Here's some information that may be new to you, joel.
I suggest that you review it, not because it's "the truth" -- it's not
but, because it's out there and it may be something that you would
----- Original Message -----
From: joel strickland <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2000 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Licorice
> well, i did say i was quite sure the seaweed claim is wrong, and good luck
> investigating it further. so i don't think i was being overly dogmatic.
> for what it's worth, i haven't just researched this on the web. i've read
> (somewhere, i can't recall where) that vegans on sea vegetables still get
> pernicious anemia. to me, that's conclusive.
> (incidentally, i don't agree that most science is paid for by industry, at
> least in the US. the National Science Foundation pays for a ton of it,
> doesn't benefit from it.)
> could you summarize what cousens says that makes his minority opinion
> as for advocating certain positions, well, i don't claim to have spent
> time absorbing the culture of this list, so if i'm being offensively sure
> myself, i apologize. i know that when it comes to food, all kinds of
> tribal allegiances come into play. food seems to be a marker for the
> who is generally suspect.
> there are serious financial and health consequences to the dietary choices
> one makes, and many contesting claims to validity that need to be weighed.
> one has to choose something - one obviously can't defer about what to eat
> forever, so one is reduced to making the best judgement one can given
> incomplete and biased information. so, i've gathered that as a mostly
> vegan, it's in my best interest to make sure i'm getting some artificial
> b12. but i'm certainly open to new information that would affect that
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Hovila" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2000 7:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Licorice
> > 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
> > >
> > > 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,
> > 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.
> > read some stuff on a web site with nice looking references that says
> > 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
> > 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
> > hobby? One of the references in the web site article you liked is from
> > 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
> > research is necessarily bad. But it is good to be aware of the
> > conflict, and I'm glad Cousens made it clear in his book who paid for
> > 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
> > 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