Re: duesberg

[Guest guest]

-

>>So these populations were totally unequipped for anything less than a

>>perfect diet, and declined very rapidly when modern foods were

>>introduced--infectious disease, diabetes, etc.. Their pancreas and

>>other organs just could not handle these things. Whereas modern

>>people had their bodies formed under the influence of the modern diet,

>>and in the body building, a lot of effort/resources went into the

>>digestive apparatus--and consequently much less into skeleton,

>>muscles, eyes, ears, etc. This is the body's way of adapting during

>>the growth phase. But, of course, it can only compromise so much so

>>after another generation, diabetes, immune problems, etc start to show up.

I'm sure something like this is quite correct and explains, for

example, why native Americans have so much more trouble with alcohol,

but legions of natives died of infectious disease without first

changing their diets in any way whatsoever. In fact, my

understanding is that disease wiped out many populations that had no

direct contact with Europeans at all.

-

[Guest guest]

Chi-

>If disease resistance depends on genes, it's a lottery and there is

>nothing you can do to protect yourself. If, however, disease

>resistance depends on being well nourished, then there would be

>something you could do for yourself if someone ever starts producing

>nutritious food instead of producing food for yield to make money.

And what if it depends on both?

-

[Guest guest]

On 1/19/06, soilfertility <ynos@...> wrote:

<snip my actual reasoned response>

> , have you ever read NAPD? If not I suggest you do.

> Chi

Yup, just as I (we) expected. In the face of an actual argument,

simple attitude. Yeah, I've read the book, which is exactly why I

know that you're reading way too much into it. Of course nutrition is

an important factor, but it's so abundantly obvious that it's not the

only factor. Like anything else in this world, it's just not that

simple.

Price was studying populations HUNDREDS OF YEARS after they had been

thinned by initial waves of disease brought by explorers. Or should I

read the book again to remind myself that he could also travel through

time and walk on water?

You obviously possess an opinion, but unless you start actually

defending it instead of repeatedly restating it (in the same words, no

less), it will continue to be clear that it has nothing to do with

actual knowledge but rather with prejudiced rigidity passed off as

" free thinking. "

[Guest guest]

On 1/19/06, Idol <paul_idol@...> wrote:

> -

>

> >>So these populations were totally unequipped for anything less than a

> >>perfect diet, and declined very rapidly when modern foods were

> >>introduced--infectious disease, diabetes, etc.. Their pancreas and

> >>other organs just could not handle these things. Whereas modern

> >>people had their bodies formed under the influence of the modern diet,

> >>and in the body building, a lot of effort/resources went into the

> >>digestive apparatus--and consequently much less into skeleton,

> >>muscles, eyes, ears, etc. This is the body's way of adapting during

> >>the growth phase. But, of course, it can only compromise so much so

> >>after another generation, diabetes, immune problems, etc start to show up.

>

> I'm sure something like this is quite correct and explains, for

> example, why native Americans have so much more trouble with alcohol,

> but legions of natives died of infectious disease without first

> changing their diets in any way whatsoever. In fact, my

> understanding is that disease wiped out many populations that had no

> direct contact with Europeans at all.

> -

Yes, exactly... huge populations well inland from any explorers were

wiped out. Explorers hopped along the coastlines with brief inland

expeditions but populations were decimated way farther inland than

they (explorers) ever reached. Accounts like those from Bernal Diàz

del Castillo (Discovery and Conquest of Mexico) and others show this

clearly was the pattern, until of course the Spaniards caught wind of

gold and had the resources to move inland into Mexico. Even then,

this was only possible on the third expedition that he personally took

part in, i.e. the one commanded by Cortès. Already he makes mention

of natives being killed by smallpox and either fleeing at the sight of

the whites or sending canoes to try to keep them from landing. Of

course disease wasn't the only reason for that, but he reasoned it

played a part.

This is just one example, but it's a general pattern.

[Guest guest]

> I'm sure something like this is quite correct and explains, for

> example, why native Americans have so much more trouble with alcohol,

> but legions of natives died of infectious disease without first

> changing their diets in any way whatsoever. In fact, my

> understanding is that disease wiped out many populations that had no

> direct contact with Europeans at all.

,

Excuse me, but I didn't post Sally's comments as my own views but

merely to contribute to the controversy. My own ideas are unclear.

B.

[Guest guest]

-

>Excuse me, but I didn't post Sally's comments as my own views but

>merely to contribute to the controversy. My own ideas are unclear.

Sorry if I implied you did. I was just responding to her comments as

part of the discussion.

-

[Guest guest]

> Sorry if I implied you did. I was just responding to her comments as

> part of the discussion.

,

Yeah, I could see that on review--how else would you respond--gee, my

apologies for cluttering the list space.

[Guest guest]

-

>Yeah, I could see that on review--how else would you respond--gee, my

>apologies for cluttering the list space.

No biggie.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> That's not responsive. If everyone on this list responded to many

> posts just by saying " Have you read XYZ " , it would be a very boring

> and unproductive place to be.

It would be much worse than boring.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

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

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <paul_idol@y...>

wrote:

>

> Chi-

>

> >If disease resistance depends on genes, it's a lottery and there is

> >nothing you can do to protect yourself. If, however, disease

> >resistance depends on being well nourished, then there would be

> >something you could do for yourself if someone ever starts producing

> >nutritious food instead of producing food for yield to make money.

>

> And what if it depends on both?

Hi :

To some extent is does. If you were to plot the varying nutritional

value of food it would not be two points, representing high nutrition

and low nutrition, but rather some sort of a continuous curve. So I

would expect two people eating food of the same nutritional value

would be a different risks for any particular disease if one of them

had a genetic predisposition favoring contracting the disease. If the

nutritional value of the food the two were consuming were at the lower

end of the curve in value, I would expect the one with the genetic

predisposition to have a much greater probablity of contracting the

disease in question. As the nutritional value of the food they are

consuming moves up the curve, then I would expect the difference in

the increased risk for the individual with the genetic predisposition

to the other person's risk would decrease and at the food's highest

nutritional value would disappear.

I would tell a woman who has every other female in her family get

breast cancer, there be no need for her to get it if she would only

eat food of high nutritional value. The only minor problem, of course,

is that it isn't available.

Chi

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <paul_idol@y...>

wrote:

>

> Chi-

> That's not responsive. If everyone on this list responded

> to many posts just by saying " Have you read

> XYZ " , it would be a very boring

> and unproductive place to be.

Hi :

When this list has its basis on Weston Price's work contained in NAPD,

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect participants to have read

it.

Chi

[Guest guest]

Chi-

>When this list has its basis on Weston Price's work contained in NAPD,

>I don't think it is unreasonable to expect participants to have read

>it.

Sure, but it's not reasonable to expect everyone to have the exact

same interpretation you do, as has pointed out. Therefore,

it's useful to cite specific passages so that differing

interpretations can be discussed.

-

[Guest guest]

I would tell a woman who has every other female in her family get

breast cancer, there be no need for her to get it if she would only

eat food of high nutritional value. The only minor problem, of course,

is that it isn't available.

Chi

What if she ate exactly the same foods her family ate, only in their higher

nutritional values? What if any one or two of those foods was an allergen or a

lectin? Or that diet was too high/low carb, too low/high protein, too low/high

fat? What if she has genes predominantly from ancestors other than the other

females? What if a change in quality, macronutrient ratio or a more/less

animal/plant source change the breast cancer gene's expression, if she has it?

Probably more what ifs.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <paul_idol@y...>

wrote:

> Sure, but it's not reasonable to expect everyone to have the exact

> same interpretation you do, as has pointed out. Therefore,

> it's useful to cite specific passages so that differing

> interpretations can be discussed.

Hi :

I have not memorized the book and right now my son is reading it.

Coconut is something to look at if it can be found from the index

regarding the influence of white explorers on native health.

Chi

[Guest guest]

Chi,

> When this list has its basis on Weston Price's work contained in NAPD,

> I don't think it is unreasonable to expect participants to have read

> it.

I don't particularly either, but it is somewhat obnoxious to assume

that because someone's view differs from yours, that they have not

read it, or not read it a sufficient number of times, when it is

entirely possible that different people interpret it differently. The

same is true to formulate questions or statements in partially cryptic

ways implying that had only the person read the book in question, or

read it a sufficient number of times, they would know what you are

talking about, instead of simply stating precisely what it is you are

trying to say.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

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

[Guest guest]

>

> I would tell a woman who has every other female in her

> family get breast cancer, there be no need for her

> to get it if she would only eat food of high nutritional

> value. The only minor problem, of course,

> is that it isn't available.

> Chi

> What if she ate exactly the same foods her family ate, only in their

higher nutritional values?

Hi Wanita:

Very good point Wanita. You realize it isn't the food you eat that is

the problem, but rather the nutritional level of the food you eat!

Chi

[Guest guest]

Chi,

> Very good point Wanita. You realize it isn't the food you eat that is

> the problem, but rather the nutritional level of the food you eat!

Except in a wide variety of circumstances, including when you have

genes for an antibody that clings to a particular protein you're

eating quite sturdily, when that protein doesn't disappear when the

nutritional level of the plant is high.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

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

[Guest guest]

Chi,

> Very good point Wanita. You realize it isn't the food you eat that is

> the problem, but rather the nutritional level of the food you eat!

Except in a wide variety of circumstances, including when you have

genes for an antibody that clings to a particular protein you're

eating quite sturdily, when that protein doesn't disappear when the

nutritional level of the plant is high.

Chris

Don't think you understood me. Agree with that the best nutritional level

of a food will not override an individual's predetermination to intolerance of

an individual food's protein. It is similar to a specific virus or bacteria that

will stick to one person's blood, not to another's. Simplistic explanation

hopefully clarifying that no degree of quality eliminates the portion of that

specific food that an individual's body could see as an invader, either having

the ability to defend itself or not.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> Don't think you understood me. Agree with that the best

nutritional level of a food will not override an individual's

predetermination to intolerance of an individual food's protein. It is

similar to a specific virus or bacteria that will stick to one

person's blood, not to another's. Simplistic explanation hopefully

clarifying that no degree of quality eliminates the portion of that

specific food that an individual's body could see as an invader,

either having the ability to defend itself or not.

Hi Wanita:

Does that apply to milk?

Chi

[Guest guest]

>

> > Don't think you understood me. Agree with that the best

> nutritional level of a food will not override an individual's

> predetermination to intolerance of an individual food's protein. It is

> similar to a specific virus or bacteria that will stick to one

> person's blood, not to another's. Simplistic explanation hopefully

> clarifying that no degree of quality eliminates the portion of that

> specific food that an individual's body could see as an invader,

> either having the ability to defend itself or not.

>

> Hi Wanita:

> Does that apply to milk?

> Chi

Wanita,

Legend has it that was unable to tolerate the cow's milk from

a cow share until the farmer raised the quality of the herd's

soil/forage and then had no problem with the milk forevermore,

nay, he thrived upon it!

B.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> > Don't think you understood me. Agree with that the best

> nutritional level of a food will not override an individual's

> predetermination to intolerance of an individual food's protein. It is

> similar to a specific virus or bacteria that will stick to one

> person's blood, not to another's. Simplistic explanation hopefully

> clarifying that no degree of quality eliminates the portion of that

> specific food that an individual's body could see as an invader,

> either having the ability to defend itself or not.

>

> Hi Wanita:

> Does that apply to milk?

> Chi

Wanita,

Legend has it that was unable to tolerate the cow's milk from

a cow share until the farmer raised the quality of the herd's

soil/forage and then had no problem with the milk forevermore,

nay, he thrived upon it!

B.

Chi,

I'd say from experience that it applies to milk. Had family Guernsey as a child.

Was so happy to find raw pastured Jersey milk few years back. Didn't take long

before I started getting worse symptoms than I got from processed dairy in

between, which I'd pretty much given up until then. Head and respiratory mucus,

post nasal drip and ball shaped bm's. Casein intolerance. Suze has said Guernsey

milk is a different protein than Jersey and most other dairy breeds. Don't

remember reacting as a child. Most dairy breeds have been bred for higher milk

protein content for cheesemaking just like wheat has been bred for higher gluten

content for longer storage. Why more are coming up intolerant or worse, imo. The

quality of what they eat can help but if they process due to breeding for a

higher protein level, quality may increase protein. Jerseys still are more for

fat production for butter like Guernseys. Don't know if that has gone up or down

over the last 40 so years. I'm all for open pollinated seeds and heritage breeds

that mitigate some of this.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

--- In , Wanita <wanitawa@y...>

wrote:

>

> > Hi Wanita:

> > Does that apply to milk?

> > Chi

>

> I'd say from experience that it applies to milk.

Hi Wanita:

When I talk to people about the milk that I drink I say that it

varies from store bought milk like night varies from day. It would

have close to the same variation with what is called " organic " milk.

The farmer I buy the milk form, Schmidt, says he had

customers with milk intolerance who started with his clabbered milk

and eventually were able to drink the regular milk he sells. I don't

think we should underestimate our body's ability to regenerate given

the chance with proper nutrition. The problem, as I say time after

time, is that, generally speaking, food that is proper nutrition

isn't available at any price.

We shouldn't let studies done on malnourished people, or on

malnourished test animals, make us think that the same experiments

done on well nourished people or well nourished test animals would

not have different outcomes.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> > Hi Wanita:

> > Does that apply to milk?

> > Chi

>

> I'd say from experience that it applies to milk.

Hi Wanita:

When I talk to people about the milk that I drink I say that it

varies from store bought milk like night varies from day. It would

have close to the same variation with what is called " organic " milk.

The farmer I buy the milk form, Schmidt, says he had

customers with milk intolerance who started with his clabbered milk

and eventually were able to drink the regular milk he sells. I don't

think we should underestimate our body's ability to regenerate given

the chance with proper nutrition. The problem, as I say time after

time, is that, generally speaking, food that is proper nutrition

isn't available at any price.

We shouldn't let studies done on malnourished people, or on

malnourished test animals, make us think that the same experiments

done on well nourished people or well nourished test animals would

not have different outcomes.

Chi

Chi,

Lactic acid seems to give me an additional symptom, gritty, stuck eyes in the

morning. Would happen with homemade butter that I didn't get the whey all out

of. Is intolerance the stomach upset, loose stools of lactose, milk sugar or my

casein, milk protein intolerance?

DH on the other hand can can drink raw milk till the cows come home with obvious

benefits. One metabolic typing researcher has found that body type, gland

dominance, what you crave and what you really need can be dairy. Looks to be

him. Isn't me.

Imo, all studies done on humans or animals removed from their natural

environment are questionable. They involve unaccounted for stressors which make

all of the test subjects maladjusted to begin with.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

So true! There are some generally ignored studies that the body can

regenerate nerve damage, and regrow the myelin sheath. There are

folks with MS who are improving. The problem is that it's nutritional

medicine, nothing you can patent, so no cash to study the solution.

Without that, the FDA and AMA say the doctors can't discuss it because

it hasn't been proven.

Marc Firefox of the Lymestrategies group knows much more about this

than I do, he recommended lecithin and omega-3's with coQ 10 among

other things that I can't recall and said people are having very good

results.

Also NASA recently released the Rife frequency for regenerating

nerves. I don't know why NASA is studying Rife as the AMA branded

that quackery decades ago, but interesting nonetheless.

I don't

> think we should underestimate our body's ability to regenerate given

> the chance with proper nutrition. The problem, as I say time after

> time, is that, generally speaking, food that is proper nutrition

> isn't available at any price.

[Guest guest]

> So true! There are some generally ignored studies that the

> body can regenerate nerve damage, and regrow the myelin

> sheath. There are folks with MS who are improving. The

> problem is that it's nutritional medicine, nothing you can

> patent, so no cash to study the solution.

Science is funded. The first question you should ask about any

scientific study is, " Who funded the study. "

Speaking of regenerating nerve damage, there was a study done in

China over three years starting in 1966. This study was documented

in French and Soviet medical journals, but strangely was not picked

up by any North American journal.

From a book called " Acupuncture " , Chapter 1, " The Startling Cures " ,

I quote from the beginning (that means not taken out of context):

" At the Peking Hospital of Chinese Medicine, in 1966, physicians

gathered 151 paraplegics who had been pronounced incurable by

Western doctors. All had lost the power of movement from the waist

down. The doctors began prodding their patients with long steel

needles. Soon, some were able to wiggle their toes and feet, then

bend their knees, and finally move their entire legs. The exercised

for hours each day, rebuilding wasted muscles and gaining back the

confidence lost in years of paralysis.

Thirty-six months after the acupuncture treatments started, 124 of

the 151 patients were able to walk without the aid of another

person.* China's doctors had accomplished the impossible, using a

five-thousand-year-old medical technique. "

My comments:

Obviously paraplegics in North America don't think an over 80%

chance to walk again is good enough for them, and to spend 3 years

of their life to only have an over 80% chance of walking again would

be a waste of their time. With all the advances in nutritional

research and in drug research, the instant cure for their problem is

probably just around the corner. Just donate a little more money

because the cure is so close.

The easiest thing to do with this experiment is to dismiss it as

fantasy. The hardest would be to actually repeat the experiment

because, if the results turned out to be similar, you would have a

tough time explaining why you waited so long to conduct a second,

independent study to replicate the first.

Chi