Re: Is oily fish really healthy?

Max C. said:

Hey look everyone. Pearl is back with her vegan agenda.

Your article clearly states that it's reporting on a study of
studies, which has far less value than an actual study, and that its
findings differ from larger studies. So why is that? Could it be that
there was no accounting for how the fish were raised? Farm raised fish
foods are inferior to wild fish foods.

http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/fishy.html
In the wild, salmon forage the oceans feeding on colorful crustaceans,
plankton and algae, which naturally impart a beautiful shade of pink to
the flesh of their predators. But when salmon are farmed and unable to
forage, their flesh is an insipid, unappealing color-one few
consumers would choose. Hence, canthaxanthin or astaxanthin or both are
added to the feed of farmed salmon.

http://www.healthcastle.com/wildsalmon-farmraisedsalmon.shtml
* David Suzuki Foundation: In January 2001, BBC News produced a program
"Warnings from the Wild, The Price of Salmon". The program cited a
pilot study conducted by Dr Easton with David Suzuki Foundation. The
study found that farm raised salmon and the feed they were fed appeared
to have a much higher level of contamination with respect to PCBs,
organo-chlorine pesticides and polybrominated diphenyl ethers than did
wild salmon. It concluded that it seems that contamination in farm fish
comes from the feed.

* EWG Report: In July 2003, the Environmental Working Group EWG
released a report stating that farm raised salmon purchased in the
United States contain the highest level of PCBs in the food supply
system. In the report, EWG reported that farm raised salmon have 16
times PCBs found in wild salmon, 4 times the levels in beef, and 3.4
times the levels in other seafood. EWG recommends that consumers choose
wild salmon instead of farm raised salmon, and they should eat an 8 oz
serving of farm raised salmon no more than once a month.

* Science Journal: In January 2004, the journal Science warned that
farm raised salmon contain 10 times more toxins (PCBs, dioxin, etc.)
than wild salmon. The study recommends that farm raised salmon should
be eaten once a month, perhaps every two months as they pose cancer
risks to the human beings.

We've talked about your willingness to post skewed evidence of animal
foods in the past. You're quick to point out when someone posts
misinformation on plant foods, making sure we all understand when a
plant food has been processed or grown with chemicals, but you freely
post misinformation on processed animal foods or animal foods that have
not been properly raised as though it represented all animal foods.
You can continue to do so, but I will continue to point out your
deception.

Max.

Excellent points and commentary. Same for Roy. If this is
representative of your knowledge, I hope you both spend more time
combatting disinformation on mha in the future.

PeterB

"PeterB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Max C. said:

Hey look everyone. Pearl is back with her vegan agenda.

Your article clearly states that it's reporting on a study of
studies, which has far less value than an actual study, and that its
findings differ from larger studies. So why is that? Could it be that
there was no accounting for how the fish were raised? Farm raised fish
foods are inferior to wild fish foods.

http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/fishy.html
In the wild, salmon forage the oceans feeding on colorful crustaceans,
plankton and algae, which naturally impart a beautiful shade of pink to
the flesh of their predators. But when salmon are farmed and unable to
forage, their flesh is an insipid, unappealing color-one few
consumers would choose. Hence, canthaxanthin or astaxanthin or both are
added to the feed of farmed salmon.

http://www.healthcastle.com/wildsalmon-farmraisedsalmon.shtml
* David Suzuki Foundation: In January 2001, BBC News produced a program
"Warnings from the Wild, The Price of Salmon". The program cited a
pilot study conducted by Dr Easton with David Suzuki Foundation. The
study found that farm raised salmon and the feed they were fed appeared
to have a much higher level of contamination with respect to PCBs,
organo-chlorine pesticides and polybrominated diphenyl ethers than did
wild salmon. It concluded that it seems that contamination in farm fish
comes from the feed.

* EWG Report: In July 2003, the Environmental Working Group EWG
released a report stating that farm raised salmon purchased in the
United States contain the highest level of PCBs in the food supply
system. In the report, EWG reported that farm raised salmon have 16
times PCBs found in wild salmon, 4 times the levels in beef, and 3.4
times the levels in other seafood. EWG recommends that consumers choose
wild salmon instead of farm raised salmon, and they should eat an 8 oz
serving of farm raised salmon no more than once a month.

* Science Journal: In January 2004, the journal Science warned that
farm raised salmon contain 10 times more toxins (PCBs, dioxin, etc.)
than wild salmon. The study recommends that farm raised salmon should
be eaten once a month, perhaps every two months as they pose cancer
risks to the human beings.

We've talked about your willingness to post skewed evidence of animal
foods in the past. You're quick to point out when someone posts
misinformation on plant foods, making sure we all understand when a
plant food has been processed or grown with chemicals, but you freely
post misinformation on processed animal foods or animal foods that have
not been properly raised as though it represented all animal foods.
You can continue to do so, but I will continue to point out your
deception.

Max.

Excellent points and commentary. Same for Roy. If this is
representative of your knowledge, I hope you both spend more time
combatting disinformation on mha in the future.

PeterB

It's recommended to break one open in your mouth every few weeks to check
for rancidity.

Quoted message said:

Excellent points and commentary. Same for Roy. If this is
representative of your knowledge, I hope you both spend more time
combatting disinformation on mha in the future.

Thanks for your kind words, Peter. I actually didn't realize I had
posted to mha, though I should have guessed pearl would cross post her
vegan BS to as many groups as possible. I see now that she cross
posted this junk to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, sci.med.nutrition,
misc.health.alternative, uk.politics.animals and talk.environment.
That alone should clue you in to her mission.

I use Google Groups to post to usenet, so when I click the reply link,
it doesn't give me an option to add or remove groups from the post by
default.

Max.

Quoted message said:

What's up, Max? Still sore after the hiding you got last time?

You mean the one where I completely discredited you, as evidenced by
the numerous emails I received and by the pathetic name-calling you
resorted to when your position was completely debunked? Not really
anything to be sore about, as anyone can see here:

http://tinyurl.com/l4bp7

Quoted message said:

I suppose all these sources have a "vegan agenda" too...

Nope. They're just a bunch of reporters that don't have the
intelligence to think for themselves or ask the tough questions. And
aren't they ALL just reporting on the same study you posted at the
beginning of this thread? (I've always loved how you think posting
in quantity somehow proves your point.) That just goes to show that
investigative reporting is dead. No one is willing to question the
scientists. That doesn't make the story true. It makes it
ill-informed.

I didn't see a single items in any of your BS there that asked about
the diets of the animals in question. If you like I can go back and
reference actual data from the China Study that shows cholesterol in
the diet is beneficial. It's right there in the link I just provided.

Max.

Max C. said:

Quoted message said:

Excellent points and commentary. Same for Roy. If this is
representative of your knowledge, I hope you both spend more time
combatting disinformation on mha in the future.

Thanks for your kind words, Peter. I actually didn't realize I had
posted to mha, though I should have guessed pearl would cross post her
vegan BS to as many groups as possible. I see now that she cross
posted this junk to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, sci.med.nutrition,
misc.health.alternative, uk.politics.animals and talk.environment.
That alone should clue you in to her mission.

I use Google Groups to post to usenet, so when I click the reply link,
it doesn't give me an option to add or remove groups from the post by
default.

Max.

Well, hopefully you won't be a stranger to mha. Take care.

PeterB

Max C. said:

Hey look everyone. Pearl is back with her vegan agenda.

Hey Look everyone. Max Christian is back with his snobby Christian
Agenda.

Why do you care so much about Diet, Christian? Ain't you in a rush to
get to heaven, or are you having too much fun being a snob and an [censored]
on these ngs?

Tell us, so that we can understand you snobbery better. 🙂

Max C. said:

Quoted message said:

What's up, Max? Still sore after the hiding you got last time?

You mean the one where I completely discredited you, as evidenced by
the numerous emails I received and by the pathetic name-calling you
resorted to when your position was completely debunked? Not really
anything to be sore about, as anyone can see here:

http://tinyurl.com/l4bp7

You kicked her skinny pimply ass, big-time. Good job!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suppose all these sources have a "vegan agenda" too...

Nope. They're just a bunch of reporters that don't have the
intelligence to think for themselves or ask the tough questions.

There really is only *one* source there: her vaunted study of studies.
All those links were just standard news reports based on a press
release. They're all about the same thing. In fact, you catch that
yourself, right below:

Quoted message said:

And aren't they ALL just reporting on the same study you posted at the
beginning of this thread? (I've always loved how you think posting
in quantity somehow proves your point.)

Yep! The standard lesley flood of [censored]: "If you can't dazzle 'em with
brilliance, baffle 'em with [censored]." Lesley has done that for years.

Quoted message said:

That just goes to show that
investigative reporting is dead. No one is willing to question the
scientists. That doesn't make the story true. It makes it
ill-informed.

I didn't see a single items in any of your BS there that asked about
the diets of the animals in question. If you like I can go back and
reference actual data from the China Study that shows cholesterol in
the diet is beneficial. It's right there in the link I just provided.

Max.

"Max C." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What's up, Max? Still sore after the hiding you got last time?

You mean the one where I completely discredited you, as evidenced by
the numerous emails I received and by the pathetic name-calling you
resorted to when your position was completely debunked? Not really
anything to be sore about, as anyone can see here:

http://tinyurl.com/l4bp7

Quoted message said:

I suppose all these sources have a "vegan agenda" too...

Nope. They're just a bunch of reporters that don't have the
intelligence to think for themselves or ask the tough questions. And
aren't they ALL just reporting on the same study you posted at the
beginning of this thread? (I've always loved how you think posting
in quantity somehow proves your point.) That just goes to show that
investigative reporting is dead. No one is willing to question the
scientists. That doesn't make the story true. It makes it
ill-informed.

I didn't see a single items in any of your BS there that asked about
the diets of the animals in question. If you like I can go back and
reference actual data from the China Study that shows cholesterol in
the diet is beneficial. It's right there in the link I just provided.

Max.

Oh come now, cholesterol beneficial?

Cholesterol feeds the brain. For those who have none (brain) it's a
problem.

"Leif Erikson" <[email hidden]>

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and by the pathetic name-calling you resorted to

Quoted message said:

I said that you were foolishly arrogant to assume that
you knew better than the researchers, and that's true.

Why dont' we take a look at some of the lines you started hurling when
you couldn't debate based on the merits of your position, shall we?

pearl said to Max:

Quoted message said:

Your ignorant smears are contemptible

Quoted message said:

Twit

Quoted message said:

Another pile of slanderous delusional [censored].

Quoted message said:

Hypothesis, my ass.

Quoted message said:

Sure, chief

And now in this post you've already started the name-calling. I must
really get under your skin. 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/l4bp7

Quoted message said:

Very clever... posting a long whine to a group I'm not subscribed to.
I suppose it makes it easier when your opponent isn't likely to reply.
You were dragged over the coals every which way on everything.

1 - Not really sure what you're talking about. You replied 10 times in
the link I provided above, so you clearly saw my posts.

2 - Funny how you seem to be the ONLY person that thinks you won that
debate. What a blissful state of denial you live in.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

when your position was completely debunked?

Quoted message said:

Not mine.

Yup, yours.

Quoted message said:

You haven't read all (any?) of those articles to be able to say that.
Nor have you read the study that is being referred to. So, - so
much for 'investigative reporting', max. And must I remind you
once again that I *did* produce an abstract the trial/s in question?

Prove it. Show me where the diets of the fish are addressed in ANY of
the articles you've *already* posted. Once again, what we have here is
you *thinking* that quantity is the same as quality. You post the same
BS, just written by different people. It's still the same story.
They're all writing about the same press release. You just went to
Google News (or some news blogger) and pasted in all the stories about
the press release you could find. So, if the original study of studies
you posted didn't account for what the fish ate, there's no possible
way the reports can. I like to call that "logic." Try it. You might
like it.

Quoted message said:

Wow... you really are dense. Socioeconomic factors.. dumbass.
- there you go! .. and boy, are you deserving!!

Ah, there's that name calling again. 🙂 I love it when vegans can't
argue based on the merits of their completely wrong position. Tell you
what, why don't you use those socioeconomic factors to show us exactly
what the animals were eating? I can't wait to see a socioeconomic
factor report that states what went in the mouth of a cow. We're all
here waiting. And this time, why not try to put it in a nice, short,
tidy little post that makes your point, rather than rambling on for 10
pages about the same old BS.

Quoted message said:

'The information obtained from this survey included nutritional,
metabolic, hormonal, environmental, reproductive, demographic
and socioeconomic characteristics. The combined data from the
two surveys of 65 counties (130 communes) consisted of 367

i> tems of information including cumulative disease-specific county

Quoted message said:

mortality rates (from the 1973-1975 retrospective study) and a
comprehensive set of dietary, lifestyle and environmental
characteristics.

Of the humans... not the animals they ate... nor of the ways the foods
were prepared.

Quoted message said:

Now... we *know* that the cattle were grass-fed, and the
poultry and pigs -at that time- traditionally raised and fed.

Really? We know for sure that those cattle weren't fed grains? Where
does it says that? We also know that those in the most rural areas
weren't eating their cattle, many if not MOST of those families didn't
even have access to animal foods AND they were using a LOT of powdered
milk, which I provided links to in our previous debate. We ALSO know
that, on the whole, animal foods provided protective factors to
longevity, THE most important aspect of the study. You can continue to
pick out the parts of the study that support your flawed position, but
it won't change the fact that the overall role of animal foods in the
China Study provided protection in all-cause death.

Quoted message said:

What are you going to do now, max? Snip and evade,
and attack and lie about me some more? Surprise us.

Which parts about you were lies? It's all right there in the link I
provided. I can see why you wouldn't want anyone to be able to
reference our debate, and why you'd try to make it appear as though you
had no idea about it, but it's all right there for everyone to see.
I've already addressed almost everything you've said in this most
recent post of yours. I really don't see the need to do it again. You
proved you wrong then, and you're still wrong now.

You must really hate the fact that Google will have that debate in its
archives forever.

Max.

"Leif Erikson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Max C. said:

Quoted message said:

What's up, Max? Still sore after the hiding you got last time?

You mean the one where I completely discredited you, as evidenced by
the numerous emails I received and by the pathetic name-calling you
resorted to when your position was completely debunked?

Puhleeeasseeee, let's not go into the receiving of emails. That's an old
trick used by many, often not true.

Not really

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anything to be sore about, as anyone can see here:

http://tinyurl.com/l4bp7

You kicked her skinny pimply ass, big-time. Good job!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suppose all these sources have a "vegan agenda" too...

Nope. They're just a bunch of reporters that don't have the
intelligence to think for themselves or ask the tough questions.

There really is only *one* source there: her vaunted study of studies.
All those links were just standard news reports based on a press
release. They're all about the same thing. In fact, you catch that
yourself, right below:

Quoted message said:

And aren't they ALL just reporting on the same study you posted at the
beginning of this thread? (I've always loved how you think posting
in quantity somehow proves your point.)

Yep! The standard lesley flood of [censored]: "If you can't dazzle 'em with
brilliance, baffle 'em with [censored]." Lesley has done that for years.

Quoted message said:

That just goes to show that
investigative reporting is dead. No one is willing to question the
scientists. That doesn't make the story true. It makes it
ill-informed.

I didn't see a single items in any of your BS there that asked about
the diets of the animals in question. If you like I can go back and
reference actual data from the China Study that shows cholesterol in
the diet is beneficial. It's right there in the link I just provided.

Max.

Take you squabble Back where it belongs, please. Along with your vulgar
language.

"Leif Erikson" <[email hidden]> wrote

[ ]

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:41:57 -0700 in article
<[email hidden]> "vernon"

Quoted message said:

Cholesterol feeds the brain. For those who have none (brain) it's a
problem.

Cholesterol intake and serum cholesterol are irrelavant for brain's
cholseterol requirements, because cholesterol cannot get across
blood-brain barrier, brain makes its own cholesterola. Moreover, high
dietary or serum cholesterol seems to down-regulate brain's cholesterol
synthesis. References:

Vance JE, Hayashi H, Karten B.
Cholesterol homeostasis in neurons and glial cells.
Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2005 Apr;16(2):193-212. Review.
PMID: 15797830 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15797830>

Bjorkhem I, Meaney S.
Brain cholesterol: long secret life behind a barrier.
Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2004 May;24(5):806-15. Epub 2004 Feb 5.
Review.
PMID: 14764421 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/5/806>

Edmond J, Korsak RA, Morrow JW, Torok-Both G, Catlin DH.
Dietary cholesterol and the origin of cholesterol in the brain of
developing rats.
J Nutr. 1991 Sep;121(9):1323-30.
PMID: 1880610 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1880610>

Sparks DL, Connor DJ, Browne PJ, Lopez JE, Sabbagh MN.
HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) in the treatment of Alzheimer's
disease and why it would be ill-advise to use one that crosses the
blood-brain barrier.
J Nutr Health Aging. 2002;6(5):324-31.
PMID: 12474023 [PubMed - in process]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12474023>

Lutjohann D, Stroick M, Bertsch T, Kuhl S, Lindenthal B, Thelen K,
Andersson U, Bjorkhem I, Bergmann Kv K, Fassbender K.
High doses of simvastatin, pravastatin, and cholesterol reduce brain
cholesterol synthesis in guinea pigs.
Steroids. 2004 Jun;69(6):431-8.
PMID: 15219793 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15219793>

--
Matti Narkia

"Matti Narkia" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:41:57 -0700 in article
<[email hidden]> "vernon"

Quoted message said:

Cholesterol feeds the brain. For those who have none (brain) it's a
problem.

Summation of Matti Post.

Cholesterol is made by the body.

Ignored by Matti, no evidence that cholesterol intake changes anything
except make people fat.

Ignored by MATTI, ALL cholesterol in the body is made by the body. The body
decides how much to make dependant on everything BUT fat or cholesterol
independent, except for hydrogenated fats and ONLY hydrogenated (partial or
full) fats.

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:18:42 -0700 in article
<[email hidden]> "vernon"

Quoted message said:

Summation of Matti Post.

Cholesterol is made by the body.

Most of it, but some of it is obtained from the diet, except in vegans.
Circulating cholesterol, which is produced in the liver and obtained from
the diet (except in vegans), does not get into the brain, which produces
its own cholesterol

Quoted message said:

Ignored by Matti, no evidence that cholesterol intake changes anything
except make people fat.

Not true, you are ignoring the evidence, but evidence does not disappear
just because you ignore it.

Quoted message said:

Ignored by MATTI, ALL cholesterol in the body is made by the body.

Only in vegans.

Quoted message said:

The body
decides how much to make dependant on everything BUT fat or cholesterol
independent, except for hydrogenated fats and ONLY hydrogenated (partial or
full) fats.

Huh? Is that a coherent sentence?

--
Matti Narkia

Max Christian. said:

Yup, yours.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Mighty Christian of yours, Christian.

I always knew that you were a fraud. Now, I have the proof in print!

You have my condolences, Liar.

Matti Narkia said:

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:41:57 -0700 in article
<[email hidden]> "vernon"

Quoted message said:

Cholesterol feeds the brain. For those who have none (brain) it's a
problem.

Cholesterol intake and serum cholesterol are irrelavant for brain's
cholseterol requirements, because cholesterol cannot get across
blood-brain barrier, brain makes its own cholesterola. Moreover, high
dietary or serum cholesterol seems to down-regulate brain's cholesterol
synthesis. References:

Possibly are some of the feedback signal molecules also transported
over the brain barriere giving downtuning signals even in brain.
Perhaps not a good idea.

Just a wild guess based on knowledge about regulation theory and
enzyme kinetics back in biochemistry study (I worked with enzyme
kinetics and even tried to do simulations of regulated systems, but
computers was not good enough at that time, and the computer that
could have solved it was far to expensive to use for my thesis. So I
gave up that part of my thesis, together with a nearly finished
protein sequence program which would otherwise have been the very
first published in that area of biochemistry to my knowledge, but they
changed the computer a few week before and Simula 67 was not among the
compilers supported anymore on that new DEC VAX computer (in 1983)
:-(
But then DNA sequencing took over, anyway)

"Alf Christophersen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matti Narkia said:

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:41:57 -0700 in article
<[email hidden]> "vernon"

Quoted message said:

Cholesterol feeds the brain. For those who have none (brain) it's a
problem.

Cholesterol intake and serum cholesterol are irrelavant for brain's
cholseterol requirements, because cholesterol cannot get across
blood-brain barrier, brain makes its own cholesterola. Moreover, high
dietary or serum cholesterol seems to down-regulate brain's cholesterol
synthesis. References:

Possibly are some of the feedback signal molecules also transported
over the brain barriere giving downtuning signals even in brain.
Perhaps not a good idea.

Just a wild guess based on knowledge about regulation theory and
enzyme kinetics back in biochemistry study (I worked with enzyme
kinetics and even tried to do simulations of regulated systems, but
computers was not good enough at that time, and the computer that
could have solved it was far to expensive to use for my thesis. So I
gave up that part of my thesis, together with a nearly finished
protein sequence program which would otherwise have been the very
first published in that area of biochemistry to my knowledge, but they
changed the computer a few week before and Simula 67 was not among the
compilers supported anymore on that new DEC VAX computer (in 1983)
:-(
But then DNA sequencing took over, anyway)

A VAX, whewy, practically king of the hill.

vernon said:

A VAX, whewy, practically king of the hill.

The old one which I used for much of my thesis work was a DEC 10 :-)
With Simula 67 compiler