RE: Stefansson and eskimos

[Guest guest]

Hi Liz:

>

> I must of missed something --what's the title of the book -- would love to

> read it. Another list I'm on claimed that the Eskimos high meat diet gave

> them short lives and poor bones -- what does your book say??

>

The book is called Cancer: Disease of Civilization? by Vilhjalmur

Stefansson. It's funny that you mention about the poor bones because I just

saw Dr. Klapper's video today, and he mentioned that there was an Eskimo

skeleton found that dated back about 500 years and its bones were very

osteoperotic. That was all he said, though, and it would have been nice to

get more information on that. (Of course, Dr. Klapper is a vegetarian. . .)

Anyway, Stefansson didn't mention anywhere in the book that Eskimos had poor

bones. He indicated that before they became exposed to European influences,

the Eskimos were very healthy. As far as their life spans, I have posted

earlier on this site some records that he obtained. I think I have a copy

in my sent box, so I'll send it to you off list to avoid duplicating info

here.

Stefansson's book was published in 1960. He included some information

regarding the Hunzas and their good health. If you don't know much about

the Hunzas, they are primarily lacto-vegetarians. I admire Stefansso's

openness and apparent interest in truth. The book is little, but I keep

finding interesting things in it. Here's another excerpt from page 145:

" With a bias for meat as strong as Dr. Lane's for vegetables, I have been

equally partial. For nearly half a century, after being told by northern

frontier authorites that uncivilized Eskimos never get cancer, I felt

inclined to weigh such testimony as Dr. Hutton's and to dismiss unweighed

the McCarrison variety. But now that I have finally spent some years

comparing vegetarian with meat-eater evidence in relation to cancer, I have

a hunch that both sides are right and both wrong--each right in praising its

own diet but each wrong in condemning the other; both wrong in feeling that

there is a necessary contradiction between them. "

I wondered about this myself. (Although, I do feel at this time that long

term veganism and fruitarianism can be problematic.)

Marla

[Guest guest]

>>> " With a bias for meat as strong as Dr. Lane's for vegetables, I have been

equally partial. For nearly half a century, after being told by northern

frontier authorites that uncivilized Eskimos never get cancer, I felt

inclined to weigh such testimony as Dr. Hutton's and to dismiss unweighed

the McCarrison variety.

-------------->Marla, i'm assuming he's referring to sir robert mcCarrison,

the englishman who did nutritional experiments with rats (comparing the sikh

diet to the madrasi and english)? mcCarrison also studied the hunza i

believe. does steffanson mention anything else about mcCarrison? i don't

understand the sentence " I felt inclined to...dismiss unweighed the

McCarrison variety. " Do you know what he means by this?

i am glad that stefansson acknowledges his own partiality. in 'not by bread

alone' i got a strong sense that he's extremely partial to a meat-heavy

diet, even in just the few pages i've read thus far.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Hi Suz:

>

> -------------->Marla, i'm assuming he's referring to sir robert

mcCarrison,

> the englishman who did nutritional experiments with rats (comparing the

sikh

> diet to the madrasi and english)? mcCarrison also studied the hunza i

> believe. does steffanson mention anything else about mcCarrison?

### Yes, I believe that's him. He didn't mention much about him other than

Dr. McCarrison found no cancer during the years 1904-11 as an army surgeon

among a certain large number of Hunzas in India. I'd like to read about

thoses studies you mentioned. Is there a book with that information?

What's the title? Stefansson references The Wheel of Health and Hunza Land.

I've got The Wheel of Health on hold at the library. Will be interesting to

see that. Stefansson does mention that the Hunzas were *primarily

vegetarians.* Apparently, they did eat meats ocassionally for festivities.

He also said they did have dairy products regularly and ate meat about once

every 10 days or every month. He emphazised that they ate only 20% of their

food cooked and the rest 80% raw or fermented. (The Eskimos didn't ferment

much except for herring, according to Stefansson.)

I do have to comment that my husband read a book called the Hunzas by

Tobe. Tobe visited the Hunzas some time in the late 50's. During his visit

he asked the local Hunza doctor about the health of the people, and he was

told that their teeth were starting to become carious. One thing Tobe noted

was the salt. He was told that the Hunzas *used* to mine their own salt

from the mountains but as of Tobe's visit, they were getting imported white

salt. They preferred the *whiteness* of the imported salt. I don't recall

much about sugar. . . I might try to get a hold of that book again.

i don't

> understand the sentence " I felt inclined to...dismiss unweighed the

> McCarrison variety. " Do you know what he means by this?

### What I understand that to mean was that Stefansson admitted to taking

the information from people like Dr. Hutton (He wrote Health Conditions and

Disease Incidence among the Eskimos of Labrador.) who promoted a primarily

raw meat diet with very little vegetables and disregarded information or

research from people like McCarrison who promoted primarily vegetarian diets

even though they were also claiming low or no cancer rates. He thought the

two views to be in contradiction, but later considered that they are not

necessarily contradictions in that for both diets, much of the food was

eaten raw or undercooked. Refinement and overprocessing/overcooking seemed

to be the bigger evil.

>

> i am glad that stefansson acknowledges his own partiality. in 'not by

bread

> alone' i got a strong sense that he's extremely partial to a meat-heavy

> diet, even in just the few pages i've read thus far.

### I tried to get a hold of that book, too, but couldn't. Let us know if

it's pretty good, so I'll know whether to keep trying to get a hold of it or

not.

Marla

P.S. BTW, great job at the fair last weekend! Sounded pretty fun and

interesting although I don't think I'm up to debating much with folks.

(Although, I do like the learning part of it. ))

P.P.S. On page 168 Stefansson mentions which maladies were said to be rare

when cancer is difficult to find. These have been mentioned in quantity and

with remarkable unanimity by those familiar with frontier conditions. 1.)

No appendicitis. 2.) No constipation. 3.) No obesity. When those

conditions weren't present, neither were arthritis,asthma, beriberi, caries

(dental), colitis (mucous), diabetes, duodenal ulcers, epilepsy, gall

stones, gastric ulcers, hypertension, night blindness, pellagra, rickets,

and scurvy.