posted
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?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
...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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which study, Price's? Price's book is about 25 bucks, available by inter-library loan or at Amazon.com.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>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 ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
