Principle for Vibrant Living: We can only give what we have; Multigenerational health considerations (WAS: Primary sucrase isomaltase deficiency; ...)

[Guest guest]

Hi Laurie,

 

Thanks so very much for this post! I so appreciate when others create

opportunities for me to clarify my message.

 

Of course, you are correct, we do not have a clear, complete picture of this

boy's experience from any first-hand source, nor do we have any documents to

serve in surrogation for a first-hand source. So we do not know the whole

picture. But we can make certain presumptions based upon the diagnosis his

doctors chose, and that is what I've done. I won't take time to recreate my

entire thought process here; instead, I'll simply say that when the doctors

identify a condition that really does appear to arise congenitally, as is

the case here, then we are compelled to look toward multigenerational

effects as primary causal factors.

 

Are we healthier on human breast milk than we are eating " baby foods " ? As a

broad generalization, absolutely. But we must also remain aware that every

generalization decays at some point, and that no amount of perfect eating,

perfect subconscious programming, or the like may ever fully resolve certain

conditions.

 

In the discussion at hand, and coming from the perspective of

multigenerational effects, we can reasonably assume that the mother's diet

before, during, and following pregnancy, that is, during breast feeding, was

of poor quality, and in turn that the mother's mother's diet was probably

likewise. Are we guaranteed correctness in these assumptions? Of course not.

Are the odds heavily in our favor. Yes, of course they are.

 

We have, as a Principle for Vibrant Living, that one can only give what one

has, or expressed in the negative, that one cannot give what one does not

have. Applying this principle to a case such as this one, we have a mother

who is, in all likelihood, severely depleted. Her breast milk is likely of

mediocre to poor quality. (At this point, the breast milk of almost all

mothers in the U.S. is declining rapidly in quality.) So while we have no

specific analyses of the milk chemistry or the like, we can infer, from the

diagnosis itself, that this mother's milk lacked certain fundamental

nutrients; these nutrients were not received by the man, as a baby, and

whatever physiological events would have occurred in the presence of these

nutrients did not occur.

 

Now, the doctors will not adopt such an explanation, for their are

committed, at the level of religious belief, to the theory of genetic

causation. But since we know that this whole way of thinking makes no sense

at all, we are free to seek out and adopt another perspective, such as the

one I suggest here.

 

You ask whether he might have been damaged by the introduction of solids at

age 1 or so. Here we must think within some larger context. We may

reasonably assume that this boy was weaned on foods similar in nature to the

foods used to wean other babies at that period in time. If this is so, and

if this boy was " damaged " and the other boys were not damaged, then the

difference lies not in the foods, but rather in the boys themselves. That

is, this boy was ALREADY damaged long before those foods were introduced.

 

Whether that damage arose congenitally, the result of multigenerational

devolution showing up in damaged genetic encoding, or whether the entire

extent of the damage occurred pre- and post-natal, we cannot know. But in

either case, and given that we are making certain assumptions in the absence

of primary data/information, it seems most reasonable to conclude that the

damage was there from the beginning, give or take.

 

Hope this helps to clarify!

 

Best,

Elchanan

_____

 

rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of

Laurie Swanson

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 5:34 PM

rawfood

[Raw Food] Re: Primary sucrase isomaltase deficiency;

Multigenerational health considerations

 

 

Elchanan,

 

I get what you're saying about all of this, but after re-reading Caron's

original post, I have questions. Couldn't there be other reasons for this

boy's problem? Aren't we all much healthier on breast milk, and

" injured/traumatized " when we're forced to eat rice cereal on whatever day

we're fed it? I mean, maybe he WAS damaged by the introduction of solids at

too young an age, and then further damaged by the high-protein diet, and

whatever else was part of his " treatment. " And maybe he has trouble

digesting fruits now, but could be helped and healed to at least some

degree. Perhaps he is not just a devolved, genetically-weak, permanently

damaged person (that's sort of what it sounds like you're saying to me)? Is

it due to the extent of his current problems that you're you saying he must

have been so damaged when he was born?

 

Thanks,

 

Laurie

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ok, that helps. Got it.

 

Thanks,

 

Laurie

 

rawfood , " Elchanan " <Elchanan wrote:

 

You ask whether he might have been damaged by the introduction of

solids at

age 1 or so. Here we must think within some larger context. We may

reasonably assume that this boy was weaned on foods similar in nature

to the

foods used to wean other babies at that period in time. If this is

so, and

if this boy was " damaged " and the other boys were not damaged, then

the

difference lies not in the foods, but rather in the boys themselves.

That

is, this boy was ALREADY damaged long before those foods were

introduced.

 

Whether that damage arose congenitally, the result of

multigenerational

devolution showing up in damaged genetic encoding, or whether the

entire

extent of the damage occurred pre- and post-natal, we cannot know.

But in

either case, and given that we are making certain assumptions in the

absence

of primary data/information, it seems most reasonable to conclude

that the

damage was there from the beginning, give or take.

[Guest guest]

Oh, good, because the next step would be a chapter-length piece! :)

 

Best,

E

_____

 

rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of

Laurie Swanson

Thursday, July 12, 2007 2:45 PM

rawfood

[Raw Food] Re: Principle for Vibrant Living: We can only give what

we have; Multigenerational health considerations (WAS: Primary sucrase

isomaltase deficiency; ...)

 

 

Ok, that helps. Got it.

 

Thanks,

 

Laurie