Dr. Doug Graham (80-10-10 raw vegan)

[The Grand Nudger]

With regards to my dietary choices....let me give you a little list.

I do eat beef, not often, but I do. It's probably the most wasteful thing I eat so I'll use that as a very unfavorable baseline.

On average, there are 430lbs of retail cuts after weight "on the hoof" is reduced to "the rack" and further to the store shelves. Now I live in cattle/horse country - so I can get it cheaper from my neighbors pastured animals..and if I wanted to, I bet Beverly would even let me shoot the fucker in the head..to make sure it died quick by my own hand. Now, these cattle don;t look to be suffring very much. My kids think they're pets. We feed them, wash them (and they aren't even ours..they just hang out on my fenceline looking for handouts). As I understand it, she keeps them primarily as a tax break when she doesn't have thoroughbreds to board. Long story short..they're happy cattle. There's still that one thing though, where I kill them. hrugs:

So, at 4 ounces per day thats. 1720 days of beef per 1 dead cow. At 6 ounces it's 1146.6rep...lets call that 1147 days of beef per 1 dead cow. So, for me....arguing that the cow suffered (which it plainly does not) I could continue eating beef for over 3 years on the balance of a single soul.

-but, can we down the rabbit hole on this one? Yup. Cattle end up eating approx 3000 lbs of grain -alone- over the course of their life. That amounts to about a half acres worth of corn. 100ft x100ft, or so. Now - how do we quantify the souls harmed, injured, killed, displaced ......suffering for every half acre of cropland established and devoted to meat production? Give me some means to determine this that you would accept and lets see whether or not it;s the meat eating or the grain production that yields more suffering?

The bar is 1 dead cow over 3 years per half acre of developed cropland.

Taking that further down the hole, what does the crop need to survive? About 70 gallons of oil- for starters. Who knows what lethal concoctions I might also avail myself of in service of the seed. I don;t think that would be quantifiable...but I could probably find averages.

So now the bar is set at 1 dead cow over three years per half acre of developed land and 70gallons of oil (and assorted toxic chemicals).

......I can keep going...it just gets worse and worse for the ag end though, as the number of dead cattle doesn't continue to balloon everytime I go down a step. Worse yet, the production described (our current method and the reason that meat is a byproduct) is not the best practice of livestock production, nor is it even required for livestock production. We can't actually eat the grains used themselves, so there's no option to just eat all of that corn instead of the cow, before you even ask- and no, the land used for livestock grains is not amenable to mixed veggie production (though it can, ironically, be used to produce livestock directly) so there's no option of simply growing tomatos (or even grain that is useful to us) instead..lol.

Why -wouldn't I eat the cow, that eats the grass, use it's manure to fertilize my veggies...and eat them (in the process supplementing the cows diet with vegetable mass as human beings eat a tiny portion of most veggies total structure-single digit percentages-)? I could cut everything out of the above rundown that follows "1 dead cow". Don't you think that might have a positive effect on the relative amount of suffering that my dietary decisions cause...relative to your own, for example? (If you'd like, pick what you feel to be the most wasteful thing you eat and I'll get you some numbers, or hell, the least wasteful..I'll line my worst case up against your best case).

I can't..before you ask, just not kill the cow. Firstly, I need that manure (to cut out the oil)- but I can't afford to actually keep the cow past the three year mark (as that's when it begins to be a recurring cost with no gain in yield...a reduction in yield, actually - as opposed to selling it...and we know what happens to sold cattle don't we)...if I did that, my family would suffer - but I would also be forced to increase the developed portion of my land at a ratio commensurate to absorb that cost. I want to minimize that (to cut out all the dead critters). I would also have to increase my land further to cover the loss of that 4-6 ounces of meat...and since cattle have an abysmal rate of exchange available to us....that means I'd need 10x the weight in just the right veggies (which themselves have further requirements) to offset that loss. At the same yield as grains mentioned above (ludicrous, nothing yields like the grains we've dicked with for feed - not even close ...but what the hell, right?) that means I'd need another half acre of intensively developed land to cover that as well .How many critters have to die to save this cows life? I'm willing to shoot the motherfucker as a matter of course but we're approaching the thresh-hold of a decent Godwin already-I almost feel justified in killing the damn thing after we've done a little math.

If somebody came to me for an assessment on an ag startup model with those numbers....I'd tell his silly ass to invest in government bonds for a better overall return...as well as a better rate of return. I'd also suggest that he not scorch the earth around him for his love or sympathy of what must be his pet cow - to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. So you can see my predicament, what with wanting to reduce suffering but simultaneously wanting to continue in food production, with wanting to reduce suffering by my dietary choices but also wanting to be thorough and honest about them? It's not as though there isn't a part of me that wouldn't resist a moral or ethical condemnation of meat -in the event that we solve all of our relevant ag issues- that portion of me exists. It has canines and a well developed suite of apparatus for hunting and killing other animals (complete with supplemental chemical conditioning to increase the propensity -for- and enjoyment -of-). We're just not at the point (technologically, or methodologically) where I have to grin like a jackal and say "because they taste delicious" -yet.

Rest assured, when that days comes - I will. I mention this just in case you think I'm looking to actually take the high ground. I'm not, I'm simply looking to remove you -from it-.
I think the whole things a shit sandwich (not the least of which my own inner drives).

[miniboes]

No, you shouldn't. You didn't even know what cholesterol is.

How did you determine that?

Vegan diets often lead to cholesterol deficiency

Your (not anecdotal) evidence is?

Everyone has to die eventually.

Why? Who decided that? Even if that is true, would that mean we should not try to prevent death?

As you can clearly see, the condition is much more prevalent among older people. And this is just people with the condition, not necessarily people that go on to die from that particular condition. Of people aged 45-54, 23% had CVD.

Take a look at this:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx...eid=286620

300 autopsies were performed on US battle casualties in Korea, the average age was 22. I quote:

In 77,3% of the hearts, some gross evidence of coronary arteriosclerosis was found.

In this context, gross evidence means visible to the eye. In some of the soldiers, some arteries were clogged for 90%. This publication shows that heart disease starts decades before the age CVD is a clinically recognized problem (before symptoms arise). A similar study with over 1500 autopsies confirmed the findings. This study found fatty streaks, the first stage of atherosclerosis, in almost a 100% of children of age 10. So what's accounting for these plaques in kids? Well, autopsies were performed on people who died between ages 3 and 26, and the largest risk factor was found to be cholesterol. See in this graph how LDL cholesterol clogs the arteries;



Granted, it was only looking at 30 kids. So here's a study of 3000 kids that confirmed the findings:

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/122442...k7W2xyb.12

So sure, it is diagnosed mainly in old people, but it starts at age 10 and cholesterol is definitely the largest factor.

Of people with CVD, only 33% reported their health as bad/poor - which is three times higher than the non-CVD population. So only 7.7% of people aged 45-54 both had CVD and reported their health as being bad. That's a lot less than the 30% figure you came up with.

Wait what? The 30% is not about how many people with CVD report their health as being bad, it's the percentage of deaths caused by CVD. I don't see how the two are even related. Also, it's a global statistic, not an Australian one. I quote the WHO:

"An estimated 17.3 million people died from CVDs in 2008, representing 30% of all global deaths(1). Of these deaths, an estimated 7.3 million were due to coronary heart disease and 6.2 million were due to stroke (2)."

Major preventable risk factors for cardiovascular disease include tobacco smoking, hypertensive disease (high blood pressure), high blood cholesterol, inadequate physical activity, overweight and obesity, poor nutrition and diabetes (AIHW 2004).

Poor nutrition, that one is important! Because you know, it leads to many of the other things. And guess what if you improve your nutrition and lifestyle? You can reverse heart disease.

No, you don't. When I pressed you to answer whether someone should continue veganism if they find that it's bad for their health, you gave me some nonsense about CVD

I told you that they should improve their diet because it is probably faulty, but if there is no other way by all means they should eat meat. However, for the huge majority of people a vegan diet is not unhealthful at all. Then I pointed out that the slight possibility of B12 deficiency really doesn't stack up against a cure for the disease that takes more lives than any other, which I think is highly relevant. To say your anecdotal B12 deficiencies weighs up against CVD is like saying the Dutch mafia is as powerful as the US military.

The simple fact is that that a much greater proportion of animals are edible by humans - in fact even animals which we generally have other uses for and generally do not eat: cats, dogs, horses, donkeys, alpacas, etc. are still edible, and available to provide nourishment if we find ourselves in a situation where we needed to eat such animals. Unlike domesticated grains, the original wild forms of these domestic animals (wolf, wildcat, wild boars, etc) are edible as well. Of course when thinking about land animals it is the herbivorous which are healthiest, but we can eat just about any of them. We can, and do, also eat a range of marine life.

You know, edible is a pretty vague term. Where do you draw the line between bad food and not food? Dirt is not food, but are donuts? Are extremely alcoholic drink, decisively bad for our health? Please define what you mean by edible.

And finally, human teeth are designed for meat. I see vegans often wrongly claiming that they aren't, but they are - we have teeth designed to shear the meat from the bone, and teeth designed to chew. Furthermore, the archaeological record has shown that people who ate large amounts of meat had little to no cavities in their teeth, but those who ate large amounts of grain had more cavities.

I agree, our teeth are designed by evolution to be able to shear meat. That proves nothing more than that we are designed to be able to eat some meat, and says nothing about if it is healthy. Also, I don't think cavities are relevant as they have little effect on natural selection.

---

Because food production requires a vast amount of chemical inputs that livestock can provide (as well as shallow tilling, pest control, storage etc).

There are vegan fertilizers in the works, what else?

Because livestock can be grown in places and times where mixed veg cannot?

Well, we do need to feed the livestock with plants, so that does not seem relevant especially as 50% of the world's grains are fed to livestock.

Because livestock can process things which are not useful to us into that which is useful to us

Albeit not very efficiently, and we might as well start growing things that are useful to us instead.

Because livestock is not a weapon with which countries can wage war, or tinpot dictators can prop themselves up with.

I still don't see why we need to choose between using less fossil fuels and decreasing the scale of the livestock industry. Why not both?

Are you sure that your "interest to live" arises from your conscious...and if it did, how do we explain the startling similarities between ourselves and "non-conscious" life regarding the avoidance of death and harm? Anything you might reference as an example of an animals "interest to live" -including our own- is most likely going to apply to a rage of creatures that you would not attribute sentience to. Go ahead, try to come up with an example.

I am not really interested in having a discussion about interest to live as it is not nearly as important as sentience. But anyway, I think our disagreement on interests to live is mainly semantics. I see being aware of what is good for you an essential part of having interests, you do not seem to think that is so.

My second question asked whether or not we're only going to be appraising what we eat with all of this, whether or not this same criteria of suffering is applied equally to any human activity. If so...I'm mystified by your comments about fossil fuels being less deleterious and harmful than livestock production.

Well, as at least a hundred billion animals are slaughtered each year by the dairy and meat industries, I do think for now the suffering it causes is greater. But the livestock industry is the #1 emitter of GHGs, so do our interests not align here?

How do you propose that we meet our nutrient requirements (both in production and consumption), since you've taken away the one manner in which we know we can rely on indefinitely - the manner in which fertility is built "in the wild" and has been since time immemorial as causing more suffering....than fossil fuels. Is there an alternative to these two....have you told anyone about this alternative? A great many people would appreciate this information, myself included. Tell you what, I'll even cut you in on the trillions of dollars (and subsequent nobel prize) such a solution could rake in. Deal?

I'm not that brilliant. I do want to mention that I do not propose abolishing the livestock industry tomorrow, that is just not possible. It must be a gradual process to give the world time to adapt, a gradual process that is ongoing right now; veg*nism is getting more and more popular. I do think we could start by giving some more of our grains to people and feeding the cattle with grass/hay instead, which is healthier for them anyway.

---

Even if that was an accurate summation of what Rhythm said (hint: it's not) it would still be a blatantly obvious false equivocation. You are equating a lack of motivation to act on one side with proactively working to exacerbate the problem on the other.

I do not think paying someone else to do the dirty work for you makes it any better. If Hitler pays the SS to kill jews, I think Hitler is as much of a killer as the people that turn on the gas chambers are. If one buys meat, one is just as much contributing to the suffering of animals as the people that shoot them are. You might not agree with the slaughter, but you know that it is an essential part of meat production (well, unless we're talking about the upcoming artificial meat, you guys excited for that?).

[The Grand Nudger]

There are vegan fertilizers in the works, what else?

There are "vegan fertilizers" already existent - but I'm wondering what breakthroughs you think are forthcoming on that count..and how you imagine those fertilizers to be produced? Just calling something vegan doesn't actually do -anything-. Certainly doesn't reduce the suffering of animals.

Well, we do need to feed the livestock with plants, so that does not seem relevant especially as 50% of the world's grains are fed to livestock.

Grain which is otherwise waste, yup. But we don't -have- to feed them that waste product.

Albeit not very efficiently, and we might as well start growing things that are useful to us instead.

They are useful to us (much more than -just- as food), and they are more efficient than we are at converting what is nothing - to us, into something, to us. One of the few things that can be grown on the land suitable for livestock - is feed grain for livestock. Understand? That was one driving factor in the rise of the feedlots. You can grow 2 cattle worth of corn on land that -under pasture- could support some percentage less than 2 cattle. It made sense for prodcuers, financially, to shift the cattle to filing cabinets and free up that pastureland for some choice grain cultivars. Those cultivars themselves being the product of a half century of dedicated breeding - You won't eat them, but they grow like weeds reletive to their cousins whom you will eat. We combined that with chemical programs (sometimes tied into the cultivar, think:roundup ready). Now, why not grow veggies there? Because it would cost so much more to do so. The land would need extensive development and extraneous inputs - it could not be reliably competitive in the market....because it is wasteful of energy and input. That's assuming that they could even be grown /w modification and inputs - which is a hell of an assumption, you might need an indoor operation.

I still don't see why we need to choose between using less fossil fuels and decreasing the scale of the livestock industry. Why not both?

Because without fossil fuels we'd need an -increase- in livestock production for fertility. If we don't have livestock we'll need an increase in fossil fuels (and we'll be on a timer even so). Decrease scale and consumption of both and you will decrease the amount of food available to an already starving apex predators species (the species, in fact). It's not going to look good for zebras when we're hungrier than we already are - and of course, imagine the suffering. That's just the surface layer, of course. Even if we managed to produce precisely the same amount of food as today (a tall order even -with- those sources) the inflation in the cost of food would have us scrambling to do all manner of rapacious shit just to feed our hellions a box of veggie fortified shells and cheese. Really sit down and think about this. This is the very bottom of the pyramid we're talking about here, after all. Any action you take can have consequences you may not want to claim, there are a great many more ways to do harm or incur suffering than there are to alleviate or reduce it. If we propose something, or we propose that it's even an option, it shouldn't be because we'd only cared to dig deep enough to confirm our bias - and we'd certainly need to understand why we have to make shitty choices before we call those choices immoral or unethical, don;t you think?

I am not really interested in having a discussion about interest to live as it is not nearly as important as sentience. But anyway, I think our disagreement on interests to live is mainly semantics. I see being aware of what is good for you an essential part of having interests, you do not seem to think that is so.

Then cattle don't have interests. They don't know a damned thing, let alone whats good for them. My sirloin tip is safe. Hell with that though, lets run with it. Ever wonder why cattle don't just overrun their shitty little fences - or, when the fence is open, why they just stand there without making a break for it? A credulous man might say that this is because they know whats good for them. That man might claim that the cows have plainly made their vote.

Well, as at least a hundred billion animals are slaughtered each year by the dairy and meat industries, I do think for now the suffering it causes is greater. But the livestock industry is the #1 emitter of GHGs, so do our interests not align here?

Slaughter does not equal suffer. You could make the argument that those animals suffering has permanently ceased, lol. But yeah, insomuch as we both want to make changes to food production that would be both more environmentally conscious and more ethical our interests align.

I'm not that brilliant. I do want to mention that I do not propose abolishing the livestock industry tomorrow, that is just not possible. It must be a gradual process to give the world time to adapt, a gradual process that is ongoing right now; veg*nism is getting more and more popular. I do think we could start by giving some more of our grains to people and feeding the cattle with grass/hay instead, which is healthier for them anyway.

Time to adapt to what? We need fertility. There's no "adapting" to that. Those grains are not fit for human consumption (a huge part of the problem).

I do not think paying someone else to do the dirty work for you makes it any better. If Hitler pays the SS to kill jews, I think Hitler is as much of a killer as the people that turn on the gas chambers are. If one buys meat, one is just as much contributing to the suffering of animals as the people that shoot them are. You might not agree with the slaughter, but you know that it is an essential part of meat production (well, unless we're talking about the upcoming artificial meat, you guys excited for that?).

Remember, our money goes to hurting people too..........sigh...meh, I know you addressed Stim there...but I thought we were past that point. Now you're likening folks to hitler...lol, ffs.

[Aractus]

No, you shouldn't. You didn't even know what cholesterol is.

How did you determine that?

You've demonstrated it.

Vegan diets often lead to cholesterol deficiency

Your (not anecdotal) evidence is?

Look it up yourself that's a fact that stands out very clearly.

Everyone has to die eventually.

Why? Who decided that? Even if that is true, would that mean we should not try to prevent death?

Are you fucking serious?

As you can clearly see, the condition is much more prevalent among older people. And this is just people with the condition, not necessarily people that go on to die from that particular condition. Of people aged 45-54, 23% had CVD.

Take a look at this:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx...eid=286620

300 autopsies were performed on US battle casualties in Korea, the average age was 22. I quote:

In 77,3% of the hearts, some gross evidence of coronary arteriosclerosis was found.

Okay, that was in 1953, where if the USA was similar to Australia CVD prevalence peaked:



How is that relevant to now?

In this context, gross evidence means visible to the eye. In some of the soldiers, some arteries were clogged for 90%. This publication shows that heart disease starts decades before the age CVD is a clinically recognized problem (before symptoms arise).

And that's why I gave you the proper estimated numbers and not the diagnosed numbers.

A similar study with over 1500 autopsies confirmed the findings. This study found fatty streaks, the first stage of atherosclerosis, in almost a 100% of children of age 10.

That was in 1968. That field of research ultimately lead to the USA surgeon general issuing the warning that animal fat causes coronary problems (which we now know isn't true), and recommended decreasing animal fat by 1/4. Despite accomplishing this, the health of the USA continued to decline to the present.

No, you don't. When I pressed you to answer whether someone should continue veganism if they find that it's bad for their health, you gave me some nonsense about CVD

I told you that they should improve their diet because it is probably faulty, but if there is no other way by all means they should eat meat.

I'm surprised to hear you finally admit that.

However, for the huge majority of people a vegan diet is not unhealthful at all.

That's not what the archaeological record shows. Loren Cordian read thousands of peer-reviewed published articles, and thoroughly researched it. His 1999 peer review paper I linked to in the previous thread. When ancient bones have been tested in laboratories across the world, human bones that go back 200,000 years, every single one of them until 10,000 years ago (with the development of agriculture) obtained all of their protein from animal sources (meats). 100%. When agriculture came, wheat and its derivatives became a staple and then serious public health problems occurred including as I mentioned tooth decay (note though that they still all ate some meat). There has not been a single ancient vegan human ever discovered older than the last 200 years. And those who were, were usually facing famine or other stresses and did very poorly.

Furthermore, whenever grain-based diets were adopted there were serious chronic public health problems that followed - this is true in Ancient Egypt, in China and Asia, and right across the ancient world. And certainly all the evidence shows that until 10,000 years ago not a single human didn't eat either meat or fish.

You know, edible is a pretty vague term. Where do you draw the line between bad food and not food? Dirt is not food, but are donuts? Are extremely alcoholic drink, decisively bad for our health? Please define what you mean by edible.

Alcohol provides energy, while having an inverse effect on cognitive function. Also, fermentation provides sanitation to the water (while converting it to wine or vinegar) and there are a number of examples both ancient and more modern where this lead to public health benefits. Doughnut also provide energy. Dirt and grass do not provide humans with any energy.

I agree, our teeth are designed by evolution to be able to shear meat. That proves nothing more than that we are designed to be able to eat some meat, and says nothing about if it is healthy. Also, I don't think cavities are relevant as they have little effect on natural selection.

Right, and yet there is an abundance of evidence that suggests that cereal grains are the root cause of the increase in chronic diseases. The reason being that they don't provide any nutrition besides energy. They are very very low in vitamins and minerals and generally contain little to no protein. Furthermore they also inhibit absorption of vital minerals, essential amino acids and vitamins. This, again, is talked about in scientific literature going back at least 100 years. The recent research done continues to support the findings.

So in order for you to have a new diet, a new way of eating that is different to what humans have done for 200,000 years or longer you need to provide hard credible evidence, other I believe that we are evolutionarily geared towards eating the diet that our ancestors adopted and maintained and thrived upon.

---

Well, we do need to feed the livestock with plants, so that does not seem relevant especially as 50% of the world's grains are fed to livestock.

Where did you pull that figure from? Livestock in Australia primarily eat grass. Dairy cows for instance only eat grass, and would only be fed grain when grass was unavailable. Of the cattle reared for beef, 20% only fed grass, and 80% are fed wheat in the last 2 months or so prior to slaughter in order to fatten them up.

And if you're really that concerned you can always insist to buy grass-fed beef or lamb. For lamb, feedlots only provide a very limited financial benefit and are not used anywhere near as widely (although I'll admit I haven't looked it up). In any case, sheep are primarily fed pasture.

"100% free-range Australian Lamb is all-natural, grass-fed, pasture-raised and free of artificial additives and hormone growth promotants—a pure product of its pure environment. Lambs graze on natural Australian grasslands throughout their lives. (If a regional drought occurs, local feeding may, by necessity, be temporarily supplemented with grain, usually wheat and/or oats until the drought is alleviated.)"

The very last thing humanity needs is to be eating more grains, so if some of that grain is used for rearing livestock that's perfectly fine.

Because livestock can process things which are not useful to us into that which is useful to us

Albeit not very efficiently, and we might as well start growing things that are useful to us instead.

No, they can do it very efficiently. You can have sheep or cattle eat nothing but grass and pasture and produce meat. Most of the land in Australia used for rearing livestock is unsuitable for agriculture and is the best use of the land.

[Aractus]

There's also food allergies. If, as you suppose, we do better with plant-based foods then why do we have so many allergies against them?

Of course you might point out lactose intolerance, that's not an allergy it's an intolerance (the fundamental inability to digest lactose), and it's true that we are not biologically designed to consume dairy past the weaning process - except of course for those of us lucky enough to have the lactose persistence gene which keeps the enzymes needed to digest dairy in our small intestines. For us dairy is healthy.

As for allergies, some people have an allergy to crustaceans or to fish or to eggs. But the most common allergies are to nuts, to peanuts, to wheat and gluten, to soy-beans, and to other specific plants. I've never heard of anyone anywhere having an intolerance to a particular type of meat that isn't fish, although I have heard of people who find an intolerance to meat in general (eg. to white meat vs. red meat). In fact one of my family members was like this for many years and couldn't eat meat so she was forced by her body to be veterinarian (although I'm pretty sure she still ate fish). However now she can and does eat meat again, the intolerance was not a life-long condition.

Also you keep saying you don't want anecdotal evidence like this:

http://youtu.be/T3Px5-9dn3o

The problem with your stance is that it completely contradicts the advice of physicians and the overwhelming majority of dieticians, and most holistic-food enthusiasts (besides vegans) who all advocate that people should work out for themselves what kind of foods are best for their bodies. Dieticians everywhere say that no one diet is right for everyone.

[KichigaiNeko]

No, humans would still digest food (saliva begins the process in the mouth), and some absorption of the digested food would still take place, but yes bacteria is required as part of the normal digestive process in humans, and other animals.

I am thinking you may want to revise the above bolded statement

http://textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora.html

General overview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiome
(see References for validation)

Further reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_digestive_system

Shit, to think that I studied this sans the availability of Google!

[Aractus]

Digestion means the chemical processes applied to extract nutrients from food - HCl (stomach acid) is part of this process. This process includes things that require bacteria, and those that don't. So if you killed all the bacteria in your small intestine, food would still be digested and some energy and nutrients would still be absorbed, but humans of course require bacteria to do some of the digestive work for proper nutrition and energy absorption. Most of the digestion in the stomach occurs due to the HCl and not the relatively few bacteria that live in there. Whereas the digestion that happens in the small intestine is done with enzymes and bacteria.

Alcohol for instance is absorbed through the stomach, and is the only food or nutrient substance I know of that doesn't make it to the small intestine at all. If you eat a food that contains alcohol (e.g. yeast) the food will be digested and alcohol will be extracted and put into your blood for energy without any problem without bacteria. The stomach acid kills the yeast. Your liver will then convert the ethanol molecule into glucose that your other cells can use.

[KichigaiNeko]

Forgot to mention

My latest adventures in oral bacteria/ fungi/ viruses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hairy_tongue

http://www.webmd.com/oral-health/guide/b...iry-tongue

Yes I practice good oral hygiene, but the latest medication my Medico has me on causes hypo-salivation. So this is why I call you to task over bacteria not being present in the oral cavity. Otherwise, why brush our teeth twice a day?

---

Digestion means the chemical processes applied to extract nutrients from food - HCl (stomach acid) is part of this process. This process includes things that require bacteria, and those that don't. So if you killed all the bacteria in your small intestine, food would still be digested and some energy and nutrients would still be absorbed, but humans of course require bacteria to do some of the digestive work for proper nutrition and energy absorption. Most of the digestion in the stomach occurs due to the HCl and not the relatively few bacteria that live in there. Whereas the digestion that happens in the small intestine is done with enzymes and bacteria.

Alcohol for instance is absorbed through the stomach, and is the only food or nutrient substance I know of that doesn't make it to the small intestine at all. If you eat a food that contains alcohol (e.g. yeast) the food will be digested and alcohol will be extracted and put into your blood for energy without any problem without bacteria. The stomach acid kills the yeast. Your liver will then convert the ethanol molecule into glucose that your other cells can use.

Thing is Daniel, you are missing the "chemical processes" that oral bacteria / fungi/ viruses employ in the first digestive processes of our food. Your food is incapable of being "digested sans the micro flora of the intestinal tract" is my thinking; and to have the GI in a sterile situation is untenable and unrealistic.

Something akin to the first Eukaryote "enslaving" the first mitochondria we are in a symbiotic/ interdependent relationship with Bacteria/ Fungi/ Viruses .

As for the stomach... there are a multitude of bacteria and fungi that survive the pH levels. Such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_flora
http://www.livescience.com/515-bacteria-...llies.html
HELICOBACTER PYLORI- http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10....o.54.1.615

We are virtually a walking talking compost heap!

---

This process includes things that require bacteria, and those that don't.

Ahh
You seem to be referring to the Krebs Cycle here. Never could regurgitate the precise sequence to satisfy my examiners and hence Bio-chemistry was the only subject I failed to pass to acquire my certification.

http://www.ict4us.com/r.kuijt/images/en_krebs.jpg

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG..._cycle.jpg

[Dalatias]

Michael Arnstein is quite the shady operator. He's the "Manhattan Businessman Sentenced To Nine Months In Prison For Forging Federal Court Orders To Remove Negative Reviews From Internet Search Results".  This press release is from October 2018 and was issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York -- the same office that is now investigating private-citizen Donald Trump and that Trump tried to shut down previously when he was President.  https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/man...ers-remove

[brewer]

Michael Arnstein is quite the shady operator. He's the "Manhattan Businessman Sentenced To Nine Months In Prison For Forging Federal Court Orders To Remove Negative Reviews From Internet Search Results".  This press release is from October 2018 and was issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York -- the same office that is now investigating private-citizen Donald Trump and that Trump tried to shut down previously when he was President.  https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/man...ers-remove

Hello new entity, thanks for joining.

Can I interest you in creating an introduction thread? We'd like to get to know you a bit more.