forming an advisory group?

[Guest guest]

>>What we really want is well-researched, well-cited information, right?

Something that holds up under scrutiny, if even just that of NT/WAPF

supporters! There's got to be a way for us to influence the book and site in

that regard...<<<

*** I have a suggestion, just an idea.

Background: I agree with all those who have voiced deep concern with Sally's

response to the pasteurized milk debate, especially as it illuminates the more

broad concern for the sometimes weak research presented in the websites, as well

as the NT book (which by the way I view as more than just a cookbook -- I view

it more along the line of " Diet for a New America " . A nutrition book for lay

people.) I also am really taken aback that Sally would not include pork

primarily because of her co-authors religious background. Even before joining

this list and learning of other people's concerns, I was uneasy when I read NT.

I was very affected by the book and really appreciate all that Sally has done,

don't get me wrong, but as I read it I could have marked off probably 50

different statements that sounded really questionable to me. I am not a

nutritionist or a scientist. I am a good example of a lay person who wants to

eat a healthy diet, but also does NOT want to be taken for a ride. So I crave

LOTS of documented evidence and good research. And I worry about the great

contributions of Sally and 's work being undermined by attacks from those

who stand to lose from what Sally and are saying.

I also was a bit concerned with the language of the letter I received when I

requested more information on the WAP foundation. The war metaphors were a bit

much. I am not saying this to be PC, but rather to point out that it presented

an " us against them " mentality that didn't sound very professional.

My naturopathic doctor recommened the NT book to me. Obviously she sees a lot

of good in the book. However, she has concerns about various statements in the

book (I don't know what she thinks of the websites). She has also spoken in

person with Sally and has heard both Sally and speak. She presented to

Sally a concern she had (can't remember about what) and was disappointed in

Sally's response. She also felt somewhat uncomfortable with Enig's

data/research when she was *not* talking about fats... she feels her research on

fats is excellent. I am only repeating my drs comments in order to point out

the wide concern readers of NT have. And that my drs concerns cause ME to be

cautious of what the WAP foundation professes. Which I suppose is a good thing,

we should all be cautious about what we read. However, what I hear stated on

this list is a wide-spread level of concern and the wish to do something about

it.

So, my humble suggestion is that perhaps we could approach Sally and suggest

that some kind of advisory group be set up. This could be set up in whatever

way would work best. I would say that perhaps the more flexible the set-up the

better, ie no rigid rules about the role of the group... just a group of

concerned NT folks who want to give feedback to Sally in an organized, coherent

way. For example, perhaps my dr would be willing to be in the group. And of

course many well-read and learned people on this list would be excellent members

of an advisory group. I suggest this in response to the mention of the term

" splinter group " since I am sure none of us really wants that to happen. It

seems that the best solution would be one that involved ongoing communication

and feedback and information exchange with Sally. Hmmm, maybe there already is

a board set up at the WAP? I just thought of that. Well, in any case, it seems

that no one here really knows where to turn in order to let their concerns be

known to Sally (other than writing her personally) and perhaps a mechanism could

be set up for that. Something like that....

Carolyn

[Guest guest]

<<< Well, in any case, it seems that no one here really knows where to

turn in order to let their concerns be known to Sally (other than writing

her personally) and perhaps a mechanism could be set up for that. Something

like that....

Carolyn>>>>

I think this particular concern is PERHAPS a good example of what Sally's

response to an advisory group would be. I feel this particular topic (calves

die before maturity when fed pasteurized milk) was presented to Sally by us

(granted an informal advisory group). She apparently took the time to take

another look into the statement, because she consulted with a friend who was

just getting into goats, a retired farmer and his nephew. She still said

" basically the statement is true " and has chosen to leave it as is.

Carmen