Draper's Tuna & Water

[micmic]

I know you had secret hopes I wouldn't reply but hey, so did I yesterday

Quote[/b] ]This is why its not just pushed to pregnant women, and why there is such fortification.

I would understand a lack of effectiveness, but an increase in birth defects ? How do you explain that ? It seems there's a lot more we don't know...

Quote[/b] ] It still nowhere near the level of evidence that cholesterol has (and it does, no matter what the anti-cholesterol nuts have to say).

I don't think so... Isn't it true that there is no conclusive evidence of any kind that lower cholesterol levels reduce death rates ? The available studies confirm the above, right ?

Quote[/b] ]Oooo ooo, can i sell the best homocsyteine lowering drug currently available.
Ooo, too late

American already fortifies with this drug,
homocysteine levels in the american population have already decreased from its introduction
ooo

what it is

Folic acid.

He-he, you don't know the pharmaceutical industry very well... They already "patented" a combination of folic acid, and B vitamins, called FoltX, and they sell it in a ridiculous price. And all these, in the very country where fortification is already a fact.

It goes like this: The pharmaceutical representative comes into the big doctor's office:
"Hey doc, how is it goin', gimme five, blah, blah, blah... How was that conference in Brazil (where we payed for you to go)... blah blah blah... oh, I see, there's another conference next month in Paris...blah blah blah... by the way, we also have this terrific drug, FoltX... blah blah blah".

Bingo!

And they are researching drugs that will lower homocysteine better than folic acid. Even if it is a 5% better, it will do the trick.

Quote[/b] ]xenical is a drug that (while worthless in my opinion) is a good way of crappin out oil. Chitosan is absolutely nothing like xenical, and to the most part absolutely utterly worthless.

Xenical just blocks about 30% of ingested fat, no big deal. Chitosan is certainly not worse and much cheaper. Look at Chitosan Versus Xenical Not easy to refute, right ?

Quote[/b] ]Everything is a conspiracy theory to people

I don't see any "theories" in what I've mentioned. It's a fact that studies showing that Celebrex could increase blood clots were available to Pfizer but were not given to FDA in time. FDA has had an announcement about this too. It is true that esomeprazole is not any better than omeprazole but hit the market asap omeprazole's patent expired. It's amazing how fast drugs are pulled out and new ones take their place... It's an industry with LOTS of money....

Quote[/b] ]how about not milk
or any of the meat kills, aspartame kills, splenda kills, fish kills, vegetables kills sites that are out there. Just because it is printed on the web, doesnt mean that the information is factual and correct.

Of course. But I can't compare a few fanatics or dogmatics or even idiots with organized industry attempts to fool us. The first may be stupidity, but the second is fraudulence. I feel that sites like Barrett 's and FORCES are trying to swindle me.

Quote[/b] ]Extremely old, and its a case of acute poisoning

I already said it was acute poisoning. Funny, this doesn't make me feel any better. On the contrary, it makes me even more certain that since acute poisoning is possible with fish consumption, then chronic poisoning is nothing less but certain. Old ? I don't see how that relates. Humans, tuna and above all mercury haven't evolved much the last 50 years. The only reason that we don't have something similar recently is that it is extremely unlikely today to find a large group of people that relies so heavily on tuna and lives nearby a heavy polluting plant.

Quote[/b] ]But you cant skip the infants, because during fetal development, they are going thru an extreme amount of growth and cellular reconstruction

Of course, I just skipped them because we were (initially) talking about tuna and bodybuilders.

Quote[/b] ]There is a maximal allowance of many things in many foods. everything we eat contains different toxins, does that mean that we should stop eating them?

Of course not, this is one of the reasons I mentioned variety.

Quote[/b] ]If your living on tuna, 24/7 then who knows, maybe they need their heads read

Ok, we finally meet

 

[micmic]

Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ April 08 2003,10:12)]

Quote[/b] (micmic @ April 08 2003,11:59)]And not just tuna, I believe that the foundation of a balanced diet is variety. If someone would ask me to condense a good diet in a few words, I would say:
1) Variety
2) Unprocessed foods
3) Low calories (this one doesn't apply to bodybuilders)
Even the best food should be avoided for extended periods of time. And we should always try foods we've never tasted until now. Just my .02 euros

Keep that up, and you would start to sound like the majority of the food recommendations from around the world.

One of the pseudo-philosophies that new black belts use to say to coloured ones, is this:

"Before you start training, a punch is just a punch.
When you start training, a punch becomes much more things than a simple punch.
When you become a karate master, a punch becomes again just a punch"

So, I guess I have reached that level of mastery where "a diet is just a diet"

The truth is that you're absolutely right and sometimes I talk like my grandfather. Oh, I'm getting old I guess, and all the HST in the world can't change that

The only thing that stops us from learning new stuff is the things we already know

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (restless @ April 09 2003,7:39)]So how come you're so sure it's safe?? Isn't it a bit incoherent to claim that a chronic low intake of an extremely toxic substance is safe due to the lack of controled studies proving it's dangerous when were talking about a substance that is clearly hazardous to your health? In the lack of scientific evidence for either sides shouldn't we assume it is dangerous rather than it's safe?

Gradient of risk

for something that isnt a huge part of a normal persons diet, also the area I am in doesnt have plants dumping tons of stuff into the environment. Its just not that much of a worry.

considering how many other risks there are out there, the risk from mercury in fish is minimal.

Quote[/b] ]Like I said, unless you show me evidence that none of the current increases in nervous system degenerative diseases is completely unrelated to mercury in food I am continuing to play it safe.

by that theory you should stop eating everything, as basically everything has a negative aspect to it

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (micmic @ April 09 2003,9:11)]I would understand a lack of effectiveness, but an increase in birth defects ? How do you explain that ? It seems there's a lot more we don't know...

what lack of effectiveness? an increase in birth defects?
where?...

Quote[/b] ]I don't think so... Isn't it true that there is no conclusive evidence of any kind that lower cholesterol levels reduce death rates ? The available studies confirm the above, right ?

There is no conclusive proof for anything, but increases in cholesterol increase risk, thats happened time and time again. Lowering cholesterol decreases risk, at least with drugs. No one at this stage has had the money, or time to measure with a randomised (evne blinded) trial on cholesterol and death rates.

Quote[/b] ]He-he, you don't know the pharmaceutical industry very well... They already "patented" a combination of folic acid, and B vitamins, called FoltX, and they sell it in a ridiculous price. And all these, in the very country where fortification is already a fact.
It goes like this: The pharmaceutical representative comes into the big doctor's office:
"Hey doc, how is it goin', gimme five, blah, blah, blah... How was that conference in Brazil (where we payed for you to go)... blah blah blah... oh, I see, there's another conference next month in Paris...blah blah blah... by the way, we also have this terrific drug, FoltX... blah blah blah".
Bingo!
And they are researching drugs that will lower homocysteine better than folic acid. Even if it is a 5% better, it will do the trick.

Its highly likely with the way american physicians are allowed to recieve 'bribes' from pharmaceutical companies. But with the way fortification is in the USA, the rates of raised homocysteine levels will be extremely low, thereby negating any potential money making schemes by the pharmaceuticals.
The american heart foundations recommendations include dietary increases in folic acid (thru pills or fortified foods), and also in people with resistant homocysteine levels, betaine therapy, becuase betain acts as an alternative methyl donor to homocysteine with the enzyme BHMT.
If the person is resistant to folic acid/betaine therapy, there is potential for a drug based program to lower homocysteine.
Also most of hte world doesnt have the problem of pharmacuetical companies buying off GPs

Quote[/b] ]Xenical just blocks about 30% of ingested fat, no big deal. Chitosan is certainly not worse and much cheaper. Look at Chitosan Versus Xenical Not easy to refute, right ?

Xenical offers less than 5% advantage over dieting and exercise, so who cares about that. Chitosan is worse than that.
Easy to refute, lets see, somebody has their pet pathetic product, and it gets negative results, geee, it was because the authors didnt use it correctly. And I do not care one little bit about animal trials. While they may be good for development of ideas, until they are an exact replica for human physiology, it aint proof.

Quote[/b] ]I don't see any "theories" in what I've mentioned. It's a fact that studies showing that Celebrex could increase blood clots were available to Pfizer but were not given to FDA in time.

if they are operating outside the law, then it is upto the FDA to intervien. IF they are not fortcomming with research that shows problems with the product, it is an unethical/illegal act.

Quote[/b] ]FDA has had an announcement about this too. It is true that esomeprazole is not any better than omeprazole but hit the market asap omeprazole's patent expired. It's amazing how fast drugs are pulled out and new ones take their place... It's an industry with LOTS of money....

Let see, I make a really good product, so I patent it. Would I like to see my money making invention go down the tube because a patent run out, or if I could replace it with similar product with a patent and go from there. Pharmaceutical companies, whether you like it or not, are not in it for the public good, they are in it to make a large amount of money. Considering the extreme expense it is to even develop 1 drug (losing thousands of potential ones over the time period), they have to make bulk money.

Quote[/b] ]I already said it was acute poisoning. Funny, this doesn't make me feel any better. On the contrary, it makes me even more certain that since acute poisoning is possible with fish consumption, then chronic poisoning is nothing less but certain. Old ? I don't see how that relates. Humans, tuna and above all mercury haven't evolved much the last 50 years.

Acute poisoning.. most anything in this world can be toxic in large amounts. Water kills many more people every year than acute mercury poisoning,but we dont ban it
Old, not because of evolutionary changes, but because of differences in quality of recording, measuring, statistical analysis etc.
Things have come a long way since then.

Quote[/b] ] The only reason that we don't have something similar recently is that it is extremely unlikely today to find a large group of people that relies so heavily on tuna and livesnearby a heavy polluting plant.

much like back then, the only time that people got mercury poisoning is from chemical plants, accidental spills or moronic fungacyde acts.
Mercury poisoning wasnt common back then either.

Quote[/b] ]Of course not, this is one of the reasons I mentioned varietyOk, we finally meet

variety is excellent.
For anyone who wants to eat tuna 24/7, they need their head read to start with. blurg

 

[kube]

hey guys,
maybe restless was right. a bit after my almost exclusive tuna and brown rice period i developed some sort of nerve damage where my hands would shake slightly, but uncontrollably. could it be due to mercury poisoning? maybe. unfortunately theres no way to know for sure as during that period i was also working 18 hour shifts 5 days a week and then two days a week alternating every other week for 6 months days and six months nights. on top of this i was going to the gym every day, running 5 to 10 miles a day and swimming about 1/4 mile in the ocean 3 days a week. and on top of this i was partying with my friennds and sleeping about an hour or less on workdays and maybe 6 hours once or twice a week. so what was responsible for this nerve damage? who knows. but it could have been the tuna. i was not aware of alot of the symptoms of mercury poisoning and thought it was more sudden and maybe severe. ie noticeable. i was not exagerating when i said ten cans a day. of course i also ate chicken breast and pasta every once in a while, but it was a time in my life when i wasnt eating junk, drinking soda pop, wasnt eating mayo, wasnt eating salt (besides what was in the tuna) no sugar, basically no crap. one year of total dedication to my goals. tuna happens to be cheap and high in protein. so that was the main entree 7 days a week. i just thought i would make this comment and honestly i am not biased about the whole mercury in tuna issue. theres alot of info i have not come across and seeing the give and take spurred about by my comment has kind of left me with my jaw dropped in awe. however i will also have to make this comment. my girlfriend was eating large amounts of tuna daily while pregnant. maybe 4 cans a day a few times a week and we are now the proud parents of a very healthy 5 month baby boy. he is a da777ned ox. hasnt been sick once. so who knows. laters.

 

[restless]

Some studies showed that cats developed coordination problems after a tuna only diet, so I think it's possible tuna might be the culrpit. When I get home in the evening I'll try to find them again and post them.

 

[micmic]

Quote[/b] ]what lack of effectiveness? an increase in birth defects? where?...

Starting folic acid supplementation after pregnancy is diagnosed has an increased risk in birth defects. Kinda spooky...

Quote[/b] ]There is no conclusive proof for anything, but increases in cholesterol increase risk, thats happened time and time again. Lowering cholesterol decreases risk, at least with drugs. No one at this stage has had the money, or time to measure with a randomised (evne blinded) trial on cholesterol and death rates.

There have been many large studies. Look at New cholesterol guidelines for converting healthy people into patients. In some cases, lowering cholesterol has increased death rates.

Quote[/b] ]Its highly likely with the way american physicians are allowed to recieve 'bribes' from pharmaceutical companies. But with the way fortification is in the USA, the rates of raised homocysteine levels will be extremely low, thereby negating any potential money making schemes by the pharmaceuticals.

Would you bet on this ? Fortunately we're both not that old, we'll be here when every company will have its own homocysteine-lowering drug.

Quote[/b] ]The american heart foundations recommendations include dietary increases in folic acid (thru pills or fortified foods

Yeah, they are the guys who are still endorsing the food pyramid, who recommend 60% carbs for the diabetics and who have only recently heard about glycemic index. They have also endorsed a few supermarket products... I'm not saying that their recommendation of folic acid is bad, but they are not the guys you want to trust...

Quote[/b] ]Also most of hte world doesnt have the problem of pharmacuetical companies buying off GPs

Wait a minute.... my hand is trembling from laughing so hard...

Quote[/b] ]Xenical offers less than 5% advantage over dieting and exercise, so who cares about that. Chitosan is worse than that. Easy to refute, lets see, somebody has their pet pathetic product, and it gets negative results, geee, it was because the authors didnt use it correctly. And I do not care one little bit about animal trials. While they may be good for development of ideas, until they are an exact replica for human physiology, it aint proof.

Oh well, I believe that the resource I pointed you at is well documented, but you choose not to accept it. Besides, I have heard of many people getting greasy stools from Chitosan, exactly like Xenical. It's a proof that it works the same way. I agree however that there is no point in comparing two useless drugs.

Quote[/b] ]if they are operating outside the law, then it is upto the FDA to intervien. IF they are not fortcomming with research that shows problems with the product, it is an unethical/illegal act

I've been working there in the past, there are lots of unethical acts, believe me. Noone cares about the drug side effects, as long as they make more money. The only thing that has changed since thalidomide is the inspections and requirements imposed by goverments. The companies themselves haven't changed the slightest bit.

Quote[/b] ]Pharmaceutical companies, whether you like it or not, are not in it for the public good, they are in it to make a large amount of money. Considering the extreme expense it is to even develop 1 drug (losing thousands of potential ones over the time period), they have to make bulk money.

Please tell me you don't work for Merck or something! Don't they make lots of money already ? Hell, we're talking about No.1 industry in the world! Above cars, above electronics, above food, above arms, above everything! Don't worry, they are not going to stop producing new drugs because of increased expenses

But it's not the profit I condemn. What I despise is the practice of pushing gp's so hard that they change the medication of well-controlled patients just for the shake of new drugs. It's preposterous. Since we are in the GI medications subject, nothing revolutionary has happened since Tagamet. The only thing is that they have managed to skyrocket the cost of GI treatment wihtout any benefits for the patient. A lot of things come to mind, the last few years all gi docs were eager to kill Helicobacter pylori as it was thought to be responsible for ulcer. Now they're saying "gee, we were wrong, it seems that this one is normally present in many peoples' gi tracts... it's just that during ulcer it gets more active". Meanwhile, I haven't seen a single doc recommending probiotics. Some of them don't even know what they are! And yet, studies show that probiotics greatly alleviate H. pylori related problems. But pharmaceutical companies can't patent becteria, can they ?

Quote[/b] ]Acute poisoning.. most anything in this world can be toxic in large amounts. Water kills many more people every year than acute mercury poisoning,but we dont ban it

Noone died of pure water... unless drowned in it... or unless too much mercury was in it

Quote[/b] ]Old, not because of evolutionary changes, but because of differences in quality of recording, measuring, statistical analysis etc.
Things have come a long way since then.

Ain't you the spin doctor.... So what ? These people died of acute mercury poisoning. Period. The only thing that might be different today is that the plant lawyers would manage to attribute the deaths to something else.

Quote[/b] ]much like back then, the only time that people got mercury poisoning is from chemical plants, accidental spills or moronic fungacyde acts. Mercury poisoning wasnt common back then either.

I think you're actually refuting a whole branch of toxicology, namely chronic poisonings. I have a book of toxicology in front of me right now. It talks about chronic poisoning from a lot of different heavy metals & elements: As, Sb, Cd, Tl, Pb, Hg, etc. How do you think chronic poisonings occur ? There are two major ways: Inhalation and food. What more can I say...

 

[restless]

Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ April 09 2003,3:50)]

Quote[/b] (restless @ April 09 2003,7:39)]So how come you're so sure it's safe?? Isn't it a bit incoherent to claim that a chronic low intake of an extremely toxic substance is safe due to the lack of controled studies proving it's dangerous when were talking about a substance that is clearly hazardous to your health? In the lack of scientific evidence for either sides shouldn't we assume it is dangerous rather than it's safe?

Gradient of risk
for something that isnt a huge part of a normal persons diet, also the area I am in doesnt have plants dumping tons of stuff into the environment. Its just not that much of a worry.
considering how many other risks there are out there, the risk from mercury in fish is minimal.

Ah!! Then you do agree that a tuna only diet is not a good ideia?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Like I said, unless you show me evidence that none of the current increases in nervous system degenerative diseases is completely unrelated to mercury in food I am continuing to play it safe.

by that theory you should stop eating everything, as basically everything has a negative aspect to it

Ok, I was wondering what was taking this one so long. Not stop eating, but it's one more argument for food cycling (what mimic and others call variety). At least you cycle the contaminants.
Also mercury would be a cut above most other contaminants in food. It's poisonous in much smaller doses.
Again, the FDA is never going to admit how serious the situation might really be unless people start dying left and right.

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (micmic @ April 09 2003,10:18)]Starting folic acid supplementation after pregnancy is diagnosed has an increased risk in birth defects. Kinda spooky...

As I said, where? Pubmed references?

Quote[/b] ]There have been many large studies. Look at New cholesterol guidelines for converting healthy people into patients. In some cases, lowering cholesterol has increased death rates.

your not the first person to bring that gimps pages up here.
Most of his arguements on the subject are strange at best. He also thinks that n-3 fatty acids have no health benifit either.

Quote[/b] ]Would you bet on this ? Fortunately we're both not that old, we'll be here when every company will have its own homocysteine-lowering drug

dont need to bet, data from NHANES 4 shows that folate status has significantly, and tHcy is decreasing in the population. But they also have mandatory fortification in breads and cereals. other places in the world do not.

Quote[/b] ].
Yeah, they are the guys who are still endorsing the food pyramid, who recommend 60% carbs for the diabetics and who have only recently heard about glycemic index. They have also endorsed a few supermarket products... I'm not saying that their recommendation of folic acid is bad, but they are not the guys you want to trust...

show me 1 piece of information that says the food pyramid is bad. Most food pyramids from everywhere in the world are realtively similar. Moderate protein, moderate fat, increased amounts of fruits. vegetables and whole grain cereals.
This is the diet that is recommended to most diabetics throughout the world and most people in general. Remember, not every 60% carbohydrate diet = food pyramid. Even though american diets are reaching their recommendations, the SAD looks nothing what the food pyramid recommends. American diabetic recommendations are different to the remainder of the world, as americans have allowances for more sugar than others.

Quote[/b] ]Wait a minute.... my hand is trembling from laughing so hard...

thats good, its illegal for firms to do that in NZ. The government has a pharmacy company that most things go through, and GPs go through that first for most needs anyway. The worst thing that has been allowed here is the open adversing of most drugs. So doctors now get harrassed to prescribe the drugs due to the patients wants.

Quote[/b] ]Oh well, I believe that the resource I pointed you at is well documented, but you choose not to accept it. Besides, I have heard of many people getting greasy stools from Chitosan, exactly like Xenical. It's a proof that it works the same way. I agree however that there is no point in comparing two useless drugs.

No, its documented in rats. Human studies, including one put out last year in Int J Obes... showed no change in fecal fat loss.
And if chitosan made the oily stools (or oily anal leakage as xenical puts it), then why would roche or whoever does it, want to put chitosan with xenical to limit this problem?

Quote[/b] ]I've been working there in the past, there are lots of unethical acts, believe me. Noone cares about the drug side effects, as long as they make more money. The only thing that has changed since thalidomide is the inspections and requirements imposed by goverments. The companies themselves haven't changed the slightest bit.

since thalidomide, ethics committies have a field day with anything the pharmacy comanies want to do.

Quote[/b] ]Please tell me you don't work for Merck or something! Don't they make lots of money already ? Hell, we're talking about No.1 industry in the world! Above cars, above electronics, above food, above arms, above everything! Don't worry, they are not going to stop producing new drugs because of increased expenses

The actual profit in terms of input is pretty low compared to other companies. I work for a dairy firm, milk = liquid gold.

Quote[/b] ]But it's not the profit I condemn. What I despise is the practice of pushing gp's so hard that they change the medication of well-controlled patients just for the shake of new drugs. It's preposterous.

US laws have allowed it. America loves capitilism (sp)

Quote[/b] ]Since we are in the GI medications subject, nothing revolutionary has happened since Tagamet. The only thing is that they have managed to skyrocket the cost of GI treatment wihtout any benefits for the patient. A lot of things come to mind, the last few years all gi docs were eager to kill Helicobacter pylori as it was thought to be responsible for ulcer. Now they're saying "gee, we were wrong, it seems that this one is normally present in many peoples' gi tracts... it's just that during ulcer it gets more active". Meanwhile, I haven't seen a single doc recommending probiotics. Some of them don't even know what they are! And yet, studies show that probiotics greatly alleviate H. pylori related problems. But pharmaceutical companies can't patent becteria, can they ?

Depends if they are genetical engineered micro-organisms, which they are working on. Especially for different modes of drug delivery.

Quote[/b] ]Noone died of pure water... unless drowned in it... or unless too much mercury was in it

hyponatraemia
selenium is also an essential nutrient, but excessively (cases in china in the 60s showed this) will lead to neurological problems nad skin conditions. Cadmium is also a potential problem in terms of phosphate fertilisers.

Quote[/b] ]Ain't you the spin doctor.... So what ? These people died of acute mercury poisoning. Period. The only thing that might be different today is that the plant lawyers would manage to attribute the deaths to something else.

no, not doctoring up anything. I asked for evidence of chronic mercury poisoning doing anything, you provide me with evidence acute poisoning does.

Quote[/b] ]I think you're actually refuting a whole branch of toxicology, namely chronic poisonings. I have a book of toxicology in front of me right now. It talks about chronic poisoning from a lot of different heavy metals & elements: As, Sb, Cd, Tl, Pb, Hg, etc. How do you think chronic poisonings occur ? There are two major ways: Inhalation and food. What more can I say...

Now, let me clear this up. I said the only evidence of mercury toxicity is from chemical spills (doesnt happen often) or environmental pollution (that shouldnt be happening) - this gets into food, water and potentially if you want to swim thru it, skin etc. It can be put on as a fungacyde ie = food,
Other cases of mercury containing skin cream have led to chronic toxicity. Dental workings have suffered it from inhillation. Chronic poisoning from a laxative containing mercury. There is a definate lack of data showing any chronic effects of fish consumption.
I mean, part of the EPIC cohort (Spain, relatively high fish consumption compared to most western countries) had fish and mercury measured, 99.9% of the sample had intakes below the WHO recommendations.
While fish is a source of mercury, there is no evidence that the level of intake for most people does anything.
Its all well and good saying fish = mercury = chronic toxicity = same end result as acute poisoning, but it doesnt work that way.
Also to add to this, various areas of the world also require testing of fish, as a quality assurance that mercury levels are below a certain concentration (I have seen figures of ~0.5mg/kg)

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (restless @ April 10 2003,9:32)]Ah!! Then you do agree that a tuna only diet is not a good ideia?

I couldnt think of anything more disgusting. A beef only diet, maybe.....mmmmmmm.....beef

Quote[/b] ]Ok, I was wondering what was taking this one so long. Not stop eating, but it's one more argument for food cycling (what mimic and others call variety). At least you cycle the contaminants.
Also mercury would be a cut above most other contaminants in food. It's poisonous in much smaller doses.
Again, the FDA is never going to admit how serious the situation might really be unless people start dying left and right.

Fish also can contain arsenic which is another fun thing to make your life less enjoyable
And a final comment, the last point about the FDA. Every government in the world isnt run by the FDA. Most european states, australia, new zealand etc offer similar recommendations. Fish intake is recommended to be limited for pregnant women because the risk of possible problems if higher. Its all well and good saying FDA this, FDA that. but most of the world has nothing to do with the FDA

 

[restless]

MErcola is saying that apparently the FDA has reviewed it's stand on the maximum safe levels of mercury intake and is now following EPA recomendations, which are 4 times lowqer than the previous FDA ones.

Here's the link:

Mercury

Here's the study he's referencing (on women and children)

Blood Mercury Levels in US Children and Women of Childbearing Age, 1999-2000.

Schober SE, Sinks TH, Jones RL, Bolger PM, McDowell M, Osterloh J, Garrett ES, Canady RA, Dillon CF, Sun Y, Joseph CB, Mahaffey KR.

National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, Md.

CONTEXT: Humans are exposed to methylmercury, a well-established neurotoxin, through fish consumption. The fetus is most sensitive to the adverse effects of exposure. The extent of exposure to methylmercury in US women of reproductive age is not known. OBJECTIVE: To describe the distribution of blood mercury levels in US children and women of childbearing age and the association with sociodemographic characteristics and fish consumption. DESIGN AND SETTING: The 1999-2000 data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a cross-sectional survey of the noninstitutionalized US population. PARTICIPANTS: In 1999-2000, 1250 children aged 1 to 5 years and 2314 women aged 16 to 49 years were selected to participate in the survey. Household interviews, physical examinations, and blood mercury levels assessments were performed on 705 children (56% response rate) and 1709 women (74% response rate). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Blood concentration of total mercury. RESULTS: Blood mercury levels were approximately 3-fold higher in women compared with children. The geometric mean concentration of total blood mercury was 0.34 micro g/L (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.39 micro g/L) in children and 1.02 micro g/L (95% CI, 0.85-1.20 micro g/L) in women. Geometric mean mercury levels were almost 4-fold higher among women who ate 3 or more servings of fish in the past 30 days compared with women who ate no fish in that period (1.94 micro g/L vs 0.51 micro g/L; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Measures of mercury exposure in women of childbearing age and young children generally fall below levels of concern. However, approximately 8% of women had concentrations higher than the US Environmental Protection Agency's recommended reference dose (5.8 micro g/L), below which exposures are considered to be without adverse effects. Women who are pregnant or who intend to become pregnant should follow federal and state advisories on consumption of fish.

 

[micmic]

Well well well... time for our daily chore

I'm a stroller anyway, but you ? A family man with wife, kids and everything... shouldn't you be making tuna sandwiches for your kids instead of replying to my silly posts ?

Quote[/b] ]As I said, where? Pubmed references?

First time I heard this, it was from a mother who gave birth to a sb child and when he told her gyn that she was meticulously supplementing with folate, he mentioned that stuff. Since then, I have seen the same thing in various places. Here's a reference often cited (from PubMed): Maternal zinc, iron, folic acid, and protein nutriture and outcome of human pregnancy

Quote[/b] ]Most of his arguements on the subject are strange at best

Hmmm... you ask for PubMed references but when someone presents them (like this one) you say his arguments are strange... Strange...

Quote[/b] ]show me 1 piece of information that says the food pyramid is bad. Most food pyramids from everywhere in the world are realtively similar. Moderate protein, moderate fat, increased amounts of fruits. vegetables and whole grain cereals.

There are LOTS of such pieces. Where did you see the "moderate protein, moderate fat" ? ? ? It's a high carbohydrate, low protein, low fat diet. Even its defenders admit that, they're just trying to stand up for high carb. Here's the pyramid, I don't know what you have in mind:
The Food Guide Pyramid

Quote[/b] ]thats good, its illegal for firms to do that in NZ. The government has a pharmacy company that most things go through, and GPs go through that first for most needs anyway. The worst thing that has been allowed here is the open adversing of most drugs. So doctors now get harrassed to prescribe the drugs due to the patients wants.

That's great. I'd love to live down under. Welcome to the rest of the world though, where doctors have close financial ties with pharmaceutical companies. And if I remember correctly, this topic started when I said that Dr. Barrett hasn't even touched in his huge site the pharmaceutical companies. I don't think he lives in NZ, right ?

Quote[/b] ]No, its documented in rats. Human studies, including one put out last year in Int J Obes... showed no change in fecal fat loss.
And if chitosan made the oily stools (or oily anal leakage as xenical puts it), then why would roche or whoever does it, want to put chitosan with xenical to limit this problem?

Now it's my turn to ask for PubMed references... And I mean studies with effective amounts of Chitosan. And NOT funded by Roche... If a study funded by Roche and showing Chitosan to be ineffective (and with so many procedural fallacies) doesn't ring a bell to you...

As for the more or less oily stools, there's nothing strange there: since Chitosan must be administered in higher doses in order to bind the same amount of fat as Xenical, the stool would be less oily.

Quote[/b] ]The actual profit in terms of input is pretty low compared to other companies

No-no-no:

"A dozen companies were among the top 50 in both profit margin and ROE: Coca-Cola, Merck, Eli Lilly, Schering-Plough, Grupo Carso SA de CV, Computer Associates International Inc., Pearson PLC, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Abbott Laboratories, GKN PLC, and Ford Motor Co."

"By contrast, the pharmaceutical industry had 11 companies among the top 33 profit-margin leaders in 1998, all of them with margins higher than 17%. What's more, 20 -- or 55% -- of the 36 pharmaceutical companies had profit margins over 10%. The only other industries with more than 10 companies with profit margins over 10% -- each with 11 -- were chemicals and food (and eight of those were beer or alcohol firms)."

Quote[/b] ]There is a definate lack of data showing any chronic effects of fish consumption.

There's no proof, you mean. That's why we're having this lengthy discussion. Otherwise it would be a fact. However, there are very good indications, and I wouldn't want to be part of the first data, though.

I find it really strange that while you accept that tuna consumption may harm infants, at the same time you find it completely safe for adults...

Here are the symptoms of chronic mercury poisoning:

"1. Gingivitis: The gums become soft and spongy, the teeth get loose, sores may develop, and there may be increased salivation.
2. Mood and mental changes: People with chronic mercury poisoning often also have wide mood swings, becoming irritable, frightened, depressed, or excited very quickly for no apparent reason. Such people may become extremely upset at any criticism, lose all self-confidence, and become apathetic. Hallucinations, memory loss, and inability to concentrate can occur.
3. Nerve damage: It may start with a fine tremor (shaking) of the hand, loss of sensitivity in hands and feet, difficulty in walking, or slurred speech. Tremors may also occur in the tongue and eyelids. Eventually this can progress to trouble balancing and walking. It has even caused paralysis and death in rare cases."

Here are studies with tuna in cats, you wouldn't expect human studies to be available, would you ?

A tuna fish diet influences cat behavior
Health effect of long-term diet mercury contaminated tuna

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (micmic @ April 11 2003,10:21)]

Quote[/b] ]Most of his arguements on the subject are strange at best

My kids dont touch the stuff, neither does my wife. ANd between work and my Masters, I dont have much time for anything, apart from the occasional banter with you

Quote[/b] ]First time I heard this, it was from a mother who gave birth to a sb child and when he told her gyn that she was meticulously supplementing with folate, he mentioned that stuff. Since then, I have seen the same thing in various places. Here's a reference often cited (from PubMed): Maternal zinc, iron, folic acid, and protein nutriture and outcome of human pregnancy

You realise that this study doesnt really show anything related to neural tube defects. High folate was associated with complications and fetal distress (usually go hand in hand really). They dont state what 'complications' are (and I am too lazy to go across to the library to get it). Look at the age. The first trial to show the positive effect of folate on NTDs was the 1991 MRC Vitamin research groups project. And since then a number of trials have shown the same thing, and its gotten to the point that ethic groups will not allow any further trials becuase it increases the risk in the placebo group (not allowed of course)
[/URL]Hmm, lets see. J shaped risk curve from cholesterol levels, its well known. Just like an increased risk of suicide and cancer at the low levels of cholesterol. Cholesterol isnt the only risk factor for heart disease, there is a multitude. You can have low cholesterol and still die from heart disease. Two of the most promising are tHcy and hs-CRP (and going into IL-6 if testing was a bit easier).

Quote[/b] ]Hmmm... you ask for PubMed references but when someone presents them (like this one) you say his arguments are strange... Strange...

Cholesterol isnt the only risk factor for heart disease. It is one of the best at this stage in terms of public health. One can still die of heart disease with a low cholesterol and there are other promising risk factors in development, including teh homocsyteine and hs_CRP (and IL6 if htey could measure it easily).
THe J shaped curve is a well known phenominon (there is a similar one in BMI to motality but there is a well known reason for this). People will low cholesterol are also more likely to suffer cancer and also increased rates of suicide.
[/URL]Hmm, lets see. J shaped risk curve from cholesterol levels, its well known. Just like an increased risk of suicide and cancer at the low levels of cholesterol. Cholesterol isnt the only risk factor for heart disease, there is a multitude. You can have low cholesterol and still die from heart disease. Two of the most promising are tHcy and hs-CRP (and going into IL-6 if testing was a bit easier).

Quote[/b] ]Hmmm... you ask for PubMed references but when someone presents them (like this one) you say his arguments are strange... Strange...

Cholesterol isnt the only risk factor for heart disease. It is one of the best at this stage in terms of public health. One can still die of heart disease with a low cholesterol and there are other promising risk factors in development, including teh homocsyteine and hs_CRP (and IL6 if htey could measure it easily).
THe J shaped curve is a well known phenominon (there is a similar one in BMI to motality but there is a well known reason for this). People will low cholesterol are also more likely to suffer cancer and also increased rates of suicide.
Ravnskov is well known for his strange views, much like this one and others similar. Like this one that he complains about the lack of effect of ldl mortality etc, except most measurements these day, ldl is estimated from hdl and total, they dont usually measure ldl directly. TAGs, total:HDL ratio are far better. But never mentions them?

Quote[/b] ]
There are LOTS of such pieces.

and......

Quote[/b] ]Where did you see the "moderate protein, moderate fat" ? ? ? It's a high carbohydrate, low protein, low fat diet. Even its defenders admit that, they're just trying to stand up for high carb. Here's the pyramid, I don't know what you have in mind:
The Food Guide Pyramid

The food recommendations in most countries are around 15% protein, >50% carbs and <33% fats (With an approximately 1/3 split between the fatty acid subtypes). They do not recommend 60% to everyone. These recommendations are also based on a POPULATION level, NOT an individual level. The american diet is around 16% protein, around 30-33% fat depending on the subgroup and the remainder fat. Saturated fat makes up 50% of this fat, fruits and vegetables are not eaten to any great extent, and most carbohydrates are provided by sugars, high fructose corn syrup and the likes.
This is the standard american diet (SAD - narf), NOT the recommendations. There is research out there showing hte percentage of the population in the US following closely the food pyramid, and it aint many.
Look what the food pyramid (the american layout of their pyramid is terrible, confuses most people) says about breads/cereals - eat whole grain. Not go out and stuff your face with tons of energy dense processed foods.
If you can show me a piece of research that shows that a diet consisting of 15% protein, 50+ % carbohydrates from fruits/veges and whole grains with a good selection of fats at around 30% (and containing suitable energy), is bad for people I would be very interested.
The food pyramid itself isnt bad, its peoples interpretations of it. (15% protien is suitable for somebody doing little)

Quote[/b] ]I don't think he lives in NZ, right ?

we dont like riff raff

Quote[/b] ]Now it's my turn to ask for PubMed references... And I mean studies with effective amounts of Chitosan. And NOT funded by Roche... If a study funded by Roche and showing Chitosan to be ineffective (and with so many procedural fallacies) doesn't ring a bell to you...

Not funded by roche

Quote[/b] ]As for the more or less oily stools, there's nothing strange there: since Chitosan must be administered in higher doses in order to bind the same amount of fat as Xenical, the stool would be less oily.

Well if doses of chitosan makes people you know stools more oily (as you said they got similar to what xenical does), why would roche be thinking of using it to make peoples stools less oily.

Quote[/b] ]No-no-no:

from forbes list last year, there is a couple of pharmacuetical comapneis in the top 10, merek and pfizer. and J&J if you class them as pharmacys. Microsoft create a larger profit than any of them with about 1/2 the staff. Roche for example do not make the top 50, unless they trade under a different name in the states than they do here.
In terms of health care comapnies, there are 71 in the top 800 (or so) companies, but not all sell drugs. Most are involved in health care, but for the likes of Baxter sell IV fluids and tons of other delivery products

Quote[/b] ]There's no proof, you mean. That's why we're having this lengthy discussion. Otherwise it would be a fact. However, there are very good indications, and I wouldn't want to be part of the first data, though.
I find it really strange that while you accept that tuna consumption may harm infants, at the same time you find it completely safe for adults...

there are lots of things that would affect infants that adults dont even flinch at. Listeria will kill infants, newborns and fetuses but most adults wouldnt even notice it.

Quote[/b] ]
Here are studies with tuna in cats, you wouldn't expect human studies to be available, would you ?
A tuna fish diet influences cat behavior
Health effect of long-term diet mercury contaminated tuna

Glad Im not a cat taking part in research. Notice the point on the second article "None of the cats had definite methyl mercury poisoning, but some slight disturbances were noted in several cats." So even fed diets, containing high daily doses of tuna over 'long' term. Cats show no evidence of mercury poisoning, but some show slight disturbances (no indication of what they were or anything, or any idea of they related to mercury.
And in terms of expecting human research, if there is such a big problem with mercury poisoning in humans from eating fish, why isnt there research? If I believe Mercola , everybody who eats fish in general should be suffering these symptoms. Where are they? The only evidence of any problem with mercury seems to be comming from acute poisoning.

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (restless @ April 11 2003,8:18)]MErcola is saying that apparently the FDA has reviewed it's stand on the maximum safe levels of mercury intake and is now following EPA recomendations, which are 4 times lowqer than the previous FDA ones.

Hmm, strange isnt it
from the FDA

Quote[/b] (Food and Drug Administration @ April 8 2003:8:11)]April 8, 2003
FDA's Advisory on Methylmercury in Fish
Contrary to some recent news reports, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not issued a new advisory on methylmercury consumption. FDA’s current advisory regarding methylmercury and fish consumption still stands.
The current advisory, issued March 2001, recommends that pregnant women and women of childbearing age who may become pregnant not eat shark, swordfish, king mackerel, and tilefish. Also, as prudent public health advice, FDA also recommends that nursing mothers and young children not eat these four varieties of fish because of the relatively high levels of methylmercury they may contain.
The current advisory acknowledges that seafood can be an important part of a balanced diet for pregnant women and women of childbearing age who may become pregnant. Further, the current advisory provides that pregnant women and women of childbearing age can safely eat 12 ounces per week of a variety of other kinds of cooked fish (typical serving size of fish is from 3 to 6 ounces).
FDA believes that women following FDA’s advisory would generally be below the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) reference dose for methylmercury. FDA received a number of recommendations from its Food Advisory Committee last summer on how to improve this advisory. FDA will continue to work closely with EPA and others in developing the best science-based approaches to dealing with methylmercury in fish.

 

[micmic]

I've delayed a bit my reply because I had to hire a typist

Quote[/b] ]You realise that this study doesnt really show anything related to neural tube defects. High folate was associated with complications and fetal distress (usually go hand in hand really). They dont state what 'complications' are (and I am too lazy to go across to the library to get it). Look at the age. The first trial to show the positive effect of folate on NTDs was the 1991 MRC Vitamin research groups project. And since then a number of trials have shown the same thing, and its gotten to the point that ethic groups will not allow any further trials becuase it increases the risk in the placebo group (not allowed of course)

As I've already said, I don't vouch for this or that on this subject. I just wanted to show that high folate is not the definitive answer that some people claim it to be. There are concerns.

Quote[/b] ]Cholesterol isnt the only risk factor for heart disease. It is one of the best at this stage in terms of public health. One can still die of heart disease with a low cholesterol and there are other promising risk factors in development, including teh homocsyteine and hs_CRP (and IL6 if htey could measure it easily).

It is not even a risk factor. It just happens that when the risk for heart disease goes up, cholesterol *may* go up to. This doesn't mean that the raised cholesterol increased the risk for heart disease. Lowering cholesterol to fight heart disease is like giving painkillers to a brain cancer patient: the pain may go away but it won't cure the cancer.

Quote[/b] ]Ravnskov is well known for his strange views, much like this one and others similar. Like this one that he complains about the lack of effect of ldl mortality etc, except most measurements these day, ldl is estimated from hdl and total, they dont usually measure ldl directly. TAGs, total:HDL ratio are far better. But never mentions them?

I actually agree with his views. And, as you may have noticed, they are not just views. They are reviews of controlled studies.

Quote[/b] ]If you can show me a piece of research that shows that a diet consisting of 15% protein, 50+ % carbohydrates from fruits/veges and whole grains with a good selection of fats at around 30% (and containing suitable energy), is bad for people I would be very interested.

Of course I can't show you such a piece but this is completely irrelevant, since the food pyramid has nothing to do with the ratios you mention. Here's what a Harvard professor says about the food pyramid.
I have no idea on how would you get 30% fat from following a "food pyramid" diet, and I'm not the only one.

Quote[/b] ]Not funded by roche

I'm sorry if I'm a bit suspicious, but working for Eli Lilly in the past has taught me to be. Dr. Judith Stern who conducted the study you mentioned has close ties with many pharmaceutical companies and has even participated in surveys funded by Roche. She has also "received an honorarium from Knoll Pharmaceuticals and Wyeth-Ayerst and is an adviser to Weight Watchers International". Besides, why should we believe the study you mentioned (which used people with BMI=26 and gave to them Chitosan for 3-4 days) and not believe this one, which used people with BMI > 30 during a 6th month period and showed very good results ?

Quote[/b] ]there are lots of things that would affect infants that adults dont even flinch at. Listeria will kill infants, newborns and fetuses but most adults wouldnt even notice it.

Mercury is accumulated equally well in adults and infants. Babies are more sensitive to many infections, but this has to do with their weak immune system.

Quote[/b] ]Glad Im not a cat taking part in research. Notice the point on the second article "None of the cats had definite methyl mercury poisoning, but some slight disturbances were noted in several cats." So even fed diets, containing high daily doses of tuna over 'long' term. Cats show no evidence of mercury poisoning, but some show slight disturbances (no indication of what they were or anything, or any idea of they related to mercury.

Ok, this is from the same studies: "When observed in their home cages, cats fed commercial tuna fish cat food were less active, vocalized less, and spent more time on the floor and more time eating than cats fed commercial beef cat food."

What would it take to convince you ? All of theam dead ? And notice that these are controlled studies, so these symptoms were as real as it gets, not the kind "gee, that cat over there looks a bit lazy to me".

Quote[/b] ]And in terms of expecting human research, if there is such a big problem with mercury poisoning in humans from eating fish, why isnt there research? If I believe Mercola , everybody who eats fish in general should be suffering these symptoms. Where are they? The only evidence of any problem with mercury seems to be comming from acute poisoning.

No, not everybody would suffer the same symptoms. This is more than evident in all chronic poisonings from heavy metals. E.g., there are 50 people working in the same plant for 30 years and maybe 10-15 will have the symptoms. Not everyone will attribute it to the same thing, not everyone will visit the doctor. Some may die with the same symptoms, but 10 years apart from each other. Who would corelate all these ? If you read some cases of chronic poisonings from heavy metals, you will see that even when a factory was highly suspected, it took years for the victims to put together some convincing evidence.

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] ]I've delayed a bit my reply because I had to hire a typist

awwwww

Quote[/b] ]As I've already said, I don't vouch for this or that on this subject. I just wanted to show that high folate is not the definitive answer that some people claim it to be. There are concerns.

The only real concern of high folate intakes are the hiding of B12 deficiency (folate nad b12 deficiency share the same pathological diagnosis). This isn’t as much of a problem in the normal population, but elderly and vegans are potential problems. This wont matter with the use of the novel folic acid supplementation, l5 methyltetrahydrofolate, which is just being used in trials at the moment.

Quote[/b] ]It is not even a risk factor. It just happens that when the risk for heart disease goes up, cholesterol *may* go up to. This doesn't mean that the raised cholesterol increased the risk for heart disease. Lowering cholesterol to fight heart disease is like giving painkillers to a brain cancer patient: the pain may go away but it won't cure the cancer.

Unfortunately for you, it is a risk factor, one that has been shown in over 40 clinical trials, and one that has by far, the majority of science behind it. These studies are PROSPECTIVE, so the cholesterol levels are determined years in advance (even followed up over time) After a myocardial infarction, cholesterol levels go up, this is why case/control research on the subject is not as good. Lowering cholesterol in people with hypercholesterolaemia is nothing like giving pain killers to a cancer patient, and has been shown in numerous clinical trials to lower the risk of MIs (in primary and secondary prevention trials.) Even if you look into the inflammatory aspect of CVD, cholesterol and saturated fats in general increase the inflammation, and increase risk.

Quote[/b] ]I actually agree with his views. And, as you may have noticed, they are not just views. They are reviews of controlled studies.

I can tell you agree with him, do you take fish oils?

Quote[/b] ]Of course I can't show you such a piece but this is completely irrelevant, since the food pyramid has nothing to do with the ratios you mention. Here's what a Harvard professor says about the food pyramid.
I have no idea on how would you get 30% fat from following a "food pyramid" diet, and I'm not the only one.

Mr Walter Willett, Harvard epidemiologist not nutritionally trained. And guess who is having absolutely nothing to do with the development of the nutritional recommendations for the United States.
So lets go into the major comments about walter willets problems, well he only likes to reference to his own work, or primarily American research. His research has all the potential pitfalls of all cohorts, loss to follow up being the major problem. And while he likes to say that his FFQ is a wonderful way of estimating food intake, its still a pretty poor method of nutritional assessment.
Willetts concept of the food pyramid is flawed (which is shown in a large number of his writings in research journals. He thinks all high carbohydrate diets = food pyramid. His concept of the food pyramid is as bad as the general populations.
30% fat as a percentage of energy is the normal recommendations for most populations in the world. I mean, even if you go into the USDA website, their recommendations for fat intake revolve around 30% fat, and below 14% energy as saturated fat. Their recommendations are to use vegetable oils rather than hard animals fats (ie decrease SAFA and increase MUFA and PUFA). And while most people who say they eat a high carbohydrate diet, eat processed, high glycemic items, they also actually eat more than the recommendations. The recommendations say 6-11 servings of grain products daily. Most people would need 6 or actually less (they are trying to cover the average person, which in America is quite large). 11 servings would be for a very active person. 5 servings of fruits and vegetables, rather low, this should be significantly higher, especially veges. And the USDA recommends eat only whole grain, which is not the normal way people eat (especially in America)
Now, if the public health system started recommending what Willett recommends, there would be as much problems as we have now, not less. This is because people are stupid. Tell them to eat more carbs and less fat, they eat the worst option to get that way. Tell them to eat more fat and they wont care where that fat comes from, but you wouldn’t agree with the saturated fat as a problem, because you agree with Ravnskov and he doesn’t agree with saturated being bad, or polyunsaturated being good now does he. (But willett agrees that certain saturates, especially the ones that raise cholesterol) are bad and that polyunsaturates are generally positive.)

Quote[/b] ]I'm sorry if I'm a bit suspicious, but working for Eli Lilly in the past has taught me to be. Dr. Judith Stern who conducted the study you mentioned has close ties with many pharmaceutical companies and has even participated in surveys funded by Roche. She has also "received an honorarium from Knoll Pharmaceuticals and Wyeth-Ayerst and is an adviser to Weight Watchers International". Besides, why should we believe the study you mentioned (which used people with BMI=26 and gave to them Chitosan for 3-4 days) and not believe this one, which used people with BMI > 30 during a 6th month period and showed very good results ?

The study I mentioned didn’t measure weight loss, it only measured the effect of chitosan on fecal excretion of fat. If chitosan is going to increase excretion of fat, it would happen in the first day, first dosage, it wouldn’t take six months.
And can you speak polish, do you have the article that you referenced in front of you, and read the entire thing? You release abstracts are next to worthless don’t you?

Quote[/b] ]Mercury is accumulated equally well in adults and infants. Babies are more sensitive to many infections, but this has to do with their weak immune system.

What’s the main difference between an infant and an adult.
Hmmm,
Maybe their SIZE has something to do with it, and maybe potentially, their immature systems have something to do with it. And maybe that they are growing at a phenomenal rate, that no adult, not even bodybuilders can even match, and no adult even has a chance to match the neural growth of a fetus/infant.

Quote[/b] ]Ok, this is from the same studies: "When observed in their home cages, cats fed commercial tuna fish cat food were less active, vocalized less, and spent more time on the floor and more time eating than cats fed commercial beef cat food."
What would it take to convince you ? All of theam dead ? And notice that these are controlled studies, so these symptoms were as real as it gets, not the kind "gee, that cat over there looks a bit lazy to me".

Feed a dog chocolate, and it can kill them. Does that mean all humans avoid chocolate? Did they provide any statistical analysis of difference between the groups for these ‘symptoms’ or was it just guessed that the group had more of these symptoms than others. How did they measure them, record them over the 24 hours. Classify the data? And a bazillion other questions.

Quote[/b] ]No, not everybody would suffer the same symptoms. This is more than evident in all chronic poisonings from heavy metals. E.g., there are 50 people working in the same plant for 30 years and maybe 10-15 will have the symptoms. Not everyone will attribute it to the same thing, not everyone will visit the doctor. Some may die with the same symptoms, but 10 years apart from each other. Who would corelate all these ? If you read some cases of chronic poisonings from heavy metals, you will see that even when a factory was highly suspected, it took years for the victims to put together some convincing evidence.

Increases in mercury into the environment has been happening for over a century, surely at some point during this, somebody would have performed research showing any link between mercury and something happening in humans. Even Mercola only seems to go on about fish, mercury and fetus’s. (well, when reading his fish articles anyway.)