FW: Brother Nazariah's Ill InformedDiatribeAgainst Veganism

[Guest guest]

Hi again, Jeff,

 

Sorry for the delay. I appreciate your inquiring manner along with your

pleasant reactions to my posts. It definitely keeps communication

enjoyable.

 

Here is a link concerning B12 that you might not have read:

 

http://www.living-foods.com/articles/b12issue.html

 

As you know, I don't tell a person what they should or shouldn't do.

That is up to them. I merely attempt to point out some facts, evidence, or

logic that a person can use to hopefully help themselves make their own

decisions. A person does not have to eat an " ideal " diet to secure their

b12 needs. They only need to predominantly eat foods of a type and in a way

that secures and maintains a healthy condition within their stomach and

intestines so that they remain able to absorb and assimilate the b12 that is

produced by their intestinal flora and provided by their foods. Improved

assaying techniques are showing that fruits and vegetables do contain b12.

We do not need to eat dirt, ants, insects, meat, dairy, etc, to secure our

b12. Our intestinal flora feed off the food we eat to create lots of viable

12 in our intestines which is readily absorbed in those people who are

reasonably healthy.

 

Some factors that prevent b12 absorption in individuals are:

 

1. Eating processed food over long periods of time -- the stomach loses its

secretive and digestive abilities.

2. Eating spicy or irritating foods that contain anti-biotic substances

such as onions, garlic, and radishes (contain allicin and mustard oil, two

bacterial and cellular poisons)

3. Alcohol, coffee, cigarette, prescribed anti-biotic and other common

drugs, vinegars of all sorts, and other irritating poison use.

4. Meat and dairy consumption -- causes over acidity in the intestines and

tissues, which destroys b12 and other nutrients needed in its use.

 

A person who refuses to eat sensibly has not only to concern themselves

about a possible b12 deficiency. B12 acts symbiotically in our bodies with

dozens of other substances. B12 does not act on its own, and its absorption

requires that our body can create, secrete, and combine with b12 many other

chemicals in a suitable environment within our guts. All these chemicals

must be present for us to benefit from b12. A poor or improper diet will be

deficient and imbalanced in every nutrient known and unknown. One might

then advise a processed food eater to take every type of supplement

available. Of course, there are thousands of yet undiscovered nutrients in

our natural foods, and supplements for these are as yet unavailable. The

only way to secure all of our nutrients would be to eat our natural foods in

as natural a state as possible. Of course one also needs to note that no

animal or plant has ever been shown to be able to live on a diet of

supplements. Our natural foods contain all that we need, in the amounts we

need, and in the symbiotic combinations we need.

 

Bacteria do not produce b12 from just dirt. Bacteria use foods or

substances that contain cobalt and other nutrients, such as is found in

many, if not all, fruits and vegetables. If someone claims that we need to

eat meat, dairy, or insects, etc, to get our b12, then it would be best that

that person secures their b12 from those sources, rather than supplements.

This is the case since b12 never acts alone and is always found in

conjunction with other very necessary nutrients in natural foods. If meat,

etc., are natural foods for our b12 needs, then these foods will have other

necessary food components too. A pill or supplement cannot ever hope to

provide all of these nutrients in the proportions, combinations, and

structures that our body needs. Of course, we can get our b12 from fruits

and veggies so we don't have to resort to substances such as meat and dairy.

 

In regards to dairy, meats, etc, if these are part of our natural

foods, it would seem peculiar that nature would require us to get one or

more nutrients from a food that we are not completely suited to eat. It is

clear that meat, dairy, etc, have many harmful aspects in their

nutrient/chemical character (mother's milk is perfectly suited for infants,

not for adults). In nature, biological life evolves alongside its food

source, and so develops an ability to maximally benefit from its food, in

every way, with no harm done. It would not make sense if nature required us

to use for our health a food that at the same time created our disease. It

can only make sense that nature provides in any one type of food all that we

need and all that we can digest at the same time. Nature does this with

rabbits, goats, bears, etc. It does so with us too.

 

A person who eats a cooked or processed diet can look forward to

developing a host of problems, deficiencies, etc. For the vast majority of

people, B12 is their least concern. The b12 hysteria preys upon fears,

uncertainties, gullibilities, and misinformation. If a person wants to eat

denatured b12 substitutes just to be " safe " , then it would only seem logical

that the person eat all other known and unknown nutrients in supplement

form, to also be " safe " .

 

It's revealing to note that symptoms for b12 " deficiency " are shared with

hundreds of other diseases. This makes it mostly arbitrary what type of

supplement is chosen for any one disease.

 

The medical study of b12, along with every other discovered nutrient,

is very incomplete and severely lacking in scope, and is biased towards the

false germ theory. Medicine has a very poor understanding of the nature of

health and disease. Medicine is comparable to a blind man searching for a

black cat in an pitch black room in which there is no cat. Any study done by

medicine can be expected to be very misleading. For example, they determine

their " normal " levels of b12 on studies made from everyday people eating a

SAD diet. That's like trying to determine what " normal " levels of alcohol

are in humans by studying levels of alcohol in alcoholics.

 

Much more can be said, but I'll leave it at that. If I'm asked, the

only advice I might give to a person who refuses to give up their harmful

ways is to maybe reconsider what they are doing or maybe get a high paying

job or good insurance to pay for the medical bills that are going to come

up.

 

For an individual who is already improving their diet and other habits,

I'd suggest that an indepth study of the laws of life might be beneficial,

as will a familiarization of the facts, evidence, logic, observations, and

experiments, as shown in the article in the link above, that counter the b12

scare.

 

Oh yeah, Jeff. It may be true that there are nutrients in all sorts of

organic substances. We only benefit from those substances if we can digest

them. Our normal foods allow us to do that without adding anything harmful.

Swamp water might be good in some respects, but a person can easily find

foods to eat that have no harmful effects. The same goes for inorganic iron

from a hammer. Our cells can't use inorganic substances, nor hammers. They

need minerals, etc, in the organic form found in our natural foods. Bacteria

can use inorganic substances, but our life depends on our particular

cellular structure remaining in its own form. We can derive much benefit

from our bacterial populations, but our cells cannot do as bacteria do, and

our cells do not need to. Our cells are highly evolved forms of various

bacteria and simpler forms of life. Our cells form organs, tissues, etc, to

form our bodies. All of our parts, including our bacterial forms, live

symbiotically together to create perfect harmony, or health, so long as we

adhere to our normal health supporting habits. Supplements only add to the

burden our bodies must bear due to our unhealthy behaviours.

 

In reply to some other points made by others, I'll say it is axiomatic that

nature's laws are unbreakable. Thus I stated that " they are trying to break

.... laws " . The part of the expression that stated all or not obeying any

laws, was to be taken in context with the rest of the article. I naturally

was implying the physiological and biological laws that pertain to the

eating of b12 supplements, which are many. In his act of " throwing the book "

at a law breaking person, a judge is not really accusing the person of

breaking all the laws, but rather many laws that pertain to the particular

matter being judged. The person can expect to suffer consequences based on

the whole set of laws broken, which are different than consequences for each

law alone, added up. It's difficult to write everything in explicit detail

without making these posts inordinately long. I do not speak of natures

laws as if nature is some authoritative body. Nature is very rational and

lets us all do as we please, with no desire to punish us, even as harm comes

to us as we pursue unsound practices.

 

In my statements, I merely meant to point out that all of nature's laws,

whether discerned or not by the human intellect, act together to form a

whole, and it is this whole that we are faced with every day in our lives.

Attempts at breaking one of the laws is really an attempt to break the

wholeness. Nature doesn't act one law at a time with each law separate from

all or any others. It thus may be said that an attack on one law leads to an

attack on all the laws, or the wholeness. From this perspective stems my

comments.

 

I'm sorry if I was not specific and clear enough in my other post. I

realize, Jeff, I probably gave you information you didn't need to hear

again, here, regarding b12, but I thought I'd include it all for the

possible benefit of others, and for the purpose of keeping all things in

perspective.

 

 

 

Robert

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Robert,

 

This is from the article you suggested:

 

 

 

“…The pill pushers are quick to say that our soil is deficient, but according to

Diamond and others, if a seed does not receive the elements it needs IT WILL NOT

GROW (OR WILL GROW POORLY - author). Also, plants obtain nutrients from other

sources in greater amounts: the sun, water and the air. Plants actually obtain

only about 1% of nutrients from the soil…”

 

 

 

 

 

Some people love to talk just for the sake of talk. Did that guy actually

measured how much nutrients a plant gets from the soil? How did he come up to

1%? If it was the truth then we would not spend our money on fertilizing.

 

He typed in CAPITAL LETTERS that plant will not grow if it’s deficient, so here

is a link about Mineral Deficiencies in Plants

 

http://www.luminet.net/~wenonah/min-def/list.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nora Lenz <nmlenz wrote:Hi again, Jeff,

 

Sorry for the delay. I appreciate your inquiring manner along with your

pleasant reactions to my posts. It definitely keeps communication

enjoyable.

 

Here is a link concerning B12 that you might not have read:

 

http://www.living-foods.com/articles/b12issue.html

 

As you know, I don't tell a person what they should or shouldn't do.

That is up to them. I merely attempt to point out some facts, evidence, or

logic that a person can use to hopefully help themselves make their own

decisions. A person does not have to eat an " ideal " diet to secure their

b12 needs. They only need to predominantly eat foods of a type and in a way

that secures and maintains a healthy condition within their stomach and

intestines so that they remain able to absorb and assimilate the b12 that is

produced by their intestinal flora and provided by their foods. Improved

assaying techniques are showing that fruits and vegetables do contain b12.

We do not need to eat dirt, ants, insects, meat, dairy, etc, to secure our

b12. Our intestinal flora feed off the food we eat to create lots of viable

12 in our intestines which is readily absorbed in those people who are

reasonably healthy.

 

Some factors that prevent b12 absorption in individuals are:

 

1. Eating processed food over long periods of time -- the stomach loses its

secretive and digestive abilities.

2. Eating spicy or irritating foods that contain anti-biotic substances

such as onions, garlic, and radishes (contain allicin and mustard oil, two

bacterial and cellular poisons)

3. Alcohol, coffee, cigarette, prescribed anti-biotic and other common

drugs, vinegars of all sorts, and other irritating poison use.

4. Meat and dairy consumption -- causes over acidity in the intestines and

tissues, which destroys b12 and other nutrients needed in its use.

 

A person who refuses to eat sensibly has not only to concern themselves

about a possible b12 deficiency. B12 acts symbiotically in our bodies with

dozens of other substances. B12 does not act on its own, and its absorption

requires that our body can create, secrete, and combine with b12 many other

chemicals in a suitable environment within our guts. All these chemicals

must be present for us to benefit from b12. A poor or improper diet will be

deficient and imbalanced in every nutrient known and unknown. One might

then advise a processed food eater to take every type of supplement

available. Of course, there are thousands of yet undiscovered nutrients in

our natural foods, and supplements for these are as yet unavailable. The

only way to secure all of our nutrients would be to eat our natural foods in

as natural a state as possible. Of course one also needs to note that no

animal or plant has ever been shown to be able to live on a diet of

supplements. Our natural foods contain all that we need, in the amounts we

need, and in the symbiotic combinations we need.

 

Bacteria do not produce b12 from just dirt. Bacteria use foods or

substances that contain cobalt and other nutrients, such as is found in

many, if not all, fruits and vegetables. If someone claims that we need to

eat meat, dairy, or insects, etc, to get our b12, then it would be best that

that person secures their b12 from those sources, rather than supplements.

This is the case since b12 never acts alone and is always found in

conjunction with other very necessary nutrients in natural foods. If meat,

etc., are natural foods for our b12 needs, then these foods will have other

necessary food components too. A pill or supplement cannot ever hope to

provide all of these nutrients in the proportions, combinations, and

structures that our body needs. Of course, we can get our b12 from fruits

and veggies so we don't have to resort to substances such as meat and dairy.

 

In regards to dairy, meats, etc, if these are part of our natural

foods, it would seem peculiar that nature would require us to get one or

more nutrients from a food that we are not completely suited to eat. It is

clear that meat, dairy, etc, have many harmful aspects in their

nutrient/chemical character (mother's milk is perfectly suited for infants,

not for adults). In nature, biological life evolves alongside its food

source, and so develops an ability to maximally benefit from its food, in

every way, with no harm done. It would not make sense if nature required us

to use for our health a food that at the same time created our disease. It

can only make sense that nature provides in any one type of food all that we

need and all that we can digest at the same time. Nature does this with

rabbits, goats, bears, etc. It does so with us too.

 

A person who eats a cooked or processed diet can look forward to

developing a host of problems, deficiencies, etc. For the vast majority of

people, B12 is their least concern. The b12 hysteria preys upon fears,

uncertainties, gullibilities, and misinformation. If a person wants to eat

denatured b12 substitutes just to be " safe " , then it would only seem logical

that the person eat all other known and unknown nutrients in supplement

form, to also be " safe " .

 

It's revealing to note that symptoms for b12 " deficiency " are shared with

hundreds of other diseases. This makes it mostly arbitrary what type of

supplement is chosen for any one disease.

 

The medical study of b12, along with every other discovered nutrient,

is very incomplete and severely lacking in scope, and is biased towards the

false germ theory. Medicine has a very poor understanding of the nature of

health and disease. Medicine is comparable to a blind man searching for a

black cat in an pitch black room in which there is no cat. Any study done by

medicine can be expected to be very misleading. For example, they determine

their " normal " levels of b12 on studies made from everyday people eating a

SAD diet. That's like trying to determine what " normal " levels of alcohol

are in humans by studying levels of alcohol in alcoholics.

 

Much more can be said, but I'll leave it at that. If I'm asked, the

only advice I might give to a person who refuses to give up their harmful

ways is to maybe reconsider what they are doing or maybe get a high paying

job or good insurance to pay for the medical bills that are going to come

up.

 

For an individual who is already improving their diet and other habits,

I'd suggest that an indepth study of the laws of life might be beneficial,

as will a familiarization of the facts, evidence, logic, observations, and

experiments, as shown in the article in the link above, that counter the b12

scare.

 

Oh yeah, Jeff. It may be true that there are nutrients in all sorts of

organic substances. We only benefit from those substances if we can digest

them. Our normal foods allow us to do that without adding anything harmful.

Swamp water might be good in some respects, but a person can easily find

foods to eat that have no harmful effects. The same goes for inorganic iron

from a hammer. Our cells can't use inorganic substances, nor hammers. They

need minerals, etc, in the organic form found in our natural foods. Bacteria

can use inorganic substances, but our life depends on our particular

cellular structure remaining in its own form. We can derive much benefit

from our bacterial populations, but our cells cannot do as bacteria do, and

our cells do not need to. Our cells are highly evolved forms of various

bacteria and simpler forms of life. Our cells form organs, tissues, etc, to

form our bodies. All of our parts, including our bacterial forms, live

symbiotically together to create perfect harmony, or health, so long as we

adhere to our normal health supporting habits. Supplements only add to the

burden our bodies must bear due to our unhealthy behaviours.

 

In reply to some other points made by others, I'll say it is axiomatic that

nature's laws are unbreakable. Thus I stated that " they are trying to break

.... laws " . The part of the expression that stated all or not obeying any

laws, was to be taken in context with the rest of the article. I naturally

was implying the physiological and biological laws that pertain to the

eating of b12 supplements, which are many. In his act of " throwing the book "

at a law breaking person, a judge is not really accusing the person of

breaking all the laws, but rather many laws that pertain to the particular

matter being judged. The person can expect to suffer consequences based on

the whole set of laws broken, which are different than consequences for each

law alone, added up. It's difficult to write everything in explicit detail

without making these posts inordinately long. I do not speak of natures

laws as if nature is some authoritative body. Nature is very rational and

lets us all do as we please, with no desire to punish us, even as harm comes

to us as we pursue unsound practices.

 

In my statements, I merely meant to point out that all of nature's laws,

whether discerned or not by the human intellect, act together to form a

whole, and it is this whole that we are faced with every day in our lives.

Attempts at breaking one of the laws is really an attempt to break the

wholeness. Nature doesn't act one law at a time with each law separate from

all or any others. It thus may be said that an attack on one law leads to an

attack on all the laws, or the wholeness. From this perspective stems my

comments.

 

I'm sorry if I was not specific and clear enough in my other post. I

realize, Jeff, I probably gave you information you didn't need to hear

again, here, regarding b12, but I thought I'd include it all for the

possible benefit of others, and for the purpose of keeping all things in

perspective.

 

 

 

Robert

 

 

 

 

 

 

SBC - Internet access at a great low price.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Viola,

 

This is Robert.

 

The statement by Diamond in the article said " if a seed does not recieve the

elements it needs, IT WILL NOT GROW... " . Your statement was:

 

" He typed in CAPITAL LETTERS that plant will not grow if it’s deficient, so

here is a link about Mineral Deficiencies in Plants "

 

Diamond's statement is clearly self evident and true. Your statement of what

Diamond said is inaccurate. You missed the point that he was making. He simply

stated that a plant will not be able to grow in a soil that does not contain all

of the nutrients that the plant needs in order to be able to grow. I.e, if the

soil doesn't contain, say, water or phosphorus

or magnesium, and the plant needs those substances to be in the soil for its

growth, the plant will not grow. Likewise a person who does not recieve

water, cannot be expected to grow, since water is needed by humans to grow.

 

Deficient means lacking or inadequate in amount or degree. Obviously, this

means that a deficient soil can still support plant life, albeit less well,

since the soil can still contain some nutrients to some degree. But if the soil

contains absolutely none of certain nutrients needed by the plant, the plant

cannot possibly grow.

 

The author of the article added to Diamonds statement " OR WILL GROW POORLY "

because they also misinterpreted what Diamond was saying. The author also

didn't realize that Diamond wasn't talking about deficient soils. Diamond was

talking about soils that contain NONE of certain nutrients that a plant needed

to be in the soil for the plants growth.

 

Obviously a plant grows best in sufficient soils. Saying soils are deficient

is only an argument for making them more sufficient. Eating supplements does

not make soils sufficient. It only leads to ignoring the soil problem and to

generalized thinking that humans can get away with eating the harmful foods and

following the harmful practices by eating some

magical concentrated substance instead of addressing the source of our problems

-- the harmful practices that we felt supplement use could overcome.

 

Robert

 

 

viola wrote:

 

> Robert,

>

> This is from the article you suggested:

>

>

>

> “…The pill pushers are quick to say that our soil is deficient, but according

to Diamond and others, if a seed does not receive the elements it needs IT WILL

NOT GROW (OR WILL GROW POORLY - author). Also, plants obtain nutrients from

other sources in greater amounts: the sun, water and the air. Plants actually

obtain only about 1% of nutrients from the soil…”

>

>

>

>

>

> Some people love to talk just for the sake of talk. Did that guy actually

measured how much nutrients a plant gets from the soil? How did he come up to

1%? If it was the truth then we would not spend our money on fertilizing.

>

> He typed in CAPITAL LETTERS that plant will not grow if it’s deficient, so

here is a link about Mineral Deficiencies in Plants

>

> http://www.luminet.net/~wenonah/min-def/list.htm

>

>

>

>

>

> Nora Lenz <nmlenz wrote:Hi again, Jeff,

>

> Sorry for the delay. I appreciate your inquiring manner along with your

> pleasant reactions to my posts. It definitely keeps communication

> enjoyable.

>

> Here is a link concerning B12 that you might not have read:

>

> http://www.living-foods.com/articles/b12issue.html

>

> As you know, I don't tell a person what they should or shouldn't do.

> That is up to them. I merely attempt to point out some facts, evidence, or

> logic that a person can use to hopefully help themselves make their own

> decisions. A person does not have to eat an " ideal " diet to secure their

> b12 needs. They only need to predominantly eat foods of a type and in a way

> that secures and maintains a healthy condition within their stomach and

> intestines so that they remain able to absorb and assimilate the b12 that is

> produced by their intestinal flora and provided by their foods. Improved

> assaying techniques are showing that fruits and vegetables do contain b12.

> We do not need to eat dirt, ants, insects, meat, dairy, etc, to secure our

> b12. Our intestinal flora feed off the food we eat to create lots of viable

> 12 in our intestines which is readily absorbed in those people who are

> reasonably healthy.

>

> Some factors that prevent b12 absorption in individuals are:

>

> 1. Eating processed food over long periods of time -- the stomach loses its

> secretive and digestive abilities.

> 2. Eating spicy or irritating foods that contain anti-biotic substances

> such as onions, garlic, and radishes (contain allicin and mustard oil, two

> bacterial and cellular poisons)

> 3. Alcohol, coffee, cigarette, prescribed anti-biotic and other common

> drugs, vinegars of all sorts, and other irritating poison use.

> 4. Meat and dairy consumption -- causes over acidity in the intestines and

> tissues, which destroys b12 and other nutrients needed in its use.

>

> A person who refuses to eat sensibly has not only to concern themselves

> about a possible b12 deficiency. B12 acts symbiotically in our bodies with

> dozens of other substances. B12 does not act on its own, and its absorption

> requires that our body can create, secrete, and combine with b12 many other

> chemicals in a suitable environment within our guts. All these chemicals

> must be present for us to benefit from b12. A poor or improper diet will be

> deficient and imbalanced in every nutrient known and unknown. One might

> then advise a processed food eater to take every type of supplement

> available. Of course, there are thousands of yet undiscovered nutrients in

> our natural foods, and supplements for these are as yet unavailable. The

> only way to secure all of our nutrients would be to eat our natural foods in

> as natural a state as possible. Of course one also needs to note that no

> animal or plant has ever been shown to be able to live on a diet of

> supplements. Our natural foods contain all that we need, in the amounts we

> need, and in the symbiotic combinations we need.

>

> Bacteria do not produce b12 from just dirt. Bacteria use foods or

> substances that contain cobalt and other nutrients, such as is found in

> many, if not all, fruits and vegetables. If someone claims that we need to

> eat meat, dairy, or insects, etc, to get our b12, then it would be best that

> that person secures their b12 from those sources, rather than supplements.

> This is the case since b12 never acts alone and is always found in

> conjunction with other very necessary nutrients in natural foods. If meat,

> etc., are natural foods for our b12 needs, then these foods will have other

> necessary food components too. A pill or supplement cannot ever hope to

> provide all of these nutrients in the proportions, combinations, and

> structures that our body needs. Of course, we can get our b12 from fruits

> and veggies so we don't have to resort to substances such as meat and dairy.

>

> In regards to dairy, meats, etc, if these are part of our natural

> foods, it would seem peculiar that nature would require us to get one or

> more nutrients from a food that we are not completely suited to eat. It is

> clear that meat, dairy, etc, have many harmful aspects in their

> nutrient/chemical character (mother's milk is perfectly suited for infants,

> not for adults). In nature, biological life evolves alongside its food

> source, and so develops an ability to maximally benefit from its food, in

> every way, with no harm done. It would not make sense if nature required us

> to use for our health a food that at the same time created our disease. It

> can only make sense that nature provides in any one type of food all that we

> need and all that we can digest at the same time. Nature does this with

> rabbits, goats, bears, etc. It does so with us too.

>

> A person who eats a cooked or processed diet can look forward to

> developing a host of problems, deficiencies, etc. For the vast majority of

> people, B12 is their least concern. The b12 hysteria preys upon fears,

> uncertainties, gullibilities, and misinformation. If a person wants to eat

> denatured b12 substitutes just to be " safe " , then it would only seem logical

> that the person eat all other known and unknown nutrients in supplement

> form, to also be " safe " .

>

> It's revealing to note that symptoms for b12 " deficiency " are shared with

> hundreds of other diseases. This makes it mostly arbitrary what type of

> supplement is chosen for any one disease.

>

> The medical study of b12, along with every other discovered nutrient,

> is very incomplete and severely lacking in scope, and is biased towards the

> false germ theory. Medicine has a very poor understanding of the nature of

> health and disease. Medicine is comparable to a blind man searching for a

> black cat in an pitch black room in which there is no cat. Any study done by

> medicine can be expected to be very misleading. For example, they determine

> their " normal " levels of b12 on studies made from everyday people eating a

> SAD diet. That's like trying to determine what " normal " levels of alcohol

> are in humans by studying levels of alcohol in alcoholics.

>

> Much more can be said, but I'll leave it at that. If I'm asked, the

> only advice I might give to a person who refuses to give up their harmful

> ways is to maybe reconsider what they are doing or maybe get a high paying

> job or good insurance to pay for the medical bills that are going to come

> up.

>

> For an individual who is already improving their diet and other habits,

> I'd suggest that an indepth study of the laws of life might be beneficial,

> as will a familiarization of the facts, evidence, logic, observations, and

> experiments, as shown in the article in the link above, that counter the b12

> scare.

>

> Oh yeah, Jeff. It may be true that there are nutrients in all sorts of

> organic substances. We only benefit from those substances if we can digest

> them. Our normal foods allow us to do that without adding anything harmful.

> Swamp water might be good in some respects, but a person can easily find

> foods to eat that have no harmful effects. The same goes for inorganic iron

> from a hammer. Our cells can't use inorganic substances, nor hammers. They

> need minerals, etc, in the organic form found in our natural foods. Bacteria

> can use inorganic substances, but our life depends on our particular

> cellular structure remaining in its own form. We can derive much benefit

> from our bacterial populations, but our cells cannot do as bacteria do, and

> our cells do not need to. Our cells are highly evolved forms of various

> bacteria and simpler forms of life. Our cells form organs, tissues, etc, to

> form our bodies. All of our parts, including our bacterial forms, live

> symbiotically together to create perfect harmony, or health, so long as we

> adhere to our normal health supporting habits. Supplements only add to the

> burden our bodies must bear due to our unhealthy behaviours.

>

> In reply to some other points made by others, I'll say it is axiomatic that

> nature's laws are unbreakable. Thus I stated that " they are trying to break

> ... laws " . The part of the expression that stated all or not obeying any

> laws, was to be taken in context with the rest of the article. I naturally

> was implying the physiological and biological laws that pertain to the

> eating of b12 supplements, which are many. In his act of " throwing the book "

> at a law breaking person, a judge is not really accusing the person of

> breaking all the laws, but rather many laws that pertain to the particular

> matter being judged. The person can expect to suffer consequences based on

> the whole set of laws broken, which are different than consequences for each

> law alone, added up. It's difficult to write everything in explicit detail

> without making these posts inordinately long. I do not speak of natures

> laws as if nature is some authoritative body. Nature is very rational and

> lets us all do as we please, with no desire to punish us, even as harm comes

> to us as we pursue unsound practices.

>

> In my statements, I merely meant to point out that all of nature's laws,

> whether discerned or not by the human intellect, act together to form a

> whole, and it is this whole that we are faced with every day in our lives.

> Attempts at breaking one of the laws is really an attempt to break the

> wholeness. Nature doesn't act one law at a time with each law separate from

> all or any others. It thus may be said that an attack on one law leads to an

> attack on all the laws, or the wholeness. From this perspective stems my

> comments.

>

> I'm sorry if I was not specific and clear enough in my other post. I

> realize, Jeff, I probably gave you information you didn't need to hear

> again, here, regarding b12, but I thought I'd include it all for the

> possible benefit of others, and for the purpose of keeping all things in

> perspective.

>

> Robert

>

>

>

>

> SBC - Internet access at a great low price.

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>Diamond's statement is clearly self evident and true. Your statement of what

Diamond said is inaccurate. You missed the point that he was making.

 

 

 

I didn’t miss the point, you are the one who didn’t read the first sentence from

that paragraph. The guy who wrote whole article is talking about soil deficiency

meaning that it’s a myth. You didn’t give a link to Diamond’s article, you gave

the link to an article where author is talking about something he doesn’t know.

 

 

Nora Lenz <nmlenz wrote:Viola,

 

This is Robert.

 

The statement by Diamond in the article said " if a seed does not recieve the

elements it needs, IT WILL NOT GROW... " . Your statement was:

 

" He typed in CAPITAL LETTERS that plant will not grow if it’s deficient, so

here is a link about Mineral Deficiencies in Plants "

 

Diamond's statement is clearly self evident and true. Your statement of what

Diamond said is inaccurate. You missed the point that he was making. He simply

stated that a plant will not be able to grow in a soil that does not contain all

of the nutrients that the plant needs in order to be able to grow. I.e, if the

soil doesn't contain, say, water or phosphorus

or magnesium, and the plant needs those substances to be in the soil for its

growth, the plant will not grow. Likewise a person who does not recieve

water, cannot be expected to grow, since water is needed by humans to grow.

 

Deficient means lacking or inadequate in amount or degree. Obviously, this

means that a deficient soil can still support plant life, albeit less well,

since the soil can still contain some nutrients to some degree. But if the soil

contains absolutely none of certain nutrients needed by the plant, the plant

cannot possibly grow.

 

The author of the article added to Diamonds statement " OR WILL GROW POORLY "

because they also misinterpreted what Diamond was saying. The author also

didn't realize that Diamond wasn't talking about deficient soils. Diamond was

talking about soils that contain NONE of certain nutrients that a plant needed

to be in the soil for the plants growth.

 

Obviously a plant grows best in sufficient soils. Saying soils are deficient

is only an argument for making them more sufficient. Eating supplements does

not make soils sufficient. It only leads to ignoring the soil problem and to

generalized thinking that humans can get away with eating the harmful foods and

following the harmful practices by eating some

magical concentrated substance instead of addressing the source of our problems

-- the harmful practices that we felt supplement use could overcome.

 

Robert

 

 

viola wrote:

 

> Robert,

>

> This is from the article you suggested:

>

>

>

> “…The pill pushers are quick to say that our soil is deficient, but according

to Diamond and others, if a seed does not receive the elements it needs IT WILL

NOT GROW (OR WILL GROW POORLY - author). Also, plants obtain nutrients from

other sources in greater amounts: the sun, water and the air. Plants actually

obtain only about 1% of nutrients from the soil…”

>

>

>

>

>

> Some people love to talk just for the sake of talk. Did that guy actually

measured how much nutrients a plant gets from the soil? How did he come up to

1%? If it was the truth then we would not spend our money on fertilizing.

>

> He typed in CAPITAL LETTERS that plant will not grow if it’s deficient, so

here is a link about Mineral Deficiencies in Plants

>

> http://www.luminet.net/~wenonah/min-def/list.htm

>

>

>

>

>

> Nora Lenz <nmlenz wrote:Hi again, Jeff,

>

> Sorry for the delay. I appreciate your inquiring manner along with your

> pleasant reactions to my posts. It definitely keeps communication

> enjoyable.

>

> Here is a link concerning B12 that you might not have read:

>

> http://www.living-foods.com/articles/b12issue.html

>

> As you know, I don't tell a person what they should or shouldn't do.

> That is up to them. I merely attempt to point out some facts, evidence, or

> logic that a person can use to hopefully help themselves make their own

> decisions. A person does not have to eat an " ideal " diet to secure their

> b12 needs. They only need to predominantly eat foods of a type and in a way

> that secures and maintains a healthy condition within their stomach and

> intestines so that they remain able to absorb and assimilate the b12 that is

> produced by their intestinal flora and provided by their foods. Improved

> assaying techniques are showing that fruits and vegetables do contain b12.

> We do not need to eat dirt, ants, insects, meat, dairy, etc, to secure our

> b12. Our intestinal flora feed off the food we eat to create lots of viable

> 12 in our intestines which is readily absorbed in those people who are

> reasonably healthy.

>

> Some factors that prevent b12 absorption in individuals are:

>

> 1. Eating processed food over long periods of time -- the stomach loses its

> secretive and digestive abilities.

> 2. Eating spicy or irritating foods that contain anti-biotic substances

> such as onions, garlic, and radishes (contain allicin and mustard oil, two

> bacterial and cellular poisons)

> 3. Alcohol, coffee, cigarette, prescribed anti-biotic and other common

> drugs, vinegars of all sorts, and other irritating poison use.

> 4. Meat and dairy consumption -- causes over acidity in the intestines and

> tissues, which destroys b12 and other nutrients needed in its use.

>

> A person who refuses to eat sensibly has not only to concern themselves

> about a possible b12 deficiency. B12 acts symbiotically in our bodies with

> dozens of other substances. B12 does not act on its own, and its absorption

> requires that our body can create, secrete, and combine with b12 many other

> chemicals in a suitable environment within our guts. All these chemicals

> must be present for us to benefit from b12. A poor or improper diet will be

> deficient and imbalanced in every nutrient known and unknown. One might

> then advise a processed food eater to take every type of supplement

> available. Of course, there are thousands of yet undiscovered nutrients in

> our natural foods, and supplements for these are as yet unavailable. The

> only way to secure all of our nutrients would be to eat our natural foods in

> as natural a state as possible. Of course one also needs to note that no

> animal or plant has ever been shown to be able to live on a diet of

> supplements. Our natural foods contain all that we need, in the amounts we

> need, and in the symbiotic combinations we need.

>

> Bacteria do not produce b12 from just dirt. Bacteria use foods or

> substances that contain cobalt and other nutrients, such as is found in

> many, if not all, fruits and vegetables. If someone claims that we need to

> eat meat, dairy, or insects, etc, to get our b12, then it would be best that

> that person secures their b12 from those sources, rather than supplements.

> This is the case since b12 never acts alone and is always found in

> conjunction with other very necessary nutrients in natural foods. If meat,

> etc., are natural foods for our b12 needs, then these foods will have other

> necessary food components too. A pill or supplement cannot ever hope to

> provide all of these nutrients in the proportions, combinations, and

> structures that our body needs. Of course, we can get our b12 from fruits

> and veggies so we don't have to resort to substances such as meat and dairy.

>

> In regards to dairy, meats, etc, if these are part of our natural

> foods, it would seem peculiar that nature would require us to get one or

> more nutrients from a food that we are not completely suited to eat. It is

> clear that meat, dairy, etc, have many harmful aspects in their

> nutrient/chemical character (mother's milk is perfectly suited for infants,

> not for adults). In nature, biological life evolves alongside its food

> source, and so develops an ability to maximally benefit from its food, in

> every way, with no harm done. It would not make sense if nature required us

> to use for our health a food that at the same time created our disease. It

> can only make sense that nature provides in any one type of food all that we

> need and all that we can digest at the same time. Nature does this with

> rabbits, goats, bears, etc. It does so with us too.

>

> A person who eats a cooked or processed diet can look forward to

> developing a host of problems, deficiencies, etc. For the vast majority of

> people, B12 is their least concern. The b12 hysteria preys upon fears,

> uncertainties, gullibilities, and misinformation. If a person wants to eat

> denatured b12 substitutes just to be " safe " , then it would only seem logical

> that the person eat all other known and unknown nutrients in supplement

> form, to also be " safe " .

>

> It's revealing to note that symptoms for b12 " deficiency " are shared with

> hundreds of other diseases. This makes it mostly arbitrary what type of

> supplement is chosen for any one disease.

>

> The medical study of b12, along with every other discovered nutrient,

> is very incomplete and severely lacking in scope, and is biased towards the

> false germ theory. Medicine has a very poor understanding of the nature of

> health and disease. Medicine is comparable to a blind man searching for a

> black cat in an pitch black room in which there is no cat. Any study done by

> medicine can be expected to be very misleading. For example, they determine

> their " normal " levels of b12 on studies made from everyday people eating a

> SAD diet. That's like trying to determine what " normal " levels of alcohol

> are in humans by studying levels of alcohol in alcoholics.

>

> Much more can be said, but I'll leave it at that. If I'm asked, the

> only advice I might give to a person who refuses to give up their harmful

> ways is to maybe reconsider what they are doing or maybe get a high paying

> job or good insurance to pay for the medical bills that are going to come

> up.

>

> For an individual who is already improving their diet and other habits,

> I'd suggest that an indepth study of the laws of life might be beneficial,

> as will a familiarization of the facts, evidence, logic, observations, and

> experiments, as shown in the article in the link above, that counter the b12

> scare.

>

> Oh yeah, Jeff. It may be true that there are nutrients in all sorts of

> organic substances. We only benefit from those substances if we can digest

> them. Our normal foods allow us to do that without adding anything harmful.

> Swamp water might be good in some respects, but a person can easily find

> foods to eat that have no harmful effects. The same goes for inorganic iron

> from a hammer. Our cells can't use inorganic substances, nor hammers. They

> need minerals, etc, in the organic form found in our natural foods. Bacteria

> can use inorganic substances, but our life depends on our particular

> cellular structure remaining in its own form. We can derive much benefit

> from our bacterial populations, but our cells cannot do as bacteria do, and

> our cells do not need to. Our cells are highly evolved forms of various

> bacteria and simpler forms of life. Our cells form organs, tissues, etc, to

> form our bodies. All of our parts, including our bacterial forms, live

> symbiotically together to create perfect harmony, or health, so long as we

> adhere to our normal health supporting habits. Supplements only add to the

> burden our bodies must bear due to our unhealthy behaviours.

>

> In reply to some other points made by others, I'll say it is axiomatic that

> nature's laws are unbreakable. Thus I stated that " they are trying to break

> ... laws " . The part of the expression that stated all or not obeying any

> laws, was to be taken in context with the rest of the article. I naturally

> was implying the physiological and biological laws that pertain to the

> eating of b12 supplements, which are many. In his act of " throwing the book "

> at a law breaking person, a judge is not really accusing the person of

> breaking all the laws, but rather many laws that pertain to the particular

> matter being judged. The person can expect to suffer consequences based on

> the whole set of laws broken, which are different than consequences for each

> law alone, added up. It's difficult to write everything in explicit detail

> without making these posts inordinately long. I do not speak of natures

> laws as if nature is some authoritative body. Nature is very rational and

> lets us all do as we please, with no desire to punish us, even as harm comes

> to us as we pursue unsound practices.

>

> In my statements, I merely meant to point out that all of nature's laws,

> whether discerned or not by the human intellect, act together to form a

> whole, and it is this whole that we are faced with every day in our lives.

> Attempts at breaking one of the laws is really an attempt to break the

> wholeness. Nature doesn't act one law at a time with each law separate from

> all or any others. It thus may be said that an attack on one law leads to an

> attack on all the laws, or the wholeness. From this perspective stems my

> comments.

>

> I'm sorry if I was not specific and clear enough in my other post. I

> realize, Jeff, I probably gave you information you didn't need to hear

> again, here, regarding b12, but I thought I'd include it all for the

> possible benefit of others, and for the purpose of keeping all things in

> perspective.

>

> Robert

>

>

>

>

> SBC - Internet access at a great low price.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I recall learning in a class of a study of a tree. (this is the basic

jist of it) A seed was planted in a large pot of dirt after the soil

was weighed. A large tree eventually grew. The tree was removed and

the soil was weighed. There was very little difference in weight from

before the tree was planted, even though the tree may have weighed

tons!

 

Obviously, it does not get it's mass from the soil.

 

Jeff

 

>Some people love to talk just for the sake of talk. Did that guy

>actually measured how much nutrients a plant gets from the soil? How

>did he come up to 1%?

[Guest guest]

Jeff, did you ever buy plants in pots to plant them in your garden? So when you

remove that plant from the pot, do you really see a way to separate roots from

soil? But you believe that someone did.

In that paragraph they didn’t say about 1% of weight. They said: “Plants

actually obtain only about 1% of nutrients from the soil”. So if this is

correct, then why do you make compost? Just plant your vegetables in whatever

soil you have, it will get it’s 99% of nutrients from water, sun and air, and

you will get veggies full of nutrients :-)

 

Jeff Rogers <jeff wrote:I recall learning in a class of a

study of a tree. (this is the basic

jist of it) A seed was planted in a large pot of dirt after the soil

was weighed. A large tree eventually grew. The tree was removed and

the soil was weighed. There was very little difference in weight from

before the tree was planted, even though the tree may have weighed

tons!

 

Obviously, it does not get it's mass from the soil.

 

Jeff

 

>Some people love to talk just for the sake of talk. Did that guy

>actually measured how much nutrients a plant gets from the soil? How

>did he come up to 1%?

 

 

[Guest guest]

From Robert, again,

 

Compost, mulch, and other natural substances added to soil provide an

environment for a very well balanced and lively bacterial population in the

soil, not to mention other organisms. Top soil, in fact, consists mostly of

bacteria. The black colour of rich soil is due to high concentrations of

bacteria. Soil turns brown when the bacteria

become depleted. The bacteria use mineral elements in the soil, along with air

and water, to provide nutrients for the plant. Besides breaking down rock

minerals in soil, bacteria fix nitrogen and other elements from the air and make

them available for plants. Bacteria in the guts of worms do the same. In the

end, plants get most of their

weight gain from nutrients and chemicals taken from the air. A plant mostly

consists of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, like humans. These elements come from

carbon dioxide and water. Plants get water from the air, as well as from the

soil. Water in the soil is provided by the atmosphere (air). The ash

(minerals) left over after a plant is

burned, though very important, is very, very small in amount compared to the

overall weight of the unburned plant, around 1% or less. Similarly, a fully

cremated human only leaves a few pounds of ashes, if that, with most of the ash

coming from bones (which plants don't have).

 

A soil that does not contain a rich and diverse population of bacteria and

other life forms cannot grow plants very well. NPK added to the soil can

artificially add nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium to the soil, which are

important minerals in the structure of the plant, but NPK also poisons and

imbalances the soils, as I noted in my

other post, which leads to abnormally growing plants, with nutrient imbalanced

fruit and vegetables.

 

There are plants that grow with their roots exposed to the air, without soil.

There are also trees that grow on rock faces, with very little or no soil

around. Grasses will even grow in cracks in heavily travelled roadways made of

pavements and concrete. These types of vegetation are generally less refined

than garden plants, etc, and so can

grow in harsher environments. These facts point out that soil isn't necessarily

needed for plant growth, but bacterial growth most certainly is.

 

Different plants grow in soils according to the nutrient and life content

of the soils. Our hybrid vegetable and fruit plants/trees are types of

vegetation that are dependent on soils that have a rich diversity of life forms,

mostly bacteria, in them. Weeds can grow in soils that are less rich in

bacterial diversity and in soils that are

not balanced in the way soils are that support our favoured plants.

 

Human life depends on a diverse nutrient supply so that the complex chemical

nature of its cells can be developed. This is provided us by fruit and

vegetables raised in balanced mineral rich soils. These soils must be generally

rich in life -- bacteria and other micro-organisms. Without the life in the

soil, the soil is useless for us.

Without the variety of minerals and life in the soil, soil can't support the

fruits and other types of vegetation we need for our growth. Weeds can't

provide us with the type of nutrient balance we need because they grow in less

nutrient and less life rich soils. Trees are slow growing, generally, so they

are not as dependent on rich, life

filled soils as fruit and vegetable producing plants are. Bushes are somewhere

in between.

 

A cooked soil can support no plant growth. Only a seed can sprout in

cooked soil, since seeds, at first, don't need other life forms around to

sprout. They generally just need warmth, water, and a protective environment.

But once the seed runs out of its energy stores, it's growing sprout and roots

becomes dependent on living organisms

(bacteria, etc) in the soil for a nutrient supply.

 

Roots of plants, or trees, are primarily made of carbon, hydrogen, and

oxygen too, which ultimately come from the air. The roots of a plant may replace

some of the space in its container, but this space has only been provided by the

lessened amounts of bacteria. The mineral content of the soil has changed very

little. The increased weight and

size of the roots are mostly due to the carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen that has

been cycled into the soil by the plant structure above ground and the bacteria

in the soil. It could be expected that the weight of the soil will be overall

slightly increased due to the added weight of air derived carbon, oxygen,

hydrogen, and nitrogen, and other

elements.

 

One can see that soil really is an engine for plant production. Soil is like

a factory. The soil engine mostly uses the atmosphere for its source of fuel as

it provides for the growth of plants. Humans have repeated this system with

their factories that create products, or goods. The products of factories do

not consume the factory. Rather,

the factory consumes mostly other IMPORTED materials (analogous to imported

oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and other nutrients from air) that are then

changed by the MACHINERY of the factory (analogous to the BACTERIA of soil) into

the products that emerge from the factory (analogous to plants). The product of

every factory is heavily

dependent on the types, complexities and amount of machinery in the factory. In

like manner, plants (products of soil), are heavily dependent on the nature,

type, and volume of bacteria (machinery) in the soil. So it is that compost,

mulch, etc, are added to our gardens to provide the exceedingly complex

machinery that is needed to make our

favoured plants. Of course, over many years, the machinery of the factory wears

out (analogous to the slow removal from the soil of some of its mineral

nutrients) and the factory no longer can produce its products. A factory that is

starved of its imported materials, or raw goods, cannot produce products, just

as soil cannot produce plants if

there is no water or air around. As well, a burned down factory cannot produce

goods, just as cooked soil cannot produce plants.

 

 

I hope that added some clarity, Robert

 

 

 

viola wrote:

 

> Jeff, did you ever buy plants in pots to plant them in your garden? So when

you remove that plant from the pot, do you really see a way to separate roots

from soil? But you believe that someone did.

> In that paragraph they didn’t say about 1% of weight. They said: “Plants

actually obtain only about 1% of nutrients from the soil”. So if this is

correct, then why do you make compost? Just plant your vegetables in whatever

soil you have, it will get it’s 99% of nutrients from water, sun and air, and

you will get veggies full of nutrients :-)

>

> Jeff Rogers <jeff wrote:I recall learning in a class of a

study of a tree. (this is the basic

> jist of it) A seed was planted in a large pot of dirt after the soil

> was weighed. A large tree eventually grew. The tree was removed and

> the soil was weighed. There was very little difference in weight from

> before the tree was planted, even though the tree may have weighed

> tons!

>

> Obviously, it does not get it's mass from the soil.

>

> Jeff

>

> >Some people love to talk just for the sake of talk. Did that guy

> >actually measured how much nutrients a plant gets from the soil? How

> >did he come up to 1%?

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

 

These are some interesting observations about soil vs. plant weight

that I hadn't thought of before. They certainly seem accurate

though. I would assume the great majority of plant weight consists

of water (just as with animals).

 

One quote I ran across a while back stated, " The soil is the stomach

of the plant. " This seems to be the more essential function of soil --

it processes and prepares the ingredients which plants are built

from. The microorganisms in soil digest organic compounds, breaking

them down into the component chemicals which plants then use as their

building-blocks.

 

I think this is why healthier soil leads to healthier and more

nutrient-dense plant life.

 

Consider that healthier soil has higher concentrations of essential

chemicals -- which enable plants to grow and function -- and the

emphasis here is on enabling plant *function*, and not so much on the

plants' mass being made up of soil-derived ingredients per se.

 

This explains why a farmable piece of land can be kept healthy by

rotating the type of crops grown on it; just growing one type there

season after season will sap the soil of a given needed nutrient.

Seasonal crop rotation ensures that the soil is rejuvenated

periodically, by choosing crops which complement each other in their

net effect on the soil.

 

Good stuff.

 

Joel