Author Topic: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?  (Read 17792 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline B.Money

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« on: December 02, 2010, 02:58:19 pm »
"Sadly, contamination of our oceans and waterways is so great that I don't advise eating ANY fish, whether farm-raised or wild-caught, unless you can verify its purity."

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/11/30/farmed-salmon-exposed.aspx

Thoughts?

Offline the PresiDenT

  • Bear Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 191
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2010, 03:42:54 pm »
lol....lol...lol  :)  the ocean is HUGGGEEEEE no fking way. eat fish man, this society tries to grip and manipulate everyone via fear
The price is wrong Bob

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2010, 05:48:31 pm »
The above claim by Mercola is absolute, utter nonsense as regards wildcaught fish and is a desperate ploy to get people to buy his Krill-Oil supplements. There is no truth, whatsoever, that mercury-levels in wild fish are dangerous. Here is a website with numerous articles debunking this absurd myth and pointing out  the politically-motivated scum who are manipulating the data:-

http://fishscam.com/fearmongers.cfm

Here is the famous study which debunked the anti-mercury/anti-fish scares:-

http://www.rochester.edu/pr/releases/med/mercury.htm

It is embarassing to admit that I once plugged those mercola krill oil capsules. I have anyway been informed of a better, rawer alternative of krill-oil so will be trying that in a few months when I get around to it.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2010, 09:20:17 pm by TylerDurden »
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline Hannibal

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,261
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2010, 06:31:16 pm »
But it's better to eat the smaller ones, as they have got the lowest level of toxins.
Sardines, herrings, anchovies, mackerels, etc.
Do you blame vultures for the carcass they eat?
Livin' off the raw grass fat of the land

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2010, 06:40:18 pm »
But it's better to eat the smaller ones, as they have got the lowest level of toxins.
Sardines, herrings, anchovies, mackerels, etc.
Utter nonsense as the above study showed that people in the Seychelles had 10 times the amount of mercury in them as those in the United States due to their massive consumption of seafood, yet these Seychelles Islanders had no ill-effects from mercury whatsoever. In short, eat plenty of raw (wildcaught) seafood as there is no danger involved whatsoever.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline Hannibal

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,261
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2010, 10:30:34 pm »
Utter nonsense
Ok, I understand.
But I'd rather eat smaller ones, just in case ;)
Do you blame vultures for the carcass they eat?
Livin' off the raw grass fat of the land

Offline Hanna

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2010, 11:11:09 pm »
Me too. To be on the safe side, one should avoid large, long-lived predatory fish including swordfish and even tuna. Salmon, mackerel and sardines are safe, if one does not eat more than about 3 kg a month. Iguana, perhaps this is interesting for you (tuna):

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3-Fettsäuren#Vorkommen

Reference: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3-Fettsäuren#cite_note-1

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2010, 11:20:35 pm »
It seems there are always going to be some hysterical people with illogical phobias who will readily believe in some of the more unusual and  ridiculous scare-stories peddled by the media, even here on rawpaleoforum  -v  l) :'( :( -[. What makes it so pathetic is that the whole mercury-in-fish scam was originally started by environmental and vegan activists(such as PETA), for purely politically-motivated reasons.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline Hanna

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2010, 11:30:33 pm »
Sorry, Tyler, but you really have a screw loose.

Offline Josh

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2010, 11:30:44 pm »
Yeh, 99% of fish would say that they've never eaten Dr Mercola, but that doesn't mean that it would be wrong to do so.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2010, 11:53:05 pm »
Well, since the meagre science in favour of the mercury-toxicity allegations is pretty suspect anyway(such as that Faroes study), I doubt it will have any really sizeable effect on the RVAF diet community as a whole, especially since so many RVAFers eventually find that the scares re bacteria/parasites are similiarly bogus. So, I will just ensure that such dumb topics routinely get parked in our "rubbish-bin" forum here on RPF, and post relevant data like fishscam.com and the Seychelles study in those threads for the less gullible newbies among us.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline Haai

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 484
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2010, 12:09:07 am »
My main source of food is fish; mainly wild salmon and pollock and sometimes tuna and sole. I often eat about a kilo per day.
"In the modern, prevailing view of the cosmos, we sit here as tiny, unimportant specks of protoplasm, flukes of nature, and stare out into an almost limitless void. Vast, nameless tracts of emptiness dominate the scene. Talk about feeling small.
But we do not look out at the universe; it is, instead, within us, as a rich 3-D visual experience whose location is the mind" - R. Lanza, Beyond Biocentrism.

Offline Hannibal

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,261
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2010, 12:33:56 am »
For me it doesn't matter whether larger fish are safe to eat or not.
Why? Because I practically do not eat any fish, even smaller ones.
I find my local land mammels and some fowls much better. They suffice me. :)
Do you blame vultures for the carcass they eat?
Livin' off the raw grass fat of the land

Offline Iguana

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,043
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2010, 01:20:37 am »
The study Tyler give the link for http://www.rochester.edu/pr/releases/med/mercury.htm is very reassuring about the mercury level in fish, said to be roughly the same throughout the World's oceans and seas. But I guess other pollutants are unequally distributed and the Indian Ocean around the Seychelles Islands is relatively clean. So it matters that the fish we eat is from not too polluted waters. Rivers and lakes are generally too polluted, I never eat it fish from soft waters. The pollution of partially closed seas such as the Baltic is also scary.

Hanna, what do you want to show me with your links? They don't work as they are, here it is http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3-Fetts%C3%A4uren#Vorkommen
I learned German 5 years at school, but I'm unable to understand much of it! By contrast, I never learned English at school, just by my own.
Cause and effect are distant in time and space in complex systems, while at the same time there’s a tendency to look for causes near the events sought to be explained. Time delays in feedback in systems result in the condition where the long-run response of a system to an action is often different from its short-run response. — Ronald J. Ziegler

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2010, 01:51:21 am »
The mercury issue is irrelevant, regardless of which ocean etc. the fish is in. The only problem that might occur, such as what happened in Mianamata Bay in Japan, is if industrial chemicals containing mercury were regularly dumped in vast amounts in just 1 particular bay(either by accident via spillage from mines or on purpose) so that any fish in that small region get huge amounts of mercury-contamination and poison any humans eating lots of fish. Such an event is extremely rare, though, so it's nothing to worry about.

As for pollution in general, we all have eaten raw grassfed meats from cattle routinely exposed to traces of air-pollution of some sort, and we haven't suffered from it, so I think that trace amounts are not an issue.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2010, 02:22:42 am by TylerDurden »
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline Hannibal

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,261
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2010, 01:56:34 am »
so I think that trace amounts are not an issue.
That's true.
Besides, have we got any choice?
We've got to eat something and we try to eat the best food that's available around us.
That's all we can do.
Do you blame vultures for the carcass they eat?
Livin' off the raw grass fat of the land

Offline Iguana

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,043
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2010, 02:38:15 am »
Sure. And heavy metals, PCB, pesticides and most other pollutants are not at all rendered harmless by cooking.
Cause and effect are distant in time and space in complex systems, while at the same time there’s a tendency to look for causes near the events sought to be explained. Time delays in feedback in systems result in the condition where the long-run response of a system to an action is often different from its short-run response. — Ronald J. Ziegler

Offline the PresiDenT

  • Bear Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 191
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2010, 02:50:06 am »
Sorry, Tyler, but you really have a screw loose.
how? about what? Ty seems prty smart to me, and admits if hes wrong. If ur gonna attack someone have some substance or at least state ur reason. we are all grown ups here
The price is wrong Bob

Offline RawZi

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,052
  • Gender: Female
  • Need I say more?
    • View Profile
    • my twitter
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2010, 02:53:25 am »
"...I don't advise eating ANY fish, whether farm-raised or wild-caught, unless you can verify its purity."

Thoughts?

    Verify its purity!  Why would you eat farmed salmon though?  I look for wild caught, sustainably harvested etc.
"Genuine truth angers people in general because they don't know what to do with the energy generated by a glimpse of reality." Greg W. Goodwin

Offline yuli

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2010, 03:21:42 am »
Yeh, 99% of fish would say that they've never eaten Dr Mercola, but that doesn't mean that it would be wrong to do so.

ROLF!  :o

Would eating a fish that ate a Dr Mercola be more nutritious?

There is line I draw when worrying about every food and your happiness, there is reason you can find to not eat ANYTHING!
I mean we have to buy food it would be depressing if all I can eat is grass fed beef, I have periods where I love it but then I get tired of it...
Yesterday I had some raw filet mignon, yes it was from grain-fed beef but is was melt in your mouth goodness. Today I am thinking to go buy some fish, I will enjoy it and the last thing on my mind will be mercury...

« Last Edit: December 03, 2010, 05:49:46 am by yuli »

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2010, 08:03:00 am »
I have periods where I love it but then I get tired of it...
There is a marvellous scene in an episode of the TV series, "Married With Children", where Al wordlessly says" Where is there  a cyanide pill when I need one!" upon hearing  the word "period", spoken by Marcy's niece during some torturous, excruciating dialogue with Marcy. Please don't mention the word" period" or "cycle" etc. ever again on this forum!
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline yuli

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2010, 09:00:21 am »
I loved that show I remember watching it with my dad all the time and we'd laugh our heads off!
Poor Al  :-*

I shall say it no more! The cycle shall stop! Period.

Well to try and stay on topic, perhaps we should be aware of fish, look what happened to Kayne West  :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GzOoyOOfqM

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #22 on: December 03, 2010, 10:02:58 am »
I can see if someone is eating a conventional diet and happy taking supplements and so forth, it might be somewhat wise to avoid the heavily loaded wild fish and of course everyone should avoid and not support farmed fish in general.

I know some people will say that fish and sea foods aren't really a necessary part of our natural diet, but not only is that very speculative, in today's reality fish and sea foods are often one of the major available sources of wild food. Cutting them out and being without game meats would mean a diet mostly of domesticated animals which would - I assume - garner some environmental and degenerative toxicity in comparrison to wild foods hundreds or thousands of years ago.

If people want to stick to the smaller end of the chain, that is their business, but I don't think it makes much sense. I tend to agree that alot of it is fear-mongering and the logic is somewhat akin to the ideology of eating a plant based diet because this is what the grazing animals eat and that the meat is then 'toxic' and indirect. Unless one believes we are meant to eat the algaes and plankton, odds are the bivalves and fatty fish are more our style. Unfortunately the stream salmon and so forth that probably represented a more natural food source than the deep ocean fish ARE probably no longer very edible due to pollution.

I believe the the mercury and pollution issue is very real as well in terms of ocean fish, at the same time, eating a raw food diet high in minerals and fats -including sea foods - should go a long way towards removing these sort of toxins from the body, to the point that minimizing risk seems more a preference of extreme fussiness than a necessity. Unless I was very careful about the exact PPM of my directly sourced spring water, I wouldn't think to drop my intake of swordfish and tuna, but I honestly would probably not base my diet around those things either.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2010, 10:20:57 am »
I am proud to say that I ignore such mindless scaremongering re absurd
 mercury-in-fish notions. AV has a similiar take re claiming that raw fish is somehow less mercury-toxic than cooked fish, but his ideas are as ridiculous as the anti-mercury-claims.


For now, I will continue to eat plenty of raw swordfish, as often as possible.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2010, 07:48:43 pm by TylerDurden »
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline michaelwh

  • Bear Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Dr. Mercola says to eat NO FISH?
« Reply #24 on: December 03, 2010, 12:12:56 pm »
For now, I will continue to eat plenty of raw swordfish, as often as possible.

Well, good luck.

You have great faith in one particular study (Seychelles). But there is a huge literature on mercury, seafood, and toxicity, and as far as I can tell, there is no clear consensus. For example, some quick googling turned this up:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2803%2914170-0/fulltext

I find it strange that in the case of saturated fat and cholesterol, you agree with the mainstream because "there are thousands of supporting studies, and they can't all be wrong".
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/hot-topics/new-wave-of-anti-meat-studies-in-newspapers/

But in the case of mercury and fish, you pick out one study (Seychelles), and ignore thousands of studies on mercury toxicity and seafood. (In particular, the above link has references to other epidemiological studies which did find correlations between mercury intake from seafood and neurotoxicity). This is real science, not just PETA hysteria.

Finally, I would like to point out that deep ocean fish in general, and swordfish in particular, is a neolithic food. They have different fatty acid profiles than freshwater fish. I'm not saying they're necessarily bad to eat, but it's just something to think about before deciding to "eat plenty of raw swordfish, as often as possible".

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk