Joel,

> The chemical test is inaccurate because it measures both active and
inactive
> forms of B12.  The inactive form interferes with the active form.
> Bottom line: vegans that eat sea vegetables still get pernicious anemia.
>
> This page looks reasonable: http://vrg.org/nutrition/b12.htm, and has
> references at the end.
>
> As a general principle, I wouldn't take positive research paid for and
> presented by companies that benefit from the results as necessarily
> objective science.
>
> It's like the milk industry pushing the myth that "milk builds strong
> bones" - a pet peeve of mine.

I think it's best to keep an open mind about issues like this,
especially
when they involve hard science that most of are not capable of doing
ourselves.  You don't really KNOW that the chemical test is
inaccurate.  You
read some stuff on a web site with nice looking references that says
that.
You're right to be skeptical about a study paid for by a sea vegetable
company.    But let's be realistic - most studies are paid for by
someone
who stands to benefit in some way or another.  Otherwise, they
probably
wouldn't get done.  I mean, who is going to fund a sea vegetable study
as a
hobby?  One of the references in the web site article you liked is
from the
Food and Nutrition Board.  What do you think the odds are that they
get
money from the food industry?  That doesn't mean that all industry
funded
research is necessarily bad.  But it is good to be aware of the
potential
conflict, and I'm glad Cousens made it clear in his book who paid for
the
study.

I realize that Cousens's view is a minority one.  But if you read his
thirteen page chapter on B12, I think you'll agree that it sounds
pretty
reasonable, too.  I have reads lots of stuff about the B12 issue
before,
including the book from which that web page was taken.  I still don't
know
who's right.  My point was not to be an advocate for one position or
another, but to bring out some additional information to consider.

Mark