Re: Re: soil fertility and immunity (was: What hope can be offered to AIDS patients?)

[Guest guest]

> [mailto: ] On Behalf Of soilfertility

>

> I have the answer if a more recent, but parallel situation in

> the US will suffice. During WWII Americans were drafted to go

> to war to fight the possibly overwhelming invader. In order

> to go to war, however, they first had to go through a medical

> examination and pass it. The rejection rate was tabulated

> according to the state they were from. The dental caries rate

> was also recorded according to the state they were from. If I

> remember right, I think the rejection rate varied from about

> 20% in states with the highest soil fertility to 70% in the

> state with the lowest soil fertility.

I wonder if there might be another explanation for this, though. States with

low soil fertility would presumably tend to have higher percentages of

people living in urban areas. People living in urban areas tend (or may have

tended at the time) to have inferior diets, not just in terms of the quality

of the soil which produced their food, but also in terms of the types of

food they eat.

> You might want to know

> the name of the state with the 70% rejection rate if you live in it.

Since you were addressing Suze, are you implying that it was Maine?

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Please explain why you would think this is so and please give

examples naming the specific state.

> > You might want to know the name of the state with the 70%

> > rejection rate if you live in it.

>

> Since you were addressing Suze, are you implying that it was Maine?

Wrong guess . I was addressing Suze because she asked the

question. I don't know the state because Albrecht did not identify

it. I do know, however, it wasn't Maine because Albrecht said it was

in the south east and, as far as I know, Maine is not considered

part of the south east, although I am not an american so I could be

wrong.

Chi

Wasn't it South Carolina, which now has the lowest SAT scores in the country and

a large amount per capita of recruits in Iraq.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> I have a question, although I suspect no one has an answer

> but I'll throw it out there anyhow. Is there any data to

> suggest that natives who lived in areas of low soil fertility,

> such as New England, and that had not been exposed to

> " white man's food " (meaning processed refined foods in the

> context of Price's research), were more prone to succumbing

> to smallpox and other novel infectious diseases? I guess it

> would make sense that they'd succumb quicker or maybe just get

> sicker than natives who ate foods from high fertility soil, but

> I wonder if the soil fertility made a *significant* difference, or

> just a negligable one. (I have an idea what Chi would say.)

There were half a dozen tribes in Massachusetts, including the Massachusett that

were persuaded with religion to go to near New Bedford and live together. Called

praying tribes and likely first reservation. All were wiped out by smallpox.

Living conditions were likely closer together and not as sanitary as their

villages so it wouldn't take long. They'd had no exposure to domesticated

livestock or dairy either. Smallpox being the human form of cowpox.

This anthropology article says there's proneness to infectious disease but also

resistance to other disease. Soilwise, cows raised on healthy soil would be less

likely to get cowpox.

100,000 year history of disease revealed in bones

http://www.saanichnews.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=28 & cat=23 & id=567463 & more=

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Chi-

>During WWII Americans were drafted to go to war to

>fight the possibly overwhelming invader. In order to go to war,

>however, they first had to go through a medical examination and pass

>it. The rejection rate was tabulated according to the state they

>were from. The dental caries rate was also recorded according to the

>state they were from.

Your unstated assumption is that this sort of measure of physical

health corresponds exactly to resistance to all possible infectious

disease, but that's exactly the topic under debate.

-

[Guest guest]

>Hi Suze:

>I have the answer if a more recent, but parallel situation in the US

>will suffice. During WWII Americans were drafted to go to war to

>fight the possibly overwhelming invader. In order to go to war,

>however, they first had to go through a medical examination and pass

>it. The rejection rate was tabulated according to the state they

>were from. The dental caries rate was also recorded according to the

>state they were from. If I remember right, I think the rejection

>rate varied from about 20% in states with the highest soil fertility

>to 70% in the state with the lowest soil fertility. You might want

>to know the name of the state with the 70% rejection rate if you

>live in it.

Chi,

That is the same study I was referencing. It was quite remarkable. But as

mentioned, that still doesn't tell us anything about the relationship

(if any) between soil fertility and resistance to novel infectious diseases.

Thanks for taking a stab at it though! I know I must put the Voison and

Albrecht works on my " to read " list. Thanks for bringing that up once again.

I think I needed to hear those recs again :-)

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]

> [mailto: ] On Behalf Of soilfertility

>

> > I wonder if there might be another explanation for this, though.

> > States with low soil fertility would presumably tend to have higher

> > percentages of people living in urban areas.

>

> Hi :

> Please explain why you would think this is so and please give

> examples naming the specific state.

It's purely speculation, and I could very well be wrong, but I assume that

people aren't going to do much farming in the areas with poor soil. And if

you're not farming, you're probably in the city. But if the state with the

highest rejection rate was in the Southeast, I guess that doesn't work,

since the Southeast isn't very urbanized.

[Guest guest]

>Chi,

>

>That is the same study I was referencing. It was quite remarkable. But as

> mentioned, that still doesn't tell us anything about the relationship

>(if any) between soil fertility and resistance to novel infectious diseases.

>Thanks for taking a stab at it though! I know I must put the Voison and

>Albrecht works on my " to read " list. Thanks for bringing that up once again.

>I think I needed to hear those recs again :-)

Also, when this study was conducted, 'most' food was 'local food.'

For this reason, this study, by measuring physical degeneration (or,

at least, quantifying it) gives us a view of the depletion of certain

regions. I can't find the Albrecht article that references this study

(he quotes it often, though). In macrobiotics, of course, it is often

said that not getting sick is not health, but the ability to get well

(with acquired immunity) is the actual indication of health. -Allan