Re: Native populations and western diseases

[Guest guest]

The highly urbanized populations of Europe involved more frequent

exchanges of germs over the years since the agricultural revolution,

which allowed them to develop immunity (for example, one-third of

Europeans died of the plague--those that lived passed on immunity).

These were entirely novel diseases to native americans, so the best

diet in the world will do very little, just as malaria devastated as

many as 9 out of 10 Europeans in Africa, until therapeutic and

preventative treatent with quinine was discovered (allowing the

penetration of the interior and the conquest of Africa in the late

1900s). The book to read on this is Diamond, Guns, Germs, and

Steel.

Hope this helps,

Bill

>

> I have decided not to vaccinate my child. My child's physician

(who

> doesn't support my decision but has agreed to treat my daughter)

posed

> a question to me regarding vaccinations which I have not been able

to

> find the answer for.

>

> If native groups eating their traditional diets are more resistant

to

> disease, then why did native groups perish in the face of " western

> diseases " e.g. why did the native americans die in large numbers

> because of the diseases brought to the new world by europeans?

>

> I do know that native americans in particular did not have the most-

> nutrient dense diet because of their heavy reliance on corn/grain

but

> think that the question is good ... and it is one that I cannot

answer.

>

> My doctor's argument is that resistance to disease and nutrition

are

> not necessarily linked.

>

> Any thoughts are appreciated.

>

[Guest guest]

You can only develop resistance to a disease caused by an infectious

agent AFTER being exposed to it. In other words, natives were

resistant to most of the infectious diseases endemic to their area.

The settlers brought new infectious agents that the native population

had never been exposed to, therefore had NO resistance to them.

Initially, the death rate would have been high, but as time went on,

it would get lower as resistance was developed. For example, most

people with healthy immune systems will get mumps the first time

exposed to it, but never again. Your pediatrician is just trying to

confuse you with a question which he undoubtedly knows the answer

to. Also, you brought up the point of heavy reliance on corn, which

is NOT the traditional native diet, so, because of poor nutrition,

their immune systems may have been compromised and less able to

develop adequate antibodies once exposed to a new organism.

Patty

>

> I have decided not to vaccinate my child. My child's physician

(who

> doesn't support my decision but has agreed to treat my daughter)

posed

> a question to me regarding vaccinations which I have not been able

to

> find the answer for.

>

> If native groups eating their traditional diets are more resistant

to

> disease, then why did native groups perish in the face of " western

> diseases " e.g. why did the native americans die in large numbers

> because of the diseases brought to the new world by europeans?

>

> I do know that native americans in particular did not have the most-

> nutrient dense diet because of their heavy reliance on corn/grain

but

> think that the question is good ... and it is one that I cannot

answer.

>

> My doctor's argument is that resistance to disease and nutrition

are

> not necessarily linked.

>

> Any thoughts are appreciated.

>

[Guest guest]

Let's not forget that the " White Man " did not arrive empty

handed...he came barring MANY items of trade...

White Sugar, White Flour and so on. Do you know how much refined

sugar lowers immunity ? It's crazy.

> >

> > I have decided not to vaccinate my child. My child's physician

> (who

> > doesn't support my decision but has agreed to treat my daughter)

> posed

> > a question to me regarding vaccinations which I have not been

able

> to

> > find the answer for.

> >

> > If native groups eating their traditional diets are more

resistant

> to

> > disease, then why did native groups perish in the face

of " western

> > diseases " e.g. why did the native americans die in large numbers

> > because of the diseases brought to the new world by europeans?

> >

> > I do know that native americans in particular did not have the

most-

> > nutrient dense diet because of their heavy reliance on

corn/grain

> but

> > think that the question is good ... and it is one that I cannot

> answer.

> >

> > My doctor's argument is that resistance to disease and nutrition

> are

> > not necessarily linked.

> >

> > Any thoughts are appreciated.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Exactly!!!! That was what I was going to say. Maybe it wasn't only

exposure to the white man's diseases that killed them -- but the

combination of exposure to the diseases with the white man's food.

Ann Marie

On Apr 14, 2008, at 6:40 PM, michelle5s wrote:

> Let's not forget that the " White Man " did not arrive empty

> handed...he came barring MANY items of trade...

>

> White Sugar, White Flour and so on. Do you know how much refined

> sugar lowers immunity ? It's crazy.

[Guest guest]

>

> Exactly!!!! That was what I was going to say. Maybe it wasn't only

> exposure to the white man's diseases that killed them -- but the

> combination of exposure to the diseases with the white man's food.

>

I don't know, the historical record looks pretty clear that many

native populations were pretty much wiped out by disease alone.

All this bullshit theory about " germs don't cause disease, poor DIET

causes it " is just that, a steaming pile of horrible-smelling manure.

Wild animal populations get decimated by infectious disease fairly

often, it's one of the natural consequences of overpopulation. The

theory is so damn full of holes it's pitiful. Read some ecology

textbooks, people. You sound pitifully stupid. In fact, ask me and

I'll be happy to link to the appropriate texts and articles. Sheesh.

Really. It amazes me how people who are smart enough to eat a good

diet seem to have forgotten the basic lessons of junior-high school

science class. Not EVERYTHING you learn in conventional science is crap.

mike

[Guest guest]

-

> All this bullshit theory about " germs don't cause disease, poor DIET

> causes it " is just that, a steaming pile of horrible-smelling manure.

> Wild animal populations get decimated by infectious disease fairly

> often, it's one of the natural consequences of overpopulation. The

> theory is so damn full of holes it's pitiful. Read some ecology

> textbooks, people. You sound pitifully stupid. In fact, ask me and

> I'll be happy to link to the appropriate texts and articles. Sheesh.

> Really. It amazes me how people who are smart enough to eat a good

> diet seem to have forgotten the basic lessons of junior-high school

> science class. Not EVERYTHING you learn in conventional science is

> crap.

While I agree entirely that the notion that germs don't cause disease

(and its oft-claimed corollary, that germs are just doing

" housecleaning " and " detoxification " for the body) is absurd, I have

two comments.

First, in my capacity as list-owner, I have to ask you to refrain from

saying things like " you sound pitifully stupid " . There are no

personal attacks allowed on this list. (Also, while there are no

formal rules prohibiting so-called " bad " language, I do strongly

prefer that people maintain a certain basic level of civility, so I'd

prefer that people refrain from using it in general.)

Second, to get back to the subject at hand, ridiculous as the germs-

don't-cause-disease theory is, the notion that nutrition has no role

at all (which you may not be claiming; it's not clear from this single

post) is similarly inaccurate. Many different nutrients play a

variety of roles in fostering resistance to various different

diseases, and high levels of health and excellent nutritional status

do in general increase resistance. That doesn't mean that a disease

to which a population has never been exposed and has never developed

any immunity to will automatically fail to infect and spread; far from

it. There is, however, an assumption underlying many of these

arguments which is simply incorrect: namely that anyone (or any

animal) living traditionally and/or in a wild state must have been in

robust health and eating fantastically nutrient-dense diets. As Price

demonstrated, this simply isn't true. Many of the peoples he found

*failed* to achieve the amazing good health of the tribes he held up

as exemplars of constitution and diet. The dietary choices different

cultures made differed in quality, nutritionally speaking. And as

others have proven, even absent human intervention, soil fertility is

not uniform. There are fertile areas and there are areas with poor

soil, and animals -- and people -- living in areas with poor soil will

inevitably have poorer health and less resistance to disease than

animals living in areas with superb soil fertility and consuming

resultantly nutrient-dense food. Your example of overpopulation is

not conclusive all by itself because hunger (and resulting

malnutrition) generally accompanies overpopulation, not to mention

that something had to disturb the ecological balance in the first

place in order to cause a population burst.

-

[Guest guest]

I agree diet must play a role, but apparently diseases " ran ahead " of

actual direct contacts with Europeans and drastically reduced

populations of Native Americans out west before there was contact,

contributing to the colonial idea that the land was " empty " and

therefore free for the taking. Most diseases we are exposed to are

close relatives of ones we have already been exposed to--in cases of

distinct mutations like the flu in 1917-18, millions of the

healthiest can die even with good diets, unlike the normal run of

flus that kill mostly the eldery and immune-compromised.

>

> > Let's not forget that the " White Man " did not arrive empty

> > handed...he came barring MANY items of trade...

> >

> > White Sugar, White Flour and so on. Do you know how much refined

> > sugar lowers immunity ? It's crazy.

>

[Guest guest]

I would appreciate if you wouldn't talk down to me, . You haven't

studied your ecology enough to know that overpopulation is a natural

consequence of weather cycles and other natural cycles. So, no

talking down, please, or I'll be laughing at you.

Also, it's nearly criminally negligent to even tangentially perpetuate

the idea that infectious disease is anything near mostly an issue of

diet. Certainly I have much less problem working through a cold when

I'm eating well. That doesn't mean that diseases like smallpox,

plague, etc., are anything LIKE 100% survivable, no matter how good

the diet. The parents who are choosing not to vaccinate children

endanger the rest of us by turning their children into potential

disease vectors. Smallpox has been beaten BECAUSE of vaccination.

Vaccination doesn't work unless everyone participates. I'm not trying

to step on toes, I'm pointing out that vaccinations save more lives

than they have taken. This is fact.

mike

[Guest guest]

> I would appreciate if you wouldn't talk down to me, . You haven't

> studied your ecology enough to know that overpopulation is a natural

> consequence of weather cycles and other natural cycles. So, no

> talking down, please, or I'll be laughing at you.

And gee, Mike, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop making personal attacks

(both those directed at individuals AND those directed at groups) and

start relying on facts and logic to carry your argument. Besides

being rude and speculative, saying things like " you haven't studied

your [blank] enough to know [blank] " is basically argument on

authority, which is a logical fallacy, and furthermore, it has the

unfortunate side effect of making the speaker look insecure and

perhaps even ignorant, regardless of the speaker's actual temperament

and state of knowledge.

You are, however, welcome to laugh at me until you get a hernia if

you'd like. It's no skin off my back.

> Also, it's nearly criminally negligent to even tangentially perpetuate

> the idea that infectious disease is anything near mostly an issue of

> diet.

Ah, so now I'm nearly criminally negligent! Perhaps nobody's told you

that ad hominem attacks and personal characterizations are not allowed

on this list; please consider that oversight rectified.

Now, considering the non-ad hominem portion of that statement, I'm not

even clear what you necessarily mean. I certainly didn't say that

infectious disease is " anything near mostly an issue of diet " or

anything resembling that, so maybe you're mistakenly addressing a

response to me that was meant for someone else?

Just to clarify in advance, I think disease resistance is generally

the result of a combination of acquired resistance and constitutional

health. Acquired resistance can be undermined by ill health, and

often the most robust health won't be enough to resist a disease to

which one has no acquired resistance. (For the sake of simplicity,

I'm lumping in hereditary as well as personally-acquired resistance

into " acquired resistance " .)

I now look forward to being formally charged with criminal negligence

for thought crimes.

> Certainly I have much less problem working through a cold when

> I'm eating well.

As long as I get decent sleep, I basically never get sick*... except

when I eat too many carbs. I have no idea when I last got a cold.

Of course that doesn't mean I'm immune to all diseases or anything

silly like that, but what and how I eat definitely has an extremely

profound effect on whether and how often I get sick.

> That doesn't mean that diseases like smallpox,

> plague, etc., are anything LIKE 100% survivable, no matter how good

> the diet. The parents who are choosing not to vaccinate children

> endanger the rest of us by turning their children into potential

> disease vectors. Smallpox has been beaten BECAUSE of vaccination.

> Vaccination doesn't work unless everyone participates. I'm not trying

> to step on toes, I'm pointing out that vaccinations save more lives

> than they have taken. This is fact.

Actually no, smallpox was beaten mostly by public sanitation.

Vaccination at most played a supporting role. Smallpox aside,

vaccinations often have a high incidence of harmful side effects, and

it's not clear that most of them are genuinely effective, so in actual

fact, parents who refuse to vaccinate their children are almost

certainly improving their children's health and may be doing nothing

whatsoever to the rest of us.

Perhaps tomorrow you'd like to tell us all about the health benefits

of thimerosol?

-

* With the notable exception of food poisoning. For various reasons,

my digestion is seriously compromised, and so at present I'm still

quite vulnerable to transient food-borne illnesses.

[Guest guest]

I haven't been following this thread very closely so perhaps this has already

been said.

Another aspect of this is that antibodies are passed down through mothers' milk

and that

immunity would not be there without having been exposed to the disease.

Laree " Give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way. " Native American

Saying

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:34:22 +0000From: @...:

@...: Digest Number 6123

Optimal Health Through Traditional Diet

Messages In This Digest (25 Messages)

1a.

Re: Using the Neti Pot...Celcit Sea Salt OK? From: michael g

1b.

Re: Using the Neti Pot...Celcit Sea Salt OK? From: Judy

2a.

Re: Anything I can do with 5 gallons of soy beans? From: gdawson6

3a.

Re: Native populations and " western diseases " From: michael g

3b.

Re: Native populations and " western diseases " From: Idol

3c.

Native populations and " western diseases " From: W. Ferguson

3d.

Re: Native populations and " western diseases " From: inasnit@...

3e.

Re: Native populations and " western diseases " From: danaecooks@...

3f.

Re: Native populations and " western diseases " From: lynchwt

4a.

Aging Wine (was organic beer and ale) From: Lana Gibbons

4b.

Re: Aging Wine (was organic beer and ale) From:

5a.

Re: composting humanure From: Suze Fisher

6.1.

Re: FAS, was Was organic beer From: cbrown2008

7a.

Re: WAPF way of eating and am losing weight! From: inasnit@...

8a.

Re: POLITICS did taxes go up? From: Masterjohn

9.1.

Re: Interpretation of " God " + Raw Egg Safety From: Masterjohn

10a.

Re: organic beer and ale: hops From: Masterjohn

10b.

Re: organic beer and ale: hops From: jasongazeley

10c.

Re: organic beer and ale: hops From:

10d.

Re: organic beer and ale: hops From:

11.

Having fun making concoctions From: Ann

12.

Milk Shake-Up article From: Carolyn Graff

13.

Who uses GM ingredients? From: haecklers

14.1.

Re: OT rescue dogs [organic beer and ale] From: Suze Fisher

15.

I don't drink nearly enough!! From: jasongazeley

View All Topics | Create New Topic

Messages

1a.

Re: Using the Neti Pot...Celcit Sea Salt OK?

Posted by: " michael g " tropical@... cherimoya_kid

Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:41 am (PDT)

You can use celtic. Use only a very small pinch. You don't actuallyneed any

salt, but it is good for moistening the tissues if they needit. mike

Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in

this topic (3)

1b.

Re: Using the Neti Pot...Celcit Sea Salt OK?

Posted by: " Judy " frumpyhead@... frumpyhead

Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:23 am (PDT)

We use Celtic Sea salt in our Neti pot, about 1/4 to 1/2 teaspoon of salt. Just

make sure the salt has completely evaporated before using it. I hope it helps,

it sure helpful in our house!Judy>> Exactly!!!! That

was what I was going to say. Maybe it wasn't only > exposure to the white man's

diseases that killed them -- but the > combination of exposure to the diseases

with the white man's food.> I don't know, the historical record looks pretty

clear that manynative populations were pretty much wiped out by disease alone.

All this bullshit theory about " germs don't cause disease, poor DIETcauses it "

is just that, a steaming pile of horrible-smelling manure.Wild animal

populations get decimated by infectious disease fairlyoften, it's one of the

natural consequences of overpopulation. Thetheory is so damn full of holes it's

pitiful. Read some ecologytextbooks, people. You sound pitifully stupid. In

fact, ask me andI'll be happy to link to the appropriate texts and articles.

Sheesh.Really. It amazes me how people who are smart enough to eat a gooddiet

seem to have forgotten the basic lessons of junior-high schoolscience class. Not

EVERYTHING you learn in conventional science is crap.mike

Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in

this topic (12)

3b.

Re: Native populations and " western diseases "

Posted by: " Idol " paul.idol@... paul_idol

Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:31 am (PDT)

-> All this bullshit theory about " germs don't cause disease, poor DIET>

causes it " is just that, a steaming pile of horrible-smelling manure.> Wild

animal populations get decimated by infectious disease fairly> often, it's one

of the natural consequences of overpopulation. The> theory is so damn full of

holes it's pitiful. Read some ecology> textbooks, people. You sound pitifully

stupid. In fact, ask me and> I'll be happy to link to the appropriate texts and

articles. Sheesh.> Really. It amazes me how people who are smart enough to eat a

good> diet seem to have forgotten the basic lessons of junior-high school>

science class. Not EVERYTHING you learn in conventional science is > crap.While

I agree entirely that the notion that germs don't cause disease (and its

oft-claimed corollary, that germs are just doing " housecleaning " and

" detoxification " for the body) is absurd, I have two comments.First, in my

capacity as list-owner, I have to ask you to refrain from saying things like

" you sound pitifully stupid " . There are no personal attacks allowed on this

list. (Also, while there are no formal rules prohibiting so-called " bad "

language, I do strongly prefer that people maintain a certain basic level of

civility, so I'd prefer that people refrain from using it in general.)Second, to

get back to the subject at hand, ridiculous as the germs- don't-cause-disease

theory is, the notion that nutrition has no role at all (which you may not be

claiming; it's not clear from this single post) is similarly inaccurate. Many

different nutrients play a variety of roles in fostering resistance to various

different diseases, and high levels of health and excellent nutritional status

do in general increase resistance. That doesn't mean that a disease to which a

population has never been exposed and has never developed any immunity to will

automatically fail to infect and spread; far from it. There is, however, an

assumption underlying many of these arguments which is simply incorrect: namely

that anyone (or any animal) living traditionally and/or in a wild state must

have been in robust health and eating fantastically nutrient-dense diets. As

Price demonstrated, this simply isn't true. Many of the peoples he found

*failed* to achieve the amazing good health of the tribes he held up as

exemplars of constitution and diet. The dietary choices different cultures made

differed in quality, nutritionally speaking. And as others have proven, even

absent human intervention, soil fertility is not uniform. There are fertile

areas and there are areas with poor soil, and animals -- and people -- living in

areas with poor soil will inevitably have poorer health and less resistance to

disease than animals living in areas with superb soil fertility and consuming

resultantly nutrient-dense food. Your example of overpopulation is not

conclusive all by itself because hunger (and resulting malnutrition) generally

accompanies overpopulation, not to mention that something had to disturb the

ecological balance in the first place in order to cause a population

burst.-

[Guest guest]

The parents who are choosing not to vaccinate children

> endanger the rest of us by turning their children into potential

> disease vectors. Smallpox has been beaten BECAUSE of vaccination.

> Vaccination doesn't work unless everyone participates.

Then why was there a very large TB outbreak (made internet headline

news last week) among a population with a vaccination rate of over

90%, having received both recommended doses? The above is used to

scare non vaccinating people, which is at best unfair, and again, we

can produce dozens upon dozens of examples of the above just not

being true... and so the powers that be merely change the dose

schedule, the this, the that, etc...until the next time we have a

mass outbreak in a supposedly " herd " safe group.

The historical data is at best, debatable, that the herd rule in

vaccines or that vaccines themselves are effective. Yes, there is

more to disease than dietary considerations, but your pov of just as

narrow and impoverished as those who you are criticizing.

I'm not trying

> to step on toes, I'm pointing out that vaccinations save more lives

> than they have taken. This is fact.

>

Again, you will have to more than assert this fact, as numerous

doctors, scientists, etc... (for example. Dr. Mendelson, How to Raise

a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor, who is a well known, long

term respected practicing pediatrician and doctor) would find fault

with such a blanket and unsupported assertion.

[Guest guest]

>

> You are, however, welcome to laugh at me until you get a hernia if

> you'd like. It's no skin off my back.

>

Read " The Fates of Nations " by Colinvaux. He has lots of

excellent references on this topic. He shows that the same types of

natural weather patterns cause changes in the size of human

populations. He was one of the first to note this in human

populations. It's much easier to see it in animal populations.

>

> Actually no, smallpox was beaten mostly by public sanitation.

> Vaccination at most played a supporting role. Smallpox aside,

> vaccinations often have a high incidence of harmful side effects, and

> it's not clear that most of them are genuinely effective, so in actual

> fact, parents who refuse to vaccinate their children are almost

> certainly improving their children's health and may be doing nothing

> whatsoever to the rest of us.

>

> Perhaps tomorrow you'd like to tell us all about the health benefits

> of thimerosol?

>

>

I'm still going to ask you to stop talking down to me. I don't give a

damn about thimerosal. People freaking out about giving their kids

vaccines is no different than people freaking out about eating fish

because of mercury, or another other pseudo-threat to public health.

I don't think all vaccines are necessary, and I never let them give my

daughter the chickenpox vaccine, (and then it got taken off the

market, which was funny, and proved me right--I don't think

new/unproven vaccines are all that necessary) but I sure did let them

give her the main ones. I don't worship vaccines, but I don't fear

them. Each one needs to be looked at individually, and the

fear-mongers on this list look like Chicken Little when they make

blanket assertions about them.

mike

[Guest guest]

>

>

> give her the main ones. I don't worship vaccines, but I don't fear

> them. Each one needs to be looked at individually, and the

> fear-mongers on this list look like Chicken Little when they make

> blanket assertions about them.

Mike, you never addressed your assertion about smallpox. You said that

vaccinations wiped out smallpox. You also said that vaccinations don't

work unless everyone does it.

I'd like to see you support those statements. Those are the things I

often hear but from my research, they are simply not true.

Thimerosal is just one issue. I think there are a lot of issues with

vaccines today. The biggest one is that kids today do not have the

immunity that they did 30 years ago. Babies with poor immune function

may not be able to handle a vaccination.

I attend a weekly local mother's group and some of the babies (6-12

mos old) already have allergies. By the time these kids get to school,

many more will have allergies. Wheat, peanut, soy, etc. What is

causing all these allergies? Some say commercial formula, some say

mothers that have passed down inadequate good flora (due to birth

control pills and antibiotics), some say genetically modified foods.

There are probably many causes. The point is that it is real.

One baby in our group is so allergic (wheat, egg, cats, so far) that

his father ate a cookie and then touched him on the face and he broke

out with a bad rash. His parents now have to disinfect themselves

after every meal before they touch the baby.

Here's an article by a doctor recommending that children with egg

allergies need to discuss it with a doctor before proceeded with the

vaccine injection:

http://www.drpaul.com/library/VACALLERGY.html

How would a mother of a 4-month-old even know if the baby had an egg

allergy? And yet babies are supposed to have several shots by the time

they are 4 mos. And they do no testing before they give the shots.

Another mother in my weekly group said that after her child received

the Prevnar vaccine, he stopped making eye contact and babbling for

over a week. Coincidence?

You say you don't fear vaccines, but I bet you would be pretty scared

if you were in that mother's shoes. She cried when she told me the

story. I have empathy for these mothers -- and I think putting

pressure on everyone to vaccinate (telling them that if they don't do

it it will ruin it for everyone) is insensitive. Not to mention

inaccurate.

Bottom line: It is questionable whether it is safe for children with

impaired immunity to get injected with a vaccine. Especially at such

young ages (under 2!) when we don't even know if they have impaired

immunity.

Ann Marie

[Guest guest]

Mike-

> Read " The Fates of Nations " by Colinvaux. He has lots of

> excellent references on this topic. He shows that the same types of

> natural weather patterns cause changes in the size of human

> populations. He was one of the first to note this in human

> populations. It's much easier to see it in animal populations.

Here's the funny thing: I never said or even suggested that weather

patterns don't cause changes in population sizes. Ever. You're

arguing against a straw man.

> I'm still going to ask you to stop talking down to me.

And I'm still going to tell you to stop calling list members names.

The fact that you didn't specifically identify anyone this time is

irrelevant. Furthermore, a dose of your own medicine would be in

order before you go preaching to others about the evils of the sins

you yourself commit.

> I don't give a

> damn about thimerosal. People freaking out about giving their kids

> vaccines is no different than people freaking out about eating fish

> because of mercury, or another other pseudo-threat to public health.

> I don't think all vaccines are necessary, and I never let them give my

> daughter the chickenpox vaccine, (and then it got taken off the

> market, which was funny, and proved me right--I don't think

> new/unproven vaccines are all that necessary) but I sure did let them

> give her the main ones. I don't worship vaccines, but I don't fear

> them. Each one needs to be looked at individually

Yes, I agree they need to be examined individually. The evidence,

however, is against the safety and efficacy of many standard vaccines.

-

[Guest guest]

Under 2? How 'bout fresh out of the oven? How many vaccines do babies get as

newborns before they even leave the hospital? I was having this conversation

with my chiropractor one day. His daughter stopped breathing shortly after

birth and they had to resuscitate her. Immediately after she started

breathing again, they wanted to vaccinate her. He had to fight to keep them

from vaccinating her. Incredible!

Kathy

Bottom line: It is questionable whether it is safe for children with

impaired immunity to get injected with a vaccine. Especially at such

young ages (under 2!) when we don't even know if they have impaired

immunity.

Ann Marie

[Guest guest]

As an enrolled American Indian, I can tell you first had that those unfamiliar

diseases were brought here from Europe, due to euopeon social & hereditary

illness. I believe the good doc's question can be answered, in this respect.

It is not about being attacked by illness, it is about removing the cause &

returning to balance. Now, you doc may have a difficult time trying to answer

that one for himself.

Best regards, Jim

stellaroseygirl <stellaroseygirl@...> wrote:

I have decided not to vaccinate my child. My child's physician (who

doesn't support my decision but has agreed to treat my daughter) posed

a question to me regarding vaccinations which I have not been able to

find the answer for.

If native groups eating their traditional diets are more resistant to

disease, then why did native groups perish in the face of " western

diseases " e.g. why did the native americans die in large numbers

because of the diseases brought to the new world by europeans?

I do know that native americans in particular did not have the most-

nutrient dense diet because of their heavy reliance on corn/grain but

think that the question is good ... and it is one that I cannot answer.

My doctor's argument is that resistance to disease and nutrition are

not necessarily linked.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Well done is better than well said..., Jim Igo

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

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

I'm unenrolled because my 1/4 ancestry is patrilineal rather than the

required matrilineal.

From the Northeast to the Great Lakes it is hard to tell wheather the

alcohol preceded the smallpox blankets or not. Simple sugars can

reduce immunity. Smallpox is the human strain of cow pox. There

weren't any cows, any other animal domestication or dense populations

like European cities pre-contact in the northern hemisphere of this

continent.

Corn, other indigenous farmed crops and a more stationary life was the

rule south of the Southwest. North of the Southwest corn and

agriculture was the exception with hunting and gathering determining

where to be throughout the year for all but a few tribes.

Wanita

> I have decided not to vaccinate my child. My child's

physician (who

> doesn't support my decision but has agreed to treat my daughter) posed

> a question to me regarding vaccinations which I have not been able to

> find the answer for.

>

> If native groups eating their traditional diets are more resistant to

> disease, then why did native groups perish in the face of " western

> diseases " e.g. why did the native americans die in large numbers

> because of the diseases brought to the new world by europeans?

>

> I do know that native americans in particular did not have the most-

> nutrient dense diet because of their heavy reliance on corn/grain but

> think that the question is good ... and it is one that I cannot answer.

>

> My doctor's argument is that resistance to disease and nutrition are

> not necessarily linked.

>

> Any thoughts are appreciated.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Well done is better than well said..., Jim Igo

>

> ---------------------------------

> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile.

Try it now.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Wanita,

Good to hear from you. The patrileneal restrictions have changed for many

tribes, you may want to get an update on that one. What is your territory?

Mine is in southern Ca.

Sincerely, Jim

Wanita Sears <wanitawa@...> wrote:

I'm unenrolled because my 1/4 ancestry is patrilineal rather than the

required matrilineal.

From the Northeast to the Great Lakes it is hard to tell wheather the

alcohol preceded the smallpox blankets or not. Simple sugars can

reduce immunity. Smallpox is the human strain of cow pox. There

weren't any cows, any other animal domestication or dense populations

like European cities pre-contact in the northern hemisphere of this

continent.

Corn, other indigenous farmed crops and a more stationary life was the

rule south of the Southwest. North of the Southwest corn and

agriculture was the exception with hunting and gathering determining

where to be throughout the year for all but a few tribes.

Wanita

> I have decided not to vaccinate my child. My child's

physician (who

> doesn't support my decision but has agreed to treat my daughter) posed

> a question to me regarding vaccinations which I have not been able to

> find the answer for.

>

> If native groups eating their traditional diets are more resistant to

> disease, then why did native groups perish in the face of " western

> diseases " e.g. why did the native americans die in large numbers

> because of the diseases brought to the new world by europeans?

>

> I do know that native americans in particular did not have the most-

> nutrient dense diet because of their heavy reliance on corn/grain but

> think that the question is good ... and it is one that I cannot answer.

>

> My doctor's argument is that resistance to disease and nutrition are

> not necessarily linked.

>

> Any thoughts are appreciated.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Well done is better than well said..., Jim Igo

>

> ---------------------------------

> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile.

Try it now.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jim,

Many thanks for your suggestion. I'll look into it. My ancestry goes

to upstate N.Y. I'm in MA. in old territory. I highly doubt the

Iroquois in the U.S. have given up the 1/4 and/or matrilineal lineage.

Canada refuses to recognize matrilineal and uses patriarchal for

enrollment in the Canadian territory area.

I've learned to live with it either way taking into consideration that

I can't find if my Grandfather lived in the territory and was an

enrolled member in his lifetime. Long story.

Wanita

> > I have decided not to vaccinate my child. My child's

> physician (who

> > doesn't support my decision but has agreed to treat my daughter)

posed

> > a question to me regarding vaccinations which I have not been able to

> > find the answer for.

> >

> > If native groups eating their traditional diets are more resistant to

> > disease, then why did native groups perish in the face of " western

> > diseases " e.g. why did the native americans die in large numbers

> > because of the diseases brought to the new world by europeans?

> >

> > I do know that native americans in particular did not have the most-

> > nutrient dense diet because of their heavy reliance on corn/grain but

> > think that the question is good ... and it is one that I cannot

answer.

> >

> > My doctor's argument is that resistance to disease and nutrition are

> > not necessarily linked.

> >

> > Any thoughts are appreciated.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Well done is better than well said..., Jim Igo

> >

> > ---------------------------------

> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile.

> Try it now.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Wasn't the native population trading for european goods long before the

epidemic? That means consuming white flour, sugar,etc- what if their way of

life was already affected?

If all illness is potentially nutritional in nature as someone mentioned

recently...It would be interesting to find out if those that strictly kept

the traditional ways/diet succumbed to the illness.

Janet

> > If native groups eating their traditional diets are more resistant to

> > disease, then why did native groups perish in the face of " western

> > diseases " e.g. why did the native americans die in large numbers

> > because of the diseases brought to the new world by europeans?

> >

> > I do know that native americans in particular did not have the most-

> > nutrient dense diet because of their heavy reliance on corn/grain but

> > think that the question is good ... and it is one that I cannot

answer.

[Guest guest]

>

> Wasn't the native population trading for european goods long before the

> epidemic? That means consuming white flour, sugar,etc- what if their

way of

> life was already affected?

> If all illness is potentially nutritional in nature as someone mentioned

> recently...It would be interesting to find out if those that

strictly kept

> the traditional ways/diet succumbed to the illness.

> Janet

>

So you think anthrax is nutritional in nature? How about smallpox, or

the more virulent forms of AIDS? Most diseases have some nutritional

component, but studies of animal populations show that it's quite

possible to die young of infectious diseases, no matter how ideal the

diet.

mike

[Guest guest]

--- In , " michael g " <tropical@...>

wrote:

<<Most diseases have some nutritional component, but studies of animal

populations show that it's quite possible to die young of infectious

diseases, no matter how ideal the diet. >>

Absolutely right! Perhaps the problem arises because we are used to a

long stream of diet gurus with their " all or nothing " ideas. But real

life is lots of shades of grey, not black or white.

All native populations eat as well as they can, because otherwise they

die. Also, they live to old ages because all the weak or imperfect

babies and children tend to die young - only the robust survive. And

they are closed communities that can usxually deal with their local

germs and bacteria.

Buj some things can happen - they can meet a new germ from outsiders and

then many people will die or weaken - kind of like us should SARS hit

unexpectedly.

Or they may change their diet, not to a western diet which can be as

good or bad as anyone elses, but to what I would call, rather

contemptuously, a citified diet.

Or their diet isn't necessarly that terrific, and may be high in carbs

and not much meat (though usually with as much fat as possible) - but

they work really hard as well, not stuck on a reservation or herded into

" more modern " accomodation.

These things are complicated with lots of interacting factors - there is

NO died or WOE which is the " killer cure " . Its better to see what seems

to work a bit and apply it to us - but I have no doubt that some of

werston's and fallon's ideas will seem as mad as the current " eat more c

arbs and less fat " crowd!

regards from edella (abour to enjoy a nice steak tartar with fixings in

the backyard)