[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Uh, dont know where you are getting your information, but it is low folate intake, directed thru its effect on homocysteine metabolism. Apart from the occasional nut folate has consistently shown lowered incidence of neural tube defect, and from memory since the introduction of mandatory fortification in the USA, Neural tube defects have also gone down
Yes, this is the tendency right now, but:
"In addition to achieving significant protection against birth defects, women who take folic acid supplements during pregnancy have been reported to have fewer infections and to give birth to babies with higher birth weights and better Apgar scores.10 However, waiting to begin supplementation until pregnancy has been diagnosed may increase the risk of birth defects."
And also:
"For the women for whom folic acid does have a preventative effect, it is thought that the problem is not necessarily a deficiency in dietary folic acid but a difficulty with metabolism at the crucial time for the developing embryo. In these cases the folic acid works by overcoming a partial block in the metabolism of homocysteine, an amino acid. Recent research suggests that a genetic abnormality is at least partly responsible for this failure of proper metabolism."
I'm not endorsing this or that, I'm just showing how contradictious the literature may be.
As far as homocysteine is concerned, this is the new craze. You visit a cardiologist < 40 years old and they talk about homocysteine all the time. You go to a cardiologist > 50 years old and when you say "homocysteine" they think you're calling them names. Since the link between cholesterol and heart disease starts to prove rather weak, they have to find something else. How long before they discover that homocysteine
is not the cause but
just another symptom ? I give them 10-20 years, so that the industry can cash their studies on homocysteine- reducing drugs.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If there was as much mercury in the fish stocks as mercola nd the other extremists say there is, there would be more current information other than a vauge base information about seafood and pregnancy etc.
We're talking here about
chronic accumulation, it could take 20 or 30 years before a serious disease appears and even then, it would be only in the genetically predisposed. It just can't be proved, because we don't have a large enough, controlled group of people that take high mercury doses every day.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]As for Stephen Barrett. Did he change his perspective about glucosamine because of pharmacuetical pressure, or because more decent research came out about the subject? A scientist will change his position on a subject if more information is brought about.
If you read his pages (and I've read quite a few of them) he "exploits" and "uncovers" everyone under the sun: Chiropractors, Homeopathy, Iridology, Herbalists, Pharmacists, Supplement companies, Ayurveda, Aromatherapy, Dieticians, Nutritionists, Reflexology etc. The one thing he
never touches, is physicians and pharmaceutical companies. Why doesn't he tell us about the quackery that Xenical is, but "exposes" Chitosan which does the same thing ? Why doesn't he tell us about how Astra is promoting Nexium instead of Losec when it is not any better (but Losec has a lot of generics now, right ?) Why doesn't he tell us about the tragic hoax of COX-2 specific inhibitors and the studies that were kept secret from the FDA ? He has a HUGE web site that deals with EVERYTHING, he has never touched not even remotely the pharmaceutical industry, and yet he is impudent enough to claim he has no financial ties with anyone!
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Of course, and in the development of a public health strategie for smoking, there should be mention of both postive and negative studies about smoking, otherwise a potential industry may have limits/taxs/shutdown due to incorrect information.
Yeah, right, go ahead and read some stuff from
FORCES, it really gives you the creeps. It's advertised as "a non-profit educational corporation" HA-HA-ROTFL! Tell me where the negative stuff is in their (huge) site.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]But, there is little evidence, that supposed buildups from normal intakes of fish do anything. If there was an interaction, fish wouldnt have the generally extremely postive health benifits that it has been shown to have time and time again.
I assume you are talking about studies that take into account the nutritional habits as a whole, and not necessarily just the fish intake. You know how these studies fail to show us what can be attributed to what... Japanese may eat more fish and have less heart attacks, but they also eat a lot of different things and have higher rates of other diseases... not to mention the thing that studies are done in people that started eating fish 30 years ago, when contamination was much less of a problem.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The iraq example was due to the grain being treated with an alkai mercury fungicide before sowing and the bread etc made from teh plants was a large percentage of their normal days food.
Yes, but here's what happened in Japan:
"In 1953, an epidemic hit fishermen and their families in villages on Japan's Minamata Bay. A number of people who were highly dependent on seafood showed signs of brain damage. Some of these cases were fatal. An investigation revealed that a local chemical plant was discharging organic mercury into the bay. The fish in the area absorbed the mercury and eventually passed it on to the villagers."
This may be a case of acute poisoning, but shows the affinity between brain tissue and mercury...
As far as whether we sould be concerned or not, even the FDA has
recommended that pregnant women be warned about mercury in canned tuna. But let's skip the infants one more. If levels above normal are found in canned tuna, and if mercury is toxic, then it is my logical conclusion that I should be very-very careful. Otherwise, I don't see the meaning of maximum allowed merculry levels in canned fish.