Let’s not get confused here. The prize that the Natural Solutions Foundation has its eye firmly fixed on is nothing short of victory in the complex and multi-sided war on our Health Freedoms, all of them. Keeping your eye on the prize means remembering that the members of our team, all of them, are NOT the enemy. But our team, the Health Freedom team, frequently spends our precious resources (time, effort and credibility) on diversions (e.g, turf battles and uncivil, nasty nonsense and meaningless attacks). Our team’s effort should be totally focused on defeating the enemy, not turning allies into enemies. It’s sort of like “Dallas comes to Health Freedom”.
And now, for something completely different, let me propose a level of civility heretofore unknown by a number of the members of our team: wasting time attacking each other is NOT useful in winning the war, even when another member of the team disagrees with a position you might hold dear.
If you don’t know what I am talking about, that’s great. It means that the tempest in the turf teapot has not reached you. Don’t even bother reading further: your eye has not been distracted from the prize and you are marching in the correct direction.
If, on the other hand, you are tired of getting e-whipsawed by a flow of intellectual sewage, please read on. You won’t find any such attack or defamation here: the Natural Solutions Foundation will continue to take the highest road. What you will find, however, is a discussion of what civility and meaningful discourse means and what it does not.
On June 16, 2005 I wrote to Jonathan Campbell, (http://www.cqs.com/) and introduced the Natural Solutions Foundation to him, writing,
While searching the web for material for my blog I encountered your site and the excellent piece “50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods” by Nathan Batalion. I am very impressed by your site and the material on it and I would like the opportunity to make contact with you and see how we might support the work that each of us is doing.
He responded the next day, saying “I agree with you 100% and I will do what I can to spread the word to my clients and my lists.” So far so good. Building bridges is a good thing and I believe that our side is only strengthened by alliances and mutual support. Concering the most negative of the Health Freedom activists (who irrationally attacks others continually if they commit the sin of disagreeing with them in any way), Jonathan writes “….how unfortunate. He can’t see his own sectarianism drives people away, and he thinks his little website is going to stop CODEX. Slightly short-sighted, and politically very naive.”
Then the next day, Jonathan wrote to tell me that while he agrees with part of what we are doing, he has misunderstood to whom the Citizen Petition is intended and therefore does not understand its import but thinks that by opposing CAFTA/FTAA we will solve the Codex problem. I wrote back explaining why I did not share this analysis.
Now here is an important point: in my mind this is perfectly OK: we disagree on our analysis of the problem and we are in a respectful dialogue about it. As I keep saying, this is a really big playing field and there is room for lots of different players using different strategies to deal with the immense Health Freedom assaults coming at us from many different directions.
On 10/23/05 I published a newsletter called Good News About Pandemic Flu in which I included a number of immune enhancement strategies which came from many, many different sources. Jonathan wrote me stating that a few of the items which I recommended were, in fact, published on his site and demanded a citation. My suggestions, which included various amino acids, Olive Leaf Extract, High Dose Vitamin C, garlic, Oil of Oregano, elderberry extract, etc., and which cited numerous references, were more diverse than his reccomendations. I did not even know that any of them had come from Jonathan since I received an email from a correspondent with some recommendations, but with no citation. Those with which I agreed I added to my list because they made sense and were easily available materials which could be added to a regimen with good effect.
I wrote back to Jonathan and told him that while I did not know he was the author of the regimen from which I drew some items (and still don’t, by the way, despite his claim), the next time I wrote about health issues I would mention that Jonathan asked to be cited as the source for the use of these particular items. Of course, I am not aware that he has done the basic research on these items and, as far as I can tell, did not cite the research from which their recommendation came but, none the less, as a courtesy, I have no problem indicating that the proximate source for the information on the inclusion of a few of these items was Jonathan’s website.
Since my newsletter contained items not contained in his article, Jonathan demanded an attribution for, I suppose, those parts for which he claims ownership. I have no problem with this: assuming that he really did publish these nutritional suggestions before anyone else, he should receive credit for that publication.
That is where things stood until several of our correspondents sent us an absolutely astonishing, widely disseminated letter written by Jonathan in which he, on the one hand, complements my effective writing style and on the other hand, libels me by absurd accusations that I am using some nasty, nefarious and underhanded technique of which I had, in fact, never heard AND that I learned this technique from, of all places,the US Army via, he says, my husband, a retired Army officer. Just in case there is any doubt, this is nonsense: I never learned any technique in any area from the US Army (or any other military organization from here or elsewhere, for that matter). Never.
As a College English Major who intended to write the Great American Novel (never dreaming that I would write the Great American Polemic instead) and takes pride in my writing skills, I am flattered. I guess my writing style derives from Mrs. Feaster, my 6th grade teacher and from Dr. Wilson, my college advisor, but the Army?
My writing style is far more graceful and fluid than my husband’s: I write in sentences, he writes in bullets (what else?)
A little substantiation would do nicely here, Jonathan, thank you. In fact, it would provide a welcome relief and a refreshing change from the assertions, allegations, smear and slander, to say nothing of the libel, flung at those of us who are effective in this Health Freedom advocacy. I suppose that if there were no intentional dissemination of dissent in this field, Big Pharma would have to invent it. Have they?
It is tempting to wonder whether that might account for some of the nastiness and distraction in this arena or whether personal pettiness and dysfunction are sufficient to account for it without outside influence.
Back to the specific matter at hand, though: Having taken, as usual, the High Road of civil response to civil discourse and ignoring anything else, I was shocked to receive the following rather astonishing (and factually inaccurate) email from Jonathan today:
Dr. Laibow,
It has now been some time since you published a copy of my avian flu preparation regimen without attribution, and you agreed that you would send a notice of attribution to your subscribers. You have acknowledged that you obtained from someone and re-published it without checking out the source or doing a simple google search, and that is an infringement of my copyright. I have not seen your acknowledgement sent to your list. I now request that you do so, and will contact my lawyer if you do not do so within 10 days.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
So, Jonathan, you have had an acknowledgement of the fact that I unintentionally incorporated something that you claim to have originated into a larger article, although I do not have any substantiation of the fact that you are, in fact, the author of the protocol you published. (And do not understand how doing a “simple google search” would prevent a violation of your copyright.” My protocol differs in substantial areas from yours but that is, as far as I can tell, a good thing. Here my civil and fact-based questions to you:
1. Where is the substantiation of the allegations which you have made about me and my writing techniques? Please provide it to me.
2. When can I expect your public acknowledgement of the fact that you have publicly defamed and libeled me? Should I give you a deadline threatening to contact my lawyer if you do not provide it? Is that how you prefer to carry out discourse?
3. What is your motivation for this defamation and liable?
4. What possible positive outcome does publicaly attacking another member of our team serve when I had already assured you that I was prepared to cite your material when I next wrote about the topic? Are you looking to create trouble, get your ego stroked or do you, in fact, have another agenda in mind?
5. Your sudden switch in attitude and cooperation suggests that you have been compromised by “disinformation”. Since there is more than enough disinformation going around from a number of different sources (with a number of different agendas driving it), I suggest that the members of our team develop the habit of scrupulous accuracy rather than witting or unwitting dissemination of it. Is there a reality-based reason for the sudden switch that you want to make public or is it a private matter? If public, please supply the information, if private, why would you impose a private issue on the general public?
I suggest that you (and other members of the Health Freedom team) refrain from public assault on those of us who form the Health Freedom team. Given your early high praise for our work before you decided that you could not tolerate any dissent from your position on CAFTA/FTAA (which we oppose but do not see as a major health freedom threat: Codex is the threat: CAFTA/FTAA are, from a health freedom perspective, derivitive problems) and our earlier civility, I would suggest a return to that mode of behavior.
I know that is the path I have chosen. There’s plenty of room up here on the High Road. Y’all come.
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director