Dr. Gordon worshipped?  Perhaps not... but I certainly feel that we need to
have a place for satirical humor in our lives and in our society.  If it
were 'published' in a manner that was meant to deceive those reading it into
really believing that someone else said something they did not, for
malicious purposes ... that would be dishonest.  However, this was
informally posted to a select group of professionals who could quickly see
what was going on... and it was quickly clarified for those who did not
catch on immediately.   Scientific American - among other publications, for
instance, publishes an entire magazine of spoof articles in April (or at
least they did in the past.... haven't checked lately).  It's all done in
fun.    I have a sign in my clinic that reads "Your husband called - he said
you could buy anything you want!"     Does this make me an intellectually
dishonest person... since obviously no one's husband made that call... or
does it simply reflect a sense of humour?  The mom's who come in laugh, so I
have to believe the latter.
I am absolutely dedicated to scientific evidence and intellectual honesty...
but I'm also dedicated to not taking life so seriously that we can't have a
chuckle along the way.

Best wishes,
Jeanne Cygnus, IBCLC
Cygnus Lactation Services
(www.CygnusLactation.com)
Illinois, USA

            

Date:    Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:01:40 -0400
From:    Katherine Dettwyler <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Dr. Gordon is not universally worshipped

Just had to add my .02 worth.  There is nothing genius=2C or noble=2C or ve=
ry nice=2C about publishing something (even on LactNet) and claiming that s=
omeone else said it.  This is academic dishonesty=2C right up there on a pa=
r with plagiarism=2C where a person claims that they wrote something that s=
omeone else actually wrote.

I don't know Mr. Tayloe=2C but I believe Dr. Gordon owes him a huge apology=
.  The fact that it would be nice if the AAP did sever their connections to=
 the pharmaceutical/formula industry is not relevant to this matter.  What =
Dr. Gordon did is inexcusably wrong -- for all sorts of reasons.

And anyone who is dedicated to the idea that scientific evidence is require=
d for claims about links between some activity and its health outcome would=
 do well to stay as far away as possible from Dr. Gordon=2C who only believ=
es in or "accepts"  the scientific evidence when it suits his preconceived =
notions. =20


Kathy Dettwyler


****************************************************************************
**

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome