Amy one know this answer?

Discussion in 'Pekiti-Tirsia Kali' started by Ron Kosakowski, Dec 3, 2008.

  1. Ron Kosakowski

    Ron Kosakowski New Member

    I did a research once, many years ago because i always had sinus problems during the sinus problem time of the year. In my research I found that wheat has been blamed for a lot of diseases and other health problems. White flour yes but even whole wheat. (and sugar also) The yeast in the wheat enhances candidas albanicas. I stopped eating this day and walla, I don't even get sick any more (unless I drink the water in the Philippines[​IMG])

    My point here is, Europions were and still are big wheat eaters. But gained a certain amount of immunity to a lot of the diseases and sicknesses over time. South and north Americans ate more vegetable products and a lot of meat so they really had no sickness. So therefore there was nothing that the Spanish soldiers could have caught from the natives there. Though the Spanish may not have the disease, they can still be carriers. Thats how they gave their diseases to the natives.

    Not to be off topic here but this is something I read years ago before I had a computer. I would have to dig in my books in the attic to find where I got this info from so please don't ask...this was probably 15 or more years ago I did this research. All I know is it made sense to me, I tried it and it worked for me so now it makes even more sense to me. Why else would the Spanish be able to spread sickness so eaily to people who lived such a healthy lifestyle?
  2. Carol

    Carol <font color = blue><b>Technical Administrator</b><

    Well...Cortez (and other Europeans) brought smallpox, which was a disease that had been around Europe for centuries. Many Europeans that survived the many outbreaks over the years survived because they had either inherited some sort of immunity to the disease, had developed an immunity to the disease by being exposed to a weakened form of the virus (through familial contact), or had contracted the disease and survived it. The Europeans also had a chance to learn the fundamentals of how the disease was spread (remember the British giving smallpox-infected blankets to warring Indian tribes?)

    The indigenous people had no resistance to the disease, no history of having built up an immunity, and no understanding of how the disease was spread. The high temperatures of the Aztec and Inca lands also aided with the's been said that the smallpox virus swept through Aztec and Inca lands faster than the Conquistadors did...which means the virus would have eliminated many people before they were introduced to the growing and the consumption of wheat in larger quantities. (Not that I'm a fan of eating wheat...I don't eat it either.)

    There was a dietary change in the Philippines that was brought about by the conquistadors, that brought increased disease to the Filipino people. The Spanish saw the Philippines as a prime place to farm cash crops such as sugar, tobacco, and indigo, that would benefit the empire. Many Filipinos at the time were people that survived on subsistence farming, and often found their land lost to the plantation.

    This meant the Filipino diet degraded from a variety of fresh grown foods to rice, fish, sugar, and little else...which weakened the overall health of the local people.

    Sorry for getting way off topic here...
  3. blindside

    blindside student

    I'm not sure this really jibes with the germ theory of disease.
  4. blindside

    blindside student

    Thanks! Good to know.
  5. Ron Kosakowski

    Ron Kosakowski New Member

    Like I said is something I read. I agree, it is a theory. Can it be due to a weekness caused from wheat that they got the small pox in the first place? I never read anything about these conquored nations having disease prior to being conquored. Then again, their history always has a restart after being conquored. Thats to bad...all that good past info destroyed. Though, I love how they are constantly dicovering new evidence though digging up ancient bodies. History Channel 101.
  6. Carol

    Carol <font color = blue><b>Technical Administrator</b><

    A weakness to wheat does not seem like a probable cause, when the virus spread the lands killing the indigenous peoples before the conquistadors (and their wheat) could get there to begin with.
  7. blindside

    blindside student

    Excerpted from ""Health and Disease in the New World" by Marc S. Micozzi, M.D., Ph.D.

    How different would world history be if some conquistador had run into a "New World smallpox" or equivelant and brought it back to Europe with them?
  8. arnisador

    arnisador Active Member

    But somehow the Europeans brought more and/or more deadly diseases? Smallpox is a big one, of course...
  9. Carol

    Carol <font color = blue><b>Technical Administrator</b><

    Very different....
  10. Carol

    Carol <font color = blue><b>Technical Administrator</b><

    Sure. Higher population density. More people and more animals living with one another, more likelihood of disease.

    Plus, the health of Europeans struggled when they stepped further outside the balance of nature due to superstitions. Cats were thought to be witch's familiars...leading one of the popes to ban cats altogether. With no cats around, the rodent population expanded...leading to outbreaks of the black plague that lasted for centuries. In some of the paintings of the day, people are depicted wearing a necklace with a charm made from a certain material - I think its coral. This was believed to ward off the disease. (It didn't). Its not clear how many people were infected with the plague thinking their coral necklace would save them...
  11. lhommedieu

    lhommedieu Senior Member

    In North America (but this applies elsewhere) inadequate immune response to disease was mostly an issue of Native Americans having a shallower gene pool. A deeper and more various gene pool in Europe led to greater genetic mutation and variety of response to microbes over a period of several thousand years.

    Some related factors:

    1. Diseases that struck in childhood in Europe left adults relatively immune if the disease struck again - vs. diseases that struck adults in North America to which they had no immune response (and were more lethal to adults than to children). In addition, children who survived these diseases often passed on their immunity to their children as adults.

    2. Genetic mutation after successive plagues in Europe vs. no mutation in North America. One reason for plagues in Europe was the greater level of domestication of animals vs. North America. Things like continued strains of cowpox that mutated to virulant strains of smallpox over time were not experienced in North America. In Europe immunity towards different strains of small pox could be built up over long periods of time - not so in North America.

    3. Culturally learned response to plagues, contagions, etc. in Europe was to quarantine the victim vs. response in North America to surround victim with friends and family. This is why so many people got infected - often with no direct contact with European disease carriers.



  12. arnisador

    arnisador Active Member

    OK, I'm learning something!
  13. blindside

    blindside student

    Off the top of my head some New World diseases: Lyme's disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and hantavirus. These are all examples of diseases with animal vectors, but I recall there was at least one nasty strain of syphilis that was supposed to have originated in the New World. Lewis and Clark were asking questions as they explored the northwest to determine if syphilis was endemic to the native populations, (meanwhile their men were doing their best to um, muddy the sampling effort, many of the native women were described as being quite friendly.) :D
  14. arnisador

    arnisador Active Member

    Seen on Yahoo! Today.

    Patagonia Indian tribe faces extinction


Share This Page