Quoted message said:You posted this in a SCI newsgroup. If its just your opinion
you should say so.
Quoted message said:Your inability to support your statements confirms that your
statements are junk.
My refusal to engage in a debate with someone that gets their thrills by
being an ass does not mean that I am unable or unwilling to support my
position... only that I will not engage in a debate with an ass. Had
you approached me in a civil manner, we'd be having a civil debate at
this point, because I am quite capable of supporting my position.
Quoted message said:Yes, I said that so here you go: PMID: 14632570
full text is available.
Costco is a very cheap brand which was tested.
So you're using a study on fish oil to prove your position on cod liver
oil? You just (correctly) said they're different.
But we'll use yours. It says:
"The levels of mercury in the 5 different brands of fish oil ranged from
nondetectable (<6 microg/L) to negligible (10-12 microg/L)."
Now look up this study: PMID: 10789973
There you'll see this:
"Inorganic mercury has been reported to produce harmful effects at 5
microg/l in a culture medium. Organomercury compounds can exert the same
effect at concentrations 10 times lower than this."
"But," you say "this study isn't even talking about humans." You'd be
right... except that, as humans, we depend on a wide variety of
bacterial help with our digestion. The levels of mercury found to be
"safe" in your study are clearly enough to affect bacteria. I'll let
you connect the dots.
Quoted message said:still, you claimed that some CLO sources are high in mercury.
I guess you forgot that and snipped it.
Nope. I just found several sites. As I said before, the data is there.
Go fetch it. It's not my job to prove it to an ass.
Quoted message said:apparently you don't have a thing to post in support of
your statement.
I'll just snip the rest of your repetitive opninion-based babble use a
blanket statement for all of them "I'm not here to argue with an ass."
Quoted message said:That link you give to support "if the CLO is supplemented with
synthetic vitamins, you have to be careful about vitamin toxicity. "
doesn't say a thing about that.
Since you seem to think that natural and synthetic vitamin A are the
same, I'll give you this link:
http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitaminaknavery.html
Quoted message said:As I said, its your link, I already gave it back to you.
here it is again:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:http://www.westonaprice.org/letters/L2003wi.html
Quoted message said:under 'downside'. look for 'Cod liver oil is no longer recommended...'
read what you post.
Your browser must be better than mine. I find nothing on that page that
says "downside" or "no longer recommended"
Quite the contrary, the WAP Foundation has this page:
http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/clarifications.html
where it says :
"http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/clarifications.html"
This page admits there is a possibility of toxicity, but you'd have to
drink nearly an entire bottle of "natural" CLO to reach toxic levels.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:It sounds like you are one of the 'evil magic comes from synthetic...
Yup. And insulting me doesn't make it any less true. Feel free to read
over this:
http://www.mercola.com/2004/jan/3/vitamin_a.htm
A paragraph from the article has this to say:
"Secondly, cod liver oil has vitamin D in it, and it is virtually
impossible to become toxic on vitamin A if you take it along with
vitamin D. As you can see in a study published in the December 2003
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vitamin D is associated with
reduced vitamin A toxicity, and the vitamin D appears to protect against
retinal toxicity."
Quoted message said:Good, Mercola recognises A toxicity.
the study he references is
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/6/1152
The study concluded that D reduced toxicity until a 10:1 increase in
dose.
It compared oil soluable to a water-miscible, emulsified form, so
some of this difference may be if perhaps water-miscible, emulsified
form
was just superior absorption by the water-miscible, emulsified form.
It didn't just vary vit D.
Quoted message said:All of the oil supplemented subjects were under age 2 (see table 3).
so the statement:
"These thresholds do not vary considerably with age."
seems pretty weak when applied to oil supplements.
Quoted message said:The study also states:
"In general, subjects who took oil-based retinol supplements reported
more symptoms than did those who took water-miscible or emulsified
forms. "
A retinol supplement, again, would be synthetic and/or an isolated
vitamin. Where would one get something like that in a natural product?
Quoted message said:but its about 17 infants and toddlers which happened to be taking
the oil. The groups were not matched and there were no adults taking
it.
Quoted message said:Did I miss something here?
It seems this study doesn't support you in any way.
You're entitled to your opinion... which is a good thing, since that's
all you seem to have.
Quoted message said:it says there are vit A overdoses with the oil.
Just because it's in oil doens't mean there's vitamin D with it, OR
that's it's a natural product.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:We are living in the first point in history where man can artificially
consume vitamins in a totally isolated form. That's not natural, and
our bodies aren't designed to process vitamins that way. Study after
study confirms that isolated nutrients are more potent when taken with
natural cofactors that accompany them in nature.
Quoted message said:so that makes it true always?
or, in this case?
your mercola ref says the opposite,
the nutrient is LESS potent with natural cofactors.
You seem to b confusing "potent" with "toxic." Let me get those
definitions for you:
toxic - Capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical
means; poisonous
potent - Exerting or capable of exerting strong physiological or
chemical effects.
Quoted message said:I don't need to 'disprove' whatever some looney posts.
I gave you the oppportunity to show that you are otherwise.
for the most part, you passed.
Because you're an ass, not because I can't. Learn civility and you'll
get a lot more people willing to talk to you.
Quoted message said:CLO is overpriced compared to fish oil.
the value of CLO for 'anyone' needs to be established.
The study used by Mercola to defend it states that vit A
overdoses occur.
I've been searching for a place that sells a high quality fish oil for
cheaper than CLO, so if you have a supplier, I'd be happy to see it.
Quoted message said:your attacking me does nothing to prove anything you said.
but that's all you've got.
but your one study (on fish oil, not CLO) means you're credible...
riiiiight.
