hypervalent_iodine

! Moderator Note Przemysla.Gruchala, Please do not hijack threads with nonsense. Stick to the topic and please try and stay within the realms of accepted science.

Well, the first question is what do you think Na and NaOH do to an ester?

I am very well aware of what B12 does and what the difference between pernicious anemia and a simple B12 deficiency is. And as your articles showed, scientists are also aware of the implications of a lack of B12. What's your point?

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.

Why do you keep asserting the claim that animal products do not have enough vitamin B12? http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminB12-HealthProfessional/ http://www.dietitians.ca/Nutrition-Resources-A-Z/Factsheets/Vitamins/Food-Sources-of-Vitamin-B12.aspx

! Moderator Note Consistency, Stop shifting the burden of proof. If you are making claims that are not within the realms of what is already accepted within the scientific community, you need to provide evidence for them. You will get no more chances after this. If you still refuse to back up your claims that Gerson therapy treats cancer (i.e. acts as a therapeutic agent to fight an existing cancer as opposed to preventing it from developing), then this will be closed.

I didn't check your math, but the way you've done it looks fine to me.

I might be missing something, but the title of this thread leads me to believe that this post is not from the mind of menageriemanor. I think it was intended to be humorous. Edit: looks like it comes from page 63 of this magazine, published in 1966 (left hand column, 1/3 of the way down): http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uEzRsPTqPb0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

! Moderator Note Thirded.

! Moderator Note Just as moderators don't like wasting their time reading and dealing with off-topic ones. And just in case you missed it.

Your problem there is that you're reading an article about how bad most skin care products are by a group of people trying to sell a book on skin care. If ever there were a good example of conflicting interests, that would be it.

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. And you are wrong in saying that, as I already showed. Well that's where the rules disagree with you. The rules of the Speculation forum that you posted this thread in require that you explain your self, answer questions posed to you and pony up the evidence where claims are being made. If you didn't want to do that, then you should have chosen the forum you posted in a little more carefully. I can read the pathways just fine, thank you. Your vague and rather unhelpful hints as to what the heck you're on about are what's the problem. As it turns out, I have better things to do than to waste my time making extensive notes on every single aspect of the biosynthesis of vitamin B12. I understand enough of it to see serious flaws in your logic, however. I never said the enzymes did, I said that not all of the microorganisms that transcribe, translate and use those enzymes inhabit mammalian hosts. I suppose you have proof of that last claim? The experiments I saw used fairly conventional means of culturing the bacteria. 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.

! Moderator Note rwjefferson, Please do not hijack other threads, even your own threads, by introducing your pet theories, which as well as being off topic, do not belong in the mainstream science forums.

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please.

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? 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. Whatever do you expect me to do (and about what)?

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?

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.

! Moderator Note Technically, you already had your chance at this thread under your old username. (see: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64120-11-112/ ) I'm closing this thread and banning your old account. Please try to avoid making multiple accounts in the future and please do not reintroduce closed topics.

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.

! Moderator Note Consistency, I've now made this into its own topic since it was rather off topic in the thread it was in originally. Be aware that you are required to provide evidence to support your assertions. If you can't do that, this thread will be closed.

! Moderator Note I've gone ahead and split a number of posts from here into their very own thread, so let's keep the bits about quack medicine out of this thread and stay on topic.

! Moderator Note Ioannis, You are not permitted to hijack other threads with your nonsense, nor is it okay for you (or anyone) to use this site to advertise for your own website or insult members or staff. If you have an issue with a moderator action, you are welcome to report it. Edit: this was split from another thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72725-is-mathematics-alone-a-safe-medium-for-exploring-the-frontiers-of-science-or-should-observation-and-hypothesis-lead-in-front/page-2#entry729070

Can I ask what this is for, exactly?

! Moderator Note This site is not your soapbox.