Consistency

You are being very paranoid. Getting published is not necessarily easy, but if you have something worth saying, then it should get published. You have to make sure the work is really up to standard and submit to the appropriate journal. Without this peer review your results may never see the light of day.

My life experience says different.

Are you sure that I can submit a paper for peer review without formal education?

Which pathway and molecule are you talking about? I didn't see anything in those reactions that suggest this to be true.

 

Could you please clarify this.

I chose my words carefully, it wouldn't be very smart of me now to post the name of the molecule and solution on an internet forum. The pathway is not going to tell you which molecule stimulates which gene but it will tell you what I said.

The RDI for humans is 2-3 ug. Beef liver contains 82 ug / 100 g. So yes, I would say that the math adds up. Beef liver is of course not the only food that contains B12, so whether or not there is enough beef liver for everyone to get their vitamins is rather irrelevant.

I understand that its irrelevant on an individual basis... survival of the fittest with getting the dose of B12 but it is relevant in the big picture sense when there is a B12 deficiency epidemic.

This idea wasn't new in 1956

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cen-v034n032.p3750

I really don't understand how this has anything to do with the thread.

IV, possibly but they breath ok on their own or at least most do and it depends on how profound the coma is and how long it lasts... You make there sweeping statements that make no sense and do nothing but obfuscate the issue..

I will agree with you if a coma is not the result of human civilization. Fair enough?

You know that's not true...

A person in a coma doesn't need a IV feeding needle and oxygen supply for the brain after the initial 24 hours? In other words.. can they swallow their own food? Are they able to sufficiently supply oxygen to their brain without medical intervention?

IIRC, B12 is only absorbed through the actions of the parietal cells in the small intestine. For it to be viable, it would need to get to the small intestine without being degraded by the stomach acid - which would be quite something for an acid sensitive compound to do without some protein-based help. Typically, such protection is afforded firstly by protein complexes in food, then by R-proteins such as Haptocorrin, which are produced in our salivary glands. Since B12 is first released by pepsin in the stomach and then taken up by R-proteins, it is possible that following the ingestion of food, B12 released by gut flora could be taken up by R-proteins and then absorbed. However, the extent of uptake (if it occurs) would be difficult to show.

 

There is some evidence to show that flora in the small intestine are able to synthesize B12, however the uptake of that B12 would depend on how much free intrinsic factor was present in the intestinal milieu and to what degree the B12 gets catabolised by the resident microbes before being bound.

 

Consistency, what exactly do you mean by co-produce? It has been known for some time that bacteria in our digestive tract produce B12, so I'm a little confused as to what is novel about this.

You know your stuff. Some of it is assumption.

I don't want to give out too much information but if you look at the B12 biosynthetic pathways, you'll notice that there are 2 biosynthetic pathways in mammalian bacteria and 1 biosynthetic pathway in soil bacteria. 1st biosynthetic pathway which starts from L-Glutamate follows the fermentation method, soil bacteria only have this pathway, as in only have 1 set of enzymes. 2nd biosynthetic pathway follows the stimulation pathway where bacteria get stimulated to produce B12 instantaneously by a specific molecule only produced by mammals.

Where on Earth do you get the idea that animal products don't contain enough B12 to fulfill the RDI for humans?

 

Can you at least summarize your evidence that we synthesize our own B12? Where in the body are you saying this occurs? By what mechanism?

Look at http://www.cronometer.com and find me a food which can fulfill daily requirements. Liver? Is there enough liver available to fulfill daily requirements for everyone? The math doesn't add up.

If I say it.. are you able to do something about it? Tell me the quantity that we produce?

If you have real evidence, that is up to the standards accepted by scientists (at least as a primary study), then you should write a paper and submit it to a suitable journal.

 

I cannot advice you on the journals as this is outside my area of expertise.

It is real scientific evidence, impossible to dispute and too long to post on a forum. The science has already been done in bits and pieces across different scientific fields; all I have done is made the connections across these different scientific fields and corrected an error. The only thing I don't know is the quantity produced and this is the only thing I really would like to know.

Its definitely up to standards. I don't trust the jounals, for fear that they will bury the truth out of jealousy and people don't listen to those without formal education even though they are very well informed in a particular subject.

You do need B12 supplements if you live on a vegan diet - I remember taking it as supplement when I was veggie/vegan at university - so in general we do not produce enough to survive well on. B12 in diet is produced almost exclusively by bacteria prior to ingestion - would be neat but very difficult (ie you could not merely show a bacterial origin) to show that gut-bacteria can produce and it be viable for human use (some gut bacteria produce useful chemicals but at a point in the gut at which they cannot be absorbed). Good luck

This is true in mainstream but not when knowing what I know. B12 is not made automatically unless certain conditions are met and not found in nature to fulfill daily requirements.

This was my intial statement which still holds true today...

"There isn't enough Vitamin B12 in animal products to fulfill daily human requirements."

If the above is true, which it is, then it is also true that we MUST produce it somehow.

Its an assumption that we humans produce it through fermentation. We are primates; not ruminants.

Godwin in 7 - most trolls managed to hold out for longer; you need practice, just not here.

 

Ovarian Cancer Survival Rates

**Ten-year survival rates have been predicted for patients diagnosed in 2007 (using the hybrid approach)

Prostate Cancer Survival Rates - Of course it will have near 100% survival rate since the prostate is removed!

Oesophageal Cancer Survival Rates (5-Year Relative Survival Rate) What about 10 years?

Brest Cancer Survival Rate

*Ten-year survival rates have been predicted for patients diagnosed in 2007 (using the hybrid approach)

 

Some are good some are not so good - surprisingly even highly metastised distant cancers that have spread now have survival rates for 5 years - ie that's people refuting your claim

Show actual numbers of survival rates after 5 years. Not predicted numbers. Prediction is a guess and guesses aren't facts.

You just proved my previous point. Predictions are not facts and as you can see.. survival rates diminish over time.. people die from eating the same toxic diet.

 

So how can you possibly claim it works?? The onus is on those promoting a therapy to show it is beneficial - not on those advocating an establised and beneficial therapy to show that they are wrong. A piece of meta-analysis by University of Texas has concluded that not one scientific study has shown Gerson therapy to be beneficial.

 

Pony up some proof!

How can you possibly claim it doesn't work when you haven't personally tried it yourself?

I've drank a lot of fresh squeezed carrot juice and know very well first hand the benefits of it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10559547

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10333733

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21358592

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15550456

Antioxidants are primarely found in plants. Fresh squeezed carrot juice is the basis of the gerson therapy. Very high in beta-carotene.

http://nutritionfacts.org/questions/might-too-many-antioxidants-cause-cancer/

 

People under the care of a physician for a long term illness tend to have a much better diet than average - no physician and few patients will want to have the chances of recovery lowered due to a nutritional deficiency

Again.. not everyone is incompetent. There is a lot of people that have went the gerson therapy route and cured their cancer. She is an example of curing her skin cancer... http://www.thewellnesswarrior.com.au/

 

Yes I seriously believe that. Have you seen a surgical intervention removing the myriad metastasizing parts of an aggressive malignant tumor? Cos I have - first hand, watching surgeons spend hours working to remove the tinest trace, seeing how a cancer will claim blood vessel to feed its abnormal growth, slowly tracking lymph nodes to find the first which seems unaffected. Cancer is the body fighting the body - and the cancer is an aggresive interloper that obeys no rules; you cannot just keep the environment fit for healthy life because the cancer benefits as much as the body.

Cancer grows in an acidic and oxygen deprived environment. Cancer doesn't grow in an alkaline and oxygen rich environment.

Animal products contain high amounts of carcinogens(preservatives), raise uric acid levels and are acidic in the body. Plants are alkaline and rich in minerals like Iron which is needed for hemoglobin. More hemoglobin.. more oxygen to the rest of the body and less cancer.

 

Because plant foods are not superior. Even if you wish to be super cynical; the doctor that shows that she has a cancer survival rate significantly above normal pharmalogical treatment and radiotherapy - BY ANY MEANS including Gerson - will win a Nobel Prize, be on the gravy train for life, have statues put up in their birthplace etc - so if it is only reputation they care about then I promise they would be trying anything. Unfortunately for your argument - they care about patient safety and results as well - so most tend to be risk-averse and stick to treatments that work.

You should refute this website and all the research along with it... http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/breast-cancer/

Cancer doctors are bullies and thats why alternative cancer treatments are banned in the US. And like I said.. Cancer doctors can't patent plants. Hence there is no profits. Hence doctors have to use toxic chemotherapy so they can have a nice mercedes-benz in their drive-way. Hence my original comment.. Doctors lack morals.

 

I look forward to your scientific response - cos a link to a website that sell vitimins must, even to you, be obviously suspect - they are not exactly what one might call disinterested.

Attack the argument. Not the person(mercola). Sure Mercola is a huckster but he didn't lie.

This for now... http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/14/beautiful-truth-about-outlawed-cancer-treatment.aspx

I will add scientific facts tomorrow.

I understand unconscious to mean not conscious. But you seemed to equate conscious with alive so I was looking for some clarification.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconsciousness (Coma) <-- Unnatural state. People in a coma cannot live without life support.

A person can be in a deep thought and be unconscious to the environment.

Alive: Conscious, Unconscious.

When I'm unconscious, I'm not alive?

What does being unconscious mean to you?

The theory is about how humans co-produce Vitamin B12 with bacteria. I've known this for over a year and the evidence is easily over 10 pages.

How can I propose it?

Alive: Consciousness

You'll learn more about the universe by experiencing it for yourself first hand.

Theory. Any true test of a theory must involve a physical experiment, in which you record what actually happens in nature.

I meant this.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

Isn't a theory the success of an experiment?

I have his 1905 paper, which is pure theory. If you can find a paper showing that these measurements were made prior to 1905, I'd love to see it. The first measurement (albeit indirect) is generally acknowledged as the Rossi & Hall experiment with atmospheric neutrinos, published in 1941.

Lets say that I am able to do the experiment in my head... is it a theory or an experiment?

Who said it isn't a drastic and severe regimen of treatment? I said it worked - and it does. Could you provide some evidence that it is all universally counterproductive and dangerous. I provided a few sites with video testimony of cancer survivors.

Correction: It works within 5 years. Most patients die after 5 years. Thats not a cure. Its a manipulated cure to distort the horrible truth. - Did you know that chemotherapy descendent from the nazi's?

Can you prodive scientific evidence on cancer "surival rates" AFTER 5 years?

 

A. It's written down - that would be libel not slander (which is transitory or spoken)

B. He is dead and you cannot libel the dead

C. Truth is an absolute defence against libel or slander

So apart from A, B, and C above ...

Its written by scientists. Its bias and the gerson therapy was never thoroughly tested.

 

Hogwash - most cancers if untreated will most often lead to very serious and fatal consequences. There are cases of spontaneous remission - most of which we do not understand. Unfortunately they are few and far between - however they can provide hints for researchers looking to find new ways of fighting different cancers

I agree with the first part mainly because the majority of people eat nutritionally deficienct diets. So.. its no surprise that their health remains the same.

Bold part: They went on the gerson therapy by drinking a lot of freshly squeezed carrot juice, green juices and 3 plant based meals a day. Just because a lot of people are incompetent, doesn't mean everyone is.

 

It's not the truth - it's a dangerous and fallacious anti-scientific rant.

You might like to check the comparison of earnings for vitimin companies versus drug companies. big pharma aint got nuffink on the vitimin-combines and the even more lucrative holistic/homoeopathic/natural remedy merchabts; life is so much easier for companies who do not have to prove that the crap they peddle is firstly safe and secondly works.

 

Gerson therapy was rejected cos it did more harm than good.

You are distorting what I said and/or making assumptions about what I mean. Just because I don't agree with you because of the doctors big pharma peddleing ways, it doesn't mean I agree with the hippies with the herbs. But the natural crap doesn't contain major side effects like the crap the doctors peddle.

The first gerson therapy probably did more harm than good. When they were using cod liver oil and juiced liver instead of carrot juice.

Do you seriously believe that the body can't fight its own battle when given nutrients from natural foods? As in vegetable juices?

Even with all the science; doctors will never admit that plant foods are superior than chemotherapy. Their reputation is more important than saving a life.

Whilst I agree with Zapatos, I won't let that sort of unsubstantiated, and in the case of Gerson Therapy dangerous, rubbish go unchallenged.

 

Max Gerson's treatments did not work - his page on Wikipedia is most illuminating.

 

Many Cancers are curable and Oncologists know this and tell their patients -check this out from Cancer Research UK

 

And the many Oncologists I used to work with at St Bartholomews Hospital would find your comments highly insulting - Barts Cancer Centre

And Chemotherapy isn't dangerous? Whats the PH of chemotherapy? 1.5-2? Pumping battery acid in the vains isn't dangerous?

The wikipedia page is extremely slanderous!

The body cures itself when it receives the vitamins and minerals it needs from natural foods. The body is self-regulating. Like when a person cuts their finger.. the cut heals on its own. Same applies to cancer.

I know. The truth angers.

The only reason why the Gerson therapy wasn't accepted was because nobody can make money without selling a drug. Absolute greed.

How much time dilation is present in the sun or length contraction in the motion of the clouds? I'm not saying there is none, I'm saying that it was not an experimental determination of these values that prompted the development of relativity. The equations came first.

There is some length contraction and time dilation.. and from that some.. comes an "idea".

Do you have scientific evidence? An interview with you and Einstein?

 

The position "theory sometimes drives experiment" is not the same as "all experiment is driven by theory", and an example of experiment driving theory does not negate the statement. I have given examples of theory driving experiment, meaning my point is valid. So: What is your point?

My point is that theory comes from an idea and so does experiment. Same poop, different pile.

 

Another point that does not rebut my statement.

My point was to not treat einstein(selfish woman abuser) as a God while other inventors deserve more credit. Give credit where it is due.

All the times.. I don't understand the closed-minded views of the majority of people and their general LACK of morals and their sick selfish perversion of controlling the world as they are a God. Like doctors that keep telling Cancer patients that Cancer can't be cured while Max Gerson was curing Cancer in the early 1900's by curing the underlying vitamins and minerals deficiencies with natural foods and the body cured itself! Why is the truth always suppressed for greed?

Greedy humans without morals gotta stop playing God by controlling everything and calling it science.

Free the farm animals and the world will flourish just fine!

(general view, not a personal attack against anyone)

Hypocrisy is the result of being brainwashed. The truth is that the majority of people are easy to brainwash, even some scientists, like I always say... follow your own personal values and above all.. think for yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To the OP:

Of course NO: mathematics alone is not a safe medium. Mathematics is a tool, you can use it wisely or not. There are examples where mathematics give results that are considered unphysical and are dismissed at first sight. Like results giving negatives where evidence shows only positives.

 

Observation & hypothesis, yes, but not only. I am convinced that many scientists use also ideas (inspirations) out of the strict scientific process. After all, if you don't know what you are looking for you will never find it.

Expecting to find everything from observation is like the scientist wanting to dig the entire Earth to find a lost civilization, sorry no, a bone of australopithecus, oops no an unknown bacteria, no an unknown [put in here what is unknown].

+100000000

LOL at the last part.

Because a) that's what scientists do and b) the sun and clouds are not examples of length contraction nor time dilation, in any straightforward way measurable in ca 1900

And there are experiments that don't work. Much of scientific endeavor involves dead-ends because you don't know the answer. That's not an excuse to not try.

 

And without math you don't know where to look.

 

I just brought up Einstein as an example. You would dismiss such discovery. Goodbye to GPS. And lasers.

So... The sun and clouds length contraction and time dilation are NOT relative to the stationary observer as they move through the horizon?

Michael Faraday didn't need math. The math needs to be created in the first place from...? Intuition?

Einstein shouldn't be given whole credit to GPS. GPS is a compendium of theories from various inventors. Say goodbye to GPS without the radio.

The connection to my Einstein examples is … ?

I should have been more clear...

Sell that to any theorist. Einstein, for example. Relativity was not the result of observation and hypothesis — nobody observed length contraction, time dilation or mass-energy conversion, and then needed to formulate a model for the effects. Bose-Einstein condensation was predicted well before it was ever observed. As I said before, sometimes theory leads experiment, sometimes experiment leads theory. Insisting that only one of those is best is to be ignorant of the history of (and process of) science.

Why would anyone need to man-write(formulate a model for the effects) a natural occurance as the Sun or clouds passing through the horizon are examples of length contraction and time dilation ?

Deductive reasoning may be used in court cases Moontanman, but as a system of logic it does have a flaw. As pointed out by Godel, certain self referencing algorythms result in non-sensical logic. What do you deduce from "This statement is false".

 

But seriously, at the base of evolution is mutation, whether good or bad is determined solely by environment, This is where the oft quoted ( but not quite accurate ) statement "survival of the fittest ( for that specific environment )" comes from. And I don't think there's doubt in anyone's mind that good and ( mostly ) bad mutations do happen all the time. They manifest themselves in the abnormal ( is there a normal ? ) DNA structures leading mostly to deseases and cancers.

 

Sometimes they lead to abnormalities like webbed or 6 toes or fingers; unfortunately there is no advantage to such a mutation in our environment. As a matter of fact, one could argue that a sufficiently advanced species such as ours is able to affect or modify the environment we inhabit to suit us and have no need to evolve futher than the current 'norm'. So forget about the big bulging heads and childlike bodies with atrophied muscles of science fiction, we have effectively stopped evolving.

We are still evolving.. there is no tigers to eat the weak. The weak over-run the planet.

Your comment made my point.

Humans manipulate chemicals by creating pesticides(toxins we spray on fruit) which damage our DNA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18418871

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19064416

Yeah, it's pretty bad, science has so failed to bring anything to the world, no new knowledge, i still think medicine is bollocks as well, Science is so useless, we would all be so much better off with out science and the so called scientific method...

We would since scientists majorly LACK morals.

Come dude, you know... the world wide conspiracy to hide the truth...

Hahahhaa... I meant... Science is manipulation the evidence and the world. There's no need to hide this unethical behaviour with lots of fancy words.

There is no truth from the majority of scientists because most are like chickens with their heads cut off... hence they wont stop making assumptions and manipulating everything in a negative way for the sole purpose of looking important.

So you are not part of the plan?

 

calling black helicoters

Plan....

 

And so it goes on ... Creative thinkers are not being given the space they deserve, and in fact, the world at large deserves.

 

Hence my thread proposal is not that , any one distinctive style of scientist be given the steering wheel , But that the establishment is not giving due credence to Scientists with creative vision.

Hear hear!!!

We will never get it... Too much egoism in society. (Not a personal attack against anyone)

Sell that to any theorist. Einstein, for example. Relativity was not the result of observation and hypothesis — nobody observed length contraction, time dilation or mass-energy conversion, and then needed to formulate a model for the effects. Bose-Einstein condensation was predicted well before it was ever observed. As I said before, sometimes theory leads experiment, sometimes experiment leads theory. Insisting that only one of those is best is to be ignorant of the history of (and process of) science.

Why would anyone need to man-write a natural occurance as the Sun or clouds passing through the horizon? Unless they needed a ego stroke.

Its strange how ignorance in your eyes is non-conformism in my eyes.

Yes it does, the fossil record is replete with specimens that are transitory between various groups but the one you picked is quite complete, Humans can be followed by fossils all the way to apes to monkeys and beyond, there is no evidence that would indicate that apes or any other form of life just magically appeared fully formed as we see them now...

You don't understand what DNA is. Let alone who made it.

This, i think, points to a major disconnect between what you think science is and what science really is...

So this is ethically OK then... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/artificial-life-boots-up_n_583805.html ?

Science is manipulation of the evidence and the world. No need to hide it.