Guest guest Posted July 4, 2005 Report Share Posted July 4, 2005 > an accusation > > >Hello to all: > >Before posting this, I have questioned myself as whether I am being >unethical or not. Maybe it is irrelevant to decide which, but I think >this should be of interest to all the people here who look up to and >follow Dr Weston Price. Perhaps some of you already knew about this >and know it is really of no consequence. But since it was all news to >me, I have decided to share it with you. > >This piece was posted by a member from another group I have >been visiting. I can't give out names, I am afraid. So, what do you >think about it? > > " I've never read the Weston-Price book. I'm afraid I was rather put >off by a mention on the Internet that he recommended grain products >to people. This was apparently due to the fact that many people >during the Depression couldn't afford his recommended meats,so he >rather cynically recommended grain products as a substitute, despite >adequate scientific knowledge at the time of information on the >dangers of grain. I'll read it in due course, but with heavy >reservations. " > >Could this be true? > Hi , Perhaps you could ask Geoff, uh, I mean, this " unknown person " , what his specific source for this information was, before accepting it as truth? 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> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2005 Report Share Posted July 4, 2005 I will. > > > > an accusation > > > > > >Hello to all: > > > >Before posting this, I have questioned myself as whether I am being > >unethical or not. Maybe it is irrelevant to decide which, but I think > >this should be of interest to all the people here who look up to and > >follow Dr Weston Price. Perhaps some of you already knew about this > >and know it is really of no consequence. But since it was all news to > >me, I have decided to share it with you. > > > >This piece was posted by a member from another group I have > >been visiting. I can't give out names, I am afraid. So, what do you > >think about it? > > > > " I've never read the Weston-Price book. I'm afraid I was rather put > >off by a mention on the Internet that he recommended grain products > >to people. This was apparently due to the fact that many people > >during the Depression couldn't afford his recommended meats,so he > >rather cynically recommended grain products as a substitute, despite > >adequate scientific knowledge at the time of information on the > >dangers of grain. I'll read it in due course, but with heavy > >reservations. " > > > >Could this be true? > > > > Hi , > > Perhaps you could ask Geoff, uh, I mean, this " unknown person " , what his > specific source for this information was, before accepting it as truth? > > > > 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> > ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2005 Report Share Posted July 4, 2005 > Re: an accusation > > >I will. Dude! 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> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2005 Report Share Posted July 4, 2005 > an accusation > > >Hello to all: > >Before posting this, I have questioned myself as whether I am being >unethical or not. Maybe it is irrelevant to decide which, but I think >this should be of interest to all the people here who look up to and >follow Dr Weston Price. Perhaps some of you already knew about this >and know it is really of no consequence. But since it was all news to >me, I have decided to share it with you. > >This piece was posted by a member from another group I have >been visiting. I can't give out names, I am afraid. So, what do you >think about it? > > " I've never read the Weston-Price book. I'm afraid I was rather put >off by a mention on the Internet that he recommended grain products >to people. This was apparently due to the fact that many people >during the Depression couldn't afford his recommended meats,so he >rather cynically recommended grain products as a substitute, despite >adequate scientific knowledge at the time of information on the >dangers of grain. I'll read it in due course, but with heavy >reservations. " > >Could this be true? > >José > By the way , I think it's all rather meaningless unless you and the person on the other list actually read Weston Price's book. A few things you would discover if you did is: A) Many groups that Weston Price studied experienced exceptional health - arguable greater health than you, I or the person on the other list, will ever experience on a diet in which grains where a *foundational food* Weston Price's recommendations to his contemporaries were based on the dietary principles he learned from the ancient dietary wisdom of the isolated healthy groups he studied all over the globe. In other words, the recommendations he made weren't conjured up out of thin air, but based on the dietary principles of living healthy societies. They *thrived* with grains as a foundational food. C) I suspect the site that this person from another list got his info from was inaccuate in regards to WAP cynically recommending grain products as a substitute. You would understand why I say that if you read his book. I read some of this other person's comments on dairy and can tell you most of what he wrote is based on a lack of knowledge of this subject. Since he hasn't read WAP's work, it appears the same thing applies in that arena. 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> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2005 Report Share Posted July 4, 2005 > " I've never read the Weston-Price book. I'm afraid I was rather put >off by a mention on the Internet that he recommended grain products >to people. This was apparently due to the fact that many people >during the Depression couldn't afford his recommended meats,so he >rather cynically recommended grain products as a substitute, despite >adequate scientific knowledge at the time of information on the >dangers of grain. I'll read it in due course, but with heavy >reservations. " > >Could this be true? > >José > I have no idea darlin'. I only wanted to say, José , that I think it is good to question ideas, especially as they pertain to Price's work. Also, if you haven't read the book, you really owe it to yourself to do so. For how can you judge from a big picture perspective without reading and seeing the pictures -which do tell such a story - what someone else's commentary on it means? You can't. Even if that commentary is extrabiblical. You must read. Let me know if it is a better bargain for me to ship it to you directly, and I will do so. You see, in other countries, I think the cost goes way up, at least that is my experience in the UK. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2005 Report Share Posted July 4, 2005 > RE: an accusation > > > Weston Price's recommendations to his contemporaries were based on the >dietary principles he learned from the ancient dietary wisdom of the >isolated healthy groups he studied all over the globe. In other words, the >recommendations he made weren't conjured up out of thin air, but based on >the dietary principles of living healthy societies. They *thrived* with >grains as a foundational food. Whoops! Forgot to qualify this...*some* of the groups he studied had grains as a foundational food. Not all! 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> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2005 Report Share Posted July 4, 2005 --- In , Deanna Wagner <hl@s...> wrote: > > > " I've never read the Weston-Price book. I'm afraid I was rather put > >off by a mention on the Internet that he recommended grain products > >to people. This was apparently due to the fact that many people > >during the Depression couldn't afford his recommended meats,so he > >rather cynically recommended grain products as a substitute, despite > >adequate scientific knowledge at the time of information on the > >dangers of grain. I'll read it in due course, but with heavy > >reservations. " > > > >Could this be true? > > > >José > > > I have no idea darlin'. I only wanted to say, José , that I think > it is good to question ideas, especially as they pertain to Price's > work. Also, if you haven't read the book, you really owe it to yourself > to do so. For how can you judge from a big picture perspective without > reading and seeing the pictures -which do tell such a story - what > someone else's commentary on it means? You can't. Even if that > commentary is extrabiblical. You must read. Let me know if it is a > better bargain for me to ship it to you directly, and I will do so. You > see, in other countries, I think the cost goes way up, at least that is > my experience in the UK. > > > Deanna > > Deanna, Suze and all: As I told you before, I read Sally Falon's book, and I see it is based upon the works and discoveries of Dr Price. I must say (actually repeat) that I didn't take Geoff's (that is his name, you know) remarks as the truth, but I found his accusation very serious. Even more so because I am under the impression that he is an articulate and exacting person, however maybe a little too radical in my view. Since I don't know Weston Price too well, I could not even try to defend him. On that list, nobody so far raised their voice to do so. Maybe nobody will, unless Mike [slethnobotanist], who also belongs there, decides to speak his piece. I even wrote a private message to Mike sort of encouraging him but at the same time recognizing that Geoff could be a " hard nut to crack " . Anyway, those words were ringing in my mind now and then (I didn't mention this to Mike), so at last I decided to communicate with you. Please don't take me amiss. I admit my relative ignorance about all the details of Price's findings, though I have a general idea about it all. I had no intention of disrespecting or debunking him or driving him into a corner. I understand that I must read his book. (I will talk to you later, Deanna, about a possible exchange of gifts, ok?) I mean to do so soon. But do you think that just because I haven't read the book yet, I should have left that accusation simply get away, until I do? I thought it would be better to tell you about it and see if anything can be done to dispel the outrage. I hope you will understand me. José Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2005 Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 Good morning: Here is my question to Geoff Purcell (1) and his answer (2): ................................................................... 1) Good evening, Geoff: Would you please mention the source of this piece of information about Dr Weston-Price [i.e. the grain issue], in case you still remember it? Thank you. José [July 4] ................................................................... 2) I'm afraid I don't recall where I found this mentioned, as I discovered the link more than 3 years ago (could well be linked indirectly to the www.paleodiet.com archive). It was part of a small, rather favourable review of Weston A Price's book, and the reviewer oddly seemed to think this point was a minor quibble. Geoff Purcell London UK [July 5] ............................................................... Can anyone help? JC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2005 Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 > Re: an accusation > > >Good morning: > >Here is my question to Geoff Purcell (1) and his answer (2): > >.................................................................. > >1) Good evening, Geoff: > >Would you please mention the source of this piece of information >about Dr Weston-Price [i.e. the grain issue], in case you still >remember it? > >Thank you. > >José [July 4] > >.................................................................. > >2) I'm afraid I don't recall where I found this mentioned, as I >discovered the link more than 3 years ago (could well be linked >indirectly to the www.paleodiet.com archive). It was part of a small, >rather favourable review of Weston A Price's book, and the reviewer >oddly seemed to think this point was a minor quibble. > >Geoff Purcell >London UK > >[July 5] >.............................................................. > >Can anyone help? > >JC , In other words, Geoff can't provide any substantiation for his comments. So, I dunno, I guess we have to leave it at that. 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> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2005 Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 > Re: an accusation > >Deanna, Suze and all: > >As I told you before, I read Sally Falon's book, and I see it is >based upon the works and discoveries of Dr Price. It is a good start in understanding Price's work. But to really understand Price's work and his study of healthy primitive societies, you really must read his work in his own words. > >I must say (actually repeat) that I didn't take Geoff's (that is his >name, you know) remarks as the truth, but I found his accusation very >serious. The only " accusation " as I see it is claiming that Price " cynallicaly " recommended grain products when there was adequate " scientific info on the dangers of grains. " We need to step back just a minute and look at that accusation. It assumes that Price's OWN research was false and unscientific, because his own research into healthy primitive societies revealed that grains were a *substantial* part of the diet of many healthy societies. So what was Price supposed to do in the face of this evidence? So what if there existed scientific papers at that time suggesting grains were unhealthy? Price's observations of healthy primitive societies showed him that grains *per se* were NOT in fact unhealthy. , there's a LOT of " scientific research " that contradicts what Price found to be healthy diets among primitives. The notion that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease is but one example. Just because many mainstream scientists claim this to be true and have many studies to back up their claims, does not make it true. See what I mean? So, it is clear that Price did NOT think grains were unhealthy during the depression era which is around the time he conducted his nutritional research. He did know and warn against the dangers of *refined* and *processed* grain products however. Based on this, the accusation that he " cynically " recommended grain products appears to be false. He couldn't " cynically " recommend them when he thought they were a healthy food. As to whether he recommended them to replace meat at a time when people could not afford meat? So what? He thought they were healthy and obviously a lot of folks couldn't afford meat at that time, so why shouldn't he recommed an affordable food that he believed, correction - *knew*, to be a healthy food based on his observations of several extremely healthy primitive societies consuming grains as a foundation of their diet? And this is all assuming that this claim about him recommending grains to replace meat is true in the first place, which we should not assume without adequate substantiation. Even more so because I am under the impression that he is an >articulate and exacting person, however maybe a little too radical in >my view. It is my observation that the only people who would have problems with Price recommending grains would be dogmatic paleo dieters. Otherwise, where's the problem? I don't see any serious controversy here, to be frank, other than Paleos trying to discredit a major nutritional figure because his work discredits their dearly-held paradigm. Or am I missing something? Since I don't know Weston Price too well, I could not even >try to defend him. On that list, nobody so far raised their voice to >do so. Maybe nobody will, unless Mike [slethnobotanist], who also >belongs there, decides to speak his piece. Hee, I think the only reason you haven't heard from yet on this issue is because he's having computer problems. > >Please don't take me amiss. I admit my relative ignorance about all >the details of Price's findings, though I have a general idea about >it all. I had no intention of disrespecting or debunking him or >driving him into a corner. Feel free to try to debunk his work. We often discuss the pros and cons. But it's very difficult to debunk the extraordinary health of the people he studied. And we do have an idea of what they ate, including grains, for many of them. I've yet to see someone successfully debunk this aspect of Price's work. But really, don't feel like you're going to drummed of the list for critiquing Price's work. That kind of thing is welcome here. But such critiques really do need to have some evidence to back them up. In the case of what Geoff claimed, there is none. BTW, in regards to Geoff reading the supposed recommendations of Price to eat grains rather than meat during the Depression, I honestly wouldn't be surprised to read something like this on a site whose paradigm Price's work debunks. For instance, I was told by a vegan on another list that there's a vegan website out there that uses Price's work to justify_veganism!!!! No kidding. LOL! I just about fell on the floor when I read that. It seems that dogmatic folks will try to twist someone's work to fit their own paradigm even when it squarely *contradicts* their paradigm. Go figure... But do you think that just because I haven't read the book yet, >I should have left that accusation simply get away, until I do? I >thought it would be better to tell you about it and see if anything >can be done to dispel the outrage. Like I said earlier, the only outrage would probably be from Paleo dieters who think grains are evil ;-) 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> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2005 Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 NAPD really needs to be read here in order for there to be basis for this focus on grains. There are only two groups, the Swiss eating rye and Gaelic island eating oats of a dozen or more groups. Iirc, both these groups had the most dental caries post diet change. It's my opinion as someone eating gluten free and as close to paleo as I can afford that it is highly unlikely Price as a dentist knew much if anything about celiac during the Depression. Doctors were still making house calls, there was little if any specialists, there was radio, no tv and country folk did their own home remedying. Human evolutionary history was just beginning it's research. His choice, if he made it was based on his research and the health improvements he found in giving one good meal a day to the mission children. Was there yeast during the Depression or was bread still sourdough ? Was it all white flour? The gluten has been increased for longer storage and world trade since. Population, celiac, science and information increases since make it much more easier for anyone " now " to have more information than Price may have had access to " then " . I do have to commend Price for doing what he did. Even though he used the term primitives for his groups, I was able to see it was more descriptive of their lifestyle and it was not the same as the same time's consideration of Native American people. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2005 Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 >[suze] So, it is clear that Price did NOT think grains were unhealthy during the >depression era which is around the time he conducted his nutritional >research. He did know and warn against the dangers of *refined* and >*processed* grain products however. Based on this, the accusation that he > " cynically " recommended grain products appears to be false. He couldn't > " cynically " recommend them when he thought they were a healthy food. I'd agree here. Price wasn't being " cynical " ... in his era there was ZERO evidence that grains were bad, and in fact his own experiments showed that folks got better with " good whole grains " . Whole grains were considered, well, wholesome! Plus the common thought was that there wasn't enough meat to feed everyone anyway, esp. when a war was on. It wasn't until after WW2 that anyone had any inkling that some grains might be problematic, and even then it took decades for the information to be accepted. Some kids, though malnourished from lack of food, got BETTER during WW2 when they couldn't get bread, and THAT was the key that turned thinking around. And even though people think I'm " anti grain " I certainly scarf down quinoa tabbouleh salad and some other grain products! I won't say I NEED them to have a " good diet " but they taste good and satisfy some need. That isn't me being cynical, just me being a hedonist and realist. My family just wouldn't feel good without their bread, either ... it's part of their psyche, as it is for most of our nation and that was even more true in Price's time. We are just fortunate enough to understand what goes on at the molecular level a lot better than he ever could. I'd guess if he was here today though, he'd be right with the rest of us, questioning EVERYTHING ... FWIW, there are folks in his vein that are working with primative groups now, who recieve " food aid " . Food aid often results in physical changes that the physicians notice ... swollen bellies, symptoms of malnutrition. But the physicians now are a little more informed: they say: it's not just that you need to provide " food " ... you need to provide the food that the tribe is adapted for. Some tribes do fine on millet or low-gluten wheat, but get terribly sick on American wheat. Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2005 Report Share Posted July 6, 2005 Wanita, >NAPD really needs to be read here in order for there to be basis for this >focus on grains. There are only two groups, the Swiss eating rye and Gaelic >island eating oats of a dozen or more groups. Iirc, both these groups had >the most dental caries post diet change. > I agree with what all you said and wanted to comment on the Swiss. The healthy primitives of this region literally did have green slime on their teeth. I wonder if this was a result of a higher starch diet. Maybe this is what happens to " tooth moss " when it is left to grow indefinitely - the term coined in another thread on Pima by our Helga T. Ph.D., hee hee. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2005 Report Share Posted July 6, 2005 , I'm WAY behind on emails so I'm sure this has been addressed (many times probably), but I would say " read Nourishing Traditions " ....I don't think that's what it does at all. It's just like the stuff you " hear " about Atkins when you know nothing about it...or anything else really. Misinformed. Believing heresay off the internet. Oh boy. Kris an accusation Hello to all: Before posting this, I have questioned myself as whether I am being unethical or not. Maybe it is irrelevant to decide which, but I think this should be of interest to all the people here who look up to and follow Dr Weston Price. Perhaps some of you already knew about this and know it is really of no consequence. But since it was all news to me, I have decided to share it with you. This piece was posted by a member from another group I have been visiting. I can't give out names, I am afraid. So, what do you think about it? " I've never read the Weston-Price book. I'm afraid I was rather put off by a mention on the Internet that he recommended grain products to people. This was apparently due to the fact that many people during the Depression couldn't afford his recommended meats,so he rather cynically recommended grain products as a substitute, despite adequate scientific knowledge at the time of information on the dangers of grain. I'll read it in due course, but with heavy reservations. " Could this be true? José Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2005 Report Share Posted July 6, 2005 > >Deanna, Suze and all: > > > >As I told you before, I read Sally Falon's book, and I see it is > >based upon the works and discoveries of Dr Price. > > It is a good start in understanding Price's work. But to really understand > Price's work and his study of healthy primitive societies, you really must > read his work in his own words. * Hi Suze: Sorry for this rather belated answer... > The only " accusation " as I see it is claiming that Price " cynallicaly " > recommended grain products when there was adequate " scientific info on the > dangers of grains. " * Yes, I saw only one " accusation " , too. Maybe " accusation " is not the right term for the case in question. I couldn't find a " better " word, though. > We need to step back just a minute and look at that accusation. It assumes > that Price's OWN research was false and unscientific, because his own > research into healthy primitive societies revealed that grains were a > *substantial* part of the diet of many healthy societies. So what was Price > supposed to do in the face of this evidence? So what if there existed > scientific papers at that time suggesting grains were unhealthy? Price's > observations of healthy primitive societies showed him that grains *per se* > were NOT in fact unhealthy. , there's a LOT of " scientific > research " that contradicts what Price found to be healthy diets among > primitives. The notion that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart > disease is but one example. Just because many mainstream scientists claim > this to be true and have many studies to back up their claims, does not make > it true. See what I mean? * Of course, I do. I am following you. > So, it is clear that Price did NOT think grains were unhealthy during the > depression era which is around the time he conducted his nutritional > research. He did know and warn against the dangers of *refined* and > *processed* grain products however. Based on this, the accusation that he > " cynically " recommended grain products appears to be false. He couldn't > " cynically " recommend them when he thought they were a healthy food. * I see. Unless Price was a cynic (which I by any measure don't think he was), then he would not have any reason at all to advocate something he didn't believe in. It doesn't make sense. > As to whether he recommended them to replace meat at a time when people > could not afford meat? So what? He thought they were healthy and obviously a > lot of folks couldn't afford meat at that time, so why shouldn't he recommed > an affordable food that he believed, correction - *knew*, to be a healthy > food based on his observations of several extremely healthy primitive > societies consuming grains as a foundation of their diet? And this is all > assuming that this claim about him recommending grains to replace meat is > true in the first place, which we should not assume without adequate > substantiation. * I may not have entirely understood your last period, but let's move on. > It is my observation that the only people who would have problems with Price > recommending grains would be dogmatic paleo dieters. Otherwise, where's the > problem? I don't see any serious controversy here, to be frank, other than > Paleos trying to discredit a major nutritional figure because his work > discredits their dearly-held paradigm. Or am I missing something? * No, I don't think you are. However, I don't know Geoff well enough to judge him to be dogmatic, though his diet seems radical (90% or more is raw meat, if I have the right figure). Indeed he sounds very convinced of his own diet, but he doesn't seem to want to say that his diet is good for everybody. The crux here is rather that he met with a misjudgement about Price and seems unconcerned about it. What Price had to say probably doesn't much interest Geoff, you see. He (Geoff) has already found his nutritional niche for life and sees no motivation to move away from there. > > Since I don't know Weston Price too well, I could not even > >try to defend him. On that list, nobody so far raised their voice to > >do so. Maybe nobody will, unless Mike [slethnobotanist], who also > >belongs there, decides to speak his piece. > > Hee, I think the only reason you haven't heard from yet on this > issue is because he's having computer problems. * Oh, is he? Actually, I found it strange that he suddenly become silent. > > > >Please don't take me amiss. I admit my relative ignorance about all > >the details of Price's findings, though I have a general idea about > >it all. I had no intention of disrespecting or debunking him or > >driving him into a corner. > > Feel free to try to debunk his work. We often discuss the pros and cons. But > it's very difficult to debunk the extraordinary health of the people he > studied. And we do have an idea of what they ate, including grains, for many > of them. I've yet to see someone successfully debunk this aspect of Price's > work. But really, don't feel like you're going to drummed of the list for > critiquing Price's work. That kind of thing is welcome here. But such > critiques really do need to have some evidence to back them up. In the case > of what Geoff claimed, there is none. * I will never debunk Price's work, though I may be a little uncertain about a few points (dairy). I have to read his book first, anyway. Yes, as I said before, Geoff found something " bad " about Price, but was rather indifferent to it. He didn't bother to check it out. > > BTW, in regards to Geoff reading the supposed recommendations of Price to > eat grains rather than meat during the Depression, I honestly wouldn't be > surprised to read something like this on a site whose paradigm Price's work > debunks. For instance, I was told by a vegan on another list that there's a > vegan website out there that uses Price's work to justify_veganism!!!! No > kidding. LOL! I just about fell on the floor when I read that. It seems that > dogmatic folks will try to twist someone's work to fit their own paradigm > even when it squarely *contradicts* their paradigm. Go figure... * Yes I know this. You call it " desfigurement " by the way. > But do you think that just because I haven't read the book yet, > >I should have left that accusation simply get away, until I do? I > >thought it would be better to tell you about it and see if anything > >can be done to dispel the outrage. > > Like I said earlier, the only outrage would probably be from Paleo dieters > who think grains are evil ;-) > * I agree. When I first came to this forum, I presented a fairly moderate, sympathetic view on starches, in that I was saying that a certain amount of starches (not necessarily grains) was important to or even necessary in one's diet. Maybe I was clumsy in my presentation with the result that some people strongly opposed their views and experiences to mine. I have learned some people here eat very very low-carb or low-starch diets and feel fine. Perhaps, there is a personal factor at stake here. Whatever the case is, I still entertain the idea that that carbs, starches or grains aren't necessarily evil if they are employed in an adequate context. In that sense, I am very much pro-Weston-Price, even without having read his book. Thanks Suze. José > > 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> > ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 >I think we also need to consider that like many diseases, cancer, diabetes, >autism, there might just be much more celiac now. Whether it could be a >side benefit of modern medicine, the green revolution or pollution, I don't >think we know. Anyway it might just be that celiac was very rare in WPs time. >Irene According to the people who study this stuff, it wasn't rare in WP's time, but most people who got it died before they were 5. The infant mortality rate at the time was horrid ... in my grandfather's family, out of 14 kids, 3 survived. The kids were described as " sickly " and " colicky " etc. and " had the flux " ... there are some good detailed descriptions that make it clear they were probably eating something that disagreed with them horridly. Some of the kids were put on a " raw cream and raw meat " diet which cured them if they stuck to it. Around about 1940 they came up with the " banana diet " to cure those kids: NOTHING but bananas, to hear Mom tell it. Then there are folks like of and , who got " nervous stomach " in the city but did fine out in the wilderness. Or Clara of the story " Heidi " who did ok on peasant food but got sick in the city. And Washington, who lost all his teeth by the time he was my age! Anyway, if you read history looking for symptoms, it's pretty clear that there were a LOT of sick people back then, and their life expectancy was rather short. And WP's research really DOES show that natives get sick on " foods of modern commerce " , which he defines mainly as white flour and white sugar. None of those natives ate wheat much before the " foods of modern commerce " , (the Swiss ate rye, the Gaelics had oats I think). Exactly WHY those two foods caused such massive damage in 20 years is up for grabs, but disrupting digestion would go a long way toward causing malnutrition ... Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 Irene: >While I don't deny that there might have been more celiac back " then " than >we realize, but good grief, to suggest that because Washington lost >all his teeth, or that got " nervous stomach " in the city that they >must be celiac is an enormous leap. That is certainly one possibility but >only one. Yeah, it's only one possibility, and the researchers will have a field day someday (and probably do gene tests!). A lot of people at that time, however, were saying " grains " were the cause of the " current decline in health of civilization " . Notably Napolean's doctor, who noted that the high-grain eating populations of Europe got much more cancer than the " healthy natives " (that concept wasn't unique to Price!). However, if you read the accounts of the physicians, so many of the cases really are typical celiac, and I think the term was in fact coined back then too, though they didn't know what caused it. The " sprue " in " celiac sprue " refers to the mouth ulcers (canker sores) that are typical of celiac, in Dutch. My only point was that it isn't really an illness that suddenly arrived. >Also I know there were a lot of sick people back then but that does by >itself not mean they were celiac. And as far as I could tell, if you were >poor back then your life was short but if you were well off the life >expectancy is more or less what it is today. > >As far as infant mortality goes, my family has a different history than >yours. Both sets of my grandparents had 7 children at the early part of the >century. The last was born in 1937. No one died in infancy. Everyone >survived, even through typhoid epidemics. They ate an enormous amount of >wheat as bread, noodles and dumplings. Only one aunt died in her 40's >everyone else lived to old age. Which likely means that in that family, there wasn't a lot of gluten reaction. And/or they had good parenting! Or ate kraut. Or any number of other things that are protective. Overall though, the infant mortality rate was very high, and not just for poor people. Miscarriage rates were very high too. > However, in my generation there are all >sorts of problems. My food problems,. others have it as well although not >as bad as I do, autism, diabetes etc. Something is going on in my >generation that wasn't in my parents generation. I agree ... a LOT of stuff is going on now that didn't then. The bread is really different for one ... it's light and fluffy and loaded with gluten (at the turn of the century it was denser, more fermented). There is less breast feeding, more formula feeding. Hardly anyone gets probiotic foods (which are highly protective). Solid foods are started early (the month at which solids are started seems to make a huge difference). Kids get few fruits and vegies, and they are loaded up with corn syrup, which is dastardly on the gut for many people. Most kids in fact are raised on finely-ground grain foods of the sort known to make pigs sick (pop tarts, cold cereal, white bread, crackers) rather than the homlier grain foods of the past (porridge, oatmeal, grits, artisan-style bread). Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2005 Report Share Posted July 9, 2005 Heidi, That is exactly right. That is why I say that maybe Price didn't mention celiac because there might just not have been as much of it back then. Heck we can't be sure exactly how much celiac there is now much less 75 or 100 years ago. And there are so many modern factors now that could be causing a rise in rates of celiac just like other diseases are rising. I certainly never said that I thought celiac was a new disease or didn't exist back then. Besides all the things you mentioned, that could have an effect on whether or not someone develops celiac or anything else, there is lots of other stuff too. For instance, it turns out they found a link between crohn's disease and antibiotic use. http://gut.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/2/246 It wouldn't surprise me at all if they were to find a similar link with celiac. Also there seems to be a link between autism and mercury independent of vaccines. So is gluten making autistics more sensitive to mercury or the other way around? http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science & article=UPI-1-20050520-08\ 453100-bc-us-ageofautism-amishmercury.xml And God only knows how other forms of pollution or modern medicine or bad food might be effecting how many people become gluten sensitive. So although it is important to enlighten people on gluten since so many people may be unaware that they could have a problem with it, as far as looking at causes, I don't think it is a good idea to look at gluten to the exclusion of other factors. As far as people years ago having miscarriages go, I don't understand how that is relelvant here. It is however true that the life expectancy of the well off in the US for the last 200 or 300 years has been about the same as we see today. Irene At 07:12 PM 7/8/05, you wrote: >I agree ... a LOT of stuff is going on now that didn't then. The bread >is really different for one ... it's light and fluffy and loaded with >gluten (at the turn of the century it was denser, more fermented). >There is less breast feeding, more formula feeding. Hardly anyone >gets probiotic foods (which are highly protective). Solid foods >are started early (the month at which solids are started seems >to make a huge difference). Kids get few fruits and vegies, and >they are loaded up with corn syrup, which is dastardly on the >gut for many people. Most kids in fact are raised on finely-ground >grain foods of the sort known to make pigs sick (pop tarts, >cold cereal, white bread, crackers) rather than the homlier grain foods >of the past (porridge, oatmeal, grits, artisan-style bread). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 >Besides all the things you mentioned, that could have an effect on whether >or not someone develops celiac or anything else, there is lots of other >stuff too. For instance, it turns out they found a link between crohn's >disease and antibiotic use. >http://gut.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/2/246 >It wouldn't surprise me at all if they were to find a similar link with >celiac. There is a link, though it's a convoluted one. First, most kids with undiagnosed celiacs don't survive without antibiotics. So the celiac kids that DO survive are the ones with lots of antibiotic use! Gluten intolerant folks just get loads of infections, which, in the past, would be fatal. Today, they are treatable. I lived for many years off antibiotics, to treat chronic sinusitis. Without the antibiotics, I would have gotten pneumonia and died. OTOH the antibiotics mess up the gut flora, which causes worse digestion problems. Sooooo ... it's not easy. >Also there seems to be a link between autism and mercury independent of >vaccines. So is gluten making autistics more sensitive to mercury or the >other way around? >http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science & article=UPI-1-20050520-0\ 8453100-bc-us-ageofautism-amishmercury.xml I don't know. It needs a LOT more study. It is clear that MOST folks get vaccines and have no problems, and that folks who do become autistic had differences before the vaccine was administered ... and their parents are different too ... so I tend to think they are folks with impaired gut and brain barriers who react more to *everything* including mercury. >And God only knows how other forms of pollution or modern medicine or bad >food might be effecting how many people become gluten sensitive. >So although it is important to enlighten people on gluten since so many >people may be unaware that they could have a problem with it, as far as >looking at causes, I don't think it is a good idea to look at gluten to the >exclusion of other factors. Of course not, and many folks ARE looking at the " other factors " . There is a LOT of research being done. Bottom line though, is that the Egyptians and Assyrians and Romans had problems with wheat, back before vaccines or pollution or GMO wheat. So far the research is pointing to a genetic incompatibility ... if you have the wrong genes, it's a bad food for you. >As far as people years ago having miscarriages go, I don't understand how >that is relelvant here. It is however true that the life expectancy of the >well off in the US for the last 200 or 300 years has been about the same as >we see today. It's an interesting cliam. So do you have a reference for that? Miscarriages are a sign of gluten intolerance. For some reason women who are GI have many miscarriages, far more than you'd expect. I'm not sure about the " life exectancy of the well off " ... most of what I've read is that there was a pretty high mortality of infants and young children regardless of the class (read the history of the English nobility!), far higher than today. And if you read the biographies of the upper class they were pretty sickly in many cases. In my own family history we have a mix: a lot of people dying early of weird causes and a few living a long time. Which is about what I'd expect of a genetic incompatibility. Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 Irene: >>>>That might be one dynamic. But can you really be sure that there aren't >folks that never would have gotten celiac without antibiotics? Perhaps even >lots of them? It would be interesting to find out I agree, the other variables would be interesting to know. One thing we DO know though is that folks who don't get wheat never develop celiac. Nor do people who don't have the suspect genes. > >>>> You have mentioned that befroe. I am certainly glad that you survivied >you childhood illnesses. I am surprised however that even though you have >had so many antibiotics, you are not more curious if they have had a >longterm effect on your health. Well, given that the option was to be DEAD (in my case) any negative aspects are better! I do think that long-term tetracycline later in life led to Vit K deficiency. But you also have folks like those beer-drinkers who got tetracycline daily in their beer ... their bones were full of antibiotics back in pre-history days ... and they seemed to have done ok health wise. Kefir and kimchi are full of antibiotics! And foods like oregano are potent antibiotics too, as is clay. Many of the modern antibiotics were isolated from microbial cultures or plants, some of which were in fact eaten daily. I think the deal with antibiotics is that they aren't coupled with probiotics. When you eat kimchi you are killing a whole mess of bacteria ... and replacing them with others. The other thing is, I probably wouldn't have needed the antibiotics if I hadn't been eating wheat and dairy in the first place. Since I've been gluten free I've been infection-free, and my dd hasn't needed much of anything in the way of medical care since we changed her diet. Having a compromised immune system is what creates the need for antibiotics in the first place. >>>> I don't think you can say that MOST people have no problems. I think >it is more accurate to say that most people don't have serious problems >because the not so serious problems go mostly unreported. Even serious >problems don't always get reported. It depends entirely if your doctor >reports it to VAERS. And the not so serious one for the most part have not >been studied. And also long term stuff has also not been studied enough. >Such as, I heard of one study that has shown that the vaccinated are more >likely to get diabetes than the unvaccinated. But that kind of thing as far >as I know has not been looked at. People just assume that vaccines are >fine. So bottom line is again that we really don't know and there need >to be a lot more study. It can always use study, but it's not true it hasn't been looked at. It's been studied a LOT. I think the biggest issue with vaccines is the *eggs* ... injecting egg albumin into muscle tissue is a great way to create egg IgG allergy. The whole point of the injection is, after all, to " wake up " the immune system, which is exactly what they do. But one of the ingredients is egg albumin. Or horse serum, for some of them? But I have known people who were permanently damaged for life from diseases that could have been prevented by a vaccination (and yes, vaccines DO prevent the occurance of the illness, most of the time). Again, given the risk of *death* vs. a possible higher risk of diabetes (which I'm pretty certain is mainly diet related anyway), I'd choose the higher rate of diabetes. The more they study this stuff though, the better the vaccines will get and probably they'll have fewer side effects. >But that isn't really what the link is about anyway. What they were >suggesting is that mercury from the environment was as big a contributor >because some Amish autistics were never veccinated and high levels of >mercury anyway. And it may well be a contributor. I wonder how many autistics exist that are non-wheat/dairy eaters though? Like cancer and heart disease, it's one of those diseases that just didn't exist pre-Western-civilization (though there are cultures that use a lot of mercury in rituals etc. or as paint ... I wonder what their autism rates are?). > >>>> I hadn't heard this one. Do you have a reference for this? Different >how? During the 1800's, when autism was first studied, it was thought to be the result of having a " cold, uncaring " mother. Now the autism researchers are discovering that the parents of autistic children are very often " slightly " autistic ... usually high-functioning Asperger's. High-functioning Aspies are very often programmers or engineers, and as women have been going into these fields more and more, Aspies are marrying other Aspies, and when they do, the rate of autistic kids is amazingly large. If you go to the WIRED website and search for " Asperger's " you'll find several good articles on this (tho they don't get into the dietary aspects). Personally I think it's a combination of genes and diet. My kids, who have two Aspie parents, have some typical autistic traits, but they don't get gluten, and the traits they do have don't seem to cause problems. But both were born with very huge heads, which is one typical trait. Their grandparents had a lot of Aspie traits too, as did the great-grandparents. Many of my programming/type friends are having autistic children too, which is in fact how I found out about the gluten thing originally. Irene: > >>>> I don't know about the egyptians, but the romans and Assyrians used a >lot of lead. Could that have contributed? I remember reading that lead >poisoning was a cause or contributor of infertility amoung the romans. >Perhaps they dabbled with arsenic and mercury as well? The kicker is that the GI genes *died out* in those cultures. The folks who didn't have the genes were probably getting about the same amounts of lead, arsenic, and mercury ... but they survived and had children. The folks with the genes died out. So if I have the gene, and I eat wheat, I'm going to be more sensitive to whatever happens to be around and I'll die earlier. I don't want to die early. There is nothing so inherently wonderful about wheat bread that would make me take that risk, or put my kids into that kind of risk. GI folks who eat wheat are thought to have about twice the death rate as folks who are not GI, and they die from stuff like cancer, heart disease, thyroid disease, liver disease ... all stuff that also has an environmental component too. > >>> But if there genes are not activated it might never be an issue. For >me, I think it is really important to look at triggers as well. If there >is anything that can be done to reduce the likelihood of having problems >I'd really like to know. Sure. But what if the trigger is what they think it is: eating wheat when you happen to get ill from something else? I mean, if you eat wheat and then get salmonella poisoning, you might end up with GI, but not know it until you get a messed up thyroid. If a kid has the genes and never gets wheat, then when the kid does happen to get it, it probably won't cause problems, and the kid will have a big reserve of health to fight whatever problem it does cause. But if you feed the kid wheat their whole life " to fit in " then the kid will be limping along, healthwise (esp. since gliadin tends to keep food from being absorbed even if you aren't allergic to it) and not be in great shape to fight it when the gene does get triggered. At least that's the theory I'm going on with my kids! > >>>> But you can't say that only celiacs miscarry. I don't know if in hind >sight you can make a judgement how many were and how many were not celiac. >And if most undiagnosed celiacs die in childhood they wouldn't live long >enough to miscarry. No, and I'm not saying that. But if you look at " tribal cultures " and the non-Western cultures in general, they just don't have so many baby-carrying issues. As someone pointed out, that seemed to be true in Biblical times too: the Egyptians complained that the Hebrew women would out-populate the Egyptians because the Hebrews (who were more nomadic and hence more into meat and milk) had an easier time of childbirth. You can't make judgements about specific individuals, but as a population trend, it's been commented on over and over. >See that is why I have a problem with the " gluten as antichrist " theory. >Although I have big problems and so do other family members in my >generation, my parents generation, except for one person who died in her >40''s are a pretty healthy bunch. I must have gotten our genetics from >someone. That is why I think other factors must play into it and would be >really interested to know what they are. I'm sure we'll find out! Anyway, I never said gluten was the antichrist ... IF you have the wrong genes and IF you eat the high-gluten bread products that are produced today you are likely to get sick, or at least be in less-robust health than you would be otherwise. But my grandmother lived to be 96, though she had severe Asperger's, and my mother is in her 80's, though I'm fairly sure she is gluten sensitive. Neither one of them was really into a LOT of high-gluten bread though, and both ate lots of meat and fat. Both of them got osteoporosis though, and my Mom has to take supplements to keep from getting anemic, so although they were " healthy " they could have been a lot healthier. Incidentally, Grandma was an interesting case. She claimed all her life she had to eat " special foods " for spiritual reasons, and insisted on ham with every meal, and ate the goose fat off everyone else's plate. She did eat bread, but only " German " bread when she could get it, and always with butter. And lots of vegies and fruits. She had zero health problems, but her issues, like mine, were primarily mental/emotional, and her bones ended up being very brittle, though she was active til she broke her hip. >And all I said in my original post was that it must be considered that >there might just not have been as much celiac in Price's time and that is >why he didn't discuss it. I don't really see why that would be in any way >controversial. I just said " consider " . If you like, you can let someone >else do the considering. Sure, and I've considered it. I've also read what the researchers have to write about it, and none of them think it was rare in Price's time. Actually my mother was a nurse around that time, and she commented on this strange disease that babies had a lot, where they would die unless they ate nothing but bananas. I think the reason Price didn't comment on it was because first off, he was a dentist, so didn't deal with babies much. And second, there were lots of weird illnesses at the time that no one knew the cause of ... " the flux " was just one among many. But it's also important to remember the " real celiac " is in fact rare! Very, very few people come down with the " classic " version of celiac, and it's only with the advent of blood tests that anyone even knew that something called " gluten intolerance " existed. Now that they know it exists, people are thinking it might be one of the main root causes of a load of diseases that started getting more common in the 1800's, around the time wheat started getting cheap. And yeah, that's speculation, but it's speculation with a lot of good numbers behind it. For instance, half the folks with " mental illness " are GI, vs 10% of the general population. Mental illness rates started going up around the time wheat got cheaper, so even though there are other causes of mental illness, the wheat might well be a trigger in the increase of mental illness. > Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2005 Report Share Posted July 11, 2005 Irene: >I am getting kind of confused here. Is there a point to all this? If so >I've lost it. My original post said that I think we should consider that >celiac might be on the rise like so many other diseases. If I get the gist >of what you're saying, are you really suggesting that this is not a >possibility? If so why don't we just agree to disagree at leave it at that? >Because even though I disagree on a number of points that you've made and >some of the conclusions that you've come to, I don't really see a point to >going around and around about it. While I respect that you would choose to >risk diabetes rather than be unvaccinated it is not relevant to the >discussion. The truth is that you can't prove that celiac is the same now >as in Price's time any more than I can prove that it isn't and I certainly >didn't write my original post to try and change anyones mind. I just wanted >to put some other possibilites out there and let people make their own >decisions about it. OK, let me take another tack: During the 1800's there was a huge rise in certain diseases. The writers of the time, and later Price, concluded these were the " diseases of modern civilization " . Price concluded, based on his observations, that these diseases were the result of " sugar and white flour " . He substantiated this with many pictures, showing how " sugar and white flour " ruined the health of OTHER societies outside of England. Nowadays, many researchers are agreeing with Price, except that they are concluding that the REASON " white flour " causes these issues is not only because it displaces good food, but because for many people, it prevents absorption of nutrients from good food. Price had no way to know this, because it wasn't discovered until after he had died. However, his observations have been replicated in modern times by food aid programs, where wheat (whole wheat in these enlightened times) is introduced to non-wheat-eating cultures. BUT ... from what he wrote, and the other folks in the 1800's, there is no reason to conclude gluten intolerance was more or less common in their era, and in fact a lot of the symptoms they wrote about are easily described by gluten intolerance. This is even more cogent as *they* describe " white flour " or " cereals " as the likely culprit. In the 1800's, there were no vaccinations or GMO foods or pesticides to blame, so the situation was simpler. None of this proves anything, obviously! Some of us, like me, conclude that in the 1800's wheat started causing some devastating diseases which have continued to our time, primarily because of the invention of the grain combine and railroad. Adult " celiacs " in particular were rarer in the 1800's because celiacs tend to die young, but " gluten intolerance " in general rises and falls with the amount of gluten eaten, which has varied greately in the last 2 centuries (and varies by locale too). But that has nothing to do with Price's recommendation of grains ... he recommended grains because he felt that only *white flour* was causing problems. Which was the only flour shipped to tribes at the time. *That* is disconnected from the issue of how much celiac existed in England. >As an aside, if you really do know of a long term study comparing the >health of vaccinated to completely unvaccinated children, I sure would like >to know about it. I don't know if people have compared complete " health " in the two populations. For measles, for instance, it's pretty clear that the main cases are in unvaccinated populations, and about a million unvaccinated kids a year die from it. www.cofc.edu/~delliss/VirSeminar/ student%20ppt/Measles.ppt Ok, granted it's more popular these days to day " vaccines are bad " but to me it's a little like the current trend toward vegetarianism ... folks have it easy nowadays and don't know what it's like to have a kid die from measles. Heck, NO ONE dies from measles, in MY life, so why get the silly shot? Now if you get the shot ... or take any medicine, for that matter, there is a risk. The question is always: is the risk from the medicine greater than the risk from the disease? That's a hard question to answer these days. If folks where dying next door from measles it would be easier to answer, or if you had a mother with polio. That was the reason they phased out the smallpox vaccine: there was so little risk of catching smallpox, it wasn't worth the risk of the shot. But as soon as there seemed to be some risk of a smallpox attack folks were clamoring to get the shot! Even though in fact the risk of a real smallpox attack is very, very low. Assessing true risk isn't easy to do. Usuallly we base it more on emotion than facts. Anyway, I had a kitten die once, from a vaccine. I don't know if the kitten was allergic to the vaccine or it was a bad batch, but I DO know that vaccines can have problems. I also know cats can die from cat diseases they aren't vaccinated against: I had that happen too! Which do you choose? It's a good question! The lady or the tiger? > Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2005 Report Share Posted July 11, 2005 Heidi, As you said, At 12:41 AM 7/11/05, you wrote: >None of this proves anything, obviously! I just wanted to point out that we don't necessarily know and what I think the other possibilites could be. As far as whether or not vaccines are effective, that is totally irrelevant to whether they might be contributing to other problems and I don't think belongs in a discussion here. As to whether the risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits. That is a personal decision and will be different for everyone and again not relevant to the discussion other than the more accurate information that we have as to what those risks really are then people can make more informed decisions. By the way, condolenses for your kitten. Irene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2005 Report Share Posted July 11, 2005 Heidi, I'm not in disagreement with anything you're saying, but have some confusion about this paragraph: <Ok, granted it's more popular these days to day " vaccines are bad " but to me it's a little like the current trend toward vegetarianism ... folks have it easy nowadays and don't know what it's like to have a kid die from measles. Heck, NO ONE dies from measles, in MY life, so why get the silly shot? > Are you making a simple comparison of " vaccines are bad " with vegetarianism as both being growing trends, or is there some way in which you see " folks have it easy nowadays " as related to vegetarianism? Just curious. <g> http://www.taichi4seniors.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2005 Report Share Posted July 11, 2005 >Are you making a simple comparison of " vaccines are bad " with vegetarianism >as both being growing trends, or is there some way in which you see " folks >have it easy nowadays " as related to vegetarianism? > >Just curious. <g> > > Well, in my mind we live in a " Disneyland " world. That is, we aren't in tune with the reality of life and death and how things work. The vegetarians and PETA folks are soooo divorced from reality: they have never seen a dead animal, for the most part, or seen how one animal will eat another, and certainly have never killed thier own dinner. So they have this idea that all the animals live as one happy family and we should all be part of this happy family. Which of course is just WRONG and unrealistic, and gives the environmentalists the image of being silly " tree huggers " . Folks in countries where food is scarce, don't have any problem with killing a chicken for dinner, even if it's a pet chicken. They have a far better idea of how the " circle of life " works, and our own place in the food chain. They do not become vegetarians out of some misplaced fear of killing an animal (though in Buddhist/Hindu countries there is a big exception to that! Still, that is a religious exception, not a fear of death). So, I think the current rise in vegetarianism is an offshoot of our rather " rich " life in this country. People can afford to be vegetarian: they can buy fake meat and lots of supplements. This is especially true for veganism: in some countries they might respect the cow and not kill it, but they will certainly drink the milk They can't afford not to. Ditto for vaccines. If three kids on your block died from super-measles, you really would think differently about the potential risks of a few kids having potentially adverse reactions, esp. after you saw 10-20 kids get the shot and only get a sore arm and NOT get the measles. In our Disneyland world, we don't see kids die from viral diseases much at all, so the potential risk seems small. As a person who survived measles and mumps myself, and having seen some of the side effects, the very small potential risk of the vaccine doesn't seem to be that big a deal. Esp. if the main risk is to the gut flora ... shoot, some good kefir will take care of that easily! My son was hospitalized for some months when he was born, and I did see some very sad cases of un-vaccinated kids and what happened. I was a kid at a time when Mom's sent their kids to play with " sick " so they would get sick NOW and not when they were adults, where the same virus might cause more major damage. I've seen stories of kids damaged in utero by Chicken Pox so they would never lead normal lives. I've read that 95% of those healthy native Indians got wiped out by Smallpox. Today almost no one gets smallpox, or measles, or chickenpox ... because most of the population is vaccinated. Except in groups of, say, Christian Scientists where a whole town isn't vaccinated. So while my views may be controversial on this group (so what else is new?) I just can't be as anti-vaccine as some people. Like I said, I am well aware they have risks. Just not as big risks as the diseases they prevent. Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2005 Report Share Posted July 11, 2005 Heidi, Thanks for elaborating. I think that's a valid perspective on vegetarianism. On vaccines, I'm conflicted, but still more open than I was before to the need for them. http://www.taichi4seniors.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.