Re: Is oily fish really healthy?



M

Max C.

Guest
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.
 
Max C. wrote:
> 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 protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Max C. wrote:
>> 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.
 
> 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.
 
> 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

> 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. wrote:
> > 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. wrote:
> 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 ****
on these ngs?

Tell us, so that we can understand you snobbery better. :)
 
lesley the foot-rubbing ***** lied:

> "Max C." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Hey look everyone. Pearl is back with her vegan agenda.
>
> What's up, Max? Still sore after the hiding you got last time?

You couldn't give a hiding to a crippled mouse.


>
> I suppose all these sources have a "vegan agenda" too...
>
> Benefits of Omega-3s Seem Fishy
> CBS News - 49 minutes ago
> (WebMD) The benefits of omega-3s in fighting heart disease
> may be only so-so, according to a new review of research

There we go *again*: a study of studies, rather than an actual primary
research study. How's YOUR skinned **** feeling, you lying ****?

[snip tiresome references to the same thing]
 
Max C. wrote:
> > 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!


>
> > 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:



> 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 ****: "If you can't dazzle 'em with
brilliance, baffle 'em with ********." Lesley has done that for years.


> 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 protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> 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
>
>> 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.
 
lesley the foot-rubbing ***** blabbered:

> "Leif Erikson" <[email protected]>
>
> Faking quotes,

Faking nothing. You are a FRAUD, a total CHARLATAN. You don't know
anything about any of this. All you ever do is flood the newsgroup
with ******** that you haven't read and *cannot* understand.
 
lesley the foot-rubbing ***** lied:
> "Max C." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > > 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
>
> lol! I hate to break this to you, but.. your 'mates' pitied you!

He kicked your ass so hard, your nose started bleeding.
 
> > and by the pathetic name-calling you resorted to

> 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:
> Your ignorant smears are contemptible

> Twit

> Another pile of slanderous delusional ****.

> Hypothesis, my ass.

> Sure, chief

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

> > http://tinyurl.com/l4bp7

> 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.

> > when your position was completely debunked?

> Not mine.

Yup, yours.

> 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.

> 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.

> '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
> 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.

> 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.

> 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 protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Max C. wrote:
>> > 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
>> anything to be sore about, as anyone can see here:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/l4bp7
>
> You kicked her skinny pimply ass, big-time. Good job!
>
>
>>
>> > 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:
>
>
>
>> 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 ****: "If you can't dazzle 'em with
> brilliance, baffle 'em with ********." Lesley has done that for years.
>
>
>> 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.
>
 
Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:41:57 -0700 in article
<[email protected]> "vernon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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 protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:41:57 -0700 in article
> <[email protected]> "vernon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>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 protected]> "vernon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>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

>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.

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

Only in vegans.

> 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. wrote:

> 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back