How can a autodidact without formal education propose his theory?

[John Cuthber]

OK, one at a time

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

I certainly have and I'm sure most others will too.

So, in fact people do make assumptions (We assume that a piece goes in a particular place) while completing jigsaw puzzles.

However jigsaw puzzles are not science ( though they might sometimes be a nice analogy).

So, even if you had been right about puzzles (and you were not) it would have been a strawman because it's not the same as science.

 

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

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

 

The fact that physicists can make assumptions about things like air resistance is so well known that there are jokes about it (The perfectly spherical horse in a vacuum).

 

"Agreed but same applies to chimps and gorillas in zoo's. Poor animals had or still have to eat their own feces for B12."
​ Interesting point: what did they do in the wild?

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

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

 

"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."

Here's a hint, to the best of my knowledge, Marmite has never been near anyone's colon.

 

According to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#Synthesis_and_industrial_production
it's made industrially by fermentation

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

 

 

I didn't say that I believed that " putting it in public domain is more important than a journal?"

That would have been silly since putting it in a journal would have put it in the public domain and I wouldn't have said "putting it in the public domain is more important than putting it in the public domain "

 

Try reading what I said.

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

 

And you still haven't explained why you think there's an epidemic of B12 deficiency.

Edited February 17, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Consistency]

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

 

Have you ever tried a B12 supplement?

 

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

 

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

[John Cuthber]

Thanks for that reassuring confirmation that B12 deficiency is very rare.

 

"In large surveys in the United States and the United Kingdom, ≈6% of those aged ≥60 y are vitamin B-12 deficient (plasma vitamin B-12 < 148 pmol/L), with the prevalence of deficiency increasing with age."

So, even among the elderly, who are at greatest risk, 94% of the UK population are not deficient.

 

Similarly, in the US

"The prevalence of deficiency (serum vitamin B-12 < 148 pmol/L) varied by age group and affected ≤3% of those aged 20–39 y, ≈4% of those aged 40–59 y, and ≈6% of persons aged ≥70 y. Deficiency was present in <1% of children and adolescents but was ≤3% in children aged <4 y (the youngest age group reported)."

The only group where there's a significant incidence of deficiency are the elderly.

 

It's slightly disappointing to see that deficiency diseases are still common in the developing world., but I guess that's a political problem, rather than a scientific one. B12 isn't very expensive so supplementation would be reasonably cheap and might be a good investment for those engaged in providing help to the poorer people of the world.

[hypervalent_iodine]

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.

[Consistency]

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

 

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

 

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

 

Excellent points.

 

I agree. I feel the same.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

[hypervalent_iodine]

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?

[Consistency]

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

LOL.

 

Do you have the article about vegan children?

My hypothesis is that they dropped a human habit.

 

According to this

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

it's made industrially by fermentation

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Try reading what I said.

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

 

Gotcha. Excellent point.

[Phi for All]

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

 

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

[John Cuthber]

"They mostly use the bovine strain today, Propionibacterium shermanii, it produces a lot more B12 since cows are bigger animals, hence require more B12"

Cows are big so bacteria produce more B12

That's one of the most preposterous non sequiteurs I have heard in a while.

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

 

And, if this

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

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

Have a look at the death rates.

I don't expect to outlive the veggies.

The ones eating less B12 are the ones who thrive.

[Consistency]

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

 

LOL. You assume I make my puzzle like that.

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

[hypervalent_iodine]

Which bacteria, which enzymes and could you please provide sources for that claim?

[Phi for All]

 

LOL. You assume I make my puzzle like that.

 

LOL. Make it like what?

 

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

 

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

 

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

[John Cuthber]

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

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

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

 

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

Vegetarians eat less B12

Vegetarians live longer.

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

[hypervalent_iodine]

Also

 

 

NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCY

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

 

 

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

[Consistency]

LOL. Make it like what?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And, if this

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

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

 

Have a look at the death rates.

I don't expect to outlive the veggies.

The ones eating less B12 are the ones who thrive.

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

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

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

 

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

Vegetarians eat less B12

Vegetarians live longer.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Correlation isn't causation.

[iNow]

Absurdity is the primary consistency in this thread, AFAICT.

[ACG52]

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?

 

Well, since you probably want to submit to a medical journal, go here to submit to the New England Journal of Medicine: http://www.nejm.org/page/author-center/manuscript-submission

 

or here to submit to the Lancet: http://www.thelancet.com/lancet-information-for-authors/how-to-submit

 

See, submitting isn't hard. Getting accepted is another matter, but that will depend on what you submit.

[Consistency]

Also

 

 

 

NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCY

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

Meat is because the majority of the B12 that is produced industrially goes to animal feed. In reality, because of human intervention, animal products most likely contain more B12 than stated.

 

I've attached an image.

[hypervalent_iodine]

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

How is that obvious? This, as with 90% of what you've said in this thread (and still refuse to back up), are based on vague or completely incorrect and ill-informed assumptions. And of course, you realise that antidepressants aren't going to reverse the nerve damage and various other consequences of chronic and severe B12 anemia that go hand in hand with the mood disorders?

 

The indirect admission that people who don't eat animal products suffer from B12 also contradicts your earlier claims.

 

Meat is because the majority of the B12 that is produced industrially goes to animal feed. In reality, because of human intervention, animal products most likely contain more B12 than stated.

 

I've attached an image.

Hah. Did you even read the end of the first paragraph in that image you posted? And of course the bit you highlighted has nothing to do with any of this.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Correlation isn't causation.

Well, the last line is true, but the rest is pretty much nonsense (as expected).

[Phi for All]

You know.. assuming that the ocean is the sky and that a green mountain is a green field.

 

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

 

And the irony of taking shortcuts by completing the edges first.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

11% is far from the majority.

[John Cuthber]

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

 

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

[Consistency]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

11% is far from the majority.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited February 25, 2013 by Consistency

[John Cuthber]

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

No, it does not.

However if you believe that you can't learn from others, what are you doing here?

It's against the rules to preach to us.

 

"Naturally, animals products don't contain enough Vitamin B12; hence why animals require supplementation."

No, they require food. They always have.

 

"And we have no killing instincts unless we are severely in ketosis."

So wrong, it's silly; ask an army.

[Consistency]

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

No, it does not.

However if you believe that you can't learn from others, what are you doing here?

It's against the rules to preach to us.

 

"Naturally, animals products don't contain enough Vitamin B12; hence why animals require supplementation."

No, they require food. They always have.

 

"And we have no killing instincts unless we are severely in ketosis."

So wrong, it's silly; ask an army.

Autodidact isn't a choice. Can anyone self-learn and make discoveries?

 

I can learn from others if the knowledge isn't coming from a limited mind. I've learned things from few people on here.

 

I said B12 supplementation. Not food. You misunderstood.

 

The army loves to shoot guns. No instinct, especially when the animal is shot from 20+ yards away.