A little more clarity is desired before I drop this issue completely. Crookedness of teeth (dental malocclusion, for the technically-minded) had been noticed by many people in the late 1800s/early 1900's in the US. Everyone seemed to agree that it was a sympton of miscegenation. However, Dr. Price knew this couldn't be totally true, because he had plenty of older patients of pure European blood with straight teeth, who brought in their crooked-toothed offspring.
Price had heard that many traditional tribes had completely straight teeth and no or very few cavities. He set out on several multi-year journeys to find out what was up.
He hoped to find a tribe that ate no animal products. He also hoped to find a food plant that made the eating of animal products unnecesary, but never did.
Magnesium is known, more and more, as the most important macro-mineral in the diet. (a study found that hard [mineral-rich] water could prevent heart disease, but only to the degree that it was magnesium-rich. Calciumr-rich water did nothing.)
Price's work found that all the traditional tribes had anywhere from 7-29 times the magnesium in their diets that the standard American diet did. They only had 2-9 times the calcium as the standard American diet. They had, on average, 5 times the water-soluble vitamins (B complex and C) and 10 times the fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, and E) that the standard American diet did.
So to sum up, Price found straight-toothed tribes in excellent health who had many times the vitamins and minerals in their diet that his dental patients in the USA had. Comparing this with Dr. Pottenger's work on cats, how could you possibly question the conclusion that diet is the main factor in determining the straightness or crookedness of teeth?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
...because allergies have also been proven causational in palate arch and tooth crowding/crookedness. And there's a strong indication that there are genetic factors as well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: So to sum up, Price found straight-toothed tribes in excellent health who had many times the vitamins and minerals in their diet that his dental patients in the USA had. Comparing this with Dr. Pottenger's work on cats, how could you possibly question the conclusion that diet is the main factor in determining the straightness or crookedness of teeth?
Some problems with your essay:
1) No sources. Why should we trust what you have to say about what someone else says they found? Where are the other studies that back this up? 2) Magnesium is known by whom as the most important "macro-mineral?" 3) Did Price control for racial bias and other environmental factors (like illness) in his sample? My wife's family has very crooked teeth; my family has very straight teeth. Both families eat similar diets, and both live in the same part of the world -- but come from slightly different genetic stock. If he's studying tribes that are famous for straight teeth, how does he control for a genetic bias in order to isolate diet as the primary factor? (More relevantly, did those members of the tribe who did not eat the traditional diet not have straight teeth?)
And, sure, let's grant that eating more magnesium and calcium gives you straighter teeth. Why is this a revelation? Who would change their life based on this discovery? *shrug* It's a pretty meaningless bit of data, no?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
ketchupqueen--allergies are a side effect of dental malocclusion and improper diet, not a cause. Did you consider the fact that the traditional tribes had perfectly straight teeth, and many times the nutrients in their diets veresus the standard American diet? They were also extremely healthy and ALLERGY-FREE.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Tom--all the tribes who could ate lots of shellfish and organ meats. Take a look at the trace mineral, fat-soluble vitamin, and macro-mineral content of these foods. Simply by eating them versus a McD's cheeseburger, you are absolutely assured of getting a trememdously larger amount of 1. trace minerals, 2. macro-minerals, and 3. fats-soluble vitamins.
Tom, your first question implies that you are calling both Price and Pottenger liars. What are the odds of that? They never met nor corresponded, nor even worked in the same disclipline. It's doubtful they even knew of each other.
Magnesium is known as the most importnat maco-mineral by a number of health professionals. Calcium gets the press because bone matter is mostly calcium, but the reality is that magnesium is a catalyst that allows calcium to form bone. You have to have both, and the hard water study I cited
Tom, the traditional tribe members who switched to a Western diet had children with crooked teeth. It was 100% correlatable, in Price's experience. It makes sense, when you compare the nutrient content of the two diets. You can't build bone without minerals, nor can you build bone without trace nutrients and fat-soluble vitamins, which act as catalysts.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
But where can we, ourselves, read said study, dude?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Which study, Price's? Price's book is about 25 bucks, available by inter-library loan or at Amazon.com.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Tom, your first question implies that you are calling both Price and Pottenger liars. What are the odds of that? They never met nor corresponded, nor even worked in the same disclipline. It's doubtful they even knew of each other.
I'm not sure this logically follows. Why would these two need to have corresponded and collaborated in order to lie on their studies, or -- as is more common in science -- to perform bad studies with poor samples? Surely you aren't saying that two studies covering different topics in different fields with different samples that happen to indicate similar results must be demonstrative of something.
quote:Magnesium is known as the most importnat maco-mineral by a number of health professionals.
The link you provided is to a study which shows -- unless I'm reading it incorrectly, which I may be -- that magnesium in the diet was shown to correlate to a high DBP (ie. a bad thing). Is that the same as being "the most important macro-mineral?" The study concludes by saying that there was a very low level of correlation in ANY case, and that more research would be needed to draw any conclusion due to erratic data.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Tom, I didn't want to post that study because it's very hard to read. It actually says that both cholesterol and DBP are positively correlated to magnesium, and NEGATIVELY correlated to calcium content in WATER, not in diet. In other words, hard water with high calcium actually increases the likelihood of heart disease, whereas hard water with high magnesium lowers the risk.
Tom, Price studied several dozen tribes in Africa, South America, New Zealand, Hawaii, North America, and Europe. What are the odds that all the tribes said the same thing, that 1. shellfish is the best food, 2. organ meats are 2nd best, but were all wrong about that? Correlate that with the fact that those two foods are highest among all foods in fat-soluble vitamin, trace mineral, and macro-mineral content.
Tom, Price set out to find a plant that makes eating animal products unnecessary. How exactly does it make him look good to come back with exactly the opposite conclusion? His research wasn't sloppy. He has at least 100 pictures in his book, plus a couple dozen graphs. Faking photographs was a lot harder in 1939. It would have taken more money than he had at his disposal.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:ketchupqueen--allergies are a side effect of dental malocclusion and improper diet, not a cause. Did you consider the fact that the traditional tribes had perfectly straight teeth, and many times the nutrients in their diets veresus the standard American diet? They were also extremely healthy and ALLERGY-FREE.
Ridiculous! Do you even know how allergies work? We have more allergies because we have less dirt and disease, not because of diet.
Also, some of these things may have been true then, but aren't now. For instance, organ meats contain the highest level of any meat of pesticides and other chemicals known to cause cancer and other problems.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
ketchupqueen--just do your research. I have done mine.
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
No, steven, YOU do the research. YOU are the one providing the theory, it's up to YOU to convince us. Not with your rhetoric, with your *evidence*.
Post the link to the research. "It's too hard to read" doesn't scan with this group. Have you *read* the threads they post?
*sheesh*
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
She has steven, more so than you. She and her doctor have looked into things you don't seem to have considered.
You are the one proposing a radical shift in the way people eat, it is up to you to provide evidence to back it up, particularily since it's claims are against that of modern medical pratices.
Also, I bet Tom read that study just fine...he would hardly claim something it didn't say.
I will read it myself, and comment further.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: A random sample of 207 individuals
That is the first probelm with this study..as VERY small sample.
quote: Intake of magnesium and calcium was calculated from the diet questionnaire with special consideration to the use of local water.
Questionaire? That is another problem...it it can be a useful tool, but isn't the most dependable methodolgy...
quote: This study of individuals living in soft and hard water areas showed significant correlations between the content of calcium in water and major cardiovascular risk factors. This was not found for magnesium in water or calcium or magnesium in diet. Regression analyses indicated that calcium content in water could be a factor in the complexity of relationships and importance of cardiovascular risk factors. From these results it is not possible to conclude any definite causal relation and further research is needed.
Why did you qoute this again? It is VERY clear that they don't think their own study proves anything at all. Hence the last line. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well, no, 207 is a pretty reasonable sample, and one can certainly draw fairly meaningful statistics out of it.
There are plenty of other problems, though, notably that they analyzed the stats and found no causal relationship.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Actually, for a medical study (or a psych one, which I have a little experience with first hand), it is a very small study, and any results would possibly be skewed for any number of reasons.
Actually, now that I think of it, when I did protocols for USAMRIID I had experience with the medical aspect of this as well. Even with some of the larger studies, 50 or more people per group, 5-10 groups, the only way our results would be considered applicable was if we were replicating a similar study that had been done elsewhere.
It is a very small sample for this type of study, and the results would need to be replicated many times for attain significance.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well, I DO think that our society needs to eat more fruits and vegetables. . .
And wear loincloths. Do you know how much aggression would be removed from modern American society if suddenly, all males over the age of 13 had to wear loincloths? Sure, there'd be the oddball dude that enjoyed it. . . but on the whole, three generations of American men would be too scandalized to do much more than be polite in public.
Lemme tell you, them natives have some good ideas. Pass the frog, yo.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Interesting; that's going quite beyond what's needed for many statistical inferences. Of course, medical studies are often trying to detect very small effects, which will require larger studies to detect.
I stand by that its possible to get statistically significant, reasonably meaningful results out of a study that size. Of course, for small effects the meaning may well be "there might be an effect or there might not".
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:I stand by that its possible to get statistically significant, reasonably meaningful results out of a study that size.
Oh, certainly. Most medical studies are way overpowered, and the emphasis is placed on the power calculations instead of on whether the effect looked for is actually clinically significant. Slight-of-hand stuff.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* That's basically where they wound up, fugu. Nothing fell outside SD, so they wrote it up as "we need more studies to prove actual correlation."
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: A little more clarity is desired before I drop this issue completely.
Is that a promise?
Without disputing the veracity of your claims, I have a question that preys on me. Why do you care so much? So some folk have straight teeth and some have crooked teeth. I have more pressing concerns to fill my worry quotient.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That was one of my questions, too.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Tom, My first question or my second?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:accidentally imagines Tom in a loincloth:
:dies:
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom: not quite; they found some correlations (or at least say they did), but there were enough uncontrolled variables involved that they decided they couldn't show causation.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Price never talked about the trace minerals as being a big issue (or at all). He cited the example of the two counties, One in West Texas, and the other in eastern New Mexico, where people had almost no cavities. The soil in those two counties had a layer of caliche (crushed seashell bed) about 6 feet down, and the plants drew up tremendous amounts of calcium and other minerals. When Price used the oil he extracted from this butter (he had it shipped to him), it did a better job of healing cavities in his patients than any other butter he found (and he was getting butter from dozens of places around the world).
I think it has much less to do with the macro-minerals (calcium, magnesium, potassium, etc.) and a lot MORE to do with the trace minerals. The reasons? Ancient alchemists were making a white powder they called the philosopher's stone. The Chinese of 200 B.C. used the same formulas that the Essenes (in Israel and surrounding areas) of the same time period used. I've investigated a number of books on the matter, and have come to the conclusion that if those two cultures were using the same formulas and claiming the same intermediate states, end states, and methods, it begs the question to assume that they were all lying. Exactly who told them both the same lies? There wasn't much cross-cultural contact over the Himalaya at that time or before.
The trace minerals they were extracting are exactly the same ones that show up in the largest amounts in organ meats and shellfish.
I myself have experienced tooth problems that get MUCH better when I partake of 2 substances (and many others have experienced the same things)
1. shellfish, and
2. the product of the first step in making the Philospoer's Stone white powder.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
steven, What can I say? You are a one-of-a-kind. You can bring up a thread that leaves great intellects sputtering, while you remain cool.
Your mind follows its own unique paths, and you march, my friend, to your very own percussion section.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I still want to know why you care. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>it did a better job of healing cavities in his patients than any other butter he found (and he was getting butter from dozens of places around the world).
I didn't realize that cavities could be healed.
EDIT: Hope your doctors, steve, aren't on the same order as this gentleman.
>>you march, my friend, to your very own percussion section.
I've got a disease. And the only cure is more cowbell.
[ July 27, 2005, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Scott, I have heard of dozens of cases of people who go on a raw-animal-foods diet (lots of organ meats, raw dairy, shellfish) and not only heal all their cavities, but even regrow some teeth. The healing of the cavities is assumed, and always happens. Dr. Price noted 100% healing of cavities in every group he studied when they returned to their native diets from a refined-foods diet. He particularly noted this in a group in Switzerland, whose young adults would travel to the large cities of Switzerland, get cavities, then return to their isolated valley and havev all their cavities heal.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Scott, Vinny is not the only RAF out there. Most raw foodists go overboard, into eating too much meat, and getting sick, or going totally vegan, and getting sick. I try to avoid either extreme. I myself have seen my teeth go from sore to fine overnight after a big meal of clams, shrimp, and oysters.
More on Vinny Pinto: I really only think he totally misses the mark when he talks about all the EM stuff (Effective Microorganisms). I don't trust EM. Vinny claims that the Ormus (Philsopher's stone, the white powder) materials respond to the EM stuff. I think I'll stick with the good old white powder. I think Vinny's being taken in by a slick huckster on that issue.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
steven, That is priceless.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The healing of the cavities is assumed, and always happens. Dr. Price noted 100% healing of cavities in every group he studied when they returned to their native diets from a refined-foods diet.
Why do you think more dentists don't believe this is possible?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Tom, all I can say is that all the raw vegans I know (and I know plenty) never bothered to claim that their vegan diet healed teeth. In fact, they often talked about how to deal with their teeth problems. Go to any raw vegan forum, and ask questions about having sore teeth. You will get dozens of tips.
On the other hand, the raw animal foods eaters I know simply assume that they will never have teeth problems. And, they don't. Ask questions about sore teeth on a RAF forum, and you will only get a few suggestions, because their diet makes such problems mostly disappear.
I can name a number of dentists who believe 100% in Dr. Price's work. Here is a link:
Dr. Jefferson has been practicing for 23 years. He is a thoroughly-published author in a number of reputable dental journals. Here is another one:
members.aol.com/karlnishi/page2.htm
I talked to Dr. Nishimura's assistant about the balloons up the nose technique. She mentioned in passing that he pushes Dr. Price's book on almost every patient who comes in the door.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Tom, all I can say is that all the raw vegans I know (and I know plenty) never bothered to claim that their vegan diet healed teeth. In fact, they often talked about how to deal with their teeth problems.
Okay, this brings us back to the question of why you care. You realize what an insanely small percentage of people are raw-food vegans? And you realize that you are, as far as I know, the only person on this board who ever advocated that diet?
It seems to me, steven, that you spend a lot of time looking for ways to complicate your life.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Tom, Dr. Price noticed healing of every disease among tribe members who reverted back to their original diets. The teeth are among many problems that were healed.
Perhaps you are correct about me overcomplicating my life. What else should I do? I work full-time, and have a full life as it is. I don't date much, but that's my choice, is it not?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Tom, Dr. Price noticed healing of every disease among tribe members who reverted back to their original diets. The teeth are among many problems that were healed.
And you don't find it odd that the medical establishment hasn't been all over this? You would rather believe that somehow this information has been suppressed? Posted by Uncle Rico (Member # 8406) on :
Every time I see this thread, I think that it's about Wesley Wyndam-Pryce Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I was just about to make a dobie to that effect, but I didn't want to bring more evil into the world.
It does have some excellent derailing potential, though. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I think the evil's already all here, it just circulates around and changes state.
You know, sometimes it's all locked up in the polar ice caps.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Rogue Decay Hunter?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
steven,
Have you read the one study I asked you to? I'm not going to discuss this again until you come back here with at least a minimum understanding of the scientific method. My requirement for proof of your understanding is when you can explain to me how the method of multiple working hypotheses might have a bearing on Dr. Price's work and how one might conduct a more controlled study to replicate his research in manner that would allow one to draw a more certain conclusion.
I personally don't understand how you think it's at all acceptable or appropriate to come here "challenging" people to read the same old stuff and then refuse to take even the most basic steps to further your own understanding after being repeatedly told by people who actually KNOW THIS AND DO IT FOR A LIVING that you (and Dr. Price) are not applying the scientific method in a way that supports your conclusions.
In other words, put up or shut up.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Bob, Tom, Why does it bother you so much that steven holds unconventional ideas? You know he's in the minority. You know he is firmly committed to his beliefs. Just let him be off in his own little circle of straight-toothed raw meat eaters, and stop letting it bother you so much.
To quote Tom,
quote:I still want to know why you care.
I don't think steven has said anything mean or hostile to anyone on this thread, he is just trying to defend an unpopular theory. You don't have to agree with him, and it is unlikely that your arguments are going to change his mind.
Let it be.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tante,
It bugs me only because we've already been through this discussion and he came back today with the same old stuff.
And, frankly, ignorance of science and the scientific method just plain gets me angry. This pseudo-science mumbo jumbo and and everyone gets to believe whatever they think is true AND they get to either misquote or misapply "data" to back them up is, I think, contributing to the dumbing down of America and the world.
From this, we get Presidents consulting astrologers to make important decisions and the people of this country just shrugging it off like "well, that's as good as any other method."
And basically, since my livelihood depends on being able to work FROM a set of facts to a conclusion, one of the biggest problems I face is when ignorant people think that the facts are mutable.
In short, I dislike liars and I have little tolerance for people who misuse science. In fact, I have no tolerance for it. Whether deliberate or through ignorance.
I spent the better part of a week being civil to steven and trying to help him understand why I (and so many others) thought that his conclusions were not warranted.
In the midst of this, he basically SHOUTED at us to go read his favorite author. I did. Then, when I came back to explain why I saw on the referenced website, he admitted to not having even looked at the website he was urging us to go visit!
On top of all that, I was still being civil to him.
The thread ended, if I recall correctly, with me telling steven of one readily available resource that would, in the space of minutes, give him a firmer footing on what this science business is all about. In return for slogging through the cr@p he pointed us to, I asked him to go there and read one flippin' article.
Instead, he waited a week or so and basically came back here with the same snarky attitude and agressive stupidity regarding science.
It's not that he's just being "different." He is emblematic of all that is wrong with the way this society treats information. It's why, IMHO, we have so many stupid arguments -- because people bend the facts to fit their prejudices instead of the other way around.
And while I can usually ignore it, when someone gets belligerent about it, I feel it is not only my right, but my duty as a thinking person to a) try to correct them b) failing in that, ask them politely to educate themselves, c) failing that, I think the only recourse is to call the person on it in a manner that perhaps will finally get through. But even it doesn't get through, I'll have the satisfaction of calling them an idiot and a fool.
And now...
To Steven,
I'm sorry for the harshness of my tone here. You obviously have hit upon an area that I don't have much of a live and let live attitude about. But, seriously, your misuse and misapplication of science is annoying and serves only to display a profound lack of knowledge on the subject.
I hope you'll take steps to remedy this, as, to me, there are few inventions of man as wonderful as the scientific method of understanding.
If you won't read that one article, I invite you to at least consider the possibility that you don't know enough about science to properly interpret the data you are citing. The study is full of holes. Trust me on this. I know, as do others here, that the kind of observational method used by Dr. Price has been discredited for a long time -- even, in fact, before he used it.
It's not that observational studies aren't valuable. It's just that the way he performed his work makes it particularly prone to selection bias, third variable problems, and mistaking correlation for causation.
So...the guys work is doo-doo.
It can't be used to make the points you want to make.
And it wouldn't matter if you could parade billions of people with straight teeth and crooked teeth and the correlation was 100% in keeping with your idee fixe. It wouldn't be proof. It would, at best, be an interesting phenomenon worthy of further study by someone who knew what they were doing.
and, steven, if you really care about convincing us (or me at any rate), go read that article I pointed you to and see if you don't come up with at least one way that you yourself could improve upon Dr. Price's methodology.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Why does it bother you so much that steven holds unconventional ideas?
Honestly? Not because I think he's violating some law of intellectual integrity -- I'll leave that one to Bob -- but because I worry about Steven and think he's going to make himself mentally ill by focusing on the kind of conspiracy theories and subcultural superstitions that are required by that line of inquiry. I've seen it happen to more than a handful of people in my circle, including my own brother -- who's been sucked into every religious and/or health-related fad that's blown down the left side of the aisle over the last ten years -- and it's always a shame.
He's clearly a bright guy. And I don't want to see him drop out of society and start wearing hemp sandals.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:drop out of society and start wearing hemp sandals.
Whereas dropping out of society and wearing Converse All Stars would be just fine.
Hmm... Tante, I hadn't really thought of that, but the whole obsessive idee fixe thing really is troubling.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
As part of my job as a visiting nurse, I go to people's homes to teach them about their diseases and conditions and how to take care of themselves. Most folk respect my knowledge and expertise and are glad for the opportunity to have professinal guidance. Some folk have nutty ideas. Some folk are seriously committed to their nutty ideas, and if I disparage their belief system, I will soon find myself no longer welcome in their homes and unable to do anything to help them.
Not everyone has to agree with me. Even though I am right almost all the time. If people want to be wrong and hold to their misinformation, I let it be, as long as it is not harming anyone. If it is harmful, I try to modify their behavior by respecting their beliefs, but also introducing mine and trying to convince them to integrate my way of doing things into theirs.
If things are seriously harmful, I am sometimes forced to take drastic measures (such as removing people from their homes and placing them into a safer environment) but this is a very rarely used option, to be considered in only the most drastic of situations.
steven's beliefs are not harmful to anyone, and if I were his nurse, I would make sure that he understood the risk of disease transmission (of Hepatitis, for instance) in eating raw shellfish. If he understands those risks, then he can make his own decisions about whether he is willing to assume them.
Trying to change his belief system so that it correllates with mine, is unproductive. Even if I am right almost all of the time.
That's why I say, "let it be."
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Bob,
what can I say? at least you're treating me like a human being. I'd read your article, but I deleted my thread. If you'd repost it or email it to me, I'd take a look. I can almost guarantee it won't change my mind about Price's work, but I am not completely closed.
Tom--I did the "drop out of society" thing already, on my 3 year hiatus from Hatrack and Ornery. I lived in Costa Rica for a while, eating nothing but wild raw food for weeks and months on end. It wasn't the worst thing that ever happened.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: I myself have seen my teeth go from sore to fine overnight after a big meal of clams, shrimp, and oysters.
Overnight? Wow, you managed to beat een th body's system of absorbtion and distrabution with that record.
No matter what you took/ate/drank, it would take far longer than overnight to affect you in that way. Not to say that it is a lie, I am sure you believe it, but it isn't physically possible.
There ARE things that can be absorbed very very fast by the body, but I don't think shellfish qualifies as one of them. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Well I'll be. Bob's post here actually saved this thread for me.
I salute you, sir. And, for what it's worth, I totally agree with you. Why statistics is not required in all high schools I'll never know. And, for that matter, biology.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Steven. Just Google "Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses" (use the quotation marks) and click on the first article you see. It'll either be TC Chamberlain's original article, or a reasonable synopsis of it with a pointer to the original article.
Or, you can go to practically any college library and get the thing (probably off of microfilm since it's so old).
Tante...steven's ideas are "dangerous" not because he might die from Hepatitis, but because they help to spread the "ignorance of science" meme that this country seems to be so in love with.
In your professional capacity, you have to be circumspect in order to help people in other areas of their lives. I don't. This the area of their life that I can help with. It is one of about three things I know well enough to be competent in. Will anyone die if steven doesn't learn more about science? No, maybe not. But when I ask myself how does the ignorance meme spread, the answer I get is not just through an appalling lack of proper education, but also through tolerance of the idiotic claims made by the ignorant, or hucksters.
I really haven't decide which steven is. He is so enamored of that group that has appropriated Dr. Price's name and turned this into some sort of dietary crusade (with money making opportunities as a side benefit) that I am half-convinced he has a financial stake in all of this too.
But at the very least, my silence could be construed as assent and that would simply make the ignorance meme spread.
So, at the risk of exposing my own obsessive nature, I rail against this meme wherever I see it.
And when I encounter it in its most aggressive form (as I believe steven has so amply demonstrated to us), I get the rare opportunity to justify a certain level of departure from my normally civil behavior.
Even then, however, I have to tell you that I feel as if I've been extraordinarily tolerant as it took me weeks to build up to the point of <virtually> yelling at him.
Really, it's for his own good. I have only the purest intentions.
[ July 28, 2005, 07:58 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Bob (the lawyer): Biology wasn't a required class for you? It was for me. I expected better of Canada. *shakes head sadly*
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Biology was required for me, too.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
In the high school where I teach, where there are other options offered in lieu of chemistry and physics, every student takes biology.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Yeah, biology was required but I agree, statistics would be a good thing to teach in high school.
One of the things that draws me to communications as a field is the opportunity of working with health and medical communication. I first got interested when discussing my aunt's research work - she is getting her master's in public health, concentrating in Health Behavior.
I am always astounded when I learn how ignorant people are of basic things everyone should know about their bodies and how to evaluate something. Look at the television. Have you seen the ad by the guy who claims to have cured diabetes?
If he were a true scientist and physician he would have published in a peer-reviewed journal. He would not be on TV hawking his book - which I'm sure has earned him quite a lot of money.
People buy into hack theories and don't know the first thing about how to test those theories for validity. It's sad, it's disheartening and I'm sure that many people have suffered because they put off traditional medical treatment for the hack theory of the day.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Bob,
I read the article. But,
now how EXACTLY is it that Dr. Pottenger's work doesn't fulfill the standards of the scientific method? this guy:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottenger
He found the same problems in cats that Price found in humans.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
steven.
Not so fast...
Now, the deal was you owe me some alternative explanations of Dr. Price's work in your own words. This means you have to:
1) Think through the issues using the method of multiple working hypotheses as kind of a guide to what could possibly explain his data.
2) At least for the moment, suspend your belief that he was right and try to think of all the possible ways his data could be explained other than with his pet theory.
After that, then we'll discuss each of those alternative hypotheses.
As for the cats. Please forget the cats for now. We need to proceed through this in a logical fashion. I won't lie to you, I hope to convince you that the cat data have little or no bearing on the human issue, but I don't expect you to buy that yet (if you ever will). I think we need to develop a bit of a shared vocabulary first.
I think the best way to do that is to spend some time dissecting the Price study first.
It's a very instructive study if you'd like to go through it with me the way a skeptical scientist would.
Up to you. I know this is sort of a pain and not at all pleasant in that you have to publicly show your thought processes. I feel a bit of a jerk asking you to do it too.
But I just can't talk to you about Price anymore without us coming to some sort of understanding.
I swear if you ask me "what about the cats" one more time (without first coming to terms with the scientific method), I'm going to virtually throttle you.
So up to you.
I can shut up and stay out of this thread, or we can go through this systematically. If you promise not to get too embarrassed, I'll promise to try not to be such a $@#$#@ pompous ass.
Your call.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
Steven, cats are carnivores. Of COURSE it's better for them to eat raw foods(meat in particular) than to eat processed meats or plants. Thier absorbtion rates are evolutionarily designed for that kind of diet.
It's like feeding grass to a horse and saying the human will benefit from an all-grass diet because the horse did.
On other topics: I think biology ought to be taught in high schools, too, but I think it ought to go further than that. I think every high school student ought to leave with some understanding of nutrition. And not the stupid food pyramid, how things actually get used in the body. The little nutrition education I've had has changed the way I think about food. Also, it might make people like steven a little more skeptical (one would hope).
Ni!
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
kwsni, you completely missed my point. Price found exactly the same skeletal defects (including crooked teeth) in humans on deficient diets that Pottenger found on cooked/deficient diets for cats. The exact same defects.
OK, Bob, my thought processes are are least partially inductive-leap based, which I've gotten myself into trouble with in the past. Basically, I looked at all the following facts:
1. shellfish and organ meats have the highest amounts of fat-soluble vitamins, trace elements, and macro-minerals of any foods
2. Price said all the tribes praised these two foods
3. raw animals foodists by the dozens and hundreds have experienced tooth regeneration on their RAF diets
4. raw vegans experience tooth problems, and rarely any tooth regeneration
5. Price has got about 80-90 pictures in his books, from a time when photographs were ass-harder to fake
6. Pottenger found the same things as Price, working indenependently
7. My teeth were spiralling downward, worse and worse, until I started eat more shellfish
There's just no question that good-quality shellfish and organ meats heal teeth problems, in my mind. For me, it's no great leap to then, based on the Price and Pottenger work taken together, believe that both did a careful job with their research and were honest with what they found.
There are simply too many things to list from Price's book that convinced me (although the photographs were really powerful).
Bob, it just begs the question to say that Price would have spent 14 years total, in 4 separate trips, separated by months and years, travelling around the world to every god-forsaken, malaria-ridden tropical B.F.E. on the globe without some good excuse. It's not like he did this research BEFORE practicing for almost 30 years as a dentist. The guy really had a bug up his ass about 3 things:
1. His straight-toothed, pure European stock adult patients had kids with crooked teeth, and
2. Everybody said crooked teeth were caused by race-mixing.
3. He had heard repeatedly that traditional tribes all over the world had excellent teeth.
After 30 years as a practicing dentist, this guy wanted some ANSWERS re: those 3 facts. In my book, he found them. Why would a man in his 50's and 60's go to the amazing, ridiculous HASSLE of traveling all over the hottest, nastiest (and with the Eskimos, the most Godforsaken frozen) backwaters on the planet (and back then, it was harder to travel) unless he (and the guy was a dentist, he KNEW about teeth firsthand) had a good reason? He was no fool when it came to teeth. How could any practicing dentist be after 30 years inside people's mouths?
Besides, I actually disagree with Price on the causative factors. I think it's all about trace elements in microcluster form. I think the macro-minerals are of minimal importance. Price thought it was all about the fat-soluble vitamins and the magnesium, but I think he missed the boat on that.
I am a little obsessive about this. Hmmm...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: There's just no question that good-quality shellfish and organ meats heal teeth problems, in my mind. For me, it's no great leap to then, based on the Price and Pottenger work taken together, believe that both did a careful job with their research and were honest with what they found.
This is, I think you'll admit, exactly the wrong order in which to do this.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Only if he really read, and understood, that article would he admit that, Tom...
I have yet to see any credible proof of tooth regeneration from another source, steven, so I am not likely to accept it on your word. If this has happened, there would be a huge outcry from the international establishment, to be sure...so where are the links to those?
I have also not seen any outside sources mentioning those "macro" nutrients at all, I am waiting for those as well. I would be interested on why you feel that despite all his "expertise", as you claim, you feel you are qualified to determine that he is wrong about any of this. What type of experience do you have in these fields?
And I don't mean how many times have you eaten shellfish. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I just did a fairly extensive google search and found out a few things...
The only references I found about Dr. Price were from people wo were members or followers of his foundation, most of whom make a living at it. The exception to this awas the alt/med sites, who swallow it hook, line, and sinker. However I also found little to no mention of him in ANY scientific journal, other than the materials his foundation released.
At one point during his research he conducted an experiment in this manner: He too a human tooth ans sewed it inside a living rabbits moth, covered with tissue. After 30 days the rabbit developed gum disease, and he claimed that was "proof" that his theories were true.
Why are we wasting time on a quack like that? It is no wonder that the medical establishment has not even bothered to debunk his "studies"...
Kwea
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
<insert virtual throttling of steven>
steven,
reasserting what your beliefs are and your reasons for holding them isn't part of the deal. I thought you understood this.
It's an exercise in critical thinking, not another opportunity to repeat what you've already told us.
If it would help, ask "what would a skeptic think?"
All good scientists do this too, with their own work. It's how they know when they've crossed the ts and dotted the i's.
Like I said, you don't have to, but the gap between us is widening, my friend. The problem is NOT that you think these things and are almost certainly wrong. The problem is that I (and most everyone else here) knows that your line of reasoning is flawed, so that even if you are right (and Price is right -- I've wanted to use that one for days!), there's no compelling reason to believe you, or him.
Trust me on this. The further quoting from Price's work, and it's eerie similarity to later work in cats, is unconvincing. There is nothing (including annoying repetition, or especially annoying repetition) that will make it convincing in and of itself.
I'd hoped we could get to the point where we could perhaps agree on the kinds of studies that would be capable of demonstrating the truth (or lack thereof) in Price's work. I would've really enjoyed that discussion.
But the condition for me engaging in that discussion with you is that you at least TRY, really TRY, to understand how to reason using the results and methods of science.
PS: tell the truth, you're really one of my nephews sent here by my brother to torment me, aren't you? Or, this is research for a story you're writing about someone who dies of Hepatitis because they swallowed (pardon the pun) some unproven dietary advice.
Seriously, steven, the term "aggressive ignorance" is right on the tip of my tongue. Not only don't you know beans about science, you refuse to admit that you don't know, and you refuse to educate yourself.
That's your choice. We can't all be educated in everything. Heck, I forgot my PIN number because I had to memorize a new phone number. There's only so much room in the old noggin.
But you seem to want us to take your claims seriously and believe the "science" you promote is valid. You should pick a more credible crowd if you aren't going to do the work to actually understand science when you talk to the folks here.
Sorry, but I'm no longer responding to you until (and unless) you at least take a stab at coming up with alternative hypotheses to explain Price's research.
Oh, and by the way, he wasn't the first person to spend a lifetime (and massive amounts of cash) chasing something about he turned out to be wrong.
Go look up Phrenology.
Oh wait, you'd better not.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Reverend Thrower used phrenology, and it gave him a pretty fair reading on Alvin.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: Heck, I forgot my PIN number because I had to memorize a new phone number. There's only so much room in the old noggin.
lol
Just remember (if you can) that it is getting smaller up there every day, Bob. Every day.
Look up The Bell Curve for more bad science, far more recently.
Funny thing is that this COULD have been a healthy discussion about what had been done to prove these theories in the past (by other researchers), and what could be done to test these theories independantly in todays day and age.
Then again, how many rabbits and cats would you need? The MSPCA might have a problem with that these days. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
steven, I'm glad your teeth are feeling better.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Bob, I just am not sure what you want me to say. Further research is needed? If I say that, will you be happy? Will you take a look at Price's book? I still think that if you were to carefully at all the pictures in the book, and read the captions, you'd think differently.
I'd still like to point out that one of Price's biggest goals was to find a plant that would allow people to not eat any animal products. How does THAT fit the mold of "make the findings fit the hypothesis"? He proved himself wrong, and published it. I think most of the reason he went on his 3rd and 4th trips was because he was still hoping to find a way around the "eat shellfish and organ meats" mantra that kept coming up with every tribe.
He proved himself wrong about the workability of a vegan diet, then published a 500-page book about just how completely wrong he was.
Now how EXACTLY does that show arrogance? I'm not saying the guy was perfect, because I think he was wrong about the importance of trace minerals. However, in my opionion, it took at least a little humility to say, "well, I spent thousands of dollars and years of my life just to show that I was dead wrong about veganism".
All 500 pages are about how WRONG veganism is. His whole journey(s) was predicated on making veganism work. His entire book was about how veganism DOESN'T work.
"multiple working hypotheses" seems irrelevant in the face of "I was wrong. Here's 500 pages of how wrong I was." But maybe that's just me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Bob, I just am not sure what you want me to say. Further research is needed? If I say that, will you be happy?
I think what Bob wants is for you to make an effort to point out the obvious flaws in Price's methodology. What, in other words, would you have done differently if you were conducting his study in order to eliminate possible variables?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I admit that Price's methods were wrong. The end result was that he decided that fat-soluble vitamins and macro-minerals, mainly magnesium were the most important factors in making strong health. He was missing, in my book, the most important part of food--the trace minerals.
Trace minerals, particularly the microcluster Iridium and Rhodium, are, in my guess, more important than any other aspect of food.
Brain matter, when rendered down to remove all organic matter, is 2.5% microcluster Rhodium and 2.5% microcluster Iridium. Many tribes said that brain matter was some of the best kind of organ meat for building health.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Tom--Price was busy being a dentist, father, and husband for 40-50 years. His side gig was researching and writing books like "nutrition and physical degeneration". I doubt he had the same kind of access to microcluster research that anybody who uses the Internet has. Maybe he should have spent a little more time meditating on it all.
The guy was partially a product of his time. Microclusters just weren't as openly talked about then.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I admit that Price's methods were wrong. The end result was that he decided that fat-soluble vitamins and macro-minerals, mainly magnesium were the most important factors in making strong health.
No, see, you're still doing it. You say "Price's methods were wrong," and then instead of explaining in what ways you believe Price's methods were wrong, you say what you think was wrong with his conclusion.
What methods of his were wrong?
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Many tribes said that brain matter was some of the best kind of organ meat for building health.
That would also be the best kind of organ meat to eat if you want to develop vCJD. I'm thinking it's not worth it.
--Mel
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Tom, I haven't analyzed it like that. My basic idea is that he didn't understand physics enough to see (and I'm still working on my understanding of this) how microcluster particles interact with fats, sugars, and substances that don't form natural microclusters. Like I said, he's a product of his time.
I don't know. Why would EXACTLY, you assume I happen to be able to come up with this on the fly? My brain is more oriented toward home and family. I'm not even sure how to approach that.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It isn't "on the fly" steven, you are making unsubstantiated claims, and using bad science to back it up, and some REAL scientists have a problem with that.
They have explained some of the flaws he made in methodology, and asked why you believe what you do considering that....and you have ignored all efforts to get you to talk about the science of it (or the lack thereof), and what could be done to make such studies better in the future, so that these wild claims, if they are true, could be validated in a measured and scientific manner.
Dude, I am a 35 year old married man, with a full time job and a part time job, and I have no problem understanding most of what they are saying.
If you want to start an intellectual (or pseudo-intellectual) conversation here, be prepared to back up your claims with more than "Well, he said so so it MUST be true, why would he lie?". Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Kwea is a dude? Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yep, always have been.
Where have you been, Porter? I talk about my wife all the time, and have even posted multiple pic on madowl, for the picnics last year. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I must have missed all of that.
I hang my head in shame.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
lol
No biggie, I had trouble keeping up with all of your screennames last year, although I did a better job than most I think. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
We* get bored sometimes.
*royal "we"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I talk about my wife all the time.
Well, you live in Massachusetts, don't you? Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Personally, I choose to accept Kwea for the person he is and not judge him by his girly name.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: I still think that if you were to carefully at all the pictures in the book, and read the captions, you'd think differently.
steven, this statement demonstrates your utter lack of appreciation for the limitations of Price's method and why it would fail to convince a skeptic, let alone someone who knows about the scientific method.
I realize you don't understand what I'm asking you, but I don't really know how to ask it any plainer.
1) Sit down 2) PRETEND you are skeptical 3) Look at Price's methods and write down every possible critique you can think of. 4) Develop alternative explanations for the results he got based on the flaws in his method. 5) Come back here and give us a couple of them that you'd like to discuss.
It's not that difficult. First time through it'll seem hard because you aren't used to suspending your belief in his findings. But it does get easier as you learn to spot the inherent weaknesses in not just this study, but EVERY scientific study.
What separates good science from bad science is:
1) A careful attention to methodology 2) An honest approach to the limitations of the methods taht are used.
I don't expect you to become a scientist before I'll talk to you. But I do hope that you'll make an attempt to understand why repeating your belief isn't really making anyone take you seriously. It's not because we don't think you're earnest. It's just that there's no basis for your belief that you've given us. We know why YOU believe it, but you've said nothing that would convince US.
Seriously...nothing.
So...if you want to convince someone, it's up to you to do more than urge us to read a book. Before I'd ever WANT to read this particular book, I'd have to think that perhaps I was wrong about his method. So far, everything you've told me has confirmed that Price was one of a long line of amateurs whose methods were crude and, as a consequence, whose DATA can't be used to draw conclusions. Not just that his conclusions are wrong, but his data are flawed too.
And it doesnt' matter how much time and money he spent collecting bad data. It's still bad data.
In part, I think, because he collected it with the end goal in mind. BIG RED FLAG.
But also because the limitations of observational studies are such that no amount of care is sufficient to overcome them.
Now, I'm not saying it's impossible to come up with useful conclusions this way. The guy who figured out how to stop the plague outbreaks in London did it with a map and some brains. But I'm not about to radically alter my diet based on a bunch of data I can't take seriously.
The time you've spent here arguing, you could've already done what I asked 3 or 4 times over.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Bob,
I was willing to let this thread die a long time ago.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Personally, I choose to accept Kwea for the person he is and not judge him by his girly name.
That's because deep down, you're a good person.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: think I'm wrong about the microclusters
Bob isn't asking you to think you're wrong about the microclusters. He's not asking you to think about your conclusions at all. He's asking you to think about how those conclusions were arrived at.
If the Greeks thought that the earth was a sphere because sphere's are "perfect" shapes, they're analysis would have been faulty, even if the earth was a sphere.
Here's the principle you're utterly missing: one set of photographs and data on the diets eaten by the people in the photographs cannot prove the proposition that shell fish and organ meat produce straight teeth and better overall health.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Bob, I don't care about convincing you.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
NONE of us believe you, steven. You haven't given us enough proof. And if you didn't want to convince us, then why bother posting it?
Ni!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not even a question of convincing someone. It's a question of what evidence is sufficient to convince you of a complex causal relationship between two events.
My big fear is that people in power who are swayed by evidence as you are will implement rules that end up costing lives. Check out the guns/doctors thread for a good example of this. Also check out the power-line EMF controversy some time and see how people who blithely accepted correlation as causation almost cost us as a society billions of dollars.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Why would EXACTLY, you assume I happen to be able to come up with this on the fly? My brain is more oriented toward home and family. I'm not even sure how to approach that.
Is this a sincere question? Because, if so, I'd be willing to drop you a few E-mails about statistics and the scientific method. I think anything on this thread would be met with hostility, but I wouldn't mind helping you with this in private.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tom, that's a very generous offer.
steven,
I'm sorry if I upset you. I thought you were indeed trying to convince people here of the wisdom of (and scientific basis for) the dietary choices you're discussing. In which case, I was trying to explain why you weren't getting anywhere.
I do lots of silly things because I believe in their truth. I know that it's basically from personal experience or trust in another person's advice that I do them. It's no great sin, IMHO, to live like that.
But I also know not to try to pass off my beliefs as anything but the unsubstantiated, highly personal ideas that they are. Whether it's my faith in God (idiosyncratic as that may be) or my purchase of Co-Enzyme Q-10 supplements, it's all personal.
Now, had you come here and talked about your personal experience with a particular diet, and that you wonder if there'd be any truth to the claims (by followers of Price, for example) of the health benefits of this, that, or the other thing, I do believe you might've even gotten some reasonable discussion. You also would probably have received dire warnings about the consequences of eating certain foods raw...
But instead, you have chosen, repeatedly I might add, to become belligerent when people show no signs of reading Dr. Price's book(s), or when they question his research, or refuse to put much stock in the data on cats.
Look...it's really a wonder any of us are still here paying any attention to this thread at all. And, for my part, it's because I had some hope of sharing with you a bit of the knowledge that could help you become wiser in deciding whether to believe claims like those you've made here. I.e., that the "science" supports your conclusions.
It's because some of us deeply care about these subjects that we're willing to even try. You don't have to take our help. You may not want it. If you do take it, you may wish you hadn't because instead of the certainty you feel today, you will know the uncertainty that abounds in the human realm of scientific exploration on ANY topic.
I think you should take Tom up on his offer. I have already decided that I am not the right person to teach you this. I'm at the end of my patience and I really don't have the time. I would've worked on it here spending my meagre allotment of Hatrack time walking you through the process. But I'm not about to devote other time to this. Tom sounds willing.
I wish there was a way to force you to do it. But that just tells me even more clearly that I'm not the one to teach you.
Good luck.
Adieu. I'm off to the fluff threads.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:I'm off to the fluff threads.
See you at the fluffies!
After this merry-go-round of a thread went around one time too often, I got dizzy and stepped off. If everyone gets off, I believe it will stop going around and around without ever getting anywhere.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I don't feel fully capable of teaching more than one person at a time re: all this. I have more support for my conclusions, but I would prefer to either
1. restrict the questioners on the thread to 1 or 2, to keep focus, or
2. restrict the number of questions to 1 every couple of days
The other alternative is to do it entirely by e-mail. I welcome input on how this could be done.
A little more on the science of it.
First, I am assuming that the crookedness vs. straightness of teeth that Dr. Price found 9and Pottenger) is a nutritional issue. I think Bob is on the same page with me on this part of the issue. Bob, if you are not, speak up.
All the tribes praised these foods in order of usefulness
1. shellfish 2. organ meats 3. marrow 4. large slabs of subcutaneous fat
They would sometimes kill an entire herd of reindeer (or other animals) simply for a certain body part, ALWAYS a fatty body part.
That ranking of four foods is exactly the order in which those foods contain
1. trace minerals 2. fat-soluble nutrients, and 3. macro-minerals
shellfish, far and away, contain more trace minerals than any other food. It's not even close.
Muscle meat contains very little nutrition compared to these other foods. It's quite simple---the foods the tribes praised also had the highest levels of nutrition, in the exact order they praised them. You can check it for yourself.
It's a simple fact that minerals and fat like each other. I don't know why, on a molecular level, but all minerals tend to gravitate toward fat, and away from protein (muscle tissue). I wouldn't mind someone explaining why this is, but it's an absolute truth, so far as I can tell from studying the nutrient content of muscle meat vs. fatty tissue.
Think about that. The tribes all praised the foods that had the most nutrition.
There is only one component of food that Price and I have ignored, and that's the water-soluble nutrients. I think they play a supporting role in nutrition, not a main role. I feel this way because
a. I know a lot of people who have gotten really sick on a fruitarian diet, especially having major tooth problems, to the point where many of them decide that teeth falling out is "OK" ,rather than eating some animal products
b. minerals are an absolute necessity for building and maintaining bones and teeth, and minerals tend to gravitate toward the fatty parts of plants and animals. In other words, if you're eating an apple, most of the minerals and fats are in the seed. They go together like a horse and carriage. The water-soluble vitamins are in the flesh.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay, steven, you're still not actually discussing the scientific method, here. Do you understand what it is?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Am I not allowed to butt in anymore? Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tante, why wouldn't you be allowed to butt in?
steven,
I'm not on the same page with you. I'm not even in the same book. I'm worrying we may not be in the same library.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Bob said:
quote: Tante, why wouldn't you be allowed to butt in?
steven said:
quote:I don't feel fully capable of teaching more than one person at a time re: all this. I have more support for my conclusions, but I would prefer to either
1. restrict the questioners on the thread to 1 or 2, to keep focus, or
2. restrict the number of questions to 1 every couple of days
Oh, but I'm not a questioner, unless the question "Why can't we all just get along?" counts. I'm more like an interested snickerer. I'm watching you all get all hot and bothered, and I'm just sitting here enjoying the show.
Carry on!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>> I'm more like an interested snickerer.
>>If everyone gets off, I believe it will stop going around and around without ever getting anywhere.
Hmm. . . the way this is worded implies that once everyone gets off, the merry-go-round will go somewhere.
The question is where will it go?
Will it go to Rome? Will it go to Spain?
Will it go on home After dancing in the rain?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
You should ask the prophet Playing on the train
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>You should ask the prophet Playing on the train
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I was willing to let this thread die a long time ago.
You've said that before, but then you keep making these threads and posting on them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Letting it die is one thing. Letting it die with somebody else having the last word is another. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
*slaps forehead*
Ah. Silly me.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Well, let's all get on the same page here.
Does everyone agree that it's kind of difficult to build bone without the necessary minerals? (calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, etc.)?
Do we all agree that fat-soluble vitamins act as catalysts for those bone-building minerals?
Do we all agree that all the traditional tribes prized fatty tissue far above all other body parts (muscle meat)?
Do we all agree that fat-soluble vitamins are generally found in fatty tissue, more than in muscle meat?
Do we all agree that trace minerals are found in the largest amount in shellfish, followed by fatty organs, followed by other fatty tissues?
What does everyone want?
Answer me one question---why do the foods that all traditional tribes prized have the highest content of minerals and fat-soluble vitamins?
Every time I start thinking I'm wrong, I remember the 20,000 Guaymi Indians in Costa Rica, straight-toothed and much healthier than the average Hatracker. Now, to be fair, they have all the same relationship and humans issues that we do. They cheat on their spouses, and they cry when their spouses leave them, just like almost any group of humans. I've seen it happen.
I may have already got what I wanted, anyway, on this thread. Here's a quote from Bob:
"and Price is right -- "
I think some of you may have missed it. It looks to me like Bob's issue is with my methods, not my conclusions.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Your conclusions also include the idea that you can regrow teeth and that these minerals are a magical healing agent that will make you live forever.
Also, you're making some really sweeping generalizations about "all traditional tribes." Which tribes are we talking about? I want specifics.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I may have already got what I wanted, anyway, on this thread. Here's a quote from Bob:
"and Price is right -- "
I think some of you may have missed it. It looks to me like Bob's issue is with my methods, not my conclusions.
You are either dishonest or lack basic reading comprehension skills. Here's what Bob said:
quote:so that even if you are right (and Price is right -- I've wanted to use that one for days!), there's no compelling reason to believe you, or him.
"Even if..." does not mean that Bob agrees with your conclusion.
So the question before us: Are you a liar? Or are you a poor reader?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Give him the benefit of the doubt, Dagonee. He could be both.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:I may have already got what I wanted, anyway, on this thread. Here's a quote from Bob:
"and Price is right -- "
I think some of you may have missed it.
The clause you quoted, in context, is part of a conditional. That is,
quote:The problem is that I (and most everyone else here) knows that your line of reasoning is flawed, so that even if you are right (and Price is right -- I've wanted to use that one for days!), there's no compelling reason to believe you, or him.
is accurately translated as
quote:so that even if you [and Price] are right, then ...
The "Price is right" reference is to a pop cultural icon game show. The clue is Bob's tongue-in-cheek "I've wanted to use that one for days!" (note: italics added for emphasis). By saying "that one," he indicates it is a specific type of thing, namely, a pun.
I speak Bobbish.
quote:It looks to me like Bob's issue is with my methods, not my conclusions.
Yes.
That is, he doesn't claim to know the truth value of your conclusion. He can't assess it because the methods you use to get there don't make sense.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Here's a quote from Bob: "and Price is right -- "
Bob_Scopatz, COME ON DOWN! You're the next contestant on THE PRICE IS RIGHT!!!"
<huge applause from studio audience. Bob jumping up and down like a giddy bobby socker, squealing and shreiking, and hugging Bob Barker. Going to his podium and getting ready to bid the closest price without going over for some broadloom carpet and a sofa>
Uh. What? I'm sorry! But I can't have been the only one that had that image just go through the imagination. Back to our regularly scheduled earnestness.
Teeth, traditional tribes, eating brains and clams, scientific method, indignation, indigestion, yadda yadda yadda.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
What is this "pun" of which you speak, ClaudiaTherese?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I still think that the Price is Right is working through their stock of prizes donated by companies in the 1980's.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Clocks from the Michael C. Fina Company. Carpet by Broyhill. Turtle Wax. Clams and Brains.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Does everyone agree that it's kind of difficult to build bone without the necessary minerals? (calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, etc.)?
Of course.
quote:Do we all agree that fat-soluble vitamins act as catalysts for those bone-building minerals?
Do you mean we need Vitamin D to build bone? Then again, of course.
quote:Do we all agree that all the traditional tribes prized fatty tissue far above all other body parts (muscle meat)?
No. "All the traditional tribes" is far to broad a term to use in any context, let alone this one.
quote:Do we all agree that fat-soluble vitamins are generally found in fatty tissue, more than in muscle meat?
Yes, they are found in fatty tissue. No, fatty tissue is no the only or even best source.
quote:Do we all agree that trace minerals are found in the largest amount in shellfish, followed by fatty organs, followed by other fatty tissues?
*shrug* Do you think all traditional tribes live within range of shellfish?
None of these lead to your conclusion that straight teeth follows from this diet. None of these lead to your conclusion that better health follows from this diet. None of these preclude the possibility that there are other causes of crooked teeth. And none of these preclude the possibility that there are other sources of these minerals and vitamins.
We can grant every single premise you put forth, and the conclusions you reach still aren't supported.
Dagonee
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Jon Boy--I can provide a partial list right here, as well as links:
Here's the list: Dinka, Maori, Polynesians of all kinds, including Hawaiians, Australian Aborigines, Native Americans of all types, including Cherokee, Eskimo, Seminole, Peruvians, Bantu, Masai, and some European groups, Loetschenstal Swiss and Hebrides Scots. It's a very partial list. Price's book is a condensation of his conclusions, and he doesn't cite every meal he ate with everybody he met. It's a 500-page condensation. He did a lot. he mentions other tribes as well, but I can't bring them all up from memory.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Dag, when I say fatty tissue, I mean brains, liver, kidneys, marrow, etc., almost everything but muscle, skin, bone, and hair. Fatty vs. protein. They aimed at organs with lots of fat and little protein,. To me, the fact that shellfish are so full of trace minerals points up that fact that Price mostly missed the boat by saying that it's the macro-minerals and fat-soluble vitamins that do the bone-building.
Dab, some tribes would travel hundreds of miles on foot just to get shellfish, including a number of African tribes, as well as Peruvians in the Andes.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: I remember the 20,000 Guaymi Indians in Costa Rica, straight-toothed and much healthier than the average Hatracker.
Ever been to COsta Rica steven? My uncle has lived there for over 6 years now, and he wouldn't agree with this statement at all.
I hate to break it to you, but our problems are with BOTH your conclusions AND the methods used to find those conclusions.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Kwea, I'm, talking about a group of Guaymi who live a 3-hour hike throught hilly virgin rainforest jungle from the nearest road. A few of them live part-time at a farm where I stayed, and they all had ruler-straight teeth and were extremely strong and flexible. The farm they stay at is literally at the end of the road in Costa Rica, at the very Southwest corner of the country, in other words, BFE. This group simply has no access to refined foods.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You do realize that shellfish, aren't fatty, right? That it's a question of tissue function more than formation, right? Also, you realize that if you eat too much of something you tend to piss it out?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And yet, somehow, none of this proves ANYTHING. How many times will you repeat the same thing over and over before at least addressing others' points?
Did you lie or misread Bob's post? What other possible conclusions could be drawn from Price's data? Are there any differences other than diet between "traditional tribes" and Americans?
Without an epidemiological study of some kind, this proves nothing. Especially since the study wasn't blind - the selection bias alone is enough to cause the results to be questioned.
Check out the book Voodoo Science. It's short and will go over many of the problems associated with "studies" such as this.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Kwea, I'm, talking about a group of Guaymi who live a 3-hour hike throught hilly virgin rainforest jungle from the nearest road. A few of them live part-time at a farm where I stayed, and they all had ruler-straight teeth and were extremely strong and flexible. The farm they stay at is literally at the end of the road in Costa Rica, at the very Southwest corner of the country, in other words, BFE. This group simply has no access to refined foods.
So the odds are good that they get more exercise and eat less sugar, right?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
BobtheLawyer,
That's exactly my point. I've been saying this whole thread that Price missed the boat. He never mentioned trace minerals, yet he still noticed that all tribes praised shellfish. I think the reason he didn't see that is because the role of trace minerals in nutrition was not well-understood in 1939, compared to 2005.
Some things are urinated out more than others.
Price found that on average, the tribes had 5 times the B and C vitamins in their diet, 10 times the A, D, and E vitamins, 7 times the calcium, 5 times the phosphorus, and up to 29 times the magnesium, versus the standard American diet than people in the US were eating.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Dag,
could you try to stop accusing me of being a liar?
as far as eating less white sugar goes, that's only half the issue. White sugar has had all minerals removed. No minerals=no teeth and bones. Sweeteners are not the problem--raw honey was used by many groups with no ill effects.
As far as exercise goes, it was so cold in Central Canada for 5-6 months out of the year that those Indians barely went outside or did any work at all for 5-6 months. They had to sit around, and were not any more actuve than any other group when they could actually go outside. Price made a special mention of how they were some of the healthiest and happiest people he found, and they survived on almost nothing but preserved organ meats for months out of the year.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:could you try to stop accusing me of being a liar?
Not until you answer the question.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
No, that's not what I said at all. I'm saying that the fact that these things are fatty soluble is completely irrelevant when it comes to finding a good source of them. Because they aren't stored in fatty tissue, they're stored on storage proteins in the circulatory system. That you find vitamin 1,25-D3 in the kidneys is not because the kidney is fatty, but because that's the (well, one of the) organ(s) where the vitamin is active. If you take another organ you will not find the vitamin there because it does not need to be there. Orgamisms are remarkably compartmentalized, really.
Not that this really matters to your argument, it's just somethig that mildly irritates me. As opposed to the rest of your argument whose flaws have already been outlined by Bob and Tom.
And steven, if Price claimed that the natives of central Canada barely did any work for 5-6 months of the year, he's clearly making things up.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
steven,
how do you rule out genetic factors and their influence on your observations? Were the ones you met close relatives? On average were there closer genetic relationships between them as a group and the group composed of "average Hatrackers?"
And, really, I figured you were joking with that misquotation you posted earlier on this page. If you weren't, then Dagonee's got it right. I'm going to hope and assume that was just a joke.
Again, you and I are not on the same page. Even if or when you state a conclusion that I agree with, I believe that you arrived at it by means other than logic or scientifically valid evidence. That I might agree with a statement you make is no indication at all that I agree with your reasoning. A broken clock is right twice a day.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Unless it's an LED clock and the face is just completely dark.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Or if it is just a few seconds off, it's NEVER right.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
If it ate a steady diet of fatty tissue, it'd always be right on time.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you weren't, then Dagonee's got it right. I'm going to hope and assume that was just a joke.
I would have assumed that without the last sentence of the post. You're a better man than I for giving him the benefit of the doubt. Bob.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And if the clock is off by any amount, it will eventually show the right time unless it keeps absolutely perfect 12-hour cycles.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
go ahead and close ranks if you want.
Bob, I simply assumed you were serious as well as joking with that comment. Your comments were all over the place, I couldn't exactly tell where you were coming from.
The Guaymi I met were not closely related. They all had perfect teeth and well-made bodies.
As far as THAT goes, I can always tell an African that was raised on a good diet in Africa. They look very different than the African-Americans I grew up with. The cheekbones are just different. It's quite visible. It takes me less than half a second to see the difference. Just this weekend I was at a chinese buffet, and I saw two Africans sitting together. My first reaction was to assume one of them was a friend of mine from Senegal who has beautiful teeth and cheekbones, because the two guys in the restaurant looked so different than the Black people I know and work with. It just jumps out at you.
This is just sad.
All right, this is as bald as I can make it.
Diet #1.--shellfish, organ meats, marrow, etc. is the native diet. It has 5-10 times the vitamins, and up to 29 times the magnesium.
Diet #2. --the diet that produces the fine healthy stock I used to see in the hospital I worked at as a nurse assistant.
Which diet do you THINK will build better bones and teeth?
Here's a link, use you eyes. Scroll down to the pictures.
Do pictures lie? Don't tell me Dr. Price took photos of only the straighter-toothed people. Dr. Pottenger's cats ALL had bad teeth and skeletons on the wrong diet, and cats are less closely related genetically to each other than humans are to each other, at least from what I understand of genetics.
As well, Price would have had a hard time faking those photos. It was 1939.
The man went on a journey to find a vegan tribe, and instead, he found that the closer to vegetarian a tribe was, the WORSE their teeth were.
If Price was intentionally lying or concealing information, how could he, in the search for veganism, find that it's is the worst thing you can do for your teeth?
He repeatedly remarks on how the Masai, who eat almost nothing except raw milk, raw blood, and organ meats, have MUCH better teeth than the Bantu, who grow and eat lots of vegetables. The Bantu had the most cavities of any tribe.
How does this make Price look good to find the opposite of what he hoped to find? HOW?
Look at the link. Just look at the pictures. Price's book has close to a hundred photos showing the same things. The photos in his whole book are just more of the same.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:
Diet #1.--shellfish, organ meats, marrow, etc. is the native diet. It has 5-10 times the vitamins, and up to 29 times the magnesium.
Diet #2. --the diet that produces the fine healthy stock I used to see in the hospital I worked at as a nurse assistant.
Which diet do you THINK will build better bones and teeth?
Okay, steven, you're still not getting it. Do you not understand why this is not necessarily a scientific conclusion? Please answer me. I will endeavor to explain this to you, if you would sincerely like to understand why you're encountering difficulty in this conversation.
You are still attempting to convert us. That's not going to happen. The information you continue to rehash in an attempt to convert us is not going to have that effect.
Why? Because scientific procedures were not followed here.
Do you understand that? Do you understand why that matters? Do you recognize even a few of the procedures that should have been followed that were not?
Do you realize that the fact that Price has a hundred photos in his books, all showing the same things, is in actually a likely point against him?
Furthermore, do you realize that what you believe Price has proven -- that eating some meat is better for teeth than not eating any meat -- is not exactly a justification for some of your other, considerably wilder dietary theories? And do you understand why it's not?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
READ UP ON SELECTION BIAS!!!
(I though if I shouted it would make more sense... )
OK, I will actually take the time to type all of this out. I doubt it will make a difference though...
In order for a specific pool of subjects to be considered a good sample for a scientific study, there has to be something to compare them with. It is usually called a control group or a comparison group, depending on what they are being used for in each specific case. You seem to be using the "average American" as your control group, and that single flaw shows EXACTLY why no one here will take anything you say as serious science.
What is the "average American"?
SCIENTIFICALLY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING!!!
It is too broad a category, and contains too many counter-indications to be taken seriously as a control or comparison group. There are too many types of people who have too many types of background to scientifically quantify the group...which would be necessary if we were going to use it in an actual scientific study.
I am not saying all your assumptions are wrong...I am saying that they are assumptions, based on pseudo-science, and we have no way of telling if they are correct assumptions or not. Nothing resembling science has been conducted in this, and too many of the claims you make are inadequate documented to take them at face value.
Also, you DO realize how racist you sound here:
quote: As far as THAT goes, I can always tell an African that was raised on a good diet in Africa. They look very different than the African-Americans I grew up with. The cheekbones are just different. It's quite visible. It takes me less than half a second to see the difference. Just this weekend I was at a chinese buffet, and I saw two Africans sitting together. My first reaction was to assume one of them was a friend of mine from Senegal who has beautiful teeth and cheekbones, because the two guys in the restaurant looked so different than the Black people I know and work with. It just jumps out at you.
This is just sad.
What if they were Americans who ate your diet because their parents had converted to it before their birth? Or is they were second generation Americans, but still ate a traditional diet?
You do know that people come from different stock, right? White people and black, along with every other race I know of, even within their own race (which opens a whole other can of worms, using that definition, but I will save that for later )? They look different, when they do, because of any number of reasons....the same reason you can usually tell if a white person is Italian or Russian....and you would be wrong about as often as I am when I try to guess....and that is all it would be, a somewhat educated (although I cringe to use that word in this context) guess.
Also, there have been extensive studies done about modern sugar and sweeteners, and the research in Sugar Busters, a book I read in part because the subject matter interests me, mentions that as a society we have been having dental problems for about as long as we have had white flour and processed sweeteners. THAT book was researched fairly well, although I still have qualms about some of it even so, and it explains quite well some of the issues we have raised here in this thread.
[ August 02, 2005, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Steven: Let me put it bluntly. I'm pretty sure that nobody here cares about your theory. Nobody here is convinced by your arguments. Stating them over and over isn't helping you or anyone else.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
Perhaps it would be better to try a different tack. No offence intended to Tom or Bob, but maybe thinking about this in a different way will help Steven understand. Or not. We'll see.
Steven, let's start fresh. Let's pretend that you are a researcher who is highly interested in how nutrition affects oral health. How would YOU set up a study to ascertain this? What sorts of problems might you run into?
The rules: You can't take anything as given unless you can find a scientific study to back you up. Price and Pottenger don't count, find someone new. What is the question that you want answered (your hypothesis)? How will you limit variables?
Now pretend that we are the grant committee who has to decide if we are giving you the money to run this experiment. We want to know that you won't waste our money on a study that is unscientific. Your job is to convince us that your methods will be sound.
Now, you aren't a researcher, so I'm not expecting a graduate level proposal. High school science fair would probably be sufficient. There's no need to solve all of the problems that you would run into in such an experiment, you just need to notice that the problems exist and need to be dealt with.
Got it?
--Mel
(And if this tack doesn't work, I'll be jumping off the merry-go-round. I can't think of any other way to present what we are looking for. Guess that's why I'm not a teacher.)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Most of the other approches have been tried, although this isn't a lot different than what Bob wanted him to do...
Still, it is a good idea.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
No, it's not much different. Just looking at Bob's request from a slightly different angle and bringing in some role-playing.
What can I say, I can't resist a difficult student .
--Mel
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:<huge applause from studio audience. Bob jumping up and down like a giddy bobby socker, squealing and shrieking, and hugging Bob Barker. Going to his podium and getting ready to bid the closest price without going over for some broadloom carpet and a sofa>
I drive past the line waiting outside CBS to be on The Price is Right pretty often.
I've never noticed anything about their teeth. Or their diet . . .
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
They eat lots of Jiffy Pop Popcorn. Pops up light and fluffy every time. Jiffy Pop!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
$2.95, Bob. . .
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Scott R COME ON DOWN! You are the next contestant.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Kwea,
1/3 of what Price talked about was getting completely rid of all refined flour and sugar in the diet. 1/3 was about correlations between soil fertility and health, and 1/3 was about specific foods that were used in every group he found as the main basis of good health. Shellfish topped the list, followed by fatty organs and marrow.
I think the reason that the tribes used so much shellfish and organ meats is two-fold, at least:
1. Those foods are more digestible than, say, seeds, nuts, and legumes, and can be eaten in larger amounts
2. They have a relatively high nutrient content. Not as high as some seeds, nuts, etc, but still much higher than others.
I have heard many people people remark on how second-generation Americans look very different than their parents. There's a 6'2" Chinese guy (lives in Chapel Hill, NC) who was raised here whose dad was raised in China. His dad is all of about 5 feet, even, if that. This is pretty common in the Chinese-American community. It's not a huge stretch to think that if diet can cause such a difference in bone structure vertically, it can cause one horizontally as well (as in the narrowed faces and skeletons seen on deficient diets). But, that last sentence may not be met with agreement.
I think I'm going to write a song about steven.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: They eat lots of Jiffy Pop Popcorn. Pops up light and fluffy every time. Jiffy Pop!
You'll be happy to know that I heard that in . . . um . . . what's-his-name's voice. You know, the guy who always wore the outrageous suits (may he rest in peace).
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I have heard many people people remark on how second-generation Americans look very different than their parents. There's a 6'2" Chinese guy (lives in Chapel Hill, NC) who was raised here whose dad was raised in China. His dad is all of about 5 feet, even, if that. This is pretty common in the Chinese-American community. It's not a huge stretch to think that if diet can cause such a difference in bone structure vertically, it can cause one horizontally as well (as in the narrowed faces and skeletons seen on deficient diets). But, that last sentence may not be met with agreement.
Yes, that is a pretty huge stretch. You're basically positing that the American diet leads to poor bone structure and bad teeth, then you turn around and say that it can add a foot to your height. Poor nutrition leads to stunted growth, not extra growth. This is precisely why you really need to learn what the scientific method is. You're making conclusions that are either based on poor evidence or are contrary to logical reasoning.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Even if it's not a huge stretch, it's not scientifically established. That's the point of pretty much everyone's objections.
At best, Price's book is justification for a real scientist to conduct real scientific research into this question.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Ok, Jon Boy, now we're getting somewhere.
Price noted that the healthiest tribes were not the tallest tribes. The tallest ones were the biggest meat eaters (the Masai), whereas the healthiest tribes were the biggest fish and shellfish eaters, the Dinka and the Maori.
Price noted in most cases that deficient children with crooked teeth were often a couple of inches, on average, taller than their straight-toothed parents. It's weird to me, too.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Ok, Jon Boy, now we're getting somewhere.
Oh, good. And it only took two and a half months.
quote: Price noted that the healthiest tribes were not the tallest tribes. The tallest ones were the biggest meat eaters (the Masai), whereas the healthiest tribes were the biggest fish and shellfish eaters, the Dinka and the Maori.
Price noted in most cases that deficient children with crooked teeth were often a couple of inches, on average, taller than their straight-toothed parents. It's weird to me, too.
I swear you're making this stuff up off the top of your head.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote from Jon Boy:
" swear you're making this stuff up off the top of your head."
In fact, I linked to an article that mentioned the difference between the Dinka, Maori, and Masai on this page. Here it is again:
go to "edit", "find", and look up "dinka"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Price noted in most cases that deficient children with crooked teeth were often a couple of inches, on average, taller than their straight-toothed parents. It's weird to me, too.
Where is the proof that straight-toothed = healthy?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote from Dag:
"Where is the proof that straight-toothed = healthy?"
Good question, Dag. Price noted a marked difference in skull thickness between skulls from poorly-fed people (with crooked teeth) and the skulls of their more well-fed (straight-toothed) ancestors.
The more crooked the teeth, the thinner the skull.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Does that mean I can call Britts "Squishy Heads"?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
That was an answer? HA! That's hilarious, steven.
It's like you're not even trying.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So crooked teeth are associated with thinner skulls.
Yet he makes statements about them being "healthier."
Do you not see the problem here?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
OK, I'll try again.
TBI, or post-concussion syndrome, is (I would guess) less likely with a thicker skull, all things being equal. I'm just guessing here, but I would perhaps guess that the recovery rate from all head injuries would be better with a thicker skull.
I've been in more than 1 car accident in my life. Anybody know anyone with long-lasting problems from head injuries? I can name at least two that I have known.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:TBI, or post-concussion syndrome, is (I would guess) less likely with a thicker skull, all things being equal. I'm just guessing here, but I would perhaps guess that the recovery rate from all head injuries would be better with a thicker skull.
I don't think so. Seems like brittleness of the bone and -- most especially -- quality of the cushioning fluid would both be more important that merely the measurement of the thickness of the skull plates. That thickness may well not vary enough to be clinically significant in the populations you address.
Disorders like craniosynostosis can cause thicker-than-typical skull plates. Physiological extremes like this tend not to be a positive finding.
Edited to add: And surely one would not equate general health merely with ability to recover from a TBI. If one were to (mistakenly) focus on merely one factor to address health, I'd think cardiovascular health would be more central to the issue of general health.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The conclusion being offered is "Diet X makes people healthier." What is "healthier"?
So far it's straight teeth and less susceptiblity to head trauma.
Sicle cell anemia confers malaria resistance. Is there a corresponding tradeoff with thicker skulls?
What is the variable that is increased or decreased when the independent variable is present?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
The picture in the book shows the ancestor's skull being about twice as thick. Never mind TBI, what about a skull-cracking situation? People get their skulls broken in car accidents.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
So ... how many of these native tribesmen were being involved in car accidents?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Yeah, but really, how many people get their heads cracked seriously over the course of their lives? And, for that matter, that still doesn't answer the question of "why is that more "healthy"?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Again, whether or not they could run fast and perfuse their vital organs seems much more central to the pressures faced by these native tribemen.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
OK, Claudia, are you forgetting about lions, sharp rocks, bears, etc? this article
mentions the unusual recovery abilities of Native Americans on their traditional diet. It's not just a thicker skull that's at issue here. There are plenty of anecdotal cases in Price's work that talk about how people healed from cavities, diabetes, and scores of other diseases when they went back to their traditional diets.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
steven, the skull is terrifically sturdy. It requires quite a high impact to break it. For example, a fall from a bunk bed onto a wood or carpeted floor will not crack a child's skull.
It is very, very difficult to crack a skull, even if you are trying to. However, there are shear or rotational forces that can damage the brain tissue without harming the skull (e.g., diffuse axonal injury). This is a much more common cause of TBI than skull fracture.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/native_americans.html mentions the unusual recovery abilities of Native Americans on their traditional diet. It's not just a thicker skull that's at issue here. There are plenty of anecdotal cases in Price's work that talk about how people healed from cavities, diabetes, and scores of other diseases when they went back to their traditional diets.
Regarding the regression in diabetes upon return to a more traditional diet, my understanding is that this is thought by physicians specializing in this area to be secondary to issues of change in glycemic loading, not trace minerals.
Why should I accept Price's noted correlation as a causation, even were I to buy that such a correlation exists? A better argument for a different factor (glycemic load) can and has been made, and a more convincing mechanism has been posed.
---------------------------------------------------------- Edited to add: steven, I admire your passion. I just don't think the information Price presents is convincing at all.
Had you thought about specializing in information on something you could be an expert on? Medical information is tricky, and there are many physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals here. It makes for a tough audience.
In contrast, you could become the Hatrack expert on the piccolo, or the collection of fishing net weights, or on a particular esoteric language, or the history of the Spanish-American war.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Price's theories had nothing to do with trace minerals. He literally didn't mention them at all.
Trace minerals were not well-understood in 1939. I'm not sure that the techniques even existed to test for them.
Price thought it was the fat-soluble vitamins and the macro-minerals, mainly magnesium, that did the main work.
It's my assertion that trace minerals, mainly microcluster rhodium and iridium, are the seed factors that set the life process going. It's a big leap to say that, I realize.
I only say it because of three things:
1. White powder/microcluster rhodium and iridium are the two elements left when everything else has been removed from brain matter. My understanding is that they are the only two microcluster elements present in brain tissue.
2. The ancient alchemists were making compounds that assay as microcluster minerals, mainly rhodium, iridium, and gold. They claimed that the conpounds they made lengthened life and improved health.
3. Brain-to-body size ratio is the best indicator of aging in mammals.
All three of those things together say to me that the most important component of food is the microcluster rhodium and iridium, followed by other trace minerals.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: 1. White powder/microcluster rhodium and iridium are the two elements left when everything else has been removed from brain matter.
I love a good tautology.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"X and Y are the only two elements left when everything except X and Y is removed"?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
JB beat me to it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So far, steven, you've neglected to answer my question. Would you like me to explain the scientific method to you over E-mail?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Ha!
Jon Boy: 1 Dagonee: 0
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Mine was worded better.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'm done with this thread.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I only say it because of three things:
1. White powder/microcluster rhodium and iridium are the two elements left when everything else has been removed from brain matter.
This is true of anything in the brain. For example, take away everything else but water, and only water is left behind. That is sort of like a tautology, and it doesn't establish anything.
quote:My understanding is that they are the only two microcluster elements present in brain tissue.
Why do you accept this claim, in particular? On what convincing documentation do you base your belief that these are "the only two microcluster elements present in brain tissue?"
quote:2. The ancient alchemists were making compounds that assay as microcluster minerals, mainly rhodium, iridium, and gold. They claimed that the conpounds they made lengthened life and improved health.
And why do you accept this claim, in particular? On what convincing documentation do you base your belief that "the ancient alchemists were making compounds that assay as microcluster minerals, mainly rhodium, iridium, and gold?"
quote:Brain-to-body size ratio is the best indicator of aging in mammals.
What reason do you have to believe this? (Honest question.)
quote:All three of those things together say to me that the most important component of food is the microcluster rhodium and iridium, followed by other trace minerals.
I don't see the link. The steps of this reasoning are not obvious, even if one were to accept the premises.
steven, I have no desire to harry you here. I want you to enjoy Hatrack, and I think you have been very passionate and respectful in trying to discuss this. (That is so cool.)
I just don't think claims about truths of medical matters are going to be a pleasant way to spend your time here. The audience is too tough, and the consequences of disseminating misinformation can be too dire -- thus, people will push you when you say something that they believe is wrong and harmful.
Do you have other interests, other areas of expertise? Anything besides medical matters (raw foods, shellfish and organ tissue, etc) tickle your fancy? History, music, other arts, sports, literature?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm done with this thread.
Why?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I'm done with this thread.
I respect that. My last post above was written before I read this.
steven, I hope you find a ton of fun and interesting stuff to talk about here. I would hate to lose you as a Hatracker.
Take care.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Mine was worded better.
It's true. I just fired off the first thing that came to mind, while you took the time to lovingly and artfully craft a more meaningful post.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
I love you, CT.
Ni!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Me too CT, I laughed so hard when I read this:
quote: In contrast, you could become the Hatrack expert on the piccolo, or the collection of fishing net weights, or on a particular esoteric language, or the history of the Spanish-American war.
Must have been my poor American diet at fault. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: They eat lots of Jiffy Pop Popcorn. Pops up light and fluffy every time. Jiffy Pop!
You'll be happy to know that I heard that in . . . um . . . what's-his-name's voice. You know, the guy who always wore the outrageous suits (may he rest in peace).
That's the name that came to mind, but for some reason it didn't sound right, and I was feeling too lazy to look it up.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Jon Boy, don't commnet on my girly screenname and I wonn't talk about how strange Jon Boy from the Waltons really was.....
Not as strange as you are, but really really close...
((I WAS gong to edit to correct a typo...tehn I realized I was psoting to Jon Boy so it was pretty funny as it was. ))
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I sense a great calm has descended over the Hatrack multiverse.
steven,
CT has been sharing true wisdom with you, in a way that I couldn't achieve. I hope you take her words to heart, especially the ones about logically linking disparate facts (and possible facts). Your post above where you list your reasons behind believing in the value of microclusters is a prime example of how you aren't connecting the dots for us. What has brain to body-size ratio got to do with aging, let alone with micro-clusters of iridium?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Bob, You are the kind of person that just can't keep from picking at a scab, no?
Does the "great calm" disturb you?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Did I miss a labor dispute here? Is steven a replacement worker for a jatraquero on strike?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:In contrast, you could become the Hatrack expert on the piccolo,
No fair. I should be the Hatrack expert on the piccolo. I've seen the piccolo, I've played the piccolo, and you, steven, are no piccolo expert.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
*makes note to flee if Belle ever starts a post, "This one time, in band camp..."*
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Belle Dag
Tante... yep. I'm just preparing for the next "One more time about Dr. Price" thread.
What I really want to know is how quantum effects and emergent properties affect teeth straitness and skull density. I believe it has something to do with teleportation and small wind instruments. I think this because:
1) Microclusters told me so.
2) My aunt has one side of her body that will not grow hair.
3) Trace minerals built Stonehenge.
Are we all on the same page here?
I know Bob finally agrees with me.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
WHAT ABOUT THE CATS!? Will someone please answer me that?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Bob, it's a beautiful riding day. Why don't you let this go and take Dana out for a spin before dinner?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Or...after dinner?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Whichever. I get to ride home in about 20 minutes, so it will be before dinner for me.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
We stopped at the Old Market for Mongolian Barbeque on the way home from the airport. So it is definitely after dinner. Yummy!
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
OK, Bob, let's talk about the brain-to-body size thing first.
I am referring only to mammals here.
Examples:
1. Little dogs are the longest-lived dogs. I am not citing this as a stand-alone, because they usually have a different lifestyle than bigger dogs.
2. A comparison between a large-brained mammal of a certain body size, and a small-brained mammal of a certain body size, will, so far as I know, pretty much always show that the longer-lived one is the one with the bigger brain size. a good comparison might be a 130-lb. male chimpanzee (maybe 60-70 years, or a little more), and a 130 lb. dog (maybe 20 years, with the record-holder being about 35 years).
3. Again, so far as I know, mammals generally will die of aging (on their natural diet) at about 10-12 times the age of natural puberty. Cows hit puberty at about age 2, and rarely last beyond age 25. Humans are somewhat of an exception, but I think that's mainly an issue of diet, stress, lifestyle, etc.
In other words, it's much more an issue of brain-to-body size than anything else, like metabolic rate, etc.
As far as the microcluster stuff, well, I got some of that from David Hudson's work. He rendered down some cow and pig brains using methods from gold mining (sulfuric and nitric acid), and the only microcluster elements he found were rhodium and iridium. He, and others, have also repeatedly stated that rhodium and iridium are the most important of the microcluster elements for health.
There are a number of experiments going on with using microcluster elements to cure cancer and other diseases. Chris Barnard is on the staff at www.platinummetalsreview.com and is involved in this research somehow, according to the Platinum Metals Review website. There's a regular section in that journal about curing cancer with microcluster platinum compounds.
The way I see it is, microclusters are so important because they act so well as catalysts in chemical reactions. They have the most surface area per mass of any substance, and surface area is very important when you are talking about catalysts. Biological processes proceed more smoothly in their presence.
One of the best sources of microcluster elements is unrefined sea salt. The animals that are the most filled with microcluster elements (the same microcluster elements that the alchemists make) are also the animals most prized by tribes on every continent for health, namely, fish and especially shellfish.
King Solomon used to make his gold from Dead Sea Salt. That's in one of Laurence Gardner's books.
I don't know exactly where we are with Price's stuff, but there's plenty more research I can talk about in his book. He has some graphs that show the rate of birth defects, mortality, etc. in different areas of the country. Back in the 20's and 30's, people ate mostly local food. He shows that the areas with the poorest soil have the most birth defects and highest mortality. The South has always had the poorest soil, and of course, the highest rates of mental retardation.
Price shows how the rates of birth defects are totally related to diet and soil fertility. He particularly notes that women on a rich diet have healthy children no matter whether they have their children in their teens, 20's, 30's, or 40's, unlike today's American women, who have higher and higher risks of birth defects after age 35.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*blink* Are you citing alchemy as science? Making gold from salt no less?
Laurence Gardner? Good golly.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I was willing to let this thread die a long time ago.
And yet you still keep resuscitating it.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Adieu. I'm off to the fluff threads.
And yet you are still here.
And I keep enjoying the show.
<reaches for some more popcorn>
Carry on!
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
rivka, the Chinese of 200 B.C. were using the exact same alchemical formulas as the middle easterners and hindus of the same time. If it's ALL B.S., ( and some alchemy is), how were they getting them across the Himalaya? The Silk Road didn't open until several centuries later. Besides, it's not that hard to reproduce most of these methods. They do, in my understanding, produce microclusters.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes, and I keep trying to figure out why people keep posting in this thread . . . and now I've done so as well.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Like a sore in your mouth, you just can't keep from exploring it with your tongue, even though you know that if you just left it alone and ate some nice microclusters, it would soon go away.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Tante--maybe you'd like to ask a rabbi about white powder gold? Enoch was an alchemist.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
You've GOT to be kidding!
"Rabbi, I have a shayla...can you tell me how to make gold out of salt, like Enoch and Shlomo HaMelech used to?"
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Ah, so that's how the Jews all got rich Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I suddenly understand why my mother doesn't add salt to most things she cooks.
She's hoarding the salt! :ninja:
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If it's ALL B.S., ( and some alchemy is), how were they getting them across the Himalaya? The Silk Road didn't open until several centuries later.
steven, it's like your brain jumps from one statement past a whole bunch of other statements and arrives at an assumption which you promptly call a conclusion. Not only do you do this with your own opinions, but you do it when you're responding to other people's opinions. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, the fact we have abundant evidence of regular exchange between China and places further west, including India and the Middle East, for much of history, is a minor detail.
Basically, people are pretty darn mobile. That there was no Silk Road doesn't somehow create an insurmountable barrier to trade, particularly trade in ideas, which are far more easily passed along gradually without any individual person traveling the intervening distance.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tante,
This really is fun. It's become sort of morbid curiosity for me.
steven,
Am I being unfair in asking you to re-read the posts you respond to before responding? You just appear to be vomiting random "facts" rather than providing any connections between them, as I asked. How adding more unconnected "facts" helps the situation is simply beyond me.
It's as if we are speaking different languages and just haven't realized it yet. Either that, or we're holding two different conversations while using each others names in the headers.
This is the most baffling thread since Bean Counter's latest spew.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
With all due respect to comrade Bob, who is doing a sterling job of trying to educate a man who is clearly more spoonlike than knifish, I think you are all ignoring the root cause of the problem. (No, it's not lack of microclusters, whatever they are.) Take a look at this post on the first page :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Perhaps you are correct about me overcomplicating my life. What else should I do? I work full-time, and have a full life as it is. I don't date much, but that's my choice, is it not?
My emphasis. Here's my advice to you, comrade steven; get thee to a bar, chat up some woman, and get laid. You'll find that microclusters of titanium are much less compelling afterwards.
That aside, though,
quote:Tom, I haven't analyzed it like that. My basic idea is that he didn't understand physics enough to see (and I'm still working on my understanding of this) how microcluster particles interact with fats, sugars, and substances that don't form natural microclusters.
Excuse me there, comrade. You have demonstrated a total lack of understanding of basic arithmetic, and you expect us to believe that you are 'working on' a good understanding of quantum physics? It is to laugh.
quote:Brain matter, when rendered down to remove all organic matter, is 2.5% microcluster Rhodium and 2.5% microcluster Iridium.
Gosh a'mighty! And the average book, after removing all words longer than three letters, would be about 30% 'the' and about 30% 'and'. But in all honesty I don't think that's a valid argument for the importance of those two words.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'm so happy that nobody is arguing with me about the Price stuff anymore that I have trouble caring enough to post about anything else.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Or could it be this?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
Bob.
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
I just fired off the first thing that came to mind, while you took the time to lovingly and artfully craft a more meaningful post.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Belle