AAP goes after Dr. Jay Gordon and Lactnet

[Bellaholic]

Grrrr. Legal fallout from Dr. Gordon's April Fool's post about AAP/formula ties (previously discussed in this thread: http://www.mothering.com/discussions....php?t=1064644)

http://mamapundit.com/2009/04/the-aa...ula-companies/

[Ophelia]

I have some advice for the AAP on a very easy way to take care of all of this - cut all ties with formula companies! Then it wouldn't be a problem to begin with.

[MaryJaneLouise]

No words.

[St. Margaret]

"The satirical nature wasn't readily apparent"-- maybe that should be a clue to YOU, AAP! A clue that what you're doing really IS crazy and it makes SO MUCH sense to break all ties to the formula industry. It also simply points to the fact that people can hardly wrap their minds around the idea that AAP wouldn't try to act better than they do, regarding formula companies.

Satire is protected speech. And I think this was a great peice!

[Tine]

I'd love to know who those AAP members contacting AAP "in a panic" about having to sever formula ties were.

This response is so effed up in so many ways, I can hardly wrap my head around it. Go get 'em, Lactnet & Dr. Gordon.

[G8P4]

I'd love to know who those AAP members contacting AAP "in a panic" about having to sever formula ties were.

That's the thing. Probably those members, just like mothering.com members, were well aware of the satirical nature of the letter, but just wrote to make the point: in our dreams pediatricians are supportive of breastfeeding, not just playing lip service to being supportive, and they don't sell out mothers and babies on the cheap.

[Da WIC Lady]

I went to comment on the blog and it keeps having a page load error every time I try to submit. Makes you wonder.

I think the shock and alarm mentioned in the real AAP letter was more from parents and professionals that were hoping it to be true, not the other way around. They probably neglect to mention that in order to save face. I quit taking my kids to FAAP's because the advise they gave me as a breastfeeding mother wasn't even in line with the AAP's Breastfeeding and The Use of Human Milk by a mile. I understand that they need to get sponsorship from somewhere, but when you're getting your funding from companies that produce things that are so unhealthy (fast food, formula companies, etc), you have to wonder how that impacts what kind of treatment you receive as a patient. It's the ethical elephant in the room that someone just pointed to, much to the AAP's panic.

[jessjgh1]

LMAO at the 'apology'. I hadn't seen that yet.

Jessica

[Bellaholic]

My oldest former nursling is now in 6th grade, and I swear, it seems that support of BF has increased not one iota since he was a babe. In the Granju blog post, she mentions an article about the formula companies she wrote for Salon - Ten. Years. Ago. And nothing's changed.

[songbh]

Outrageous and enraging

Satire is protected by the First Amendment -- this is free speech, the same right that enables us to speak truth to power. Throwing expensive lawyers at a highly-respected and valuable but entirely volunteer-driven e-mail list?? Tacky at best, abusive intimidation at worst.

Why does the American Academy of Pediatrics hate not only breastfeeding but also the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights? (Answer: because they both threaten their easy money from the formula companies.)

[MaterPrimaePuellae]

Originally Posted by songbh

Satire is protected by the First Amendment -- this is free speech, the same right that enables us to speak truth to power. Throwing expensive lawyers at a highly-respected and valuable but entirely volunteer-driven e-mail list?? Tacky at best, abusive intimidation at worst.

Why does the American Academy of Pediatrics hate not only breastfeeding but also the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights? (Answer: because they both threaten their easy money from the formula companies.)

I totally agree with Dr. Gordon's position, and I thought that the letter made a good point--- but I don't think that signing someone else's name to a widely distributed document is protected by the First Amendment. If the AAP had issued a statement advising formula feeding and full, CDC schedule vaccination, and signed it Dr. Gordon, I doubt we'd all just shrug and say, "Well, you know, the first amendment..."

[MaryJaneLouise]

Originally Posted by MaterPrimaePuellae

I totally agree with Dr. Gordon's position, and I thought that the letter made a good point--- but I don't think that signing someone else's name to a widely distributed document is protected by the First Amendment. If the AAP had issued a statement advising formula feeding and full, CDC schedule vaccination, and signed it Dr. Gordon, I doubt we'd all just shrug and say, "Well, you know, the first amendment..."

Dr. Gordon's letter was POLITICAL satire, POLITICAL speech. It's just like when Jon Stewart says, "George W. Bush did XYZ silly thing today" or "Obama said ABC outrageous statment", when obviously they didn't.

[christyc]

Originally Posted by MaryJaneLouise

Dr. Gordon's letter was POLITICAL satire, POLITICAL speech. It's just like when Jon Stewart says, "George W. Bush did XYZ silly thing today" or "Obama said ABC outrageous statment", when obvoiusly they didn't.

Exactly. And the apology was the best part yet!

[RoseRedHoofbeats]

Oh, boo freaking hoo.

Apparently doctors who are ignorant of breastfeeding are just as insecure and defensive when it comes to a fellow physician who is!

I swear, medical school just can't be that hard if all these idiots get through it. What a load of crap.

~Rose

[Can Dance]

is there some kind of link to show he is supposedly in trouble? I am not getting much new info from this thread

[clutterbug]

Originally Posted by MaterPrimaePuellae

I totally agree with Dr. Gordon's position, and I thought that the letter made a good point--- but I don't think that signing someone else's name to a widely distributed document is protected by the First Amendment. If the AAP had issued a statement advising formula feeding and full, CDC schedule vaccination, and signed it Dr. Gordon, I doubt we'd all just shrug and say, "Well, you know, the first amendment..."

This was my exact thought as well. It might be different if it were a spoken thing like the Jon Stewart show, but this was in writing and included a signature line, didn't it? To us, obviously a joke. To others, maybe not. Not that I don't agree with Dr. Gordon 110%, of course. But like the quote above says, if the situation were reversed, would we laugh it off....?

[MaryJaneLouise]

Originally Posted by bluepetals

This was my exact thought as well. It might be different if it were a spoken thing like the Jon Stewart show, but this was in writing and included a signature line, didn't it? To us, obviously a joke. To others, maybe not. Not that I don't agree with Dr. Gordon 110%, of course. But like the quote above says, if the situation were reversed, would we laugh it off....?

Jay Gordon is a David, the AAP is a Goliath.

If George W. Bush or Obama were to poke fun at Jon Stewart, would we laugh? Probably not, because Bush & Obama are powerful people, and Jon Stewart is not.

Likewise, it would not be funny if the AAP made fun of someone like Jay Gordon.

[MaryJaneLouise]

http://viv.id.au/blog/20090417.4588/...ow-conference/

And now, after making this a legal matter, a representative of the AAP is standing up talking in public - at a social media keynote broadcast to the world - to ask a social media expert how they could go about harnessing the power of social media to manage the mess they’ve got themselves into.

... John from the AAP talks about the legal threats they have issued, ...Amber tells him to solve their problem with a blog and a twitter account.

What was he thinking? Just - what? How does any of this make sense? And, as tigtog asks, is his resume up to date?

Cleanup in Aisle Nine.

: if it weren't so sad.

[MaryJaneLouise]

More interesting blogging:

Unfortunately for the AAP, this makes absolutely no sense. The PR problem for the AAP is not Jay Gordon’s silly, one-off press release on a subscriber-based email list. The problem is the fact that a virtual army of bloggers and online activists already hold a deep suspicion and animus toward the AAP as a result of their questionable ethics regarding the specific issue of infant formula promotion. If the AAP really wants to use social media effectively, the organization has to start their efforts with a clear-eyed, honest recognition of this context. ...
What this means for the AAP is that from a purely strategic point of view, they need to decide that the brand is 100% okay with taking money and swag from the infant formula companies, and then be 100% ready to proactively explain and even promote that position via social media.

http://mamapundit.com/2009/04/the-aa...-social-media/

I love it... "swag"

[jessjgh1]

That was interesting (I had to post parts to my facebook page)
http://viv.id.au/blog/20090417.4588/...ow-conference/

Why is it of interest? It’s a chap from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), in this video called only “John”, quietly panicking about the organisation’s latest public relations disaster: Jay Gordon’s April Fool press release stating that the AAP would no longer accept sponsorship from infant formula companies.