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

[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.)

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.

In the early 1940's during a major war food transportation wasn't

what it is today so people ate a much higher portion of their diet

as locally grown food. Albrecht (not Price or Voisin) points

out that both the rejection rate and the dental caries rate was

associated with the average soil fertility of the state.

My comment on the natives in areas of low soil fertility would be

that my guess from having read Price's comment on the Australian

natives and the soil fertility situation in that country, is that

even the natives on low soil fertility would have obtained more

nutrition out of that soil than any white man ever would or could.

The biggest problem they would face, is that over time, continuing

soil destruction would make this task harder and harder.

Chi

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Berg " <bberg@c...>

wrote:

>

> > [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.

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

[Guest guest]

Suze

I'd sure love to see a

similar mapping of soil fertility as it related to infectious disease during

a time when folks consumed only indigenous foods (thus, the nutrient density

of their diet would reflect the level of soil fertility in their area).

There'd be no large scale use post contact of only indigenous food because of

importing and growing here of European food. Pre contact, I can't think of one

infectious disease I've seen a plant cure for in any Native American herbal

except syphillus. Believe we had that discussion here before and it was unclear

if there was syphillus pre contact or it was an infectious disease a plant cure

was found for post contact. I'm undecided on that because there's a plant

medicine tenet that goes something like there is a plant within 10 miles of

wherever you live that will heal any diseases you can get. Does that include or

exclude brought in disease which needs time to find the plant cure before it

devastates?

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Books that focus on pre-contact native America, such as " 1491 " and,

if I remember right, " Guns, Germs and Steel, " make a strong point

that 90% of the native population of the fifteenth century were wiped

out by European diseases without ever seeing a white man. I believe

it was the Incas, who, at the point of contact were already covered

in small pox scars.

Many anthropologists now believe that the native populations of the

Americas were many times greater than reported by Europeans during

the contact periods. The original populations had simply been

destroyed - in fact, whole civilizations just vanished - before any

explorers 'discovered' them. (See " 1491 " for details on this.) In

imagining this, it's important to be aware that the early waves of

European exploration were separated by DECADES and, in the early

years, were most definitely not continuous. Early journals report

massive civilizations along the Amazon, but later explorations found

the area abandoned. Current investigations are not only confirming

that there were advanced civilizations in the Amazon, but actually

assert that the Amazon rainforest was MAN MADE and most definitely,

man maintained to be a substantially stronger source of food and

materials than it is in the modern world.

This apparent failure of indigenous food, wild food and primal soil

fertility to assure a strong immune system (or the strength to

survive disease) in the face of new diseases is very challenging to

our model of where health comes from.

-Allan Balliett

Fresh and Local CSA

Serving the Washington DC-area

www.freshandlocalcsa.com

[Guest guest]

--- In , Allan Balliett <igg@i...>

wrote:

> This apparent failure of indigenous food, wild food and primal soil

> fertility to assure a strong immune system (or the strength to

> survive disease) in the face of new diseases is very challenging to

> our model of where health comes from.

>

> -Allan Balliett

> Fresh and Local CSA

> Serving the Washington DC-area

> www.freshandlocalcsa.com

Hi Allan:

So what is the correct model of where health comes from?

Chi

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>I understand that

>immunity to dental decay and other forms of phsyical degeneration may be

>different than immunity to infectious disease, but I'd sure love to see a

>similar mapping of soil fertility as it related to infectious disease during

>a time when folks consumed only indigenous foods (thus, the nutrient density

>of their diet would reflect the level of soil fertility in their area).

I'd love to see such a map too, but while resistance to caries and

other forms of physical degeneration surely co-exists with immunity

to infectious disease to at least some extent, there's no question

that they involve plenty of different specific physiological

processes as well as some of the same ones.

-

[Guest guest]

>Hi Allan:

>So what is the correct model of where health comes from?

>Chi

Chi - I think the important point is that we may be establishing that

our assumnptions of what are the truth are faulty. There is no reason

to give up trying.

Have you ever read BURKE's " Cosmic Consciousness " ? That will give you

something to think about in regards to full health.

Thanks

-Allan

[Guest guest]

--- In , Allan Balliett <igg@i...>

wrote:

> Have you ever read BURKE's " Cosmic Consciousness " ?

> That will give you something to think about in regards

> to full health.

Hi Allan:

I haven't read " Cosmic Consciousness " , but when people talk about

the " energy of the cosmos " , I ask them if they could be more vague.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> > Have you ever read BURKE's " Cosmic Consciousness " ?

>> That will give you something to think about in regards

>> to full health.

>

>Hi Allan:

>I haven't read " Cosmic Consciousness " , but when people talk about

>the " energy of the cosmos " , I ask them if they could be more vague.

>Chi

All kidding aside, One thing you can hope for is that when you get

your nutrition up to a level that's closer to what is necessary to

manifest your actual DNA that such terms won't be outside of your

reach.

Burke catalogs the 'enlightened' individuals in human history. Burke

was sort of a Weston A. Price observing the gifted. Not only are

Christ and Buddha in there, but people like Shakespeare and Whitman

as well. One of Burke's major observations was that once individuals

demonstrated that they were operating from a higher intellect than

most of use, the also stopped being sick. They were outside of the

realm of illness.

Just something more to think about.

-Allan