Hyperuricemia does not cause gout

To be a scientific term, a term must have the same meaning every time it is used. Is causation a scientific term? No – in actual usage, it does not have the same meaning. There is no definition that fits the following two statements:

  1. The motion of the eight ball was caused by a collision with the cue ball (almost true).
  2. Smoking three or more packs of cigarettes per day causes lung cancer (nonsense, there is a contingency table of possible outcomes, and 20% of all lung cancers occur in non-smokers).

But here is a scientific definition, illustrated with two related phenomena, hyperuricemia and gout.

By definition, hyperuricemia causes gout if there is SIN:

  1. S = sufficiency. No one with hyperuricemia does not have gout. Hyperuricemia is sufficient to produce gout all by itself. AND:
  2. I = immediacy. The instant that uric acid concentration exceeds the solubility limit, it precipitates and causes gout. AND:
  3. N = necessity. There is no route to gout that does not precede through the cause, hyperuricemia.

Looking at the data from NHANES 2007-2008 (Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Oct;63(10):3136-41. doi: 10.1002/art.30520. PMID:  21800283):

  1. S = sufficiency is not met: 21.2% of American men have hyperuricemia (> 7mg/dL), while 5.9% have been diagnosed with gout. The correlation is strong, but it is not causal.
  2. I = immediacy is not met by the same data. If it were, there would be 21.2% gout among American men.
  3. N = necessity is not met because roughly a quarter of people with acute gout do not have hyperuricemia. Ref: Schlesinger N et al. Serum urate during acute gout. J Rheumatol 2009 Jun; 36:1287. “Of 339 patients who presented with acute gout, 14% had serum uric acid levels ≤6 mg/dL, and 18% had levels between 6 mg/dL and 8 mg/dL. Mean uric acid level was about 8.3 mg/dL (7.2 mg/dL in patients taking allopurinol, and 8.5 mg/dL in patients not taking allopurinol).” – as summarized by Dr. Allan Brett, https://www.jwatch.org/jw200906300000002/2009/06/30/uric-acid-levels-during-acute-gout-attacks). Sorry, this reference takes 8 mg/dL as the definition of hyperuricemia. To be consistent, as an estimate, let us divide by two the 18% with serum uric acid in the 6-8 mg/dL range. This suggests that roughly 23% of all acute gouty attacks occur in people with serum uric acid in the normal range. In the discrepant cases, did the uric acid spike just before the attack and then subside? I don’t know. But even if it did:

There is no SIN. There is definitely no S, definitely no I, and apparently no N – there is no causation if one of the three is missing.

There is a contingency table of outcomes, gout vs no gout, hyperuricemia vs normouricemia. There is no contingency table describing the outcome of a collision between a cue ball and an eight ball. This physics experiment nearly has all three aspects of causation nailed down. It almost has SIN. Hyperuricemia does not have SIN in the etiology of gout. Biology is a bit more complicated than physics, as in every biological process, many factors oppose many other factors. In biology, outcomes are always a vector sum of the opposing forces and are described by contingency tables. Such is life.

By definition, any phenomenon with a contingency table of outcomes is not causal. All by themselves (sufficiency) causes necessarily (necessity) and immediately (immediacy) produce their effects.

Advertisements

Barking up the wrong tree

Rule 1: The body has it right.

Exception to rule 1: Occasionally, the body has it wrong, especially when harmful substances that look like nutrients are absorbed by nutrient receptors. In these cases, we must keep these harmful substances out of the body.

Corollary of rule 1: when scientists disagree with the body, the rule is that scientists have it wrong, misled as they often are, by missing a single key fact.

Habitually, scientists try to make toxins out of molecules that the body is clearly saying are not toxins. But scientists think they know so much more than the marvelous machine.

The following quote is typical scientific rubbish:

“Fasting is generally thought of as a tool to facilitate detoxification, promoting the mobilization and elimination of endogenous substances such as cholesterol and uric acid and exogenous substances such as dioxin, PCBs, and other toxic chemical residue.”     (http://www.healthpromoting.com/learning-center/articles/fasting-back-future)

Dioxin and PCBs, have relatively low LD50s, and unfortunately get into the body, most likely by mimicry. Cholesterol has no LD50, and is avidly absorbed with specific cholesterol receptors.

Uric acid is only mildly toxic to animals. Uric acid has an LD50 of about 5g/kg body weight: (“Toxicity to Animals: Acute oral toxicity (LD50): 5040 mg/kg [Rat].” (http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9925393)).

Uric acid is approximately 90% reabsorbed by the kidneys. The four substances are not all of the same ilk.

Scientists have cast cholesterol in a toxic role in heart disease, when the gut, given more than one gram of dietary cholesterol, will absorb a gram of it, equal to what it makes every day. To the body, dietary cholesterol is a macronutrient, not a toxin.

The body treats cadmium and fluoride as micronutrients or toxins, excluding roughly 98% of the daily ingested doses. Scientists consider cadmium as a toxin, targeting bone and kidney, and fluoride as an essential nutrient because they do not realize that fluoride is not necessary for good oral health (all we need is proper nutrition. Weston Price gives us about 2 dozen examples). Do scientists make any sense? The body does; scientists do not.

The body treats some toxins as if they were nutrients because of mimicry. Cysteine-derivatized dimethylmercury looks enough like methionine to fool the marvelous machine.

Scientists have cast NaCl as the cause of hypertension. The body’s aggressive absorption of it and its reabsorption when dietary sources are low should caution against this approach. But it does not – the facts of physiology are routinely ignored. Overdoses of nutrients pose problems for the body, especially when it is weakened by poor health, following years of poor nutrition with considerable toxicity. Overdoses of NaCl are not an exception to the rule. Overdoses of NaCl increase the odds of edema and hypertension, but overdoses of salt per se do not cause them, as the study on the isolated island Kuna, with a whole foods diet to which salt is liberally added. Look for a real toxin, something the body does not absorb, or something that gets into the body only because of mimicry, or something that the body does not reabsorb, or something that comes out of the body (as salt no doubt does) during a period in which nothing is going in (as in Dr. Goldhamer’s 11 day distilled water fast), and hypertension is being drastically reduced. Look to the weaknesses in the defense systems that a poor diet, overloaded with salt, exacerbates. High salt is a strong correlate of a poor diet, which is rich in real toxins, and poor in body-repairing nutrients. Thus, a high salt diet will almost always correlate with a poor diet.

Scientists have tried to sell us the idea that uric acid is a toxic cause of gout, and all kinds of CV problems. The 90% reabsorption rate by the kidneys should discourage them, but they persist.

Diseases have no single cause. Diseases result when genuine toxins (hint: not something the body is absorbing or reabsorbing with great efficiency) exploit weaknesses in our defense systems over time.

Uric acid is not the toxin in the etiology of gout. I do not know what toxins are involved in the etiology of gout (acid-generating microbes in synovial joints might precipitate the uric acid crystals, and the acidic response of the immune system would aid this in the case of non-acid-generating microbes and general wound-healing, and the concentrated uric acid may actually help kill the microbes, which may be cleared prior to scoping the joints, but at any rate would be detectable by PCR but not by culture techniques).

Uric acid precipitation is a marker of the severity of gout, not the cause of gout, and higher circulating uric acid concentrations in many gout patients may reflect larger bodily pool sizes due mostly to poor kidney function, leading to numerous trapped precipitates, and when any one of these precipitates becomes severe enough, gouty inflammation occurs.

Poor kidney function is a potent source of higher circulating concentrations of toxins, any one of which may be involved in precipitating urate crystals in synovial joints.

I do not know what toxins are involved in CAD, but cholesterol is not it. Atheroma is there shoring up weakened connective tissue (sometimes the weakness is a microscopic tear, as Virchow envisaged). Yes, atheroma contributes to CAD, but without it, hemorrhage would almost certainly have already occurred. Quicker death or slower death? Is the body really trying to do us in quickly? Or is the body doing what it is always doing, trying to keep us alive in spite of the fact that we – scientists included- are royal screw-ups?

A mountain of evidence for causation taken down by a single stick of dynamite

It is the little fact that does not fit that takes down the mountain of evidence for causation. We must then revise our model from causal toward contributory.

Consider this article that claims that consumption of salt greatly in excess of the body’s needs causes high blood pressure. Change the word “causes” to “contributes to” and the article would be A-OK.

The Salt Institute is wrong in denying that overconsumption of salt contributes to high blood pressure. Experiments with the DASH diet say otherwise. The mountain of data presented in this review says otherwise. The review is: “Diet, Hypertension and Salt Toxicity By James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, LD, FACN Copyright 1998-2011 Food & Health Communications, Inc. This CPE course has been approved by the American Dietetic Association for 8 unit hours. Good through 7/7/2013.”

In Kenney’s own words, “As this review will demonstrate the preponderance of scientific evidence links excessive salt intake to a wide variety of disease processes” and “A recent survey found that only about 10% of Americans are concerned about their salt intake. However, as we shall see, more than 90% of Americans will develop HTN at some point in their lives and excessive dietary salt is the primary causal agent.”

A mountain of evidence, indeed!

The American Dietetic Association approved of this – wow! Imprimatur!

Unfortunately, the mountain of evidence for causation at best leads to the idea that:

  1. Overconsumption of salt contributes to high blood pressure, as the facts of physiology begin to work against the person consuming high salt.
    1. When we are healthy, per Guyton, we can move half a mole of salt out of our bodies each day per liter of urine produced.
    2. As our health declines, so does this number, and if salt consumption does not decrease to below the new levels of salt removal capability, edema and higher pressures are almost a certainty
      1. In this model, edema helps to relieve high blood pressure by draining salty fluid out of the bloodstream (mechanistically, high BP is more likely pushing salt water out of the bloodstream).
      2. These increases in edema and BP are reversible over time when salt is reduced. This is the basis of “salt-sensitive hypertension.”
      3. The irreversible damage done in part by long term over-consumption of salt is not reversible by the DASH low salt diet. This is the basis of “salt-insensitive hypertension” that nevertheless may have a component of its etiology in the chronic over-consumption of salt.
      4. This irreversible component may not be that large. Consider the following study in which almost all of the excess BP was removed by a drastic diet.
      5. A diet with an 11 day medically supervised distilled water fast, sandwiched between low salt, low fat vegan dieting, was able to achieve remarkable reductions in hypertension. Upon entry to the study, only 6% of the patients were on hypertensive medication. All of them were able to discontinue them. The data are shown below.
      6. Conclusion: Medically supervised water-only fasting appears to be a safe and effective means of normalizing blood pressure and may assist in motivating health-promoting diet and lifestyle changes.” (J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2001;24:335-9).
      7. Unfortunately, fasting on distilled water does a lot more than eliminate excess salt from the body. The effects on BP are likely to be pleotropic.
      8. Urinalysis should have been done to document what was coming out of the body when nothing but distilled water and air was going in.
      9. It would be interesting to see how much NaCl was in all of the urine they excreted during 11 days.
      10. The Goldhamer group repeated this study on pre-hypertensive individuals and was able to normalized the blood pressure on 82% of them. THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE. Volume 8, Number 5, 2002, pp. 643–650.
    3. The time required for our health to decline explains why this effect, in part due to over-consumption of salt, kicks in after age 60 for most people.
    4. A pure salt effect should be much more rapid and should significantly increase BP in youth. But:
  2. Is there a slow toxic side reaction to the overconsumption of salt, even when the body is able to move it all out each and every day?
    1. Possibly, a slowly progressing fibrosis throughout the arterial system has been suggested, and if so, this complicates even the interpretation of the isolated Kuna Indian data – how long had they been enjoying high salt in their diet when they were surveyed in 1997 and found to be almost free of hypertension in their 60s and beyond? All we have to go on is lore: “Lore has it that the most dramatic changes in lifestyle have occurred in the past two decades.” ().
  3. The etiology of medical conditions and diseases is relatively simple: toxins exploiting weaknesses in our defenses over time. There is no such thing as an instant disease. There is no such thing as a disease without toxins and there would be no disease, no aging, and no death, if our defenses were perfect in every way.
    1. Defective genes are toxins.
    2. Various pollutants in air and water are toxins.
    3. Various viruses, bacteria, fungi, parasites are toxins.
    4. Even at low doses, poisonous chemicals, chemicals with LD50s, including salt, which is weakly toxic in an acute manner and perhaps more toxic in a chronic sense, contribute to the total toxic load challenging and weakening the body’s defenses, and perhaps stiffening its arterial vessels with progressive fibrosis right down to the arterioles.
    5. All foods contain some toxins.
      1. Even organic vegetables contain toxins: natural plant-produced pesticides and antibiotics, and although some of the chemicals can also be useful, they burden the body’s defense systems.
    6. The most vital of nutrients, oxygen, can be quite toxic when the defenses are weakened.
      1. The case of scurvy.
    7. When the defenses are seriously weakened, even minor league toxins like Salmonella can produce serious diseases, and even death.
      1. A person on immunosuppressants can easily die from a week-long bout of diarrhea, after consumption of food tainted with minor league toxins such as Campylobacter, Salmonella, Listeria, Shigella, or toxigenic E. coli.
      2. Add acid blockers and/or antibiotics (that is, antibiotics to which the pathogen is resistant) to make the person’s defenses  even weaker, increasing his vulnerability.
      3. Add electrolyte deficiencies at the time of the infection, and death is becoming nearly certain.
  4. Most of the salt in the modern diet is coming from processed and prepared food, and thus salt consumption correlates with the consumption of this food. If over-salting was the only problem with this food, the case against salt would be stronger.
    1. Processed and prepared foods are generally higher in toxins and lower in body-sustaining nutrients.
      1. Consider French fries prepared in polyunsaturated oils exposed to light, oxygen, and heat.
    2. When fortified, processed food tends to be nutritionally unbalanced, and this too contributes to health problems.
    3. Yes, processed and prepared foods are also higher in salt than whole foods.
    4. Years of consumption of processed food runs the body’s health down, and eventually it is not even very good at removing the salt in these foods anymore.

Kenney’s review does not mention these facts of physiology, and in fact, states, errantly:

“It seems likely then that the human body is biologically designed to handle far less salt than is now the norm in modern diets”, but unlike other reviews of hypertension, it does mention the isolated Kuna living their traditional lifestyle, eating their traditional food. However it misrepresents the 1997 findings. In 1944 the isolated Kuna had a diet that was low in salt and their blood pressure was healthy even into old age, 60+.

But by 1997, they had secured a source of salt by trading shellfish for salt with Colombians, and had begun to salt their foods liberally. Their average 24 hour urinary output had nearly 3x more Na+ than K+ (a ratio typical of Western diets) and the amount of sodium in their 24 hour urine samples averaged about 0.135 moles per gram of creatinine. Using about 1.2 grams of creatinine per day as the average production, this would argue for a consumption of about 0.16 moles of NaCl per day. This is a high salt diet. This is over 9 grams of salt a day, about the same as modern Americans. The 1997 study found the same healthy blood pressure in the 60+ group. Had they been consuming the high salt long enough to have the posited long-term toxic effect? Don’t know.

Populations like the isolated Kuna who consume whole foods with high salt enable us to isolate the effects of high salt on BP without the many complications of highly salted processed and prepared foods.

Subsequent studies by this group on the isolated Kuna have tried to make the consumption of cocoa the cause of their healthy BP at 60+. No – at most a contributor, a few points lower, as much as adherence to the DASH diet can lower BP by.

The facts of this study are distorted by this review as follows:

“By contrast, many Kuna Indians of Panama who were moderately obese but ate a diet that was low in salt have a very low incidence of HTN. In this population less than 1% of adults had HTN and BP did not rise significantly with age. Today, many Kuna Indians have adopted a more Westernized diet higher in salt and now experience a significant rise in BP with age. However, among Kuna Indians the incidence of HTN still remains lower than that seen in populations who have consumed a high-salt diet throughout life.”

The significant rise in BP was seen only in Kuna who moved to Panama City and its suburbs, and who had adopted a Westernized lifestyle, including the consumption of processed food, which has a higher toxic load, is less nutritious, and higher in salt than whole foods. Kuna living in the Caribbean Archipelago, eating their traditional foods, but salting them liberally, did not experience a significant increase in BP in their 60s. The review seriously distorts the facts.

Here are the relevant data from the 1997 paper. Kuna Nega is the suburb of Panama City and the data may be combined with the data from Panama City, and opposed to the isolated Kuna living on the islands in the Caribbean Archipelago:

TABLE 1.

Kuna: Location, Demographics, and Blood Pressure by Age Group

Index Island Kuna NEGA Panama City
<40 y (n=35) 41–60 y (n=68) >60 y (n=39) <40 y (n=45) 41–60 y (n=31) >60 y (n=14) <40 y (n=46) 41–60 y (n=29) >60 y (n=9)
Age, y 29±2 50±1 71±2 29±0.7 49±0.8 69±2.0 29±0.1 51±0.3 65±0.4
BMI, kg/m2 23.8±1.5 22.4±0.5 21.9±0.9 22.7±0.6 23.8±0.7 22.1±0.1 23.2±0.1 25.1±0.2 23.9±0.5
MBP, mm Hg 81±2 77±1 80±2 82±1.4 83±1.4 92±4.3* 82±0.2 88±6.3 96±2*
  • BMI indicates body mass index; MBP, mean blood pressure.

  • * P<.001 (correlation with age).

And the data on the high salt in the urine of the Island dwellers:

TABLE 2.

Chemical Findings in Serum and Urine in Island-Dwelling Kuna

Serum 24-h Urine
Na, mEq/L K, mEq/L Urea, mg/dL Creatinine, mg/dL Volume, mL Na, mEq/g Creatinine K, mEq/g Creatinine Mg, mg/g Creatinine Ca, mg/g Creatinine Urea, g/g Creatinine
Study results 138±0.2 3.9±0.04 9.9±0.4 1.1±0.02 1320±84 135±15 47±3 63±4 104±9 5.3±0.3
Lab usual Range 136–142 3.5–5.0 9–25 0.8–1.3 75–200 40–80* 120–245* 50–400* 6.0–17.0*
  • * Not normalized to gram creatinine.

Estimates of nutrient intakes, based on 24 hour recall and a host of assumptions:

TABLE 3.

Kuna Nutrient Intake in San Blas Islands

Index Mean±SEM* Average US Intake (Mean±SEM)
Kilocalories 2221±117 1914±10
Protein, g 67±3.8 75.3±0.5
Protein, % 12.2±0.3 15.7
Total fat, g 56±3 78.4±0.5
Fat, % 23±0.8 36.9
Cholesterol, g 390±23 209±1.1
Cholesterol, % 70.6±2.3 44
Dietary fiber, g 23.3±2.5 15.9±0.1
Calcium, mg 617±50 736±6.4
Potassium, mEq 98.6±9.1 62±0.4
Magnesium, mg 368±22 296±2.8
Sodium, mEq 210±22 121.5±77
  • n=50.

  • * Based on single 24-hour recall.

  •  All averages calculated from NHANES II, except magnesium and fiber, which were calculated using advanced data from NHANES III (male and female adults, all income levels).

 

Fat soluble vitamins and human milk

Consider one fat soluble nutrient, vitamin K, as representative of the rather large group.

As a rule, human milk samples are very low in vitamin K.

Worse, neonates have low vitamin K stores in their liver, and premature infants are often outright deficient in vitamin K.

Countering that dire picture a little, neonates have essentially 100% taurine bile acid salts and human milk has 5-10 more taurine than cow’s milk (for most nutrients the reverse is true – cow’s milk has more, though human milk may have a more absorbable form of the nutrient).

Why so little vitamin K in human milk?

It could be that the supporting contents of the milk actually make this low level adequate.

It could be that any higher would be net harmful.

It could be that very few women have found the right diet.

Consider: Vegetarians and especially vegans tend to have a high vitamin K diet. However, their diets tend to be low or deficient in cholesterol, choline, taurine, and fat, all nutrients involved in vitamin K absorption. Additionally, the nutrients involved in vitamin K distribution (including into milk in nursing mothers), metabolism, and excretion must be normalized.

Consider also: Women whose diets have enough cholesterol, choline, taurine, and fat tend to have low levels of vitamin K.

So few if any women are getting even the absorption part of the equation right. And there are still three more steps, distribution, metabolism, and excretion, that have to be gotten right. Otherwise, poor performance, possibly even much lower vitamin K in milk than need be.

A cohort that has enough dietary and supplemented vitamin K and enough of the nutrients in vitamin K’s ADME network needs to be examined against the various control groups. Fat chance that this will be done any time soon.

As far as the field is concerned, the vegan diet is perfect in all respects, vitamin K in milk is adequate, and there is no such thing as an ADME network for any nutrient, and fat and cholesterol are simply bad for women’s health and bad for neonates’ health. Nature has made huge errors in putting them in milk and in making receptors in the intestines for absorbing copious quantities of fat and cholesterol.

Let’s go back to 1989

The government just published the 10th edition of its RDAs – the list of 40 or so nutrients with the exact amount that meet the needs of 97.5% of us (RDA = EAR [Estimated Average Requirement] + 2 std. dev., assuming 10% coefficient of variation).

All we need to do to be healthy is supplement these nutrients to these levels and consume sufficient calories to maintain a healthy weight, and we will be healthy.

According to the government, cholesterol, choline, taurine – not needed at all, because the body can make them from other substances,.

But the government filtered the data set. They ignored the facts of physiology – namely, that the human body aggressively tries to absorb these three substances from its diet. The government paid no attention to what the body was doing; it was busy arrogantly telling us what the body needs.

Isolated, indigenous cultures have a huge advantage over us.

They have no government health agencies, no AMA, no ADA, no armies of trained doctors and dentists.

I am jealous of them – they just follow their instincts and get it right. We listen to  arrogant idiots, the experts, and we get it wrong time and again.

Worse, in 1989, the government was telling us to limit egg consumption, eggs being the best single source of all body-building nutrients per calorie, and one of the best sources of both cholesterol and choline, which the body is trying to aggressively absorb from its diet.

Based on mass balance and the absence of definitive evidence for greater need, the government said that vitamin C is needed, but only roughly 100 mg, though the human body is trying to absorb grams of vitamin C per day, every day, and many more grams when it is sick, and many more grams than that when it is in critical condition, such as cancer cachexia. Is it not amazing that massive vitamin C doses (and injections) are not standard of care in cancer. When a cancer patient consumes vitamin C all day long, gram after gram, and fails to ingest a dose of vitamin C that gives him diarrhea, could the body be any more direct in communicating its needs?

The government made many errors, including the fact that mass balance is necessary, but not sufficient for optimal health. The government ignored the optimal level of nutrients question as unknowable.

A person of sense begins with the hypothesis that the optimal level of a nutrient is approximately what a healthy, well-nourished body is trying to absorb each and every day from its diet.

I could go on and on – citing the government’s red herrings and other logical errors, their erroneous assumptions, their naïve and underpowered models, and all of their ideas that are too narrowly conceived.

Will the US government officials ever get sense?

Now let’s “go back to the future” – time present. The government has changed its mind, but only on choline, which it has considered essential since 1998, but to this day, the government still does not know how it erred. It erred because government officials lack sense. We can teach any lame brain how to do science, but we cannot teach a lame brain sense.

The government erred by dictating the human body’s needs to the human body. A person of sense learns from the body by watching its absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of substances.

The body tells us what is nutritive and what is toxic, and how much so. When the human body absorbs roughly 2% of the cadmium and fluoride it ingests, and lets 98% pass through its digestive tract, the human body is telling us one of three things. A priori we do not know which is right, but until proven otherwise a person of sense would assume #3 is right.

(1) either or both of these substances is/are insufficiently soluble and thus hard to absorb, and if they were ingested in a more soluble form, the body would indeed absorb more of them.

(2) a scary possibility: these two substances are micronutrients, and the diet contains nearly 50 times more than we need.

(3) what a person of sense would hypothesize: these two substances are toxins, and we need none or next to none of them, in spite of the fact that ingested fluoride can help with tooth decay. By itself, that does not make fluoride an essential nutrient, not when we can avoid tooth decay much better if we just eat what our bodies are trying to absorb and avoid eating man-made junk food.

How strangely inconsistent our government is. Cadmium is a recognized bone and kidney toxin, and the human body’s failure to absorb more than about 2% of the ingested dose of cadmium is consistent with that. But the body treats fluoride the same way as it treats cadmium, and the government ignores what the body does with it, and some officials even recommend adding fluoride to municipal water supplies. Obviously these people believe wholeheartedly that fluoride is a micronutrient and that the body would absorb a whole lot more of it if it could, if the salts were delivered in a highly soluble form. And it might at that, based on mimicry. After all, the body will absorb and distribute throughout the body prodigious quantities of cysteine-derivatized dimethyl mercury because it looks enough like methionine.

When the body tries to absorb grams of vitamin C, believe that that is what it needs. When a goat, roughly our size, makes 13 grams of vitamin C a day, and two to three times that when it is sick, believe that that is what it needs. As a rule, biological systems tend to make less than what they need and they look for the balance in their diets. Biological systems do not make 130 times what they need (13,000 mg vs 100). The government would guess that a goat needs 100 mg of vitamin C a day, if the goat has roughly the same turnover of vitamin C as we do, 2%-4% per day, and a bodily pool roughly equivalent to ours, a pool of between 1,500 milligrams and 3,000 milligrams.

Things are so backwards

The government believes that it can in part dictate the body’s needs to the body.  How arrogantly wrong-headed!

The suboptimal non-dictated part: The government has provided a one size fits all formula with some 40 or so nutrient requirements, mostly derived from mass balance, observational and clinical studies, and has declared that this is all the body needs, given enough calories to maintain a healthy weight.

The dictated part: The government dictates that all other nutrients that the body is trying to absorb are “non-essential” and can be set to zero in their recommended diet.

Give the body a healthy calorie level and these essential nutrients, ignore the non-essential nutrients, and live long and prosper.

Backwards nonsense. Rubbish.

A person of sense does not dictate to the body, he asks the body what it needs, and a person of sense does not rely solely on mass balance to figure it out what the body needs. Mass balance is necessary, but not sufficient for good health.

A person of sense looks to what the body is trying to absorb, and being a person of sense, he realizes that the body is investing energy and materials to make receptors, and it is probably not doing this for fun.

A person of sense realizes there are exceptions to the rule that what the body needs is what it is trying to absorb, especially when a body is ill or has not been properly nourished for a long time, but also in cases of mimicry (e.g., the body absorbs cysteine-derivatized dimethyl mercury because it looks enough like methionine).

A person of sense further realizes that these processes have been put through evolution’s ringer, and they are still here to this day. Perhaps some of these absorption processes are vestigial, but a person of sense would be surprised to find that to be the rule. The government must believe that, as a rule, these processes are vestiges of evolution – no longer necessary. Completely dispensable.

The government tells us that these non-essential nutrients are completely dispensable because the government tells us to ignore absorption data and focus on mass balance studies. Ignore the fact that the human body goes after cholesterol, choline, and taurine, as well as vitamin C, and so many other nutrients, most of them, hundreds of them, “non-essential,” with abandon. The body is looking for grams of some of these nutrients, many milligrams of others – “macronutrient” type of quantities. The government says to pay attention only to the mass balance, and treat any nutrient that the body can make from other nutrients as non-essential by definition.

Utter rubbish.

I won’t even get into the idea that every nutrient has an ADME network of other nutrients, making all nutrient requirements interdependent. Nutrients requirements are entangled. It is not feasible to write a requirement for any nutrient without referencing requirements for other nutrients on which they depend for proper absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion.

Our universe and life on earth

Most likely our universe began with a big bang, an equal and opposite reaction to the collapse of a previous universe. Not all matter condensed into ylem, however, and in particular, and as today, throughout space was a contaminant of the most primitive of life forms, perhaps not even composed of organic matter, perhaps going back trillions of years, but extremely hardy, and all over our universe and indeed in many other universes.

But why is there something and not rather nothing?

I don’t know, but first we must get rule and exception correctly. If nothing is the rule, as I am hypothesizing, then we are trying to explain an exception to the rule.

I don’t know why there is something, but I believe the something that there is is another form of nothing, a multiverse that is a perfect zero sum in all completely conserved quantities, and if nothing in fact evolved into something, it did so without a violation of zero-sum conservation laws.

Where did life come from on Earth? Because it developed almost as soon as it was possible, and because by rule, preparation for major events takes longer than the events themselves, almost certainly, life on Earth was established by background contamination with extremely hardy, extremely primitive forms of life. These life forms are to be found in space even today, but will anyone recognize them as such? Probably not. Could they compete with the advanced life forms on Earth? Probably not. They would need to be grown separated from the much more sophisticated, but less hardy, life forms of today.