I have to say that in the short time I have been exploring this site, I
have found it intensely vibrant and interesting.  I LOVE the differing
points of view, ESPECIALLY those which may differ from mine.  The entire
passionate discussion on supplementation was not only helpful to me
personally while learning about these issues, but spurred discussion
amongst my supervisors as well about how to really investigate further what
makes the difference for "graduating" off supplementation and the gray
areas where its not clearcut as to whether or not supplementation is needed.

While not nearly as offensive as "breastfeeding Nazi", I must say that I
found the term "Zealot" to describe the sometimes passionate discourse on
Lactnet to be extremely insulting. Moreover, I am sure that breastfeeding
is not the only thing that people think about in their daily lives.  I
thought this site was supposed to be for discussion about breastfeeding and
other topics were to be kept to a minimum.

I have to say that I have received far more private emails from people who
feared that they would be "judged" or "flamed" by others for holding
differing viewpoints or not having the same backgrounds. While I also think
it is important to do background research, I know that I find it difficult
to delve into a new area of research without guidance and it can often be
helpful when others more knowledgeable have the patience to guide me in the
right direction rather than inefficiently flailing around on my own.  I
also hope that speculation on LACTNET, which leads to hypotheses, which
leads to research is never stiffled. I do think it would be helpful to be
clear about what is speculation and what is grounded in research and what
is derived from clinical observations.  Each has its place and none is
complete without the other.

So, if there are any of you who felt as insulted as I did about the use of
the term "ZEALOT", I'd like to share how passionate discourse by a bunch of
ZEALOTS led to significant progress in a field that I do know something
about.

In 1982, a study was published in the Lancet that vitamin A supplements
reduced childhood mortality by 34% among a deficient population in
Indonesia.  This research was met with vehement disbelief by those who
implement public health programs that worked on more "wholistic issues" and
by some notable scientist. It was just too incredible to believe and it
threatened current thinking on the best approaches to public health
nutrition interventions. The controversy spurred researchers to prove that
these results were wrong.  In the process, they found out that, indeed,
vitamin A supplements reduced mortality by 25-34% in deficient populations.
Not only that, they elucidated the mechanisms for this. The severity of
diarrhea, measles and other infectious diseases were markedly reduced. As
this research was being conducted, there was also vehement controversies
over whether supplements or food-based approaches were better. The camps
were extremely divided. Supplements were seen as a quick fix by the food
camp, and the supplement camp pointed out that there was no evidence to
show that food-based approaches worked. This stimulated intervention
research that has increased understanding of how best to use these
interventions. The field has reached a stage where many people recognize
that a mix of interventions actually works better than trying to get one
intervention to fit all populations and conditions.

During that time interval, there was, of course, scientific debate, but
also much posturing as well. The battles were emotional because people
genuinely cared about the outcome. Some of these influential people would
clearly have beeen defined as "zealots".

So please continue to be thoughtful about your replies and when or if you
can do your homework, but don't be intimidated into silence if you're not
in the majority on a particular position or don't have letters after your
name. I, for one, would really hate to see this site change.

Susan Burger

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html