Vegetarians live... less long

[Kitsune]

This should clarifies things:

A chart on breast cancer mortality rates vs the capita of animal fat consumption.

The more animal you eat,the more you die of cancer.

Note that Israel Italy and Malte with low animal fat intake still have high cancer mortality rate, this is due to their vegetable oil intake

There is a correlation on most countries between wealth and animal fat intake.

Would you draw breast cancer against average income, you could "proof" that as more you earn as more likely you get breast cancer.

You can also see that mostly countries as colder it gets as more animal fat. Would you draw average temperature, you could "proof" that getting cold breast makes the cancer.

Such diagrams don't tell much unless it can be proofed in detail that the animal fat is the reason.

Edit: To add that I don't trust that diagram, doesn't mean that it is surely wrong. It could be still the animal fat. Or it could be some chemicals in the animal fat. Or it could be overweight

This diagram means the more animal fat you consume the more you die of cancer.

Nothing more,nothing less

Your temperature argument doe not work: Australia is hot,NZ is hot, France is temperate and they all die a lot of cancer

you can't pick 2 countries and argue something. Israel takes low animal fat and has high cancer.....

The point is that the diagram doesn't say anything because there is no proof that the animal fat is causing it and not any other effect.....Obvious probable would be, that people who eat a lot animal fat, don't live healthy at all. Maybe drink too much, smoke and eat too less vitamins as well.

Right... If you eat animal you smoke... yeah... of course

What about the rat's tumor?

Did the rats smoked too?

Edited May 16, 2014 by Kitsune

[h90]

Anyway as you mentioned it's an old diagram and when it was published researchers concluded, cancer was due to fat intake.They like you, could not begin to question the western diet,it was out of question.

So they looked into an experimentation in India and reproduced it:

They took rats and fed them alternatively

- 3 weeks 20% casein (casein is the main protein found in dairy products)

- 3 weeks 5% casein

They found out that fort the first time ever they could control cancer growth: 3 weeks at 20% casein and rats tumors were growing,followed by 3 weeks at 5% and the tumors were shrinking.

Not only they could grow cancer but they could REVERSE it,simply by turning on and off the amount of animal protein

Obvious: Cancer cells are like all cells made from protein, if you give the rat too less protein the cancer can't grow

[Kitsune]

Anyway as you mentioned it's an old diagram and when it was published researchers concluded, cancer was due to fat intake.They like you, could not begin to question the western diet,it was out of question.

So they looked into an experimentation in India and reproduced it:

They took rats and fed them alternatively

- 3 weeks 20% casein (casein is the main protein found in dairy products)

- 3 weeks 5% casein

They found out that fort the first time ever they could control cancer growth: 3 weeks at 20% casein and rats tumors were growing,followed by 3 weeks at 5% and the tumors were shrinking.

Not only they could grow cancer but they could REVERSE it,simply by turning on and off the amount of animal protein

Obvious: Cancer cells are like all cells made from protein, if you give the rat too less protein the cancer can't grow

True but then they took rats which already had fully developed tumors and studied them and their tumor severity (%in incidence in tumor weight) for 100 weeks.

60 rats were given 5% animal protein, tumor severity : 248

38 12% 2358

58 20% 3321

The rats on 5% were still alive and kicking after 100 weeks,they had beautiful coats were thriving.

The ones on 20% ALL DIED.

Then they tried to repeat the experiment on 20% protein with SOY protein and with gluten protein instead of cow milk-casein, the rats did not die.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Kitsune

[h90]

There is a correlation on most countries between wealth and animal fat intake.

Would you draw breast cancer against average income, you could "proof" that as more you earn as more likely you get breast cancer.

You can also see that mostly countries as colder it gets as more animal fat. Would you draw average temperature, you could "proof" that getting cold breast makes the cancer.

Such diagrams don't tell much unless it can be proofed in detail that the animal fat is the reason.

Edit: To add that I don't trust that diagram, doesn't mean that it is surely wrong. It could be still the animal fat. Or it could be some chemicals in the animal fat. Or it could be overweight

This diagram means the more animal fat you consume the more you die of cancer.

Nothing more,nothing less

Your temperature argument doe not work: Australia is hot,NZ is hot, France is temperate and they all die a lot of cancer

you can't pick 2 countries and argue something. Israel takes low animal fat and has high cancer.....

The point is that the diagram doesn't say anything because there is no proof that the animal fat is causing it and not any other effect.....Obvious probable would be, that people who eat a lot animal fat, don't live healthy at all. Maybe drink too much, smoke and eat too less vitamins as well.

Right... If you eat animal you smoke... yeah... of course

What about the rat's tumor?

Did the rats smoked too?

If you eat a lot animal fat, which is cancer or no cancer surely not healthy, the probability that you live healthy, make sport, don't drink much and don't smoke is low.

It is more probable that people who eat lower amounts of animal fat live healthy.

[h90]

Anyway as you mentioned it's an old diagram and when it was published researchers concluded, cancer was due to fat intake.They like you, could not begin to question the western diet,it was out of question.

So they looked into an experimentation in India and reproduced it:

They took rats and fed them alternatively

- 3 weeks 20% casein (casein is the main protein found in dairy products)

- 3 weeks 5% casein

They found out that fort the first time ever they could control cancer growth: 3 weeks at 20% casein and rats tumors were growing,followed by 3 weeks at 5% and the tumors were shrinking.

Not only they could grow cancer but they could REVERSE it,simply by turning on and off the amount of animal protein

Obvious: Cancer cells are like all cells made from protein, if you give the rat too less protein the cancer can't grow

True but then they took rats which already had fully developed tumors and studied them and their tumor severity (%in incidence in tumor weight) for 100 weeks.

60 rats were given 5% animal protein, tumor severity : 248

38 12% 2358

58 20% 3321

The rats on 5% were still alive and kicking after 100 weeks,they had beautiful coats were thriving.

The ones on 20% ALL DIED.

Then they tried to repeat the experiment on 20% protein with SOY protein and with gluten protein instead of cow milk-casein, the rats did not die.

That the tumor get bigger as more protein you give isn't surprising.

But if it is true that the rats survived on plant protein of the same quality than this would be interesting. Because than really something in the animal protein is causing the problems. (even I have hard time believing it) Do you have a link to this study?

[Kitsune]

These are the findings from Dr T Campbell the famous author of the China Study

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study

Here is the part about Gluten/Soy protein

You can also watch his conference on youtube

Edited May 16, 2014 by Kitsune

[expatsupreme]

thank you for the video, Thailand is the lowest country with breast cancer, great!

people are so stupid and naive, still believe animal fatty food is so healthy, like soul food in USA then you see those morbid obese idiots waling around

[expatsupreme]

I am confused about word "protein", that means sually meat,

but I consume rice protein each day and a shake, so will that affect my liver in any way?

It is raw rice protein, I guess nobody made this study?

[Sheryl]

This should clarifies things:

A chart on breast cancer mortality rates vs the capita of animal fat consumption.

The more animal you eat,the more you die of cancer.

Note that Israel Italy and Malte with low animal fat intake still have high cancer mortality rate, this is due to their vegetable oil intake

There is a correlation on most countries between wealth and animal fat intake.

Would you draw breast cancer against average income, you could "proof" that as more you earn as more likely you get breast cancer.

You can also see that mostly countries as colder it gets as more animal fat. Would you draw average temperature, you could "proof" that getting cold breast makes the cancer.

Such diagrams don't tell much unless it can be proofed in detail that the animal fat is the reason.

Edit: To add that I don't trust that diagram, doesn't mean that it is surely wrong. It could be still the animal fat. Or it could be some chemicals in the animal fat. Or it could be overweight

This diagram means the more animal fat you consume the more you die of cancer.

Nothing more,nothing less

Your temperature argument doe not work: Australia is hot,NZ is hot, France is temperate and they all die a lot of cancer

No, it does not.

It shows a correllation between consumption of animal fat and cancer.

Correllation does nto proove causation and no reputable scientist would ever make the mistake of claiming causation on the basis of a statistical correllation.

There are man, many confounding factors here:

countries with higher animal fat consumption are usually wealthier countries where all sorts of other things coem into play. Including more accurate diagnosis of cancer and a larger elderly population (age itself being strongly correlated to the incidence of cancer). In the case of breast cancer, there is a very strong correlation between not breastfeeding and breast cancer, and thsi tends to go along with industrialization and economic growth, unfortunately.

There is no question that diets high in animal fats are less healthy and linked to a large number of health problems (of which cardiovascular disease is probably the one with the clearest causal link). Equally no question that diets high in fresh fruots and veegatbles are linked to better health outcomes, all other things considered. I personally am a vegetarian. But to claim that "eating animal protein causes cancer and to claim this has been scientifically proven, is simply false.

[Sheryl]

I am confused about word "protein", that means sually meat,

but I consume rice protein each day and a shake, so will that affect my liver in any way?

It is raw rice protein, I guess nobody made this study?

Protein is found in plant foods as well as in animal products. But the protein in plant foods is usually of lower quality in terms of containing all of the essential amino acids humans require and the digestibility of the protein, some sources more so than others. Soy products for example have a very high score and almost equal animal proteins in terms of quality (completeness of amino acid content and digestibility) while grains come in much lower.

However the plant protein sources with comparatively low scores, when matched with other plant based foods in which the "limiting amino acid" is a different ,can yield a complete protein. Rice and beans are an example - each have insufficient amounts of a particular amino acid to be be a complete protein by themselves, but different news, so eaten together it is a complete protein.

So it is indeed possible to get adequate protein on an exclusively vegan diet, though you do need to know a bit about nutrition and put some effort into it.

A much simpler thing is to simply eat mostly plant-based food plus a very small amount of animal protein, as for example lact-ovo-vegetariand do, or people who eat meat or fish but in very, very small quantities, which is what Asian diets used to be like..the bulk of the protein came from rice and vegetables but small bits of meat/fish, used almost like a flavoring, balanced out the amino acids. You do not need much animal protein at all to achieve this (and it does not have to be meat...milk or yogurt also works, or fish -- all of these in just small amounts will do the trick).

Or, for adults, just consume soy protein everyday or virtually every day. It is a tad low in the amino acids methionine compared to animal protein sources but not enough to matter except in infants.

Meat contains all the essential amino acids(as does fish, eggs, and dairy products) and this is probably where the idea that protein equals these foods comes from. But as described, all the essential amino acids can also be obtained through plant protein if it is sufficiently balanced/varied, or by just a very small amount of animal protein in a mostly plant-based diet (to fill in any amino acids that might otherwise be misisng/low).

Animal protein sources, while having a very high quality of protein, also tend to contain high amounts of saturated fat (especially meat) making heavy consumption unhealthy.

[h90]

thank you for the video, Thailand is the lowest country with breast cancer, great!

people are so stupid and naive, still believe animal fatty food is so healthy, like soul food in USA then you see those morbid obese idiots waling around

I actually know a lot Thai women who had breast cancer, but people say it is from the cheap breast enlargements they use.

I doubt Thailand is so low in the statistic

[Sheryl]

With any cancer statistics, the accuracy of the statistical system is a factor as is the % of people with cancer who get diagnosed by a health provider who reports to the agencies who compile these statistics.

For this reason data from less developed countries is poor to non-existent.

In Thailand there is pretty good reporting of statistics for cases identified in government hospitals, not from private ones. But as government hospitals treat the lion's share of illnesses, this makes for not too bad accuracy in statistics - not 100% complete, but not too bad.

In the period 1998-2000 the age-standardized incidence of breast cancer was 21.7/100,000 women. http://www.nci.go.th/th/File_download/Cancer%20In%20Thailand%20IV/C-II-01.PDF

It is the second most common cancer in Thai women, the first being cervical cancer. The incidence is almost surely higher now since fertility has decreased and so has breast-feeding, and the age of first menstruation is coming down while the age of menopause is rising -- all changes typical of countries which are improving in socioeconomic status, and strongly linked to the incidence of breast cancer. Alcohol consumption is also a proven risk factor, as is being overweight. Diets high in total fat show a correllation but it is not clear if this effect is independent of the effect of obesity since of course people with high fat consumption tend to be obese.

[JSixpack]

Animal protein sources, while having a very high quality of protein, also tend to contain high amounts of saturated fat (especially meat) making heavy consumption unhealthy.

Why Saturated Fat Is Feared

http://www.drbriffa.com/2008/02/06/more-healthy-eating-advice-from-the-uk-government-that-is-unlikely-to-do-any-good-at-all/

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html

[transam]

Sorry bit off topic but just read a story of a UK lady who is 102 years old eats egg a chips every day..........

[joealx]

Make up for the meat nutrients, which vegetables are missing, by taking flaxseed and vitamin B12 supplements.

[Kitsune]

thank you for the video, Thailand is the lowest country with breast cancer, great!

people are so stupid and naive, still believe animal fatty food is so healthy, like soul food in USA then you see those morbid obese idiots waling around

Well the graph is quite old and Thailand changed a lot since

[Kitsune]

thank you for the video, Thailand is the lowest country with breast cancer, great!

people are so stupid and naive, still believe animal fatty food is so healthy, like soul food in USA then you see those morbid obese idiots waling around

I actually know a lot Thai women who had breast cancer, but people say it is from the cheap breast enlargements they use.

I doubt Thailand is so low in the statistic

it'"s an old grah from the 90s i think.

Since THL has drastically raise animal consumption

[balo]

Doesnt matter if you're vegetarian or meat eater. If you eat unhealthy and sit in front of the TV all day you will not live a longer life . Add smoke and alcohol to that and your life will end before you know it.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[h90]

Doesnt matter if you're vegetarian or meat eater. If you eat unhealthy and sit in front of the TV all day you will not live a longer life . Add smoke and alcohol to that and your life will end before you know it.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

And even if stop drinking, stop smoking, stop eating meat and living healthy doesn't increase your lifespan, it will feel much longer.....

[BugJackBaron]

So who is going to explain the healthy innuit of the 19th century living on a diet of

fermented fish and animal fat?

Yes, it was documented by Steffensen and no it is not "just genetics" as sailors

who adopted their diet had fewwer problems(like scurvy) than those who did not.

It is the confounding variables that could easily cause the increase in cancer. Example:

Do people have fries and soda with that burger? Yes, then how do you know they are not to blame

for any increase in cancer statistics?

[Kitsune]

So who is going to explain the healthy innuit of the 19th century living on a diet of

fermented fish and animal fat?

Yes, it was documented by Steffensen and no it is not "just genetics" as sailors

who adopted their diet had fewwer problems(like scurvy) than those who did not.

It is the confounding variables that could easily cause the increase in cancer. Example:

Do people have fries and soda with that burger? Yes, then how do you know they are not to blame

for any increase in cancer statistics?

It's a myth

Inuits had cancer.

Actic Greenland mummies dated 500 years before western contact, show they had cancer on paleo diet.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76406213/Inuit-Had-Cancer-on-Paleo-Diet-CONFIRMED-Diseases-Found-Rampant-in-Arctic-Greenland-Mummies-500-Years-Before-Western-Contact-WAPF-Crossfit-Tra

http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/sharebook/971755510

Edited May 28, 2014 by Kitsune

[h90]

So who is going to explain the healthy innuit of the 19th century living on a diet of

fermented fish and animal fat?

Yes, it was documented by Steffensen and no it is not "just genetics" as sailors

who adopted their diet had fewwer problems(like scurvy) than those who did not.

It is the confounding variables that could easily cause the increase in cancer. Example:

Do people have fries and soda with that burger? Yes, then how do you know they are not to blame

for any increase in cancer statistics?

you'll never adjust to the little amount of Vitamin C they get. And even they loose their theet fast....

[BugJackBaron]

So who is going to explain the healthy innuit of the 19th century living on a diet of

fermented fish and animal fat?

Yes, it was documented by Steffensen and no it is not "just genetics" as sailors

who adopted their diet had fewwer problems(like scurvy) than those who did not.

It is the confounding variables that could easily cause the increase in cancer. Example:

Do people have fries and soda with that burger? Yes, then how do you know they are not to blame

for any increase in cancer statistics?

It's a myth

Inuits had cancer.

Actic Greenland mummies dated 500 years before western contact, show they had cancer on paleo diet.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76406213/Inuit-Had-Cancer-on-Paleo-Diet-CONFIRMED-Diseases-Found-Rampant-in-Arctic-Greenland-Mummies-500-Years-Before-Western-Contact-WAPF-Crossfit-Tra

http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/sharebook/971755510

Nobody said they didn't get cancer. They were not supermen. What they didn't get was scurvy.

Cancer has many causes after all.

The fact of the matter is that their health decayed after adopting a diet of Western processed foods.

This is well-documented by Price and others.

Edited May 28, 2014 by BugJackBaron

[Emilp]

Thanks

[tkramer]

May 11, 2014

by Gabe Mirkin, MD

More than forty years ago, a group of researchers wrote an article claiming that the Eskimos of Greenland had a reduced incidence of heart attacks because they ate large amounts of whale and seal blubber, rich sources of omega-3 fatty acids.

Now George Fodor, of the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, has shown that this is not true (Canadian Journal of Cardiology, published online April 13, 2014). The Greenland Eskimos as well as the Canadian and Alaskan Inuit suffer from heart attacks at least as frequently, and probably more frequently, than the non-Eskimo population. They also have a stroke rate that is far higher than that of the general population, they die 10 years earlier than the general population and their death rate is double that of the non-Eskimo populations.

http://drmirkin.com/heart/eskimos-not-protected-from-heart-attacks.html

[BugJackBaron]

May 11, 2014

by Gabe Mirkin, MD

More than forty years ago, a group of researchers wrote an article claiming that the Eskimos of Greenland had a reduced incidence of heart attacks because they ate large amounts of whale and seal blubber, rich sources of omega-3 fatty acids.

Now George Fodor, of the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, has shown that this is not true (Canadian Journal of Cardiology, published online April 13, 2014). The Greenland Eskimos as well as the Canadian and Alaskan Inuit suffer from heart attacks at least as frequently, and probably more frequently, than the non-Eskimo population. They also have a stroke rate that is far higher than that of the general population, they die 10 years earlier than the general population and their death rate is double that of the non-Eskimo populations.

http://drmirkin.com/heart/eskimos-not-protected-from-heart-attacks.html

Umm, Are we not comparing more than 40 years ago with now? Surely almost none of the innuit now

llive like they did . or eat like they did, 100 or even 40 years ago. I am sure that they have a lot of alcohol consumption and cigs too(as I witnessed in the 80s in Northern Quebec). In other words, this is a red herring.

Edited May 28, 2014 by BugJackBaron

[h90]

So who is going to explain the healthy innuit of the 19th century living on a diet of

fermented fish and animal fat?

Yes, it was documented by Steffensen and no it is not "just genetics" as sailors

who adopted their diet had fewwer problems(like scurvy) than those who did not.

It is the confounding variables that could easily cause the increase in cancer. Example:

Do people have fries and soda with that burger? Yes, then how do you know they are not to blame

for any increase in cancer statistics?

It's a myth

Inuits had cancer.

Actic Greenland mummies dated 500 years before western contact, show they had cancer on paleo diet.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76406213/Inuit-Had-Cancer-on-Paleo-Diet-CONFIRMED-Diseases-Found-Rampant-in-Arctic-Greenland-Mummies-500-Years-Before-Western-Contact-WAPF-Crossfit-Tra

http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/sharebook/971755510

Nobody said they didn't get cancer. They were not supermen. What they didn't get was scurvy.

Cancer has many causes after all.

The fact of the matter is that their health decayed after adopting a diet of Western processed foods.

This is well-documented by Price and others.

I read a long time ago a study about different races and Vitamin C. Can't recall the details, but the main point was that European should eat minimum 70 mg per day, but that isn't enough for people from tropical areas, which should get 200 mg. While Inuit can live with 10 mg (Can't recall exactly might have been 7 or 15 mg.....)

Which seems logic, everyone who couldn't handle it died already 100.000 years ago....

[BugJackBaron]

So who is going to explain the healthy innuit of the 19th century living on a diet of

fermented fish and animal fat?

Yes, it was documented by Steffensen and no it is not "just genetics" as sailors

who adopted their diet had fewwer problems(like scurvy) than those who did not.

It is the confounding variables that could easily cause the increase in cancer. Example:

Do people have fries and soda with that burger? Yes, then how do you know they are not to blame

for any increase in cancer statistics?

It's a myth

Inuits had cancer.

Actic Greenland mummies dated 500 years before western contact, show they had cancer on paleo diet.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76406213/Inuit-Had-Cancer-on-Paleo-Diet-CONFIRMED-Diseases-Found-Rampant-in-Arctic-Greenland-Mummies-500-Years-Before-Western-Contact-WAPF-Crossfit-Tra

http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/sharebook/971755510

Nobody said they didn't get cancer. They were not supermen. What they didn't get was scurvy.

Cancer has many causes after all.

The fact of the matter is that their health decayed after adopting a diet of Western processed foods.

This is well-documented by Price and others.

I read a long time ago a study about different races and Vitamin C. Can't recall the details, but the main point was that European should eat minimum 70 mg per day, but that isn't enough for people from tropical areas, which should get 200 mg. While Inuit can live with 10 mg (Can't recall exactly might have been 7 or 15 mg.....)

Which seems logic, everyone who couldn't handle it died already 100.000 years ago....

This is the old "it's genetics" explanation. It doesn't hold water(so to speak) as I mentioned becuase European sailors who traded in the arctic and who adopted the inuit diet had fewer health issues than those who did not.

The anthropogist Steffensen who stayed with them for more than a year and adopted their diet and way of life, also enjoyed good health. It is a fascinating sotry as he actually allowed skeptical New Yourk doctors to monitor his health in a hospital in New York where he was only allowed an Eskimo diet(as much as possible).

The science of nutrition was young at the time and after a period of many months his bill of health checked out clean. Google it.

[Kitsune]

Right the picture of health ...

01 - The inuit were confirmed to have cancer, while eating a purely native paleo style diet.

02 - The inuit bodies were riddled with carcinoma, while eating wholly natural traditional wild foods.

03 - The inuit while on their paleo primal diet were found to have extensive bone joint lesions.

04 - The inuit gave birth to children with birth defects while eating paleolithic type diet.

05 - The inuit were found to have given birth to a child with downs syndrome (sloped forehead, demented) while on paleo diet

06 - Inuit bodies were found stricken with perthes disease, a wastage & disintegration of the leg bone (hip), and may have gone limp.

07 - A female inuit, on the inuit traditional primal solution diet, was possibly hit with breast cancer.

08 - The inuit cancer in the woman had metasticized and spread throughout her body in multiple lesions while eating paleo.

09 - All of the inuit person's teeth had fallen out, while eating paleo, and appeared to be infected with gum disease.

10 - While on the meat based paleo diet, they got infected with pinworms - small parasites living in their abdomen, often sourced from ingesting meat.

11 - All of the paleo inuit meat-eaters were infested with head lice - nits. As well as egg-larvae.

Medical evidence now confirms that the inuit got cancer while on a pre-contact primal paleo diet.

[BugJackBaron]

Right the picture of health ...

01 - The inuit were confirmed to have cancer, while eating a purely native paleo style diet.

02 - The inuit bodies were riddled with carcinoma, while eating wholly natural traditional wild foods.

03 - The inuit while on their paleo primal diet were found to have extensive bone joint lesions.

04 - The inuit gave birth to children with birth defects while eating paleolithic type diet.

05 - The inuit were found to have given birth to a child with downs syndrome (sloped forehead, demented) while on paleo diet

06 - Inuit bodies were found stricken with perthes disease, a wastage & disintegration of the leg bone (hip), and may have gone limp.

07 - A female inuit, on the inuit traditional primal solution diet, was possibly hit with breast cancer.

08 - The inuit cancer in the woman had metasticized and spread throughout her body in multiple lesions while eating paleo.

09 - All of the inuit person's teeth had fallen out, while eating paleo, and appeared to be infected with gum disease.

10 - While on the meat based paleo diet, they got infected with pinworms - small parasites living in their abdomen, often sourced from ingesting meat.

11 - All of the paleo inuit meat-eaters were infested with head lice - nits. As well as egg-larvae.

Medical evidence now confirms that the inuit got cancer while on a pre-contact primal paleo diet.

Pure reactionary balderdash. Since the traditional papaleodiet way hasn't existed for decades, perhaps you could provide a

link to the documentation of your claims for the inuit , say around, 1906.

http://www.archive.org/stream/mylifewitheskim00andegoog#page/n6/mode/2up