B-12 (Re: Creation (was B12))
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. :-)
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.
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!
> >
> >"Martin Banschbach" <mbans...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:cba7fed1.02022...@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >> 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.
>
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Kevin Brandon
Semi-literate? You're giving her way too much credit.
Kevin
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
Jonathan Ball
> I have made an error or two, in the last 2.7 years.
> Well, that's pretty good going!
They weren't "errors", you liar. They were intentional
lies. They also demonstrated your sheer incompetence.
It's your m.o. You look around for the predictable,
easy-to-find activist's web page, and simply
cut-n-paste the bullshit you find there as if it is the
scientific consensus.
You have no background in science. None whatever.
[...]
Steve Harris
--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book. A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.
Alf Christophersen wrote in message <3c7a6c10...@nntp.uio.no>...
It takes only 500 micrograms or more of B12 a day to treat pernicious
anemia. That much is one pill and very cheap. Injections are generally not
necessary. They can be useful for body loading first at first, since every
injection gives you a couple of months worth of vitamin stores to get you
off to a good start. After that, however, you can do it entirely orally so
long as you're faithful the rest of your life
SBH
Lotus
Lotus
Jonathan Ball wrote:
[more crap]
Jonathan Ball
> You are a proved LIAR, boil.
No, ~~Illweed~~, that simply isn't so.
But YOU are. It has been proved again and again.
You have a hate-filled political agenda, and you have
been caught time and again simply throwing anything you
can find that you *think* supports your bullshit agenda.
I have only scratched the surface in pointing to your
dishonesty:
- western demand for "beefburgers" driving deforestation
- Argentine trade data somehow "proving" something
about Brazil
- humans as "frugivores" (this one is especially laughable)
- Scotland being able to sustain its population's food
demand *without* animals
You're a chronic and reflexive liar, ~~Illweed~~. You
lied about every one of those topics, and continued to
try to maintain the fictions long after they were
hopelessly exposed.
And you have no background AT ALL in science.
Kevin Brandon
> You are a proved LIAR, boil.
Would you mind presenting this proof for the rest of us?
Kevin
Jonathan Ball
> Lotus <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message news:<3C7BE006...@esatclear.ie>...
>
>>You are a proved LIAR, boil.
>>
>
> Would you mind presenting this proof for the rest of us?
Oh, crap. NOW you've done it. She's going to post
something about Bolivia's foreign trade with Nigeria.
nemo
George Russell <g...@tzi.de> wrote in message
news:3C76E44F...@tzi.de...
> John 'the Man' wrote:
> >
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > Snobs be gone!
> >
> > rambled on about "Re: Creation (was B12)."
> > Our champion being bored in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
> >
> >
> > 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]
Wrong. There are plenty of B12 supplements about which are of synthetic
origin.
This is another thing I had assumed would have died out by now - using the
B12 issue as a stick to beat Vegans with!
Next I'll find, "It's not worth being Vegan because you can't do it 100%.
You buy a Vegan foodstuff and the printing inks in the packaging have all
been tested on animals," as if that's a Vegan's fault. It's the law. It's
the Government's fault. Or, "We've got pointed canine teeth therefore we're
naturally meat-eaters." Crap!
I once read a leaflet called, "Whatever Happens to the Calf," and that was
enough. Sod technicalities. The terrible things routinely done to animals
are not being done for my benefit. That's all that matters. It's entirely up
to me what I eat and how I live my life and I am supremely confident in the
path I have chosen. A million spurious arguments from Trolls will not change
that one iota!
Nemo
nemo
John 'the Man' <DeMan[04]@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l2md7usla1afh39ma...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Snobs be gone!
>
> rambled on about "Re: B-12."
> Our champion being bored in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >>> eat meat, or take B-12 supplements which are a meat bi-product. :-)
> >>[snip]
>
> >My preference is a combination of nutritional yeast and algae.
> >{rb}
>
> How do you know that it works?
>
> 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.
> --
> John Gohde,
Sorry. The daily requirement is 3 micro-grams. The absorbency is about 10%,
therefore 30micro-grams would be OK. 1mg a day might certainly make you feel
good though. In large doses B12 lifts depression somewhat. (Source - lecture
on B12 at Vegan Society London by a London University professor about 20
years ago.)
And even if it were true, you make taking 1mg of B12 look like an
insurmountable problem! Why?
Holland and Barrett do1mg tablets at about £6 per 100. I've got some in
front of me now. I use them because it's cheaper to cut up the 1mg tablets
than to buy smaller dose tablets which are about the same price.
Natex yeast extract also contains a certain amount of B12, and it's much
tastier than Marmite.
Believe me, B12 is not a problem. You need it, so you take it. It becomes
second nature. I've been Vegan for about 30 years with absolutely no sign of
sub-acute degeneration of the spinal cord, or any form of anhaemia.
Nemo
Camcompany
"nemo" <ne...@naughtylass.wet> wrote in message
news:Dz8m8.5058$PD6.36...@news-text.cableinet.net...
posting
Camcompany
"nemo" <ne...@naughtylass.wet> wrote in message
X
Right. If you're a vegan, while I'd love not to, you still have to live in this
world.
apostate
> > > 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]
>
> Wrong. There are plenty of B12 supplements about which are of synthetic
> origin.
> This is another thing I had assumed would have died out by now - using the
> B12 issue as a stick to beat Vegans with!
>
> Next I'll find, "It's not worth being Vegan because you can't do it 100%.
Show it's better than omnivorism at reducing animal suffering.
> You buy a Vegan foodstuff and the printing inks in the packaging have all
> been tested on animals," as if that's a Vegan's fault. It's the law.
Don't buy it, grow your own.
It's
> the Government's fault. Or, "We've got pointed canine teeth therefore
we're
> naturally meat-eaters." Crap!
>
> I once read a leaflet called, "Whatever Happens to the Calf," and that was
> enough. Sod technicalities. The terrible things routinely done to animals
> are not being done for my benefit.
Much more terrible things are done to wildlife to plough, plant, spray,
irrigate, store, your food.
That's all that matters. It's entirely up
> to me what I eat and how I live my life and I am supremely confident in
the
> path I have chosen. A million spurious arguments from Trolls will not
change
> that one iota!
I just gave you a valid reason to put your image of your own impact into
context.
Steve Harris
>> > 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]
>
>Wrong. There are plenty of B12 supplements about which are of synthetic
>origin.
Name one. Total synthesis of B12 is/was the mount Everest of organic
chemistry. They considered giving Wilson the Nobel for it. I promise you,
bacterial culture is still the only source for the stuff in vitamins.
nemo
Camcompany <camco...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a7b5ho$g3g$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
nemo
X <cont...@thisgroup.com> wrote in message
news:3C99226A...@thisgroup.com...
> >
>
> Right. If you're a vegan, while I'd love not to, you still have to live
in this
> world.
>
way does my Vegan lifestyle conflict with living in this world?
nemo
apostate <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:u9ies6q...@news.supernews.com...
that was proved years ago. Sorry. I still feel confident. Try again.
nemo
Steve Harris <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:a7bgp1$u5b$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> nemo wrote in message ...
>
> >> > The only way to get B-12 from your diet in sufficient quantities is
to
> >> > eat meat, or take B-12 supplements which are a meat bi-product. :-)
> >> [snip]
> >
> >Wrong. There are plenty of B12 supplements about which are of synthetic
> >origin.
>
>
> Name one. Total synthesis of B12 is/was the mount Everest of organic
> chemistry. They considered giving Wilson the Nobel for it. I promise you,
> bacterial culture is still the only source for the stuff in vitamins.
>
nemo
Michael Cerkowski <mj...@albany.net> wrote in message
news:3C775F...@albany.net...
> B-12 is a bacterial byproduct, not an animal byproduct. Commercial
> B-12 supplements are made from vats of bacteria, not meat. Now go
> play somewhere else, please.
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.albany.net/~mjc1/index.html
Well said sir. To be honest I'd forgotten that! That's what I meant when I
refered to synthetic.
Nemo
nemo
Steve Harris <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:a7bgp1$u5b$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> >> > The only way to get B-12 from your diet in sufficient quantities is
to
> >> > eat meat, or take B-12 supplements which are a meat bi-product. :-)
> >> [snip]
> >
> >Wrong. There are plenty of B12 supplements about which are of synthetic
> >origin.
>
B-12 is a bacterial byproduct, not an animal byproduct. Commercial
B-12 supplements are made from vats of bacteria, not meat. Now go
play somewhere else, please.
That's what I meant.
Steve Harris
>
>Steve Harris <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
>news:a7bgp1$u5b$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
>> nemo wrote in message ...
>>
>> >> > The only way to get B-12 from your diet in sufficient quantities is
>to
>> >> > eat meat, or take B-12 supplements which are a meat bi-product. :-)
>> >> [snip]
>> >
>> >Wrong. There are plenty of B12 supplements about which are of synthetic
>> >origin.
>>
>>
>> Name one. Total synthesis of B12 is/was the mount Everest of organic
>> chemistry. They considered giving Wilson the Nobel for it. I promise
you,
>> bacterial culture is still the only source for the stuff in vitamins.
>>
>References with URLs please.
>
http://www.roche.com/vitamins/what/hnh/vits/vitb12.html
And wups, the great chemist was Woodward, not Wilson.
apostate
> Vegans impact on the environment much less than meateaters. Another thing
> that was proved years ago. <..>
Are you assuming this or do you have the studies to back it up?
apostate
>
> X <cont...@thisgroup.com> wrote
> >
> > Right. If you're a vegan, while I'd love not to, you still have to live
> in this
> > world.
> >
> Agreed, and what I'm saying is living in this world is no problem. In what
> way does my Vegan lifestyle conflict with living in this world?
Do you consider the elimination of "pests" in the production and storage of
your food conflicting with the world?
John
> Steve Harris <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
> news:a7bgp1$u5b$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> > nemo wrote in message ...
> >
> > >> > 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]
> > >
> > >Wrong. There are plenty of B12 supplements about which are of synthetic
> > >origin.
> >
> From Michael Cerkowski below -
Is Michael Cerkowski a reliable source of information?
> 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.
>
> That's what I meant.
That's not even remotely close to what you wrote. The ethical thing to
in this case would be to apologize for not writing what you meant to
write, instead of quoting an insult.
If you're concerned about keeping vegan, you should know that very few
bacterial culture media are vegan.
> > Name one. Total synthesis of B12 is/was the mount Everest of organic
> > chemistry. They considered giving Wilson the Nobel for it. I promise you,
> > bacterial culture is still the only source for the stuff in vitamins.
Did you even read what Dr. Harris wrote? Why didn't you just agree
with him and admit your error?
X
> > Right. If you're a vegan, while I'd love not to, you still have to live
> in this
> > world.
> >
> Agreed, and what I'm saying is living in this world is no problem. In what
> way does my Vegan lifestyle conflict with living in this world?
I meant it the other way around... As a vegan you have to compromise, as you
live in a world of meat-eaters, people who do not think of the tremendous
suffering that goes into the process. I still wear leather shoes, because
there's no quality alternative, and I'd still eat a veggie burger grilled where
hamburgers are grilled, so I compromise.
As a vegan, I'm not completely against, for other people, all meat eating in
every case. It's still food after all. I just think the animals should be
treated as respectfully as possible, but the animals in this world are treated
with cost considerations coming first and it's evil treatment. I'd like to
seem them treated well, which would also raise the cost of meat and open the
door to alternatives to meat.
A note to the group, I haven't come here to preach vegetarianism and thank
everybody for their helpful answers to my questions.
X
> > Vegans impact on the environment much less than meateaters. Another thing
> > that was proved years ago. <..>
>
> Are you assuming this or do you have the studies to back it up?
Common Sense -- First you have to consume the resources of growing grains and
vegetables to use as animal feed -- land, water..., and then you have to
consume the resources to raise the animals, more land, more water, antibiotics,
meat processing... With a vegan, you just have to do the first part, the grain
and vegetable farming, and processing.
apostate
> >
> > > Right. If you're a vegan, while I'd love not to, you still have to
live
> > in this
> > > world.
> > >
> > Agreed, and what I'm saying is living in this world is no problem. In
what
> > way does my Vegan lifestyle conflict with living in this world?
>
> I meant it the other way around... As a vegan you have to compromise, as
you
> live in a world of meat-eaters, people who do not think of the tremendous
> suffering that goes into the process.
Do you ever think about the animal suffering involved in producing your
food?
I still wear leather shoes, because
> there's no quality alternative,
So your desire for quality trumps an animal's right to keep his skin,
interesting ethics.
and I'd still eat a veggie burger grilled where
> hamburgers are grilled, so I compromise.
What do you compromise? Where is this sacrifice you are trying to claim? You
won't even give up leather shoes.
Nowhere. You're a hypocrite.
>
> As a vegan, I'm not completely against, for other people, all meat eating
in
> every case.
As a vegetarian. I object to sanctimonious people who think they have a
right to judge other people's diets.
It's still food after all. I just think the animals should be
> treated as respectfully as possible, but the animals in this world are
treated
> with cost considerations coming first and it's evil treatment. I'd like
to
> seem them treated well, which would also raise the cost of meat and open
the
> door to alternatives to meat.
The environmental cost of which in your earnest desire for self-elevation,
you haven't even considered..
> A note to the group, I haven't come here to preach vegetarianism and thank
> everybody for their helpful answers to my questions.
You didn't ask a question, you think you have all the answers. All you have
done is make sanctimonious, patronizing, presumptuous assertions.
apostate
> >
> > > Vegans impact on the environment much less than meateaters. Another
thing
> > > that was proved years ago. <..>
> >
> > Are you assuming this or do you have the studies to back it up?
>
> Common Sense --
I didn't think so. I thought you said it had been proved. I guess you meant
"to YOUR satisfaction".
First you have to consume the resources of growing grains and
> vegetables to use as animal feed -- land, water..., and then you have to
> consume the resources to raise the animals, more land, more water,
antibiotics,
> meat processing... With a vegan, you just have to do the first part, the
grain
> and vegetable farming, and processing.
The vast majority of the resources you are speaking of cannot be turned into
edible high quality food any other way than by feeding it to animals. A very
small percentage of the edible plant material on the earth is edible to
humans. Your plan is to remove ~75% of the input into the human food chain,
good luck replacing it. Maybe you can plough over a continent or two, oh
that might cause a bit of soil depletion and erosion, hmm maybe some mass
starvation, humans AND animals. That's just the beginning of why your idea
is ill-founded.
Your view is shallow and deluded in a very frightening way.
X
resources to feed and tend to domestic animals then it does to just feed and
tend to domestic vegans. Simplistically speaking, we clear two parts rainforest
and other lands for cattle -- land for growing feed and land for raising
animals, to one part for raising grains and vegetables for vegans. If we were
speaking about hunting game to supply our meat you'd have an argument.
X
> right to judge other people's diets.
This is how attempting to build a harmonious society works, we're forced to
judge others behavior as far as it compacts others. We judge against other's
rights to kill others, against slavery, against cock fighting, and even against
cruelty to animals. The problem with this cruelty to animals is that our
society tends to believe, out of sight out of mind. And I'm not judging your
diet anyway, I'm judging the cruelty involved in the way your food is extracted
from animals, and advising against the health risks involved.
I still wear leather shoes, because
> there's no quality alternative,
>So your desire for quality trumps an animal's right to keep his skin,
interesting ethics.
That was my example of a necessary evil to living in this world, and a profile
of my pragmatic lifestyle. I've tried man-made shoes and they're horrible. So
I hope that by becoming a vegan I at least do my part in influencing the world
to veer away from exploiting animals as it does, to the point that some day man
made materials will be good enough to wear. It's worked as far as the fact that
there is now good yoghourt alternative -- Silk, a good ice cream alternative --
Soy Delicious, a good cream cheese alternative -- Toufutti, Better Than Cream
Cheese. I used to still eat ice cream, but now with Soy Delicious I don't have
to anymore. I still do eat pizza from time to time, because there's not a good
cheese alternative yet, when there is, I will stop. I'm not a paragon of
perfect virtue, I just balance my conscious with my lifestyle choices, but I am
the kind of person who do not use disposable cups. I bring my own mugs to
Starbucks and reuse the plastic big-gulp cups at the 7-11, as not to add to the
burden of the depletion of resources and over-crowded landfills.
nemo
apostate
> I don't understand how you can argue against that fact that it takes more
> resources to feed and tend to domestic animals then it does to just feed
and
> tend to domestic vegans. Simplistically speaking,
That's the problem with your argument, it's too simplistic. It would be more
valid if all plant matter were the same, i.e. palatable and digestible by
humans, but that's not the case. It would be more valid if all the land in
the world were suitable for growing crops suitable for humans, not just
grass, but that's not the case either..
we clear two parts rainforest
> and other lands for cattle -- land for growing feed and land for raising
> animals, to one part for raising grains and vegetables for vegans.
The portion used for grazing would be sustainable for a long time, the
portion used for planting vegetables and grain would be permanently stripped
of all it's nutrients in no time at all.
> If we were
> speaking about hunting game to supply our meat you'd have an argument.
Re-read what I wrote, and think about it.
X
apostate
CaringIsTheFirstStep
only 15 cases of B12 deficiency in adult vegans have been mentioned since
1980. With ~2.5 millions vegans, in the USA alone, there would be many more
mentions if it were a common problems
The advice given is to simple eat B12 fortified foods
"Vegan Nutrition" by Gill Langley (which is suitable for
scientific minded people),
"Becoming Vegan" by Davis & Melina is an excellent book for everyone else,
who wants credible info that's uderstandable
(from the back cover)
davis is the Chair of the Vegetarian Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group of
the American Dietetic Association.
Melina is a coordinator of the vegetarian section of the "Manual of Clinical
Dietetics, 6th edition", a joint project of the American Dietetic
Association and Dietitians of Canada.
They are both registered dietitions
Here are some of the references used in their book
http://www.nutrispeak.com/veganrefs.htm
(although the references are not cited in the text)
It's probably available at bn.com, amazon.com, or half.com
Jon Janssen
"nemo" <ne...@naughtylass.wet> wrote in message
news:gP8m8.5105$mP6.36...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> John 'the Man' <DeMan[04]@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:l2md7usla1afh39ma...@4ax.com...
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > Snobs be gone!
> >
> > Once upon a time, our fellow Randy Brown
> > rambled on about "Re: B-12."
> > Our champion being bored in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
> >
> > >>> 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]
X
> > Woof
>
> You have a brain, use it.
>
Woof?
Jay
CaringIsTheFirstStep <resp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:riSm8.124207$1g.94...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> Here are scientifically-based conclusions on B12
>
> only 15 cases of B12 deficiency in adult vegans have been mentioned since
> 1980.
Bullshit.
Ann Nutr Metab 2000 Dec;44(5-6):229-234
"...23 subjects (47%) had abnormal urinary MMA concentrations."
Am J Clin Nutr 2000 Sep;72(3):762-9
"Thirty-one subjects [out of 48] from the previously macrobiotic group were
cobalamin deficient according to their plasma
methylmalonic acid concentrations."
Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):586S-593S
"...10 of the 25 vegans showed a vitamin B-12 deficit manifested by
macrocytosis, circulating vitamin B-12 concentrations <150 pmol/L, or serum
methylmalonic acid >376 nmol/L."
J Med Assoc Thai 1999 Mar;82(3):304-11.
"Vitamin B12 deficiency was found in 27 cases of 68 vegetarians (40%)."
I found 91 cases in 5 minutes.
> With ~2.5 millions vegans, in the USA alone, there would be many more
> mentions if it were a common problems
40% of 2.5 million = 1 million.
Common enough?
-Jay
apostate
> >
> > > Woof
> >
> > You have a brain, use it.
> >
>
> Woof?
Go fetch a clue Fido.
X
apostate wrote:
Razzamatazz!!!
apostate
Lotus
> Sorry. The daily requirement is 3 micro-grams. The absorbency is about 10%,
> therefore 30micro-grams would be OK. 1mg a day might certainly make you feel
> good though. In large doses B12 lifts depression somewhat. (Source - lecture
> on B12 at Vegan Society London by a London University professor about 20
> years ago.)
Nemo, you wrote above, that the daily requirement is 3 micro-grams.
In all the literature that I have seen, the RDA- recommended daily
allowance,- not requirement, is up to 3.0 mcg.
Absorbency being about 10% would fit in with what others have said
about the RDR (requirement) being about 1/10 of the RDA (allowance).
The B12 from flesh foods is 'cyanocobalamin', is it not, but isn't
the form obtained from plant foods 'hydroxycobalamin'- a form
of B12 that has far superior bio availability?
Lotus
[..]
> Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):586S-593S
> "...10 of the 25 vegans showed a vitamin B-12 deficit manifested by
> macrocytosis, circulating vitamin B-12 concentrations <150 pmol/L, or serum
> methylmalonic acid >376 nmol/L."
.. and the fifteen that didn't?..
> J Med Assoc Thai 1999 Mar;82(3):304-11.
> "Vitamin B12 deficiency was found in 27 cases of 68 vegetarians (40%)."
.. and the 41 that weren't deficient?..
How should we account for those?
X may have taken dietary supplements.
Y may have still had adequate stores from flesh foods.
Z (which interest me most of all) may have been
consuming plant foods grown in B12 rich (organically
manured) soil. [We are familiar with one study of
a community of vegans consuming organically manured
produce that had adequate levels of vitamin B12, and
recall Mozafar's study presented top of this thread].
Can you, Jay, show unequivocally, that at least some
of those vegans that were found to be B12 deficient,
in any of the studies referenced above, were consuming
plant foods grown in soil rich in vitamin B12?
[..]
Jay Tanzman
Lotus wrote:
>
> Jay wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):586S-593S
> > "...10 of the 25 vegans showed a vitamin B-12 deficit manifested by
> > macrocytosis, circulating vitamin B-12 concentrations <150 pmol/L, or serum
> > methylmalonic acid >376 nmol/L."
>
> .. and the fifteen that didn't?..
>
> > J Med Assoc Thai 1999 Mar;82(3):304-11.
> > "Vitamin B12 deficiency was found in 27 cases of 68 vegetarians (40%)."
>
> .. and the 41 that weren't deficient?..
>
> How should we account for those?
> X may have taken dietary supplements.
> Y may have still had adequate stores from flesh foods.
> Z (which interest me most of all) may have been
> consuming plant foods grown in B12 rich (organically
> manured) soil. [We are familiar with one study of
> a community of vegans consuming organically manured
> produce that had adequate levels of vitamin B12, and
> recall Mozafar's study presented top of this thread].
Bullshit, again. What we are "familiar with" is one study that showed that even
when grown in B12-rich soil, plants do not pick up enough B12 to meet human
nutritional needs.
> Can you, Jay, show unequivocally, that at least some
> of those vegans that were found to be B12 deficient,
> in any of the studies referenced above, were consuming
> plant foods grown in soil rich in vitamin B12?
Mozafar has shown that there is no reason to consider this issue.
-Jay
Steve Harris
>"nemo" wrote;
>
>> Sorry. The daily requirement is 3 micro-grams. The absorbency is about
10%,
>> therefore 30micro-grams would be OK. 1mg a day might certainly make you
feel
>> good though. In large doses B12 lifts depression somewhat. (Source -
lecture
>> on B12 at Vegan Society London by a London University professor about 20
>> years ago.)
>
>
>Nemo, you wrote above, that the daily requirement is 3 micro-grams.
>In all the literature that I have seen, the RDA- recommended daily
>allowance,- not requirement, is up to 3.0 mcg.
>Absorbency being about 10% would fit in with what others have said
>about the RDR (requirement) being about 1/10 of the RDA (allowance).
These things all take into account absorbency (bioavailability).
>The B12 from flesh foods is 'cyanocobalamin', is it not,
No, it is not. B12 obtained from bacterial culture (probably the hydroxyl)
which is then purified by filtering it through activated charcoal is
cyanocobalamin (it picks up cyanide from the charcoal). This is a man-made
derivative used most often in vitamins because it is stable. B12 in meat is
either the methyl or the adenosyl version. There is no B12 in plants, except
as they happen to be contaminated with bacteria, and then it would be the
hydroxyl form.
> but isn't
>the form obtained from plant foods 'hydroxycobalamin'- a form
>of B12 that has far superior bio availability?
No, there is nothing superior about the bacterial product (which may be
contaminating plants) as compared with that available from meat. The cyano
compound in many (not all) commercial vitamins is an exception: it's
absorbed well, but smokers with a lot of cyanide in their systems may have
difficulty converting cyanocobalamin to more usable forms (this is a purely
equilibrium process, like converting CO-hemoglobin to the O2 form, and
depends on cyanide levels being low). This is of practical importance only
for people with tobacco amblyopia, a very rare form of B12 neuropathy in
smokers caused (so goes the theory) by cyano conversion and destruction of
all usable B12 in the body from CN- in cigarette smoke.
SBH
hilite
>Jay wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>> Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):586S-593S
>> "...10 of the 25 vegans showed a vitamin B-12 deficit manifested by
>> macrocytosis, circulating vitamin B-12 concentrations <150 pmol/L, or serum
>> methylmalonic acid >376 nmol/L."
>
>.. and the fifteen that didn't?..
>
>> J Med Assoc Thai 1999 Mar;82(3):304-11.
>> "Vitamin B12 deficiency was found in 27 cases of 68 vegetarians (40%)."
>
>.. and the 41 that weren't deficient?..
>
>How should we account for those?
> X may have taken dietary supplements.
> Y may have still had adequate stores from flesh foods.
> Z (which interest me most of all) may have been
>consuming plant foods grown in B12 rich (organically
>manured) soil. [We are familiar with one study of
>a community of vegans consuming organically manured
>produce that had adequate levels of vitamin B12, and
>recall Mozafar's study presented top of this thread].
I thought that the B12 intake from organically manured produce was a
consequence of inadequate washing of the produce. In other words, if
you eat the right kind of dirt you will get B12.
Jay Tanzman
hilite wrote:
> I thought that the B12 intake from organically manured produce was a
> consequence of inadequate washing of the produce. In other words, if
> you eat the right kind of dirt you will get B12.
Yeah, it mainly is. Mozafar did an experiment where he showed (apparently) that
plants can absorb B12 from the manure; however, the amount absorbed was
nutritionally insignificant.
-Jay
hilite
reactions in some individuals, which requires immediate
hospitalization. So why take it? Natural B12 is cheap and non-toxic.
This seems like a no-brainer.
Jay Tanzman
hilite wrote:
>
> It has been reported that cyanocobalamin can create serious allergic
> reactions in some individuals, which requires immediate
> hospitalization. So why take it? Natural B12 is cheap and non-toxic.
> This seems like a no-brainer.
"Reported"? Where? The only anaphylactic reaction to B12 I've heard of is to
hydroxocobalamin injections.
-Jay
Lotus
You must know that that is not the case. *You* wrote the following;
Subject: Re: Vit. B12 In Plant Foods
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:17:41
> 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.
Lotus
> Lotus wrote in message <3C9C841F...@esatclear.ie>...
> >"nemo" wrote;
> >
> >> Sorry. The daily requirement is 3 micro-grams. The absorbency is about
> 10%,
> >> therefore 30micro-grams would be OK. 1mg a day might certainly make you
> feel
> >> good though. In large doses B12 lifts depression somewhat. (Source -
> lecture
> >> on B12 at Vegan Society London by a London University professor about 20
> >> years ago.)
> >
> >
> >Nemo, you wrote above, that the daily requirement is 3 micro-grams.
> >In all the literature that I have seen, the RDA- recommended daily
> >allowance,- not requirement, is up to 3.0 mcg.
> >Absorbency being about 10% would fit in with what others have said
> >about the RDR (requirement) being about 1/10 of the RDA (allowance).
>
> These things all take into account absorbency (bioavailability).
Yes, that is what I thought.
> >The B12 from flesh foods is 'cyanocobalamin', is it not,
>
> No, it is not. B12 obtained from bacterial culture (probably the hydroxyl)
> which is then purified by filtering it through activated charcoal is
> cyanocobalamin (it picks up cyanide from the charcoal). This is a man-made
> derivative used most often in vitamins because it is stable. B12 in meat is
> either the methyl or the adenosyl version. There is no B12 in plants, except
> as they happen to be contaminated with bacteria, and then it would be the
> hydroxyl form.
You must have missed this;
*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
> > but isn't
> >the form obtained from plant foods 'hydroxycobalamin'- a form
> >of B12 that has far superior bio availability?
>
> No, there is nothing superior about the bacterial product (which may be
> contaminating plants) as compared with that available from meat. The cyano
> compound in many (not all) commercial vitamins is an exception: it's
> absorbed well, but smokers with a lot of cyanide in their systems may have
> difficulty converting cyanocobalamin to more usable forms (this is a purely
> equilibrium process, like converting CO-hemoglobin to the O2 form, and
> depends on cyanide levels being low). This is of practical importance only
> for people with tobacco amblyopia, a very rare form of B12 neuropathy in
> smokers caused (so goes the theory) by cyano conversion and destruction of
> all usable B12 in the body from CN- in cigarette smoke.
>
> SBH
> --
Thanks.
Lotus
> Lotus wrote:
> >
> > Jay wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > > Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):586S-593S
> > > "...10 of the 25 vegans showed a vitamin B-12 deficit manifested by
> > > macrocytosis, circulating vitamin B-12 concentrations <150 pmol/L, or serum
> > > methylmalonic acid >376 nmol/L."
> >
> > .. and the fifteen that didn't?..
> >
> > > J Med Assoc Thai 1999 Mar;82(3):304-11.
> > > "Vitamin B12 deficiency was found in 27 cases of 68 vegetarians (40%)."
> >
> > .. and the 41 that weren't deficient?..
> >
> > How should we account for those?
> > X may have taken dietary supplements.
> > Y may have still had adequate stores from flesh foods.
> > Z (which interest me most of all) may have been
> > consuming plant foods grown in B12 rich (organically
> > manured) soil. [We are familiar with one study of
> > a community of vegans consuming organically manured
> > produce that had adequate levels of vitamin B12, and
> > recall Mozafar's study presented top of this thread].
>
> Bullshit, again.
For once, you are more or less right.. or horse shit, or bird shit,
or .. well, any shit actually.
> What we are "familiar with" is one study that showed that even
> when grown in B12-rich soil, plants do not pick up enough B12 to meet human
> nutritional needs.
You yourself wrote;
"So, you could meet the RDA by eating a diet that was 50% barley
grown in B12-enhanced manure."
> > Can you, Jay, show unequivocally, that at least some
> > of those vegans that were found to be B12 deficient,
> > in any of the studies referenced above, were consuming
> > plant foods grown in soil rich in vitamin B12?
>
> Mozafar has shown that there is no reason to consider this issue.
>
> -Jay
On the contrary.
So, you can't show unequivocally, that at least some of those vegans
Jay Tanzman
And I also wrote: "...to get the RDA of B12 from spinach alone, you'd have to
eat 50 cups of spinach a day!"
And I also wrote: "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."
-Jay
Jay Tanzman
Lotus wrote:
> So, you can't show unequivocally, that at least some of those vegans
> that were found to be B12 deficient, in any of the studies referenced
> above, were consuming plant foods grown in soil rich in vitamin B12?
Hang on a minute. I'm still cancelling negatives.
-Jay