this has changed, > maybe for the better. But maybe not if parents' are willing to do > things to hurt their kids because the message is not in the tone > they prefer. Yes, that will teach the person not to be rude. Really > fail to see the logic here. > > And, at the end of the > day, they are the parents and will need to make their own decisions. > > ====>Yes, this is the right of every parent, within reason, no > doubt. However I do not think respect is something I can muster for > parents' who chose to do things to hurt their children, sorry, > can't do it. For parents' who are ignorant (meaning they don't know > better) lots of patience..... for parents' who know better and > chose to do things in the parents' best interests...I can't muster > respect for that idea. > > Overconcern for the feelings of adults who have choices appear to > be at the expense of little people who are helpless......something > wrong here. > > You can be straightforward, not apologetic, > and accurately state the risks without being rude, condescending, and > manipulative, IMO. > > ====>No, you really can't be straightforward without a lot of > unwarranted complaints that you are bashing and such. It's always > interesting to me that after a conversation with Dana the only > people who are whipped into emotional overdrive are..........Dana > and I. > > You're correct in that you can't please everyone and I agree that > the response should match the situation and rarely necessitates > starting out with strong tactics....however, they are sometimes > necessary. > > > > Ruth > On Jun 9, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Reynolds wrote: > > > Then again there are those of us that like people that cut to the > > chase > > and don't pussyfoot around. > > > > I also think its possible the bombastic approach just might wake > a few > > people up. > > > > I also think when you take the softly softly approach there are a > > number > > of people who hear: > > > > " At the end of the day, you can do whatever you want, its all good. " > > > > But its not all good. > > > > Dan & Ruth Setlak wrote: > > > > > > Just want to say that I agree. whether you choose bombastic or > > > respectful, you won't convince everyone. strong, assertive, but > > > respectful will, in my mind, reach more people. You will always > have > > > the ones that are going to do what they want, no matter what, > or who > > > only will listen to what they want to hear. But, there are > those you > > > are really seeking to learn, who want real information. Why risk > > > turning them away by being so condescending? > > > > > > Ruth > > > On Jun 8, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Michele wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are playing troll and you should behave yourself and stop > > it. > > > > > > > > > > If you weren't playing troll you'd already have started > another > > > > list to discuss the wonders > > > > > of 8 hour DMSA dosing and devoted your efforts there. > > > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > I don't think she is trolling. I think she is trying to say the > > same > > > > thing I am trying to say: If people are assumed to be wrong, > > guilty > > > > and stupid from the get-go for even admitting that they are > > doing a > > > > different protocol, then you have no hope of helping them > because > > > > they won't post here. > > > > > > > > I think it's a mistake to make a big issue out of her using the > > > > example of 8 hour dosing and act like she is trying to " promote " > > > > that. I don't think she is. You could say the same things about > > > > chelating with cilantro: people ask about it fairly regularly on > > > > this list and typically get shouted down with " NO DON'T DO > THAT " . > > > > Some of them will do it anyway and just go elsewhere if no one > > will > > > > have a reasonable conversation with them here. > > > > > > > > As an example, not long after I joined the list (with no > intention > > > > of asking questions for myself about chelation), my attempts to > > > > understand why cilantro was helping me were initially shouted > down > > > > on this list with people saying " DON'T DO THAT!!! " and, worse, > > > > people saying " don't do that to your kids " (implying I am a bad > > > > parent etc. when this didn't involve my children at all). When I > > > > did manage to finally get people to answer my actual questions > > > > instead of responding in knee jerk reaction to their fear that > > I was > > > > harming myself and my kids, some were apologetic for their > > > > assumptions, their previous posts, etc. > > > > > > > > But I have a fairly long history of dealing effectively with > being > > > > the center of controversy on lists and that allowed me to get > past > > > > the initial response. Most people who come here won't have such > > > > skills and will either not post at all (and apparently write > > > > privately to Dana) or will argue with people briefly and then > > leave > > > > and go elsewhere. Greeting their inquiries in a manner that is > > > > experienced by them as strongly emotionally negative does > > nothing to > > > > convince them of " the error of their ways " . It only convinces > them > > > > that folks here cannot be talked to about the issue and won't > > treat > > > > them in a respectful and caring fashion. Help is much more > readily > > > > accepted from people who behave in a respectful and caring > fashion > > > > than from people who are being disrespectful, condescending, > etc. > > > > > > > > Some studied showed that doctors could drastically reduce their > > odds > > > > of being sued for malpractice by taking an extra 30 seconds or > > so to > > > > have good " bedside manner " and ask questions like " How are you > > > > today? " instead of launching coldly into the medical part of it. > > > > So I would suggest that malpractice suits arise at least as > > much out > > > > of hurt feelings as out of genuine wrong-doing medically. That's > > > > essentially what is at issue here: Some people don't listen or > > > > won't post at all because of how they feel about their treatment > > > > (socially/emotionally) on list rather than because of the > > quality of > > > > information here -- because they feel, and rightly so, that > there > > > > will be an agenda to talk them out of what they are doing before > > > > anyone really listens to what is going on. > > > > > > > > If that hardline can be removed from the list culture, it would > > > > further your goal of promoting frequent dose chelation. If you > > > > can't effectively reach people who are doing other types of > > > > chelation, then you wind up " preaching to the choir " rather than > > > > getting " new converts " . Since your stated goal is to reach those > > > > doing protocols that are harmful and help them to do something > > > > better, then I suggest the path to that is to figure out how to > > talk > > > > to them such that they do not feel you are saying they are > > " sinners > > > > damned to hell " who are " at fault " for hurting their kids. > Because > > > > you are so knowledgeable and influential, your behavior will > > have a > > > > strong impact on list culture. If you continue to choose to use > > > > the " bombastic " approach, the list has a poor chance of > becoming a > > > > place that welcomes exactly the type of people you state that > you > > > > most wish to reach. If you find another manner that works for > you, > > > > your behavior alone will go a long way towards revising the list > > > > culture and providing a model for others to follow. If that > > weren't > > > > so, I would be far less concerned about trying to get through to > > > > you, specifically, about what I understand works and doesn't > work. > > > > > > > > Peace. > > > > > > > > Michele > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 We are not discussing condoning unsafe chelation practices. Please don't muddy the waters. Noone has to choose between a bombastic approach (which may be honest but is also bullying), and " being told that whatever I choose is fine. " That is quite black and white thinking, Let's move into the gray and say that we can be honest, forthright, have integrity, and still not belittle people. There does not have to be an either/or. You are right - we need honesty and informed decision-making, not controlling tactics. And, it is Andy (and others) who claim that they must be bombastic in order to convince parents - convince them that his chelation protocol is the only sage way, and that there are real risks to chelation that must be respected. I am just disagreeing with that point. Clearly there is more to this list that merely to disburse the advise and the warnings. They want results or they would just give the information and not care if people took it or left it. Ruth On Jun 9, 2008, at 12:21 PM, anneecbrynn wrote: > I guess I never understood it to be Andy's role to convince people, > but rather to give sound chelation advice and to warn people of the > dangers of improper chelation. > > You are right that at the end of the day, we each have to figure out > who to trust. Bullying may not build trust, but honesty does, at > least for me. > > I, personally, would rather not be told that whatever I choose to do > is fine when, in fact, there are significant risks that should, > however communicated, inform my decision-making process. > > Anne > > > > > > Why risk turning them away by being so condescending? > > > > > > I suppose the flip side of this question is " Why do people risk > > > turning away from a safer protocol by being too sensitive? " > > > > > > Anne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 Yes. That's true. I've suggested to Andy that if he can figure out which half of people are likely to respond well to bombastic and which won't, he might improve on his track record. It appears to me that the majority of people who are saying " blunt is fine with me " are male and the majority of people advocating a " softer " approach are female. Perhaps it would help Andy to consider the gender of the individual when considering how to communicate effectively with them. Thanks. > > I'm not really rebutting anyone's remarks. > > I guess what I'm really trying to say is: > > you have to bait the hook to suit the fish....... > > and there's cluster's of different fish out there that will respond to > different bait.... > > Not that I know anything about fishing........... > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 Forgive me for changing the direction of the thread. I'm not trying to discourage others from going on about behavior. What does it take in order for people to understand that dosing ALA at 3 h intervals gently removes mercury from the body and brain while dosing ALA at 8 h intervals removes some mercury and blasts some back into the brain with every dose. What does it take for people to understand that when ALA is dosed at 8 h intervals some people will regress right away and it will be obvious whereas for others the damage might not be so noticeable and they will notice problems in future, like chronic pain, chronic fatigue, MS, ALS, hypothyroidism, Alzheimer's, psychiatric problems, and the list goes on. I don't want to start going over that topic again, because it has been discussed over and over again in the years that I have been following the group. The chemistry of ALA has been discussed. What ALA does in the body has been discussed. Pharmacology has been discussed. And, there are tons of reports from parents who have recovered kids with every 3 h ALA, reports from parents whose kids did better on every 3 h ALA as compared to other protocols, reports from adults who regressed with every 8 h ALA and got better with every 3 h ALA (there are of course more adult reports in the adult group archives, and maybe that's why some people in this group don't get it). I admit it is difficult to sift through the archives and find those reports because of the volume of posts, but one would think that the people who have followed the group for years would have at least noticed. My question is - what does it take for people to understand why ALA must be dosed at 3 h intervals? J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 1. Being terrified of doing irreparable damage to your kid; 2. Being willing to think, for 10 minutes, about the process of removing metals from the body and admit that even if you don't understand all of the gobledygook, dosing every three hours makes sense; 3. Being able to acquiesce to the fact that life is going to pretty much suck for a while; and 3. Being willing to make the sacrifice in the name of safety? I am sure I could have said it more eloquently, but all of this really does bring out the (#*$% & (*@#^s in me :-) Anne > > > Forgive me for changing the direction of the thread. I'm not trying > to discourage others from going on about behavior. > > What does it take in order for people to understand that dosing ALA at > 3 h intervals gently removes mercury from the body and brain while > dosing ALA at 8 h intervals removes some mercury and blasts some back > into the brain with every dose. > > What does it take for people to understand that when ALA is dosed at 8 > h intervals some people will regress right away and it will be obvious > whereas for others the damage might not be so noticeable and they will > notice problems in future, like chronic pain, chronic fatigue, MS, > ALS, hypothyroidism, Alzheimer's, psychiatric problems, and the list > goes on. > > I don't want to start going over that topic again, because it has been > discussed over and over again in the years that I have been following > the group. The chemistry of ALA has been discussed. What ALA does in > the body has been discussed. Pharmacology has been discussed. And, > there are tons of reports from parents who have recovered kids with > every 3 h ALA, reports from parents whose kids did better on every 3 h > ALA as compared to other protocols, reports from adults who regressed > with every 8 h ALA and got better with every 3 h ALA (there are of > course more adult reports in the adult group archives, and maybe > that's why some people in this group don't get it). I admit it is > difficult to sift through the archives and find those reports because > of the volume of posts, but one would think that the people who have > followed the group for years would have at least noticed. > > My question is - what does it take for people to understand why ALA > must be dosed at 3 h intervals? > > J > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 When you said " whatever he used to do, " I was left to conclude that you didn't know what he used to do... If you were sitting in front of me right now I'd further engage in this discussion 'till we understood each other better, but this has taken up enough of our typing time and energy (atleast for me). And please note that you don't come across as one prone to attacks or argument. BTW, I can relate to your circumstances very well. Take care, > > > > I consider your reasoning valid; I just haven't witnessed > anything, > > coming from Andy, that turned me off and see no reason why others > > should mistake his straight-forwardness for something > undesirable. I > > won't profess that his approach can't be improved upon as there is > > ALWAYS room for us to improve, but I value what I've seen him > write, > > because it has been written in a no-nonsense, understand this and > > let's make progress, move forward style. I also expect that it is > > not easy for him to negotiate time to help out here, so I have to > > empathize with anyone going above and beyond the call of duty. I > > hope you don't think that I view your comments as contentious - I > > don't believe I've felt this way. Also, it would probably be > helpful > > for anyone making suggestions for Andy to find out what his past > > approach was - this way it would be possible to avoid offering > > suggestions that may be equivalent to saying, " you should revert > back > > to a less effective approach. " I am a bit unclear as to why you > > chose to " constructively " criticize him publicly, though, as > opposed > > to privately. Do you think someone would be more receptive to > > constructively critical comments if they weren't unnecessarily > > displayed to bystanders (not sarcasm - an honest question)? > > > > Take care, > > > > > > I don't post on this list consistently. I go for long stretches > without posting at all. But my membership goes back several years. > I was here before Andy became so bombastic. So I don't think I am > completely clueless as to what he did before. Nor do I feel that my > suggestions amount to " go back to what you were doing before that > wasn't working " . He was always, as you said, " straight forward " . I > don't think he was perceived as all that warm even before he > conciously chose to experiment with some other means to try to > communicate/present himself. > > I once intervened on an occasion when someone on list was saying > things that could have been real trouble for Andy, with real world > consequences. I did so off list but Andy knew of it. My assumption > is that Andy most likely remembers the incident and from that most > likely views me as someone who isn't " attacking " him. I have also > spoken with him by phone. Again, my assumption is he remembers -- > but perhaps not. Regardless of whether he remembers these things or > not, his reactions to me have not suggested to me that he is in any > way feeling threatened or concerned about my motives, etc. > > I have tried to discuss some of this with him off list. I don't > think it works as well as I wish it did. His communication style > and world view are vastly different from mine. The remarks he has > found most useful were not things I really said specifically to > him. That is part of what gets the conversation coming back to the > public list, even after it died out privately. However, long > observation indicates to me that Andy is not thin skinned and not > going to have some huge personal issue with feeling " publically > attacked " or " publically criticized " . So I did not worry > particularly that he would make an issue of it. > > I did worry how it would be viewed by others on list and how it > would impact them. So I did consider posting some of my thoughts to > him privately. I wasn't sure what the best course of action was. > Saying it privately would have prevented me from being viewed as > attacking him. But it also would lose the opportunity for others to > consider such ideas. From research-based texts in a class I took > and from personal experience, the type of approach I advocate works > best when all parties know the principles behind it. Secretiveness > works when you are trying to take advantage of someone. But when > you are trying to negotiate a civilized agreement of some sort for > the benefit of all parties involved, being as open as possible > benefits everyone involved and the more they know about how to make > that work, the more likely it is that it will be successfully > implemented. > > It's always a risk to introduce such ideas to a group and it > routinely gets my actions misinterpretted as attacking people and so > forth. However, over time, as a majority of people on list (or even > significant minority) begin to adopt such approaches of their own > free will, flaming and such tends to die down. So given a long > track record of success and given that I know it is necessary for > the group as a whole to adopt the principles I advocate, it just > isn't logical to not pursue the course I know eventually works, in > spite of often feeling burned in the process. So in my judgement, > the best hope for helping this group is to post thoughts on the > subject to the group, not just privately to Andy. > > Ordinarily, it does work better to constructively criticize someone > privately. I am not particularly seeking to constructively > criticize him. I am trying to put forth some ideas, ideas I know > work remarkably well. I'm human and I have serious health problems > My execution is often rather flawed because of it. I have > considered only posting when I feel well enough to " know " I won't > stick my foot in my mouth. But in reality that would mean never > posting. Aside from my medical condition, I also simply see the > world differently from most people I meet and that alone promotes > quite a lot of misunderandings. I get a lot less misunderstanding > when I post regularly on a list, something I have not managed to do > on this list of late. Still, I have quite a long track record of > using even very ugly misunderstandings as " grist for the mill " and > am often (unfortunately) at my best when under fire. I hate it. I > really hate confrontation and conflict and having people mad at me > and all that. But some of my best writing has come out of being > challenged to " prove " what I say, when facing a less than receptive > audience. You don't need to write so rigorously if everyone already > sees the world the way you do, basically agrees with you and so on. > You can say things sloppily and still get agreement and still get > pats on the head. > > I wish it weren't so. I'm a hedonist at heart. But it is so. > > Sorry if that is more rambling and introspective than I intended. > It's 2am and I wouldn't know what to cut. <shrug> > > Peace. > Michele > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 I " know " what he used to do as a third party observer. I don't know what he did as a first person actor. In other words, I know how he came across (to me at least, not necessarily to others). I don't know his reasoning or thought processes or motives and so forth for behaving in a way that came across that way. Sometimes feedback as to how you appear to others is useful in figuring out to more effectively come across the way you would like to come across. But no amount of observation will ever tell me what he was really thinking, feeling, deciding, etc. at the time. So when I say " whatever he used to do " , I am referring to that internal logic that I do not have an insider's scoop on. Only Andy knows what that is. And only a change in how he understands the situation and therefore how he internally processes the information, makes decisions on what it means, and so forth is likely to result in the improvements he has stated he would like to see. But I certainly understand why you interpretted it that way. :-) Thanks. Michele > > When you said " whatever he used to do, " I was left to conclude that > you didn't know what he used to do... If you were sitting in front of > me right now I'd further engage in this discussion 'till we > understood each other better, but this has taken up enough of our > typing time and energy (atleast for me). And please note that you > don't come across as one prone to attacks or argument. BTW, I can > relate to your circumstances very well. > > Take care, > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.