Consistency

This suggests that you have misunderstood the word hypocrite.

You misunderstood. Do I need to type it out for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_%28personal_and_cultural%29

All people are hypocrits, religion has nothing to do with it except act as another outlet.

Re-read my post.

Religion and other false studies = brainwashed = can't think for yourself = hypocrite.

Not brainwashed = think for youself = nonconformist = not a hypocrite.

There was a clothing manufacturer in Oz, named Fletcher Jones, who produced fantastic quality clothes, built up a very successful business, but had been deeply influenced by a Japanese left wing philosopher, (name escapes me), he flew out to Oz, for public lectures. He was a dream boss, giving new workers money on day 1, to allow them to pay their living costs, and giving all workers shares in the company, so that as the company prospered, so would they. He was an extraordinary man, but sadly, as the company grew larger and larger, to continue to give new employees shares, he gave away enough shares to lose controlling interest. At some point, newer employees wanted to change the company, feeling little loyalty to FJ and his children running the company, and many of the decisions they pushed through wrecked the company and shut it down.

Excellent wise story. Sadly there is always dimwit egoistic natural followers that wreck everything by trying to lead.

The other extraordinary chap, with HUGE heart, was WW2 VC winner, Leonard Cheshire. His huge heart and loyalty and concern for the wounded, disfigured, mentally incapacitated and broken men who served under him, probably proved his kindness far exceeded his bravery. Personally knowing of his own men homeless, not coping, blinded, limbs lost, burnt, etc he set up his family's small rural estate and a few other scrounged large houses, to take them in, and appealed for fit and healthy single brothers in arms, to also move in, earn incomes and donate, help the lads they flew with, Sadly, the initial generosity of spirit didn't last, so he was bankrupted, but came back to establish a huge foundation that cares for service people injured, giving them a home and medical and personal care for life, even now. He married Sue Ryder, who also did amazing work with children behind the iron curtain, suffering post war, and even smuggled some out. They had become committed catholics, which annoys me, in that the innate kindness and amazing commitment THEY had, by NO MEANS common in that religion, they ascribed to their religion, in touching modesty..

Another excellent story. There is something to learn from, be generous to an extant to those who deserve it but don't let people walk all over you.

Religion is an excellent way to relax the mind. Its excellent to control the masses.

I make a lot of sacrifices to care for animals, but as I grow older, I have no interest in so many status items most people seem to see as necessary for happiness. Almost everything flashy, expensive, even beautiful just seems so shallow and uninteresting, I don't feel it's a sacrifice to not own or to sell them, except for my thousands of books - and to be fair, I don't have children to set up comfortably..

 

I guess I am not 'successful' to outsiders, to average young people, but that really depends on THEIR idea of successful. Many aspire to live the life of Kim Karcrapion, a life of conspicuous waste, bad taste, and vacuousness, whereas I consider her to be an oxygen thief...

 

If you are super rich, spend money on yachts, private planes, conspicuous, unnecessary waste, is that really a successful life? Could you personally buy, maintain and patrol a territory to protect species at risk? Die knowing that one or more species has doubled in numbers since you stepped in and you die with those protections and expansions in hand. To me, that would justify a claim to a truly successful life.

What you write a sign of a wise mind.

Sadly not everyone understands that happiness comes from within.

I have always been a generous person, my wife and I cook for the homeless using our own money, we give to the united way in a big way, I give people money on the street, we have come to the conclusion our generosity is at least part of the reason we have not been exactly successful financially but we are good with it, it lets me like the person i see in the mirror in the morning. If you have ever been in the situation where only help from the outside can solve a problem then you understand how important that can be. I do not regret not being a part of the upper middle class, lower middle class does me quite well... to be honest I consider my self to be successful, I have the love of my wife and children not to mention self respect, I would do it all over if i had the chance... being selfish has never been an option for me...

Do you have any regrets about things you did in the past towards others?

This fellow's idea of success is entertaining children at a parade. No one is paying him to do this, and it's not of importance how much money he has in the bank or what kind of housing he lives in. Many persons I think feel a greater sense of satisfaction and success in activities they engage in after retirement than in what they achieved earlier in life, especially if they had been working as government bureaucrats.

Puppeteer at St. Patricks Day Parade

I would like to see how the clown behaves behind closed doors.

My father is the type who is an abusive person behind closed doors and the nicest person out in public. Typical two faced person that sucks the life out of people by either being extremely nice or abusive.

I told you it didn't matter if you turned the puzzle upside down. Straight edges are going to be assumed to be the outside edge, but nice strawman.

I answered your question. Hence wasn't making a statement and please stop splitting up my paragraphs.

What's really ironic is you claiming to be an autodidact yet your consistency in failing to properly read and understand what we've been writing makes it seem like you ignore what doesn't support your assertions. What did you think I meant by "The order isn't important"? Shouldn't someone who is teaching themselves be more worried about cherry-picking their information?

Autodidact implies a person who can only learn by teaching oneself.

I understood you perfectly and your inadequate way of thinking. Observing, analyzing and hypothesizing will always be more efficient than making assumptions when dealing with scientific research.

Do you believe doing experiments counts as making assumptions when all the data already validates the experiment?

An edge isn't "proof" that it's going on the outside of the puzzle you're doing. I've experienced trying to put a jigsaw together that had four pieces from another puzzle mixed in, so at best an edge is supportive evidence that leads one to assume it's part of the outside edge.

Thats your own fault for having pieces mixed with those of another puzzle. When doing scientific research; its obvious to spot scientific research which doesn't fit with the currect subject one is researching.

11% is far from the majority.

The math doesn't add up. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cn3000923

What about the pill hoppers that keep trying different pills because of the side effects? http://www.depressionforums.org/forums/topic/1594-how-many-antidepressant-meds-have-you-tried/

Anyone who starts a jigsaw puzzle without reasonable grounds to assume that the puzzle is possible, is a fool.

 

Incidentally, the lack of correlation is supporting evidence for a lack of causation. An inverse correlation is even more so.

Hahaha. I had and still have reasonable grounds. Naturally, animals products don't contain enough Vitamin B12; hence why animals require supplementation. And we have no killing instincts unless we are severely in ketosis.

Inverse correlation is appropriate when a reader is missing 99% of the pieces.

Start by doing experiments you can actually measure. The thing about the mind is that it can conjure up information that has no bearing with reality.

Then why bring it up? No one here said it was.

 

Notice how I did not fall for you substituting 'water expansion' for 'growth of ice'?

Or 'biological growth' for 'growth'?

 

Seriously though, you can only say plants have consciousness if you redefine the definition of consciousness.

Plenty of things 'respond to stimuli' that are not conscious, so that is a bogus definition.

Crystals can grow if you add the right 'stimulus' to a beaker of chemicals.

What else could it possibly mean?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/waterdens.html

Crystals can expand and aren't biological.

Also

 

 

 

NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCY

 

 

 

Dietary sources of vitamin B12 are primarily meats and dairy products. In a typical Western diet, a person obtains approximately 5 to 15 mcg of vitamin B12 daily, much more than the recommended daily allowance of 2 mcg. Normally, humans maintain a large vitamin B12 reserve, which can last two to five years even in the presence of severe malab-sorption.

Source: http://www.aafp.org/afp/2003/0301/p979.html

 

 

I've attached an image.

LOL. Make it like what?

 

The only assumption I made was that you put the pieces together to complete the puzzle. It isn't really a jigsaw puzzle if you don't (unless you're moving the goalposts again).

 

The order isn't important. I don't even care if you put it together face down. When you see a piece that has a straight edge, you aren't going to even try to put it in the middle. You're going to assume it belongs on the outside edge because that's what you suppose will be the case, even though there isn't any proof that it will be. And you test that assumption as you analyze and hypothesize about where those edge pieces will fit because you will be looking for a match along the outermost edge, not the middle.

 

There's nothing unscientific about those kinds of assumptions, as long as you're testing them to make sure reality-based evidence continues to support them.

You know.. assuming that the ocean is the sky and that a green mountain is a green field. And the irony of taking shortcuts by completing the edges first.

Assumption: A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof

The proof is the specific features of each and every single puzzle piece. Slow and steady wins the race.

If I analyze the piece and its side is perfectly straight, proof, I am going to hypothesize its an edge piece, memorize the picture or a specific feature of the puzzle piece and put it aside.

And, if this

"Sure.. animal products contain enough B12 to keep you alive. Not thrive."

were true there would be obvious consequences. One such would be that I would be some sort of superhero. I don't like most vegetables or fruit so I get a lot of my calories from meat. So I get lots of B12 (particularly compared to my vegetarian friends).

 

Have a look at the death rates.

I don't expect to outlive the veggies.

The ones eating less B12 are the ones who thrive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody said anything about giving up meat so, if that's what you thought I said it means you didn't read or didn't understand it.

So it's absurd for you to judge it at all, never mind to write it off as rubbish.

 

So, for the benefit of those who couldn't read the first time

Vegetarians eat less B12

Vegetarians live longer.

Do you understand how that might be a problem for your idea that there's an epidemic of B12 deficiency?

obvious consequences are the mountain of antidepressants that are taken by the majority.

There is many reasons why you wouldn't like fruits and vegetables.. pesticides, unripe, etc.. nothing to do with a specific fruit.

By telling me that you don't like fruits and vegetables.. its like saying that you can't eat anything else and must only eat animal products. Every time someone makes an analysis on animal products, there is always meat eaters defending animal products like their life depended on it.

Just because they eat less B12, it has nothing to do with living longer. It has to do with eating more leafy greens.. more vitamins and minerals. Biochemical reactions in the body require vitamins and minerals from natural foods as co-factors. Magnesium, b vitamins, etc..

Correlation isn't causation.

Sure it does. Set a glass of water outside during the winter and watch.

Expansion is the same as biological growth? (rhetorical question)

You make the assumption that the pieces with a straight side go on the outside. You also further assume (in a landscape puzzle, at least) that the sky-colored pieces with a straight side go on the top edge. The four pieces with right angles on them are assumed to be the corners. This isn't analysis, it's assumption based on previous knowledge.

LOL. You assume I make my puzzle like that.

Since everyone loves einstein so much... Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

Even if you assume that the bacteria are making the stuff for the benefit of the cattle, there's the fact that cattle, being big, have lots of bacteria in their big guts. They don't need the bacteria to be better at making B12- they just harbour lots of them.

The majority of the bacteria in their guts don't have the enzymes to produce B12.

Different strains of bacteria are better equipped at doing specific tasks. Hence symbiosis in the gut.

The bovine bacteria strain yields more B12 than other strains of bacteria. This is a scientific fact.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852411016853

Even us humans have 2 strains of bacteria; 1 strain being more efficient at producing B12 than the other.

The rest of your post is rubbish. No one is telling you to give up your meat.

So if plants responding to sunlight makes them conscious, I guess the ice on my driveway is conscious too.

I guess it is...

On a serious note.. plants grow as the result of the stimulis.. ice doesn't.

I'm not sure what we are agreeing on but even coma patients have been communicated with, what does that say about this idea of coma patients not being conscious?

 

http://io9.com/5960071/man-in-coma-uses-his-thoughts-to-tell-doctors-im-not-in-pain

I said that being in a coma is unnatural. Hence I wasn't agreeing with the wikipedia page and ultimately I am agreeing with you.

Does this mean my ficus is not alive?

Plants do respond to stimuli. Hence being conscious of their environment.

http://leavingbio.net/plant%20responses.htm

http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/plant_experiments.asp

Have you ever, while doing a jigsaw, put a piece in and then realised it was in the wrong place?

No. I analyze the picture on the puzzle piece and see if there is similarities with the other pieces, and put the piece in when I am sure that it fits there.

Fundamentally, science thrives on getting things wrong so it can get better. that's only possible because it makes assumptions.

Probably the best known examples is that science assumed Newton was right until Einstein showed that he wasn't.

There is a difference between doing your own science from scratch and taking already completed science. I understand your point.

"Agreed but same applies to chimps and gorillas in zoo's. Poor animals had or still have to eat their own feces for B12."

​ Interesting point: what did they do in the wild?

My guess is they did pretty much the same as in zoos.

The idea has been put forward as an explanation of the lack of vitamin B12 deficiency in very young vegan children whose ideas of hygiene are limited.

They did nothing differently. What is the difference between their tropical environment and the zoo environment?

LOL.

Do you have the article about vegan children?

My hypothesis is that they dropped a human habit.

According to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#Synthesis_and_industrial_production

it's made industrially by fermentation

They use Pseudomonas denitrificans which is a soil bacterium, rather than a gut bug and they don't ferment it in an enormous arsehole, so it's clear that it's the bacterium that makes the B12.

I am in no way doubting that a bacterium produces it.

They use fermentation and add the stimulating molecule to increase the yield; they don't know that they can just add the stimulating molecule with the growth factors, very little glucose to inhibit fermentation and the bacterium will be forced to produce B12, the first enzyme that gets stimulated in the pathway is inhibited by glucose, heme and another factor.

They mostly use the bovine strain today, Propionibacterium shermanii, it produces a lot more B12 since cows are bigger animals, hence require more B12 but they used our human bacteria strains to produce B12 supplements for us at the beginning of industrial production. Its funny... I laugh when I read B12 research from the late 1970's which indirectly states that we've known about the 2 human bacteria strains which produce B12 since the late 1920's... Sometimes I get paranoid and think the science is being hidden because thats what it looks like.

 

Try reading what I said.

"If it's genuinely valuable to society then putting it in the public domain is more important then publishing it in any particular journal."

Gotcha. Excellent point.

That is an interesting point, and probably deserves a threat to itself. Anyway, most scientists want their work to be disseminated, the reasons are many. On a practicable self-interest level, publishing papers is how you get known, it is how you find your next job, it is a general indicator to how successful your research has been (okay, that last point does deserve a thread to itself!) and so on.

 

On a more general level, scientists want to talk about their work so that it can get picked up by others and put top good use to the benefit of mankind. Of course, some topics have a clearer direct benefit to the general public than others, but the philosophy is the same.

 

Finally, most fundamental research is paid for by tax payers, and so scientists have a moral duty to keep the public informed.

Excellent points.

I agree. I feel the same.

I won't bother rehashing what John has already said, but I will add that whether or not I've had B12 supplements is not relevant to your case. In fact, I have had to take them before. I've also had to have injections, but I can promise you it has nothing to do with not getting enough B12 in my diet.

The B12 issue will end the same as the Vitamin D issue. At first the researchers thought that Vitamin D was only needed to cure rickets and then they discovered a host of different benefits. Such as mental health, immune system, etc..

Sure.. animal products contain enough B12 to keep you alive. Not thrive.

http://www.hormonalfitness.com/facts/HFN 9 - b12 Cobalamin.pdf

B12 acts as a cofactor in synthesis of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine, thus B12 deficiency affects mood, emotions and sleeping and can lead to psychiatric disorders.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3271502/

By the way, B12 deficiency does not mean pernicious anemia. It means B12 levels are in the low range.

Why do you keep asserting the claim that animal products do not have enough vitamin B12?

Have you ever tried a B12 supplement?

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/2/693S.full

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.nutr.24.012003.132440?journalCode=nutr

"Lets say you decide to do a 1000 piece puzzle.. "

Let's not bother, because it's a silly strawman.

An important point about science is that it tests its assumptions.

Its not a strawman. Its a way of thinking which works. Unfortunately; you don't seem to understand.

What if a person doesn't make assumptions? Hence the science doesn't contain assumptions.

There's little doubt that most of the B12 produced in human guts by (or with) bacteria is flushed down the pan.

 

However that doesn't detract from the fact that it is produced there by the combination of people and bacteria.

Agreed but same applies to chimps and gorillas in zoo's. Poor animals had or still have to eat their own feces for B12.

I can neither confirm nor deny since I don't know if the mystery stimulating molecule is found in the colon juices or if B12 is produced after the fermentation process.

You want me to explain why you should do things which are good for society?

This...

If it's genuinely valuable to society then putting it in the public domain is more important then publishing it in any particular journal.

Why do you believe putting it in public domain is more important than a journal?

Actually, making assumptions is a vital part of science.

Not communicating isn't.

Actually, you posed at least one hypothesis.

"If animal products did in total fulfill everyone's daily requirements, we wouldn't see a B12 deficiency epidemic."

Now, since we don't see an epidemic it's possible that animal products do provide enough B12.

Lets say you decide to do a 1000 piece puzzle.. do you make assumptions about where the pieces go or do you analyze and hypothesize to see where the pieces fit?

How does not communicating have anything to do with not being scientific?

Its a silent epidemic.

Even if animal products did provide enough B12, which they don't, not everyone has evolved the absorbtion mechanism in the intestines.

If it's genuinely valuable to society then putting it in the public domain is more important then publishing it in any particular journal.

I want to understand why you believe this...

That was the only other pathway that didn't feed into the other one and didn't use L-glutamate that I could see. Additionally, humans can in fact use aquacobalamin - it's one of the most prevalent forms of vitamin B12 in mammalian cells.

Glycine on the left of L-glutamate feeds into the pathway...

Glycine is not the mystery molecule.

Another error in the biosynthetic pathway; the chart says we lack the reductase enzyme. Honest mistake. http://www.genome.jp/kegg-bin/show_pathway?org_name=hsa&mapno=00860&mapscale=1.0&show_description=show

 

Then you should have posted it somewhere else and excluded parts of your pet theory from the OP.

ajb has given you some pretty sound advice on publishing your ideas. As he has mentioned, publishing or formally communicating your hypothesis does not explicitly require that you have a degree, but it usually the case given what is required to produce a body of publishable work. It is hard to say without knowing exactly what you're proposing, but you may run into trouble convincing people without confirming your hypothesis with your own experiments, especially if it goes against what is already accepted.

I am the OP and you're the one who started with the science while the first post had nothing to do with it.

What I know in no way goes against what is accepted; it is something similar(as in the biosynthesis) yet totally different. Everyone is making assumptions on the location of the biosynthesis.

Maybe I will make an official post to propose my theory.

Since you don't make it clear what yo think, people are forced to make assumptions. In any event, it is difficult to see why you don't accept that human's gut bacteria produce plenty of B12. it's just rather unfortunate for us that they do so in the wrong part of the gut for us to absorb it.

Hence B12 can be extracted from sewage sludge It was co- produced by humans and bacteria. (Though it might not be a popular source).

 

There is no such epidemic (except, perhaps, among vegans who don't like Marmite)

 

According to the rules of the site, you are expected to answer questions.

 

 

Anyway, if it's valid scientific evidence I'm sure that you can post a summary of it here and a link to the rest of it. Since this forum is date stamped there would be no doubt of who published it first so you would get the credit.

Also, while it's not formal peer review, I'm sure that some of us would look at it and make comments and criticisms.

 

If it's genuinely valuable to societythen putting it in the public domain is more important then publishing it in any particular journal.

Making assumptions isn't very scientific.

When did I say I didn't accept that human's gut bacteria produce plenty of B12?

I am expected if I propose a theory. I didn't propose anything.

Bold part: Can you tell me why?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21128180

Large quantities of green juices, which contain lutein, are part of the Gerson Therapy.

I know at least a dozen people who are cancer free after 10+ years, your premise of 5 years fails....

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

Pony up some scientific evidence to your claims!

^{We should work on some drugs to cure the disease of greed and everything else will fall into place.}

Paul Zak: Trust, morality - and oxytocin

From the first line of the OP

"humans co-produce Vitamin B12 with bacteria."

From the page I cited

"A PLAN FOR EXTRACTING vitamin Bi» from sewage sludge is finally on the way." (Dated 1956)

 

So, in 1956 they knew that there was plenty of B12 in sewerage sludge. That's broadly the produced of humans and bacteria.

 

But you don't understand why the evidence that people knew that human guts and bacteria produced a lot of vitamin B 12 has anything to do with a thread about "humans co-produce Vitamin B12 with bacteria."

 

Do you think that other people might see a link?

There is no link. Just assumptions about what I mean and/or how I think.

Are you claiming that this pathway, which I'm assuming has to be the pathway starting from aquacobalamin (I only saw two pathways in that link you showed), can only ever proceed in the presence of this molecule?

Nope. Thats a reduction of aquacobalamin(B12 from seaweed) to a usable form of B12 and we humans can't reduce it nor use it.

You asked, 'is there enough liver available to fulfill requirements for everyone?' The question is a strawman (and thereby irrelevant), as no one (except you) was suggesting that liver was the only possible way for people to get enough B12 through their diet. Liver is one product that contains a lot of B12, but as I said, there are quite a few more.

I didn't ask and wasn't suggesting liver was the only source of B12. I made an initial statement followed by a question to reinforce my initial statement that animal products in total don't contain enough B12 to fulfill everyone's daily requirements. If animal products did in total fulfill everyone's daily requirements, we wouldn't see a B12 deficiency epidemic.

You still haven't sufficiently answered my questions. We have known for a number of decades that bacteria in our intestine can and do produce B12.

 

It doesn't depend on mammals to do this anymore than it already depends on them as their host organism.

I am not required to answer your questions. Researchers have been chasing their tails for years and that's not my fault.

Its half true since you don't understand the pathways.

Additionally, the enzymes in each pathway are enzymes that are shared with numerous microorganisms (according to the searches I did of each enzyme), many of which do not occupy mammalian hosts. If this gene were only transcribed in the presence of an exclusively mammalian cofactor, it doesn't make sense that microorganisms not residing within a mammalian host would be able to produce and utilize the same enzyme in the same fashion. And yet they do.

I never said the enzymes occupied mammalian hosts but I did kinda say that 1 set of enzymes can only work when bacteria is in a mammalian environment; hence mammalian enzymes, hence if you would read the chart carefully, you'll see the anaerobic pathway, mammalian, and the aerobic pathway, when bacteria resides in the environment, such as soil.

Sure genetically modified bacteria do utilize anaerobic enzymes in a man-made anaerobic environment which mimics that of mammals and are stimulated with the second molecule in the pathway which is produced artificially in a lab. Its artificial biosynthesis, not natural.

Edit: I have to ask what the purpose of this thread is? That you posted it in Speculations makes me think that you wish to talk about your ideas, yet the title and OP do not appear to ask this. So, what are you after here? If not discussion about your ideas, which seems to the case since you're evading all of my questions, then this thread does not belong here.

The point of my thread is not to share ideas. Its about finding a way for me to share them without running into a selfish person with a degree that will steal my way of seeing the world and take complete credit for it. That wouldn't be very fair now.

It can be difficult and referees don't always look as favourably on our work as one might hope. Such is life, but peer review is the best system we have right now.I do not know of any journals that say you have to have some formal education to publish with them. (If anyone can find an example please let me know)

I'm talking about life in general and always getting the short end of the stick.

Doesn't anyone here have connections?

However, to have done the work and written it up to an acceptable level usually implies that the author has formal training.

Unfortunately for me; I am not like everyone else, hence it doesn't apply to me.

I see not having a high school education as a big problem since its just me, my willingness to learn what interests me and my intellect. A lot of people equate formal education with genius and thats not fair. Some of us can only learn individually and we have what I call "obligate selective memory", we can only remember what interests us. How can someone like me really be recognized when my way of learning is opposite of the system?

Now, the other people in this thread are far more qualified than I to critique your ideas. If you really want feedback, you will need to address their questions. I can tell you now, referees are not always this accommodating.

They aren't really qualified in the subject. A person can know the basic's of biochemistry and still not understand the biosynthetic pathways.

Can you really trust anyone over the internet?

Michael Jordan once said, “To be successful you have to be selfish, or else you never achieve. And once you get to your highest level, then you have to be unselfish. Stay reachable. Stay in touch. Don’t isolate.”

I recently read the quote above and then remembered the quote below. So.. Do you need to be selfish to be successful?

“Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habit.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.”
- Lao Tzu

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/survival/latestrates/survival-statistics-for-the-most-common-cancers

 

Took me approximately 15 seconds.

 

!

Moderator Note

You don't get to shift the burden of proof. You made the claims, so you back them up.

 

And FYI - cancer prevention is not the same as cancer treatment. Not a single one of the articles you linked was relevant or did anything to support your case, so try again. You're only going to get so many chances here.

The 10 year chart is extremely misleading because its a mix of actual and predicted figures. The survival rates rise to unrealistic years when predicted values were inserted in the chart.

I've provided scientific articles.

How is cancer prevention not the same as cancer treatment?

Cancer prevention involves the body getting the essential nutrients in lower doses so the immune system can defend itself however the gerson cancer treatment involves the body getting the essential nutrients from vegetable juices in much higher quantities so the immune system can defend itself a lot more efficiently against the cancer. I don't understand what is so hard to understand.