Re: I'm not concerned about my Vitamin D intake

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of soilfertility

>

>

>I own a hardcover copy of NAPD and I have read and reread it many

>times. So, of course, I am not concerned about my Vitamin D intake.

>Chi

I'm not following your logic Chi, can you please explain? Or maybe I can

hazard a guess since you are focused on soil fertility...you are eating

foods only from fertile soils thus you are consequently getting adequate

fat-soluble vits?

IIRC, you only eat bread and milk from a local farm with high fertility

soil? No other food?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

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

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

On 12/28/05, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> >-----Original Message-----

> >From:

> >[mailto: ]On Behalf Of soilfertility

>

> >

> >

> >I own a hardcover copy of NAPD and I have read and reread it many

> >times. So, of course, I am not concerned about my Vitamin D intake.

> >Chi

>

> I'm not following your logic Chi, can you please explain? Or maybe I can

> hazard a guess since you are focused on soil fertility...you are eating

> foods only from fertile soils thus you are consequently getting adequate

> fat-soluble vits?

Yeah, who would have guessed that comment would need elaboration. Ok,

I'll bite too. Please explain Chi.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

> > >I own a hardcover copy of NAPD and I have

> > >read and reread it many times. So, of course, I

> > >am not concerned about my Vitamin D intake.

> > >Chi

> > I'm not following your logic Chi, can you please

> > explain? Or maybe I can hazard a guess since you are

> > focused on soil fertility...you are eating foods only

> > from fertile soils thus you are consequently getting adequate

> > fat-soluble vits?

> Yeah, who would have guessed that comment would

> need elaboration. Ok, I'll bite too.

> Please explain Chi.

For both of you:

In order to not be concerned with my Vitamin D intake I did not need

to be concerned with my own diet or the soil fertility that the food

was produced from. There is no point in being concerned with

something when, even when you have it, that something is

insufficient to meet you needs.

The most salient point I learned from NAPD was the point Price made

about Yoder's test for antirachitic properties and the importance of

the amount of this antirachitic property in the diet of the healthy

isolated peoples. Price made it clear that it was not the isolation

of the people, or what food the people ate that was important, but

rather the amount of this antirachitic property that was in all

their varied diets.

I consider talking about Vitamin D to be setting aside the work of

Weston Price. You can discover the same thing I did my simply

reading the first chapter in the supplement, paying particular

attention to Yoder's test and Price's discovery when working with it.

Chi

[Guest guest]

On 12/28/05, soilfertility <ynos@...> wrote:

> I consider talking about Vitamin D to be setting aside the work of

> Weston Price. You can discover the same thing I did my simply

> reading the first chapter in the supplement, paying particular

> attention to Yoder's test and Price's discovery when working with it.

This is the second post you've made where you just assume that someone

else who reads the chapter would necessarily come to the same

conclusion as you would. Obviously if that were the case we wouldn't

be having this discussion at all.

I'm assuming your post is in response to the recent discussion about

vitamin D, perhaps wrongly, in which case its relevance is lost on me,

since the thread was not an expression of worry over the vitamin D

content in any of our diets, but speculation about what interaction D

has with A in determining fracture risk, which is a rather isolated

academic point, entirely separate from such a question as, " Am I

consuming enough vitamin D? "

But that's not really the point. I've read NAPD, and I re-read the

first chapter in the supplement about two months ago. All I see in

that chapter is questions that need to be answered by further research

rather than any conclusive answers. And since I'm not you, naturally

I will come to somewhat different conclusions when I read the chapter

myself than when you to read it yourself. We might come to some

benefit by discussion the chapter itself, and perhaps synthesizing our

respective viewpoints, but we certainly won't come to any benefit by

you suggesting our view is different from yours simply because we

haven't re-read a chapter in NAPD enough times or weren't paying

enough attention when we read it.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

> This is the second post you've made where you just assume

> that someone else who reads the chapter would necessarily

> come to the same conclusion as you would. Obviously

> if that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion

> at all.

OK, I will explain how I came to the conclusion that being concerned

with Vitamin D in relation to anything is disregarding the work of

Weston Price. When Price first started to work with Yoder's test in

Price's nutritional analysis of food, Price first assumed, like

those before him, that the test was simply a test for Vitamin D.

This conclusion had been reached, Price explains, when it was found

that Vitamin A cured rickets. Since Yoder's test was for

antirachitic properties, it was assumed that the test was therefore

for simply measuring the Vitamin D content. In his work with this

test, Price came to the conclusion that the test was measuring a

broader factor than just Vitamin D. To distinguish this factor from

Vitamin D he gave it a name, activator X. Price stated that Vitamin

D itself was insufficient for the body to fully utilize minerals and

that this broader factor was necessary to fully utilize minerals.

So I came to the conclusion that Vitamin D is part of activator X

and it is not sufficient for the body to fully utilize minerals and

that in my discussions with people I should take Price's work into

account. So while I have great concerns about a more complete

nutritional factor in my or anyone else's diet, I have no concern

for a nutritional factor that Price demonstrated was an insufficient

nutritional factor, regardless in what context. Discovering this

broader nutritional factor (which is still ignored) and its

importance in the diet of both the isolated populations he studied

and in the nutrition experiments he did, with particular regard to

dental caries, seems to me to be the greatest single contribution of

Price's work. That is why, to me, talking about Vitamin D in any

context, instead of activator X in the same context, is to disregard

the work of Weston Price.

So please explain to me how your conclusion from reading the

same chapter in the same book is different from mine and how you

came to that conclusion.

Chi

[Guest guest]

On 12/29/05, soilfertility <ynos@...> wrote:

> So please explain to me how your conclusion from reading the

> same chapter in the same book is different from mine and how you

> came to that conclusion.

Thanks Chi.

Unfortunately I don't have a copy of NAPD on me. So forgive me if any

of my description is faulty.

Your use of the term " vitamin D " is obscuring the issue. Price found

that irradiated ergosterol -- IOW, ergocalciferol, or vitamin D2 --

did not have the same effect as what he was calling " Vitamin D " and

then began to call " Activator X " because of this lack of similar

effect. At the time, I don't think there was any differentiation

between D2 and D3. It is now known and accpeted that there are

physiological differences between D2 and D3.

I am not familiar with the follow-up research on Activator X done by

Royal Lee and others, so I am not going to opine that D3 is identical

to Activator X (many things seem to suggest this, others seem to

suggest otherwise), but I will say that there is nothing in Price's

chapter to make a distinction between the two very clear, since Price

was distinguishing between D2 specifically and Activator X, not D3 and

Activator X.

I don't know why you seem to be conflating " insufficient " with

worthless, but you nevertheless seem to be doing so. Vitamin A is

also " insufficient " to maintain mineral status because it must work in

conjunction with vitamin D and, if Activator X is something different,

Activator X. Activator X, then, is not sufficient in itself to

maintain mineral status, but must work in conjunction with vitamin A,

and, if D is something different, vitamin D.

I didn't understand Price to say that D2 was worthless, but even if he

did, it would be preposterous for us to take that observation 70 years

ago and negate the very clear value of a different substance, vitamin

D3, research on which has continued to unravel for decades since

Price's work.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

>I am not familiar with the follow-up research on Activator X done by

>Royal Lee and others, so I am not going to opine that D3 is identical

>to Activator X (many things seem to suggest this, others seem to

>suggest otherwise), but I will say that there is nothing in Price's

>chapter to make a distinction between the two very clear, since Price

>was distinguishing between D2 specifically and Activator X, not D3 and

>Activator X.

>

I would really appreciate knowing exactly what Activator X (aka X Factor

and Price Factor) is. It has come up periodically, and to the best of

my knowledge, I don't think anyone has pinpointed it very well. I read

on the WAPF website once that Dr. Enig placed it biochemically similar

to vitamin A. I can't find the quote now, unfortunately. But what is

it? When companies are selling Activator X butter oil, I would expect

that there is real knowledge of what this nutrient is. Especially after

so many decades have passed, I would expect some solid information on

such an important catalyst. NT says it is 'largely absent today.'

Maybe there is some information and I have just not seen it. I would

sure like to, though.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 12/31/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> I would really appreciate knowing exactly what Activator X (aka X Factor

> and Price Factor) is. It has come up periodically, and to the best of

> my knowledge, I don't think anyone has pinpointed it very well. I read

> on the WAPF website once that Dr. Enig placed it biochemically similar

> to vitamin A. I can't find the quote now, unfortunately. But what is

> it? When companies are selling Activator X butter oil, I would expect

> that there is real knowledge of what this nutrient is. Especially after

> so many decades have passed, I would expect some solid information on

> such an important catalyst. NT says it is 'largely absent today.'

> Maybe there is some information and I have just not seen it. I would

> sure like to, though.

Dave Wetzel has been testing his butter oil, cod liver oils, other cod

liver and fish oils, seal blubber, and maybe some other stuff for it,

using the test described in some of the literature he dug up around

Price's time. I don't know the specifics. I know that his CLO is the

only one he's found it in, but it's considerably lower than the butter

oil. He said it's in the " lower half " of the spectrum, which could be

a little less or a lot less depending on whether the test uses a log

scale or a linear scale which I don't know.

He found it in a fish oil sample, but only the one that wasn't

food-grade. So maybe molecular distillation diminishes it. He found

it in seal blubber.

Anyway, the original test for Activator X and the original test for

Vitamin D are one and the same. Price differentiated " Activator X "

from " Vitamin D, " because the rest of the research community was

calling irradiated ergosterol -- which is named after rye ergot where

it is abundant, which is what LSD is made from -- or ergocalciferol,

now a.k.a. vitamin D2 " vitamin D " and he noted that what he was

calling " vitamin D " in his earlier literature had effects that what we

now call " Vitamin D2 " and what they then were calling " vitamin D " did

not have. So for lack of a better term, he called it " Activator X. "

This seems to indicate that Activator X is vitamin D3. But that

doesn't jibe with why he found butter oil to be a particularly good

source of it as opposed to cod liver oil, which itself is very rich in

D3. However, it certainly does jibe with his observation that its

precursor is in green grass -- because cows and chickens, according to

one of Krispin Sullivan's articles, make D3 from D2 in the grass,

unlike pigs which make it like we do.

But remember that this was close to the time when vitamin D was

confused with vitamin A. Vitamin A was discovered as a component of

CLO and butter fat in 1913, and it was thought in 1919 that the

antirachitic property of CLO was due to vitamin A. It wasn't until

1925 that vitamin D was discovered as a separate component of CLO.

So these tests were rudimentary and may have been very non-specific.

I don't know if further tests differentiated D3 and X Factor and

became more specific, but accordign to Royal Lee, who I think founded

Standard Process, they did. He called the X Factor " vitamin F " and

claimed to have more specific information on it. He cited other

researchers who were referring to the same " vitamin F " in the

literature while big organizations were saying that vitamin F had no

importance.

Dr. Ken posted some info on the chapter leaders list on this.

Are you still on that list? You can find it quick on onibasu.com I'm

sure. It was a few weeks ago.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

.... When companies are selling Activator X butter oil, I would expect

> that there is real knowledge of what this nutrient is. Especially

after

> so many decades have passed, I would expect some solid information on

> such an important catalyst. NT says it is 'largely absent today.'

> Maybe there is some information and I have just not seen it. I would

> sure like to, though.

Deanna,

I suggest you contact Dave Wetzel with your questions:

http://greenpasture.org/contact.php

If you glean anything of interest, please repost.

B.

[Guest guest]

Thanks and . I unsubbed from many groups for a time, but maybe I

will get my butt back on chapterleaders'. I'd like to see what my pal Dr. Ken

has come up with. I will contact the Wetzel dude as well.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Well I had hoped to have more answers on this issue, but

desafortunadamente, my day has been richly saturated with futility,

having driven eagerly upon the seemingly welcoming roads into Amherst,

only to find that the doors of the UMass library, behind whose sturdy

clasps lie many nuggets of research, though yet dormant, hungrily

awaiting my precient analysis, panting, are locked, barring entry to

all who wish to enter therein, no matter with what passion. And so I

am forced to turn my back on these questions until Tuesday.

Although I'm confident I have the vitamin A and bone puzzle solved, I

was hoping to get the last bits of research I need to confirm

everything and to assure myself that there is nothing conflicting with

my hypothesis, since everything I've been able to read thus far since

our last communique on the issue has only strengthened my thoughts.

But I was also going to dig up the old stuff from the lonely and dusty

books up on the 23rd and 24th floors that might contain the long-lost

answers to this X-factor question.

But alas, Tuesday awaits us. And we must await her as well.

Chris

On 12/31/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Thanks and . I unsubbed from many groups for a time, but maybe I

will get my butt back on chapterleaders'. I'd like to see what my pal Dr. Ken

has come up with. I will contact the Wetzel dude as well.

>

>

> Deanna

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>Well I had hoped to have more answers on this issue, but

>desafortunadamente, my day has been richly saturated with futility,

>having driven eagerly upon the seemingly welcoming roads into Amherst,

>only to find that the doors of the UMass library, behind whose sturdy

>clasps lie many nuggets of research, though yet dormant, hungrily

>awaiting my precient analysis, panting, are locked, barring entry to

>all who wish to enter therein, no matter with what passion. And so I

>am forced to turn my back on these questions until Tuesday.

>

>

Too bad on the waste of time and energy.

>Although I'm confident I have the vitamin A and bone puzzle solved, I

>was hoping to get the last bits of research I need to confirm

>everything and to assure myself that there is nothing conflicting with

>my hypothesis, since everything I've been able to read thus far since

>our last communique on the issue has only strengthened my thoughts.

>But I was also going to dig up the old stuff from the lonely and dusty

>books up on the 23rd and 24th floors that might contain the long-lost

>answers to this X-factor question.

>

Well good for you, I will look forward to seeing what you come up with

on the a antagonism angle. Honestly I wish someone would get this x

factor business straightened out. And when you do, get it out and about

for people to see and learn from. WAPF and Realmilk sites are kinda

vague on the whole thing, if ya ask me.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 12/31/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Too bad on the waste of time and energy.

It's ok though. I got an hour of studying Spanish from casette tapes

in while I did the drive. I'm more annoyed that I have to wait to get

the information than that I drove around for no reason.

> Well good for you, I will look forward to seeing what you come up with

> on the a antagonism angle. Honestly I wish someone would get this x

> factor business straightened out. And when you do, get it out and about

> for people to see and learn from. WAPF and Realmilk sites are kinda

> vague on the whole thing, if ya ask me.

I agree.

I'm going to ask PPNF if they have a database of all of Price's

research. He had already written over 200 peer-reviewed journal

articles *before* he started his NAPD travels, so I would think they'd

at least have these in a collection of citations. My understanding is

that they have his complete works, though Sally said some of them are

not in readable condition anymore. It would be nice if one of the

Price-related foundations would create an internet database of the

complete works of Price, if copyright would allow it. All of his

stuff published in journals is way old, so I'd think that they'd be

able to do it. That would make this sort of thing quite a bit easier.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

>I'm going to ask PPNF if they have a database of all of Price's

>research. He had already written over 200 peer-reviewed journal

>articles *before* he started his NAPD travels, so I would think they'd

>at least have these in a collection of citations. My understanding is

>that they have his complete works, though Sally said some of them are

>not in readable condition anymore. It would be nice if one of the

>Price-related foundations would create an internet database of the

>complete works of Price, if copyright would allow it. All of his

>stuff published in journals is way old, so I'd think that they'd be

>able to do it. That would make this sort of thing quite a bit easier.

>

Well, PPNF holds the copyright to all of Price's work, iirc. In theory

they could provide some of the resources online, even if made only

available by membership privilege (might encourage membership even). I

can understand them continuing to republish NAPD in book form only, but

many of Price's papers wouldn't be very fetchy for the public at large.

It would be great to have such a database available, especially since

they are letting some of these documents disintegrate - iow it would

save them in a usable form before they are gone forever. Heck, their

mission statement says: " Continue to republish Dr. Weston A. Price's

book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration along with others of his works

and make them available to the public in perpetuity. " And yada yada

along these lines.

Are you a member of PPNF?

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 12/31/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Well, PPNF holds the copyright to all of Price's work, iirc. In theory

> they could provide some of the resources online, even if made only

> available by membership privilege (might encourage membership even). I

> can understand them continuing to republish NAPD in book form only, but

> many of Price's papers wouldn't be very fetchy for the public at large.

> It would be great to have such a database available, especially since

> they are letting some of these documents disintegrate - iow it would

> save them in a usable form before they are gone forever. Heck, their

> mission statement says: " Continue to republish Dr. Weston A. Price's

> book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration along with others of his works

> and make them available to the public in perpetuity. " And yada yada

> along these lines.

Wouldn't the journal articles be copyright of the respective journals?

Of course it wouldn't be read as widely as the book, but it would be

at least as important, because it would facilitate research into

things like activator X, and facilitate researchers using this as

background information for other research. For example, I think he

published articles detailing the nutrient composition of various

primitive diets. That would be relevant for all sorts of things.

Finally, people write articles for PPNF and for WAPF's journal, etc,

and those people would be able to write more informative articles that

*would* be accessible to the general public if that information were

accessible to them.

From what I heard, much of what PPNF has is yellowed and already

unreadable. Why they didn't microfishe it all a long time ago no one

knows. For the unpublished work, that's a travesty.

> Are you a member of PPNF?

I was but eventually it ran out. If something like that was available

I surely wouldn't neglect to pay those dues!

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Deanna Wagner

>Well, PPNF holds the copyright to all of Price's work, iirc. In theory

>they could provide some of the resources online, even if made only

>available by membership privilege (might encourage membership even).

That's a great idea! I'd renew my membership if they did something like

that.

Having said that, they DO have a fairly lengthy hard copy bibliography of

his papers that are available for purchase. I don't know if they have this

on the site, but I got the bibliography from them at the 2004 WAPF

conference. So apparently, a lot of his writings ARE available, it's just

not widely known.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

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

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

> Unfortunately I don't have a copy of NAPD on me. So

> forgive me if any of my description is faulty.

> Your use of the term " vitamin D " is obscuring the issue.

> Price found that irradiated ergosterol -- IOW, ergocalciferol,

> or vitamin D2 -- did not have the same effect as what he was

> calling " Vitamin D " and then began to call " Activator X "

> because of this lack of similar effect. At the time, I don't

> think there was any differentiation between D2 and D3.

> It is now known and accpeted that there are physiological

> differences between D2 and D3.

> I am not familiar with the follow-up research on

> Activator X done by Royal Lee and others, so I am not going

> to opine that D3 is identical to Activator X (many things

> seem to suggest this, others seem to suggest otherwise),

> but I will say that there is nothing in Price's chapter to

> make a distinction between the two very clear, since Price

> was distinguishing between D2 specifically and Activator X, not

> D3 and Activator X.

> I don't know why you seem to be conflating " insufficient "

> with worthless, but you nevertheless seem to be doing

> so. Vitamin A is also " insufficient " to maintain mineral

> status because it must work in conjunction with vitamin D

> and, if Activator X is something different, Activator X.

> Activator X, then, is not sufficient in itself to maintain mineral

> status, but must work in conjunction with vitamin A,

> and, if D is something different, vitamin D.

> I didn't understand Price to say that D2 was worthless,

> but even if he did, it would be preposterous for us to take

> that observation 70 years ago and negate the very clear

> value of a different substance, vitamin D3, research on which

> has continued to unravel for decades since Price's work.

Hi Chris:

" Much progress has been made in recent years in identifying four

different vitamin D factors, of which viosterol or irradiated

ergosterol is vitamin D2. Vitamin D3 is produced by the irradiation

of a form of cholesterol. It is now recognized that activated

ergosterol D2 does not represent the factors essential for the

utilization of calcium and phosphorus by the human body. Available

data indicate that it is not a product of animal bodies. We

accordingly are concerned with the data that will relate to mineral

metabolism in general and dental caries in particular. " is what

Price said.

So, according to you, Price did not know there was any difference

between D2 and D3. Hmm.

If my use of the term " vitamin D " was obscuring the issue for you, I

guess Weston Price's use of the term " vitamin D " was obscuring the

issue for you when you read NAPD since I was using the term in the

manner Price used it in the book.

Weston Price was able to do experiments involving dental caries

using a butter oil that he said was a good source of activator X,

according to Yoder's chemical test, I assume. In an experiment like

the one involving 27 mission children there were many other

evidences of betterment in the children other than the complete

remineralization of all the dental caries in the children. (Do you

remember that experiment?)

The total sum of evidence from the chapter would indicate that

Yoder's 1927 chemical test for antirachitic properties was actually

measuring a broader nutritional factor responsible for the

prevention and cure of dental caries. (Yes, the vitamin D portion of

the factor was the factor responsible for antirachitic properties.)

As Price said in the chapter, previous to this time no one had come

up with such a nutritional factor concerning the prevention of

dental caries. Thus anyone who claims to know what this factor was

made of would clearly be able to easily repeat Price's repeatable

experiments demonstrating their ability to both prevent dental

caries and cause existing detal caries to remineralize over, while,

of course, altering whether the saliva removes phosphate from

crushed bone or teeth or adds it to crushed bone or teeth. Since

Price did this so long ago, surely the unravelling research would

not only easily duplicate Price's experiments, but far surpass it.

It really doesn't matter what Price identified as activator X is

made of with respect to whether or not it works. It would be

interesting to know what it is in more detail but that lack of

knowledge is no factor in the experiments he did.

Since you seem to have trouble with my use of the

word " insufficient " , somehow confusing it with the

word " worthless " , I will give another example of something that is

believed to be a cause but is actually insufficient though not

worthless:

Wind and rain are believed to be the cause of soil erosion. They

aren't. Wind or rain may be necessary for erosion to occur but they

are insufficient. The total factor to cause soil erosion, call it

soil factor X, requires a combination of wind or rain with low soil

fertility. A demonstration was provided by the man who wrote the

forward to the supplement and one chapter in the supplement,

Albrecht. The same wind blowing or rain falling will not cause the

same soil erosion on soils of differing fertility levels. The wind

and the rain, therefore are not worthless in causing erosion, but

they are insufficient to cause erosion. The broader factor, soil

factor X, is required. I hope this makes my use of the

word " insufficient " more clear to you.

Also, here is an example of my use of the word " worthless " . If 70

years of research since Price's work was done have failed to, at the

least, duplicate his work then that research is worthless.

To me, it doesn't matter whether Price's activator X is some

combination of vitamins, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N,

O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, or Z. What matters is that he

showed what the factor can do and where to get it.

If you have trouble finding this factor in food today, you might

want to do some follow-up work, as I have done, looking at the

unravelling reseach in the field of agriculture over 70 years and

what this has meant for the nutritional value of food including its

activator X content. If you do this, you may come to say as I do,

that organic food is best described as malnutrition without poison.

So, of course you can see that I am not concerned with my vitamin D

intake, I am concerned with my activator X intake even though I

don't know exactly what it is made of!

Chi

[Guest guest]

On 1/2/06, soilfertility <ynos@...> wrote:

> Hi Chris:

> " Much progress has been made in recent years in identifying four

> different vitamin D factors, of which viosterol or irradiated

> ergosterol is vitamin D2. Vitamin D3 is produced by the irradiation

> of a form of cholesterol. It is now recognized that activated

> ergosterol D2 does not represent the factors essential for the

> utilization of calcium and phosphorus by the human body. Available

> data indicate that it is not a product of animal bodies. We

> accordingly are concerned with the data that will relate to mineral

> metabolism in general and dental caries in particular. " is what

> Price said.

> So, according to you, Price did not know there was any difference

> between D2 and D3. Hmm.

Thank you. Like I said I didn't have a copy to check what I was

saying and my description may have been faulty.

Nevertheless, was it not irradiated ergosterol that Price was

differentiating from Activator X?

> If my use of the term " vitamin D " was obscuring the issue for you, I

> guess Weston Price's use of the term " vitamin D " was obscuring the

> issue for you when you read NAPD since I was using the term in the

> manner Price used it in the book.

Price was specific when he differentiated between the effects of

irradiated ergosterol and Activator X. Unless he also differentiated

between cholecalciferol and Activator X and I am misremembering, then

using the term " Vitamin D " in reference to the first differentiation

is, yes, obscuring the issue.

Thank you for correcting me.

> Weston Price was able to do experiments involving dental caries

> using a butter oil that he said was a good source of activator X,

> according to Yoder's chemical test, I assume. In an experiment like

> the one involving 27 mission children there were many other

> evidences of betterment in the children other than the complete

> remineralization of all the dental caries in the children. (Do you

> remember that experiment?)

> The total sum of evidence from the chapter would indicate that

> Yoder's 1927 chemical test for antirachitic properties was actually

> measuring a broader nutritional factor responsible for the

> prevention and cure of dental caries. (Yes, the vitamin D portion of

> the factor was the factor responsible for antirachitic properties.)

I agree that this is suggestive, but it doesn't serve to differentiate

D3 from Activator X in the way that Price differentiated D2 from

Activator X (which perhaps also could have used more rigor.) There is

no group consuming D3 as a control, and no group in which it is

attempted to control for the non-Yoder components of the butter oil

with D3 in place of the Yoder-test-associated complex.

> As Price said in the chapter, previous to this time no one had come

> up with such a nutritional factor concerning the prevention of

> dental caries. Thus anyone who claims to know what this factor was

> made of would clearly be able to easily repeat Price's repeatable

> experiments demonstrating their ability to both prevent dental

> caries and cause existing detal caries to remineralize over, while,

> of course, altering whether the saliva removes phosphate from

> crushed bone or teeth or adds it to crushed bone or teeth. Since

> Price did this so long ago, surely the unravelling research would

> not only easily duplicate Price's experiments, but far surpass it.

> It really doesn't matter what Price identified as activator X is

> made of with respect to whether or not it works. It would be

> interesting to know what it is in more detail but that lack of

> knowledge is no factor in the experiments he did.

What I said before was that there is no clear conclusivity of a

differentiation between D3 and Activator X in the chapter. This is

from my memory, granted, but you haven't provided any information

indicating otherwise. No, what it is has no bearing on whether it

works, but D3's relationship to the Activator X complex is still up in

the air based on NAPD alone.

> Since you seem to have trouble with my use of the

> word " insufficient " , somehow confusing it with the

> word " worthless " , I will give another example of something that is

> believed to be a cause but is actually insufficient though not

> worthless:

> Wind and rain are believed to be the cause of soil erosion. They

> aren't. Wind or rain may be necessary for erosion to occur but they

> are insufficient. The total factor to cause soil erosion, call it

> soil factor X, requires a combination of wind or rain with low soil

> fertility.

Ok, in this analogy the negative effect of soil erosion would be

analogous to the positive effect of bone/tooth mineralization or other

benefits to mineral metabolism or general health. Soil factor X to

Price's Activator X, and wind and rain to vitamins A and D. So why

would one dispense with concern over A and D intake due to an absence

of X?

Also, another point is that Price showed that A resulted in certain

benefits to growth alone that could not match the combined effect of A

and X (and of course he had switched from referring to D to referring

to the same thing as X and therefore wasn't differentiating between D

and X). So in some respects each component may actually be eficacious

in itself, though inferior to the whole complex.

A demonstration was provided by the man who wrote the

> forward to the supplement and one chapter in the supplement,

> Albrecht. The same wind blowing or rain falling will not cause the

> same soil erosion on soils of differing fertility levels. The wind

> and the rain, therefore are not worthless in causing erosion, but

> they are insufficient to cause erosion. The broader factor, soil

> factor X, is required. I hope this makes my use of the

> word " insufficient " more clear to you.

It makes perfect sense, but why you would not care about D based on

this makes much less sense.

> Also, here is an example of my use of the word " worthless " . If 70

> years of research since Price's work was done have failed to, at the

> least, duplicate his work then that research is worthless.

> To me, it doesn't matter whether Price's activator X is some

> combination of vitamins, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N,

> O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, or Z. What matters is that he

> showed what the factor can do and where to get it.

> If you have trouble finding this factor in food today, you might

> want to do some follow-up work, as I have done, looking at the

> unravelling reseach in the field of agriculture over 70 years and

> what this has meant for the nutritional value of food including its

> activator X content. If you do this, you may come to say as I do,

> that organic food is best described as malnutrition without poison.

> So, of course you can see that I am not concerned with my vitamin D

> intake, I am concerned with my activator X intake even though I

> don't know exactly what it is made of!

But IF Activator X is something different than D3, D3 is important in

and of itself, as is vitamin A, in conjunction with X. Moreover it is

abundantly clear from the research that D3 itself plays important

roles in synergism with vitamin A and it is quite clear that serum 25

(OH) D levels matter. Concern over activator X shouldn't blind us to

the fact that D3 intake and serum 25 (OH) D are demonstrated important

factors in health.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

> " Much progress has been made in recent years in identifying

> four different vitamin D factors, of which viosterol or

> irradiated ergosterol is vitamin D2. Vitamin D3 is produced

> by the irradiation of a form of cholesterol. It is now

> recognized that activated ergosterol D2 does not represent

> the factors essential for the utilization of calcium and

> phosphorus by the human body. Available data indicate that

> it is not a product of animal bodies. We accordingly are

> concerned with the data that will relate to mineral metabolism

> in general and dental caries in particular. "

>

> Nevertheless, was it not irradiated ergosterol that Price was

> differentiating from Activator X?

Hi Chris:

Yes, because irradiated ergosterol was assumed to be sufficient for

the utilization of calcium and phosphorus by the body. Price's work

with Yoder's test for antrachitic properties caused Price to realize

that it was measuring a broader factor than just irradiated

ergosterol and this factor was needed for the full utilization of

calcium and phosphorus, hence the comparison. There would be no need

to compare it with irradiated ergosterol plus an irradiated form of

cholestrol unless it was claimed that these two together were

responsible for the body to fully utilize calcium and phosphorus.

> I agree that this is suggestive, but it doesn't serve to

> differentiate D3 from Activator X in the way that Price

> differentiated D2 from Activator X (which perhaps also could

> have used more rigor.) There is no group consuming D3 as

> a control, and no group in which it is attempted to control

> for the non-Yoder components of the butter oil with D3 in

> place of the Yoder-test-associated complex.

Do you think Price was an intelligent man or not? Since he clearly

knew about both D2 and D3, I think he would have realized if

combining D2 and D3 would allow him to realize the same results that

he obtained in his experiments using what he called activator X.

He mentions that irradiated eergosterol is not a product of animal

bodies. If D3, an irradiated form of cholestrol, is also not a

product of animal bodies then the sum of D2 and D3 could not

possibly be equivalent to activator X, as activator X is a product

of animal bodies.

> What I said before was that there is no clear conclusivity

> of a differentiation between D3 and Activator X

> in the chapter. This is from my memory, granted, but

> you haven't provided any information indicating otherwise.

> No, what it is has no bearing on whether it works, but D3's

> relationship to the Activator X complex is still up in

> the air based on NAPD alone.

I disagree, see above.

> Ok, in this analogy the negative effect of soil erosion

> would be analogous to the positive effect of bone/tooth

> mineralization or other benefits to mineral metabolism

> or general health. Soil factor X to Price's Activator X,

> and wind and rain to vitamins A and D. So why would one

> dispense with concern over A and D intake due to an absence

> of X?

First, I never said that I was not concerned with my vitamin A

intake, I said I wasn't concerned with my vitamin D intake. I don't

know why you are asking me about dispensing with my or with anyone's

concern over their vitamin A intake.

Since Price never claimed that Vitamin A was part of activator X,

there would be no reason that a sufficient intake of it would

dispense with the need to be concerned with vitamin A intake.

Note that in the dairy samples Price tested in the herd in Deaf

county, I assume near Herford, Texas, the nutrients were

moving up together when the cows got back on green grass after

consuming winter feed. Thus, it would seem that if you find dairy

with a high level of activator X then could could expect it to have

a high level of vitamin A at the same time.

If you are conderned with soil erosion it is pointless to worry

about the insufficient causes, wind and rain. It would make sense,

however, to be concerned about the soil fertility. If you fix the

soil fertility, you won't need to be concerned with the action of

wind or rain on soil erosion. So, if you are concerned with your

activator X intake which takes care of your body's ability to

utilize calcium and phosphorus, there is no need to ever be

concerned with your vitamin D intake which is insufficient to take

care of your body's ability to utilize calcium and phosphorus.

> Also, another point is that Price showed that A resulted in

> certain benefits to growth alone that could not match

> the combined effect of A and X (and of course he had switched

> from referring to D to referring to the same thing as X

> and therefore wasn't differentiating between D and X). So in

> some respects each component may actually be eficacious

> in itself, though inferior to the whole complex.

Again, I didn't mention vitamin A and I have no idea why you are

talking about it.

> It makes perfect sense, but why you would not care about D based on

> this makes much less sense.

See above.

> But IF Activator X is something different than D3, D3 is

> important in and of itself, as is vitamin A, in conjunction

> with X. Moreover it is abundantly clear from the research

> that D3 itself plays important roles in synergism with

> vitamin A and it is quite clear that serum 25 (OH) D levels

> matter. Concern over activator X shouldn't blind us to the fact

> that D3 intake and serum 25 (OH) D are demonstrated important

> factors in health.

It might be necessary to review that data from Price's original work

to see if he found that activator X contained both D2 and D3 and the

other two factors in the D complex. If D3 is part of activator X,

then getting sufficient activator X in the diet would ensure that D3

requirements would be met.

Again, I never mentioned that I was not concerned with my vitamin A

intake and I have no idea why you are talking about vitamin A now.

Is this to divert attention from the activator X, vitamin D issue?

From Weston Price's data presented in the chapter on a new vitamin-

like activator, I will continue to be concerned with my activator X

intake and to not worry about my vitamin D intake, because taking

care of the former takes care of the latter.

By the way, what source of activator X do you have in your diet and,

if you believe that it is sufficient to meet your needs, how do you

know that it is sufficient?

Chi

[Guest guest]

--- In , " soilfertility " <ynos@r...>

wrote:

" That is why, to me, talking about Vitamin D in any

context, instead of activator X in the same context, is to disregard

the work of Weston Price. "

.....I will continue to be concerned with my activator X

> intake and to not worry about my vitamin D intake, because taking

> care of the former takes care of the latter.

> By the way, what source of activator X do you have in your diet and,

> if you believe that it is sufficient to meet your needs, how do you

> know that it is sufficient?

>

Chi,

I think I'm finally waking up. So...what are you recommending? Get

some good soil and grow your own? Any other options for the urban

masses?

B.

[Guest guest]

> Chi,

> I think I'm finally waking up. So...what are you

> recommending? Get some good soil and grow your

> own? Any other options for the urban masses?

> B.

Hi :

I have a few suggestions for the urban masses.

First, try to find a farmer producing dairy products using similar

agronomic methods to those that were used in Weston Price's day. (If

you are interested, I can send you an article that I just wrote to

help people judge the nutritional value of raw milk based on the

agronomic methods used to produce it.)

If you can find a dairy farmer who is not producing raw milk the way

it was produced in Price's day, but is willing to change to produce

milk that way, be willing to work with him while he makes the

necessary changes. I really think it's up to the consumer to eductate

the farmer as to what quality of dairy products the consumer wants and

how the farmer is to produce it. Most farmers probably don't know how

to produce milk with the nutritional value of milk produced in Price's

day.

If you can't find a satisfactory source of raw milk, the next option

is to get together with other like-minded people and buy a farm and

hire a farmer. Not the easiest thing to do, but it would change

agriculture. If you want to change something, don't try and change it

directly, just opt out and see the reaction.

Chi

[Guest guest]

--- In , " soilfertility " <ynos@r...>

wrote:

Hi Chi,

(If

> you are interested, I can send you an article that I just wrote to

> help people judge the nutritional value of raw milk based on the

> agronomic methods used to produce it.)

Yes, I am very interested, please send.

If you want to change something, don't try and change it

> directly, just opt out and see the reaction.

Thanks for the reminder.

B.