Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Michele - The approach you describe ... it's full of emotional calmness, affirmation. I've got to tell you, I'm not sure how well this works. I think what really works, is passionately arguing for something. I know, people take things personally, but if they see that you don't, if they see that you stick with the issue without regard to whatever attacks they may level against you, then in a sort of modeling way, they can let go and do the same. That calmness and supportiveness - too much of it comes across to me as saccharine. But passionate engagement and willingness to argue an issue - that's infectious. Dave. ------------- Posted by: " Michele " talithamichele@... michele_in_california Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 3:33 pm ((PDT)) > > > > Thank you. :-) >> > > it is important to >> > > validate people without validating their current approach to the >> > > problem. > > > > This is helpful. Not sure HOW helpful, and how much it is just > > that people who are prone > > to take things negatively can't be reached and necessarily have to > > hurt their kids a lot > > before listening to people becomes less painful than watching > > their child disintigrate, but > > at least it is a handle on the problem. > > > > Or as I'd rephrase it, I have to contradict and confront their > > request for affirmation without > > criticizing them. I wouldn't assume they are looking for affirmation for the course of action in question. I would assume they are looking for PERSONAL affirmation and try to give that as something completely separate from the protocol in question. It is sometimes possible to affirm that someone is a good parent, trying hard to do right by their kid, while at the same time saying that what they are doing currently is not the best practical solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 I disagree, Michele. I see her trying to promote it, with a parallel complete unwillingness to engage in discussion about it. I also see rhetorical tactics of avoidance rather than engagement. What you are offering is an attempt to engage and be constructive (albeit about a different issue, list culture). I fail to see how that at all reflects what Dana is doing. Now, on the other hand, with regard to your attempt to discuss list culture, I think that's a different issue. I'm not so interested in the culture. I'm more interested in engaging concrete issues. I figure if we stick with a passionate desire to stand for the truth, and thereby help each other out, the rest will just work itself out. I don't _care_ that Andy's rough around the edges, because it's not about him - and if we can find that in ourselves, then hey, we'll have a movement instead of a lot of people worried about how they want to be treated. Dave. ---------------- Posted by: " Michele " talithamichele@... michele_in_california Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 4:34 pm ((PDT)) > > 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. [...] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Perhaps it should be called, " Chelating Using Physiologically Appropriate Dosing " , since this really has nothing to do with Andy (other than the fact that he was able to clarify the issues involved). Dave. -------------- Posted by: " Tamara Kuhn " tkuhn1@... bailykuhn Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 5:56 pm ((PDT)) Honestly - the list should have a new title, chelating the Andy Cutler method. This same thing just happened to the NCD people. So maybe it's time to switch the title of this list to express it's intented is the Andy way and get other started on other methods, maybe NCD got a group going, not sure. Tammy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 > > I disagree, Michele. I see her trying to promote it, with a parallel complete > unwillingness to engage in discussion about it. I also see rhetorical tactics > of avoidance rather than engagement. I see someone being railroaded who is coping as best she can, albeit she doesn't have the best skills for it. I see a whole lot of people getting stuck on an unfortunate example and unable to get past that to hear her own statement that she is trying to say the same thing I am trying to say about list culture. > > What you are offering is an attempt to engage and be constructive (albeit about > a different issue, list culture). Thank you. I fail to see how that at all reflects what > Dana is doing. I will say again: " The road to hell is paved with good intentions. " Her inability to effectively execute is damning her and being mistaken as " motive " . > > Now, on the other hand, with regard to your attempt to discuss list culture, I > think that's a different issue. I'm not so interested in the culture. I'm > more interested in engaging concrete issues. Those concrete issues are easier to discuss and the discussions are more productive when a list removes cultural obstacles to good discussion. I figure if we stick with a > passionate desire to stand for the truth, and thereby help each other out, the > rest will just work itself out. I don't _care_ that Andy's rough around the > edges, I don't care either. He and I both publically stated there is no contention in my discussions with him. because it's not about him - and if we can find that in ourselves, then > hey, we'll have a movement instead of a lot of people worried about how they > want to be treated. " Movements " tend to be lead by people who are viewed as caring about their people. Superficially manipulative tactics and verbal strong- arm tactics are unlkely to make this a movement. They are also unlikely to achieve what Andy states he wants: for this to be about doing things right instead of about him and his ego. His current bombastic approach is a public relations disaster in that regard because it promotes the perception that this is precisely about Andy and whether or not you agree with him. > > Dave. > Thanks. Michele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 I guess I never realized that Dana didn't dose every 3 or 4 hours. I know she does ala only and not as many supplements. I think in this way it is good to see the lowest common denominator of factors a person can use and still acheive results. I feel also that both andy's and Dana's input have been invaluable to me and I felt like I couldn't have transformed my son into the best version of himself without both of them. I couldn't have figured out the chelation part without andy. I couldn't have figured out supplements and yeast without dana. I take what i can use and leave the rest. I am tempted to use ala only and bare bones supplements but, I would never not dose every 3 or 4 hours just to sleep all night. Now, the problem with Dana could be her adrenals. When I tried to chelate myself, I failed all three rounds I tried and slept through the night because my adrenals are shot. Nothing could wake me up. So, I'm fixing my adrenals first. Would it be better just to chelate anyway and sleep through the night? I am not personally comfortable with that decision, so I am fixing the problem that causes me to get so exausted while chelating first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 > > Michele - > > The approach you describe ... it's full of emotional calmness, affirmation. > I've got to tell you, I'm not sure how well this works. I think what really > works, is passionately arguing for something. I know, people take things > personally, but if they see that you don't, if they see that you stick with the > issue without regard to whatever attacks they may level against you, then in a > sort of modeling way, they can let go and do the same. That calmness and > supportiveness - too much of it comes across to me as saccharine. But > passionate engagement and willingness to argue an issue - that's infectious. > > Dave. > I find your remarks ironic since I would say that I *am* passionately arguing with the people on this board and have not used a " sacharine sweet " approach to just affirm their views that bashing people is sometimes for the best. Yet, if you will notice, ugly accusations against me have stopped (at least for now) and people are having a reasonable discussion with me in spite of most people not agreeing with me. Meanwhile, you remain convinced that Dana is merely acting as a troll even though she has publically stated my assessment is correct: she is trying to say the same thing I am trying to say. Why does Dana have no credibility in your eyes at this time? I would say most likely because the two of you have made it personal and it has devolved into sniping. The emotional need to prove each other wrong/defend yourself (yourSELF, not your position, really) is destroyng any hope of productive conversation between the two of you. The more you snipe at each other, the less likely it is that you will ever be able to understand any of the points the other is trying to make. It only makes the chasm between the two of you grow to insurmountable size. (I don't know what history there is between the two of you. Odds are good that there is also a long history of poor communication, hurt feelings, a sense of being " snubbed " and similar which caused a predisposition to the current outcome.) Thanks. Michele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Marketing. That is my connection, to the " I don't care that Andy's rough around the edges " statement. And perhaps an underlying dynamic. People are used to being " wooed " by the marketing guys, for everything. Including information. In comparison to the general " other people " out there, he would feel rough...To me, it feels more like, " this is what I know " and the willingness to get that information out there...that is invaluable - he sets clear boundaries on what he knows to be facts/true, vs what he thinks to be facts/true, vs what might be possible.... I believe that I & my household, have been harmed, way too many times - by good marketing tactics & a distinct lack of important information....urg. with a major mom growl thrown in. There are specific things to avoid, when you are mercury toxic. And there are specific things that help everyone. Then, there is the mass of things that May or May Not help, depending on the individual. When I am trying to muddle thru what May help - I start with Andy. That is where I will CONSISTENTLY find information that relates to the myriad manifestations of mercury poisoning and WHAT TO DO about it. For my self, I do not want to be " sold " information. Regardless of form. I want access to information that will help. Period. I will " buy " that information, without hesitation - providing I have the means Finding " Andy, " and his ability to put that information into some type of meaningful form, means less trudging thru foo-foo / harmful information, and more focusing on " what is important. " For me He is rather unique in this " trait, " imho.... yep, potential " groupie " leanings here, lolol...go figure... wishing all the best answers elizabeth (snipped) I > think that's a different issue. I'm not so interested in the culture. I'm > more interested in engaging concrete issues. I figure if we stick with a > passionate desire to stand for the truth, and thereby help each other out, the > rest will just work itself out. I don't _care_ that Andy's rough around the > edges, because it's not about him - and if we can find that in ourselves, then > hey, we'll have a movement instead of a lot of people worried about how they > want to be treated. > > Dave. > > ---------------- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 I'll add: 4. Not being so toxic yourself that your logical and relational capacities are fried, making you sure (backed up by a mercurial rage and oppositionality) that the way _you_ want to do it, is the _right_ way and who the hell is anyone else to tell you different? Dave. -------------- Posted by: " anneecbrynn " anneecbrynn@... anneecbrynn Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 10:35 am ((PDT)) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Wow. Now Dana is ineffective, lacks coping skills and basically is just a misguided soul with good intentions? You guys are pathetically over-analyzing this whole thing. I think we should move on before you start insulting her. You don't know Dana at all. She's been on this site way longer than you two and has never been subject to such public scrutiny. I find this so odd and a bit self-serving (you guys seem to like to hear yourselves speak); talking about someone with such disregard right in front of their face. Well, their monitor. I have enjoyed both of you so far and I think other group members would say the same... lets end this discussion so we can keep it that way! Pam > > > > I disagree, Michele. I see her trying to promote it, with a > parallel complete > > unwillingness to engage in discussion about it. I also see > rhetorical tactics > > of avoidance rather than engagement. > > I see someone being railroaded who is coping as best she can, albeit > she doesn't have the best skills for it. I see a whole lot of > people getting stuck on an unfortunate example and unable to get > past that to hear her own statement that she is trying to say the > same thing I am trying to say about list culture. > > > > > What you are offering is an attempt to engage and be constructive > (albeit about > > a different issue, list culture). > > Thank you. > > I fail to see how that at all reflects what > > Dana is doing. > > I will say again: " The road to hell is paved with good > intentions. " Her inability to effectively execute is damning her > and being mistaken as " motive " . > > > > > Now, on the other hand, with regard to your attempt to discuss > list culture, I > > think that's a different issue. I'm not so interested in the > culture. I'm > > more interested in engaging concrete issues. > > Those concrete issues are easier to discuss and the discussions are > more productive when a list removes cultural obstacles to good > discussion. > > > I figure if we stick with a > > passionate desire to stand for the truth, and thereby help each > other out, the > > rest will just work itself out. I don't _care_ that Andy's rough > around the > > edges, > > I don't care either. He and I both publically stated there is no > contention in my discussions with him. > > because it's not about him - and if we can find that in ourselves, > then > > hey, we'll have a movement instead of a lot of people worried > about how they > > want to be treated. > > " Movements " tend to be lead by people who are viewed as caring about > their people. Superficially manipulative tactics and verbal strong- > arm tactics are unlkely to make this a movement. They are also > unlikely to achieve what Andy states he wants: for this to be about > doing things right instead of about him and his ego. His current > bombastic approach is a public relations disaster in that regard > because it promotes the perception that this is precisely about Andy > and whether or not you agree with him. > > > > > > Dave. > > > > > Thanks. > > Michele > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 I agree with Pam. I know I am not a regular and I am one that is only asking questions not offering advice, so my opinion is nil. This is really hindering what this board is about, and frankly is not helping anyone. If Andy wanted just his protocol to be talked about just say that and we can all move on. Just an example of what parents can encounter when dealing with chelation. I have in front of me what my DAN doctor told me to do to start chelation 100-300 mg of ALA once a day 100 mg DMSA three times a day I AM NOT KIDDING! Sooooo me as a parent knows better than this because of this place and Andy and Dana's help. I don't know what transpired to start this, but please can everyone drop it? > > > > > > I disagree, Michele. I see her trying to promote it, with a > > parallel complete > > > unwillingness to engage in discussion about it. I also see > > rhetorical tactics > > > of avoidance rather than engagement. > > > > I see someone being railroaded who is coping as best she can, > albeit > > she doesn't have the best skills for it. I see a whole lot of > > people getting stuck on an unfortunate example and unable to get > > past that to hear her own statement that she is trying to say the > > same thing I am trying to say about list culture. > > > > > > > > What you are offering is an attempt to engage and be constructive > > (albeit about > > > a different issue, list culture). > > > > Thank you. > > > > I fail to see how that at all reflects what > > > Dana is doing. > > > > I will say again: " The road to hell is paved with good > > intentions. " Her inability to effectively execute is damning her > > and being mistaken as " motive " . > > > > > > > > Now, on the other hand, with regard to your attempt to discuss > > list culture, I > > > think that's a different issue. I'm not so interested in the > > culture. I'm > > > more interested in engaging concrete issues. > > > > Those concrete issues are easier to discuss and the discussions are > > more productive when a list removes cultural obstacles to good > > discussion. > > > > > > I figure if we stick with a > > > passionate desire to stand for the truth, and thereby help each > > other out, the > > > rest will just work itself out. I don't _care_ that Andy's rough > > around the > > > edges, > > > > I don't care either. He and I both publically stated there is no > > contention in my discussions with him. > > > > because it's not about him - and if we can find that in ourselves, > > then > > > hey, we'll have a movement instead of a lot of people worried > > about how they > > > want to be treated. > > > > " Movements " tend to be lead by people who are viewed as caring > about > > their people. Superficially manipulative tactics and verbal strong- > > arm tactics are unlkely to make this a movement. They are also > > unlikely to achieve what Andy states he wants: for this to be > about > > doing things right instead of about him and his ego. His current > > bombastic approach is a public relations disaster in that regard > > because it promotes the perception that this is precisely about > Andy > > and whether or not you agree with him. > > > > > > > > > > Dave. > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > Michele > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 " Also, in the ten paragraphs you typed, " LOL!!! From: nutribod & lt;nutribod@... & gt; Subject: [ ] Re: Less frequent dosing and internet troll behavior Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2008, 3:00 AM Hey , " I don't think I am talking about " behavior " . I think I am talking about trying to communicate effectively. " You ARE talking about behavior - you cannot communicate (effectively or not) without behavior (defined as " manner of acting or conducting yourself " ). Also, in the ten paragraphs you typed, I'm still looking for you're amswer to the question posed, " what does it take for people to understand why ALA must be dosed at 3 h intervals? " Some people are better at science; you are better with your interpersonal skills. If someone were to insist that it would be beneficial for you to be more scientific in your logic, it wouldn't be very helpful. Similarly, some people will deride minimal benefit from persistent recommendation that they should interact with people in the manner you've found effective. I AGREE that you handled your father better than your mother, but your mother must have been wired differently enough that she wouldn't/couldn' t acquire your approach (despite it's greater efficacy). Personality (which has great bearing on how we communicate) is based largely on genetic factors. Because we are all wired differently, we can't expect everyone to be comfortable with the mode of communication you've had the most success with. Also, do you think that Andy would be able to address as many sick peoples' questions if he were busy considering and reconsidering his wording for the sake of everyone's emotional needs? Based on everything you've written (that I've read) I consider you to be a very special, loving, and considerate person. It is people like you who serve to balance the style of others who express themselves differently. Best Regards, & gt; & gt; & gt; & gt; & gt; & gt; Forgive me for changing the direction of the thread. I'm not & gt; trying & gt; & gt; to discourage others from going on about behavior. & gt; & gt; & gt; & gt; & gt; & gt; & gt; My question is - what does it take for people to understand why ALA & gt; & gt; must be dosed at 3 h intervals? & gt; & gt; & gt; & gt; J & gt; & gt; & gt; & gt; Well, at the risk of seeming to beat a dead horse, I don't think I & gt; am talking about " behavior " . I think I am talking about trying to & gt; communicate effectively. & gt; & gt; I'm not really all that strong in science. I can deal with it but & gt; it isn't an innate strength of mine. If I had to personally & gt; research and comprehend the scientific underpinnings of my health & gt; problems to get well, I might be dead by now. Given that science is & gt; not my forte, when I was deathly ill, it was just not possible for & gt; me to wrap my brain around that stuff. I can do it with effort when & gt; I am healthy. I couldn't do it when I was really, really sick and & gt; overwhelmed. & gt; & gt; Instead, I found people to talk to who were better than me in that & gt; area. One woman I spoke with for a long time and who helped me & gt; enormously has a lot of training in alternative medicine. & gt; Initially, I was reluctant to take her advice because much of it & gt; sounded so outlandish to me. It did not fit with what I understood & gt; about how things worked. It did not fit with what doctors and & gt; teachers and such said. I was slow to make use of her suggestions. & gt; She repeated some things to me for several months before I was & gt; willing to act on it. Only after acting on some of her suggestions & gt; did I become more open to her " outlandish " ideas. It got gradually & gt; easier for me to trust suggestions from her that simply didn't fit & gt; with things I previously knew. & gt; & gt; So I managed to accomplish the " impossible " and get well in spite of & gt; science being a relatively weak area for me and in spite of being & gt; too sick to do the work it would take for me to really understand & gt; the chemistry, physiology, etc at the root of my health problems. I & gt; managed that because I have reasonably good judgment about whom to & gt; take advice from. We all make judgment calls on a regular basis & gt; about whom to trust. If nothing else, you have to believe that the & gt; stories about success or failure on a particular protocol are & gt; truthful testimony. Unless you are going to do experiments & gt; completely on your own and only believe what you see first hand with & gt; your own eyes and reinvent all scientific principles from the ground & gt; up, you have to trust to some degree that what other's say is & gt; truthful. In the face of conflicting information, you also have to & gt; decide which sources are the most reliable. & gt; & gt; People who don't have enough of an educational background to judge & gt; whose information sounds solid typically use other social indicators & gt; of " crediblity " to choose whom to trust and what information to act & gt; on. These include things like titles ( " doctor " ), educational & gt; achievements ( " phd " ), uniforms, and social proof (ie lots of other & gt; people that I trust believe this person is credible). This is part & gt; of where doctors get so much power to influence the decisions of & gt; others. & gt; & gt; Also, emotion is a form of memory and judgment. When a person is & gt; unable for some reason to make a decision based on research, & gt; conscious memory of specific events and other 'rational' types of & gt; information, they typically " go with their gut " and do what their & gt; feelings tell them to do. Research indicates that people who are & gt; less emotional have more trouble making snap decisions. They have & gt; to research it and make a conscious decision based on data because & gt; they are unable to draw on this other type of information. That has & gt; both good points and bad points. & gt; & gt; When I lived with my parents for nearly a year while going through & gt; my divorce, I and my sons had to deal with my elderly father (80 at & gt; the time) who likely qualifies for a diagnosis of Alzheimer's. We & gt; didn't find him difficult to deal with. My mother often had & gt; screaming fights with him, driven by her own fear of what was & gt; happening to him and frustrations, and when he was constantly nasty & gt; to her, she blamed it on Alzheimer's. But he was never nasty that & gt; way with my sons and I. We never belittled him or treated him like & gt; he was stupid for not remembering that he had already told this same & gt; story 10 other times. We listened fairly patiently so he could get & gt; his need met for telling this story again. We respected his & gt; routines because we are aware that muscle memory (aka routines) is & gt; another form of memory which still continued to serve him in spite & gt; of his inability to consciously remember many recent events. My & gt; oldest son has a lot of brain glitches, most of which can be traced & gt; to a head injury in infancy. So we used a lot of these strategies & gt; for his benefit for many years before we were faced with my father's & gt; condition. So my sons and I found my father's very faulty memory & gt; easy to cope with and accommodate. And we didn't treat him badly. & gt; In contrast, my mother would say the most awful things to my dad and & gt; justify it with " He won't remember it in five minutes " . My kids and & gt; I knew that he DID remember it on some level, even if he couldn't & gt; recall the specific words: the negative emotions remained and he & gt; made his judgements on who to trust based on those feelings. He was & gt; suspicious of her because of the negative feelings he had towardds & gt; her. He had nothing else to go on but that remaining faculty. And & gt; his trust for my sons and I gradually increased because he had no & gt; negative associations with us in his emotional memory bank. & gt; & gt; So the longer I lived there, the more he was willing to eat food I & gt; cooked and do other things which exhibited trust in me. My mother & gt; was really surprised because my dad was typically unwilling to eat & gt; anyone's cooking but hers. One of the things I did was just to leave & gt; food at his place at the table so he could eat it when he chose to & gt; eat it. I avoided the attempts to control him that my mother & gt; constantly engaged in. I knew how to avoid those wrestling matches & gt; for control because I had worked for so many years with my oldest & gt; son's issues. I have tried on a few occasions to express this & gt; understanding to others and it usually gets me greeted with the & gt; internet equivalent of jaw-dropping and staring as if I had just & gt; sprouted three heads. So most of the time I don't try to talk about & gt; it. & gt; & gt; Many people on a list like this one will be one or more of the & gt; following: too uneducated, too uninformed, too overwhelmed to do & gt; their own research, not innately good at science, and/or too & gt; physically ill to cope with research they might otherwise do. Those & gt; people are more likely to use social proof and " go with their gut " - - & gt; ie the person they " like " or the person who seems trustworthy based & gt; on title or based on eliciting positive feelings. I don't have what & gt; it takes to be a used-car-salesman type and fast-talk people into & gt; trusting me. I have found that being very honest and also setting a & gt; high standard for treating them with respect does eventually win & gt; over a lot of people, in spite of my many failings like sticking & gt; both feet in my mouth when I don't feel well. So, for me, the path & gt; that works is respect people and try to understand WHY they do & gt; things and try to be honest about what works even though that & gt; may " hurt their feelings " in the short run. But I don't do it with & gt; a callous disregard for how they will feel about the information. I & gt; realize it will hurt and I try to be considerate without watering & gt; down the facts in any way. I don't do that because I care all that & gt; much about feelings. I do that because it increases the odds that & gt; they will at least " hear " what I am saying even if they don't & gt; ultimately agree with me. Too much negative emotion towards me will & gt; close people's minds to ideas I put forth, sometimes shutting them & gt; so totally that they will reject anything that appears to " agree " & gt; with me/things I have said simply because it appears to agree with & gt; me. & gt; & gt; I know the conversation is essentially dead. I would have posted & gt; this much earlier today but I didn't have time. I had to leave for & gt; work. & gt; & gt; Peace. & gt; & gt; Michele & gt; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 I actually think there are only a very small number of people that use or promote the " bombastic, " bullying strategy. And the large majority of us on the list would prefer a more respectful style of communication. It seems like those that argue for the more controlling style also are those that use it. And, there are only a few that do. With that said, I believe there are a large number on the list that believe in and adhere to the Cutlar protocol - and even may promote it on other lists, such as myself; most, I think, greatly appreciate the knowledge and time that is freely shared on this list. But, I don't think there necessarily has to be overlap between those that feel positively about the protocol and those that also think it is OK to belittle parents looking for information. So, I think there are possibly many that do agree with you on this point. Ruth On Jun 10, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Michele wrote: > Yet, if you will notice, ugly > accusations against me have stopped (at least for now) and people > are having a reasonable discussion with me in spite of most people > not agreeing with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan & Ruth Setlak I actually think there are only a very small number of people that use or promote the " bombastic, " bullying strategy. And the large majority of us on the list would prefer a more respectful style of communication. It seems like those that argue for the more controlling ===>Asking you to realize that insisting all people " behave " such as you see fit (or the way you do which you have pointed out repeatedly is the best way) is the ultimate in controlling behavior. You can't get more controlling than that. Realizing and making allowances for different styles would be the opposite of controlling. style also are those that use it. And, there are only a few that do. With that said, I believe there are a large number on the list that believe in and adhere to the Cutlar protocol - and even may promote it on other lists, such as myself; most, I think, greatly appreciate the knowledge and time that is freely shared on this list. But, I don't think there necessarily has to be overlap between those that feel positively about the protocol and those that also think it is OK to belittle parents looking for information. So, I think there are possibly many that do agree with you on this point. Ruth On Jun 10, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Michele wrote: > Yet, if you will notice, ugly > accusations against me have stopped (at least for now) and people > are having a reasonable discussion with me in spite of most people > not agreeing with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Actually, that would be 5, since I managed to get in two 3.s :-) > > I'll add: > > 4. Not being so toxic yourself that your logical and relational capacities are > fried, making you sure (backed up by a mercurial rage and oppositionality) that > the way _you_ want to do it, is the _right_ way and who the hell is anyone else > to tell you different? > > Dave. > -------------- > > Posted by: " anneecbrynn " anneecbrynn@... anneecbrynn > Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 10:35 am ((PDT)) > > 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Ya, or I might say, the difference between " character " and " personality " . We used to talk about peoples' characters. Have you notice how that's not even a term of discussion in our society any more? Instead, people just sell themselves by creating a personality, an " image " . Dave. ---------- Posted by: " eli8591 " eli8591@... eli8591 Date: Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:51 am ((PDT)) Marketing. That is my connection, to the " I don't care that Andy's rough around the edges " statement. And perhaps an underlying dynamic. People are used to being " wooed " by the marketing guys, for everything. Including information. In comparison to the general " other people " out there, he would feel rough...To me, it feels more like, " this is what I know " and the willingness to get that information out there...that is invaluable - he sets clear boundaries on what he knows to be facts/true, vs what he thinks to be facts/true, vs what might be possible.... I believe that I & my household, have been harmed, way too many times - by good marketing tactics & a distinct lack of important information....urg. with a major mom growl thrown in. There are specific things to avoid, when you are mercury toxic. And there are specific things that help everyone. Then, there is the mass of things that May or May Not help, depending on the individual. When I am trying to muddle thru what May help - I start with Andy. That is where I will CONSISTENTLY find information that relates to the myriad manifestations of mercury poisoning and WHAT TO DO about it. For my self, I do not want to be " sold " information. Regardless of form. I want access to information that will help. Period. I will " buy " that information, without hesitation - providing I have the means Finding " Andy, " and his ability to put that information into some type of meaningful form, means less trudging thru foo-foo / harmful information, and more focusing on " what is important. " For me He is rather unique in this " trait, " imho.... yep, potential " groupie " leanings here, lolol...go figure... wishing all the best answers elizabeth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Michele - As for Andy, I think I could agree with you. The proper response to this, is simply to make it less about him and more about what we do - for that, it means truly taking up the issues around chelation and arguing for them, so it's not left for him to do. It is _us_ who are failing in our responsibility to move beyond our need for him as an authority. It means we have to learn, learn, learn, and take up the reins for ourselves. As regards Dana, I am not sure we're even on the same page here, . I think this started with Dana refusing to even engage any of a the questions that I posed to her in an email, where I really tried to discuss with her what she was doing. I found her tactics quite remarkable, completely avoiding engagement or any kind of serious discourse over topics presumable of mutual concern. Bewildering, truly. It leads me to wonder if we are actually on the same project together, or if there are other agendas at play. ly, now that I see it, I don't want to waste my time on it. There is too much that needs doing. Dave. ----------------- Posted by: " Michele " talithamichele@... michele_in_california Date: Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:33 am ((PDT)) > > > > Michele - > > > > The approach you describe ... it's full of emotional calmness, affirmation. > > I've got to tell you, I'm not sure how well this works. I think what really > > works, is passionately arguing for something. I know, people take things > > personally, but if they see that you don't, if they see that you stick with the > > issue without regard to whatever attacks they may level against you, then in a > > sort of modeling way, they can let go and do the same. That calmness and > > supportiveness - too much of it comes across to me as saccharine. But > > passionate engagement and willingness to argue an issue - that's infectious. > > > > Dave. > > I find your remarks ironic since I would say that I *am* passionately arguing with the people on this board and have not used a " sacharine sweet " approach to just affirm their views that bashing people is sometimes for the best. Yet, if you will notice, ugly accusations against me have stopped (at least for now) and people are having a reasonable discussion with me in spite of most people not agreeing with me. Meanwhile, you remain convinced that Dana is merely acting as a troll even though she has publically stated my assessment is correct: she is trying to say the same thing I am trying to say. Why does Dana have no credibility in your eyes at this time? I would say most likely because the two of you have made it personal and it has devolved into sniping. The emotional need to prove each other wrong/defend yourself (yourSELF, not your position, really) is destroyng any hope of productive conversation between the two of you. The more you snipe at each other, the less likely it is that you will ever be able to understand any of the points the other is trying to make. It only makes the chasm between the two of you grow to insurmountable size. (I don't know what history there is between the two of you. Odds are good that there is also a long history of poor communication, hurt feelings, a sense of being " snubbed " and similar which caused a predisposition to the current outcome.) Thanks. Michele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 I think you can have a lot of variation in style without being mean. Being respectful is not one style, per say, but an attitude, around which you can have a lot of different ways to communicate. Ruth On Jun 10, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Ladyshrink111@... wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dan & Ruth Setlak > > I actually think there are only a very small number of people that > use or promote the " bombastic, " bullying strategy. And the large > majority of us on the list would prefer a more respectful style of > communication. It seems like those that argue for the more > controlling > > ===>Asking you to realize that insisting all people " behave " such > as you see fit (or the way you do which you have pointed out > repeatedly is the best way) is the ultimate in controlling > behavior. You can't get more controlling than that. > > Realizing and making allowances for different styles would be the > opposite of controlling. > > > > style also are those that use it. And, there are only a > few that do. > > With that said, I believe there are a large number on the list that > believe in and adhere to the Cutlar protocol - and even may promote > it on other lists, such as myself; most, I think, greatly appreciate > the knowledge and time that is freely shared on this list. But, I > don't think there necessarily has to be overlap between those that > feel positively about the protocol and those that also think it is OK > to belittle parents looking for information. > > So, I think there are possibly many that do agree with you on this > point. > > Ruth > > On Jun 10, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Michele wrote: > > > Yet, if you will notice, ugly > > accusations against me have stopped (at least for now) and people > > are having a reasonable discussion with me in spite of most people > > not agreeing with me. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 In spite of all the **extremely** lengthy digressions on this matter, I think Andy is spot on to see that the main point here, and real obstacle is telling people something that they don't want to hear: that they have to get up at night to dose their kid. When I first read about the protocol, I thought there was no way that could happen - I knew I had to find something else, another way to do it. I had a million reasons in my head why *some* people could manage this, but we could not, end of story. Now I chelate for two weeks on, two weeks off. I get up once at 3am to dose my kid (who I taught to swallow pills - that was another thing I was sure would never happen that turned out to be really easy, altho I know it won't happen for everyone), every single night for 14 days in a row. And to be honest, it is absolutely no big deal. Brains are very plastic, the more you do a routine like this, the easier it becomes (I am referring to falling back asleep, etc.). > FWIW - we are getting up 3 nights - doing a complete 72 hours - and my > chelating kids siblings (grown and living on their own) are even willing > to get up in the night when they stay over to make sure little brother > or sister takes their ALA. > > Why does a sacrifice have to be dramatic for you to be willing to do > > it? The mundane act > > of getting up for a few minutes two nights a week is actually what it > > takes. It really is NOT > > that bad if you work on your own attitude and just do it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Since 2002 I've been reading or skimming the listserv. Dana's contributions have been extremely valuable to many people. Obviously so have Andy Cutler's. " Variation in style " is just a part of the communication differences on this list. Some parents here are admittedly on the autism spectrum themselves. Others are hampered by mental challenges such as clinical depression, or crippling physical illnesses such as fibromyalgia, Parkinson's, arthritis. Still more use English as their second or third language. We can't pass judgment on people we only know through a few of their keystrokes. Four days is way too long for A-M posters to be grousing with each other, when we have entire government administrations actively or passively harming children while the mainstream media reporters pick their noses. The true opposition is out there. - Hokkanen Re: Less frequent dosing and internet troll behavior Posted by: " Dan & Ruth Setlak " dan-ruth-setlak@... mom3ky Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:53 am (PDT) I think you can have a lot of variation in style without being mean. Being respectful is not one style, per say, but an attitude, around which you can have a lot of different ways to communicate. Ruth On Jun 10, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Ladyshrink111@... wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dan & Ruth Setlak > > I actually think there are only a very small number of people that > use or promote the " bombastic, " bullying strategy. And the large > majority of us on the list would prefer a more respectful style of > communication. It seems like those that argue for the more > controlling > > ===>Asking you to realize that insisting all people " behave " such > as you see fit (or the way you do which you have pointed out > repeatedly is the best way) is the ultimate in controlling > behavior. You can't get more controlling than that. > > Realizing and making allowances for different styles would be the > opposite of controlling. > > > > style also are those that use it. And, there are only a few that do. > > With that said, I believe there are a large number on the list that > believe in and adhere to the Cutlar protocol - and even may promote > it on other lists, such as myself; most, I think, greatly appreciate > the knowledge and time that is freely shared on this list. But, I > don't think there necessarily has to be overlap between those that > feel positively about the protocol and those that also think it is OK > to belittle parents looking for information. > > So, I think there are possibly many that do agree with you on this point. > > Ruth > > On Jun 10, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Michele wrote: > > > Yet, if you will notice, ugly > > accusations against me have stopped (at least for now) and people > > are having a reasonable discussion with me in spite of most people > > not agreeing with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 For night doses I just stay up until midnight and give my daughter her dose. Then my husband gets up at 4am and gives the next dose. Then I am up at 8 for the next dose. We do this on Friday and Saturday nights so that my husband doesn't have to work in the morning. We only do two nights and three full days. So she gets full Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Her last dose is 8pm on Sunday night which is a tapered dose. The 4am dose sucks, but my husband does it because we also have a 9 month old who I don't want to wake up. We are also moving my ASD child's bedroom to a more convenient place in the house so he only has to walk a few steps at 4am Okay, just wanted to tell everyone my way of doing the night doses. I know other methods work for other people, but this is just an idea. > > > In spite of all the **extremely** lengthy digressions on this matter, > I think Andy is spot on to see that the main point here, and real > obstacle is telling people something that they don't want to hear: > that they have to get up at night to dose their kid. > > When I first read about the protocol, I thought there was no way that > could happen - I knew I had to find something else, another way to do > it. I had a million reasons in my head why *some* people could manage > this, but we could not, end of story. > > Now I chelate for two weeks on, two weeks off. I get up once at 3am > to dose my kid (who I taught to swallow pills - that was another thing > I was sure would never happen that turned out to be really easy, altho > I know it won't happen for everyone), every single night for 14 days > in a row. And to be honest, it is absolutely no big deal. Brains are > very plastic, the more you do a routine like this, the easier it > becomes (I am referring to falling back asleep, etc.). > > > > > > FWIW - we are getting up 3 nights - doing a complete 72 hours - and my > > chelating kids siblings (grown and living on their own) are even > willing > > to get up in the night when they stay over to make sure little brother > > or sister takes their ALA. > > > > > > Why does a sacrifice have to be dramatic for you to be willing to do > > > it? The mundane act > > > of getting up for a few minutes two nights a week is actually what it > > > takes. It really is NOT > > > that bad if you work on your own attitude and just do it > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan & Ruth Setlak I think you can have a lot of variation in style without being mean. ====>You're right, there are limits and I admit to seeing some posts where the poster gets personal that I'm not comfortable with, particularly ?'ing someone's intellect. There's a fine line between allowing free speech and controlling things to a point where they don't get out of hand. Wouldn't want to be the one that makes the call. Being respectful is not one style, per say, but an attitude, around which you can have a lot of different ways to communicate. Ruth On Jun 10, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Ladyshrink111@... wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dan & Ruth Setlak > > I actually think there are only a very small number of people that > use or promote the " bombastic, " bullying strategy. And the large > majority of us on the list would prefer a more respectful style of > communication. It seems like those that argue for the more > controlling > > ===>Asking you to realize that insisting all people " behave " such > as you see fit (or the way you do which you have pointed out > repeatedly is the best way) is the ultimate in controlling > behavior. You can't get more controlling than that. > > Realizing and making allowances for different styles would be the > opposite of controlling. > > > > style also are those that use it. And, there are only a > few that do. > > With that said, I believe there are a large number on the list that > believe in and adhere to the Cutlar protocol - and even may promote > it on other lists, such as myself; most, I think, greatly appreciate > the knowledge and time that is freely shared on this list. But, I > don't think there necessarily has to be overlap between those that > feel positively about the protocol and those that also think it is OK > to belittle parents looking for information. > > So, I think there are possibly many that do agree with you on this > point. > > Ruth > > On Jun 10, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Michele wrote: > > > Yet, if you will notice, ugly > > accusations against me have stopped (at least for now) and people > > are having a reasonable discussion with me in spite of most people > > not agreeing with me. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Yes, that's really the point. On Jun 10, 2008, at 1:56 PM, wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dan & Ruth Setlak > > I think you can have a lot of variation in style without being mean. > > ====>You're right, there are limits and I admit to seeing some > posts where the poster gets personal that I'm not comfortable with, > particularly ?'ing someone's intellect. > > There's a fine line between allowing free speech and controlling > things to a point where they don't get out of hand. Wouldn't want > to be the one that makes the call. > > > > Being respectful is not one style, per say, but an attitude, around > which you can have a lot of different ways to communicate. > > Ruth > On Jun 10, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Ladyshrink111@... wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Dan & Ruth Setlak > > > > I actually think there are only a very small number of people that > > use or promote the " bombastic, " bullying strategy. And the large > > majority of us on the list would prefer a more respectful style of > > communication. It seems like those that argue for the more > > controlling > > > > ===>Asking you to realize that insisting all people " behave " such > > as you see fit (or the way you do which you have pointed out > > repeatedly is the best way) is the ultimate in controlling > > behavior. You can't get more controlling than that. > > > > Realizing and making allowances for different styles would be the > > opposite of controlling. > > > > > > > > style also are those that use it. And, there are only a > > few that do. > > > > With that said, I believe there are a large number on the list that > > believe in and adhere to the Cutlar protocol - and even may promote > > it on other lists, such as myself; most, I think, greatly appreciate > > the knowledge and time that is freely shared on this list. But, I > > don't think there necessarily has to be overlap between those that > > feel positively about the protocol and those that also think it > is OK > > to belittle parents looking for information. > > > > So, I think there are possibly many that do agree with you on this > > point. > > > > Ruth > > > > On Jun 10, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Michele wrote: > > > > > Yet, if you will notice, ugly > > > accusations against me have stopped (at least for now) and people > > > are having a reasonable discussion with me in spite of most people > > > not agreeing with me. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 > > Michele - > > As for Andy, I think I could agree with you. The proper response to this, is > simply to make it less about him and more about what we do - for that, it means > truly taking up the issues around chelation and arguing for them, so it's not > left for him to do. There is merit to what you say. But there is also a fact that cannot be gotten around: Andy is far more knowledgeable than most people on this subject and that gap is unlikely to be closed by more than a few people. He will remain a heavy weight and his choices in how to present information will continue to carry more weight than most other individuals such a discussion. I have been in Andy's position on a different list, with a different topic. Being bombastic and allowing the list to make it about me meant that arguments often erupted in a " pro-Michele/anti-Michele " pattern -- much as arguments here erupt in a " pro-Andy/anti-Andy " pattern. At the time, I was very ill and heavily medicated. When people initially began heaping public praise upon me, I expressed discomfort with it. I was told I had poor self esteem and needed to get over my " personal problem " with accepting public praise. The more I tried to " learn to graciously accept a public compliment " , the more other people tried to shoot me down any time I opened my mouth. It got to the point where trying to figure out how to say something so as to try to avoid such flack was an onerous burden. I ultimately got myself thrown off the list after attempts to leave politely failed. I am personally happier without it. I have no idea if the list is better off without me or not. I do know some people occassionally tell me they miss my contributions to that list -- that the knowledge I had to offer really cannot be replaced by anyone else. I don't know what I will do in the future about having such knowledge, desiring to share it and also desiring to avoid the kind of trouble it previously got me into. I am currently having more success elsewhere with sharing what I know by deflecting public praise and keeping the focus on the information and off of me as a person. It is a more successful personal experience and it appears to also be a more successful means to spread the word because it reduces the incidents of people rejecting such information out of hand merely because I was the one that said it or it agrees with my take on things and I happen to rub them the wrong way. It is _us_ who are failing in our responsibility to move > beyond our need for him as an authority. It means we have to learn, learn, > learn, and take up the reins for ourselves. > > As regards Dana, I am not sure we're even on the same page here, . I > think this started with Dana refusing to even engage any of a the questions > that I posed to her in an email, where I really tried to discuss with her what > she was doing. I found her tactics quite remarkable, completely avoiding > engagement or any kind of serious discourse over topics presumable of mutual > concern. Bewildering, truly. Dana has said on list that she had to really work on developing a communication style for email lists and spent some time (I think months) getting a friend to edit her emails (or something like that) so that she could stop going down in flames. She has said she doesn't deal well with the social/emotional end of things. In my view, she made a tactical blunder in that she chose to argue the details of chelation when her real point was about group culture. I also used a chelation example in my remarks yet I was not characterized as " a troll, trying to agitate people and promote the unsafe pratice of cilantro chelation " . She apparently did not know how to avoid such a social trap. I am reasonably good at sidestepping such social traps. I would encourage you to chalk the incident up to a miscommunication and, yes, just move on and invest no further effort in trying to sort it out with her. It probably won't get any better now that it has gone this far. It leads me to wonder if we are actually on the > same project together, or if there are other agendas at play. ly, now > that I see it, I don't want to waste my time on it. There is too much that > needs doing. > > Dave. > Thanks. Michele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 Perhaps I should have said " most of the people replying to me do not agree with me " . As far as I know (maybe I missed a post), you are the only one who has really said " I agree with you " , though I don't doubt that lots of others simply don't speak up because they don't want to get into the thick of things. I apologize for not thanking you for that. I chose to not thank you for that because in my judgment doing so would have tended to make this discussion about " who likes Michele and agrees with her and will feed her ego and who dislikes Michele and disagrees with her and wants to put her in her place/shoot her down " . I've seen a lot of that on lists and I have seen that my attempts to be warm and friendly and gracious and reach out to those people who agree with me just pours gasoline on that fire. My track record for avoiding such messes has improved a good deal with being somewhat less " warm and friendly " . I am still trying to figure out how to improve on that. Thanks. Michele > > > Yet, if you will notice, ugly > > accusations against me have stopped (at least for now) and people > > are having a reasonable discussion with me in spite of most people > > not agreeing with me. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 >>She has said she > doesn't deal well with the social/emotional end of things. Yes, I am much better with facts. >> In my > view, she made a tactical blunder in that she chose to argue the > details of chelation when her real point was about group culture. Not sure I tried to " argue " about the details, but there is still one main unresolved question that I have asked several times with no responses. There are a sufficient number of knowledgeable people here, so if that information was available, I am sure someone would have posted it. But no one has, so therefore I am left to conclude that the information is not available. Which in turn does provide me with my answer. There is no information on that issue/question. >>I would encourage you to chalk the > incident up to a miscommunication and, yes, just move on and invest > no further effort in trying to sort it out with her. It probably > won't get any better now that it has gone this far. It does appear to me that further attempts would be futile, as neither one of us appears to be able to respond sufficiently to the other's inquiries. Dana 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.