In my referee role, at the 2013 Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund debate between Joel Salatin and Joseph Mercola.
This blog has clearly entered new and uncharted territory.
Beginning with the questions raised about Green Pasture fermented cod liver oil last August, and now with an accusation last week about sexual harassment leveled against a former director of the Weston A. Price Foundation, many people are very upset—angry, resentful, accusatory–on both sides of the aisle.
As I mentioned in comments yesterday, this blog has long been a place where people have felt free to express opinions and ideas that might not be appreciated anywhere else. They’ve also been free to not identify themselves by name; this has been especially important for farmers and activists working in fear of government harassment.
The few instances in the past when commenters became harassing to others, or inappropriate in their language, was usually clear enough to the entire community here that I could step in and either warn the commenter and/or delete an occasional comment, and in a very few cases, ban the commenter.
What makes the territory of the last few months new and uncharted is that the object of controversy has shifted, from the government to a highly regarded organization for many of us, The Weston A. Price Foundation, together with a company that has produced product endorsed by the WAPF—Green Pasture. Ironically, the promise of anonymity has made this blog a refuge for Weston A. Price Foundation members and chapter leaders fearful of reprisals from the organization for expressing their doubts about FCLO.
I’ve been trying real hard since the controversy exploded on us in late August to operate under the few rules that served me well over the previous nearly nine years—minimal interference and people’s own judgment and respect for others. But I have come to realize in the last few days, from any number of comments and feedback—the posted ones from Lynne and Judith McGeary, among others—and the private ones from some trusted friends, that the old rules aren’t working so well.
I have come to realize as well that I have been at fault in some of my blog posts and comments, for getting wrapped up in the heat of the moment. And even though I think of myself as sensitive on matters of sexism and racism, I haven’t communicated my sensitivity and requirements for others to be sensitive well enough. At the same time, I also appreciate that some of the upset with me has to do with me being the messenger of news and info that some people would rather not know about.
A few commenters also mentioned my connection with the new Paleo-Primal-Price Foundation, and wondered if I am going to live up its commitment to be a place of both openness and safety. While my blog isn’t formally connected to the PPP Foundation, I think the points about openness and safety are well taken, So I’m going to try to walk the walk here.
All by way of saying that I am implementing a few policies based on commenters showing respect to other commenters, and I’ll be taking more of the referee role I’m pictured in above. So beginning now, these areas will be off-limits:
•No personal attacks, even if you violently disagree with others, think they are idiots, or worse. No personal attacks. It’s possible to disagree respectfully.
•No hate speech, which are comments that attack a person based on their race, gender, religion, and other such factors.
•No trolling, in other words, posting inflammatory or off-topic messages, and doing it repetitively to distract community members and anger and upset them.
I am immediately putting several individuals on notice for violations of the above: Gordon Watson for racist remarks; Amanda for personal sexist attacks; Kerrie for trolling and personal attacks. One more breach, and they won’t be allowed to comment here.
I will moderate the comments, deleting those that violate the rules. At my discretion, the commenter will be banned from this blog.
If you notice someone violating the rules, and I missed it, please bring it to my attention via a comment or send me an email. Be aware that I may not necessarily agree with your assessment, but I commit to taking a look–I do want to avoid the “tattle-tale” thing from when we were kids.
For now, I’ll continue to allow people to post without revealing their real identities. But that may change if people aren’t able to abide by the policies. The comment policy is subject to change as I see fit.
Once again, it’s fine to disagree with me and with others commenting here. Just keep the disagreements respectful and non-personal.
One final note: The success of these new policies ultimately depend on those of you who value this forum as a place to learn about and discuss issues and events you wouldn’t learn about in the mainstream media, or even on the Internet. I can’t force people to be respectful to each other when they disagree. I can only be a facilitator. Up till now, it’s always been a responsive community, or I wouldn’t have been doing what I’ve been doing for as long as I’ve been doing it. Thanks in advance.
Sounds like a goot idea.
Also a good one.
This is great….thank you so much David for doing this. There are so many smart people and it was all getting lost in the attacks and trolling posts. I’m very excited to see this coming under control. It’s such a quality blog with valuable information I just hated to see it lost in distracting posts.
Can you tell me what exactly I said that you are classifying as “personal sexist attacks”?? Because, as far as I’m aware, I haven’t said anything sexist.
Its a da new day!! Where all the people being warned are people who… have disagreed with the one sided reported on this blog… oh… ba dum da!
David has said disagreements are fine….bad behavior while having them isn’t. He made it pretty clear he doesn’t intend this to be one-sided.
Then why is Dr. Ron on the watch list? You know, he merely suggested crowd funding to send a women who disagreed with him to be molested by GM. Reminds of the one line in Harry Potter, “Not to be rude…” and then the person goes on to be rude… David’s handling of this for months has been rather one sided to say the least.
Should read not on the watch list.
I can’t say for sure, but I thought Dr. Ron’s suggestion was a case of suggesting something absurd (crowd funding to send a woman to be molested) in order to demonstrate the absurdity of saying that molestation was not actually taking place – which is what that woman was contending.
Your badgering of Annie Dru a few days ago for salacious details about her encounter with Geoffrey Morell. I’m not going to argue with you about it–that was my judgment, and that’s the end of it from my perspective.
OK…? Well, you don’t have to argue about it, David. But it would be nice if you could explain to me exactly what it was I said that you found to be “sexist” otherwise how am I supposed to know how to avoid being “sexist” again in the future?
Amanda you are exceptional in that you stopped to consider the plight of men, who can be arbitrarily accused of harassment without recourse, and chose to not be hyper offended. After all, there is no objective standard of behavior, all that matters is how the woman feels, so we are expected to read their minds.
But most are not that way. What did you do? I suspect it is this…It is commonly considered wrong and sexist to question the story of someone claiming abuse, harassment or rape, never mind the fact such accusations are ripe for abuse and quite commonly false. They obtain a saintly victim status that must not be questioned.
In a he said she said everyone jumps to defend the woman and there is no equal protection under the law for men. They are guilty until proven innocent. Just like a black can’t be racist, abuser’s are always men and its never rape if the man or boy is the victim of a women.
Pete, I’m not sure where to start here, you have so many questionable assumptions, but for the situations at hand (involving Annie Dru and Ann Marie Michaels), let’s start with this: “In a he said she said everyone jumps to defend the woman…” This is not a “he said she said” because he (Geoffrey Morell) hasn’t said anything. Nor has another she who is a part of this situation: Sally Fallon Morell. Some eight hours before I put up my post, I sent both Geoffrey Morell and Sally Fallon Morell emails with a link to the Dru-Michaels interview on YouTube. I asked them for their reactions to the accounts Dru and Michaels provided. Neither provided an answer, then or since. I would have expected if either had a different account of the events, they would have provided it, so we’d have a true “he said she said” situation.
A couple months earlier, Dave Wetzel said on his web site that he had invited Kaayla Daniel to visit his business, to help in her investigation of fermented cod liver oil, and she never responded. When I inquired with Kaayla Daniel about Wetzel’s account, she disputed it, said she had responded, and gave her reasons for not visiting his facility. We really had a “he said she said” situation.
In this situation involving Dru and Michaels, we only have one account of the events out there. Dru and Michaels aren’t making any threats or seeking redress. It seems as if they are primarily questioning an organization that allows the kind of behavior they allege to take place.
Your contention that accusations of harassment are “quite commonly false” has absolutely no basis. In point of fact, claims are often not even made, either because women have been taught to accept inappropriate and abusive behavior as inevitable, or because women feel no one will listen to them. As someone who was at a number of WAPF events, I heard the first-hand and second-hand accounts of inappropriate behavior. I was told pretty much what Annie Dru says she was told by a person in leadership–that such behavior was/is tolerated. Clearly, potential accusations weren’t/aren’t even being formally made, because the organization’s culture discourages such reporting. There have been similar assessments made about America’s armed forces–that cases of harassment and abuse aren’t taken seriously.
The reality is that organizations–private, public, and governmental–must take such accusations seriously, or else the message is that they are sanctioned. That’s the way it’s been for years and years, in this country and elsewhere in the world. It’s not the way it’s going to be in the new Paleo-Primal-Price Foundation. It will be the opposite. Such attitudes and approaches won’t be tolerated.
You all assume that because these women claim to have been harassed, they must be correct. Morrell is guilty until proven innocent. We havn’t even heard his side of the story yet!
“Your contention that accusations of harassment are “quite commonly false” has absolutely no basis.”
To the contrary, it has basis in the many recent high profile reports of false rape accusations; situations in which prison time was only avoided because of incontrovertible proof the accused was lying. It has the basis in many reports of he said she said situations where the man is always assumed to be at fault. It has a basis in volumous reports by victims of false sexual harassment claims.
These are common occurrences. Do I have stats on it? No, it is simply my impression. I don’t know if we could even get good stats on it due to the nature of the matter. I could point out instances but you’d simply claim they were exceptions. But it is too common for me to deny. And given the assumption that all claims are true, and the proclivity of people to lie, it is absurd to claim this situation ISN’T being abused.
A he said she said situation is one where there are no third party witnesses, we only have the accounts of the parties in contention to go on.
That Morrell hasn’t given his side of the story doesn’t change the nature of the situation; it simply means we’re only hearing one (potentially biased) side.
Ann Marrie’s private consultation would be a he said she said situation. Dru’s potentially not, given it happened at a public garthering.
But I have to ask David, if this activity is as grievous as you all claim, as frequent and well known to so many including you; why did none of you speak up sooner? You knew of this, why do you only now bring this up? Why did you all allow a predator to roam free all these years?
I have no first hand knowledge of the situation. But from the outside, it is highly suspect that these things are coming forth now, in the midst of what could be characterized as a coordinated campaign to destroy WAPF.
And you know which side I’ve come down on in this FCLO mess.
After reading below I don’t know if you’ll publish my response above. Let me restate it this way…
We should be very concerned for the many victims of sexual harassment. But we should ALSO be concerned for the many victims of false claims of sexual harassment/rape.
People here assume that because a claim was made it must be true. The perp is guilty until proven innocent. That it is wrong to question the accuser.
This is contrary to justice. This enables further victimization by giving cover to false claims.
False accusations do happen, there have been many recent high profile cases that demonstrate this. I have lost count of the personal tragedies wrought by such events. When they occur the lives of men and their families are destroyed. Many people have had their lives up-ended and only avoided jail time because incontrovertible proof came out that the accuser was lying. Guilty until proven innocent.
We are both concerned about victims. I refuse to ignore the possibility of false claims, esp. in he said she said situations. It is the refusal to critically look at claims, to grant sainthood status to claimants, that leads to even more victims being created and more lives destroyed.
“But from the outside, it is highly suspect that these things are coming forth now, in the midst of what could be characterized as a coordinated campaign to destroy WAPF.”
I know what you mean about the timing, Pete. One thing I’ve wondered is if, with a cooling of WAPF ardor in many circle, a potentially safe place was formed where individuals would feel, well, maybe not comfortable, but feel like they could share their story without being immediately dismissed, vilified and shunned. That’s just speculation of course.
I’ve also heard rumors of a very serious thing that happened more recently but I still haven’t heard any details. It could be that being made aware of something like that, would embolden others to come forward and tell their stories because, 1) they are not not the only ones and 2) knowing now that this is happened to others, they feel a responsibility to get the word out so that it doesn’t CONTINUE to happen to others.
Steve – While I’m not going to try to put it into words right now, I do think that there is probably some veracity to these allegations. On the other hand, I am also educated enough to know that allegations of sexual harassment are quite often not what they appear. References above, if David lets them through this time….
Pete, the media have played up a number of false complaints about sexual harassment and rape. I’m glad the media have pointed those out, but we all know that individual media stories don’t necessarily tell us about trends and data. Everything I’ve seen on this subject suggests that the issue is under-reported.
I also agree that we haven’t heard Geoffrey Morell’s side of the story. I’ve tried to make clear in reporting on Annie Dru that this is her personal account. I’ve also explained that I tried to reach Morell to get his version, but he didn’t respond. In the Annie Dru situation, it isn’t just he-said-she-said. Dru says she was at a dinner table with others, who heard and saw what was going on, and they mostly averted their eyes. We definitely haven’t heard from these people, but we may yet. Just as we may hear from others at WAPF about why others didn’t speak up sooner. (Don’t believe I claim such activity was “frequent and well known to many including you…”) Many people who hung around at WAPF heard stories. But as a journalist, I hesitate to publish such stories unless the person is willing to tell the story publicly and for attribution. Mostly, people avoid going public because they fear just the kinds of doubts and questions that you are asking here. Didn’t she know he was doing this as a professional? Why didn’t she make a fuss? Why didn’t she complain at the time? What will my employer think? What will my spouse think? You know the drill. Annie Dru and Ann Marie Michaels were the first I know of to take the risks and come forward.
since the word “racism” was raised as part of my name topping the watch-list, it gives me great pleasure to draw attention of this forum to the story breaking now : the furor about the University of Missouri turns out to be a gigantic hoax. Yep, all the trite elements and the KKK cartoon com plained-about by the homosexual Negro student president, are exposed as pure fabrication … by the journalist who first published the tale!
… http://www.naturalnews.com/051933_MIZZOU_hoax_faked_evidence_political_false_flag_operation.html
… you want me to watch my mouth, and my tone? Ditto for you progressive twisted-sob-sistahs : it behoves those who toss out the loaded words “sexist” and racist” and “homoFobe”, to be a hell of a lot more careful
“the media have played up a number of false complaints about sexual harassment and rape”
Have they? Two recent cases were instances where the media created a firestorm out of instances which where later revealed to be grievous falsehoods (Columbia mattress girl and UVA Rolling Stone rape case).
“Mostly, people avoid going public because they fear just the kinds of doubts and questions that you are asking here.”
The implication being it is wrong to ask them. It creates an ‘unsafe’ space.
If someone claims I stole something from them, absent any evidence at all except their word, I and others would rightly question that claim and the law would look askance at that claim. Our legal system is predicated on a presumption of innocence and has a beyond reasonable doubt standard for entering judgment.
But when it comes to rape/abuse between a man and woman it is suddenly wrong to ask the same questions of the accuser. Suddenly we assume the women must always be right.
I note that in the Columbia case the true victim was only able to defend himself due to the independent recording of interactions by social media. And in the UVA case the truth was brought out due to other people investigating and questioning the victims claims.
Quite frankly, anyone who claims they should be above being questioned, who agitates for censorship and ‘safe spaces’ should be immediately suspect; especially in he said she said situations. It does not serve the interests of justice, but to protect false accusers who cast a shadow over true claims.
And let us not forget that a personal falsely accused quite likely will see their entire life destroyed. Even if charges are never brought they may well loose their job and be blackballed, be divorced and loose access to their children, and have their reputation forever destroyed. Not to mention the affects of long term imprisonment and an inability to lead a normal life thereafter.
“Why didn’t she complain at the time?”
Can be a very valid criticism since men, lacking a woman’s intuition, are not mind readers. There is no standard as to which actions constitute sexual harassment. The decision hinges on ‘unwanted’. The same behavior from two different people (strangers both even) could be in one case highly desired and in the other mortifying.
There have also been incidents of actions, which were consensual at the time, later being reported as abuse.
Even in the law of Moses, the question of whether or not a sexual encounter between two people was rape, hinged on whether or not the woman yelled for help during the encounter. Her later claims were of no import and offenses were required to be established by two or three witnesses.
“What did you do? I suspect it is this…It is commonly considered wrong and sexist to question the story of someone claiming abuse, harassment or rape”
Ah, I see… Thanks for the clarification, Pete. Although I don’t agree that my questions were sexist, I will respect David’s wish to not argue about it and instead try to refrain from asking those specific questions in the future.
Also, just to clarify, my comment wasn’t even addressed to Annie Dru. It was just a general question as I was wondering “aloud” if what she told us was the entire thing or if there was more to it.
Seriously, does anyone know what these “personal sexist attacks” are that David is referring to? I am genuinely confused.
Please ban Amanda David. She has monopolized these comments long enough. Her repetitive, inflammatory posts are clearly trolling.
When people ask me the same question re-worded over and over and I answer them that is not “trolling,” but it could be that I am the one being trolled.
The above question I posted before I read David’s response. Sue me for not clicking refresh fast enough.
An Ode to Ann Marie Michaels –
You better hold on to your hat when you call and ask Ann Marie Michaels for help.
We started up P3 with no big whopping big list and were staring at a registration count of three or four brave souls that would dare to show their face at our conference. Fears of WWSS were rampant, and for good reason, we’d just seen Kaayla run out on the rails.
We hired Ann Marie to make a short promo video, and also create one for next year, at the event. Also, she was going to connect us with her former Village Green Network list of bloggers and share tips about how to create affiliate deals.
Man, was I thinking small and old school. Then, I got blinded by the light!
Within a single conversation the entire approach changed, she was going to walk through her own personal fire to resurrect Cheeseslave.com to give us a platform to share the FCLO message. Huh?
She was going to interview the Three Amigos and me, so people could see our faces, hear our voices, and see that we were real people who had real problems with FCLO, and quit throwing rocks! What?
As the other side of the FCLO discord was trotting out endless research paper after endless research paper from highfalutin scientists….she trottted us out..our tiny band of Three Amigos Plus One.
If this was a football movie…you would be seriously worried about the underdogs having any chance at winning, right? Right!
What happened was nothing short of miraculous. An important conversation, that had almost died out from lack of exposure…sprang to life!
In her first video, folks discovered FCLO whistleblower Kaayla was a single mom, stretching to make ends meet, seeing something was amiss with the sacred cow, and having the guts to put it all on the line. Not a money hungry woman out to destroy WAPF and rake in all the gold from a competitor
Then, we were off to the races with Ron, David, Archie, Steve, Rudi, Annie and me. And, folks, there are still more coming.
Now I see folks everywhere referencing the videos and what they’ve learned and there is a growing number of people who are actively concerned about FCLO and are raising their own voices now to join ours. We’re hearing break your heart stories – one today was a woman with stage 4 cancer who was found to toxic amounts of arsenic in her system, and was….well, you guessed it. She’s fully recovered now. Amen!
Playing with Ann Marie is like drinking out of a firehose, and honestly, she’s just now getting up to speed. She could overthrow a small South American country, whip up a delightful traditional foods meal in her pressure cooker, blog all about it, homeschool her daughter, feed baby Oliver and interview a lipid scientist all before lunch.
Get this – she is just now completing the tiny little video we hired her to do….my idea of successful promotion! I just laugh and laugh and want to hug her for saving my butt!
Best news….we have get this…..drum roll……over 130 registrants for the conference and over 80 on demand. I’ve planned on dinner for 150, so if you want something yummy to eat, best to register soon.
She is quite an amazing woman. I hope you all stop throwing rocks at her and for heavens sake, stop thumbing down her comments! Next time you need to start a revolution, you may want to have her cell.
I love you Ann Marie Michaels. You ARE saving lives. How on earth can I ever find the words to tell you thank you for that?
So well said, Cathy. Ann Marie has been a super spark plug.
Her latest interview is just out, of former WAPF VP Kaayla Daniel, who apologizes profusely for failing to respond to complaints about sexual harassment at WAPF conferences. “I did not understand the seriousness of the problems and I failed to investigate. I apologize for not stepping up sooner.”
http://www.cheeseslave.com/wapf-sexual-harassment-scandal-dr-kaayla-daniel-apologizes-to-the-women-in-wapf/
Amanda, it could be your insensitive manner expressed needing more proof and facts that are often sensitive or embarrassing to the victim. Annie Dru handles herself fabulously and responded to you with more details than you deserved in a public forum. But not every woman who has been in such a position would be able to respond as elegantly. Much of what you and others said, the immediate doubt, the defense of the man, the “what-ifs” and explaining away the action are many of the reasons that women are afraid to come forward.
David, you don’t look that good in stripes and that’s not how we want to remember you it, also won’t sell books. Above all, we want to have this remain an open free forum to exchange food freedom information isn’t that your mission?.
Gee, Ora, it’s not like I’m about to die (I hope). I think this will remain an open forum on food freedom issues. No reason for it not to.
Wow, what a relief! David, then delete my comment that got stuck in the milk section because I could not put it under the person who accused Anne Marie and me of being the same person. I just did not want new people coming here to think that Ann Marie was that devious and not pay attention to her comments. I wrote a long history of my early life to prove I am much older , Whee it feels so good to be able too speak openly with out fear of some one trying to squash me, or demean me! What Bliss, and how inspired I have become after reading Cathy’s comment about how great it is to work with you guys and how she sees the future unfolding.
I am full of hope and contentment,
I see this blog is resending into censorship, identity politics and dog whistle politics. Since I am a cis white male I might as well not even comment since my opinions are inherently sexist racist and homophobic.
This standard you’re setting is meaningless because the words are meaningless, simply hammers liberal progressives use to beat anyone they disagree with and of arbitrary distinction.
In other words you are adapting much of the same class of strategies used by WAPF in your efforts to discredit them by any means possible. Which calls into doubt the whole enterprise.
Pete, you may be reading more into this than deserves to be. I’m basically asking people to be respectful to each other. Don’t think that’s been a problem for you.
I knew it would only be a matter of time before the hypocrisy came shining through. Although I didn’t expect it would happen before the new foundation even got itself off the ground. Color me impressed!
That’s a personal attack. David please delete and ban.
Ann Marie – A personal attack on whom, exactly? I don’t think “personal attack” means what you think it means.
I agee, personal attack, please ban Amanda.
Ann Marie……And that’s not?
David. Please don’t ban Mr Watson. Anyone considering raw milk (especially for children) are likely to think more carefully after they have read his posts. He undermines the credibility of ‘real milk’ quite effectively. Choose ‘real milk’ by all means, but I still maintain it is best to pasteurize it for those most at risk. If this makes me a troll, so be it.
Is this some kind of Monty Python skit? I’m starting to enjoy it.
Policing hate speech and personal attacks is not censorship.
It is if you happen to be misusing the term “personal attack” as an excuse to delete any comments that you don’t care for.
Confusing disagreement with hate speech and personal attack can be a problem. I trust David has a handle on it and I appreciate the clarification that he’s made in this post.
Well said, Sally Oh!
P.S. Thanks for the awesome tutorial that you did a while back on how-to properly clean glass milk jugs! I still use that advice to this day. =)
thanks for your comment, Pete … you said it better than I can. And if that’s how YOU feel … what hope is there for moi?!
Franklin Sanders reminds us that : “On 10 November 1801 my own state of Tennessee outlawed duelling. I tell y’all, that was a big mistake. Nothing improves a man’s manners like knowing folks will challenge him to a duel for rudeness. Nothing”
… and for the “hard-of-thinking” in this fracas … this is my idea of a humour.
David,
Peace be with you….you are so important to this cause and freedom of communication and speech.
All sides must mutually respect this place of speech and use it appropriately and with regards to our First Amendment rights but with humanity and kindness.
Except for Pharma and FDA bashing…that’s ok with me. They sanction death and kill people.
Much appreciated, Mark. Your words count for a lot.
Wow. Do you guys ever get accused of overreacting much? I’m surprised that David Gumpert has been able to go so long without codifying some standards of behavior on his site. Honestly, his rules are pretty mild. There isn’t a forum that I frequent that doesn’t have stiffer rules than he is establishing. Just last night I got blocked on the healthy home economist Facebook page for saying something that she didn’t like – posting some information that corrected things that she had said, or questioning something that she had said. No personal attacks. No cussing. No disrespect. Two posts, about 3 sentences each, and bam, blocked and posts removed – literally within 10 minutes of the first post. It’s her Facebook page and she can do what she wants. This morning, I was unblocked and one of my posts was back. I posted something about “Hey! I’m unblocked.” She responded that Facebook is very buggy. I love that don’t you? It’s true . . . but that’s not what happened. She deleted that post within minutes. Or maybe the Facebook bug ate it. And blocked her from her page . . . .
David removed one of my posts yesterday. I called somebody a name – somebody that isn’t on the blog, doesn’t read the blog, and probably would never hear about it. But I called somebody a name. He told me what was wrong and gave me the opportunity to fix it. So I did. Personally, I think the second writing was better than the first. The first was just me being a little bit lazy or in a hurry.
I hope everybody can chill a little bit and wait to complain until they actually HAVE something to complain about.
Thank you, Steve. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
It really is okay to control a group and maintain order….like a classroom. Kids don’t like it when one or two run a mucks take over and cause chaos. They want someone to step in and stop the mess so they can get back to intelligent stuff.
“It really is okay to control a group and maintain order” …unless you’re Sally Fallon.
She’s allowed to maintain absolute control of her group, but her group will now consist of people like you that think that a mostly benevolent dictator is somehow, not actually a dictator.
Sally doesn’t dictate anything that I do, so I don’t really care how she chooses to run her organization.
Nope, she doesn’t dictate what you do. But she dictate what you will see and hear from WAPF. If you hold that in high regard and believe what she has prepared for you, then she exerts the power of influence over you, which is a kind of social control.
Yeah, I mean I guess that would be true if I followed her every word like gospel and tuned-out all other non-WAPF sources of information… but that’s not actually the case.
That’s good. That’s really good. And that answers a question you asked:
“Since Ann Marie is obviously hell bent on discrediting the WAPF from every conceivable angle possible, maybe she can explain what I’m supposed to do now to save my family members from medical death once they find out that all of my wild ideas about nutrition and alt health were coming from a “cult” that promotes “molestation of women”.”
Just use all of your non-WAPF sources of information. Problem solved!
No, it doesn’t answer that question and I’ve already explained why more than once.
You mean you will read non WAPF approved sources? You probably eat chocolate too
I’ve always read non-WAPF sources, and yes I eat chocolate too. 🙂
@Augie – apparently, non-WAPF sources do not provide sufficient information to keep people from being medically murdered.
I’ve had that happen to me before where I posted something on another person’s FB page and then it looked like it disappeared for a while and then showed back up again later. It isn’t terribly uncommon.
I am aware that political correctness is a plague on this country, and that it may take the form of harassment of men for innocent behavior towards women, or of women who choose to defend such men. That is no excuse whatsoever for a variety of comments on this blog that refuse to acknowledge the sexual harassment and abuse of power that many trustworthy observers have seen going on for years within the WAPF, comments that at worst insult the women who have been harassed and at best are a diversion from the seriousness of the matters at hand. I applaud David for taking steps to ban such comments from this blog, steps that in general will defend women, specifically the women who have been hurt. Responsible journalism includes the need to refuse a public forum to people clearly ignoring the rules of reasonable civil behavior.
For the time being, I am going to stop commenting on this blog. It is important for those of us involved in the creation of the new foundation to be clear that David’s blog is not a forum for us. We respect his role as an independent journalist, as well as his role in helping us create the foundation. There are currently discussions on this blog about sexual harassment and related topics that several of us find uncomfortable and hurtful because of the nature of a number of the posts. We will continue to discuss these issues on Ann Marie Michaels’ blog (www.cheeseslave.com) and Kaayla Daniel’s blog (www.drkaayladaniel.com). My thanks to many of you who have helped us navigate difficult waters.
@ Dr. Ron: In order to communicate on those, you have to be on facebook, which I am not. They both have blogs, but they continue to use only facebook, so that leaves people like me with no voice. No one is discussing anything on the “blogs”.
I’m going to stop commenting here also, as it’s clear David’s blog has gone in a direction both in content and moderating that neither I nor my organization can support.
While I appreciate the work David has done in the raw milk field, now we are embarking on a new mission which calls for a clear set of shared values.
We aim to send a clear message of community ethics so we avoid participating in any forum that looks away from from any behavior that violates the basic principles of social justice. We can’t involve ourselves in a forum where hate speech and slurs are considered worthy of debate.
I and my colleagues will also be moving the discussion to Anne Marie Michaels’ blog at http://www.cheeseslave.com. Kaayla Daniel’s blog will also be participating on the ongoing detective work uncovered every day at http://www.drkayladaniel.com.
Lynne Farrow
Director
Breast Cancer Choices
The correct link for Kaayla’s website is http://www.drkaayladaniel.com.
Ron I have to agree with you. I have a lot of respect for David and this blog but I want to know that there are rules of decent behavior and the rules are enforced. All these comments that stay up with racist and sexists tones plus the trolling and baiting behavior of some people here are driving away the productive discussions. It’s too much mud to wade through.
It may simply be that this blog isn’t the correct place for these types of discussions and a different venue will work better. (although I’d like to prefer to see this one work). For now I’ll move over to Kaayla and Cheeseslave.
So, are we having fun yet?….Ron, I respect your decision, but I think it’s necessary to explain to others who frequent this blog what precipitated this comment from you, (along with Karen, and Lynne) essentially urging a boycott of my blog. I had an animated discussion this morning with Karen and Lynne, together with Ann Marie Michaels, in which they demanded I delete a comment from Pete expressing the view that complaints about sexual harassment might be overdone. I said I thought that while his view was misguided, it wasn’t abusive and thus didn’t violate the policy I described in my latest blog post, that it was a legitimate subject of discussion here. They said if I didn’t delete it, along with banning one or more commenters, they would abandon my blog, and tell others to do the same. I told them that was their privilege, and while I appreciated their view, I wasn’t going to give in to ultimatums of this type, that I make the final decisions about what happens on this blog. So their latest comments carry out the threat.
I should add that, while I am dismayed by this group’s tactics, I respect their views, especially those of Ann Marie. Because of the encounter she described with Geoffrey Morell, she seems truly traumatized, and feels she cannot countenance expressions of doubt or sympathy for sexual harassment, even in the abstract. There is no vacillation on this subject. If I as a blogger tolerate such discussion, I am somehow encouraging more sexual harassment. Thus, she couldn’t tolerate my willingness to allow for discussion of the subject as Pete posed it.
I assumed at the time I posted about the experiences of Annie Dru and Ann Marie, it would lead to a good deal of discussion. Certainly some of the discussion would be less than sympathetic to their accounts of what occurred. But I saw their experiences as a microcosm of what has been occurring in many corners of our society with regard to sexual harassment and sexual abuse. It never occurred to me that people would think that the description of what happened would somehow serve as a prohibition against open discussion (minus accusations against particular individuals).
When I committed to being involved with the new Paleo-Primal-Price Foundation, it was with the understanding it would be an open organization, open to philosophical disagreements. I guess we are getting started early with the openness.
Very well said David.
David –
As I have said to you on more than one occasion, I am grateful for all that you have done and continue to do for this movement. If it weren’t for your blog posts after the Kaayla Daniel report came out, I think this whole thing would have died out long ago. I am thankful for your reporting and attention to this crisis in our community.
When Karen and Lynne and I called you this morning, we did not say that we would boycott your blog. I think you misunderstood what we were trying to express.
What I said was something to the effect of, I cannot continue to comment on your blog any longer, at least during this crisis, because it is not a safe place for me. Maybe I did not express myself clearly but that is what I was trying to say.
Further, I never encouraged anyone to “boycott” your blog. I did not hear Lynne or Karen do this either.
I would never do that. Why? Because I respect you greatly and I truly love your blog. I will continue to read your blog (and your books) avidly and recommend it to others as I have always done throughout the years.
I just can’t comment here for the time being due to the fact that the comments are not respectful and this is not an environment in which I feel safe.
This is why I stress the need for a comment moderation policy that is vigorously enforced. Especially in light of victims of sexual harassment coming forward. We need a forum that is safe for everyone. And I do think we need a forum since so many people feel a need to express ourselves right now.
I think in normal times, when we are not in crisis, perhaps we can get away with not being so strict and careful when it comes to communications. But under these circumstances, I think greater care and consideration is warranted.
I look forward to seeing you in Southbridge, David.
Ann Marie
back in the really old days, people chuckled when old Harry Trueman quipped = “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. And he did know a whereof he spoke … merely the President of the US of A. As much as I know, the mission statement of this website, is : a forum for discussion of the politics concerning raw milk. If you have something intelligent to contribute about that, I welcome it. But as for feminism being the standard for ‘right-thinking’, spare me. Genuine freedom of speech is crucial for a people to be able to confront corrupt government. For the 6 years I’ve been around… this forum was doing that very well, before the feminist PC crowd tried to dictate what would, or wouldn’t be allowed to be published.
Ah, yes. The jargon of “safe space”. In Britain, it’s come to the point that they are discussing separate train cars for men and women. In the universities all over the anglo world, the rhetoric is of “hostile environment harassment”, for which the feminists all want speech codes (translate here as “a comment moderation policy that is vigorously enforced”). Here’s a recent student debate at the University of Sussex, it’ll give you some idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzgPeBOfXgk
For more, I heartily suggest Daphne Patai’s two books, “Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism” and “Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studies” (you want the new & expanded edition of that latter, 2003)
We went through a long history of hell to learn the value of free speech. Too much, Ms. Michaels, to let your fascist tendencies, seductively packaged as protection of the victim, take it away.
Well, wow. This is disappointing. I have to say that I have my reservations about the P3 foundation. I hope it can be everything that it purports to want to be. This has me a little more worried. If we can’t find a way to work things out now when there is comparatively almost nothing on the line, what is it going to be like later when there may be hundreds of thousands of dollars, and personal goals, visions and reputations as factors in decisions.
The advantage of a dictatorship over a democracy is that if you have philosophical differences, the one or ones that don’t agree end up quickly getting in line or hitting the road. There is nothing else they can do. They have no say in leadership. In a democratic environment, a small, vocal minority has the ability to divide, paralyze, and or devastate the whole if they adopt the “my way or nothing” philosophy of the dictator. An organization that wants to have a broad appeal and “bigger tent”, needs big people to build that tent. Not big names, or big personalities. It needs to be moderate in its positions, reasonable, circumspect, and transparent in its actions, and above reproach in all it’s dealings. It and its leaders cannot give or get preferential treatment, have conflicting interests, or have personal agendas. It is my fear that the seeds of destruction of the organization will be sown in its very infancy by the people that have birthed it. I hope that is not the case. My wife and I are going to Massachusetts to meet people and observe. If we can help in some way to build a bigger better tent, we will. If it looks like it is just going to be the same old small tent painted a different color, run by people with axes to grind, personal agendas, and unreasonable ideas, it will need to be on life support from the start and it will only be a matter of time before it dies. That will make us sad.
Steve, I just liked your comment. I made a mistake this morning in saying I would not participate here because of the unhappiness a number of women have experienced from seeing some of the comments about the sexual harassment issues. I certainly did not intend to create reservations such as yours or to cause people to leave David’s blog. My intent was solely to be supportive of women who feel they need a less public forum to discuss those issues openly. I feel the same. But what I should have done was state simply that I would not comment on any such issues in this forum. I would like to continue participating on this blog, which I enjoy very much. I’m just not going to talk or respond to talk about the sexual harassment issues. I’m not trying to chastise David or anyone else who wishes to discuss them. I just feel that it’s best if I not participate in that now, and devote my time to building support for the new foundation and working on putting on a great conference.
Ron, I think it’s perfectly fine to hold off on a subject until you feel confident in discussing it. In the mean time, I would hope that you would do some of the reading that I have suggested (above) and look into what is going on at university campuses with Title IX. Our instinctual tendency to want to protect women is taking us down a very dangerous road.
I think we need to organize in a completely different manner. We need to learn from the young people, who are learning how to use the internet. Here is a TEDx talk by Falkvinge on how he got the Pirate Party going: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdiFV-AFbBA
Also, his book: http://falkvinge.net/files/2013/04/Swarmwise-2013-by-Rick-Falkvinge-v1.1-2013Sep01.pdf
And, Steve, I’ll point out here something I mentioned in a previous blog post here. The people forming this new foundation have took a loooong time to wake up to what was going on. I am uncertain about trusting their clarity of vision.
@David, Anne Marie and Anna Dru were not just treated with less than sympathetic comments about their experiences, they were bashed for them. Certain people were saying things like, ” Well it was a medical exam, ( never asked for or expected by Annie Dru at the dinner table) ” It was a medical check up, get over it being asked intimate details about your sex life and touched in what you think were creepy ways” Or ” ” You shoulda put a stop to it” This is why many women do not report rapes. Look at Cosby. Annie Dru was questioned so heartlessly and for an agenda at that, not one modicum of sympathy or understanding, nope. There was not the slightest respect given to them by those people. I think there is a way to discuss this in a respectful way and including the fact that yes men have sometimes been wrongly accused and it is a terrible thing, but this was not date rape. This was not just a misunderstanding of cues and any kind of respectful discussion went out the window when these bashing people, with their mocking agendas went for the jugular. I know David you tried to curb and educate the people I am talking about but…I do not know how to explain how awful going through abuse like that is, I am so tired of even women saying ” get over it,”
You do not get over it, not really, people can say, well it was only touching, and perhaps you misunderstood, but there is no misunderstanding, you get this sick feeling in your stomach, you start to sweat, it is so visceral. I was sexually abused when I was 4 years old, and it was my father’s best friend , And I can hear one of the bashing voices say ” well why did you not stop it or get help, that is what I would have done, even at 4 years old, for God sakes!” I did not get help because I believed that my parents would blame me, they were abusive in other ways and into shame and blame and besides my abuser did all he could do to assure me it was my fault. There was no penetration, just violent and hurtful molesting of my private parts. So of course I can hear one of the bashers saying” Well get over it, you were going to experience that when you went to GYN anyway, that is not sexual abuse”
I was talking to my therapist last week about this and she said ” Joy you are a survivor, even at 4 you knew that telling your parents was going to be more trouble that it was worth” And I slowly found ways to avoid this friend of my fathers and survived. Because no one is supposed to make personal attacks here anymore, I think I can trust mocking remarks from the two bashers will be stopped.
But I can imagine them, because as a woman you grow up with that feeling , or you have been taught very wrongly that it is some how still your fault even if you were 4 years old, thanks God for years of therapy, and I do mean years, now I am very away of that very wrong guilt and it is only a pinch. But witnessing the goings on here with Anne Marie and especially Annie Dru, brought back a little bit of that ache.
I know some people will think I am over reacting, but not those who have been abused and are smart enough to know that dismissing it is not the way to feel alright about it. Listen, Cathy Raymond is part elf or angel I am convinced, an elfish angel ? Well, I believe she is at least fey, which to me means elfish and far sighted and magical. And she will…find a way to bring good cheer hither! Thanks for letting me be a teensy part of this blog. But I too no longer belong here either, and it has been so hard to keep away in the past, so this is a good thing for me to let go of now. I admire you very much David G PS and thanks so much to all the people who stood up for Anne Marie and Annie Dru ,because to me that means you were standing up for all women!!!
David I’m trying to let the blog return to what it was or wants to be. I’m incredibly grateful to all who revealed the mess about fclo especially you for allowing that discussion to take place. It hopefully saved me from getting sicker now that I see the problem.
I’ve read your blog for years but never participated or read comments. I’m not leaving it but simply returning to what I did prior to this fclo mess. The stories you publish are important and I’ll be reading them like always. I just can’t wade through the comments. In my mind, they’re almost a separate issue from what you write.
Karen, thank you for your explanation. I’m especially glad this blog helped in your decision-making on FCLO. I very much appreciate your support.
Here, David, I am happy to be in support. Referring to my previous post, if you are willing to read there, you will find that these attitudes of moral outrage, particularly when confronted with facts, are common those who style themselves “feminists”.
While I’m sensitive to sexual harassment and assault claims and all that surrounds that, I’m very disappointed to hear of the “non-openness” exhibited by 3 women coming to you off-line to really try and manipulate a situation to agree with their standards. It was certainly something that could have been asked/discussed in an open forum, and if the results were not to their liking, you do not have to revisit the comments/blog. It really causes me to have a certain level of concern over this new foundation – certainly not a good way to get started. Was it not the lack of openness and manipulation to have others agree to their standards the reason this new foundation was birthed?
And, think twice before calling for limits on freedom of speech. Next, you may find yourself faced by limits on your own views.
I really didn’t think you would try to defend Sarah Pope in this. But, you did. The posts didn’t just disappear, I was blocked. I got an error message when I was trying to reply to something that said that perhaps the post was removed or I didn’t have permission or some such thing. One of my posts never showed up. And again, I am blocked now. I cannot reply to anything on that page. But yes, go ahead and insinuate again that it is simply Facebook being buggy, since it couldn’t possibly be that a WAPF board member didn’t certain facts known.
Steve, I think you read way too far into my comment. It would be nice if you would stop putting words in my mouth. Thanks in advance.
Nice try. The only reason to say what you did was to try to effect public perception of the event I was describing, casting doubt on the veracity of my words. You know what you were doing. I know what you were doing. Everybody reading these comments knows what you were doing. Trying to pretend like you weren’t doing that is just like Sarah Pope (or whoever was moderating her page) trying to pretend like they didn’t block me. At least she had the good sense to go back and delete her comment knowing that it would be obvious to everybody what has happened and only make her look worse.
I’m sorry you feel that way, Steve. Not going to argue with you about what I didn’t say.
And I’m blocked again on healthy home economist Facebook page.
I replied to this: “I wouldn’t consider an objective, government recall of a Rosita brand of liver oil to be rumor at all. Take it up with Norway if you have an issue. Obviously, Norway had reason to believe the retail version of the Rosita oil was contaminated, else it wouldn’t have been pulled off the shelves. There is reason to worry about quality control with this product, IMO which is exactly why testing of all the “best” brands (listed in the link above) is a good idea.”
With this: “The Healthy Home Economist The Rosita Oil wasn’t pulled from the shelves. It wasn’t recalled. It wasn’t banned. If a responsible government agency indeed found harmful toxins in retail products, you would expect this to be the case for sure. There is no reason to suspect that Norway’s food safety agency is not responsible, therefore . . . something else must be going on. Even though this article says the products were bought online, I think that was a problem with translation or misunderstanding from the original article which was in Norwegian, because I’ve never read that before. The products tested were crude, raw, unfiltered, because that is what was requested for testing – INCLUDING Rosita EVCLO (again, before filtration it passed the test). Regardless, they were not retail products. Therefore the agency issued a warning and urged people not to consume them. Read the article. No recall. Not pulled from shelves. Why would they do this? I’m told alternative producers of fish oils in Norway are basically like raw milk farmers in the US. Obviously you make money through Radiant Life affiliate links for Green Pasture products and this has perhaps cut into your income. And the Wetzels may be your friends. Neither is an excuse to spread falsehood about any product. Additionally, it is against WAPF policy to say something negative publicly about a WAPF vendor, and as board member I would think you would know this better than most and at LEAST hold to that minimum standard. Dr. Ron got kicked out for just such a claim, and nobody has even said that his claim was untrue. You and Sally say that there is not a double standard in regards to GPP and FCLO. Your actions reveal something different.”
I’m debating which part got me blocked, the truth about the so-called “Rosita recall”, revealing that she makes money promoting GPP products when she told everybody previously that she doesn’t get money from GPP (she does, it just goes through an intermediate), or pointing out that her double standard was showing. We may never know.
I suspect the vast majority of fish oils, cod or otherwise are rancid. How can they not be? They are rarely kept refrigerated in their chain of supply. They sit in room temp warehouses until shipped, sit on store shelves until purchased and sit on your home kitchen shelf unless you chose to fridge it there. As soon as you extract an oil from it’s source, the oxidation process begins and continues in the bottle. This is probably true for many olive oils as well. That’s the sad truth about all this fighting. No matter what oil you finally decide to swallow, it probably isn’t too good for you. Eat fresh fish, egg yolks and get some sunshine and your Vit D issues will be resolved. You can not depend upon a simple blood test as an accurate reading of the many metabolites of Vit D in your body.
Oh, except, maybe coconut oil, which is stable at room temp. God bless coconut oil.
A serious question: why can’t a fish oil be stable at room temp, why can’t it be an exception to the “all oils begin to oxidize and are rancid at room temp” rule, when coconut oil is clearly an exception? Curious.
The melting point of the oil is probably a determining factor as to how stable it is.
The higher the melting point the greater the stability.
Yes, coconut oil, butter and lard are solid at room temperature, which is an indication of their higher melting point.
http://www.naturepacific.com/page/34/nature-pacific-|-why-does-virgin-coconut-oil-crystallize-and-become-solid?
Fish oils are high in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). PUFAs oxidize quickly. Coconut oil is high in saturated fatty acids, which are very stable. Products high in saturated fatty acids are solid at room temp.
Bob: I agree. I’ve been giving this a great deal of thought. PUFA’s are so fragile, but we need AA and DHA in our diets. Best to get them from fatty fish, either fresh or flash frozen immediately after the catch, and the fat-soluble vitamins from seafood, land animal sources, ferments, and the sun. I think it’s bad advice to recommend routine use of fish oils of any type, and especially dangerous for children. The very freshest likely have little rancidity, but who really knows how fresh a given product is? Fish oils are a factory-made product. I gave up all factory food more than ten years ago, and am the healthiest I’ve ever been (I’m in my seventh decade). Foolishly, I believed the advice to consume cod liver oil, and did so for about five years. Never again will I consume any type of fish oil. Real, high-quality, nutrient-dense food is what gives the gift of radiant health. Cod liver oil may have a limited role as a therapeutic, for short-term use, under the guidance of a professional, but routine consumption as a part of the diet, most certainly not.
Bob, I wonder how a CLO in a full bottle would have enough oxygen in the head space to cause much oxidation of the oil. I wonder too if kept in the fridge and used within a month would cause much of the rancidity. Maybe I am not aware of other reaction mechanisms to cause the rancidity.
From all of the study that I’ve done Bob, you are right on. Certain companies go even further and actually fill their head space with an inert gas, so there IS no oxygen to begin the oxidation chain reaction. But once you take the lid off, the counter starts. Keeping it cold and away from sunlight and metal slows the oxidation process.
Instead of speculating about oils, I would recommend everyone see the interview Anne Marie Michael’s did with Dr. Rudi Moerck. He explains all of this stuff in detail. Yes the interview drags at first, but that’s just the way skype stuff is, from all I’ve seen. I don’t use skype but every interview I’ve ever seen using it is not great quality.
Instead of questioning the “why’s” of rancidity, let the interview answer those questions. There may be other interviews with him on youtube or something, too. People could check that out and see what he has to say on the subject, since he does seem to have a really good handle on the whole thing (but so does Dr. Daniel and look what happened there . . .)
Consider also that PUFAs can oxidise in your body (in vivo) if there aren’t enough of the right anti-oxidants.
Thank you Bob! This is the kind of question I’m asking and we all show be asking!
Yes, these oils are very delicate. I will point out that when I was researching these things, Nordic Naturals was actually using cod and using a cold filtration process to remove the toxins, and was packing the oil under nitrogen. Years back, when I took CLO, it never tasted rancid to me. I’m not saying that’s the only one that might be dependable with sufficient test results available to check the toxin content, but that’s the one I found.
(Be careful of eating fish. Even the so-called “safe fish” have quite high levels of mercury.)
Meanwhile, on the other side of the prairie, folks are being banned (and their posts deleted) left and right off of Cheeseslave’s blog and FB page. As a result there doesn’t appear to be much of a discussion going on over there at all.
I’m unfamiliar with how to respond in the apparently correct manner. Can you help me out? Am I now supposed to say something like, “You know I’ve accidentally and unintentionally blocked people before.” ? Is that how I give balance to this equation? Is that how I offer up plausible deniability as a defense? Or is balance REALLY necessary in the face of obvious intentional actions?
Those were rhetorical questions, but answer me this: why is it that the only place that you want to see an open dialogue and fairness is on pages or sites with a negative take on FCLO, WAPF, and/or GPP? Why don’t you demand fairness in reporting, showing all the facts, and open discussion on pro WAPF/GPP pages and sites? For someone demanding fairness, that doesn’t seem very fair.
I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of the apparent double-standard going on in which Ann Marie has been going on and on and on about the need for “openness” and free range of discourse and “feedback loops” only to be found shutting down the discussion herself at her own discretion. She is more than welcome to police her pages as she sees fit, but then we need to recognize that she (and her posse) aren’t so different from Sally and co. after all. Turns out that they all believe in controlling the range of dialogue… they just happen to have a fundamental difference of opinion on what constitutes as “appropriate” speech.
But you’re fine in your own apparent hypocrisy for decrying that, yet having the double standard of calling for fairness and open dialogue only on pages that are not supporting WAPF and GPP?
I don’t find it hypocritical to point out that one side is being ultra critical of the other side for things that they themselves are apparently not above engaging in.
No, I don’t that is hypocritical either. And that’s exactly the hypocrisy you are engaged in and I’m pointing it out. You are being ultra critical of one side for only presenting one side. Yet, you aren’t critical of the other side for the same reason. You are call for “fairness in reporting”, but only of one side. You are biased to one side. That is fine. That’s not wrong. Others are biased to another side – and you try to make it sound like that IS wrong.
I wouldn’t be so critical of this side if there weren’t a constant series of (as somebody else here put it) “and another thing…” objections being made against WAPF.
I would buy that, except that you’ve been constantly critical of this side since literally the very first week. It’s been literally months of this from you. The information coming out is indeed one thing after another thing, and it seems like piling on, except that each new thing is another layer of bad that makes you want to use euphemisms. Your response has been the same from the very beginning. This is just an excuse that seeks to fit with what is going on that would seem to legitimize your criticisms. But it is just revisionist history.
I meant to say, “makes ME want to use euphemisms”.
@ Steve: Wouldn’t you agree, Steve, that if there weren’t a bunch of “and another thing” items to deal with at WAPF, they wouldn’t be coming up in conversation? It would appear that “foundation” has a lot of unknown facets . . .
I was surprised when Kaayla mentioned Sally’s dust-up with Uffe Ravnskov. I really like reading his stuff (because it’s right on the money) and now I’ll have to follow him and Dr. Malcolm Kendrick at THINCS. Oh well, at least we still have access to their brilliance.
Of course I was critical from the beginning because I didn’t know anything about Kaayla Daniel prior to this and her report read like a vindictive smear campaign. Then, after seeing the first few interviews on Cheeseslave’s blog, I began to sympathize with the players involved and thought that maybe this really is an honest attempt at investigating health concerns with FCLO. I even defended Ann Marie on her own blog when somebody called her a “psychopath”…but then the onslaught just kept on going and going and on-to-the-next-objection and the next after that and I saw Cathy make a post on FB encouraging people to cancel their reservations to the WAPF conference and to sign-up for the PPPF conference instead and then more objections, and I realized that this is more than just an innocent search for the truth about FCLO.
Now, you don’t have to “buy” that or anything else I say for that matter. You asked me a question and I answered it honestly. Whether or not you choose to believe it is really none of my concern.
I did ask a question but you never answered it. “Why don’t you demand fairness in reporting, showing all the facts, and open discussion on pro WAPF/GPP pages and sites?” Again you could say it is because of the “and another thing”, but you’ve been demanding this of one side all the way back to when it was only FCLO. That excuse doesn’t work.
I definitely answered it, Steve. You just didn’t like my answer.
Oh, sorry. I went back and reread and managed to piece together an answer which I take to be, “Yes, I’m being a hypocrite, but it’s ok because . . . . ”
So, what I’m getting from this is, you have been constantly critical from the beginning. Constantly. Even when you were “sympathizing”. But you have come up with different excuses along the way that fit the circumstances. “Well yes, obviously I was critical at the beginning because . . . ” “Yes, I was critical then because . . . .” “I’m critical now, because . . . . ” You’ve got an agenda. You’ve had one from the beginning. Circumstances have changed, but your agenda has not.
great ideal! Good luck.
Sounds good. My fear is that there are SO MANY BLITHERING IDIOTS out there (although a MUCH reduced concentration in the natural health world) that i’m going to fall down……..
Here is an idea.
How about this.
Before anyone “pushes send” on a blog comment, you should apply this test: Would you say or use the same words when said directly to that person in “a face to face private” or public conversation in front of everyone’s kids?
So many blog posts would sadly fail this test. It has been my personal experience, that people are not as proud….not as brave and much more thoughtful and kind when they speak in person.
I admit that I have failed this test on occasion, but challenge myself to do better.
I also think it is crucial to call the person you may have a challenge with….and actually talk with them. Not so easy….but is soul clearing and builds character. The results of a direct conversation may be enlightening. You may hear things that are unexpected. Context and playing “here say” may be a big part of the problem. Things that you hear or think you hear or perhaps want to hear from somebody….may not be what was actually said or intended.
Peace and health…
If Mark and I can be civil to one another, than all should be able to accomplish respect on this blog.
This is precisely why there must be a comment moderation policy and it must be enforced.
“It has been my personal experience, that people are not as proud….not as brave and much more thoughtful and kind when they speak in person. I admit that I have failed this test on occasion, but challenge myself to do better.”
Good point, Mark. I agree.
The rules are very mild. The posse trying to enforce the rules is annoying.
Indeed, Those trying to arm wrestle their way in and control who says what on David’s blog need to sit back, take a breath and seriously think about what they are doing/saying.
After having a long discussion with my mother (who is, I guess, a WAPF loyalist. I am, too, really, but I really think there’s something wrong with the FCLO that needs to be investigated more). about the FCLO situation, and I think I can see both sides of what has been happening, and why the latest Annie Dru interview has caused a lot of upset…I hope that sharing this maybe other people will be able to see both sides, too.
On one hand are the people who feel very loyal to WAPF, and don’t find the reaction of the WAPF wrong at all (or maybe they do, but they still feel that the other work WAPF has done outweighs any of the current drama). The Annie Dru interview, while it had some parts about FCLO, was primarily about someone’s bad experience with GM. Because it was just someone saying what their experience was, without any solid proof (those types of situations seldom have proof), it seemed like malicious gossip, just to spread mean rumors. It was taken as a personal attack at Sally Fallon Morell and Geoffery Morell. And because it didn’t really add anything new to the FCLO discussion (like Dr. Rudi’s interview did), I can see why people took it that way.
On the other hand are the people who are very indignant about the politics and power-plays that have apparently been going on for a long time at WAPF. Perhaps they have been personally treated badly, or they just feel angry at seeing it happen to someone else, and they want to bring to light how the misuse of power is hurting people. And because the FCLO situation has a lot of hidden politics, money, and power behind it that I can only speculate at, it is reasonable to bring this up.
So there are the two sides that I have been able to pick out.
I am so thankful to Ann Marie and David for even daring to report on this topic. Personally, I would rather hear more about the scientific side of things than the power-structure problems at WAPF. I’ve seen that kind of stuff happen at any sort of group where power or money are involved – what would amaze me more would be to find some group of people who have figured out how to NOT have that happen! (and I wish PPPF the best of luck)
I do wish that either Dr. Rudi or another marine oil expert would be able to tell us what a very rancid oil would need to be tested for to determine if it is in fact rancid (if such a test exists), or if they could make any recommendations for testing to determine without a doubt whether it is actually rancid or not. (I wish he would have been able to address the claims that FFA’s are not a good indicator of rancidity). I am convinced it is rancid, but it seems like something like that would finally put the issue to rest.
This was such a great post Angie! I wish I could give it two dozen thumbs up. You have pretty much summed up all sides of this whole horrible fiasco in just a couple of paragraphs. Thank you for taking your time to express these thoughts.
Regarding the testing, there are labs that specialize in testing marine oils, that can easily do the needed tests. But more important is the analysis of the tests by marine oil experts. GPP has not posted a single analysis by a specialist in this field. You have to wonder why as that would be the quickest way to put this to bed. Let’s just imagine for a moment that they have had an analysis by one of these guys and they said that the oil was extremely rancid. Would they post it? Would they acknowledge it, even to themselves? I don’t think so. This was the response to the Daniel report and I have no reason why it would be any different with an expert evaluating it: “Unfortunately, she has had a misunderstanding about our fermented cod liver oil products and is trying to use the industry standard to regulate these special products. The bottom line is that our products have a long history of being food safe and healthful. This has not changed.” I think regardless of the analysis from the experts in the field, the response will always be, “Well they just don’t understand our process or product.”
So instead they trot out scientists from other fields that are treated as expert witnesses. The problem that I have with every one of the analyses that I have read from GPP is that they each reference something that they have been told by David Wetzel. When key tenets of your analysis are based upon word of mouth testimony from the manufacturer, that is problematic in a scientific analysis. If you don’t know enough about the process or the product from observation and testing, then you don’t really don’t know enough to do a meaningful analysis of the product. All of that to say, I don’t think it matters what anybody says or what test results show – GPP and WAPF have FAITH in this product, and that won’t be shaken by opinion, test results, or expert testimony.
I agree Steve. Angie’s thoughtful and insightful post makes all the other stuff that’s been going on worth it. Much appreciated.
“I’ve seen that kind of stuff happen at any sort of group where power or money are involved – what would amaze me more would be to find some group of people who have figured out how to NOT have that happen! (and I wish PPPF the best of luck)”
^ My thoughts exactly!!!
I’m blown away at the behavior of many. A big kudo for Mark McAfee for asking everyone to be civil. Passion is GREAT but it is being misdirected. I know people are angry, but I suggest focusing on the main question. Is cod liver oil rancid? What defines rancidity? How do they stack up against each other in test results? How do we sort out the scientific arguments by Tallent, MasterJohn and all to get the complete picture.
I also see that people are perceiving and making assumptions that folks are going overboard. I have to say that minus the personal attack, I’m very much learning from Steve, Amanda, Anne-Michael, Kerrie and all on the two sides of the fence. What is often missing in the whole discussion is Sally and Dave. They have sent out information which hasn’t really been published and discuss in the blog. We also will learn more what they say at the convention.
David – on a personal note, I’m really sorry to say but your objectivity is gone. Hardly much on raw milk war, cheese and all. Your blogging has become a cod liver war zone / attack on the WAPF on anything. I guess they didn’t generate much discussion and passion as the cod liver oil war.
Truly saddening as we ALL are losers in here. Only way we’re going to get out is to start building bridges, forgiving and focusing on the greater issues.
An Ode to David –
It could be said that David’s done his job so well that the raw milk war is but a whisper right now, when it was a roar. Wasn’t he the just right person to walk in on the raw milk fight, when it was in need of a platform, a champion, a highly regarded journalist that could span business, farming and nutrition camps? Shoot, every time we looked around there was another farm raid- and there would be David. Three books later and countless blogs and lectures, we’re all so much better informed and organized. Thank you David!
But think on this, he wasn’t truly objective then, because he LOVED raw milk.
This topic is the flip side of the coin. I think it’s safe to say he doesn’t love FCLO.
So, now he’s providing a platform for a community coming to grips with misconduct and misplaced trust. He’s grappling with rapid readership growth while staying right on the pulse.
The topic is not something he’s as easily conversant with, like raw milk…but he’s wading in, man he’s wading in. Gotta love his gumption. That would be my new nick name for him, David Gumption, but I don’t feel right giving him a nick name. He’s bigger than that. Way bigger in my eyes.
Wow, Cathy. I’m blushing. Thank you so much.
I would like to thank you, David, for your continued efforts and integrity. Perhaps people who don’t like it should start their own blog, and run it how they see fit. Other bloggers should return to their blogs and enforce whatever rules they choose to over there. There have been hurtful words spoken, but you will always get that with such diverse groups of people. If they are out of hand and too much for you to handle please go to the top right of your screen, click on the little x in the corner, and the problem is solved. Being offended is a choice, entering into a debate is a choice, if you cannot or do not want to be in an argument they see yourself out of it. I like the different opinions that are allowed on this blog, very rarely are we truly afforded the chance for freedom of speech anymore. A lot of us have learned a lot, considered other opinions, and have probably screamed at the screen more than once.
Good point, Sha, about getting diverse opinions. I was once told by an excellent journalist that if you write about something important, and aren’t criticized by both sides, then you haven’t really done your job. Appreciate your kind words.
A brilliant and timely piece by Mike Adams Professor of Sociology and Criminology; University of North Carolina
… In an article for Townhall.com, Aug. 28, 2015, Prof. Adams writes: “The following column is comprised of excerpts taken from my first lectures on the first day of classes this semester at UNC-Wilmington. I reproduced these remarks with the hope that they would be useful to other professors teaching at public universities all across America.
Below is ( the introduction ) of the message Prof. Adams delivered to his students:
… Welcome back to class, students! I am Mike Adams your criminology professor here at UNC-Wilmington. Before we get started with the course I need to address an issue that is causing problems here at UNCW and in higher education all across the country. I am talking about the growing minority of students who believe they have a right to be free from being offended. If we don’t reverse this dangerous trend in our society there will soon be a majority of young people who will need to walk around in plastic bubble suits to protect them in the event that they come into contact with a dissenting viewpoint. That mentality is unworthy of an American. It’s hardly worthy of a Frenchman.
… Let’s get something straight right now. You have no right to be unoffended. You have a right to be offended with regularity. It is the price you pay for living in a free society. If you don’t understand that you are confused and dangerously so. …
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2015/11/12/professor-tells-sensitive-students-they-have-no-right-to-be-unoffended/
Yes, professors now must indicate prior to their discussions if the lecture contains “trauma triggers”, something that might upset a student, such as mentioning the world trade center, rape, etc. How are these students supposed to go about in the real world when everything they hear causes an emotional breakdown? There are grade school kids in my neighborhood, whose parents wait at the corner of a one block long street in their heated cars to pick up their kids getting off the school bus. They quickly escort them into the car and drive two houses down to their driveway and usher them into the house. If kids are coddled to this level, how will they be useful citizens in adulthood? They will be YERY compliant adults expecting all things to be managed for them by the gov’t and that includes vaccines and the foods that they should eat. It’s easy to see why people accept GMO foods and roll up their sleeves for the next injection without question. PPNF, WAPF, PPPF are all needed to bring a little light to those willing to venture beyond the comfort zone. All help to enlighten.
Freedom comes with responsibility. And like it or not freedom of speech allows that we may be offended by what is said or expressed. But at the same time freedom of speech is not a license to ignore social norms of decency as a matter of course. One can make a brutal and objectionable point articulately and without malice. Freedom is not a warm and fuzzy mug of soup in front of a blazing fire. It gets ugly, emotional, personal, stressful…urgent and completely overpowering; it speaks to core human rights and governance of society.
Freedom sparks primitive instincts in some of us and calls up a sort of fight or flight mode. And then there is this forum that allows us to instantly, anonymously or not, strike the keys and respond without having to think it through or face those we’re responding too. Which makes it easy to dispense with self-control and civility when we read something that we feel deeply about, or that really pisses us off.
Bottom line – this is David’s blog. It provides a huge public service but it does not belong to the public. Nobody is forced to read it or comment. If you can’t handle yourself with respect in an open environment of passionate sometimes heated debate, opposing view points, raw truth, absurdity and ignorance I think David has every right to eliminate you from the discussion. But this is the internet, not a closed safe place to bare your soul. If your offended just stop reading it, it’s your choice to subject yourself or not. I support freedom of speech, and I also support David’s freedom to hold this online community to the level of civility and accountability that he sees fit. It is no more Davids responsibility to teach people how to express their thoughts and emotions respectfully than it is for him to shield the sensitive.
David, thank you for your candidness and transparency. This is after all your blog, and you didn’t have to announce your new policy, or allow people to publicly debate it. Your sense of ethics and professionalism (and patients) is commendable!
Gayle, as a veteran here, you know how intense discussion can get. As you suggest, if the heat gets too intense, it is possible to leave the kitchen. Thanks for your kind words.
Thanks for posting this. I am new to your blog since the end of August, and over the past 2 & 1/2 months I noticed that the commentators tend to be a rather small group of people who all seem to know one another and carry on in the most petty and indecorous manner. Well not everyone, but the overall tone of the discussion is of low quality and it only takes a few to drag it down. I have wondered how people manage to find the time to put so much energy into these things. I’m afraid it does mean you have to exert a heavier hand on what to post to maintain a quality board. We’ve all seen how much Chris Masterjohn thinks of his own blog, with his allowing all sorts of spam to remain in his comments.
You owe it to yourself to lift up the quality of discussion by your readers.
David,
Words cannot express how much I appreciate you for providing a venue for my testimony. I know you did your best to shepherd the resultant dialogue in a direction that would spare me any further unnecessary exposure and discomfort, and for that I am very grateful. You sir, are a gentleman.
I also want to thank Amanda for prompting a thorough, if sometimes painful, airing of the many difficult issues raised in this discussion. You’re a bloodhound sister, and I mean that in the nicest sense of the word. I don’t think the more delicate aspects of the story would have come forward without your prompting, and I for one applaud your persistence in the face of such push-back from the group.
As some of you may be aware, Ann Marie Michaels has posted a second article dealing with my experience at last year’s conference on her Cheeseslave blog. Perhaps she is correct in saying that a new venue for the more sensitive aspects of this discussion is now called for; in the service of those more vulnerable souls deliberating the pros and cons of coming forward with their testimonies. Blessings on her for providing a safe forum for continued exploration of this topic.
I will most enthusiastically continue to follow the discussion on this blog, with the hopes that two distinct forums will only deepen and broaden the scope of our conversation. I believe we will find upon further examination, that the WAPF FCLO-sheltering issue and the sexually inappropriate behavior-collusion issue have much in common in the end.
Wishing us all greater and greater clarity as we attempt to forge a new path, humbled and ready to learn from our past mistakes.
Blessings,
Annie Dru
Annie, thank you very much for your additional insights. And for acknowledging the positive role Amanda played in helping you confront “the many difficult issues raised in this discussion.” I’ve been tough on Amanda, as have others, so I think it’s important to point out that sometimes the difficult questions, the ones some of us have trouble with, were helpful to you.
By the way, Annie’s article at Cheeseslave, which includes some comments she made previously on this blog, can be found at: http://www.cheeseslave.com/more-details-from-annie-drus-sexual-harassment-at-wapf-conference/
It’s worth reading to help those who wonder about what Annie did to follow up and complain about the incident she described.
Thanks, Annie. I’m glad that you were not offended by my questions. I was starting to feel like a monster for even having asked them at all.
Go see Ann Marie’s really tough to watch because it was not easy for either of them to talk about, but a relief to hear, video of Kaayla Daniel’s apology to the women of Weston Price for not doing more to stop Geoffrey. I know it will be bashed here in spite of the new rules. So sad that people feel a need to tear these women apart. I admire Ann Marie and Kaayla more than ever. My heart ached for both of them. It was so reassuring to me to see these brave, brave women doing their best to look out for other women. They have pure hearts, pure hearts!
K, so I just watched the recent video with Kaayla Daniel and the one thing she said that stuck out the most for me was “I can speak up about this now *because* I’ve been offed [AKA removed from the organization]” …so, in other words, she is admitting right there that she wouldn’t even be saying these things at all if she were still on the WAPF board today, and Ann Marie wonders why people accuse her of having a vendetta?
I took that to mean “no worries about being kicked out for this, because I have already been kicked out”.
Amanda, now that you and I are friends, I will take the liberty of reminding you of an important lesson we’ve learned through the course of this difficult discussion.
Namely, that the shaming of individuals by those in the power seat within any organized group or family unit– whether that power comes by way of authority position or group complicity, is tantamount to applying a muzzle to the mouths of those who would otherwise speak out.
Dr. Daniel’s testimony in the Cheeseslave interview included what appeared to be a sincere apology for not doing more to put a stop to the misbehavior while still in the midst of it. She provided a easily believable explanation having to do with the futile attempts she made to reason with, educate and redirect the individuals involved, and her genuine desire to believe that someone whom she held in especially high regard would not be connected to such depravity.
Obviously, speaking out against a wrong once one is removed from the pressure of group collusion is infinitely easier to accomplish than doing so in an environment where everyone is still ‘drinking the Koolaid’. I for one consider it a forgivable failing and applaud Dr. Daniel for the courage it took to admit she’d been fooled, manipulated and ultimately ineffectual in bringing the problem to light.
Assuming Ann Marie Michaels has a ‘vendetta’ implies that she’s had a longstanding feud with the organization and/or individuals associated with it. I certainly don’t know that to be the case, do you? What motive are you assigning her that would explain such a campaign? How about we use logic here instead? How about we take her actions at face value and explain them in light of her being an investigative journalist?
And finally, if you don’t desist in being so persistent and aggressive in your questioning, you too may be accused of having a vendetta and/or being an investigative journalist! LOL (:
@ Amanda
” …so, in *other* words, she is admitting right there …”
No, Amanda, it’s in YOUR words. You are putting your words in someone else’s mouth that she simply did not say.
What I got from that video is her profound sorrow from her experience with this whole sordid mess.
Does anyone wonder why you appear to have an unfriendly agenda?
So, after listening to ALL of that . . . your take away is that Ann Marie Michaels has a vendetta. THAT is what you got from listening to that interview? And you wonder why people have been hesitant to come forward. How are you not part of the problem?
No, that isn’t all that I got from the interview, but I think that it’s a point worth addressing because, as somebody else here already mentioned, every organization has it’s scandals and power struggles that people within the group are aware of. I think you would be hard pressed to find one that doesn’t, and the new foundation has certainly built some rather big shoes for themselves to fill (and we have yet to see whether they will be able to fill them or not). They may very well find themselves in the same quandary that WAPF finds itself in now, and what then? Are we supposed to just abandon the idea of organizing any foundation at all? I don’t believe that we have that luxury, because our enemies are organized we must be organized as well.
The “democratic-republic” that we live under is constantly embroiled in scandal far worse than this, but I don’t see many people calling for an abandonment/overthrow of government because of it.
@ Steve: Here’s what I got from the interview: Dr. Daniel’ said something to the effect that she basically didn’t grasp the enormous breadth and depth of the problem with Sally’s husband until Ann Marie and Annie Dru came forward. Then, apparently, many others contacted Ann Marie and a pattern started to emerge. Then Kaayla fully realized the enormity. At least that part of the interview was very clear to me.
Dr. Daniel’ said that she and Mary Enig (now deceased) and a few others suspected something wasn’t quite right with the man a while back in time, because of their own experiences, but until the incident at the WAPF convention last year in Indianapolis and a few other ladies coming forward recently, no one had any idea of the real scope of this thing.
Ann Marie bringing it out into the open on her site doesn’t mean she has an agenda or a vendetta or anything else, I don’t believe, but apparently there are others who are willing to put it into that light. It’s simply a matter of getting things out into the open and is really no different than women who have, in the past, spoken out against MD’s and Gynecologists, etc., who have been guilty of similar actions. Many of those women didn’t speak out until others came forward, as well. It’s not an easy thing to do.
If Sally’s husband truly has a problem of some sort, it sounds to me like it’s past time to be doing something about it. Speaking up is the initial phase of those actions, don’t you agree, Steve?
I absolutely agree, D. Smith. Amanda saying that from an interview filled with completely inappropriate behavior by a board member of WAPF, and cover ups and retributive behavior from his wife, the director of the board, “the ONE thing she said that stuck out the most for me was” and the proceeds to try to metaphorically kill the messengers. I shouldn’t be surprised at this point. But I admit I was surprised, hence my comment.
“no one had any idea of the real scope of this thing”
That claim of innocence doesn’t really jive with David’s and Dru’s characterization of the situation. David was saying he heard many first and second hand reports from people and Dru that she reported it to the board who passed it off as a known thing, no big deal.
In situations where there is a long time abuser, it is quite common for the entire family to know about it and run cover for them; even though they know the situation is very wrong. In some cases it has even extended to encompass entire industries or governments.
It reminds me of Stockholm syndrome. Or maybe more appropriately the Milgram experiment’s.
I’m not sure how you structure an organization to avoid the hazards of human nature uncovered in the Milgram experiments. Even the loosest of power structures have it. You probably have to build it into the culture.
However the instinct towards censorship and SJW tendencies exposed on this thread don’t bode well for the new org on that count.
If you listen carefully to Kaayla Daniel’s account of her experience as a WAPF director, hearing reports about sexual harassment, many of those reports were second hand. The other thing I heard her suggest was that the seriousness of the episodes she was hearing about increased in intensity over time. Combine all that with her own personal experiences with Geoffrey Morell, which were mostly what I would call marginal–the kinds of things that were notable and annoying, and probably technically harassing, and the overall feelings of admiration and trust she and others had for WAPF leadership and, well, it’s a murky situation. Yes, easy to play Monday-morning-quarterback and second-guess yourself (and she obviously feels guilt, because she apologizes for not having acted more forcefully). More clear-cut in retrospect than in the moment. More important, a leadership geared toward enabling the troublesome behavior rather than stopping it.
As for the instinct toward censorship, all I can say is that it’s a society-wide problem, with growing impact of “political correctness.” We’ll try to keep an open atmosphere in this little corner of the world.
Amanda, you said
“the one thing she said that stuck out the most for me was “I can speak up about this now *because* I’ve been offed [AKA removed from the organization]” …so, in other words, she is admitting right there that she wouldn’t even be saying these things at all if she were still on the WAPF board today, and Ann Marie wonders why people accuse her of having a vendetta?”
I grew up in a home where there was physical and emotional abuse. I knew abuse was a problem. I knew it was something that we should deal with. And we (meaning myself and siblings) did do various things to try to deal with it. But the thing is, we were buried in a culture where it was not treated as a heinous thing. I talked to a spiritual leader about what was happening in our home and was encouraged to pray more and respect my parental authorities more and the problem would resolve.
Despite having every opportunity to do so, I never called Government authorities to report what was happening. Truthfully, I didn’t fully understand the breadth and scope of the abuse until I was way outside of the culture that fostered the abuse. When you are in it, you develop tunnel vision and lose perspective.
It’s something I’ve asked myself a thousand times. Why didn’t I call? Why didn’t I more clearly grasp the scope of what was happening in that home? I knew better, surely I knew better, why didn’t I DO better???
The truth is when leaders are abusing their authority and power. When things are kept covered up, muffled up and hushed. When “free speech” isn’t allowed and outside resources frowned upon. It creates a culture where speaking up and out is extremely difficult. Knowing what to do and how to do it is far less clear than it becomes once you are well outside of this environment and culture.
Dr. Daniel’s perspective now that she is well outside of the internal workings of the WAPF is no doubt far clearer than it’s ever been before and I would venture a guess that if she had it to do over again she would be taking far different actions than she did before. That’s what we do when given the opportunity to learn. If I had it to go back over I would do things differently than I did as well when living in a home where a culture of abuse was fostered and accepted.
The fact that she is no longer in a position to be punished for her “treason” simply means she’s already been punished for a different treason.
Accusing those who are vulnerable enough to speak out on the only platform they are being given to do so of having a “vendetta” simply contributes to the culture that made it so hard to recognize, much less speak about the problem in the first place.
Thanks so much for what you said Stephanie! Here is something telling, I read your comment before and gave it a vote up, come back to do a reply and it is back to zero.
You obviously hit a raw or guilty nerve in some one. I agree with everything you say and I like very much how you said it And I know it is not easy, ever to speak of one’s own abusive experiences and I applaud you for what you did and know this will help others. As for those who need to shame others for speaking up, well It must be an awfully cold and cruel reality you people live in.
No ‘monsters’ here Amanda. The lust for power is the only monster I’ve recognized in this discussion, and such creatures can’t exist for long in the light of honest and fearless scrutiny. We’ll get to the bottom of this in the end.
how about a re-set ? … everyone go back to their corners and take a deep breath
as explained so well in an article in today’s National Post, political correctness controversies have a habit of fizzling in the face of their own internal contradictions [ Hysterics on campus by Jen Gerson ]
… I go back so far I can remember Jimminy Cricket = with the voice of Ronald Regan ! = singing “ac- centuate the Positive. E-liminate the negative”
if I can do it, anyone can
what’s come through this forum, convinces me that Dave Weitzel has, indeed, made a big mistake, assuming that the oils rendered from fermented fish guts, is edible. And that he ought to reconsider if he’s actually doing more harm than good, putting it out, without advertising the negative experiences. Who’s close enough to him, who can get that much across to him, as a friend?
lost in the heat of battling words, though, is the fact that Dave Weitzel and Sally Fallon, led the way bringing miraculous X-factor Butter oil, to the main-stream
when I took the BeeMaster Course at UBC in 1975, Manuka Honey was just a curiosity. Now, it’s recognized officially as a ” functional food”, graded then sold according to the strength of the nutriceutical factor within a particular batch … for ( up to) $42 per pound. Commanding that high price, because it works to heal intestinal ulcers.
… Same thing is happening with butter oil. Dave Weitzel is leading the way, with hard evidence proving the concepts of Carey Rheams, as to improving pasture land with milk, in order to feed the soil bacteria. Thus raising the Brix of the grass, ultimately, improving the quality of milk/ butter, from cows grazing on that land.
Gordon, it’s been claimed in the comments of this blog that GP’s butter oil now comes from Argentina. If that is true, it seems unlikely to me that Dave Wetzel would have any influence on improving pasture land in Argentina. Furthermore, Kaayla’s report says the butter oil tested as being rancid. Seems like it’s lost its miraculous product status.
Applause – !!
If we are to get to the center of the issues we ALL face, then attacking one another is not the answer. We all want (at least we all SEEM to want) truth more than anything, so let’s stick it out together an get to the bottom of things – not just with WAPF, but in all matters concerning our ability to access and gain knowledge about real food, real nutrition, real health and so on.
Yes, we are going to get surprised every now and then, but we have to remember that it is not each other we fight. it is ignorance, arrogance and misused/abused authority – and we are going to find it in places most of us would never have suspected. Frequently.
Does anyone else find it incredibly odd and even suspicious that Ann Marie Michaels is receiving the most negative ratings on her comments compared to anyone else? I have seen this happen in another recent blog post of David’s as well with Ann Marie’s comments being heavily negatively rated compared to other commenters. I don’t find many of her comments to be malicious or condescending either. It’s as if there is a group out there trying to discredit her. This is my personal observation.
Ann Marie is a lightning rod, in many ways. I say that as an admirer. Talented people who put themselves out there and are on the leading edge of controversial issues often attract both negative and positive reaction….and little in between.
I agree, David. I find it sad and disturbing that you, Ann Marie, Dr. Ron, Dr. Kaayla Daniel, as well as others who are bringing forth openly serious issues that need to be brought up are being attacked simply because these serious issues are being raised. I understand what it is like to speak up for what I know to be true. Some people will despise you from raising important issues while others will be very thankful and addressing those issues may have saved their lives. I’m very thankful for you all for speaking up!
This isn’t about trying to destroy the Weston A. Price Foundation’s reputation or anyone’s reputation for that matter. Reputation is not what its about. Reputation is vain and useless compared to we, the people. Each and every one of us matter. Each and every one of us are valuable. If one person gets injured by a food or product, that one person matters and the food or product needs to then be evaluated. This is especially true for the fermented cod liver oil in which many people have spoken out with injuries, some minor and some very severe.
My heart goes out to all the people who have been harmed/hurt regarding the cod liver oil issue and sexual harassment as well as everyone else. Regardless of what a person does or has done, all people deserve love, compassion, and understanding. Shunning, abusing, or character assassinating anyone will not solve anything. We are all one and are connected in spirit. We are all in this together.
I find it interesting that my personal observation got several negative ratings. It was simply a personal observation regarding the oddly numerous negative ratings towards Ann Marie compared to others on this blog who posted comments in a similar fashion. That is all. It was not meant at all to attack anyone. It appears as though there are some of us here who have some deep seated issues that need to be addressed in love to Ann Marie personally. For those of us (we are all one by the way) who have issues with Ann Marie, may we go to her in love and in kindness to address whatever it is needed to be addressed and to move forward in this life in love without any shunning, bitterness, contempt, character assassination, and so on towards anyone.
We are all one in spirit. May we understand that none of us came here with a rule book on how to live this life on this earth. All of us make mistakes and will continue to do so because none of us are experts in this life. May we no longer have grudges or bitterness towards anyone. And may we live this life with love, compassion, and understanding towards all people regardless of their faith, beliefs, mistakes, actions, words, appearance, etc.