If you are a parent considering raising your child plant-based, consider the case of a 12-year-old girl raised on a strict vegan diet. The girl ended up in the Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Glasgow, Scotland suffering from a severe form of rickets.
The girl had already experienced multiple fractures and been diagnosed with a degenerated spine comparable to that of an unhealthy 80-year-old woman.
Fast Food Diet Better for a Child than Veganism
Say what you will about a child who eats junk food, if the diet overall includes animal foods like eggs, meat and dairy…even if from fast food joints…this type of bone degeneration simply does not happen.
For all the downsides of The Standard American Diet, it is shockingly still a better choice than even a whole food vegan diet (aka “plant-based”) that is devoid of numerous critical nutrients a growing child’s body demands.
Pediatrician Discredits Veganism for Children
Media reports indicate that the hospital doctors were under pressure to report the girl’s parents to police and social workers.
Dr. Faisal Ahmed, a pediatrician treating the girl, warned that the dangers of forcing children to follow a strict vegan diet need to be publicized. (1)
If raised strictly vegan, the child would almost certainly have severe deficiencies of Vitamins A and D, both of which are essential bone nutrients that can only be obtained from animal foods.
For example, using aquafaba instead of eggs and plant-based meat substitutes can prove very dangerous.
In all likelihood, the child would also be lacking needed calcium, zinc (the intelligence mineral), B-12 as well as other B vitamins, Vitamin K2, the EPA and DHA fatty acids, and the sulfur containing amino acids methionine and cysteine.
Although the human body is theoretically capable of converting beta carotene from vegetables like carrots into true Vitamin A, children are not able to do so efficiently if at all.
Sunlight could have provided Vitamin D but only if the family spent a lot of time outdoors year-round in a tropical area. Northern climes like Scotland simply do not offer the benefit of Vitamin D-producing sunlight for much of the year.
Other Cases of Child Vegans Suffering Severe Nutritional Deficiencies
Sadly, this is not the first time vegans have been accused of child abuse though it may be the first case involving crippling bone damage. More typically, vegan babies end up in the hospital from malnutrition caused by the use of soy milk instead of infant formula.
Given soy milk alone, babies end up with severe vitamin, mineral, fatty acid, and amino acid deficiencies, which is why soy formula manufacturers are required by law to add methionine and other nutrients that are critical for a baby’s growth.
In 1990, the FDA investigated after a two month old girl in California was hospitalized with severe malnutrition. Her parents had fed her soy milk instead of soy formula. Because of this and a similar incident in Arkansas involving the SoyMoo brand of soy milk, the FDA issued a warning on June 13, 1990. Since then, most brands of soy milk include warning labels in tiny print on their packages.
Clearly, voluntary warning labels have not been enough, and there have been deaths as well as hospitalizations of vegan babies fed soy milk. Vegan parents in Atlanta were found guilty of the death of their six-month-old baby. To supplement the mother’s inadequate supply of breast milk the parents had fed their son soy milk and apple juice. The baby was only 3 1/2 pounds when he died of starvation. (3)
The sad truth is that numerous vegans have been charged and found guilty of unintentionally starving their children from all across the globe, including parents in Belgium, Sweden, Italy, Australia, and the United States among others. (4-10)
Vegan Breastfeeding Dangerous Too
In France, a vegan couple was sentenced to 5 years in prison for the death of their 11-month-old daughter. The baby, who was only 12.5 pounds at the time of her death, had been exclusively breastfed by a vegan mother.
An autopsy showed her to be not only severely underweight and malnourished but severely deficient in Vitamins A and B12. (2, 11-12)
The mother had cared enough to breastfeed, but had an inadequate supply of poor quality milk because of the severe nutritional limitations of her plant-based diet.
While veganism for very young children can be catastrophic, the tragic case of the 12-year-old Scottish girl illustrates that plant based diets for older children are also dangerous. Although finally getting medical treatment, the child’s long-term prognosis for recovery and a normal life remains grim.
Sadly, the word about the dangers of veganism for children doesn’t seem to be getting through to the general public. The continual barrage of highly flawed propaganda-ridden, documentaries such as What The Health guarantees that more well-intentioned but seriously misinformed vegan child malnourishment cases are likely to follow.
References
(1) Parents of 12-Year-Old Vegan Girl Who Has Degenerative Condition May Face Charges
(2) French Vegans Charged with Neglect After Baby’s Death from Nutritional Deficiencies
(3) Vegan Couple Serving Life Sentences for Starving Baby to Death
(4) Vegan Couple Who Fed Child Only Raw Fruit and Vegetables Charged with Murder
(5) Sydney vegan couple starved 20-month-old girl leaving her toothless and with rickets
(6) Baby Death: Parents Convicted of Killing Son with a Diet of Vegetable Milk
(7) Swedish Parents Jailed for Almost Starving Vegan Toddler to Death
(8) Strict vegan parents starved their baby of nutrients so badly that the one-year-old developed cerebral palsy and was in intensive care for a month with rashes and internal bleeding
(9) Italian baby raised on a vegan diet hospitalized for severe malnutrition, removed from parents
(10) Vegan couple will serve life sentences for starving baby to death, Georgia court rules
(11) French Couple Sentenced to 5 Years in Jail for Vegan Breastfeeding Death of 11 Month Old Baby
(12) Vegan Parents Face Jail
I went vegan about 2 years ago, and my girlfriend about a year ago, and we’ve never felt better. This is one of the most defamatory, anti-vegan articles I’ve encountered. A good vegan diet is proven among the healthiest out there. Archeologists have proven that Roman warriors, among other mythical warriors, adhered to a plant-only diet. If it was good enough for them and a growing percent of pro-martial artists today, it ought be realized as ‘good enough’ for anyone.
There are two considerations that have gone unmentioned here as far as I’ve seen:
One is how not everyone is the same and therefore respond differently to an all plant-based diet, some for the better (neolithic blood), while others must be more mindful (paleolithic blood).
The other consideration is ethics, which is being brushed off insignificant, however anyone who’s an ethical vegan (i.e. real vegan) will tell you that the ethics of it matter more to them than their own health.
Whoever wrote this article and many of the commenters simply do not ‘get it’. We do not care about your freedumz, ‘rights’ or ‘choice’ when these are contingent on the enslavement, abuse and slaughter of billions of innocent creatures. We would happily take our own lives if it would end the suffering imposed on the countless animals subjected to the hubris of man.
If you, the proud anti-vegan, fail to heed this ethnical consideration you may be befuddled to wake up one day under a new government that does not tolerate exploitation of animals whatsoever. A new movement that has slammed the door on the pacified modern humanist society that fails to address any major concern for fear of disrupting the dark flow of democracy.
@Jake
I’m a practicing academic archaeologist and human skeletal biologist with a specialization in ancient nutritional deficiencies. My area of focus is Europe. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
The work you’re supposedly referring to came from RW Davies from his monograph published in 1970. A whole lot of new discoveries and scientific advancement have occurred since then. Romans were not a vegetarian people. Roman soldiers would have eaten normally (according to their social status) at home and eaten whatever was available to them when on campaigns. Some evidence points to their diets consisting largely of grain because grain was a.) cheap and b.) easy to transport/not prone to spoilage. This doesn’t mean this was an optimal diet for them, that they chose this diet for its nutritional merit or that this was somehow tied to an ancient vegetarian/vegan ideology. It was a diet of necessity and often one tied to being a lower status individual. Despite what you’ve seen in movies, Roman soldiers were not all paragons of health and masculine virility. In fact, like every other army of the age, a great number of them suffered from nutritional deficiencies once they headed out afield.
The blood type diet is thoroughly scientifically debunked. All people essentially have the same basic nutritional needs with some variation between individuals and populations, none of which is predictable by blood type.
The hostile take over of the government by ideological vegans simply isn’t going to happen. Animal rights/liberation has made relatively little progress legally or socially since Peter Singer’s seminal 1976 publication. You may make some strides here or there, but veganism has been around for a very long time and you’re consistently a very small part of the population. Unlike a social group bound by race, sex or sexual orientation, you experience a lot of attrition for all your gains. For every person who goes vegan and finds it solves all that ails them, there’s a person who stops being vegan and suddenly started feeling like a million bucks. It doesn’t help your cause that a great percentage of visible vegans are young, hipster urbanite types without much social capital or credibility (to put it nicely).
But say you did achieve your hostile vegan take over by some completely unlikely miracle. Then what? Ideological veganism can’t sustain a population of 7 billion, if for no other reason than healthy agriculture demands animal inputs because actual SOIL building demands animal inputs. Unless you plan on simply continuing to poison the earth with toxic synthetic fertilizers, you’re going to need to rebuild the soil you’ve depleted somehow.
I agree that industrial agriculture is evil and needs to be ended, but the rest of your ideology is patently absurd. Human beings have always lived in relationship to animals, just like every other animal on the planet. Our food system is inherently tied to other animals, whether we consume their flesh or not. Our sustainable options, from where I’m sitting, are the following: revert back to sustainable agriculture practices that involve the conscientious raising of domesticated animals for manure, weed abatement, soil arriation and yes, milk, eggs and meat… or, we return to a much more primordial relationship, which is hunting and gathering. As long as human beings exist, we will consume animal products. We evolved to consume animal products, our relationship to animals as prey and companions goes back millions of years and no amount of whiny, privileged, white, middle class, 20-somethings are going to convince a !Kung bushman hunter or an Afar goat herder or an Inuit fisherman that they don’t have a right to life and livelihood.
“I’m a practicing academic archaeologist and human skeletal biologist with a specialization in ancient nutritional deficiencies. My area of focus is Europe. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.”
You should have ended your rebuttal here, having already established yourself socially above me; everything after naturally is almost strictly antithetical to my postulations.
“The blood type diet is thoroughly scientifically debunked. All people essentially have the same basic nutritional needs with some variation between individuals and populations, none of which is predictable by blood type.”
I don’t believe in the “blood type diet” either, what I was referring to is the variation you admit exists, and believe the reason this variation exists is biological like everything else, and that this is rooted in ancestral-predominance. Thus those who are innately drawn to veganism concordantly are biologically more prone to a plant-based diet, which is indicative of a stronger neolithic blood memory than those who are not.
“The hostile take over of the government by ideological vegans simply isn’t going to happen.”
National Socialism’s upper echelon was mostly ideologically vegan or at least heading in that direction. You may sneer or laugh at this, but great strides were made by the NSDAP in terms of animal liberation. Hitler has since been vilified in every way, including a so called debunking of his vegetarianism, but there’s much proof he committed to it in his latter years, and venerated Schopenhauer above all other philosophers, whom was an advocate for universal compassion as man’s moral staple. This says nothing of neo-nazism, which is an embarrassment. Anyway, today there certainly are hostile vegan organizations that know power is necessary to meet their aims, and aren’t afraid of getting arrested or killed. The ALF and ELF for example. Hitler was able to shut down the slaughter factories and vasectomy facilities in German territory; so you can bet it can happen again!
“…veganism has been around for a very long time and you’re consistently a very small part of the population. Unlike a social group bound by race, sex or sexual orientation, you experience a lot of attrition for all your gains. For every person who goes vegan and finds it solves all that ails them, there’s a person who stops being vegan and suddenly started feeling like a million bucks.”
Firstly, you’re right that vegans are a small percent of the population, but you’re incorrect to assume we lose one vegan for every gain. Any vegan lost never had the requisite compassion to have ever been innately vegan. Those who go plant-based diet for health reasons have no reason to go out of their way to boycott non-food products that use animals, therefore were never vegan from the start. Too many ethical vegans are indeed naive to believe we can convert people like you, who have no inherent desire to adopt the lifestyle. This is why vegans like me are necessary to disillusion egalitarian notions and make the point of a common biology / neolithic blood memory.
“It doesn’t help your cause that a great percentage of visible vegans are young, hipster urbanite types without much social capital or credibility (to put it nicely).”
In this degenerate age, in the mind of the masses – Credibility is contingent on amount of Capital. This is exactly why most vegans hate money and rightfully so. It’s the imaginary lever of power, when in reality it’s paper in the form of a currency system that may collapse at any moment. Vegan types instinctively understand this and therefore are akin to frugal, non-materialistic lifestyles. When modern society collapses we will rejoice and resume the simple agrarian life, while most others tread back to classic paleo-barbarism.
If you haven’t already, when you finally do decide to give up veganism, make a commitment to the collective consciousness, that you will come back to this very forum and clean up your mess.
As someone who has a cousin who is a vegatarian who has three kids who are well…able to chose between it. She told me that she found that taking vitamins, also making sure to do the research on what she eats, which includes finding out what each has. She maintained not only her balance, but also made it easy for her kids to sustian a healthy weight while she was breast feeding. I know her reaction to something like this, she would say the parents didn’t do the research, there is such thing as over doing it. There are points in a child’s diet that they are going to need meat, so she said for the first few years, her son and daughter were allowed to eat chicken, fish, and some beef, she was more concern that the kids were eating fish and chicken and less beef and pork, she didn’t like how they were processed.
So far the kids are healthier than most, but truthfully, my cousin has said it isn’t a life style choice for all. So she would tell people if they chose to go that route, to research it and also find a Dietitian who will give them guidance on what to do when they have kids. She has told me several times, that the reason she went this route it wasn’t because she felt bad for the animal, it was just how her body responded to meat, it made her feel sick, didn’t fill her up, it just wasn’t for her.
I don’t care if you’re vegan or not and I certainly am not willing to debate the facts of this case (though I suspect there’s something more going on here that strict veganism) but if you’re going to write an article about nutrition, try and make it as factually correct as possible. I couldn’t get past the claim that you can ONLY get nutrients like Vitamins A and D from animal products. Wrong! You can get plenty of vitamin A from things like leafy greens, sweet potatoes and pumpkins/squashes. Vitamin D is a hormone that synthesizes in your skin thanks to exposure to the sun.
Why has a discussion turned into an attack on all parenting??
To the mom who’s breastfeeding: Way to go! It really is an amazing gift to give your baby, for any amount of time that you can manage! You’re a good mom.
To the mom who’s formula feeding: Isn’t science amazing? To think there was a time when a baby with a mother who couldn’t produce enough would suffer, but now? Better living through chemistry! You’re a good mom.
To the cloth diapering mom: Fluffy bums are the cutest, and so friendly on the bank account. You’re a good mom.
To the disposable diapering mom: Damn those things hold a lot, and it’s excellent to not worry about leakage and laundry! You’re a good mom.
To the mom who stays home: I can imagine it isn’t easy doing what you do, but to spend those precious years with your babies must be amazing. You’re a good mom.
To the mom who works: It’s wonderful that you’re sticking to your career, you’re a positive role model for your children in so many ways, it’s fantastic. You’re a good mom.
To the mom who had to feed her kids from the drive thru all week because you’re too worn out to cook or go grocery shopping: You’re feeding your kids, and hey, I bet they aren’t complaining! Sometimes sanity can indeed be found in a red box with a big yellow M on it. You’re a good mom.
To the mom who gave her kids a homecooked breakfast lunch and dinner for the past week: Excellent! Good nutrition is important, and they’re learning to enjoy healthy foods at an early age, a boon for the rest of their lives. You’re a good mom.
To the mom with the kids who are sitting quietly and using their manners in the fancy restaurant: Kudos, it takes a lot to maintain order with children in a place where they can’t run around. You’re a good mom.
To the mom with the toddler having a meltdown in the cereal aisle: they always seem to pick the most embarrassing places to lose their minds don’t they? We’ve all been through it. You’re a good mom.
To the moms who judge other moms for ANY of the above? Glass houses, friend. Glass houses.
Hahaha classic liberal thinking. Look around at the world around you and think really hard if throwing judgement and critical thinking out the window a few generations ago was really such a great thing. Almost everything is worse. If you don’t feel this way then you really probably don’t have very much historical perspective or reading behind you.
How can you live without bacon.
Give me bacon or give death……
Bacooooooooon
Maybe you weren’t addressing me… I now see there are mult Kelly’s commenting
Your response is a contradiction right in front I my eyes therefore, I cannot take you seriously.
This has nothing to do with being vegan and everything to do with bad and lazy parenting and a child unwilling to be vegan properly. I’m a 16 year old vegan and have been for nearly a year, after being vegetarian for six months. I know people that have never eaten meat their entire life, and even a girl who has been vegan since she was twelve! All of us are 100% healthy because we take the time to make sure we do it right. Articles like this only look at things from the outside. I’ll bet she wasn’t eating very healthy or making sure she got enough nutrients, and I’ll bet her parents were letting her eat that way.
Thing is, at 16 (or even 12), you’re much farther along developmentally than a small child – in fact, as you’re apparently female, your skeleton has all but stopped developing at 16 and you’ve already reached sexual maturity. The girl in question was RAISED vegan whereas you became vegan only recently in your life (read: raised vegan NOT vegetarian as per your comparison, there’s a significant difference nutritionally between a vegan diet and a vegetarian one) and now has extreme nutritional deficiencies akin to what we’d expect to see in children from extremely famine riddled third world countries.
Young children have very different nutritional needs than older children, teenagers or adults do. While a vegan diet may have been perfectly healthy for this girl had she decided to have one later in her life, but the question isn’t “can a vegan diet be healthy for adults or teenagers”, it’s “is it healthy for very young children whose brains, muscles and bones are developing at an unbelievable rate to be put on a vegan diet” – my guess, based on what I know about human development and physiology, is no. All anecdotes about healthy vegan 12 year olds aside (by which you mean, those who went vegan at 12), toddlers/young children need different nutrition and a whole lot of it, otherwise you eventually end up with very ill 12 year olds.
So maybe I should have mentioned one person I know who has never eaten meat in their entire life, and they’re also highly allergic to dairy. They eventually went full vegan, but never had a drop of dairy or piece of meat from the moment they were born. They’re perfectly healthy now, yet you’re saying they basically couldn’t be. Yes they did eat things with eggs from time to time when they were younger, but not every day and not for their whole life. Explain something like that please?
And while you’re at it, care to explain these? http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/realveganchildren All healthy vegan children, since birth, because their parents take the time to do it RIGHT.
Again, your personal example isn’t a vegan one, even if it’s close.
I’m not saying it’s utterly impossible to have a truly healthy person who was raised vegan from birth – considering that many people have the ability to be healthy on highly nutritionally deficient diets from birth, certainly some can also be healthy on vegan diets from birth. Look at areas ravished by famine, for example – not everyone who lives in one is sick. Some people have different needs, some people simply have stronger physical constitutions. My point is that based on what I’ve studied about the physiology of the human body (and I am a former professional anthropologist) I believe a vegan diet to be sub-optiminal for early childhood development, and nothing you’ve shown me to date disproves that. Even if we take the 100% anecdotal website you linked me as sacrosanct truth (i.e., all these kids are perfectly healthy and have no hidden vitamin/mineral deficiencies, won’t run in to nutritional deficiency problems later in life – like osteoporosis/anemia for example) this hardly qualifies as a longitudinal study in the health effects of veganism from birth. Most of the kids featured here aren’t even out of their toddler years at the time of this website’s posting them. Show me a statistically significant sample of LIFELONG strict vegans over a period of a couple of generations who don’t have nutritional deficiencies at higher rates relative to the general population and then you’ve got yourself real evidence. As it stands, we KNOW that young developing children need higher amount of dietary fat for the adequate development of their brains/nervous systems, higher amounts of vitamin D and calcium for their rapidly growing skeletons and protein for their developing/growing muscles. All of these things tend to be lower in a vegan diet than even some of the least healthy “American” diets. So my point still stands, I don’t see good evidence that veganism is a good idea for infancy or early childhood. Bring me some real data (self reported websites that mainly feature 3 year olds isn’t real data), and I’ll definitely consider it fairly. I don’t personally have a car in this race (unlike some of the vegans here, for whom this is viewed as an attack on their ideology), so if you bring me good science I will certainly read it and think about it carefully.
Well… Putting the question of what level of investment you do or do not have in the topic, Kelly, if you’re earnestly interested in “good science” on this issue, then I recommend The China Study to your reading list. T. Colin Campbell (the author) was born a farm boy and trained as a veterinarian. He then trained in nutritional science, and spent the next 40+ years researching nutritional issues. In this text, he exposes how all of his presumptions about animal proteins being the best possible thing for humans to eat were destroyed by his own research as well as by the several hundred other peer reviewed studies that he painstakingly addresses and documents in that text (even while keeping the book “readable”). Of note, he is NOT a vegan, and aggressively does not self identify as such; rather, he follows a plant based diet specifically because he has demonstrated beyond any shadow of any doubt that regularly eating animal proteins damages your health commensurate with the amount you eat, and that this holds true for infants, children, young adults, geriatrics, pregnant mothers, soldiers, athletes, scientists, and every other stage of life or activity.
It is a fairly short book, withal, and it’s available on audio book; I recently re-“read” it via audible.com.
In further support of Hanna R’s point, I’ll reference an earlier post made to this page:
https://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/12-year-old-vegan-has-the-degenerating-bones-of-80-year-old/#comment-123576
Withal, there doesn’t seem to be any support for the notion that being vegan makes you sickly, eh?
None of the examples you posted are actually vegan though. The Cult of Pythagoras abstained from the consumption of flesh, but I have yet to see anything that suggests they didn’t consume milk, eggs or honey. Likewise, Jains are not a good example – “true” Jains are a fully adult, ascetic order (in addition to not being able to eat almost anything, they also abstain from sex, so not many children raised in that tradition dare I say) and even amongst these people there’s dispute over whether diary should be consumed. Lay Jains (who do have and raise children) on the other hand are only required to be vegetarian – they can and certainly do consume dairy products. Likewise, Buddhist cultures are rarely vegan. I saw rarely only because there’s the possibility that I’m not thinking of one, but I can’t think of one and I’ve traveled extensively in the Buddhist world. Even Tibetan monks (who I worked with in Dharmsala), often held up as the poster-children of ethical vegetarianism, consume diary products (and eggs) like they’re going out of style. Other Buddhist traditions emphasize fish/seafood (the Japanese, the Cambodians and the Thai) or raw milk/diary (the Mongolians/Tibetans). In fact, some of the most Buddhist countries in the world (namely Thailand and Cambodia which are number one and number two respectively) aren’t even primarily vegetarian because of their emphasis on fish and shellfish. So basically, no. I’m sorry. Your examples aren’t any good. I understand there may be good examples out there, but these don’t prove your point – if anything they demonstrate how healthy a non-vegan diet is. Likewise, your statement about it being a known fact that eating the flesh of another being leads to disease? Says who? If you look at life expectancy by country, you’ll find a whole bunch of meat and butter consuming European countries topping the list. Have you ever been to Switzerland, for example? Iceland? I’ve never consumed so much meat and diary as when I was visited those countries.
Fact is, you can’t compare the profoundly unhealthy omnivorey (which involves a lot more than hormone laden meat, but tons of refined sugar and preservatives) you see in the United States to veganism and say, “look, meat consumption is not healthy!” You need to compare it to people who eat good meat and don’t consume processed foods in any substantial amount. What I feel you’ll overwhelmingly find that, indeed, meat/diary/egg consumption isn’t the problem.
I think those who eat “good meat” can absolutely be healthy and I believe many vegans would agree. I think the argument is that those who do eat the “good meat” are claiming that veganism is inherently unhealthy, to which vegans are rebutting. I think both diets are (generally) very healthy, though I personally ultimately opt for veganism due to ethical concerns.
Most here, vegan or non, would agree that the typical Western diet is horrendous. The issue seems to really be with the good meat eaters saying veganism is unhealthy. Most vegans here seem to simply be defending veganism rather than attacking nonveganism (good meat eating) in terms of health (obviously excluding ethical concerns, and excluding attacks on the typical Western diet, which is coming from both sides).
Here, here, Kelly!
I would like to follow up on my previous post by asking Sean P. O. MacCath-Moran how he can explain the excellent health and longevity of, for example, the Inuit people of northern Canada, who live off the land and consume large quantities of fatty fish, seal meat, and caribou meat and small quantities of vegetables and processed junk foods. (I’m not lumping vegetables into the same category as junk foods, and I do realize the health benefits of eating a large quantity and variety of vegetables.) The point is, all it takes is a single counterexample to disprove a hypothesis, and there are numerous examples of cultures that subsist mainly on meats and show vibrant health.
Sean, I am well aware of the china study.
As someone in the health and nutrition field, I know the importance of a well balanced diet that includes animal proteins ad fats.
Oh! I didn’t realize you’d read his works already, Kelly. In that case, what did you think about the extensive and peer-reviewed evidence produced by Dr. Campbell and his peers which show the causal ill effects animal proteins have on human health — not to mention his discussions on the importance and ease of maintaining well balanced diets that excludes animal proteins and fats?
Just wanted to note Sean, you’re addressing a different Kelly than the one who addressed you above (i.e. me). I can address you more later, at present I’m at work. You can know me by my gravatar. The other Kelly who stated s/he was in the health + nutrition field is a different individual – I was in anthropology.
Wow. Ok – I see that now — thank you *very* much for that clarification, anthropology-Kelly; I was confused by nutritionist-Kelly responding as though it she were you. o.O
Completely unintentional all around, I’m sure, but it kind of makes the argument for selecting unique user names, eh? =oP
You seem as though you just want to be argumentative, Sean. I’m not pretending to be the other Kelly, but more like out parents both gave us the same name. I also commented that I realized there was another Kelly and that perhaps you were speaking to her and not me. Perhaps instead of presenting your opinions as fact, you just read the responses correctly.
Wwwow.
You appear to be a case study in the adage that folks tend to see the world like they see themselves, nutritionist-Kelly. In re-reading through *your* posts, it’s pretty clear who, between the two of us, is being argumentative. Further, in the very post you’re responding too, I stated “Completely unintentional all around, I’m sure”, which is a statement that I’m sure most reasonable people would take to mean that I didn’t think any intentional deception had happened here.
Perhaps instead of projecting your own insecurities on others, you would be better served by taking a deep breath, reading what has *actually* been written, and conducting yourself in a more socially appropriate fashion.
As an aside though, nutritionist-Kelly, I do remain interested in your response to my questions about your impression of Dr. Campbell’s work, given the familiarity which you expressed concerning it.
To be clear, the post in which I made those inquiries was also free of any antagonistic intent, as is this very post; there’s nothin’ but light and happiness coming your way here as seek after the impressions and wisdoms of others.