The question is: Can one survive on 100 percent raw food without supplement?
The vegan population: At lest 2 million worlwide
The sample for the survey: Storm
The conclusion: The sample IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

When you sometimes hear on tv that the result of a survey is not scientifically significant, it means that the number of people questionned is not large enough and the sampling method is not random enough for the results to be valid. Storm alone is not a large enough sample to answer question.

Now let's leave statistics aside and look at Storm's reasoning on his site:

"Other research shows that we recycle B12 and that it is not passed out of our bodies or destroyed. My response has always been when people tell me that you can't get B12 from any plant source so therefore you have to eat meat - well nine times out of ten you are eating a vegetarian animal so where did the animal get the B12 from?"

There is a problem with this reasoning, animals get their b12 from smaller animals in the chain who get their from even smaller organisms. And very small organisms can synthesize dirts, water and sun lights into living things. These small organisms lived on earth before we came as species and we rely on them in some many ways.

No, djatchi, your reasoning is incorrect again. The proof by counter-example that I presented relies on the basic rules of LOGIC (statistics has no relevance here). Specifically, ONE SINGLE counter-example is sufficient to disprove a false claim (or a whole false theory), and this type of proof is a standard scientific tool.

This single counter-example does not need to be statistically significant at all (and in most cases is not). As a simpistic example, to disprove the claim that no black holes exist, it is sufficient to show the existence of ONE. Or, to disprove the theory relativity, it is sufficient to present ONE experiment with data contradiciting this theory. Similarly, to disprove a claim that:

"B12 deficiency is inevitable on a 100% raw vegan diet after at most 20-30 years (as this is the maximum time our body can store B12; and raw vegan diet, presumably, does not supply B12)"

it is sufficient to give ONE example of a raw (vegan) foodist who has been raw (no supplementation) for over 30 years and has no signs of B12 deficiency. As Storm has been raw for about 35 years, this is more than enough to disprove the above clearly false claim.

I hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2006 03:36AM by rawgosia.

How do you prove that Storm has been pure raw foodist for more than 35 years? His website? Let's be serious.

1) Can you present a proof of Storm lying about his claim?
2) Do YOU think that Storm is lying?
Thanks.

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Rawgosia, there is a confusion here. We are trying to prove that a 100 percent raw diet without supplement work even in the long run? Is there something I am missing here. Your stand is that because you found one person who claims it works for him, so we need to generalize. For one thing we do not even know if that person is telling the truth and if they have not cheated, for another even if Storm was telling the truth, should not we need more cases out of the millions following this diet? I do not need to prove or disprove Storm, I need to based my diet on some rational thinking and need not to be simply trust what somebody put on their website. This is too critical.

Djatchi, the proof that I presented proves that the claim that:
"B12 deficiency is inevitable on a 100% raw vegan diet after at most 20-30 years (as this is the maximum time our body can store B12; and raw vegan diet, presumably, does not supply B12)"
is false.

I explained to you in detail why this proof is valid. I can only repeat that ONE counter-example is sufficient to disprove a false claim/theory. I did my best at eplaining this to you, giving some simple examples.

Trying to prove that "a 100 percent raw diet without supplement works even in the long run" is as impossible task as trying to prove that "a 100 percent raw diet without supplement does not work in the long run". One cannot prove either of the claims, as they both are false. Why? Well, examples of both raw diet failing and working long-term are known. The first type of examples are counter-examples for the first claim, and the second type are counter-examples for the second claim.

One can only prove that it is possible that a 100 percent raw diet without supplement CAN work even in the long run. Storm certainly is a proof of that.

One can also disprove the claim that it is imposible that a 100 percent raw diet without supplement CAN work even in the long run. Again, Storm is a counter-example that proves that such claim is invalid.

Your confusion is the result of mixing logic and statistics. Logic is used in proving/disproving claims. Statistics is used to analyze populations.

As far as statistical significance, when one wants to make generalizing statements about the whole population, such as
"it is 90% likely that a 100 percent raw diet without supplement works even in the long run for 70% of people attempting the raw diet"
(I highlighted the likelihood percentage, as this is always an integral part of any such claim, but it is unfortunately ommited in popular media reports; this leads to lots of misinformation amongst the public. Importantly, note that one can NEVER have any CERTAINTY about the patterns in the population, unless they tested the whole population. This is why voting for president is not limited to a statisticly significant population sample, but a whole population votes!),
this is an example of a situation when one needs to make sure that whatever sample they use to make such statements, is statistically significant. That's not all though. Apart from that, the sample must be drawn from the population using so called standard random test. There is a lot more to consider. Importantly, correlation is NOT an indication of the causation, which is what most people unfamiliar with statistics assume. Statistics can NEVER prove the causation, so in the strict sense, cannot be used as the proof of any claim of the type "x causes y".

I hope this cleared the confusion.

Sincerely,
Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

It is not important to prove that "B12 deficiency is inevitable on a 100% raw vegan diet after at most 20-30 years (as this is the maximum time our body can store B12; and raw vegan diet, presumably, does not supply B12)"

I did not even know that the maximum was 20-30 years for b12 reserve depletion.

The relevant issue to many of us is "Can vegan remain healthy in the long run on a diet of 100 percent raw without supplement"

A single vegetarian claim on his site is not enough for me, it could be for others.

Djatchi, I did not try to prove that claim. I disproved it! The above disproved claim is notoriously used by many who insist that B12 supplementation is necessary, so being aware of it being false is very useful.

As far as the claim "A vegan can remain healthy in the long run on a diet of 100 percent raw without supplement", it is of course TRUE. If the claim was false, than no vegan would remain healthy in the long run (which clearly is not true).

A claim that "All vegans do remain healthy in the long run on a diet of 100 percent raw without supplement" is of course false, as we know examples of those who don't.

Perhaps you need to define a different claim that you would like to see proved/disproved.

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

I am not interested in proving or disproving that statement about b12. We would expect vegans to live a long and healthy life, but some of the early promoters of this diet died early, some with serious health problems. After 40 years or more of this diet, we would expect to see few centenarians, but none. We need to pause and ask ourselves what is missing, what did the early pionners of this diet missed? What can we add to make this diet work in the long run. [naturalhygienesociety.org]

But you asked "Can vegan remain healthy in the long run on a diet of 100 percent raw without supplement". And the answer to this is of course YES (if it was not possible, no vegan would, and they clearly are examples of those who do). Why not look at those who do (maybe you could find the "missing" ingredient there?)

40 years of the raw diet is hardly enough to see plenty of examples of centanarians. (To be over 100 now, one would have to have been over 100-40=60 when they first went raw 40 years ago. My guess is that the number of those who went raw 40 years ago and remained raw until now or until they died, whichever earlier, is negligable. Moreover, one would need to consider the effect that eaitng cooked for 60 years would have on one's longevity.)

I can see plenty of raw foodists, who I believe have already answered the question of how to make this diet work in the long run. Can you?

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

We've got to take into consideration that everyones bodies are different. There are two other options here which haven't be discussed:
1) Storm could be one of only a few who can sucessfully synthesise B12
or 2) * Storm could be eating enough insects (knowingly or unknowingly) to get enough B12 as he eats a lot of wild foods.

Rob

--
Rob Hull - Funky Raw
My blog: [www.rawrob.com]

Thank you Funky Rob, we are getting somewhere. Rawgosia does not understand that the early raw foodists were not 1 year old when they started, Ann Wigmore was 50, Norman Walker was 40, some others could have been older. The diet should have helped one or two to reverse the earlier years and reach 100.

Here is a quote from brian white in
[naturalhygienesociety.org]

"
The Arnold Ehret Health Club has operated in the U.S. since the 1920’s, so there should be plenty of 100 –120 year old fruitarians running around. Yet, when I contacted the club, they admitted they were not aware of any Ehret devotee who has reached 100. It seems that fruitarian centenarians are rarer than Bigfoot!

"

Norman Walker DID live to be over 100 years of age.

I've only seen one photo of him and he looks like an elderly gentleman, but a happy, spry, and healthy one.

I love his little books. He's so motivating and positive in them and has a great sense of humor.

What exactly are your goals djatchi? I'm getting the sense that you are most concerned with exterior signs of health, which can be misleading. People can look well, according to current standards of beauty or attractiveness, and yet not be well within the system as a whole.

Here, where I live in Louisiana, it is quite common for the cajun people to live to quite advanced years while eating things you'd never dream of putting on your plate.

My point is that I just don't think that Life or Health is as cut and dried or simple as we'd all like it to be.

~Kathleen

Walker is the only person that may reached the 100.

Walker was actually 99 when he died, not over 100.

New findings confirm that he was not 100

For anyone interested, here's a picture of his gravestone, located in Cottonwood, AZ:

[arizonagravestones.org]

As a strict 100% vegan (no honey or nothin') for 20 years this October, I will however play the devil's advocate here, because I think the question of why there are NOT many vegan or raw vegan centenarians is important if we want to IMPROVE the current statistics.

First, regarding Dr. Walker, there appear to be several different ages at time of death cited. AND apparently Dr. Walker may not have always advocated a pure vegan diet. I don't have his books, so I can't speak for the context, but here are a couple of quotes from Dr. Walker's books:

"The addition of some raw goat's milk or a little pure raw cream to the carrot juice gives it a somewhat exotic flavor and often serves to relieve the monotony when a reaction or distress may have a tendency to turn us against the plain juice" (Fresh Vegetable and Fruit Juices, p.35).

"While milk is a concentrated protein, cream is a fat purely and simply, and its degestion is entirely different. While of course it still is somewhat mucus-forming, it is nevertheless a fairly good fat, provided it is used in limited quantities (Diet and Salad, p. 43).

Does anyone have a direct quote from Dr. Walker where he specifically claims not to have consumed any dairy products for x number of years? I would be interested to know.

Bernard Jensen, who traveled around the world studying and interviewing the oldest people in the world, found that nearly all the very old people consumed a fair amount of dairy products, but very little meat. The exception seems to have been the Hunzas. The Hunzas ate mainly raw vegetables, fruits, and nuts, and also cooked grains. Even the Hunzas however ate a little goat and sheep milk and yogurt, and they ate a very small amount of meat during the winter. ALL the old people around the world led very active hard-working outdoor lives.

According to Bernard Jensen, "The Turks claim that the secret to their robust health is the sesame seed".

My point here is that a diet containing a sufficient amount of all the essential nutrients IN ADDITION TO an abundance of outdoor physical exercise may be very important in reaching a healthy old age. A person who eats a raw food diet may not AUTOMATICALLY consume sufficient amounts of essential nutrients. That includes some of the essential nutrients that are readily available in raw vegan foods if only we knew that we should include them in our diet.

If those RAW FOOD VEGANS who died early did NOT have enough of all the essential nutrients and/or did not get sufficient exercise, maybe that's why they died early.

That brings me to B12. There appears to be enough evidence available from many, many sources to at least CONSIDER that a B12 supplement MAY be a necessary addition to a vegan/vegan raw food diet. For myself, having experienced the symptoms of deficiency first hand after 15 years of a 100% vegan diet, I certainly can't discount it.

From a naturalist point of view, there is no primate living in the wild that does not consume a source of B12. All primates eat some form of animal life on a regular or semi-regular basis. The Bonobos chimps are most often cited as being vegan or even fruitarian, but it was documented by Hiaiwa-Hasegawa in 1987 that the bonobos chimps consume invertebrates including flying squirrels and the young of forest duikers. They "also consume termite clay for essential minerals". National Geographic has film of Bonobos chimps visiting the termite clay mounds and eating gobs of the clay.

John Pickrell, writing for National Geographic News, May 20, 2003, in an article called "Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree,...", wrote: "...humans and chimps are between 95 and 98.5 percent genetically identical."

I personally think the best source of information on B12 comes from The Vegan Society's web cite, www.vegansociety.com. Click the link about B12 to the right of the home page. You will come to an article called "What every vegan should know about vitamin B12", co-written by Stephen Walsh PhD (currently Vice-Chair of the UK Vegan Society) and members of the International Vegetarian Union. Dr. Walsh also wrote a book sold through the American Vegan Society called, "Plant Based Nutrition for Human Health".

Here is are some excerpts from the Vegan Society article on B12:

"B12 is an exceptional vitamin. it is required in smaller amounts than any other known vitamin. Ten micrograms of B12 spread over a day appears to supply as much as the body can use. In the absence of any apparent dietary supply, deficiency symptoms usually take five years or more to develop in adults, though some people experience problems within a year. A very small number of individuals with no obvious reliable source appear to avoid clinical deficiency symptoms for twenty years or more. B12 is the only vitamin that is not recognised as being reliably supplied from a varied wholefood, plant-based diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables, together with exposure to sun. Many herbivorous mammals, including cattle and sheep, absorb B12 produced by bacteria in their own digestive system. B12 is found to some extent in soil and plants. These observations have led some vegans to suggest that B12 was an issue requiring no special attention, or even an elaborate hoax. Others have proposed specific foods, including spirulina, nori, tempeh, and barley grass, as suitable non-animal sources of B12. Such claims have not stood the test of time.

"In over 60 years of vegan experimentation only B12 fortified food and B12 supplements have proven themselves as reliable sources of B12, capable of supporting optimal health. it is very important that all vegans ensure they have an adequate intake of B12, from fortified foods or supplements. This will benefit our health and help to attract others to veganism through our example.

"In adults typical deficiency symptoms include loss of energy, tingling, numbness, reduced sensitivity to pain or pressure, blurred vision, abnormal gait, sore tongue, poor memory, confusion, hallucinations and personality changes.

"Most vegans show adequate B12 levels to make clinical deficiency unlikely but nonetheless show restricted activity of B12 related enzymes, leading to elevated homocysteine levels. Strong evidence has been gathered over the past decade that even slightly elevated homocysteine levels increase risk of heart disease and stroke...

"A blood B12 level measurement is a very unreliable test for vegans, particularly for vegans using any form of algae. Algae and some other plant foods contain B12-analogues (false B12) that can imitate true B12 in blood tests while actually interfering with B12 metabolism. Blood counts are also unreliable...Blood homocysteine testing is more reliable...

"Reports that B12 has been measured in a food are not enough to qualify that food as a reliable B12 source. It is difficult to distinguish true B12 from analogues that can disrupt B12 metabolism. Even if true B12 is present in a food, it may be rendered ineffective if analogues are present in comparable amounts to the true B12. There is only one reliable test for a B12 source - does it consistently prevent and correct deficiency? Anyone proposing a particular food as a B12 source should be challenged to present such evidence."

(and for those considering eating meat and dairy to get B12, the following paragraph from the same article is included):

"To be truly healthful, a diet must be best not just for individuals in isolation but must allow all six billion people to thrive and achieve a sustainable coexistence with the many other species that form the 'living earth'. From this standpoint the natural adaptation for most (possibly all) humans in the modern world is a vegan diet. There is nothing natural about the abomination of modern factory farming and its attempt to reduce living, feeling beings to machines. In choosing to use fortified foods or B12 supplements, vegans are taking their B12 from the same source as every other animal on the planet - micro-organisms - without causing suffering to any sentient being or causing environmental damage."

Well, did we read every word of the above? Anyway, there's certainly enough information there to at least keep an OPEN MIND that just MAYBE a B12 supplement MIGHT add something positive to our health. For more of the same, I recommend that everyone, especially parents, read the entire Vegan Society article.

In the so-called developed countries, we well-fed humanoids, with almost every conceivable food at our fingertips and a huge rate of obesity in the general population, naturally tend to think in terms of trying not to consume TOO MUCH. But the rest of the world population is scrambling to get enough. It seems entirely possible that a lack of essential nutrients MAY bring about ill health and a premature death, whether or not a person eats a vegan raw food diet.

Best wishes, -Ally



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2006 12:58AM by Ally.

"Rawgosia does not understand that the early raw foodists were not 1 year old when they started"

Incorecct assumption, djatchi.

"The diet should have helped one or two to reverse the earlier years and reach 100."

How do you know? Did you calcuate the probability of that happening? Consider that they all went raw after many years of eating cooked, many of them made various mistakes (they did not have raw parents to teach them what to do), their lifystyle could often have been far from perfect (stress, for example, is a major contributor to one's health, and it has been observed that many centenarians, who often eat meat, smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol, beside being skinny, are also quite easy-going), and finally that they were not very many of them, plus possibly their genetic make-up. As a mathematician, I think that seeing a few of those people go to their med/late 90s (many people die far earlier than that) is quite something considering that this result is coming from such a small sample. And 99 is pretty fantastic, not too far from your expectation, is it?

Reagrdless of their statistical achievements, those people were pioneers, who paved the way to the current movement, which by the way is still on a learning curve. The number of shiny examples amongst new generation of raw foodists is growing, and, if the civilization still exists in 100 years, I estimate that we will see more and more examples, which will make humans reconsider their current approach to diet.

Rob, I think that biologically all humans are the same. I don't think that the explanation that Storm is one of the very few who can synthesize B12 is plausible. He may well unknowingly eat some miniature insects, it could be possible. However, this type of explanation is based on the presumption that B12 may only come from animal products. I am inclined to think that there is a different explanation. In my view, the fact that there are raw foodists who do just fine without supplements, is something that I would expect to happen. Of course, this is my opinon and I do not wish to change yours.

Well, I think that it would be interesting to have a discussion again in say 30 years. How will the views change by then?

Cheers,
Gosia.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

I think that the main reason why many of the raw foodist failed is what Victoria Boutenko has discovered: green leaves. Fruits and nuts are not enough. Now with green smoothies and some supplements, we have all the ingredients to see a new generation of raw foodists reach the 100 and even more. My belief is that the human body has the ability to regenerate so even at 50 one can still reverse the many years of bad eating and reach the 100.
I agree that stress management is important for staying healthy but I do not consider it as the main cause of our health problems. The animals in the wild face countless hours of stressful life when they can be eaten alive any minute but they have no disease compared to our domesticated pets fed with canned food. If you are healthy you can manage stress very well as the animals in the wild do. With the standard american diet, our body is weakened and stress become a major factor.

I don't really want to get to 100, that's too long on this planet for me. All I want to do is to be healthy in my 50's and 60's after I've raised my kids so that I can do fun things like travel in a healthy body. And I think raw foods can do that.

All the stories that I have heard about people who have done the raw food diet for years and who are in their golden years say that they have too much energy. Hardly the the characteristics of B12 deficiency like anemia, fatigue, weakness, constipation, loss of appetite, and weight loss.

The research by Mozafar shows that plant foods CAN contain B-12 - but ONLY if the soil itself has B-12 in it. So soil that is heavily fertilized with high-B-12 types of manure, say human manure, may produce plant foods with non-trace amounts of B-12 in them. That is a possible explanation for, say, the Chinese Buddhist vegans who don't supplement but who do eat foods fertilized with night soil aka human manure.

Thus while it may be possible to get B-12 from plant foods in theory, the overwhelmingly negative experience of many unsupplemented vegans, both cooked and raw, indicates that supplementation is the optimal choice for strict vegans. This is reflected in the B-12 article by Stephen Walsh, multiple drafts of which were reviewed by a large number (>75) of vegetarian/vegan nutritionists and scientists. That is, the Walsh article reflects a consensus by knowledageable vegan/vegetarian nutritionists and scientists.

The extreme fringe of natural hygiene will disagree, but in fact B-12 supplementation is almost zero risk, and the very few who are intolerant of cyanocobalamin might be able to use methylcobalamin instead. B-12 deficient vegans are bad advertising for the diet. Ditto for raw.

I read and was told once by a raw foodist who advocated that everyone take a B12 supplement that the biggest group of b12 deficiencies occur in meat-eating women. I don`t know if that is true.

Here is an article explaining why vegan and meat eaters may have b12 deficiencies. [www.living-foods.com]

I want to live FOREVER

I love Victoria

I have nothing else to say that is worth reading at the moment

An intersting (and very long ) article that I once read (unfortunately available only in cache):

"VITAMIN B12: ACHILLES' HEEL OF VEGANISM?

Since our nutrients that we use normally come in complete packages, and our bodies require them in that form, it is the case that nutritional deficiencies never occur alone. B12 is part of the B-vitamin complex, and is found wherever those vitamins are found. Our bodies have low needs for b12. Our stomach secretes Intrinsic Factor which is required to join with b12 for absorption purposes lower down in the intestines where it is normally produced by bacteria in our guts. When we are not entirely healthy and our stomach’s function is compromised we may have troubles creating enough Intrinsic Factor (IF) for b12 absorption. Acids in the stomach can inhibit the secretion of IF as well. Of course, IF is also dependent on other substances produced within the body, and if these are lacking, then it may show up as a b12 problem as well.

The solution, of course, is to resolve the underlying habits that give rise to the metabolism problems that predispose oneself to the symptoms supposedly associated with b12 lack. To correctly diagnose oneself as b12 deficient, one would have to test our systems for their abilities to properly digest, absorb, and assimilate b12, and we would have to determine and eliminate as possibilities all those other shortages and bodily conditions that predispose a person to not being able to use b12 within themselves. Very few people in the country bother to do this, yet they are quick to agree that they have b12 deficiencies if it so suits them.

By and large, a person who goes onto a raw food diet will often experience many difficult changes in their body, many of which are aggravated by the continuance in such simple bad habits as overeating, eating frozen foods, eating spices, miscombining foods, drinking stimulative substances such as coffee and teas and alcohol from time to time, eating too many dried foods, binging, and many others. On top of this, the body will have difficulties obtaining enough nutrients at first from raw foods due to the low concentration of nutrients in raw foods and the protective membranes the body has built up in various locations of the body (such as in the intestines, stomach, blood vessels) that were necessary when the person ate predominantly of over-rich and concentrated cooked foods, with all their high levels of toxic matter. It takes time for a body to reassert normalcy of function.

In going raw, many people have to acknowledge this compromised state of their bodies by eating a transition diet that does not so drastically change the conditions under which their body has adapted itself to get its needed nutrients from the food it is given. So some people will still eat a bit of meat from time to time, others will continue eating some cooked starches, others steamed veggies. Over time, as these people slowly improve their overall health, and as they persevere in steadily improving their diet, they will find that they can free themselves from all poor eating habits, which includes the eating of meat and dairy. It is the case that meat eaters are the main ones diagnosed as having b12 "deficiencies". B12 is needed in only extremely low doses by the body, measured in less than micrograms, and it’s very easy for us to store reserves that can last us for years.

It is not at all obvious from your descriptions of what you were doing that b12 was your problem. There are so many things to consider, some of which I already mentioned above, and more of which include the amount of time one has been raw, how much one follows other healthy habits in their life (such as getting adequate sleep, sunshine, fresh air, water, etc), how many years one has eaten a cooked food diet, the predominance of various types of foods in their former diet, what other types of supplements one takes, what types of drugs one takes if they do, the type of other ingredients that are in supplements containing b12, the amount of exercise one gets, and many more. Sometimes it just takes a little perseverance to allow a body to get over a certain stage of adjustment, and the problems sort themselves out on their own. This may or not be the case with you.

As is always the case, it is sometimes best to proceed cautiously, while ever slowly striving for improvement and this, as others suggested, may be the best thing for you in terms of your diet. I would not be in any great rush to blame your symptoms on a b12 deficiency when it has not yet been adequately shown that other factors were not responsible for your problems. To do so would be to lay blame where it is not due, which leads to misleading conclusions about causes symptoms. It is only wise to conclude that something is true, such as b12 deficiency, when all other factors have been considered and eliminated as causes.

There are innumerable substances that have not yet been isolated in foods due to their low concentrations in foods, especially raw foods, and to the difficulty in developing techniques to isolate them. There are no doubt many substances in our foods that our bodies have very little need for, even less need than for b12, and so these substances will undoubtedly occur in minute quantities in our foods and in our selves. There have been no tests conducted to determine the effects of so-called deficiencies of these substances and how the levels of these unknown substances relate to the b12 and other nutrient issues.

For this reason and the others addressed, plus others that I haven't discussed here, it is wiser to say, if one has not properly addressed all the considerations that would allow a true determination of b12 deficiency, that one DOES NOT KNOW the true or complete reason for their symptoms, symptoms which may or may not be consistent with a true vitamin b12 deficiency (if that can be determined), instead of just assuming they are correct in concluding it was a b12 issue.

In reply, in general, to testing for b12 and other substances, I offer the following observations, and possible conclusions.

The current tests that are supposed to establish b12 deficiency are incapable of establishing b12 deficiency because the tests are not conducted in a wholly scientific manner. Of all the common and popular b12 tests that are currently used, there is not one that can fully and truly establish, on its own or in its conjunction with other popular tests, the presence of a b12 deficiency. Specifically, these tests are often for substances that can't (such as certain b12 analogues), or that can't be used on their own (any b12 substance), to establish a b12 deficiency. Thusly, if one uses the tests to determine whether they have a b12 deficiency, they will be making a mistake.

To determine whether a person has a b12 deficiency, a scientific experiment would have to be designed. This experiment would necessarily have to include a series of tests consisting of many different types of tests carried out over a period of time, such as a week or a month, and the results would have to be exposed to critical scrutiny or cross-examination to be sure the entire experiment and its actual result was: 1. really capable of indicating a b12 deficiency at all, and 2. whether, if it could do this, could it do it in any one particular individual with all his/her unique habits, indulgences, and predispositions.

Of the commonly used tests for b12 deficiency that are currently used by the medical belief system and other delusional and self-promoting interests, none are capable of showing clearly and undoubtedly that the person given the test has a b12 deficiency. The tests used are individual tests, not groups of tests, and are not carried out over periods of time. The tests only test for one particular item that the users of the test BELIEVE might indicate a b12 deficiency. These tests are then sold to us by their unscientific promoters as TRULY indicating a b12 deficiency, and as scientific (just because they were using a test), when in reality the tests are not scientific (they do not follow well-established rules and procedures of scientific discovery).

People who commonly use these tests do not understand the scientific process. Subsequently, most, if not all, everyday people, including even a large majority of so-called scientific experts, are not capable of determining what a scientific process is or how it is that only a correct scientific process, (which includes as ONE part of it a series of various time-based well-run tests), could establish any idea as true, such as a vitamin b12 deficiency causing someone’s symptoms. Thusly, these people are EASILY lead into making false assumptions and drawing false conclusions and thereby blaming something that was not conclusively shown to be the cause of their problem. This means, that in the b12 case, if they decided to blame b12 and then use b12 supplements, they will have just been "conned" (con being the abbreviation of confidence) into paying a con-artist ( a con-artist is someone who displays a talent at using fear, uncertainty, conniving, persuasion, common gullibility of people, doubt, confusion, illusion, deceit, speciousness, charisma, pomp, and other tools of the advertising industry to convince others that the con-artists unsubstantiated BELIEFS are meritorious or valid) some money for a dubious product that more than likely just adds to the person’s overall problems, particularly in the long term.

To make recommendations to others, based on the results of misunderstood, inaccurate, and thereby misleading b12 "tests", is pure foolishness. The tests are founded in neglect of the wholeness on which life is based. As a consequence, they will have little or no meaning in the search for wholeness, or health. One might as well as recommend that a person consult a crystal ball gazer, and based on the ball gazer's wisdumb, assume that they have a b12 deficiency and therefore take b12 supplements. Even if the b12 user claims health improvement (as much as improvement is often a subjective term), this still does not mean the b12 supplement was really needed or that the person had a b12 deficiency.

An alcoholic could test himself by taking a supplement of alcohol pills, feel positively better as a result, and then claim it was because of an alcohol deficiency that he felt such terrible symptoms after a day of not drinking, due to the "positive" results of his "test". As we can see, this is not a scientific-based test. Many, many more tests, of huge variety, taken over a period of time, and which would be given great scrutiny, would be needed to be conducted by the biased alcoholic to understand how alcohol played a roll in his problems, and so on, in order to substantiate any claim that his original problems were legitimately due to an alcohol "deficiency". Of course, a person who is grounded in correct principles in physiology can easily conclude alcohol is a source of the original problem; however, it is SADLY the case, that in regards to vitamin b12, practically NO ONE is well grounded enough in physiology or biology to be able to make any conclusions about the b12 issue other than that the issue of b12 is a mystery to them. People who use mysteries to determine their actions are behaving VERY foolishly.

A person who makes conclusions and follows them up with recommendations is wise to choose from sources of information or knowledge that are rational, sensible, accurate, and truthful. Current b-12 tests are inadequate in scope and concept and thereby do not reveal themselves as adequate sources; as such, one can only conclude and recommend that b12 testing be ignored by less than deeply and truthfully informed scientifically conscious health seekers.

Any "test" for b12 deficiency MUST ADDRESS and RESOLVE the following important issues, among others:

1. what TYPE or TYPES {TYPES(S)}, of the various types of b12, is used or are used by the body?
2. Is the particular body under investigation able to DIGEST the TYPE(S) of b12?
3. Is the particular body under investigation able to ABSORB through the various digestive, protective, and other cellular membranes of the body, these TYPE(S) of b12?
4. Is the particular body under investigation able to ASSIMILATE in its cells (ie, use in its chemical processes) these TYPE(S) of b12?
5. What TYPE(S) of b12 are in the person's blood stream, urine, lymph, and other tissues and are these TYPE(S) being excreted as normal wastes or are they actually being used beneficially?
6. Are excreted b12 TYPE(S) indicative of the wrongful nature of the b12 TYPE(S) or of the body's inability to USE the b12 TYPE(S), if these TYPE(S) have been determined to be USEABLE TYPE(S)?
7. What are the normal LEVELS (or quantities and concentrations) of ALL b12 TYPES in a truly HEALTHY person?
8. What is the normal RANGE (or VARIANCE) of ALL b12 levels in a truly HEALTHY person from hour to hour, day to day, week to week?
9. What are all the OTHER NUTRIENTS that are needed to work in conjunction with the correct types of b12 in order for them to be used?
10. What are the normal LEVELS and RANGES of other nutrients in the body that are required for correct b12 metabolism?
11. How does Wholeness, Ripeness, Fullness, Completeness of Food forms affect digestion, absorption, and assimilation of b12 in the body?
12. What SUBSTANCES, especially commonly eaten or absorbed substances, INTERFERE with, OVERBURDEN, or otherwise COMPROMISE, or the body's b12 metabolism.
13. What other common or less common PRACTICES or ACTIVITIES interfere with, overburden, or otherwise compromise a body's b12 metabolism?
14. IF b12 deficiency can be established in a human, what are the SYMPTOMS that are SPECIFIC to and ONLY specific to this deficiency?
15. IF b12 deficiency can be established in a human, what are the SYMPTOMS that are GENERAL to this deficiency (meaning what OTHER deficiencies or problems share these general symptoms)?

Endless other questions could be posed, yet even from the short list above one can deduce that it is terribly difficult to establish what a b12 deficiency is or how it comes to be, let alone what its symptoms are. This complicated process would involve subjective and objective factors in each individual case, as the testing system, assuming it was truly accurate in all cases, was applied to the individual. The testing system itself would be difficult to establish as giving anything other than probabilities, due the infinite complexity of the human body and the added dimensions of the infinite external activities and influences that can affect the human body. Many, many, many tests and a whole lot of subjective analysis would be required. And the end result would only be a probability. No one would know for sure, even after all that effort. For instance, there could be other elements, as yet undiscovered by science, missing from the person's body or diet that contribute to the problems.

If b12 is missing from a diet, the only truthful, irrefutable, and logical conclusion that can be made is that the diet and other lifestyle factors are not whole. In regards to diet, our bodies are whole organisms that require food in its whole form so that they can get wholy what they need from foods. That is, we need to get not just ALL the parts that make up our natural foods, but to be completely healthy for the long term, we need to get ALL those parts ALL TOGETHER at once, WHOLY TOGETHER, in WHOLE form, FULLY and NATURALLY BALANCED, so that WE ourselves may remain that way as we bring the food into us. As Nature doesn't provide us with b12 trees, vitamin A bunnies, protein popsicles, glucose bushes, magnesium plants, or tri-glyceride turnips, we don't need to pursue individual elements, and its unwise and harmful to do so. Pursuing b12 from a testing perspective is pursuing health from an unwhole perspective and can only lead to unwholeness in the long run.

The b12 tests of today are predominantly all SINGLE tests of ONE simple little aspect of just ONE of the questions asked above. These tests are thus COMPLETELY unscientific and are absolutely INCAPABLE of allowing anyone to make any kind of judgment on whether the person subjected to the test is b12 deficient or not. The tests, whether one or two together, have just as much, and probably MORE, ability in determining whether SANTA CLAUS exists or not. The individual tests are inherently useless as anything other than a part of a complete and proper scientific investigation, which in itself would be necessarily incomplete because not all known nutrients have been discovered yet. As individual or even combined tests, they can only be used by profit motivated con-artists to manipulate the actions of a fear-based, misinformed, gullible, and therefore highly susceptible public.

It is astute to note that ALL supplement programs must address similar questions as posed above, and since they, like the b12 tests, DO NOT, their unscientific and false natures are demonstrated as clearly as the FALSE nature of the common b12 testing programs used to determine b12 deficiency.

Our current economic system is largely driven by the commercial prostitutionalizaton of science. The scientific process has been misused and abused by self-interested parties seeking to gain personal fortunes instead of truth. Truth has been waylaid, and that is why those parties that push illogical testing programs and supplements in general are always opposed to complete scientific inquiry. They make extra-ordinary claims that can't be backed up by truthful science, and when those that are more truth-motivated complain, these pill pushers and test touters, instead of opening their claims up to scientific ( rational, unbiased, critical, orderly, well documented and supported) inspection, proceed to create SPIN by accusing their "attackers" of being ignorant, unwhole in approach, "scientific", and so on.

It is truly amazing what the impostors of truth do. In their condemnable practice, they use small elements of the scientific process, such as individual or combined "tests" here and there, in order to pass their pursuits onto the unknowing and gullible public as "scientific" procedures and unjustifiably claim the legitimacy that comes with all respected truly scientific endeavor. But when true scientific investigation comes knocking and reveals the wide open holes in their foolish claims, they choose to accuse their "attackers" of "denying" science or nature, or they claim that "science" doesn't know everything, etc., etc.

By their reckoning, then, one can only assume that ONLY these profit-motivated and self-interested persons, who most apparently have no regard for rational and critical inspection, ARE the ones who DO know everything. All WE have to do is take THEIR word for it. Suspiciously, their gains are immediate, often financial, while our (dubious) gain "will be coming in the future" as the spinners unerringly point out. That's what the spin process comes down to. Deception for the purposes of their immediate gain, and our immediate loss of money, with interest to be paid in the future via loss of health, freedom, more money, and more gullible mindlessness.

Again, when the error of the spinner's ways is pointed out, instead of answering all the questions and providing sensible explanations, they throw accusations, insinuations, guilt trips, fear traps, and other verbal abuse into the face of the inquirer. They NEVER answer the full line of questions that would provide for rational conclusions. Of course, rational conclusions would end their profit making and other self-serving industries, and so we recognize their game. They are not truth seekers. If they were truth seekers, they would have nothing to lose but all to gain --- the TRUTH. The truth is the most beautiful intellectual delight in the world, for it benefits most maximally not only the seeker, but ALL fellow beings and other lifeforms on the planet, and the planet itself, and for that reason all truth-seekers look first for truth before they look for personal profit. This distinguishes them from those that seek first personal benefit before truthful exposition, such as confidence men, sworn believers, and other self-interested parties.

Tests induce fear when they are handled unwisely. Fear leads to irrational behaviors, one of which is to follow expert "scientific" testers who by using the tests they promote admit they don't have a fundamental understanding of wholeness, or health. A person who has great fears of being b12 deficient, to assuage their fears, has many cheap options to choose beyond taking dubious expensive supplements or tests, as listed in my previous posts. One can even go to the extreme of eating meat or dairy. At least its natural. Whole foods are best.

To make conclusions on what a simple test says is to make conclusions on what Santa said. How about making conclusions from what we already know to be true and from what makes darn good sense. And then how about following practices that are harmonious with what nature used to get us and all the other millions of species here in the first place. Surely we can conclude that it was pretty good what she did and we don't have to meddle around with her. Let's use our brains to recognize the accord of nature, instead of using our brains to falsely believe nature got it wrong. After all, we are a part of nature. Nature wouldn't provide us (itself) a brain to use against itself. We have a brain because it was useful for us, so let’s continue to use it useful, in accord with nature. Just because there are a lot of people using their brain against themselves doesn't mean that it is correct or good to do that. We can still all use our brains in a sensible, life-inspiring, and successful manner, of which nature is all about.

Let's use our brains to think sensible and rational thoughts consistent WITH nature, instead of AGAINST nature, and let's practice doing this in order to create HABITUAL RATIONAL THINKING, so that we create a habitual rational thought process, or MIND, that consistently operates in a manner truly the best for us and that properly represents us and, so, in thus doing, will unerringly lead us back to realize, understand, and thus CONNECT with who we REALLY are --- NATURE!--- and thereby FEEL ourselves as we REALLY are---- NATURAL!"


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Thanks Rowgosia, very interesting article !!!

You welcome!

I hope that this did not convince anyone to go and have some meat.

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

I think from this and other readings the key point is to have the digestive system function properly so that it can recycle or produce b12 from the food we eat. When a vegan has health problem we all assume it is from b12 deficiency but when a meat eater has health problem we do not think about b12.

I'm openminded to the possibility that the B12 deficiency symptoms I experienced could have been at least partly due to the fact that my digestive system was once severely compromised. I once had a very terrible amoeba.

Actually, some of the symptoms from the amoeba were very similar to B12 deficiency symptoms. One symptom from the amoeba was that I started getting nerve damage. That got really bad, like my whole body was plugged into a wall socket! I felt like I was in the electric chair. After I got rid of the amoebas, the nerve damage symptoms disappeared.

The B12 deficiency symptoms happened a couple of years later. I recognized the nerve damage symptoms from when I'd had the amoeba. Just my hands and feet started tingling all the time (not nearly as bad as when I had the amoeba).

My first thought of course was to check for amoeba. That came up negative. So I started taking the B12 supplements to see if that would help. In about a month, the symptoms went away completely. That was about 5 years ago.

Last week I decided to change my B12 supplement to a different kind, so I stopped taking it for a few days until I could get to the store. Guess what? After just a few days of not taking the supplements, the symptoms came back (although just in my feet). When I started taking the B12 again, the symptoms left again.

Now I know there can be all different explanations for what I've written, but ONE explanation (that surely can't be TOTALLY overlooked) is that my particular body needs B12 but doesn't make it, and possibly doesn't even store it anymore.

And if that's so, well then, in my opinion, it's not a real bad thing to consume a miniscule amount of microorganisms - the same ones that ALL wild primates consume whenever they eat critters like insects. Our bodies contain a whole lot of friendly little microorganisms already.

For myself, I don't want to eat animal sources of B12, but I also don't want to feel like I'm plugged into the wall again either. So I'm grateful there's a supplement.

Most everyone has some history of eating something besides good wholesome raw food. Some day the same thing that happened to me might happen to someone else, if only because their past transgressions finally caught up with them.

I'm not necessarily recommending that everyone start taking B12, but I think it's good for people to at least be aware of the symptoms of B12 deficiency. That way, if a person comes up with similar symptoms, they can know they have the B12 option to test out for themselves IF they so choose. And a nursing mother might decide to take B12 just to eliminate the risks of their child becoming deficient.

I appreciate Rawgosia your taking the time to write out the above view opposing the use of B12 supplements. But there doesn't seem to be any information in the article that could be considered evidence for DISproving that B12 supplements might be necessary, with the possible exception of the first paragraph (completely unreferenced). Just because a scientific conclusion MAY be QUESTIONABLE (for whatever reason), that doesn't automatically make the science UNTRUE.

If one can say that the pro-B12 supplement view is not good science, then, based on that article, the same can be said about the anti-B12 view, not so?

The conclusion of the article seemed to be that taking B12 supplements had to be wrong because it didn't fit into a particular philosophy of nature. What's up with that? Can't a philosophy evolve? I'm not saying it's for sure necessary for any particular philosopy to evolve regarding B12, but if it WERE necessary, wouldn't it be better to change the philosophy to fit the facts, than to change the facts to fit the philosophy?

Raw food can get to be like a religion. All religions of course have good things about them, but religions have also started a lot of wars.

Before it happened to me, you never could have talked me into thinking I needed a supplement. I take no other supplements to this day.

I am open to any information others might like to share.

Best wishes, -Ally



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2006 09:05AM by Ally.