How can a autodidact without formal education propose his theory?

[Consistency]

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?

Edited February 15, 2013 by Consistency

[ajb]

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?

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.

[imatfaal]

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

[hypervalent_iodine]

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

 

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.

[Consistency]

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.

[hypervalent_iodine]

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?

[Consistency]

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?

Edited February 15, 2013 by Consistency

[ajb]

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 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.

[hypervalent_iodine]

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.

 

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

 

In the same solution with the stimulating molecule, there are the other B12 transport proteins and other molecules bacteria need to grow and produce the vitamin.

 

Could you please clarify this.

 

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

 

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.

 

 

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

 

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

[John Cuthber]

This idea wasn't new in 1956

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

[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.

[John Cuthber]

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?

[hypervalent_iodine]

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

[ajb]

My life experience says different.

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.

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

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)

 

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

 

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.

Edited February 16, 2013 by ajb

[Consistency]

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?

Edited February 16, 2013 by Consistency

[John Cuthber]

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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.

Edited February 16, 2013 by John Cuthber

[hypervalent_iodine]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

And you are wrong in saying that, as I already showed.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[Consistency]

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?

[John Cuthber]

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.

[Consistency]

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...

Edited February 16, 2013 by Consistency

[John Cuthber]

"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.

 

It's a non-existent epidemic.

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.

 

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

[Phi for All]

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?

 

False Dilemma. You do both.

 

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

 

Communicating your ideas is part of the process. Why do you want to propose your ideas if not to communicate with others about them?

 

Review of your work by others is probably the best part of the methodology. No matter how much you think you know, you can't begin to touch the sum of knowledge possessed by everyone else who would read your work.

[Consistency]

"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?

Edited February 16, 2013 by Consistency

[hypervalent_iodine]

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

[ajb]

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

They are offering a far more qualified critique than I could.

Can you really trust anyone over the internet?

We ask ourselves this all the time.

 

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

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.

 

Review of your work by others is probably the best part of the methodology. No matter how much you think you know, you can't begin to touch the sum of knowledge possessed by everyone else who would read your work.

This is a very important point.