On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Kent Multer wrote:

> Hi folks --
>
> Ray Audette responded personally to my question about blood types.  The
> essence of his reply was, just because your body can "tolerate" certain
> foods, i.e. not immediately get sick, doesn't mean that you can eat it day
> after day for years without some long-term effect.  He went on:

But did he respond to the core thesis, that different blood types
identify different proteins as "foreign"?  That is where the
blood type theory intersects his own theory.  Lectins are not
limited to agricultural foods.  To take an example, strawberries
agglutinate the blood of type Os but not type As, according to
D'Adamo's *in vitro* observations.  Strawberries are nevertheless
a legal food on Neanderthin, for anybody.  But if strawberries
demonstrably cause an immune response in type A people, wouldn't
the Neanderthin philosophy require that they be avoided by them?

The other thing that I can't quite get around is the fact that
Ray Audette and Troy Gilchrist insist that most of the diseases
of civilization are in fact auto-immune diseases--even those not
usually thought of in those terms, such as heart disease.  But if
blood type is irrelevant, then why do some of these diseases play
favorites according to blood type?

Most critics of the blood type theory claim that the weak link in
the theory is the claim that lectins cause disease.  These
critics assert that whatever lectins find their way into the
bloodstream are simply disposed of by the immune system without
fuss.  In short, this is the same criticism that would be applied
to the Neanderthin theory.  My problem is that if you don't buy
that criticism of Neanderthin then you shouldn't buy it as a
criticism of the blood type theory either.

Since both theories are based on the health repercussions of
foreign proteins, they should stand or fall together on that
score at least.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]