Vit. B12 In Plant Foods
Lotus
I'd like to hear your comments on the following information.
According to this study, plants uptake Vit. B12 from soil.
*Mozafar, A. 1994. Enrichment of some B-vitamins in plants with
application of organic fertilizers. Plant and Soil 167:305-311.
Organic food suppliers often claim that organic foods grown
on soils with natural fertilizers have a better nutritional
value than foods grown with inorganic fertilizers. Although
past studies, such as those published by Gray and Daniel in
1959 or by Leclerc and colleagues in 1991, have shown that
organically grown produce had more vitamins, it was unclear
if the plants synthesized them or got them from the soil.
In order to test the origins of vitamins in plants, this
researcher selected vitamin B12 for study. This was because
plants cannot manufacture it but microorganisms can. In
addition, large amounts of B12 are found in animal manure,
a commonly used organic fertilizer. This study looked at
whether plants, specifically soybeans, barley, and spinach,
grown on soils amended with pure B12 or B12 in manure
would have a higher B12 content than plants grown with
inorganic fertilizers. All plants contained a minimal amount
of B12 in the inorganically fertilized soil. Barley showed a
threefold increase of B12 in the harvested grain in both the
pure B12 treatment (10.8 ng/g dry weight) and the manure
treatment (9.1 ng/g dry weight). In spinach leaves, B12
increased twofold in the manure treatment (17.8 ng/g dry
weight) and 34-fold in the pure B12 treatment (235 ng/g
dry weight). Soybeans had a similar, but not as dramatic
trend. In addition, soil samples in fields receiving manure
over several years contained more B12 than those only
receiving inorganic fertilizers. These results show that B12
levels can be increased in organically grown food through
the use of manure fertilizers. This is good news for
vegetarians, who often have trouble getting enough B12
in their diets. It is also good news for consumers who buy
organic food because of its better nutritional value. While
this preliminary trial does seem to indicate that vitamins
can be absorbed from the soil, more studies should be
done with other vitamins to confirm these observations.
Abstract Author: Margaret Boshart, 21 October 1997.
http://wwwscas.cit.cornell.edu/courses/190/abstr/boshart2.htm
Mozafar's bio and contact info';
http://www.pe.ipw.agrl.ethz.ch/~amozafar/
I calculated quantities, using the above data, as follows;
17.8 ng vit. B12 per 1.0 g manured spinach (dry weight).
[1 ng (nano gram) = 1 billionth of a gram.
(1 billion - 1,000,000,000)]
thus, 17.8 ng = 0.0178 痢
(痢 = mcg = 1 millionth of a gram)
RDA for vitamin B12 = 2.4 痢/day
2.4 / 0.0178 = 134.83 (round to 135)
135 g spinach (dry weight) provides 100% RDA of B12.
Similarly;
9.1 ng vit. B12 per 1.0 g manured barley (dry weight) = 0.0091 痢
2.4 / 0.0091 = 263.73 (round to 264)
264 g barley (dry weight) provides 100% RDA of B12.
Could anyone please inform me if the 'dry weight' of
the above foods translates as simply being the fresh
weight of these foods, or if it refers to some state
of dehydration, and, if so, what the quantities would
then be of fresh produce.
Thank you,
Lotus
Lotus
> "Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:3C724E59...@esatclear.ie...
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I'd like to hear your comments on the following information.
> >
> > According to this study, plants uptake Vit. B12 from soil...
>
> snip
>
> > Could anyone please inform me if the 'dry weight' of
> > the above foods translates as simply being the fresh
> > weight of these foods, or if it refers to some state
> > of dehydration, and, if so, what the quantities would
> > then be of fresh produce.
>
> I'm pretty sure that "dry weight" refers to dehydrated materials.
>
> Linda
Thank you, Linda. I really need to be certain.
The American Heritage® Dictionary gives;
11. Of or relating to solid rather than liquid substances or
commodities: dry weight.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/37/D0403700.html
.. so, would that be referring to *dried' spinach, for example?
:) Lotus
Jay Tanzman
water it contains.
Several years ago vegetarian nutritionist Virginia Messina reported on the
sci-veg list that she had contacted Mozafar, and together they found an error in
Mozafar's computations that led to the amounts of B12 in the plants being
overstated. The actual amounts were not nutrtionally significant. I don't
recall what the error was, but to the best of my recollection, it had something
to do with this "dry weight" issue.
-Jay
Lotus
Thank you, Jay.
Bear with me now.. that would involve consuming large amounts of spinach
*alone*, or 264 g of rehydrated barley *alone*, but, if one were to consume
a varied (organically manured) vegan diet, it appears that one may obtain
sufficient vit. B12 from plant foods (assuming all plants take up B12 from
the soil) to meet daily requirements. Thoughts?
Jay Tanzman
I haven't checked your math, but according to your first post, you'd have to eat
135 g spinach (dry weight) to obtain 100% RDA of B12.
According to USDA data, raw spinach is 91% water (by weight), so you'd have to
eat 135 / (1 - .91) = 1500 g/day of raw spinach to get the RDA. Also, according
to USDA data, there are 30 g per cup of raw spinach. Thus, to get the RDA of
B12 from spinach alone, you'd have to eat 50 cups of spinach a day! Assuming
that the nutrient density of barley and whatever else Mozafar studied is the
same as spinach, you'd have to eat a combined total of 50 cups of these foods
each day to get the RDA of B12. While the nutrient density of the foods that
Mozafar studied might not be the same as for spinach, I doubt that they would be
high enough to be useful sources of B12.
-Jay
Brandon Van Every
>
> Bear with me now.. that would involve consuming large amounts of spinach
> *alone*, or 264 g of rehydrated barley *alone*, but, if one were to
consume
> a varied (organically manured) vegan diet, it appears that one may obtain
> sufficient vit. B12 from plant foods (assuming all plants take up B12 from
> the soil) to meet daily requirements. Thoughts?
You're proposing to eat the weighted sum of B12 over a number of vegetables.
If all weights are roughly the same, you could eat lotsa spinach or lotsa
salad, it doesn't matter. If the weights are different, then if you want to
take less time eating you'd want to eat the foods with the most B12. If
there are additional weights, like expense, time to prepare, availability,
and a need for variety, then your B12 strategy changes yet again.
Or is your point that more B12 can be catalyzed out of your veggies if you
combine them with other foods? i.e. catalysts can raise the weights? If
so, what foods, and how do they relate to the spinach/barley/B12 study under
discussion?
--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
Lotus
[..]
> I haven't checked your math, but according to your first post, you'd have to eat
> 135 g spinach (dry weight) to obtain 100% RDA of B12.
>
> According to USDA data, raw spinach is 91% water (by weight), so you'd have to
> eat 135 / (1 - .91) = 1500 g/day of raw spinach to get the RDA. Also, according
> to USDA data, there are 30 g per cup of raw spinach. Thus, to get the RDA of
> B12 from spinach alone, you'd have to eat 50 cups of spinach a day! Assuming
> that the nutrient density of barley and whatever else Mozafar studied is the
> same as spinach, you'd have to eat a combined total of 50 cups of these foods
> each day to get the RDA of B12. While the nutrient density of the foods that
> Mozafar studied might not be the same as for spinach, I doubt that they would be
> high enough to be useful sources of B12.
>
> -Jay
O.k.
Barley has a water content of only 9.44%.
263.73 + 24.89 (9.44% of 263.73) = 288.62
so, 288.62 g barley (m) provides 100% RDA of B12.
That doesn't sound like an unreasonable quantity,
although of course, man cannot live by barley alone..
Lotus
> "Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:3C7285A6...@esatclear.ie...
> >
> > Bear with me now.. that would involve consuming large amounts of spinach
> > *alone*, or 264 g of rehydrated barley *alone*, but, if one were to
> consume
> > a varied (organically manured) vegan diet, it appears that one may obtain
> > sufficient vit. B12 from plant foods (assuming all plants take up B12 from
> > the soil) to meet daily requirements. Thoughts?
>
> You're proposing to eat the weighted sum of B12 over a number of vegetables.
> If all weights are roughly the same, you could eat lotsa spinach or lotsa
> salad, it doesn't matter. If the weights are different, then if you want to
> take less time eating you'd want to eat the foods with the most B12. If
> there are additional weights, like expense, time to prepare, availability,
> and a need for variety, then your B12 strategy changes yet again.
The main 'strategy' it seems, is to fertilize the garden with organic manure.
( Q. Have any studies been done to determine amounts
of vit. B12 on the *exterior* of plant foods? )
[..]
Lotus
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Snobs be gone!
>
> Once upon a time, our fellow Lotus
> rambled on about "Vit. B12 In Plant Foods."
> Our champion being bored in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
> >I calculated quantities, using the above data, as follows;
> >
> >17.8 ng vit. B12 per 1.0 g manured spinach (dry weight).
> >[1 ng (nano gram) = 1 billionth of a gram.
> >(1 billion - 1,000,000,000)]
> >
> >thus, 17.8 ng = 0.0178 痢
> >(痢 = mcg = 1 millionth of a gram)
> >
> >RDA for vitamin B12 = 2.4 痢/day
> >
> >2.4 / 0.0178 = 134.83 (round to 135)
> >
> >135 g spinach (dry weight) provides 100% RDA of B12.
> >
> >Similarly;
> >
> >9.1 ng vit. B12 per 1.0 g manured barley (dry weight) = 0.0091 痢
> >
> >2.4 / 0.0091 = 263.73 (round to 264)
> >
> >264 g barley (dry weight) provides 100% RDA of B12.
> >
> >
> >Could anyone please inform me if the 'dry weight' of
> >the above foods translates as simply being the fresh
> >weight of these foods,
>
> All your numbers for all practical purposes are quite meaningless.
> See:
> ~ Bioavailability of Nutrients: The Nutrition of Micronutrients ~
> http://food.naturalhealthperspective.com/bioavailability.html
> "Bioavailability of food is an important issue in nutrition. But,
> trying to calculate quantitatively how much of each known nutrient you
> are getting out of your diet is both a waste of time and impossible to
> do."
>
> This webpage explains why and provides citations to support the
> positions taken.
> --
> John Gohde,
> Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
>
> The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of the
> biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 16 webpages,
> Nutrition (www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/) is now with more
> documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.
'..most vitamins are very well absorbed [from food],..'
Do we have a problem here, Houston?
Jay Tanzman
You must be looking at uncooked barley (is that edible?) "Barley, pearled,
cooked" is 68.8% water.
263.73 / .322 = 819 g, which is 5.2 cups of barley. Well, that's 10 x better
than spinach, by volume anyway. That works out to about 1000 kcal/day from
barley. So, you could meet the RDA by eating a diet that was 50% barley grown
in B12-enhanced manure. Mozafar's manure was B12-enhanced, IIRC. Regardless,
you should check with Ginny Messina and get the details of her conversation with
Mozafar before you take any of this too seriously.
-Jay
Lotus
> Lotus wrote:
> [..]
>
> > Barley has a water content of only 9.44%.
> >
> > 263.73 / .944 = 279.37 (corrected)
> >
> > so, 279.37 g barley (m) provides 100% RDA of B12.
> >
> > That doesn't sound like an unreasonable quantity,
> > although of course, man cannot live by barley alone..
>
> You must be looking at uncooked barley (is that edible?) "Barley, pearled,
> cooked" is 68.8% water.
>
> 263.73 / .322 = 819 g, which is 5.2 cups of barley. Well, that's 10 x better
> than spinach, by volume anyway. That works out to about 1000 kcal/day from
> barley. So, you could meet the RDA by eating a diet that was 50% barley grown
> in B12-enhanced manure. Mozafar's manure was B12-enhanced, IIRC. Regardless,
> you should check with Ginny Messina and get the details of her conversation with
> Mozafar before you take any of this too seriously.
>
> -Jay
Fine, thank you very much.
'.. large amounts of B12 are found in animal manure...This study looked
at whether plants, specifically soybeans, barley, and spinach, grown on
soils amended with pure B12 or B12 in manure would have a higher B12
content than plants grown with inorganic fertilizers.' is a tiny bit obscure,
but I don't think that the manure used in the study was B12 enhanced,
as there would have been little point to doing so. (Also; 'These results
show that B12 levels can be increased in organically grown food through
the use of manure fertilizers.).
Cheers,
Lotus
Ron
I'd like to point out that barley is dry to begin with. Where do you
get the idea that barley would need to be rehydrated? Grains are
always measured 'dry'.
No doubt the research was conducted on barley in it's natural
condition.
Therefore slightly more than a pound of barley would meet your RDA.
Jay Tanzman
Let me guess. You're a vegan.
-Jay
reader
> Hello All,
>
> I'd like to hear your comments on the following information.
>
> According to this study, plants uptake Vit. B12 from soil.
>
> *Mozafar, A. 1994. Enrichment of some B-vitamins in plants with
> application of organic fertilizers. Plant and Soil 167:305-311.
>
A very detailed analysis of the Mozafar paper can be found at:
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-7d.shtml
It includes calculation of wet weight quantities needed to get 2 mcg
of vitamin B12.
Paul Rogers
I have never seen any study that found higher amounts of B12 in organic
foods (and I've seen a lot).
Many years ago the word got around that one could get adequate B12 from
mushrooms. Finally they found that it was from soil/manure/compost on the
surface of the fruit and not biochemically supplied.
Current organic standards do not allow the application of fresh manure -- in
commercial farms at least. This is not a safe practice because of the e coli
problem.
However, gorillas are coprophagous -- a most natural way to solve the B12
problem.
Paul R
DRCEEPHD
>From: "Paul Rogers" ecol...@bigpond.net.au
>Date: 2/20/02 2:42 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <xjJc8.8201$Uy2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>However, gorillas are coprophagous -- a most natural way to solve the B12
>problem.
>
>Paul R
Oh no... Can we get our B-12 by just smelling it or does mankind really need
to eat shit?
BTW, if the excrement is so high in B-12, indicating adequacy for the creature,
why do we check the blood instead of the stool?
Cee
Jay Tanzman
DRCEEPHD wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Vit. B12 In Plant Foods
> >From: "Paul Rogers" ecol...@bigpond.net.au
> >Date: 2/20/02 2:42 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <xjJc8.8201$Uy2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>
> >However, gorillas are coprophagous -- a most natural way to solve the B12
> >problem.
> >
> >Paul R
>
> Oh no... Can we get our B-12 by just smelling it or does mankind really need
> to eat shit?
Dee-minus, if "mankind" wants to get B12 naturally, then he has to eat meat.
> BTW, if the excrement is so high in B-12, indicating adequacy for the creature,
> why do we check the blood instead of the stool?
Who says that a high B12 level in the stool indicates adequacy for the
"creature."
-Jay
Brandon Van Every
>
> Barley has a water content of only 9.44%.
>
> 263.73 + 24.89 (9.44% of 263.73) = 288.62
>
> so, 288.62 g barley (m) provides 100% RDA of B12.
>
> That doesn't sound like an unreasonable quantity,
> although of course, man cannot live by barley alone..
Not unreasonable??!? Do you actually eat barley? You're talking a half
pound of dry barley, and I can tell you, you're going to need an awfully big
pot to cook that up! Barley soaks up an awful lot of water when you cook
it, more than the other grains like quinoa and rice that I've got around
here. Rice and quinoa take 1:1 of water but barley needs a lot more. 1/2
cup of any dry grain is a pretty big serving for a meal. If you're eating a
balanced meal you'd have to be really really hungry to eat more than that.
1 cup is an athlete's portion. I can't tell you how much 1/2 cup of barley
weighs, but it sure as heck isn't half a pound.
Brandon Van Every
"Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:436a5d81.02021...@posting.google.com...
>
> No doubt the research was conducted on barley in it's natural
> condition.
>
> Therefore slightly more than a pound of barley would meet your RDA.
That's actually a lot of barley. I suppose you could do it over a day, but
you'd have to really like barley. Calorically, does it make sense for
everybody?
Ron
> "Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:436a5d81.02021...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > No doubt the research was conducted on barley in it's natural
> > condition.
> >
> > Therefore slightly more than a pound of barley would meet your RDA.
>
> That's actually a lot of barley. I suppose you could do it over a day, but
> you'd have to really like barley. Calorically, does it make sense for
> everybody?
It's rather doubtful you'd have to eat barley all the time. Wheat
will also uptake B-12 and as the research presented shows, other
plants do as well.
DRCEEPHD
>Date: 2/20/02 3:10 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <3C7410C4...@sph.llu.edu>
>Dee-minus, if "mankind" wants to get B12 naturally, then he has to eat meat.
You mean out of all the creatures on this earth that utilize B-12 only man must
eat flesh to get his quota?
If I am going to feed a 2200 pound ( 1,000 kg ) cow enough meat so that it will
be loaded with the B-12 for my needs, how much meat do I need to force feed it?
>Who says that a high B12 level in the stool indicates adequacy for the
>"creature."
>
>-Jay
Actually, I was just musing about the situation.
Provide an adequate dietary containing the micronutrient mineral cobalt to
animals, and the bacteria in their guts seem to be able to crank out an excess
of B-12 beyond their immediate needs. I was taught that man can do the same.
Correct dietary, intrinsic factor from the stomach, healthy gut flora and a
working gut wall, and voila...no B-12 shortage.
When inducing a B-12 deficiency in the lab, copious amounts of anti-biotics are
needed to kill off the gut bacteria. We seem to be feeding copious amounts of
antibiotics to cows. We also have a problem with "downer cow" syndrome.
Perhaps a B-12 deficiency? If the cow is so deficient in B-12 that she
develops obvious symptoms of the deficiency, of what value is it to eat that
cow for her B-12?
BTW, anything less than a B in grad school is failing. Is that why you are
still there after six years?
Cee
Brandon Van Every
"DRCEEPHD" <drce...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020221013959...@mb-fj.aol.com...
>
> >Dee-minus, if "mankind" wants to get B12 naturally, then he has to eat
meat.
>
> You mean out of all the creatures on this earth that utilize B-12 only man
must
> eat flesh to get his quota?
>
> If I am going to feed a 2200 pound ( 1,000 kg ) cow enough meat so that it
will
> be loaded with the B-12 for my needs, how much meat do I need to force
feed it?
Do cows synthesize B-12? Do humans? Are cows more efficient at extracting
B-12 from plants than are humans? I think you're going to have to take into
account that we aren't cows.
> Provide an adequate dietary containing the micronutrient mineral cobalt
to
> animals, and the bacteria in their guts seem to be able to crank out an
excess
> of B-12 beyond their immediate needs. I was taught that man can do the
same.
> Correct dietary, intrinsic factor from the stomach, healthy gut flora and
a
> working gut wall, and voila...no B-12 shortage.
Ok then what real-world factors promote or inhibit it? If it's so easy, why
are so many vegans B-12 challenged?
> When inducing a B-12 deficiency in the lab, copious amounts of
anti-biotics are
> needed to kill off the gut bacteria. We seem to be feeding copious
amounts of
> antibiotics to cows. We also have a problem with "downer cow" syndrome.
> Perhaps a B-12 deficiency? If the cow is so deficient in B-12 that she
> develops obvious symptoms of the deficiency, of what value is it to eat
that
> cow for her B-12?
Got me there. Let's eat chickens. Or clams! Clams are GOOOOOD. I love
establishing a personal relationship with my live clams before I torture and
kill them in a steam bath. [*] Ok how about a suffocating fish. You tell
me who's got the B-12. Heck let's free range the cows, blow off the
antibiotics, and kill them halal. Will that help?
> BTW, anything less than a B in grad school is failing. Is that why you
are
> still there after six years?
Who gives a shit? Really. Spare us. Get something else in life to be
important about.
--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
[*] Actually, I hate it. But they are rather tasty, and so far I have not
figured out a way to both be healthy and not cause suffering to something.
I am trying to minimize the suffering. But even the secrets of biology
would cost me a pile of lab mice. Or worse, humans.
Steve Harris
"DRCEEPHD" <drce...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020221013959...@mb-fj.aol.com...
> You mean out of all the creatures on this earth that utilize B-12 only man
must
> eat flesh to get his quota?
No, humans could eat their own feces, as non ruminant vegetarian animals are
forced to do.
> If I am going to feed a 2200 pound ( 1,000 kg ) cow enough meat so that it
will
> be loaded with the B-12 for my needs, how much meat do I need to force
feed it?
Cows are ruminants. They have extra stomachs full of bacteria that make
vitamin B12. You probably don't.
> Provide an adequate dietary containing the micronutrient mineral cobalt
to
> animals, and the bacteria in their guts seem to be able to crank out an
excess
> of B-12 beyond their immediate needs. I was taught that man can do the
same.
Your teachers were didn't know what they were talking about, then. There
are many studies of B12 malnurished vegan children in the scientific
literature. There is more than enough cobalt in fruits and vegetables to
make the few micrograms of B12 you need every day, if you could make it in
your stomach or small intestine as a cow or deer can. You can't. Bacteria do
make it in your colon, but you can't absorb it. Sort of like you cannot
seem to absorb these ideas, which have been presented to you before on
sci.med.nutrtion.
> Correct dietary, intrinsic factor from the stomach, healthy gut flora and
a
> working gut wall, and voila...no B-12 shortage.
Nonsense. If you think having colonic flora growing in your small intestine
is "healthy gut flora," you've one too many vigorous colonics. They filled
you up way too high.
> When inducing a B-12 deficiency in the lab, copious amounts of
anti-biotics are
> needed to kill off the gut bacteria.
That's because lab animals tend to eat their own and other's feces from time
to time, and also groom themselves by licking their anuses. How about you?
> We seem to be feeding copious amounts of
> antibiotics to cows. We also have a problem with "downer cow" syndrome.
> Perhaps a B-12 deficiency?
No. Combined generation of the myelin from B12 deficiency is rather hard to
miss. Nobody has ever described a B12 deficient cow. Besides, if you fed a
cow enough antibiotics to kill her gut flora, she wouldn't be able to
process cellulose and would start to starve from lack of calories in the
conventional way, long before she had time to develop B12 deficiency. Think
about it. You're suggesting they've been feeding cows enough antibiotics to
kill the flora that makes it possible for them to grow and give milk, and
nobody noticed until they got B12 deficient? Not your brightest idea, is
it?
> If the cow is so deficient in B-12 that she
> develops obvious symptoms of the deficiency, of what value is it to eat
that
> cow for her B-12?
If your grandmother had wheels instead of legs, of what value would stairs
be to her?
> BTW, anything less than a B in grad school is failing. Is that why you
are
> still there after six years?
After nearly the same time on this forum, what prevents you from learning
the simplest facts about this nutrient?
--
Steve Harris
You can email me at sbhar...@ix.netcom.com
But remove the numerals in the address first.
==============================
Our nada who art in Nada
Nada be thy nada..
-- Dada Hemingway
==========================
DRCEEPHD
>Date: 2/21/02 1:32 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <a528rd$2q9$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>
>
>No, humans could eat their own feces, as non ruminant vegetarian animals are
>forced to do.
>
Only when in the hands of people like you.
>> If I am going to feed a 2200 pound ( 1,000 kg ) cow enough meat so that it
>will
>> be loaded with the B-12 for my needs, how much meat do I need to force
>feed it?
>
>Cows are ruminants. They have extra stomachs full of bacteria that make
>vitamin B12. You probably don't.
>
I agree that I don't have multiple stomachs.
However, how about the humans with a hiatus hernia? Is this a genetic
change? Are we developing multiple stomachs?
>Your teachers were didn't know what they were talking about, then. There
>are many studies of B12 malnurished vegan children in the scientific
>literature. There is more than enough cobalt in fruits and vegetables to
>make the few micrograms of B12 you need every day, if you could make it in
>your stomach or small intestine as a cow or deer can. You can't. Bacteria do
>make it in your colon, but you can't absorb it. Sort of like you cannot
>seem to absorb these ideas, which have been presented to you before on
>sci.med.nutrtion.
Uhmm. Stevie boy. You have been eating too much shit for your B-12 needs. ( I
have long thougt that you had shit for brains, but that may be expecting too
much ).
Reread your medical physiology text ( assuming you ever read it the first
time.) You should discover that B-12 absorption occurs in the ileum and not the
colon.
>> Correct dietary, intrinsic factor from the stomach, healthy gut flora and
>a
>> working gut wall, and voila...no B-12 shortage.
>
>Nonsense. If you think having colonic flora growing in your small intestine
>is "healthy gut flora," you've one too many vigorous colonics. They filled
>you up way too high.
Shit normally floats downstream. Only you would consider that colonic bateria
would swim upstream into the small intestine.
If you blue eyes have turned brown, it may be because your brown shit level is
too high.
>That's because lab animals tend to eat their own and other's feces from time
>to time,
Improperly fed and starving animals do strange things. Humans are known to
take a bucket out to a field and dig dirt to eat.
>and also groom themselves by licking their anuses. How about you?
No, I do take my share of shit on smn but I leave brown nosing to docs like
you.
>No. Combined generation of the myelin from B12 deficiency is rather hard to
>miss.
Really?
>Nobody has ever described a B12 deficient cow.
Wouldn't be too good for business would it?
>Besides, if you fed a
>cow enough antibiotics to kill her gut flora, she wouldn't be able to
>process cellulose and would start to starve from lack of calories in the
>conventional way, long before she had time to develop B12 deficiency.
Maybe, and maybe not. I still think it is worth checking out.
>Think
>about it. You're suggesting they've been feeding cows enough antibiotics to
>kill the flora that makes it possible for them to grow and give milk, and
>nobody noticed until they got B12 deficient?
And here I thought that antibiotics were selective, killing only certain types
of bacteria, and that some bacteria could mutate to survive. Silly me.
>Not your brightest idea, is
>it?
Maybe not, but at least I am thinking. How about you?
>If your grandmother had wheels instead of legs, of what value would stairs
>be to her?
If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass every time he jumped. So what?
>After nearly the same time on this forum, what prevents you from learning
>the simplest facts about this nutrient?
>
The same thing that keeps simple logic and chemistry from entering your mind.
Cee.
Steve Harris
> >Your teachers were didn't know what they were talking about, then. There
> >are many studies of B12 malnurished vegan children in the scientific
> >literature. There is more than enough cobalt in fruits and vegetables to
> >make the few micrograms of B12 you need every day, if you could make it
in
> >your stomach or small intestine as a cow or deer can. You can't. Bacteria
do
> >make it in your colon, but you can't absorb it. Sort of like you cannot
> >seem to absorb these ideas, which have been presented to you before on
> >sci.med.nutrtion.
> Reread your medical physiology text ( assuming you ever read it the first
> time.) You should discover that B-12 absorption occurs in the ileum and
not the
> colon.
Yes, when did I say otherwise? And your point is what? Bacteria make it in
your colon but you can't absorb it, because you ileum comes before your
colon, and there's an ileocecal valve which prevents feces from going the
wrong way.
> >> Correct dietary, intrinsic factor from the stomach, healthy gut flora
and
> >a
> >> working gut wall, and voila...no B-12 shortage.
> >
> >Nonsense. If you think having colonic flora growing in your small
intestine
> >is "healthy gut flora," you've one too many vigorous colonics. They
filled
> >you up way too high.
>
> Shit normally floats downstream. Only you would consider that colonic
bateria
> would swim upstream into the small intestine.
I never considered it. You're the one claiming that there are bacteria in
your ileum making B12. If they don't come from the colon, where do they come
from? What bacteria are these, again?
> >No. Combined generation of the myelin from B12 deficiency is rather hard
to
> >miss.
>
> Really?
Really. Spinal cords look like hell. Do you think nobody's ever looked at
the spinal tracts of such cows?
> >Nobody has ever described a B12 deficient cow.
>
> Wouldn't be too good for business would it?
It wouldn't hurt business. God, you're so damn ignorant. Vets and farmers
would simply go around injecting cows with B12 the way they inject pigs and
lambs with vitamin E, if it did much good. The way they put cobalt pellets
into cow stomachs now, if they need to. Again, it's not exactly like the ag
industry wouldn't tolerate vitmain injections-- there are already many
places where they are routine. FYI, injectable vitamin B12 is already used
in the ag industry-- go to any farm supply store and look in the vitamin
section, and you'll see industrial sized bottles of B12 for injection. It's
just rarely used in cows. Mostly it's for lambs, who develop a
characteristic white liver disease when fed in cobalt deficiency pasture or
feedlot grain. Cattle usually get cobalt pellets. This works on lambs too,
but they seem to be more sensitive to cobalt deficiency than cattle.
> >Besides, if you fed a
> >cow enough antibiotics to kill her gut flora, she wouldn't be able to
> >process cellulose and would start to starve from lack of calories in the
> >conventional way, long before she had time to develop B12 deficiency.
>
> Maybe, and maybe not. I still think it is worth checking out.
It's been checked out. Read a book.
> >Think
> >about it. You're suggesting they've been feeding cows enough antibiotics
to
> >kill the flora that makes it possible for them to grow and give milk, and
> >nobody noticed until they got B12 deficient?
>
> And here I thought that antibiotics were selective, killing only certain
types
> of bacteria, and that some bacteria could mutate to survive. Silly me.
Silly you. For the same goes for the many bacteria that make B12.
> >Not your brightest idea, is
> >it?
>
> Maybe not, but at least I am thinking. How about you?
I'm doing better than thinking. I also read, and I also go out into the
world to see how things are done. I see no evidence that you do ether one.
For example, if you knew fact one about nutrition in animals, if you'd ever
read a vet text, and if you'd ever actually been in a real farm supply store
and paid attention, you wouldn't be here making such an fool of yourself
with your idiot theories on animal disease.
Brandon Van Every
>
> Uhmm. Stevie boy. You have been eating too much shit for your B-12 needs.
( I
> have long thougt that you had shit for brains, but that may be expecting
too
> much ).
You are hereby killfiled as per my uniform policy of killfiling anyone who
personally attacks anyone for anything. Goodbye!
Derek
"drsquare" <now...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote in message
news:n7h87uo82evnnsu3f...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:06:56 GMT, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,
> ("Brandon Van Every" <vane...@3DProgrammer.com>) wrote:
>
> >"Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:436a5d81.02021...@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >> No doubt the research was conducted on barley in it's natural
> >> condition.
> >>
> >> Therefore slightly more than a pound of barley would meet your RDA.
> >
> >That's actually a lot of barley. I suppose you could do it over a day, but
> >you'd have to really like barley. Calorically, does it make sense for
> >everybody?
>
> you make from a pound of barley?
>
It all depends on the strength of beer you're making. I used
to make all my beers and stouts using separate dry ingredients
for years. Barley is best used with other malt grains for stouts.
I used to brew a couple of barrels of barley wine strength
stouts leading up to Christmas and the ingredients were as
follows:
8lb crushed pale malt
2lb flaked barley
12oz roast barley
3oz bullion hops
2oz northern brewer hops
top fermenting yeast
All the malts and barley would be cracked (split in a grinder)
and mixed together. I would suspend an empty grain bag into
an element heated bucket of water filled of just over 3/4 full
and let the temperature rise to a "strike heat" of 175 f before
adding the dry grains (grist) into it, stirring furiously. The strike
heat is important to ensure the added grist doesn't lower the
temperature of the water to below 150f. The mixture ends up
looking like a thick porridge. This is now called a "mash". The
mash has to stay at exactly 150f for up to 3 hours to turn the
starches in the grains into sugars. You can check for this by
removing a piece of the mash and putting a few drops of iodine
onto it. If the brown iodine turns black, it ain't finished; leave it
longer. Now comes the tricky part: Carefully lift the whole grain
bag with the heavy mash and suspend it over another element
heated bucket and start "sparging." I'd have another bucket
of near boiling water with a hose and small sprinkling rose
attached to the end and sparge the mash by gently showering
in round circles in the middle of the mash to rinse out the sugars
into the plastic collecting bin. After about 5 gallons have collected,
throw the hot grains away and start heating up the bin of the
collected "wort" and add the hops. Keep simmering the wort until
you evaporate about 10% of it away and then run it off into a
fermenting bin. Wait till the wort cools to around room temperature
and add the prepared yeast. Wait about 8 days and siphon off
into sugar primed bottles or kegs. All you need do now is wait
until the second fermentation has taken place in the bottles and the
finished beer matures.
Using the ingredients I gave you would probably give you a
good 4 gallons of smooth stout with a alcoholic strength of
6% or 8% depending on care you took in sparging the mash.
Martin Banschbach
> Actually, I was just musing about the situation.
>
> Provide an adequate dietary containing the micronutrient mineral cobalt to
> animals, and the bacteria in their guts seem to be able to crank out an excess
> of B-12 beyond their immediate needs. I was taught that man can do the same.
> Correct dietary, intrinsic factor from the stomach, healthy gut flora and a
> working gut wall, and voila...no B-12 shortage.
Dear Dr. Cee:
I saw Steve's comments and was wondering who he was conversing with.
Come to
find out it was you. Your Ph.D. in nutrition is definitely mail
order.
I can't believe that you would come out in a public forum and so
dramatically prove that your Ph.D. in nutrition is bogus. Listen, I
actually like you.
Your ideas are often way out in left field but they do make me think.
Unlike John Gohde, you will discuss things. I'm rarely going to agree
with what you
say but I will spend the time to try to understand what your point is
and if
I'm wrong, like I was for stomach pH, I'll admit it.
If you feel that you have to have an advanced degree in nutrition
hanging on
your office wall to get clients, I understand. I can sit here and say
that
I'd never do that but if I had washed out of graduate school, who
knows what
I would have done. A degree does not make a man or a woman. Jack
Challum has
no advanced degree in nutrition yet he published an article in Medical
Hypothesis on vitamin C. He is apparently making a good living as a
nutrition writter.
A degree means absolutely nothing. Some of the brightest and most
incitefull
people that I have ever met in UseNet never had an advanced degree in
nutrition.
The human mind is capable of anything. John does not want to use his.
You like to use yours. Ron Roth has used his. Steve and Jay use
theirs. I try once in awhile to use mine. Having fought with ethical
vegans over many issues, the B12 issue was by far the most bizzare.
Cobalt can not allow the
bacteria in the human gut to produce B12. They do form cobalt
containing compounds that are very similiar to B12 as all bacteria do
but it's not the
real McCoy. Steve doesn't think that any human can have bacteria up
into the small intestine but on a high fiber diet, it is going to
happen. Folic acid status improves when this occurs. Bacteria in the
human gut actually produce quite a bit of material that we can use but
they have to move out of the colon to get most of this material into a
place in our gut where it can be absorbed.
> When inducing a B-12 deficiency in the lab, copious amounts of anti-biotics are
> needed to kill off the gut bacteria. We seem to be feeding copious amounts of
> antibiotics to cows. We also have a problem with "downer cow" syndrome.
> Perhaps a B-12 deficiency? If the cow is so deficient in B-12 that she
> develops obvious symptoms of the deficiency, of what value is it to eat that
> cow for her B-12?
Downer's are a problem. No cow is going to be a downer from
antibiotics causing a B12 deficiency. A human trying to make money
off A cow is not going to allow a bad regrowth of bacteria to take his
cow down. Every cow that gets antibiotics is re-innoculated with
bacteria. I was going to post on
the antibiotic levels in cow's milk but never did and I have thrown
away the
abstracts that I printed out. Any cow with mastitis is given
antibiotics. All milk sold in the U.S. has antibiotics in it. If the
milk exceeds certain levels it can not be sold for human consumption.
Once the teat infection clears, the antibiotics stop. The cow is then
re-innoculated with bacteria. It's standard veternary practice. We
do not need bacteria in our gut but ruminants need bacteria in their
foregut. There is going to be repopulation after the antibiotics end
just like there is repopulation in the human gut after the oral
antibiotics end. But if your concern is animal health you will
squeeze the bacterial mix into the cow after you stop the
antiobiotics.
Physicians do not feel that the same practice is needed for the human
gut. Most of the time, things work out fine but once in awhile one of
the nasty bacteria gets an edge and comes back stronger after the
antibiotics end then the benefical bacteria do and the result is not
pleasant. A cow will come back but milk production is going to drop
if you don't re-innoculate. If you try to cut cuts, some of the cows
are going to end up with the same problem that humans have after
coming off antibiotics. If you don't intervene with another round of
antio-biotics you can end up with a downer cow. It's not a B12
deciciency that takes the cow down Cee.
For some animals you can use a low dose of antibiotics on a continuous
basis to improve weight gain or egg laying capability. For dairy
cows, my understanding is that you only use the antibiotics when an
infection prevents the use of the milk. Since antibiotic levels in
milk at a processing plant are checked, you can't afford to have too
many dairy cows in a herd on antibiotics otherwise your entire batch
of milk will be diverted from human consumption (that's my
understanding from what I read when looking at the issue of
antibiotics in cow's milk).
If you want to claim that bacteria are important in human health I
will agree with you and fight any battles that develop with you side
by side. But I'm not going to help you fight this one, bacteria in
the human gut produce active B12 that humans absorb. There is no
Ph.D. graduate nutrition program in the world that is going to teach
this (accrediated ones anyway). Saying that this is what you were
taught just confirms a bogus degree. Heck, Tom uses a bogus name. I
would not hold that against him if he was better with his
understanding of what human nutrition really is. If Jack Challum had
claimed to have a Ph.D. in nutrition, I would never have challenged
that assertion because everything he ever posted indicated that he
knew the area very well.
I hate to say that I'm here as the keeper of the truth. I do not know
what the "truth" is. All I know is what I read. I have to process
this to make sense out of it. Someone else reading the same material
may processes that same info and come up with a completely different
conclusion.
If I look up at the moon and see a blue moon and you look up at the
same time and see a pale yellow moon are going to disagree. We can go
to a library and read about what color the moon is supposed to be. We
could also ask someone else to look at that same moon and tell us what
color they see.
If we happen to be too very stubborn people, we may spend the rest of
our lives arguing over what color the moon is. If we use the library,
we keep other people out of it. I prefer using the library (published
material). Steve is absolutely right about vegan children. For
adults, it's a whole different ball game. Vegan adults have been
followed for over 20 years with no apparent intake of B12 and no signs
of megaloblastic anemia. This has to prove that bacteria in the human
gut form B12. It doesn't prove this at all. Once you build up a good
B12 reserve, you are going to have a very hard time depleting that
reserve. If a child is given an opportunity to get B12, they will
build up the reserve needed to handle any shortage later in life. The
average B12 reserve in humans is 2,500 days. With a substantial
amount of animal food coming in every day, it's going to be a lot
higher than 2,500 days. The human body is going to fight very hard to
hold onto it's nutrient reserves.
When the stomach stops producing the intrinsic factor, the B12
deficiency does not occur in a month, or a year or even a few years.
It takes a very long time before the reserve is gone. You will go a
lot longer if you are an omnivore rather than a vegan. Like Steve
said, no cow is going to go down from a B12 deficiency. If the
gastritis from the bad bacterial repopulation does not get them
something else will but it is not going to be B12. Demyelination in
animals is almost also caused by an infectious agent. But if you
don't believe in the germ theory you have to blame something else.
You can't blame B12. There are probably some other animals besides
humans that produce an intrinsic factor to bind B12 but I doubt if
there are too many. Ruminants are not one of them.
Lotus
> "Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:3C72CA0D...@esatclear.ie...
> >
> > Barley has a water content of only 9.44%.
> >
> > 263.73 + 24.89 (9.44% of 263.73) = 288.62
> >
> > so, 288.62 g barley (m) provides 100% RDA of B12.
> >
> > That doesn't sound like an unreasonable quantity,
> > although of course, man cannot live by barley alone..
>
> Not unreasonable??!? Do you actually eat barley? You're talking a half
> pound of dry barley, and I can tell you, you're going to need an awfully big
> pot to cook that up! Barley soaks up an awful lot of water when you cook
> it, more than the other grains like quinoa and rice that I've got around
> here. Rice and quinoa take 1:1 of water but barley needs a lot more. 1/2
> cup of any dry grain is a pretty big serving for a meal. If you're eating a
> balanced meal you'd have to be really really hungry to eat more than that.
> 1 cup is an athlete's portion. I can't tell you how much 1/2 cup of barley
> weighs, but it sure as heck isn't half a pound.
Did the word 'unreasonable' resonate there, Brandon??!?
It has already been established that the amount of cooked barley
needed to obtain the stated RDA of B12, is 263.73 / .322 = 819 g,
(5.2 cups) of cooked barley, the equivalent of 1000k/cal, - 50% of
the adult daily energy requirement from food.
If your diet was restricted, you can be sure that those 5.2 cups
barley would be eaten during the course of 24 hours.
If you are eating a varied vegan diet (organically manured), you will
be eating a whole range of plant foods that have taken up B12 from the
soil, no need to eat a diet consisting of 50% barley, which was just one
of the three foods analyzed in this limited study. Perhaps the amount
of B12 in organically manured rice and quinoa etc. would be similar.
And, don't forget that Vitamin B12 is also present on the *exterior*
of plant foods grown in an organically manured garden as well.
Q. Is vitamin B12 degraded by heat?
Q. Michael C. wrote, '.. it's my understanding that the RDA for B12
is at least ten times higher than the actual estimated minimum required,
simply because the amounts are so tiny when measured on a daily
basis as to be hard to work with...',
seconding what someone else recently told me. Michael, do you, (or
does anyone else reading this), have any further information on that?
Houston, thanks, but the object of this exercise was to determine
whether, to begin with, adequate vitamin B12 is to be found in
organically manured plant foods.
Lotus
Lotus
Brandon Van Every wrote:
> "Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:3C72CA0D...@esatclear.ie...
> >
> > Barley has a water content of only 9.44%.
> >
> > 263.73 / .9056 = 291.22 *
> >
> > 291.22 g * raw barley (m) provides 100% RDA of B12.
Alf Christophersen
> However, how about the humans with a hiatus hernia? Is this a genetic
>change? Are we developing multiple stomachs?
Of very little interest anyway. The bacteria making B12 in your
intestines are in the lower end of colon, so in case, you need a
resirculation of feces in the colon/rectum area directly back to your
stomach :-) (Internal coprofagy that is :-) )
Alf Christophersen
<vane...@3DProgrammer.com> wrote:
>Do cows synthesize B-12? Do humans? Are cows more efficient at extracting
>B-12 from plants than are humans? I think you're going to have to take into
>account that we aren't cows.
Neither cows nor humans make B12, and neither do plants.
Bacteria make all of the B12, cows utilize it by eating the food at
least twice, we need it through meat because our bacteria are placed
too late for absorbing their products (what a vaste)
And we need intrinsic factor to be able to absorb it.
Newer analysis from Asia shows a tremendous deficiency in B12 due to
lack of partly intrinsic factor or diet containing B12. This leads in
turn into homocysteinaemia and several other disorders.
Steve Harris
news:cba7fed1.0202...@posting.google.com...>Having fought with ethical
> vegans over many issues, the B12 issue was by far the most bizarre.
> Cobalt can not allow the
> bacteria in the human gut to produce B12. They do form cobalt
> but it's not the
> real McCoy. Steve doesn't think that any human can have bacteria up
> into the small intestine but on a high fiber diet, it is going to
> happen. Folic acid status improves when this occurs. Bacteria in the
> human gut actually produce quite a bit of material that we can use but
> they have to move out of the colon to get most of this material into a
> place in our gut where it can be absorbed.
COMMENT:
Which is the segment just before the colon. I'm well aware there are some
bacteria "higher up" than that in humans, but there aren't many, and they
evidently are too few or the wrong kind to produce quite enough B12. The
vegan kids with neurological problems say it all.
--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my address
(it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of unsolicited
bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate
name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward message
& headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."
reader
> Q. Is vitamin B12 degraded by heat?
Information on B12 losses in cooking is in the article at:
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-7c.shtml
Additional well-researched B12 info is in the articles listed at:
DRCEEPHD
>Date: 2/21/02 7:38 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <cba7fed1.0202...@posting.google.com>
>
Post not included for length.
The choices given for B12 seem to be eat meat, eat feces, or take a supplement.
I question all of that.
My problem is compounded by the fact that I am a creationist. I do not believe
the evolutionists. It is my opinion that we were created. It is further my
opinion that we were not created to eat meat. The eating of meat and animal
products is an option, not a requirement. The B12 question is then one with
moral and ethical considerations.
Consider these comments.
Intestinal flora and endogenous vitamin synthesis.Hill MJ.European Cancer
Prevention Organization, Lady Sobell Gastrointestinal Unit, Wexham Park
Hospital, Slough, Berkshire, UK.It is well established that the rumen microbial
flora are a rich source of vitamins to the ruminant, and that the faecal
bacterial flora are a major vitamin source for coprophagic rodents. There is
also good evidence that the gut bacterial flora are a significant source of a
range of vitamins to the human. In this paper evidence is presented that gut
bacteria are a significant source of a range of vitamins, particularly those of
the B group and vitamin K.
Vitamin B12: When myth meets discovery by Jeff Gates, D.H.Sc.
It's common knowledge that neither plants nor humans can make B12 themselves.
B12 is produced only by microorganisms. For example, because the bacteria in
the digestive tracts of some grazing animals (such as cattle) make B12 that is
absorbed into their blood and flesh, the meat of these animals is considered to
be a whole food source of vitamin B12.
The large intestines of humans also have many of these B12-producing bacteria,
but it is believed that most of this bacteria is too far away from the
absorption sites to do any good. Others contend that humans get adequate
amounts of B12 from the vitamin-producing bacteria in the lower portion of the
small intestine, which is also a site for absorption. The required amount of
vitamin B12 is only 2 mcg per day. All things considered, that's not much; it's
about the size of the period at the end of this sentence.
Strict vegetarians - people who eat no animal products whatsoever are at risk
for B12 deficiency. (Vegetarians who eat eggs and fish will get B12 in their
diet. In addition, some seaweeds contain the vitamin, and the gut may
manufacture a certain amount.)
I find this one interesting as well:
B-12 produced in, but cannot be absorbed from, the human colon. The human colon
contains bacteria that produce vitamin B-12, and fecal matter is a rich source
of B-12. This raises the question of whether B-12 can be absorbed from the
colon. From Herbert [1988, p. 852]:
In one of the less appetizing but more brilliant experiments in the field of
vitamin B-12 metabolism in the 50s, Sheila Callendar (7) in England delineated
that colon bacteria make large amounts of vitamin B-12. Although the bacterial
vitamin B-12 is not absorbed through the colon, it is active for humans.
Callendar studied vegan volunteers who had vitamin B-12 deficiency
characterized by classic megaloblastic anemia. She collected 24-h stools, made
water extracts of them, and fed the extract to the patients, thereby curing
their vitamin B-12 deficiency. This experiment demonstrated clearly that 1)
colon bacteria of vegans make enough vitamin B-12 to cure vitamin B-12
deficiency, 2) the vitamin B-12 is not absorbed through the colon wall, and 3)
if given by mouth, it is absorbed primarily in the small bowel.
Herbert et al. [1984] collected the 24-hour fecal output from 6 men. They found
that the (24-hour) total fecal output contained ~100 mcg of total corrinoids,
of which only ~5 mcg
was true B-12 (the remainder being analogues). (Note: see Mozafar [1994] for a
table of B-12 levels in manure, feces, soil, sludge, etc.) Given this, the work
of Callendar mentioned above could be taken to suggest that the true B-12 in
the feces (if reingested and passed back through the small bowel) would be
absorbed, despite the substantial amount of analogues present.
I think what I was taught was correct and complete since it agrees with all the
textbooks and all the published data that I have found.
I cannot agree that humans must eat flesh or animal products to meet their B12
needs. I'll wait for the HPLC/mass spec data which should shed further light
on the question since the bioassays are not so reliable.
Cee
Martin Banschbach
> My problem is compounded by the fact that I am a creationist. I do not
> believe
> the evolutionists. It is my opinion that we were created. It is further my
> opinion that we were not created to eat meat. The eating of meat and animal
> products is an option, not a requirement. The B12 question is then one with
> moral and ethical considerations.
I am probably going to have to break this down into several replies,
for the first one I changed the thread to creation. Religion and
science do not mix very well. For me that's a real paradox.
I have actually invited Mormon missionaries into my home to talk about
creation.
I am a man of science but I am also a Christian. I believe that we
were all created by God and we are all placed on this Earth for a
purpose. As soon as
something goes wrong in our life's Christians tend to ask God why He
(She) let this happen to us? We are His (Her) followers and as such
we should be protected. I've read the bible. When I had my
discussion with the mormons about creation they actually had to call
in their most senoir person for the State (Wisconsin).
What you have to understand Cee is that time has no meaning to God.
Humans however are limited by time. If we get to come back many
times, we come back with little or no memory of what our past life
was.
Like you, I do believe that God created man. Jack Challum says that
life on Earth started with free radicals. I believe him because I've
probably read some of the same material that he read. But clay was
the catalyst. When God speaks to humans, how can we expect any
understanding of what He (She) is trying to tell us?
Without clay, life would not have started on Earth. Adam came from
clay and Eve came from Adam. If you think back to what humans knew at
the time that God was speaking to them, this was probably the easiest
way to try to explain to humans what he, God, had done.
Like I told you in email, I would like to know what the diet of Jesus
was. Ethical vegans (the nicer one's) have told me where I can find
that information. Because I have to keep my account at work within a
certain limit, I have to delete email. I kept the name and location
of the person who had these records for a very long time. But I
finally deleted it.
Maybe before I leave this Earth someone will send me that info again
and I will actually travel to see if there are records of the daily
life of Jesus.
With the discovery of mitochondrial Eve, I become more convinced that
the bible has the correct account of creation on Earth but we are not
able to understand that time is beyond our comprehension.
If God did not want animals eating other animals He (She) would never
have created carnivores. If God had wanted Humans to be herbivores,
He (She) would have created us that way. Many animals on this planet
are highly intelligent but man has improved his thought processing in
relationship to the other animals. God did this and I believe he did
this by taking away our ability to synthesize vitamin C. I believe
that we are supposed to be caretakers of God's planet Earth, not
destroyers of the plant.
Maybe God did intend for us to have no animal food in our diet.
Setting us up as herbivores would have done this and we would be a lot
healthier than we are now. But that kind of diet may not have
provided the resources needed for human brain development. Maybe once
He (She) got us where He (She) wanted us to be, He (She) intended for
us to switch to a vegetarian diet and care for the other animals on
this planet rather than destroy them. From a science perspective, I
have not been able to process that yet. B12 is always the stumbling
block for me and others that have looked at B12.
I will respond to your other material in another post. I'm not afraid
to talk about anything anymore. Cancer and schizophrenia have taken
away that fear. I still want to write a book on cancer and maybe if
that's God's plan for me I will get it done. I could have easily
obsessed with schizophrenia. I have been blessed with a good mind and
I tried to use it to understand schizophrenia just like I used it to
try to understand cancer.
Schizophrenia affects about 1% of the population on Earth. In the
past, this illness was not that hard on the person afflicted with it
because they could always isolate themselves from stress. Like most
humans illnesses, it's genetic but the right gene mix does not insure
expression. An environmental trigger is needed. I could be brain
hypoxia, viral infection, trauma, drugs, high stress, or diet (plant
alkyloids). For my son the trigger was Navy boot camp. Recruits are
routinely washed out for psychosis. I actually found published data
that the military of most nations know that the training program will
induce psychosis in some recruits and it's set up for this purpose.
Most psychosis is transient and goes away after the stress ends. For
a schizophrenic, it never goes away. The military knows this yet when
I tried to get VA disability benefits for my son the request was
denied. Of course Social Security Disability was denied too. Some of
the money that I have spent on my son went for legal fees to deal with
the denial of disability payments but most went to defend him from the
criminal charges.
The U.S. military is now trying to develop a screening test to pick
out schizophrenics and keep them out of the high stress training
regime. Good idea but too late for my son. If my pressure to have
him go into the U.S. Navy had not made him enroll, some other stress
would have probably trigger his schizophrenia. It's highly unlikely
that he would have ever made it through life in the U.S. without
something triggering the active psychosis.
DHA and vitamin E both appear to help the brain better regulate itself
and I of course have him take these. The State mental hospital
actually gave him what I wanted them to give him in the way of
supplements (surprised the heck out of me). But drugs from the evil
pharmecutical empire was what brought my son back to my wife and I.
Having an accurate diagnosis for why we had always had a problem with
him really helped (me anyway, it did not help my wife because she
still fixates on not breast feeding him). DHA is now being added to
infant
formula but I just do not believe that the breast feeding would have
protected him. A family history of schizophrenia on my wife's side is
were the genetic tendency came from and it's not too likely that
anything would have prevented the active psychosis. In the past, he
would have just drifted off into the wilderness and been referred to
as the person who heard voices from God (or the devil depending of
what stage in human history you were placed in).
I could devote the rest of my life to trying to figure out what causes
schizophrenia. Some people actually do this and have success. For
the rare diseases that medicine can not conquer, having an active lay
pressure can help especially if that pressure involves raising money.
I have a daughter and a grandson. This genetic mix turned out very
well and it gives my wife and I much enjoyment. We will deal with the
genetic mix that my son has as best we can. The rest is in the hands
of God.
I will continue to try to learn all I can about human nutrition. I
will not tunnel my vision on cancer, schizophrenia or aging. If this
is God's plan for me, I will do it to the best of my human abilities.
Brandon Van Every
>
> If God did not want animals eating other animals He (She) would never
> have created carnivores. If God had wanted Humans to be herbivores,
> He (She) would have created us that way.
Ah. So the logic is, Man *is* what God wants. On the other hand, Man
clearly doesn't *do* what God wants, he has free will and that's why God is
always bossing and threatening Man, to entice, cajole, or punish him into
doing what He wants.
It seems we have an impasse between biology (what we are) and behavior (what
we do). Do you believe that biology affects behavior? Do you believe it
ever dictates it? To what degree?
> Many animals on this planet
> are highly intelligent but man has improved his thought processing in
> relationship to the other animals. God did this and I believe he did
> this by taking away our ability to synthesize vitamin C. I believe
> that we are supposed to be caretakers of God's planet Earth, not
> destroyers of the plant.
What if God is a bad designer? What if He is basically irresponsible, and
doesn't correct his oversights but leaves the bugs in? What if avocado pits
are too big?
> Maybe God did intend for us to have no animal food in our diet.
> Setting us up as herbivores would have done this and we would be a lot
> healthier than we are now. But that kind of diet may not have
> provided the resources needed for human brain development.
If you believe that, then there is something more powerful, important, and
permanent than God. People usually assume that God could have done any
thing he jolly well pleased because, well, He's God. Omniscient,
omnipotent. If He wanted human brains to be big, He snaps his fingers and
says Poof! human brains are big.
> Maybe once
> He (She) got us where He (She) wanted us to be, He (She) intended for
> us to switch to a vegetarian diet and care for the other animals on
> this planet rather than destroy them.
If God wanted all of that, He could have just snapped His fingers. Since
humans have free will, God clearly wanted us to do things against His will.
If He didn't, if He was really really really worried about it, He would have
made it impossible. So God is either not that worried about it, or He is
indecisive.
> From a science perspective, I
> have not been able to process that yet. B12 is always the stumbling
> block for me and others that have looked at B12.
Well, the only God model that I'm capable of believing in from a scientific
perspective, is that God evolved along with the rest of us. He didn't
create the universe, he's as much a product of the universe as we are.
Evolution is the primacy of the universe. God, if he exists, is merely
farther up the evolutionary scale than we are. Similarly, we will evolve
into gods someday if we survive long enough.
Thus, I don't expect all these wonderful things out of a god that
monotheistic Christians do. First off, I say a single god is impossible.
There might be a single god *with dominion over the Earth*, but that's
hardly a single god. His peers would have planetcraft. They'd make bad
decisions and screw things up. They'd not be that much more remarkably wise
than ourselves. Just far more powerful, and thankfully not evil.
> Most psychosis is transient and goes away after the stress ends. For
> a schizophrenic, it never goes away. The military knows this yet when
> I tried to get VA disability benefits for my son the request was
> denied. Of course Social Security Disability was denied too. Some of
> the money that I have spent on my son went for legal fees to deal with
> the denial of disability payments but most went to defend him from the
> criminal charges.
I don't think gods are looking out for anyone on the tactical scale. 11
million dead Jews and Poles can't be wrong. Strategically, they might be
making sure our planet doesn't blow up. Or not. Isn't it wonderful to
contemplate that our destiny may be in our own hands?
> I will continue to try to learn all I can about human nutrition. I
> will not tunnel my vision on cancer, schizophrenia or aging. If this
> is God's plan for me, I will do it to the best of my human abilities.
Of course my opinion is that God isn't making any plan for you. God gave
you free will, you're the one stuck with the consequences of that.
George Russell
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Snobs be gone!
>
> Once upon a time, our fellow Vegetarians
> rambled on about "Re: Creation (was B12)."
> Our champion being bored in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> The issues are clear!
>
> The only way to get B-12 from your diet in sufficient quantities is to
> eat meat, or take B-12 supplements which are a meat bi-product. :-)
[snip]
Or milk or cheese or Marmite or Red Star Nutritional Yeast . . .
mark doran
every day so he keeps showing up on your browser even if you've killfiled
him in the past
(which virtually everyone has). This suggests a certain *growing
desperation* on
his part. I predict that his final, catastrophic breakdown won't be long in
coming...
M.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John 'the Man'" <DeMan[03]@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.life-extension,sci.med,sci.med.
[psychopathologically revealing twaddling piffle snipped]
Randy Brown
>> eat meat, or take B-12 supplements which are a meat bi-product. :-)
>[snip]
>Or milk or cheese or Marmite or Red Star Nutritional Yeast . . .
My preference is a combination of nutritional yeast and algae.
--
{rb}
--
Blind people don't bungee jump. It scares the dog too much.
Rules'@hotmail.com John 'Rules
news:3c7700c6$0$8505$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> You see what this arse is doing now? He's setting up a new account name
> every day so he keeps showing up on your browser even if you've killfiled
> him in the past
--
You are *not* sensitive to my pain,
neither am I cognizant of yours. :-)
DRCEEPHD
>From: John 'the Man' DeMan[04]@hotmail.com
>Date: 2/22/02 10:54 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <l2md7usla1afh39ma...@4ax.com>
>
>B-12 is *not* well absorbed, contrary to vegetarian nonsense. You
>need to be taking about 1,000 mcgs a day, if you expect to absorb any
>of it.
>--
The RDA ( or RDI ) is about 2.4 mcg.
The therapeutic dose is at least 1,000 times as much daily ( 2-3,000 mcg.) and
can take months to get the desired effect.
Is this what you are getting at?
Cee
Michael Cerkowski
B-12 supplements are made from vats of bacteria, not meat. Now go
play somewhere else, please.
--
mark doran
"John 'Rules'" <John 'Rules'@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yDFd8.933$FE4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Yawn. Another day, another account....and more posts that he really really
really can't bear the thought of people not seeing...
Anyone know if this latest ploy is against Usenet / ISP rules?
Either way, there's enough material here for a whole psychiatry
convention...
M.
Alf Christophersen
<DeMan[04]@hotmail.com> wrote:
>B-12 is *not* well absorbed, contrary to vegetarian nonsense. You
>need to be taking about 1,000 mcgs a day, if you expect to absorb any
>of it.
You lack intrinsic factor ????
Alf Christophersen
<DeMan[04]@hotmail.com> wrote:
>That is fortified yeast. You might as well be taking a B-12
>supplement. Fortified yeast / Supplements are made with animal
>bi-products.
I doubt seriously that Marmite (fortified B-12) would have been
approved by any vegetarian organisations. But, it has the stamp of
being approved for use by vegetarians.
Andy B
Uh, how would a vegetarian / vegan then get B-12?
Regards,
Andy
Andy B
wrote:
>I hate to say that I'm here as the keeper of the truth. I do not know
>what the "truth" is.
So you'd be worthless as a keeper of truth.
Anyway, Martin: we're not interested in "The Truth (tm)", we're
interested in "what really happened" as in:
"There are always four sides to a story: Your side, Their side,
the truth and what really happened." (Russeau)
>All I know is what I read.
I hope not. I hope you also know something from experience as in "a
man with experience is never at mercy of one with only arguments.".
And then I could quote a lot of what Quentin G. sometimes says about
"ficts" (or, was it?)
But I'll stop here, I am off topic anyway -- as you were :-)
>Steve is absolutely right about vegan children. For
>adults, it's a whole different ball game. Vegan adults have been
>followed for over 20 years with no apparent intake of B12 and no signs
>of megaloblastic anemia. This has to prove that bacteria in the human
>gut form B12. It doesn't prove this at all. Once you build up a good
>B12 reserve, you are going to have a very hard time depleting that
>reserve. If a child is given an opportunity to get B12, they will
>build up the reserve needed to handle any shortage later in life. The
>average B12 reserve in humans is 2,500 days. With a substantial
Hmm, if the B-12 reserve full, it lasts for 2,500 days? Do we need
that little or is that reserve that big?
>amount of animal food coming in every day, it's going to be a lot
>higher than 2,500 days. The human body is going to fight very hard to
>hold onto it's nutrient reserves.
Thanks for that info. Any references? I think Peter Fackelmann was
also interested in this kind of info.
Regards,
Andy
Alf Christophersen
(Alf Christophersen) wrote:
>>That is fortified yeast. You might as well be taking a B-12
>>supplement. Fortified yeast / Supplements are made with animal
>>bi-products.
>
>I doubt seriously that Marmite (fortified B-12) would have been
>approved by any vegetarian organisations. But, it has the stamp of
>being approved for use by vegetarians.
Forgot to mention something here:
I doubt seriously that Marmite (fortified B-12) using animal
byproducts would have been approved by any vegetarian organisations.
dick
Vegan, and Head of the local Sierra Club chapter says that he has his
vitamin B12 checked yearly and it is always normal. He has no idea where it
comes from. He is in the peak of health, surfs daily and had a busy
practice. Maybe he just has good Genes! Unfortunately, I cannot remember his
name..
Dick Wagner
"John 'the Man'" <DeMan[03]@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab4d7u8gsq2u2qi3e...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Snobs be gone!
>
> Once upon a time, our fellow Vegetarians
> rambled on about "Re: Creation (was B12)."
> Our champion being bored in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> The issues are clear!
>
> The only way to get B-12 from your diet in sufficient quantities is to
> eat meat, or take B-12 supplements which are a meat bi-product. :-)
> --
> John Gohde,
> Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
>
> www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
> Presenting great rules of thumb to eat by!
Rules You'@hotmail.com John 'Rules You
> >Subject: Re: B-12
> >From: John 'the Man' DeMan[04]@hotmail.com
> >Date: 2/22/02 10:54 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <l2md7usla1afh39ma...@4ax.com>
> >B-12 is *not* well absorbed, contrary to vegetarian nonsense. You
> >need to be taking about 1,000 mcgs a day, if you expect to absorb any
> >of it.
> The RDA ( or RDI ) is about 2.4 mcg.
> The therapeutic dose is at least 1,000 times as much daily ( 2-3,000 mcg.)
and
> can take months to get the desired effect.
> Is this what you are getting at?
> Cee
Close enough.
Taking 2.4 mcg wont give you 2.4, but taking 240 mcg might.
Vegetarians are likely to be chronically deficient in B-12.
Rules You'@hotmail.com John 'Rules You
> > You are *not* sensitive to my pain,
> > neither am I cognizant of yours. :-)
> Anyone know if this latest ploy is against Usenet / ISP rules?
What ploy?
As long as message content is unique, it is *not* spam. :-)
Anyone can post with any name that they want.
If you believe otherwise, kindly stop posting your spam. I find your crap
offensive.
--
It would be nice if commoners would first learn to navigate the web as well
as newsgroups and their newsreaders before becoming a royal pest.
May I suggest that you use your brain to your advantage once in a while?
rick etter
"dick" <xer...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:reQd8.1943$FY5.1...@news2.west.cox.net...
> Last month, at an EarthSave meeting in Santa Monica, A local
physician,
> Vegan, and Head of the local Sierra Club chapter says that he has his
> vitamin B12 checked yearly and it is always normal. He has no idea
where it
> comes from. He is in the peak of health, surfs daily and had a busy
> practice. Maybe he just has good Genes! Unfortunately, I cannot
remember his
> name..
>
> Dick Wagner
=============================
He probably just doesn't wash his hands.
Anybody that stupid won't be my doctor, eh?
mark doran
Tragic.
M.
"John 'Rules You'" <John 'Rules You'@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wxQd8.8602$Im1.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Lotus
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Snobs be gone!
>
> Once upon a time, our fellow Michael Cerkowski
> rambled on about "Re: B-12 (Re: Creation (was B12))."
> Our champion being bored in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >B-12 is a bacterial byproduct, not an animal byproduct. Commercial
> >B-12 supplements are made from vats of bacteria, not meat. Now go
> >play somewhere else, please.
>
> Vegetarianism is a great fantasy. :-)
>
> But for those who don't want to hide from reality, the facts clearly
> show that Vegetarians on average clearly do not get enough B-12 from
> their diet.
>
> Chien-Jung Hung, Po-Chao Huang, Shao-Chun Lu
> Plasma Homocysteine Levels in Taiwanese Vegetarians Are Higher than
> Those of Omnivores
> J. Nutr. 2002 132: 152-158
> http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/132/2/152
>
> ABSTRACT: "Because vitamin B-12 deficiency is often associated with
> vegetarianism, this study was designed to examine the effect of
> Taiwanese vegetarian diets on B-vitamin status and plasma homocysteine
> levels. ...
> In conclusion, the Buddhist nuns who consumed a lacto-vegetarian diet
> had mildly elevated fasting plasma homocysteine levels presumably due
> to lower levels of plasma vitamin B-12."
>
> I could site a 100 other studies stating eccentrically the same thing.
> To be healthy, you have to eat meat (which includes fish).
> --
> John Gohde,
> Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
>
> www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
> Presenting great rules of thumb to eat by!
According to the theory, milk and dairy products (animal byproducts)
are a *good* source of vitamin B12. So what went wrong!? Hint;
something you mention frequently; *absorption for assimilation*.
Are you familiar with the term 'mucous forming'? Get the picture?
Try again with VEGANS consuming plant foods grown in B12 rich soil.
Jay Tanzman
He lacks intrinsic intelligence.
-Jay
Jay Tanzman
You are totally full of shit (literally, if you're getting your B-12 from
natural vegan sources). Mucus blocking absorption of B12 from dairy products.
Back up this stupidity with scientific evidence or shut up. And, while you're
at it. Back up your other (apparent claim) that there are vegan populations who
are getting sufficient B12 intake from plant foods grown in B12-rich soil.
Hint: It's fecal-oral contamination. Get _that_ picture?
-Jay
Jay Tanzman
dick wrote:
>
> Last month, at an EarthSave meeting in Santa Monica, A local physician,
> Vegan, and Head of the local Sierra Club chapter says that he has his
> vitamin B12 checked yearly and it is always normal. He has no idea where it
> comes from. He is in the peak of health, surfs daily and had a busy
> practice. Maybe he just has good Genes!
The first question is, how is he having it tested? If it's by serum B12, its
not a good test. Plama methylmalonic acid followed up by total homcysteine, if
indicated, is a much better test.
-Jay
Lotus
> Lotus wrote:
> >[..]
> > According to the theory, milk and dairy products (animal byproducts)
> > are a *good* source of vitamin B12. So what went wrong!? Hint;
> > something you mention frequently; *absorption for assimilation*.
> > Are you familiar with the term 'mucus forming'? Get the picture?
> > Try again with VEGANS consuming plant foods grown in B12 rich soil.
>
> You are totally full of shit (literally, if you're getting your B-12 from
> natural vegan sources). Mucus blocking absorption of B12 from dairy products.
> Back up this stupidity with scientific evidence or shut up. And, while you're
> at it. Back up your other (apparent claim) that there are vegan populations who
> are getting sufficient B12 intake from plant foods grown in B12-rich soil.
> Hint: It's fecal-oral contamination. Get _that_ picture?
>
> -Jay
Manure.
a. We don't eat *sh*t*. Bacteria present in manure
produce vitamin B12. The vitamin B12 gets in the soil.
Plants take up vitamin B12 from the soil. We eat the
plants. We absorb vitamin B12.
b. From * Prescription for Nutritional Healing by
Dr. James Balch and Nutritional Consultant Phyllis Balch;
pg. 374
Malabsorption syndrome
'....... Other factors that can contribute to a
malfunction of the absorption mechanism include poor
diet; excess mucus covering the intestinal lining
(most commonly a result of the overconsumption of
mucus-forming and processed foods); ......'
Recommendations
* ...
* Keep fats and oils to an absolute minimum. Do not
consume any animal products (including butter), fried
or fatty foods, or margarine. The fats these foods
contain exacerbate malabsorption problems by coating
the stomach and small intestines , blocking the passage
of nutrients,. For the same reason, avoid dairy products
and processed food products, which encourage the secretion
of mucus. .....'
You've read Dick's testimonial. Cheers, Dick. :)
Lotus
Jay Tanzman
Lotus wrote:
>
> Jay Tanzman wrote:
>
> > Lotus wrote:
>
> > >[..]
>
> > > According to the theory, milk and dairy products (animal byproducts)
> > > are a *good* source of vitamin B12. So what went wrong!? Hint;
> > > something you mention frequently; *absorption for assimilation*.
> > > Are you familiar with the term 'mucus forming'? Get the picture?
> > > Try again with VEGANS consuming plant foods grown in B12 rich soil.
> >
> > You are totally full of shit (literally, if you're getting your B-12 from
> > natural vegan sources). Mucus blocking absorption of B12 from dairy products.
> > Back up this stupidity with scientific evidence or shut up. And, while you're
> > at it. Back up your other (apparent claim) that there are vegan populations who
> > are getting sufficient B12 intake from plant foods grown in B12-rich soil.
> > Hint: It's fecal-oral contamination. Get _that_ picture?
> >
> > -Jay
>
> Manure.
>
> a. We don't eat *sh*t*. Bacteria present in manure
> produce vitamin B12. The vitamin B12 gets in the soil.
> Plants take up vitamin B12 from the soil. We eat the
> plants. We absorb vitamin B12.
Bullshit. Let's see the evidence for this that I asked for. And no, not the
Mozafar paper; that was in a lab. Show me a paper describing a real vegan
population who eat the way you describe among whom B12 deficeincy is uncommon.
>
> b. From * Prescription for Nutritional Healing by
> Dr. James Balch and Nutritional Consultant Phyllis Balch;
>
> pg. 374
>
> Malabsorption syndrome
>
> '....... Other factors that can contribute to a
> malfunction of the absorption mechanism include poor
> diet; excess mucus covering the intestinal lining
> (most commonly a result of the overconsumption of
> mucus-forming and processed foods); ......'
And what is his source for this, Arnold Ehret?
> Recommendations
>
> * ...
>
> * Keep fats and oils to an absolute minimum.
He's an idiot.
> Do not
> consume any animal products (including butter), fried
> or fatty foods, or margarine. The fats these foods
> contain exacerbate malabsorption problems by coating
> the stomach and small intestines , blocking the passage
> of nutrients,.
Fat's block the passage of nutrients? He's a complete idiot.
-Jay
Jonathan Ball
"Lotus", better known as ~~Illweed~~, will just grab
anything - ANYTHING - that appears to support her
position, and post it as if it's the last word.
She has quite a history of doing that here. She has no
background whatever in medicine or science, so she's in
no position to be evaluating the "science" of the
bullshit she posts. If she can find some activist's
web page saying what she wants to hear, she considers
her point "proved".
In the past, she was very concerned to try to support
another "vegan" loon poster's assertion that U.S.
consumption of beef was "causing" tropical
deforestation in Central America and Amazonia. When
asked to support the claim, she repeatedly posted a lot
of bullshit about the *effects* of cattle grazing in
the semi-arid regions of the U.S., as if that somehow
could say anything about the *cause* of deforestation
in the tropics. When challenged on it, she simply kept
insisting that the link was established.
Also trying to "prove" the same contention about U.S.
beef demand causing tropical deforestation in Brazil,
she posted some other bullshit about U.S. food
imports...from Argentina. Later, to try to work her
way out of that fiasco, she posted some more bullshit
about what she thought were total U.S. imports from
Argentina. Only it wasn't; it was about total *world*
imports from Argentina.
You might as well give up. She never concedes that she
doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about, in
anything, and she simply wastes people's time. No one,
on either side, will think any worse of you for not
seeing it through to completion with this fruitcake.
There *is* no end with her.
Alf Christophersen
<DeMan[05]@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What is for sure is that supplementation with 4 mcg of B-12 wont
>result in 4 mcg being utilized by your body. You have to take at
>least 100 times that amount.
Sources for taht, please. I don't believe you.
Period.
But, may be correct for strict vegetarians.
The intrinsic factor is not from animals, but a mucoprotein from your
stomach lining. If you have a genetic predisposition of lacking that
one you are in trouble. Due to Metzler, also tapeworm infection do
concur with B12 uptake and can lead to pernicious anemia.
Ron
> Jay - you seem determined to learn the hard way that
> "Lotus", better known as ~~Illweed~~, will just grab
> anything - ANYTHING - that appears to support her
> position, and post it as if it's the last word.
>
> She has quite a history of doing that here. She has no
> background whatever in medicine or science, so she's in
> no position to be evaluating the "science" of the
> bullshit she posts. If she can find some activist's
> web page saying what she wants to hear, she considers
> her point "proved".
>
> In the past, she was very concerned to try to support
> another "vegan" loon poster's assertion that U.S.
> consumption of beef was "causing" tropical
> deforestation in Central America and Amazonia. When
> asked to support the claim, she repeatedly posted a lot
> of bullshit about the *effects* of cattle grazing in
> the semi-arid regions of the U.S., as if that somehow
> could say anything about the *cause* of deforestation
> in the tropics. When challenged on it, she simply kept
> insisting that the link was established.
So what in your honest opinion or knowledge base is causing the
deforestation in Central and South America?
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball <jon...@mindspring.NS.com> wrote in message news:<3C787118...@mindspring.NS.com>...
>
>>Jay - you seem determined to learn the hard way that
>>"Lotus", better known as ~~Illweed~~, will just grab
>>anything - ANYTHING - that appears to support her
>>position, and post it as if it's the last word.
>>
>>She has quite a history of doing that here. She has no
>>background whatever in medicine or science, so she's in
>>no position to be evaluating the "science" of the
>>bullshit she posts. If she can find some activist's
>>web page saying what she wants to hear, she considers
>>her point "proved".
>>
>>In the past, she was very concerned to try to support
>>another "vegan" loon poster's assertion that U.S.
>>consumption of beef was "causing" tropical
>>deforestation in Central America and Amazonia. When
>>asked to support the claim, she repeatedly posted a lot
>>of bullshit about the *effects* of cattle grazing in
>>the semi-arid regions of the U.S., as if that somehow
>>could say anything about the *cause* of deforestation
>>in the tropics. When challenged on it, she simply kept
>>insisting that the link was established.
>>
>
>
>
> So what in your honest opinion or knowledge base is causing the
> deforestation in Central and South America?
Sorry for the length of the reply, but you *did* ask,
after all. I didn't feel like writing this stuff all
out again, so I simply cut-n-pasted my reply from a
year ago, after I read the relevant parts of a book on
the subject.
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: Jonathan Ball (jon...@earthlink.ns.net)
Subject: The myth of western beef demand "driving"
tropical deforestation
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
View: Complete Thread (3 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-02-05 10:21:52 PST
Various people have posted material in these and other
newsgroups
purporting to "prove" that developed nations' demand
for "beefburgers"
is driving tropical deforestation. (I'll ignore the
silly pejorative of
the quoted term "beefburger"; it really speaks for
itself, as well as
the sneering self-righteousness of its users.)
When asked to support the claim, no one ever has; all
we get are new
links to webpages of activist groups, reiterating the
claim. (Illweed:
I'm talking about *you*.)
I located a book called "Development or Destruction:
The Conversion of
Tropical Forest to Pasture in Latin America". It is a
collection of
some 24 articles by academics looking at the problem.
The book is
published by Westview Press, copyright 1992, edited by
Theodore E.
Downing, Susanna B. Hecht, Henry A. Pearson, and Carmen
Garcia-Downing.
All of the editors except Pearson also contributed
articles.
The rainforest groupies will take vindication at
knowing the consensus
of the authors is that conversion to pasture is the
primary cause of
deforestation in the tropics of Latin America.
However, they will find
no comfort in learning that the consensus also is that
raising beef for
export to the U.S. and western Europe is not to blame.
Here's Susanna
Hecht:
One of the most common explanations for pasture
driven deforestation
focuses on the international beef market. The
so-called "hamburger
connection" focused on the idea that international
commerce for beef
was stimulating the patterns of forest conversion
for grassland that
became so disturbing during the last 25
years...International market
dynamics have very little to do with the expansion
of livestock
production in the Amazon lowland forests. Amazon
herds are a very
small portion of national herds (usually less than
5%); aftosa (foot
and mouth disease) is endemic to the region and
thus their products
are ineligible for international export.
...It is worth noting that U.S. imports of Latin
American beef are
generally less than 5% of the total beef imports,
which are eclipsed
by meat purchased from Australia, New Zealand and
the EEC. However,
international exports of beef have generally
declined from tropical areas in national terms and as a
portion of market share, reflecting
the surge in production by the European community.
The consensus of the various authors is that conversion
of forest to
pasture is primarily driven by land use policies set by
national
governments in the region. Several authors devote much
of their
articles to discussing Brazilian policy in particular,
focusing on
fiscal incentives including tax holidays, subsidized
credits, and land
concessions. They also elaborate the idea that the
development of
cattle ranching operations is an effective way to claim
title to land,
and it is these land claims, rather than cattle
ranching as an economic
enterprise, that are driving the deforestation. There
is additional
discussion of cattle as a relatively liquid capital
investment for
peasant farmers, and one that can be easily moved in
the event of
eviction, which does occur.
I can't emphasize enough that all of the authors of
articles in the book
believe that tropical deforestation is a problem, and
that conversion to
pasture land for cattle is a major part of the problem.
What is
completely missing is *any* belief that this is an
export driven
phenomenon, and that reducing demand for beef in the
western world is a
neat, easy solution.
Below are some links to charts showing that the U.S. is
a very small net
importer of beef, and that the overwhelming portion of
beef imported
into the U.S. does not come from tropical countries.
The charts were
assembled by someone named Brian Roe, at Ohio State
University
(agricultural extension). The first, at
http://www-agecon.ag.ohio-state.edu/Faculty/broe/outlook/CattleAug99/sld001.htm,
indicates that imports of beef into the U.S. rose from
a level equal to
about 10% of domestic production to around 11%, from
1999 to 2000;
exports remained stable at about 10% of U.S. production
(the chart
doesn't indicate if these percentages are of weight or
of dollar
value.) Thus, the U.S. is a slight net importer of
beef, of an amount
roughly equal to 1% of domestic production. The next
one, at
http://www-agecon.ag.ohio-state.edu/Faculty/broe/outlook/CattleAug99/sld003.htm,
shows that exports exceeded imports in 2000 by a
relatively small
amount; imports appear to be around 2,800 million
pounds, while exports
were about 2,300 million.
The third chart, at
http://www-agecon.ag.ohio-state.edu/Faculty/broe/outlook/CattleAug99/sld005.htm,
shows that beef imports are primarily from Australia,
New Zealand and
Canada. Unfortunately, the unit of measurement is
missing from the Y
axis, but it would appear still to be millions of
pounds. In 1999,
imports from New Zealand were around 275 million
pounds; from Australia,
around 340 million; and from Canada, around 370
million. By contrast,
imports from Brazil were about 75 million; from
Argentina, around 65-70
million; and from Central America, significantly under
50 million. Note
that Argentine beef production does not depend at all
on tropical
deforestation, and most Brazilian beef production
occurs far to the
south of the Amazonian rain forest.
The idea that U.S. and European demand for
"beefburgers" is driving
tropical deforestation is an unsupported myth.
-----------------------------------------------------
Back to the present:
My honest opinion, supported by verifiable data, is
that western demand for beef from Central America and
the tropical regions of South America is negligible,
and in no way is the driving force behind deforestation
of the area. The driving force behind deforestation is
national land use policies in those countries, abetted
by unclear - hence, bad - property rights.
The part of my honest opinion that is *not* supported
by verifiable data, but which is nonetheless still
honest, is that people like ~~Illweed~~ and numerous
others, including the lying shitbags from whom she
wildly and unscrupulously copied her "citations",
simply want to demonize western values at any cost,
including the cost of all their credibility.
Jay Tanzman
John 'the Man' wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Snobs be gone!
>
> Once upon a time, our fellow Alf Christophersen
> rambled on about "Re: B-12 (Re: Creation (was B12))."
> Our champion being bored in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >>What is for sure is that supplementation with 4 mcg of B-12 wont
> >>result in 4 mcg being utilized by your body. You have to take at
> >>least 100 times that amount.
>
> >Sources for taht, please. I don't believe you.
> >Period.
>
> Here is a direct rely to your question. :-)
>
> Oral Cobalamin for Pernicious Anemia
> http://www.vitab12.com/anemia.html
> "The mean absorption rate of oral cyanocobalamin [common form of B-12
> in supplements] by patients with pernicious anemia is 1.2% across a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
John, you are once again proving that you are incompetent, ignorant, and
dangerous. These subjects have low B12 absorption because they have perncicious
anemia. That means they have B12 malabsorption, by definition.
-Jay
Lotus
> Ron wrote:
>
> > Jonathan Ball <jon...@mindspring.NS.com> wrote in message news:<3C787118...@mindspring.NS.com>...
> >[..]
>
> >> She has no
> >>background whatever in medicine or science, so she's in
> >>no position to be evaluating the "science" of the
> >>bullshit she posts.
That is, put simply, untrue.
> >>In the past, she was very concerned to try to support
> >>another "vegan" loon poster's assertion that U.S.
> >>consumption of beef was "causing" tropical
> >>deforestation in Central America and Amazonia.
> >
> >
> > So what in your honest opinion or knowledge base is causing the
> > deforestation in Central and South America?
>
> [..]
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> From: Jonathan Ball (jon...@earthlink.ns.net)
> Subject: The myth of western beef demand "driving"
> tropical deforestation
> Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,
> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
> View: Complete Thread (3 articles) | Original Format
> Date: 2001-02-05 10:21:52 PST
[..]
> The rainforest groupies will take vindication at
> knowing the consensus
> of the authors is that conversion to pasture is the
> primary cause of
> deforestation in the tropics of Latin America.
[..]
End of story.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst we are digging up fossils, perhaps you'd like
to tell this group about your theory that some energy
could be recouped from cattle production by attaching
fly-wheels to cattle. Where were you thinking of
attaching the fly-wheels to, Boil? Their jaw-bones
perhaps? Their tails?
Q. How many chickens would it take to power a light bulb?
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jonathan Ball <jon...@mindspring.NS.com> wrote in message news:<3C787118...@mindspring.NS.com>...
>>>
>
>>>[..]
>>>
>
>>>>She has no
>>>>background whatever in medicine or science, so she's in
>>>>no position to be evaluating the "science" of the
>>>>bullshit she posts.
>>>>
>
> That is, put simply, untrue.
You are, simply put, a liar. You have no background in
science; none at all. The extent of your exposure to
"science" is your unlicensed practice of quack "medicine".
>
>
>>>>In the past, she was very concerned to try to support
>>>>another "vegan" loon poster's assertion that U.S.
>>>>consumption of beef was "causing" tropical
>>>>deforestation in Central America and Amazonia.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So what in your honest opinion or knowledge base is causing the
>>>deforestation in Central and South America?
>>>
>>[..]
>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>>From: Jonathan Ball (jon...@earthlink.ns.net)
>>Subject: The myth of western beef demand "driving"
>>tropical deforestation
>>Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,
>>alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
>>View: Complete Thread (3 articles) | Original Format
>>Date: 2001-02-05 10:21:52 PST
>>
>
> [..]
>
>
>>The rainforest groupies will take vindication at
>>knowing the consensus
>>of the authors is that conversion to pasture is the
>>primary cause of
>>deforestation in the tropics of Latin America.
Typically, ~~Illweed~~, the lying whore, leaves in the
one little piece that she mistakenly believes supports
her false conclusion: that western demand for
"beefburgers" is in any way driving the dorestation of
Central and South America.
Her conclusion is false. Her reason for drawing it is
transparently political cynicism, and a fascistic
willingness to tell people that they can't have what
they want, based on nothing more than her incoherent
religious babble.
..
Lotus
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
[..]
> > >>In the past, she was very concerned to try to support
> > >>another "vegan" loon poster's assertion that U.S.
So, now you are caught _again_ in that sleazy lie.
U.S consumption had nothing whatsoever to do with
Forlorn's claim.
Typical of you that you'd focus on Brazil and not Central
America.
Forlorn included livestock feed production as well as
grazing, you conveniently forget.
> > >>consumption of beef was "causing" tropical
> > >>deforestation in Central America and Amazonia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you see the groups this is cross posted to, Boil?
Quit trolling.
Your strawman diversionary poisoning-the-well tactics
aren't working.
Alf Christophersen
<DeMan[10]@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The problem is primarily for those with chronic Low vitamin B-12
>status, as DrCeePhd indicated. Still, B-12 status should be optimized
>not minimized.
>
>And, on my first hit in Medline I came up with a hot one that speaks
>directly to the claims of many Vegetarians.
And your citement prove that B-12 need to be given in mg to g doses
independent on whether you eat vegetables, fish or meat??
I find it only proves that vegetarians need to eat something that
really contain B-12. eg- Marmite, meat or something like that.
Derek
"Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message news:3C794471...@esatclear.ie...
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> >
> > > Jonathan Ball <jon...@mindspring.NS.com> wrote in message
news:<3C787118...@mindspring.NS.com>...
>
[..]
>
> to tell this group about your theory that some energy
> could be recouped from cattle production by attaching
> fly-wheels to cattle. Where were you thinking of
> attaching the fly-wheels to, Boil? Their jaw-bones
> perhaps? Their tails?
>
> Q. How many chickens would it take to power a light bulb?
>
believe "battery" hens produce electricity. Don't lend him your
portable radio.
Jonathan Ball
practitioner, wrote:
> Lotus wrote:
>
>
>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>
>
> [..]
>
>
>>>>>In the past, she was very concerned to try to support
>>>>>another "vegan" loon poster's assertion that U.S.
>>>>>
>
> So, now you are caught _again_ in that sleazy lie.
> U.S consumption had nothing whatsoever to do with
> Forlorn's claim.
Oh, yes, I forgot: that was *your* sleazy, phony
contribution, wasn't it, whore?
From: lilweed (lerasi...@iol.ie)
Subject: Re: 21 things you may not know about PeTA
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
View this article only
Date: 1999/11/18
[...]
The relevent info I have already posted, it's all
documented in the thread right
after this one, 'Re; Rainforest, sustainable agriculture'.
In Central America, two-thirds of lowland tropical
forests have been turned into
pasture since 1950. Meat is too expensive for many of
the poor in these
beef-exporting countries, yet in some cases cattle have
ousted highly productive
traditional agriculture.
...
In Central America, 40% of all the rainforests have
been cleared or burned down in
the last 40 years, mostly for cattle pasture to feed
the export market (often for
US beefburgers).
----------------------------------
It's BULLSHIT, you whore. Pure bullshit. Central
America exports practically no beef to the U.S., or to
anywhere else in the developed world.
>
> Typical of you that you'd focus on Brazil and not Central
> America.
>
> Forlorn included livestock feed production as well as
> grazing, you conveniently forget.
You're *still* a lying whore, ~~Illweed~~. It has
nothing to do with U.S. demand for "beefburgers".
>
>
>>>>>consumption of beef was "causing" tropical
>>>>>deforestation in Central America and Amazonia.
>>>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Do you see the groups this is cross posted to, Boil?
I saw it, you venereal whore.
Why don't you try to *make* me stop posting it?
>
> Quit trolling.
Fuck off, whore.
>
> Your strawman diversionary poisoning-the-well tactics
> aren't working.
They're working fine. They're demonstrating that
you're a proved liar.
Alf Christophersen
<DeMan[10]@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"The mean absorption rate of oral cyanocobalamin [common form of B-12
>in supplements] by patients with pernicious anemia is 1.2% across a
>wide range of doses. (8) The daily cobalamin turnover rate is about 2
>ug/d, so an oral dose of 100 to 250 ug/d is sufficient for most
>patients.
Why use cyanocobalamine at all?? It is not a natural compound, only
found in test tubes after being converted during purification process.
Rather try hydroxycobalamine which is one of the natural mainforms, or
alkylcobalamine.
Given intravenously 2 ug is enough of it. Why not develope syringes
ala those used today for insuline. Should be easy as a hell to give in
case you lack intrinsic factor (Those figurs you mention are only
relevant for patients with lack of intrinsic factor, by the way, not
needed by people who has not altered absorption mechanism)
Ron
So you're saying the beef is going elsewhere or is being consumed
right there?
On the one hand the idea of beef raising causing deforestation is
stated in your evidence.
Again I'd have to ask where is the beef going if not to America or
Europe?
America exports (somewhere) an almost equal amount that it imports.
There is no rationale for that and can only add to cost unless it's
to encourage beef production in S.A. at the cost of deforestation.
Is here to Stay'@hotmail.com John 'Is here to Stay
news:3C793281...@sph.llu.edu...
No kidding Dim Wit!
Why do you think that I put lack of intrinsic factor in parentheses, as well
as the definition of pernicious anemia in my post?
Don't Science Geeks know how to read more than one sentence at a time?
daNOE...@wi.rr.com
>
> Well, the only God model that I'm capable of believing in from a scientific
> perspective, is that God evolved along with the rest of us. He didn't
> create the universe, he's as much a product of the universe as we are.
> Evolution is the primacy of the universe. God, if he exists, is merely
> farther up the evolutionary scale than we are. Similarly, we will evolve
> into gods someday if we survive long enough.
>
> Thus, I don't expect all these wonderful things out of a god that
> monotheistic Christians do. First off, I say a single god is impossible.
> There might be a single god *with dominion over the Earth*, but that's
> hardly a single god. His peers would have planetcraft. They'd make bad
> decisions and screw things up. They'd not be that much more remarkably wise
> than ourselves. Just far more powerful, and thankfully not evil.
>
It has already been proven logically that one can not prove there is a God and
one can not prove that there is no God. I think it was German mathematician
that proved this around 1800. Religion uses myth to help humans answer the
questions of existence. Science uses logic to answer these questions in a much
more limited domain. The two are complementary in the best case. Myth is about
faith and that is why one doesn't read the Bible literally. For those that do,
they will always be at odds with science.
The pessimist says that if there is a God, then the Devil made the world (i.e.
universe) when God was looking the other way. Of coure this assumes that God is
just which can't be proved. Best to keep religion to yourself.
[snip]
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message news:<3C7931FB...@earthlink.NS.net>...
[...]
> So you're saying the beef is going elsewhere or is being consumed
> right there?
I don't know what happens to it. I know that
verifiable reports about where U.S. beef imports come
from indicate that little if any comes from Central
America.
I do know that some beef possibly comes here from
tropical Brazil, but it isn't fresh beef; not what
would go into a "beefburger". Tins of corned beef
often indicate that the beef comes from Brazil. Corned
beef is not a big seller here, and is not used in
hamburgers.
But it isn't "beef production", per se. It's simply
the easiest way for some people to grab some land.
>
> Again I'd have to ask where is the beef going if not to America or
> Europe?
Most of it appears to be consumed locally, since one of
my hard, verifiable data sources indicate that Brazil
only exports 15% of its total production.
>
> America exports (somewhere) an almost equal amount that it imports.
> There is no rationale for that
Of course there's a rationale for it. The beef we
export is of a different grade than what's imported.
Effectively, it isn't the same stuff at all.
> and can only add to cost unless it's
> to encourage beef production in S.A. at the cost of deforestation.
Who said that U.S. beef exports are meant to
"encourage" beef production in South America?
Jay Tanzman
John 'Is here to Stay' wrote:
>
> "Jay Tanzman" <jtan...@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C793281...@sph.llu.edu...
>
> > John 'the Man' wrote:
> > >
> > > x-no-archive: yes
> > >
> > > Snobs be gone!
> > >
> > > Once upon a time, our fellow Alf Christophersen
> > > rambled on about "Re: B-12 (Re: Creation (was B12))."
> > > Our champion being bored in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
> > >
> > > >>What is for sure is that supplementation with 4 mcg of B-12 wont
> > > >>result in 4 mcg being utilized by your body. You have to take at
> > > >>least 100 times that amount.
> > >
> > > >Sources for taht, please. I don't believe you.
> > > >Period.
> > >
> > > Here is a direct rely to your question. :-)
> > >
> > > Oral Cobalamin for Pernicious Anemia
> > > http://www.vitab12.com/anemia.html
> > > "The mean absorption rate of oral cyanocobalamin [common form of B-12
> > > in supplements] by patients with pernicious anemia is 1.2% across a
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > John, you are once again proving that you are incompetent, ignorant, and
> > dangerous. These subjects have low B12 absorption because they have
> perncicious
> > anemia. That means they have B12 malabsorption, by definition.
>
> Why do you think that I put lack of intrinsic factor in parentheses, as well
> as the definition of pernicious anemia in my post?
Then why did you make the categorical statement that B12 is not well absorbed,
when it is true only for certain individuals.
-Jay
Alf Christophersen
<DeMan[12]@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The use of syringes in the States is pretty much illegal. We can buy
>supplements freely here, but *not* syringes.
So people has to eat insulin if they are not allowed to inject it??
Kristofer D. Dale
>>So people has to eat insulin if they are not allowed to inject it??
> ?????
> It is pretty much illegal for anything, period, unless you have a
> prescription for it.
Yep, under the current administration, just thinking about caring for
oneself is a thought crime. I recall being told that saline solution was
a "prescription drug" about five years ago when I was helping my brother
heal after a car accident that nearly tore his left leg off at the knee.
My immediate reaction was "fuck that shit", and I used the "El Cheapo"
eyewash sitting on the shelf not 20 feet away from the pharmacy window,
at a fraction of the price, for the remaining month or so that his
wounds required wet dressing. I know this was highly irresponsible,
since the quality control for eye-care products can't possibly measure
up to precious hospital standards. It must have been pure dumb luck that
he suffered no untoward consequences as a result. I predict that very
soon now, given the current level of insanity, we will need a
prescription for toilet paper, and an EPA certificate for every bowel
movement we have, on the basis that we are handling "hazardous
material"... ;^]
--
_o Kristofer Dale,
_ \<,_ ragged individualist,
_____( )/ ( )_____ statistic at large...
p.s. Learn and live, http://www.vitaletherapeutics.org
Alf Christophersen
<DeMan[13]@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It is pretty much illegal for anything, period, unless you have a
>prescription for it.
Being ill with pernicious anemia should also be a good reason for
having prescribed a microsyringe injected the needed 5 ug of active
B12 instead of having people to eat grams of more or less inactive
B12.
Martin Banschbach PhD
> need to be taking about 1,000 mcgs a day, if you expect to absorb any
> of it.
> John Gohde,
This statement proves your complete ignorance of human nutrition. You say
that you use media announcements for your info, it shows. Try reading
published literature sometime John.
--
Marty B. "You are what you eat."
http://centernet.okstate.edu/nutrition/index.html
The above website is for educational purposes
only. Material in this website and posted material
represents the opinion of Martin Banschbach,
Ph.D. and does not reflect Oklahoma State
University policy or position on nutrition.
Issues regarding the diagnosis and treatment
of human disease can not be addressed
by material in the above website or by
Martin Banschbach, Ph.D.
Any comments made by Martin
Banschbach, Ph.D. are invalid unless
confirmed by your personal physician.
Alex
> drce...@aol.com (DRCEEPHD) wrote in message
>
> > My problem is compounded by the fact that I am a creationist. I do not
> > believe
> > the evolutionists. It is my opinion that we were created. It is further my
> > opinion that we were not created to eat meat. The eating of meat and animal
> > products is an option, not a requirement. The B12 question is then one with
> > moral and ethical considerations.
>
> I am probably going to have to break this down into several replies,
> for the first one I changed the thread to creation. Religion and
> science do not mix very well. For me that's a real paradox.
>
Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy
between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and
infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God
cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.
Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge,
provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not
override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the
things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.
The unity of truth is a fundamental premise of human reasoning, as the
principle of non-contradiction makes clear. Revelation renders this
unity certain, showing that the God of creation is also the God of
salvation history. It is the one and the same God who establishes and
guarantees the intelligibility and
reasonableness of the natural order of things upon which scientists
confidently depend, and who reveals himself as the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ.
As an example of man of faith and science, Galileo declared explicitly
that the two truths, of faith and of science, can never contradict
each other, 'Sacred Scripture and the natural world proceeding equally
from the divine Word, the first as dictated by the Holy Spirit, the
second as a very faithful executor of the commands of God', as he
wrote in his letter to Father Benedetto Castelli on 21 December 1613.
Coming back to the B12 question, we are in front of an apparent
discrepancy between Revelation and science, which may be due to:
a) an incorrect interpretation of Revelation (as they did with
Galileo), or
b) a case of bad science.
Cee, I suspect that your opinion that we were not created to eat meat
comes from Genesis 1:29, where, after creating man, God said: "See, I
give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree
that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food;...". While it was
only in Gen 9:3, after the Flood, that God said to Noah and his sons:
"Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat; I give them all
to you as I did the green plants."
So, you may be interpreting this text as teaching that originally man
was created vegetarian, whereas the permission to eat meat came only
as a concession after the first sin.
If that's the case, I will offer below an interpretation of the
biblical text that poses no conflict with the scientific finding that
animal food intake is required for humans to fulfill their B12
requirement (if that finding exists, which I think it does, but I
cannot assert for sure).
our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original
"state of holiness and justice". This grace of original holiness was
to share in divine life.
By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man's life were
confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would
not have to suffer or die. The inner harmony of the human person, the
harmony between man and
woman, and finally the harmony between the first couple and all
creation, comprised the state called "original justice".
So, the fact that man would not die nor suffer, or, in regard with his
relationship with creation, would not fall victim to predators nor
have to predate himself, was not an intrinsic property of man's
"biological layer", but a "waiver" to the limitations inherent to any
living organism that was granted by God as an addition to his most
important gift: the share in divine life.
Once man sinned and thus lost God's friendship, he also lost that
waiver, and thus all the intrinsic biological properties which meant
limitations started to apply to his body: death, pain, and the need to
eat animal products to get B12.
(Out of intellectual honesty, the first paragraph was copied from the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the second and third from the
encyclical "Fides and Ratio" of JPII. Of course I do not intend to
make an argument of authority out of it, since they have authority
only for Catholics.)
Alex
>
> > My problem is compounded by the fact that I am a creationist. I do not
> > believe
> > the evolutionists. It is my opinion that we were created.
I am creationist in the sense that I believe that "In the
beginning God created the heavens and the earth" - i.e. the spiritual
and physical universes - out of nothing.
I am creationist also in that I believe that every human being has a
spiritual soul that is created directly by God at the moment of
conception. And that I believe that there were Adam and Eve, i.e. a
couple of humans that were the first to be infused a spiritual soul,
from whom every human descends.
This truths are beyond the domain of natural science and neither do
they need to be confirmed by science nor can they possibly be denied
by it. (Actually, science keeps arriving to more and more conclusions
that are in line with them: Big Bang, mitochondrial Eve.)
But other than that, I have no problem accepting the by now
sufficiently proven theory of evolution. And it poses no conflict
with the revealed truth. Doesn't the first chapter of the Genesis
describe, in a primitive language, a gradual process of creation? OK,
the theory of evolution describes how it was done. The divine
revelation, on the other hand, tells me that that process did not
happen out of blind fate or chance, but was guided by God. And He
showed his greatness and wisdom by the way He did it, leaving no
direct sign of his action, but rather performing it thru the action of
his creatures according to the laws He gave them.
Quoting again from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (and again,
not as argument of authority):
The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the
object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our
knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of
life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to
even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us
to give him thanks for all
his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars
and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me
unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world
and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all
things, taught me."
mark doran
news:4f17fab7.0202251242.4e27fa0a@
>
> Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy
> between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and
> infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God
> cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.
> Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge,
> provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not
> override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the
> things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.
>
[etc]
Look, sorry if I'm raining on your parade here, but this is all a bunch of
horse-shit.
For crying out loud, THEY MADE IT ALL UP!!!
Mark D.
mark doran
> These discoveries invite us to
> even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us
> to give him thanks for all
> his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars
> and researchers.
Get off your knees. There's no-one there.
M..
mark doran
http://www.secularism.org.uk/nsshome.htm
M.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"The only good religion is a moribund religion. History shows that whenever
religion gains temporal power it turns lethal: only when the faithful are
weak are they 'tolerant' and 'peaceful'. Those who believe that theirs is
the only way, that ultimate moral and spiritual truth has been revealed to
them, will kill to create their heavens on earth - if they get the chance."
Lotus
From;
*Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:
The Rules of Disinformation
(Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)
by H. Michael Sweeney
http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.htm
'..
A rational person participating as one interested in the truth
will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that
the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are
weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived
at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating
(but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be
found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in
itself key to) the argument. The game is played by raising issues
which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of
breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to
interfere with these evaluations... to at least make people think
the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or
to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth.
Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through
disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because
apathy increases with time and rhetoric.
It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot
break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of
truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must
be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is
invalid and a new one must be found... but truth still wins out.
There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed
solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the
truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable
that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular
side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long
as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize
and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will
seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.
It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings
(those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek
to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of
evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall
on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those
who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the
intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the
same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly
well defined and observable tools in this process.
However, the public at large is not well armed against such
weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics.
Remarkably, even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED
to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players
themselves understand the rules of the game.
..
For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid
discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken
by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to
make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion
of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the
chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the
method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. ..
Jonathan Ball wrote:
> Lotus, the Irish whore and unlicensed "medical"
> practitioner, wrote:
.. Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such
as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news
groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these
forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts
by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in
their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much
in development at the time. People often use such mediums as
a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form
their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or
powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the
topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of
nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept,
the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should
any possible future confrontation in more public forums result
due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo
types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards"
of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that
those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with
the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or
investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion
meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who
disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it
in exactly those terms.
So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in
Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational
argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops
(psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool.
..'
Rules in brackets [*].
> > Lotus wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >>
> >
> > [..]
> >
> >
> >>>>>In the past, she was very concerned to try to support
> >>>>>another "vegan" loon poster's
[ 7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any
fact which could be taken to imply that the
opponent operates out of a hidden personal
agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing
issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.]
> assertion that U.S.
> >>>>>
> >
> > So, now you are caught _again_ in that sleazy lie.
> > U.S consumption had nothing whatsoever to do with
> > Forlorn's claim.
>
> Oh, yes, I forgot:
Pretty pathetic fall back line, boil. You forgot?
Not likely, as obviously this is one of your big
'obsessions'. You simply, stupidly, so wanting to
demonize ethical veg*ns values, have done so to the
cost of your own 'credibility'.
> that was *your* sleazy, phony
> contribution, wasn't it, whore?
[ 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger'
ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of
that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular
titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal',
'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs',
'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics',
'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others
shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same
label, and you avoid dealing with issues. ]
> From: lilweed (lerasi...@iol.ie)
> Subject: Re: 21 things you may not know about PeTA
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
> View this article only
> Date: 1999/11/18
> [...]
> The relevent info I have already posted, it's all
> documented in the thread right
> after this one, 'Re; Rainforest, sustainable agriculture'.
>
> In Central America, two-thirds of lowland tropical
> forests have been turned into
> pasture since 1950. Meat is too expensive for many of
> the poor in these
> beef-exporting countries, yet in some cases cattle have
> ousted highly productive
> traditional agriculture.
> ...
> In Central America, 40% of all the rainforests have
> been cleared or burned down in
> the last 40 years, mostly for cattle pasture to feed
> the export market (often for
> US beefburgers).
> ----------------------------------
>
> It's BULLSHIT, you whore. Pure bullshit.
No, it isn't, a$$hole. Beef exports from Central
America rose to 45% of total production during the
early 1970's, falling to between 30%-20% in the
following two decades (FAO 1998). That 45%-20%
production, _over and above domestic consumption_,
required newly deforested areas for grazing (often
for bloody 'beef burgers').
> Central
> America exports practically no beef to the U.S., or to
> anywhere else in the developed world.
What has that got to do with 'the last forty years', boil?
(C.A. exports were still 20% of total production in 1995).
> > Typical of you that you'd focus on Brazil and not Central
> > America.
> >
> > Forlorn included livestock feed production as well as
> > grazing, you conveniently forget.
>
> You're *still* a lying whore, ~~Illweed~~. It has
> nothing to do with U.S. demand for "beefburgers".
You are *still* a lying a$$hole, boil. Again, Forlorn's
claim, had nothing to do with *U.S* demand for beef burgers.
> >>>>>consumption of beef was "causing" tropical
> >>>>>deforestation in Central America and Amazonia.
> >>>>>
> >
[..]
Ron
Jonny calm down. The spittle is flying from your mouth and soaking
everyone.
You need to take a sabbatical. No one, and I mean *NO ONE* lives on
these groups 24 hours per day like you do.
You are coming unstuck.
Relax. Breathe deeply. Shut off your computer. Go for a walk.
Have a big bowl of ice cream. Soak your head in a pail of ice
water...
Breathe deeply...
Relax....
Sleep....
Jonathan Ball
>>You're *still* a lying whore, ~~Illweed~~. It has
>>nothing to do with U.S. demand for "beefburgers".
>>
>
> You are *still* a lying a$$hole, boil. Again, Forlorn's
> claim, had nothing to do with *U.S* demand for beef burgers.
But *your* bullshit claim did, ~~Illweed~~, and you
backed it up with...bullshit.
ALL of your claims, about the causes of deforestation,
trade with Argentina, sustainable food production in
Scotland, early hominid diet, and the monstrous
murderous quack Hulda Clark's "zapper", are pure
BULLSHIT. And you can't support a single one of them
with anything except additional bullshit from the web
pages of lying, polemical "activists" like you.
Lotus
[bullsh*t- his favorite brand]
RBR
<DeMan[05]@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>ABSTRACT: "Because vitamin B-12 deficiency is often associated with
>vegetarianism, this study was designed to examine the effect of
>Taiwanese vegetarian diets on B-vitamin status and plasma homocysteine
>levels. ...
>In conclusion, the Buddhist nuns who consumed a lacto-vegetarian diet
>had mildly elevated fasting plasma homocysteine levels presumably due
>to lower levels of plasma vitamin B-12."
>
>I could site a 100 other studies stating eccentrically the same thing.
>To be healthy, you have to eat meat (which includes fish).
How rich a source are eggs for vitamin B-12?
Rob
Jonathan Ball
try to "support" your bullshit claims, you shoot
yourself in the ass, and simply cite more bullshit from
the web pages of lying, hypocritical, scientifically
illiterates like you.
You have no background in science at all. You cite
stuff that you simply don't understand. In most cases,
you don't even understand that *no* reading of the
bullshit you cite could possibly support your case.
The material you mis-cited from BeyondVeg was simply
the most egregious instance.
Martin Banschbach
> Get off your knees. There's no-one there.
>
> M..
Mark,
My talk with the mormons centered on what I knew as
a scientist and what the bible says about creation. They
were unable to reconcile the difference. The Catholic Church
has apparently attempted to bring what scientists have learned into
the Church. I wonder what other religions have done with
the issue of evolution?
Your view is that we are here by random chance. That's
certainly possible and it means that nobody is upstairs.
There is a great fear that if we discover life on other
planets, God is dead for good.
For a believer, no proof is necessary. When the Shourd of Turin
was being examined I really thought that we would have our
proof but science only managed to muddy the waters over
carbon-14 dating.
There are many on this planet that are convinced that there
is no God, no higher being, no guiding force. Fine, I don't have
a problem with that. I don't even have a problem with someone
telling me I'm wrong about some aspect of human nutrition.
For some people, realizing that they were wrong shakes them
to the core. If my self esteem was so fragile that being wrong
would completely destroy my confidence on other areas of human
nutrition that I would self destruct, then I would be useless
in my chosen profession.
I actually can't wait to see if there is evidence of life on
Mars because that's just one more thing that I will have to
process as a scientist. If the Shroud of Turin is proven to
be a fake, so what.
I never could understand why athiests (some atheists) were so
adimitt about trying to tear down religion. It isn't just enough
not to believe in a higher power but that then means that no
one else can believe in a higher power or express their faith in
public.
Lotus
> No, ~~Illweed~~. I pointed out that *every* time you
> try to "support" your bullshit claims, you shoot
> yourself in the ass, and simply cite more bullshit from
> the web pages of lying, hypocritical, scientifically
> illiterates like you.
[ 3. Create rumor mongers.
Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges,
regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors
and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms
mutually exclusive of truth may work as well.
This method which works especially well with a
silent press, because the only way the public
can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable
rumors'. If you can associate the material with
the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild
rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet'
which can have no basis in fact. ]
> You have no background in science at all.
You know NOTHING about me. The 'person'
you *think* I am, is only a figment of your twisted
projecting imagination. See the ~~Illweed~~ you've
constructed? The 'sleazy lying diseased slut' you
invented in your sick mind? That's YOU.
> You cite
> stuff that you simply don't understand.
As above. If *you* understood, *really* understood
even a fraction of it, you wouldn't still be here arguing.
> In most cases,
> you don't even understand that *no* reading of the
> bullshit you cite could possibly support your case.
That doesn't even make any sense.
You are just carrying on raving here because
your liddle weeny ego can't bear 'losing', loser.
> The material you mis-cited from BeyondVeg was simply
> the most egregious instance.
I didn't mis-cite anything from b.v, you foolish bully.
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
[?]
>
>>You have no background in science at all.
>>
>
> You know NOTHING about me.
I know PLENTY about you. You have no background in
science at all. ZERO.
> The 'person' you *think* I am,
I scarcely think you're a person at all, you dirty
diseased liar.
> is only a figment of your twisted
> projecting imagination.
Nope. It's the lying, quackery-promoting,
scientifically illiterate, bullshit-copying asshole you
are.
> See the ~~Illweed~~ you've constructed?
I haven't constructed anything. I've shone a bright
light on YOU.
> The 'sleazy lying diseased slut' you
> invented in your sick mind? That's YOU.
I didn't invent anything. I've correctly identified
you: a lying, semi-literate sack of waste.
>
>
>>You cite
>>stuff that you simply don't understand.
>>
>
> As above. If *you* understood, *really* understood
> even a fraction of it, you wouldn't still be here arguing.
I understand plenty of it. More to the point, I
understand that I don't know plenty, too. You don't.
You plunge blindly ahead in pursuit of your dishonest,
anti-rational goal.
>
>
>>In most cases,
>>you don't even understand that *no* reading of the
>>bullshit you cite could possibly support your case.
>>
>
> That doesn't even make any sense.
It makes plenty of sense, whore. You cite bullshit
about Argentina's trade activity with the rest of the
world in an attempt to "support" your claim that U.S.
imports of *Brazilian* beef are having this or that
effect? ARGENFUCKINGTINA? You illiterate ASSHOLE!!
>
> You are just carrying on raving here because
> your liddle weeny ego can't bear 'losing', loser.
I haven't lost a thing, you semi-literate whore.
>
>
>>The material you mis-cited from BeyondVeg was simply
>>the most egregious instance.
>>
>
> I didn't mis-cite anything from b.v, you foolish bully.
You miscited every fucking word of it, you
semi-literate asshole.
sue in mt
infinity and creation. I do believe in Creation and I certainly have
some faith in an existence after this life. Maybe for some people who
do not have this faith, they seek a security from others being the
same way. I also believe, and have faith, that nutrition is important
to the quality of our lives, although I don't claim to know nearly as
much as I'd like to on the topic. I don't think anyone knows quite
enough. Sue
Kevin Brandon
Semi-literate? You're giving her way too much credit.
Kevin
Alex
> So, the fact that man would not die nor suffer, or, in regard with his
> relationship with creation, would not fall victim to predators ***nor
> have to predate himself***, was not an intrinsic property of man's
> "biological layer", but a "waiver" to the limitations inherent to any
> living organism that was granted by God as an addition to his most
> important gift: the share in divine life.
while I really meant:
... ***nor himself have to predate (animals)*** ...
BTW, the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin is no big issue. The
Catholic Church has never pronounced that any particular relic, not
even that commonly venerated as the wood of the Cross, is authentic.
Martin Banschbach
> nutrition is important
> to the quality of our lives, although I don't claim to know nearly as
> much as I'd like to on the topic. I don't think anyone knows quite
> enough. Sue
Sue,
That's the real kicker, the book has not been closed on
nutrition. It's still being written. New information
will still be added long after I'm gone.
Every science has to deal with the same thing. The book on
physics seemed close to being closed but then someone finds
something new. Who knows, maybe some day we will find out
if time travel is possible.
My personal opinion is that our Creator is not going to let
us get to that point.
Lotus
Well, that's pretty good going!
In this thread alone you've already proved yourself to
be a brutish, unscrupulous, evasive, uncaring liar, boil.
No one is interested in your twisted maniacal ranting,
except of course your fellow ignoble sewer scum.
Jonathan Ball wrote:
[nothing of import]
"Forgiveness is the answer to the child's dream of a miracle
by which what is broken is made whole again, what is soiled
is made clean again."
- Dag Hammarskjold