Re: What is the role of copper in osteoporosis?

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

>

> Does anyone know?

Chi,

Is this a trick?

B.

[Guest guest]

> Chi,

> Is this a trick?

Hi :

No, it's just bait.

Chi

[Guest guest]

On 1/18/06, soilfertility <ynos@...> wrote:

>

>

> > Chi,

> > Is this a trick?

> Hi :

> No, it's just bait.

While I don't want you to dangle your line too long: I don't know.

What is the role of copper in osteoporosis?

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

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

[Guest guest]

> While I don't want you to dangle your line too long:

> I don't know.

> What is the role of copper in osteoporosis?

Hi Chris:

I don't have my copy of NAPD at the moment, my son is reading it.

I don't know what the role of copper is in osteoporosis. If I knew,

I wouldn't have asked. I have reviewed information of the role of

copper in bones, however.

The first is Chapter 8 in " Soil Grass and Cancer " , titled " Copper

considered as a cement to repair bones " . Briefly, cattle can graze

year round on grass in the Everglades. Cattle had frequent bone

fractures, showed all the signs of rickets and were stricken with

osteomalacia. Soil analysis showed no deficiency of calcium or

phosphorus in the soil. It was discovered that an application to the

soil or the oral administration of copper prevented the occurences.

Voisin goes on to give an example of a calf that had fractures of

both shoulder blades that healed with the administration of copper.

When copper was later withdrawn from the diet, the calf developed a

fracture of the humerus.

The second is Chapter 6 in " The Body Electric " in which O.

Becker explains his investigation of the electrical nature of bones.

Becker found that the collagen in bone behaves like an N-type

semiconductor and it is also piezoelectric. He found that the

apatite behaves like a P-type semiconductor so, of course, their

junction forms a diode. So when stress is applied to the bone the

electrical nature of bone causes it to shape itself in the best way

to handle the stress. In order to determine these qualities of the

collagen and apatite, it was necessary to chemically separate out

both collagen and apatite from the bone. Since it was known that

some semi-conductors fluoresced, Becker checked complete bone,

collagen and apatite and they all fluoresced. He found, however,

that the total of the light fluoresced from the apatite and collagen

did not equal the light fluoresced by the bone itself. Becker

realized that the chemical separation had removed something from

both the collagen and the apatite. After some investigation he found

that the missing ingredient was copper and two atoms of copper

formed basically a peg that held the apatite and collagen together

and likely formed the electrical N-P junction. In Becker's own

words, " The question of how the innermost apatite crystals fasten

onto collagen had eluded orthopedists until then, and the finding

may have opened a way to understand osteoporosis, a condition in

which the apatite crystals fall off and the bone degenerates. "

Considering these two examples then I still need to know what is the

result of continuing research on osteoporosis with respect to copper?

Chi

[Guest guest]

Chi-

>Does anyone know?

I don't know what the exact state of knowledge on the subject is, but

copper deficiency is responsible for bone abnormalities and copper is

required for normal skeletal development.

OK, here's an abstract on copper and bone which elucidates the

subject a

little.

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=\

11891853 & dopt=Abstract>

>1: J Cell Biochem. 2002;85(1):92-100. Related Articles, Links

>

>Modulation of the proliferation and differentiation of human

>mesenchymal stem cells by copper.

>

> JP, Rios S, M.

>

>Laboratorio de Biologia Celular, INTA, Universidad de Chile, Chile.

>jprodrig@...

>

>Copper plays important functional roles in bone metabolism and

>turnover. It is known that it is essential for normal growth and

>development of the skeleton in humans and in animals. Although at

>present the exact role that copper plays in bone metabolism is

>unknown, bone abnormalities are a feature of severe copper

>deficiency. Osteoblasts are derived from mesenchymal stem cells

>(MSCs) present in bone marrow stroma, which are able to

>differentiate into bone, adipocytes, and other cell phenotypes.

>Excess adipogenesis in postmenopausal women may occur at the expense

>of osteogenesis and, therefore, may be an important factor in the

>fragility of postmenopausal bone. The purpose of this study was to

>evaluate whether an increase of the extracellular concentration of

>copper affects the ability of MSCs to differentiate into osteoblasts

>or adipocytes. The results showed that copper modified both the

>differentiation and the proliferative activity of MSCs obtained from

>postmenopausal women. Copper (50 microM) diminished the

>proliferation rate of MSCs, increasing their ability to

>differentiate into the osteogenic and the adipogenic lineages.

>Copper induced a 2-fold increase in osteogenic differentiation of

>MSCs, measured as a increase in calcium deposition. Copper (5 and 50

>microM) diminished the expression of alkaline phosphatase (50 and

>80%, respectively), but induced a shift in the expression of this

>enzyme to earlier times during culture. Copper also induced a

>1.3-fold increase in the adipogenic differentiation of MSCs. It is

>concluded that copper stimulates MSC differentiation, and that this

>is preferentially towards the osteogenic lineage.

>

>PMID: 11891853 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Quite interesting, actually.

-

[Guest guest]

>Considering these two examples then I still need to know what is the

>result of continuing research on osteoporosis with respect to copper?

>Chi

>

>

I don't know the answer to this but it reminded me that there is a notable

amount of copper in the arthritis supplement my dad is taking. I assumed

that was to support SOD production, but perhaps the point has something to

do with the conductivity you mentioned above, assuming it's valid, or maybe

something else. In any event, I just googled " copper bone " and this study

was on the first page, which suggests the need for copper to maintain bone

densitiy: http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/132/2/190

And here's one that says the copper/chromium ratio is critical and that a

high ratio encourages osteoporosis due to the need for chromium by the

parathyroid gland (which apparently has some regulatory effect on bone

density).

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:OJ45zUiIkoIJ:www.acu-cell.com/dis-ost.h

tml+bone+copper+osteoporosis+ & hl=en

Lots more on Google, of course.

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]

The 2002 edition of Coe and Favus, _Disorders of Bone and Mineral

Metabolism_ gives only this blurb on copper in their osteoporosis

section:

" The effects of other minor nutrients and trace metals, which have

been reported only in observational studies, remain unknown. These

include zinc, vitamin B12 and folate, boron, and silicon. Manganese,

zinc, and copper are cofactors for several enzymes involved in bone

metabolism. One study has shown that a combination of these minerals

was able to reduce spinal bone loss. "

The stuff Chi posted looks really interesting. I don't know much

about bone morphology so I don't know if that research has been

followed up on, ignored, or overturned.

And of course what posted was a different mechanism, and yet

different from what I posted above, so it looks like copper may play

quite a few roles.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

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

[Guest guest]

To add my two copper's worth to the issue: a very little read book

called " Soil, Grass, and Cancer " by Andre Voisin had a large section

on how as the body becomes more ill the blood copper goes up, then

goes down again when the illness is over. At the time (1940's, I

think) they didn't know why, but felt copper had something to do

with rebuilding tissue.

>

> The 2002 edition of Coe and Favus, _Disorders of Bone and Mineral

> Metabolism_ gives only this blurb on copper in their osteoporosis

> section:

>

> " The effects of other minor nutrients and trace metals, which have

> been reported only in observational studies, remain unknown. These

> include zinc, vitamin B12 and folate, boron, and silicon.

Manganese,

> zinc, and copper are cofactors for several enzymes involved in bone

> metabolism. One study has shown that a combination of these

minerals

> was able to reduce spinal bone loss. "

>

> The stuff Chi posted looks really interesting. I don't know much

> about bone morphology so I don't know if that research has been

> followed up on, ignored, or overturned.

>

> And of course what posted was a different mechanism, and yet

> different from what I posted above, so it looks like copper may

play

> quite a few roles.

>

> Chris

>

>

> --

> Dioxins in Animal Foods:

> A Case For Vegetarianism?

> Find Out the Truth:

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

>

[Guest guest]

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

> To add my two copper's worth to the issue: a very little read book

> called " Soil, Grass, and Cancer " by Andre Voisin had a large section

> on how as the body becomes more ill the blood copper goes up, then

> goes down again when the illness is over.

I would imagine it has even less of a readership than NAPD although

its on the WAPF's recommended book list.

--

I first met her...in the Student Union at the University...sitting

across and down the table from each other. Our eyes met and that was

it. I was lost immediately in her soulful gaze (which I remember

vividly and tearfully even now) and was drawn inexorably from that

very moment into a love so certain that I never doubted anything about

it, other than the improbability that she would put up with me.

Things worked out. Glory to God!

-Mark Gilstrap

[Guest guest]

>

> The stuff Chi posted looks really interesting. I don't know much

> about bone morphology so I don't know if that research has been

> followed up on, ignored, or overturned.

Hi Chris:

If you can't find any follow up on either Voisin or Becker I think

you can assume the work is ignored. If that is the case, then

looking at the relationship between Vitamin D and A in osteoporosis

becomes meaningless in the absense of the consideration of the role

of copper in osteoporosis.

Becker's has a postscript chapter in his book titled, " Polital

Science " . It exposes the true political nature of what is

called " science " . Don't think that just his work on the importance

of copper in bones is ignored, all his other work is equally well

ignored and he explains how it takes place.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> To add my two copper's worth to the issue: a very little

> read book called " Soil, Grass, and Cancer " by Andre Voisin

> had a large section on how as the body becomes more

> ill the blood copper goes up, then goes down again when the

> illness is over. At the time (1940's, I think) they didn't

> know why, but felt copper had something to do

> with rebuilding tissue.

The book was published in 1959 in its English translation. Since

there are 428 references in the book, I am not sure which one it was

that took place in the 1940's, as you think.

Did you happen to notice the role of copper in the synthesis of

catalase and the role of catalase in cancer? Do you know of any

follow up work connecting cancer to the copper of the soil?

Having read the book, would you agree or disagree with Voisin's

statement in the book, " For all time the soil will remain the very

basis of our life, in every sense of the word and from all points of

view. " ?

I agree with it.

Chi

[Guest guest]

Chi,

> If you can't find any follow up on either Voisin or Becker I think

> you can assume the work is ignored. If that is the case, then

> looking at the relationship between Vitamin D and A in osteoporosis

> becomes meaningless in the absense of the consideration of the role

> of copper in osteoporosis.

Yes, you absolutely can look at the effect of vitamins A and D in

osteoporosis without fully understanding every other aspect of it.

And, in fact, among the functions of such vitamins is to act as

sparers of minerals when they are in low supply. So as long as there

is *some* copper in the diet, assuming that copper plays the role in

bones attributed to it by Becker (which needs to be replicated, and

while I'm quite aware there are political influences in science, I'm

pretty confident there are lots of scientists who would love to reach

further into the idea if they were aware of it), then vitamins A and D

are functional and have independent effects that can be assessed.

There is no need for myopia. One essential factor does not make the

others irrelevant in its own short supply. The amazing adaptivity,

including that to a relatively low-nutrient diet, is one of the

amazing things about the complexity of living organisms.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

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

[Guest guest]

> So as long as there is *some* copper in the diet, assuming

> that copper plays the role in bones attributed to it by

> Becker (which needs to be replicated, and while I'm quite

> aware there are political influences in science, I'm pretty

> confident there are lots of scientists who would love to reach

> further into the idea if they were aware of it), then

> vitamins A and D are functional and have

> independent effects that can be assessed.

For any mineral, copper included, the presence of the mineral in the

ash analysis of the foodstuff containing it is no assurance that the

body consuming the foodstuff will be able utilize the mineral.

Your being " pretty confident " would be substancially altered if you

read the post script in Becker's book.

> One essential factor does not make the others irrelevant

> in its own short supply. The amazing adaptivity,

> including that to a relatively low-nutrient diet, is one of the

> amazing things about the complexity of living organisms.

You might be amazed by the lack of one essential mineral which is

only required at the rate of one sixteenth of an ounce per acre has

on the vegetation growing there. The best way organisms adapt to

declining soil fertility is to go extinct.

Chi

[Guest guest]

Chi,

> You might be amazed by the lack of one essential mineral which is

> only required at the rate of one sixteenth of an ounce per acre has

> on the vegetation growing there. The best way organisms adapt to

> declining soil fertility is to go extinct.

You're sort of missing the point, or at least my point, despite having

your own valid point -- which is that if you can experimentally

demonstrate the effect of one substance on osteoporosis, then that

demonstrates an independent effect of that substance. You are right

that it doesn't give you the whole picture, but it is still useful to

talk about singular substances in certain ways and it is absolutely

true that they can have important effects on their own.

The simple fact that out of people on the same poor soil, some people

get osteoporosis and other don't indicates that there are multiple

issues that can be discussed in addition to the soil.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

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

[Guest guest]

> The simple fact that out of people on the same poor soil, some people

> get osteoporosis and other don't indicates that there are multiple

> issues that can be discussed in addition to the soil.

Hi Chris:

Is it not fact that all people on that same poor soil suffer bone

densisity loss to some degree? Some lose enough for diagnosis with

osteoporosis and some don't qualify.

Might it be a fact that on a soil of higher fertility all the people

would suffer less bone loss so fewer would reach the level of bone

loss for the diagnosis of osteoporosis?

Might it be a fact that there is a level of attainable soil fertility

at which the people's bone loss would be reduced so much that none

would qualify for the diagnosis of osteoporosis?

If the latter condition of soil fertility can be attained what other

issues would need to be discussed regarding osteoporosis?

Chi

P.S.

Adding the mineral copper, or any mineral to the diet, can not be

expected to have the same results as adding that mineral to the soil

because organic compounds are being formed in the soil that we cannot

create in our own bodies, even if we have all the ingredients to make

them in our diet.

[Guest guest]

Chi,

> Is it not fact that all people on that same poor soil suffer bone

> densisity loss to some degree? Some lose enough for diagnosis with

> osteoporosis and some don't qualify.

> Might it be a fact that on a soil of higher fertility all the people

> would suffer less bone loss so fewer would reach the level of bone

> loss for the diagnosis of osteoporosis?

> Might it be a fact that there is a level of attainable soil fertility

> at which the people's bone loss would be reduced so much that none

> would qualify for the diagnosis of osteoporosis?

> If the latter condition of soil fertility can be attained what other

> issues would need to be discussed regarding osteoporosis?

These things are probably all true. It's possible that a

no-osteoporosis point would be reached, although it's hard to tell

because the diagnosis of osteoporosis involves testing certain things

that Price, for example did not measure -- like bone mineral density,

for example. So you could still have subclinical BMD declines, and

you would probably have varying BMD, varying geometries of bone, and

so on.

But these are all " if's. " It may be easy for you to make the same

point constantly, but people have questions about other issues, and

you can't run a journal or a magazine and not address the concerns of

your readers. Right now I'm addressing the role of vitamin A in

osteoporosis, because the concern is that consuming foods rich in

vitamin A will cause osteoporosis. You can simply speculate " Well not

if the soil is high enough, " but that is a meaningless answer because

1) it is speculation and will therefore not pass many people's

standards for evidence, 2) as you have said, people addressing the

issues like you are in short supply, so little is being done about

soil fertility, and therefore most people have access only to

compromise soil qualities.

So a person may be faced with the question RIGHT NOW: Should I eat

liver once a week? Or will it shrink my bones?

And you replying " It doesn't matter because your poor soil will screw

you either way and the only way to adapt is to go extinct, " doesn't

help that person.

And yes, on high-fertility soil there will be " other issues. " I

suspect someone who eats a lot of land animal liver at a northern

latitude but does not drink blood or eat seafood liver or otherwise

obtain a source of vitamin D to balance the vitamin A in the liver may

have suffering bone mineral density as a result, even if there soil

fertility is ideal.

And I agree that the soil thing must be emphasized and driven home.

In fact in my dioxin article, after I spent 23 pages dealing with one

of the " other issues " that concerns people (again, someone who thinks,

" Well I know liver was healthy, but is it healthy today when it's full

of dioxin? " is not going to be swayed by " You're screwed with the soil

you have anyway. " ), I did give a prominent place to the soil in my

concluding paragraphs, and noted that Price found that eating the

right foods was not sufficient for health, but that one must do that

*and* maintain the soil successfully. And I will probably mention

that again in my conclusion this time, because it's important to keep

an eye on the big picture even while discussing specific issues.

> Adding the mineral copper, or any mineral to the diet, can not be

> expected to have the same results as adding that mineral to the soil

> because organic compounds are being formed in the soil that we cannot

> create in our own bodies, even if we have all the ingredients to make

> them in our diet.

I understood that the first 50 times you made the point over the last

several years.

However, in this case you were attributing a role to copper in the

body, not to a copper-based vitamin or other type of protein. At

least that is how it came across to the extent of your explanation.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

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

[Guest guest]

> However, in this case you were attributing a role to copper in the

> body, not to a copper-based vitamin or other type of protein. At

> least that is how it came across to the extent of your explanation.

Hi Chris:

In this case I did not address how the copper should be introduced

into the body. In the Voisin example, it was sufficent to either put

copper in the soil or give a copper salt treatment directly to the

cattle to both repair fractures and prevent further fractures. I have

no idea whether giving a copper salt treatment directly to people with

osteoporosis would be of any benefit. I would have more confidence in

a copper treatment for the soil showing benefits for osteoporosis

treatment.

What I wanted to suggest was, according to what I have read in books

that maybe no one else would ever want to read, copper metabolism or a

copper deficiency may be a causational factor in at least some cases

of osteoporosis. I wondered if this was being considered in

osteoporosis research because, if it is a contributing factor in at

least certain cases, research on other factors excluding the copper

factor would likely make a recovery from osteoporosis unlikely. One

more thing I don't know about osteoporosis, is there a known cure for

it now?

Chi

[Guest guest]

Chi,

> In this case I did not address how the copper should be introduced

> into the body. In the Voisin example, it was sufficent to either put

> copper in the soil or give a copper salt treatment directly to the

> cattle to both repair fractures and prevent further fractures. I have

> no idea whether giving a copper salt treatment directly to people with

> osteoporosis would be of any benefit. I would have more confidence in

> a copper treatment for the soil showing benefits for osteoporosis

> treatment.

But it's apparent from the role in bone you described that the copper

itself is the active component rather than a copper-based enzyme or

other protein. That's why I wrote what I wrote with that assumption.

> What I wanted to suggest was, according to what I have read in books

> that maybe no one else would ever want to read, copper metabolism or a

> copper deficiency may be a causational factor in at least some cases

> of osteoporosis. I wondered if this was being considered in

> osteoporosis research because, if it is a contributing factor in at

> least certain cases, research on other factors excluding the copper

> factor would likely make a recovery from osteoporosis unlikely. One

> more thing I don't know about osteoporosis, is there a known cure for

> it now?

A combination of vitamin D and calcium is used as a treatment, though

I guess there is some conflicting research on its value. I've been

focusing on the interaction between vitamins A and D mostly, rather

than the osteoporosis issue at large, because there is so much to

write just on that issue, and since I was basically commissioned to

write it as a direct response to the folks saying taking cod liver oil

will give you osteoporosis.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

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

[Guest guest]

Chi-

>Having read the book, would you agree or disagree with Voisin's

>statement in the book, " For all time the soil will remain the very

>basis of our life, in every sense of the word and from all points of

>view. " ?

Soil can be the very foundation of our life, and yet a bullet from a

gun can nonetheless end one's life.

Of course that's a simplistic analogy, but I don't see any support

for your seeming assertion that optimal nutrition from optimal soil

will convey complete immunity to all diseases.

-

[Guest guest]

Chi-

>One

>more thing I don't know about osteoporosis, is there a known cure for

>it now?

Who would want to market a cure when they can make more money selling

a treatment?

More (or less) seriously, no. Mainstream medicine has no cure.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>A combination of vitamin D and calcium is used as a treatment, though

>I guess there is some conflicting research on its value.

My grandmother was just given Fosamax.

-

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

>

> Chi-

>

> >One more thing I don't know about osteoporosis,

> >is there a known cure for it now?

> Who would want to market a cure when they can make more money

> selling a treatment?

>

> More (or less) seriously, no. Mainstream medicine has no cure.

Hi :

So what is the difference, in that respect, between osteoporosis and

cancer? Obviouly none. I tell people the number one thing the cancer

industry needs is patients and the cancer patient is a valuable

economic asset for the gnp and this does not make me happy.

Chi

>

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

> Soil can be the very foundation of our life,

> and yet a bullet from a gun can nonetheless end

> one's life.

Hi :

Actually, I don't consider a bullet from a gun as a disease. If,

however, the bullet fails in its mission to kill you, the

nutritional value of your diet based on the soil fertility that

produced it will have a large bearing on your ability to recover

from the injury, as it would in any injury one might suffer.

> Of course that's a simplistic analogy, but I don't

> see any support for your seeming assertion that optimal

> nutrition from optimal soil will convey complete

> immunity to all diseases.

In the literature I have read, there are many examples of how

improving soil fertility can lead to the reduction or even the

elimination of a disease. Voisin's book, " Soil Grass and Cancer " is

one single source that directly addresses this relationship. One

chapter, for instance, is called " The soil, through foodstuffs, can

control specific immunity " . Instead of saying that what I say isn't

so, it might be worthwhile to actually read what I have read and

then explain to me why my comprehension skills are so low that I

have failed to draw any reasonable conclusions from what I have read.

Chi

[Guest guest]

Chi-

>So what is the difference, in that respect, between osteoporosis and

>cancer? Obviouly none.

Very little, anyway. I haven't looked into the prevailing

osteoporosis treatments, but if is correct that vitamin D and

calcium are often involved, then at least the underlying condition is

being partially treated in some cases.

In others, such as my late grandmother's, women are just given a drug

which kills bone cells and creates a temporary increase in bone

density at the expense of greater brittleness and greater long-term decline.

> I tell people the number one thing the cancer

>industry needs is patients and the cancer patient is a valuable

>economic asset for the gnp and this does not make me happy.

Doesn't make me happy either.

-

[Guest guest]

Chi-

>Actually, I don't consider a bullet from a gun as a disease.

That would be a better point if there were a clear definition of the

term 'disease'.

> If,

>however, the bullet fails in its mission to kill you, the

>nutritional value of your diet based on the soil fertility that

>produced it will have a large bearing on your ability to recover

>from the injury, as it would in any injury one might suffer.

That's certainly true.

>In the literature I have read, there are many examples of how

>improving soil fertility can lead to the reduction or even the

>elimination of a disease. Voisin's book, " Soil Grass and Cancer " is

>one single source that directly addresses this relationship. One

>chapter, for instance, is called " The soil, through foodstuffs, can

>control specific immunity " .

I think you inadvertently make my point for me with your first

sentence -- " a " disease rather than " all " diseases. There's no

question that soil fertility and food quality are important factors

in disease resistance, but many aspects of the functioning of the

human immune system are actually quite well understood, and learned

immunity to specific disease-causing organisms is quite clearly an

important factor.

To use a medieval analogy, if microbes with the potential to cause

disease are like armies laying siege to a castle, the general

robustness of the castle is of course important, but the castle

dwellers also need to know specific techniques to deal with specific

siege methodologies. The strongest castle in the world could be

sacked if its inhabitants didn't know how to defend it. (In fact,

strictly speaking, actual castle designs had to be altered in

response to new siege technologies -- until offensive weaponry

advanced to the point that no castle could be made strong enough to

withstand it.) Similarly, I argue that the healthiest person in the

world could be brought low by a disease organism which employs an

attack method his immune system is unprepared to defend

against. There's a huge body of evidence demonstrating this point

across the entire world of organisms, including the ability of

specific antibiotics to cause tremendous die-offs in specific strains

of microbes until those strains evolve resistance or acquire it from

populations of microbes which have already developed or acquired it.

Evolutionary biology is replete with examples of arms races between

species, many of which involve immunity.

> Instead of saying that what I say isn't

>so, it might be worthwhile to actually read what I have read and

>then explain to me why my comprehension skills are so low that I

>have failed to draw any reasonable conclusions from what I have read.

I'm not making this personal or impugning your reading skills, BTW,

so I'd prefer that you not read personal attacks into my messages

when there are none. I do think, however, as has already

suggested, that your tremendous knowledge of soil science would

benefit from a companion body of knowledge of biology and

immunity. You've implied before that it's impossible to consider

only an aspect of the body's bone formation system and possible

diseases therein and that the entire system needs to be understood in

toto in order to consider it and factors affecting it. I disagree,

but I believe your own rigorously holistic approach would require

just as much detailed knowledge of human immunity as you have of soil science.

-