|
|
| Author |
Message |
monty1945@lycos.com
medicine forum addict
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 93
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:59 am Post subject:
Newest coconut oil product being sold through mercola.com.
|
|
|
This is a good article, overall, to be found at:
http://www.mercola.com/products/coconut_oil.htm
I just want to add that you can tell if a coconut oil is of the highest
quality by just smelling and tasting it. If it smells and tastes like
fresh coconut, it is good, period.
I would suggest you did not cook with it, however, I use it to "grease
up" the glass pans I use to make breads, but other than that I make
sauces at medium-low heat only, with a small amount of butter. High
heat cooking while the food is exposed to air is a very bad idea. I
use antioxidant-rich sauces, made from tomato paste or pureed corn,
along with herbs and spices like oregano, rosemary, tumeric, curry
powder, etc. You can then put this over rice or pasta. I use ricotta
cheese in the sauce, but one could put pieces of boiled meat or
shellfish in there too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mattlb@angelfire.com
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 36
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:47 am Post subject:
Re: Newest coconut oil product being sold through mercola.com.
|
|
|
monty1945@lycos.com wrote:
Really? But it mentions lipid membranes and HIV, neither of which exist
according to you. I can see that the numerous suspect claims without
supporting evicdence would resonate with you though.
MattLB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr-Natural-Health
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1807
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:47 am Post subject:
Re: NEWSFLASH: Monty bakes his own bread!
|
|
|
monty1945@lycos.com wrote:
| Quote: | I would suggest you did not cook with it, however, I use it to "grease
up" the glass pans I use to make breads,
|
NEWSFLASH: Monty bakes his own bread!
Now, do you eat it?
Of course, most breads contain grains if not whole grains.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the
Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
sharper terminology than ever before.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
monty1945@lycos.com
medicine forum addict
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:26 pm Post subject:
Re: Newest coconut oil product being sold through mercola.com.
|
|
|
Ah, the wonderful MattLB is back, and apparently refreshed ! Ready to
nitpick again as well. And this is a prime example of how he/she/they
operates, (he/she/they is likely an industry shill of some kind,
explicity or implicitly). He will find a tangential point, one that is
not related to the central one, and he will attempt to make it appear
like there is some contradiction, when in reality there is no book that
has ever been written on a complex, multifaceted scientific issue that
has been perfect. When asked to put forth a scientific hypothesis for
his claims, he refuses to do so, even though this is required by the
scientific method, apparently hoping that most people are not aware
enough to think much of this glaring deficiency. When it is pointed
out that DIRECT, ON POINT experiments have been done that absolutely
refute a claim he makes or agrees with, he simply ignores it, or brings
up another tangential issue. Nor does he usually supply examples or
references for his claims. In a recent post here, for example, I
provided the 1948 reference to a study that directly refuted the
"essential fatty acid" claim. Rats were fed a totally fat-free diet,
and were fine, unlike what happened in 1930, when the rats were not
given cerntain B vitamins, and so the essential fatty acid claim is
actually a B vitamin issue.
Also, in a recent post, I recommended someone read Bruce Fife's book,
Saturated fat may save your life, which is very good in a number of
ways, but Fife is apparently not aware of the 1948 experiments, and so
believes the "essential fatty acid" claim. Whenever I suggest this
book, I point out that it is good in general or overall - again, with a
book like this, that covers so much ground, the odds are that there
will be a few statements that at least are phrased poorly. If I had to
examine every sentence of every book or web site to make sure there
were no problematic claims, I would do nothing else but this, and then
what would be the result? I would be able to recommend nothing,
because nothing would meet the standards MattLB has for other people,
but as for himself, I have yet to see him respond to criticisms of
statements he has made in a way that is consistent with the scientific
method.
Of course, in the first line of the post, I said: "This is a good
article, overall..." obviously implying that it was not perfect.
MattLB appears to want to be a nutritional version of a "Swiftboat
Veteran." Good luck to you with that, MattLB, because I think most
people here now see right through what you are attempting to do.
However, if you wish to debate the notion of a structural lipid bilayer
membrane, I am confident that I can find someone with the appropriate
credentials to do so. If you wish to debate the "essential fatty acid"
claim, I suggest you explain how the rats in 1948 could have lived
without any problems on a totally fat-free diet.
Since you've been playing this game for so long, I don't expect
anything but the same shill techniques from you, but I'm willing to
examine any evidence you present, assuming you present any. I'd first
ask that you state your position clearly, since those making claims are
required to put forth a formal hypothesis. I, on the other hand, am
just suggesting that until the evidence meets the standards of the
scientific method, one should not do things that may do harm, as the
Hippocractic Oath requires of doctors. This includes taking toxic
"medicines" or toxic substances like fish oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
msamson11975@yahoo.ca
medicine forum addict
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:40 pm Post subject:
Re: Newest coconut oil product being sold through mercola.com.
|
|
|
monty1945@lycos.com wrote:
| Quote: | Hippocractic Oath requires of doctors. This includes taking toxic
"medicines" or toxic substances like fish oil.
|
Hey Monty, you never answered my post on another thread so I thought I
would ask you here. I read your forum but can't find any
recommendations on your diet. Could you please point me to it. I am
intrigued by your stance on fish oil and peroxidation. I'm guessing
this would include Cod Liver Oil? I guess you don't read or agree with
Sally Fallon or Mary Enig and the Weston Price Foundation? What about
Mercola's stance since you are directing us to his sale of coconut oi.
You really think cod liver oil is toxic if taken in small quantities?
Wouldn't the vitamin A, E, and D provide sufficient antioxidants? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
msamson11975@yahoo.ca
medicine forum addict
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:42 pm Post subject:
Re: Newest coconut oil product being sold through mercola.com.
|
|
|
|
Oh s**t, nevermind Monty, I see you did reply. My bad! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
monty1945@lycos.com
medicine forum addict
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:32 am Post subject:
Re: Newest coconut oil product being sold through mercola.com.
|
|
|
This is not my stance on fish oil and lipid peroxidation. Not only are
there a huge number of studies (search pubmed.com, for example), but it
is simply basic biochemistry, and in fact the basis of oil painting,
which you could not do with coconut oil, because it goes rancid so
slowly.
One claim for the fish oil is that it is "essential," but that was
directly refuted in 1948, though if a pregnant woman wants ice cream
and herring, I would say let her have it.
The other claim is that it is "anti-inflammatory." I examine the
evidence on my web site and show that it is in fact more "inflammatory"
than omega 6s, but because it is not made into molecules like PGE2,
which generates the symptoms doctors associate with "inflammation,"
such as "puffiness," it is said to be beneficial. In fact, it will
damage your body far quicker, which explains the horrendous mortality
figures of the native Greenlandes on a high omega 3 diet. And of
course you can just get a group of mice and load one group up with fish
oil and the other with coconut oil and see which group lives longer.
You can do canola oil and fish oil, if you believe in the "balance"
nonsense, and you will get more or less the same results.
A tiny amount of fish oil is okay, but why bother? It has two effects
that are very bad: direct damage from lipid peroxidation and having it
store up in your cells, to be released upon cellular stress and made
into molecules that are even more dangerous. Just read the essays on
my site and if you have questions, post them there, so that you will be
assured of getting a response. Look for studies that you think
contradict what I am saying, and I will examine them and write up a
commentary. I decided to avoid all major sources of polyunsaturated
fatty acids in March of 2001, and I still have trouble believing the
great results, but they, and the evidence, speak for themselves. I was
a believer in omega 3 supplements, but when I almost died, trying to do
everything the "experts" were advocating, I knew it was time to examine
the evidence and decide for myself. Fortunately, I was trained in
evidence analysis, and so it was easier for me than it would be for
most people, which is why I created my site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr-Natural-Health
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1807
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:28 am Post subject:
Re: Newest coconut oil product being sold through mercola.com.
|
|
|
monty1945@lycos.com wrote:
This is what Mercola has stated in this specific article.
"Why Coconut Oil Deserves Your Respect (and Your Body Deserves Coconut
Oil)" And, Why Mercola Deserves Your Coconut Oil Orders? Need, I say
more?
"Why You Must Be Choosy About Your Brand of Coconut Oil"?
The facts are that Mercola does NOT support the used of coconut oil in
general. Mercola supports only the use of specific brands of coconut
oil. Specific brands which Mercola either sells directly, or obviously
gets some type of financial payment for promoting. Need, I say more?
"If you could peek inside my pantry, you would find two oils that I use
in food preparation.
The first, extra-virgin olive oil, is a healthy monounsaturated fat. It
works great as a salad dressing.
....
There is only one oil that is stable enough to resist heat-induced
damage, while it also helps you prevent heart disease, lower
cholesterol and even lose weight -- coconut oil.
So, whenever you need an oil to cook with, use coconut oil instead of
butter, olive oil, vegetable oil or any other type of oil called for in
recipes."
I ask this question? What person concerned about their health still
fries food in a frying pan? Or, deep fries their food? Nobody, that
is who.
Tell me this. What scientific research paper on the health benefits of
eating fish and / or using Olive oil in the Mediterrean Diet did NOT
studied people who cooked their fish or cooked their food with olive
oil? The facts are that eating cooked fish and baking food with olive
oil is perfectly healthy for you.
What is not healthy for you? Frying food in a frying pan with oil,
because it generates vapors or smoke which is toxic to your health.
Also, the food tends to be soaked in excessive amounts of oil. Also,
frying food with reused oil as is the norm with deep frying methods is
toxic to your health because oil rots just like any food and heat
damaged oil steadily builds up to toxic levels.
In reality, the concern about oxidative damage done by cooking these
oils, by Kooks, is NOT supported by the research.
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the
Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
sharper terminology than ever before.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
msamson11975@yahoo.ca
medicine forum addict
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:08 pm Post subject:
Re: Newest coconut oil product being sold through mercola.com.
|
|
|
monty1945@lycos.com wrote:
| Quote: | This is not my stance on fish oil and lipid peroxidation. Not only are
there a huge number of studies (search pubmed.com, for example), but it
is simply basic biochemistry, and in fact the basis of oil painting,
which you could not do with coconut oil, because it goes rancid so
slowly.
One claim for the fish oil is that it is "essential," but that was
directly refuted in 1948, though if a pregnant woman wants ice cream
and herring, I would say let her have it.
The other claim is that it is "anti-inflammatory." I examine the
evidence on my web site and show that it is in fact more "inflammatory"
than omega 6s, but because it is not made into molecules like PGE2,
which generates the symptoms doctors associate with "inflammation,"
such as "puffiness," it is said to be beneficial. In fact, it will
damage your body far quicker, which explains the horrendous mortality
figures of the native Greenlandes on a high omega 3 diet. And of
course you can just get a group of mice and load one group up with fish
oil and the other with coconut oil and see which group lives longer.
You can do canola oil and fish oil, if you believe in the "balance"
nonsense, and you will get more or less the same results.
A tiny amount of fish oil is okay, but why bother? It has two effects
that are very bad: direct damage from lipid peroxidation and having it
store up in your cells, to be released upon cellular stress and made
into molecules that are even more dangerous. Just read the essays on
my site and if you have questions, post them there, so that you will be
assured of getting a response. Look for studies that you think
contradict what I am saying, and I will examine them and write up a
commentary. I decided to avoid all major sources of polyunsaturated
fatty acids in March of 2001, and I still have trouble believing the
great results, but they, and the evidence, speak for themselves. I was
a believer in omega 3 supplements, but when I almost died, trying to do
everything the "experts" were advocating, I knew it was time to examine
the evidence and decide for myself. Fortunately, I was trained in
evidence analysis, and so it was easier for me than it would be for
most people, which is why I created my site.
|
Monty, I will see you in your forum. However, your comparisons of fish
vs coconut oil are very redundant and it surprises me quite frankly
that you would continue to use these rat experiments to prove your
point. SURELY high amounts of polyunsat's are harmful, so you can't
just take a garbage oil like canola and add 1/2 fish oil and compare to
coconut........you're comparing 2 things that are completely different
-- poly vs saturate. My diet consists of 30% saturated fat, but if I
ate 30% poly i'd probably keel over. My diet consists of a small
amount of poly, probably less than 5%. So you must understand that as
we have requirements for small amounts of vitamins, nutrients, etc it
doesn't mean to go overboard.
I think much of the fish oil is all hype, but am starting to think that
the lower amounts of DHA/EPA in cod liver oil are beneficial as it is
also a good source of vit A and vit D. Furthermore, if cooked properly
I don't see how cooking fatty fish can be harmful. Both cod liver oil
and eating fish have soooooo many studies proving their health value
that you would be using your entire lifetime to refute them. Also, in
regard to cod liver oil:
Cod liver oil, on the other hand, has been shown to inhibit lipid
peroxidation. One study found that cod liver oil depressed drug-induced
lipid peroxidation in mice under the same conditions by which soybean
oil increased lipid peroxidation.1 Another study found that feeding cod
liver oil entirely abolished the increased level of lipid peroxidation
found in diabetic rats.4 In both studies, the depression of lipid
peroxidation was related to a sparing effect on glutathione peroxidase
activity (an important antioxidant enzyme), which has been shown to be
attributable to vitamin A.5
1. Ohtake, et al., "Effects of dietary lipids on daunomycin-induced
nephropathy in mice: comparison between cod liver oil and soybean oil,"
Lipids, Vol. 37 No. 4 (2002) 359-366.
2. Diniz, et al., "Diets rich in saturated and polyunsaturated fatty
acids: metabolic shifting and cardiac health," Nutrition, 200 (2004)
230-234.
3. Saito and Kubo, "Relationship between tissue lipid peroxidation and
peroxidizability index after a-linolenic, eicosapentaenoic, or
docosahexaenoic acid intake in rats," British Journal of Nutrition, 89
(2003) 19-28.
4. Hunkar, et al., "Effects of cod liver oil on tissue antioxidant
pathways in normal and streptozotocin- diabetic rats," Cell Biochem
Funct. Vol. 20 No. 4 (2002) 297-302.
5. Stohs, et al., "Effects of BHA, d-alpha-tocopherol and retinol
acetate on TCDD-mediated changes in lipid peroxidation, glutathione
peroxidase activity and survival," Xenobiotica Vol. 14 No. 7 (1984)
533-7.
So fish oil may induce lipid peroxidation, but not cod liver oil? And
with eating fatty fish there are other vitamins and even saturated fat
that may prevent the oxidation from occuring itself.
I find your points interesting, and it's great to look at the other
side. I am a proponent of a primitive ancestral diet based on animal
foods and plant foods. I find your diet to contain grains which even
Mercola states are poison. Add to that that you eat corn, etc. and no
meat and it makes me wonder just how healthy your diet really is.
Your "quotes on fish oil" are pretty weak IMO. Do you have ANY other
sources, websites, etc. that support your views that you could share?
Even links to pubmed studies would be great, because as of now, we're
going on your word, and a few weak reports by Ray Peak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
msamson11975@yahoo.ca
medicine forum addict
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:11 pm Post subject:
Re: Newest coconut oil product being sold through mercola.com.
|
|
|
Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
| Quote: | monty1945@lycos.com wrote:
This is a good article, overall, to be found at:
http://www.mercola.com/products/coconut_oil.htm
This is what Mercola has stated in this specific article.
"Why Coconut Oil Deserves Your Respect (and Your Body Deserves Coconut
Oil)" And, Why Mercola Deserves Your Coconut Oil Orders? Need, I say
more?
"Why You Must Be Choosy About Your Brand of Coconut Oil"?
The facts are that Mercola does NOT support the used of coconut oil in
general. Mercola supports only the use of specific brands of coconut
oil. Specific brands which Mercola either sells directly, or obviously
gets some type of financial payment for promoting. Need, I say more?
"If you could peek inside my pantry, you would find two oils that I use
in food preparation.
The first, extra-virgin olive oil, is a healthy monounsaturated fat. It
works great as a salad dressing.
...
There is only one oil that is stable enough to resist heat-induced
damage, while it also helps you prevent heart disease, lower
cholesterol and even lose weight -- coconut oil.
So, whenever you need an oil to cook with, use coconut oil instead of
butter, olive oil, vegetable oil or any other type of oil called for in
recipes."
I ask this question? What person concerned about their health still
fries food in a frying pan? Or, deep fries their food? Nobody, that
is who.
Tell me this. What scientific research paper on the health benefits of
eating fish and / or using Olive oil in the Mediterrean Diet did NOT
studied people who cooked their fish or cooked their food with olive
oil? The facts are that eating cooked fish and baking food with olive
oil is perfectly healthy for you.
What is not healthy for you? Frying food in a frying pan with oil,
because it generates vapors or smoke which is toxic to your health.
Also, the food tends to be soaked in excessive amounts of oil. Also,
frying food with reused oil as is the norm with deep frying methods is
toxic to your health because oil rots just like any food and heat
damaged oil steadily builds up to toxic levels.
In reality, the concern about oxidative damage done by cooking these
oils, by Kooks, is NOT supported by the research.
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the
Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
sharper terminology than ever before.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/
|
I have been an avid reader of Mercola for years and have lost all total
respect for him. His website has become an advertisement for these
numerous products. Hilarious how he states that "unfortunately" ALL
the world's oceans have become polluted to the point that it's all
inedible, BUT you can purchase his krill oil and reap the same
benefits! Yeah right. What a joke he is.
I think i'll stick with my coconut oil from coconutoil-online.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mattlb@angelfire.com
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 36
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:02 pm Post subject:
Re: Newest coconut oil product being sold through mercola.com.
|
|
|
monty1945@lycos.com wrote:
| Quote: | Ah, the wonderful MattLB is back, and apparently refreshed !
|
I never went anywhere. Look away from your own personal forum once in a
while.
| Quote: | Ready to
nitpick again as well.
|
If you call pointing out contradictions in your assertions nitpicking
it explains a lot. You recommended an article that agrees with one
thing you claim: "coconut oil is great" and disagrees with two things
you claim: HIV doesn't exist, cells don't have lipid membranes. It also
warns against trans fatty acids, which again you seem to think aren't a
problem.
| Quote: | He will find a tangential point, one that is
not related to the central one, and he will attempt to make it appear
like there is some contradiction, when in reality there is no book that
has ever been written on a complex, multifaceted scientific issue that
has been perfect.
|
That's a tangential point if there ever was one. What has the existence
or non-existence of a perfect book on "scientific issues" got to do
with you recommending an article that contradicts some of your personal
theories?
| Quote: | When asked to put forth a scientific hypothesis for
his claims, he refuses to do so,
|
I'm making no claims, merely challenging your claims which fly in the
face of accepted biochemistry. You are the one required to provide
explanations for why the body has specific enzymes for EFA metabolism
if you claim they aren't actually required.
| Quote: | even though this is required by the
scientific method,
|
You don't have a hypothesis for a claim, you have a hypothesis for an
experiment - the results of which either support or reject the
hypothesis.
| Quote: | When it is pointed
out that DIRECT, ON POINT experiments have been done that absolutely
refute a claim he makes or agrees with
|
Which has yet to happen.
| Quote: | , he simply ignores it, or brings
up another tangential issue. Nor does he usually supply examples or
references for his claims.
|
All of the above describe your M.O.
| Quote: | In a recent post here, for example, I
provided the 1948 reference to a study that directly refuted the
"essential fatty acid" claim. Rats were fed a totally fat-free diet,
and were fine, unlike what happened in 1930, when the rats were not
given cerntain B vitamins, and so the essential fatty acid claim is
actually a B vitamin issue.
|
Not in the references I've given many times before (seven was it?) that
you always ignore.
Let me dig them out again and you can either refute them or stay silent
and let it be clear you have no case.
Here's the eighth:
"Thirty years later, Hansen et al. [140] were the first to describe
EFAD in humans. They observed unsatisfactory growth rates and dryness
of the skin in many infants on low LA intakes. EFAD has been most
extensively described in subjects on fat-free total parenteral
nutrition (TPN)[141-147]. For example, O'Neill et al. [142] reported on
28 patients,ranging from newborns to 66 years old, who received
fat-free TPN.
LA levels fell rapidly, followed by AA. In most of the patients the
20:3n9/20:4n6 ratio (a biochemical marker for EFAD) had
increased after a few weeks above the 0.4 criterion [148], followed
approximately one week later by clinical signs of a scaly and thin
skin, and hair loss. In addition to these classical EFAD symptoms,
many other biological and behavioural changes have been documented
[149-151]"
Two of the refs:
Wene JD, Connor WE, DenBesten L. The development of essential fatty
acid deficiency in healthy men fed fat-free diets intravenously and
orally. J Clin Invest 1975;56:127-34
O'Neill JA, Caldwell MD, Meng HC. Essential fatty acid deficiency in
surgical patients. Ann Surg 1977;185:535-41"
| Quote: | MattLB has for other people,
but as for himself, I have yet to see him respond to criticisms of
statements he has made in a way that is consistent with the scientific
method.
|
I can only assume that's due to some sort of hysterical blindness that
manifests whenever you see counter-evidence. I, and indeed everyone
else who objects to your positioning of opinion as fact, nearly always
explain why you're wrong or give references that show it. That you
choose not to see them is your failing.
| Quote: | Of course, in the first line of the post, I said: "This is a good
article, overall..." obviously implying that it was not perfect.
|
So why not point out which bits were "wrong", or why not quote an
article that had no bits you didn't agree with (if such exists).
| Quote: | MattLB appears to want to be a nutritional version of a "Swiftboat
Veteran." Good luck to you with that, MattLB, because I think most
people here now see right through what you are attempting to do.
|
Prevent you spreading misinformed diet advice based on the theories of
singular scientists?
| Quote: | However, if you wish to debate the notion of a structural lipid bilayer
membrane, I am confident that I can find someone with the appropriate
credentials to do so.
|
You admit then, that you're not up to the job?
| Quote: | If you wish to debate the "essential fatty acid"
claim, I suggest you explain how the rats in 1948 could have lived
without any problems on a totally fat-free diet.
|
Supply a copy of the text so I and everyone else can have a look at it
first. It's a crushingly obscure reference, that isn't in the
biomedical library I have access to and since it's on rats hardlt
trumps the human studies I quoted above.
| Quote: | Since you've been playing this game for so long, I don't expect
anything but the same shill techniques from you,
|
Nor I from you.
| Quote: | but I'm willing to
examine any evidence you present, assuming you present any.
|
You have now an eighth opportunity to comment on the human
EFA-deficiency papers; I hope you do so.
| Quote: | I, on the other hand, am
just suggesting that until the evidence meets the standards of the
scientific method, one should not do things that may do harm, as the
Hippocractic Oath requires of doctors.
|
Advising people not to eat essential nutrients will cause harm.
| Quote: | This includes taking toxic
"medicines" or toxic substances like fish oil.
|
Fish oil clearly isn't toxic to fish, or animals that subsist on fish
like seals and sea-birds. You have given no evidence that fish oil is
toxic either, though your definition of toxic is probably as loosely
interpreted as your definition of essential.
Show this molecular level detail you always harp on about, or instead
show that you're all talk.
MattLB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
msamson11975@yahoo.ca
medicine forum addict
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject:
Re: Newest coconut oil product being sold through mercola.com.
|
|
|
MattLB wrote:
| Quote: | Fish oil clearly isn't toxic to fish, or animals that subsist on fish
like seals and sea-birds. You have given no evidence that fish oil is
toxic either, though your definition of toxic is probably as loosely
interpreted as your definition of essential.
Show this molecular level detail you always harp on about, or instead
show that you're all talk.
MattLB
|
Good points Matt. Especially the last couple. Why doesn't the omega
3's (DHA/EPA) oxidize in a bear when it eats salmon? You are right
that Monty doesn't provide any evidence that fish oil is toxic..just a
couple of weak quotes on his site. So would you say that Monty is
completely out to lunch? Does he really think that cells don't contain
lipid membranes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr-Natural-Health
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1807
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:52 pm Post subject:
Re: Newest coconut oil product being sold through mercola.com.
|
|
|
msamson11975@yahoo.ca wrote:
| Quote: | I have been an avid reader of Mercola for years and have lost all total
respect for him. His website has become an advertisement for these
numerous products. Hilarious how he states that "unfortunately" ALL
the world's oceans have become polluted to the point that it's all
inedible, BUT you can purchase his krill oil and reap the same
benefits! Yeah right. What a joke he is.
I think i'll stick with my coconut oil from coconutoil-online.com
|
Monty wrote this as the subject line of this thread: "Newest coconut
oil product being sold through mercola.com."
Yet, he is apparently too dense to see how foolish this has made him
look.
Hmn, I guess that means that Monty has earned the title of twit? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
msamson11975@yahoo.ca
medicine forum addict
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:04 am Post subject:
Re: Newest coconut oil product being sold through mercola.com.
|
|
|
Mr. Natural-Health wrote:
| Quote: | Yet, he is apparently too dense to see how foolish this has made him
look.
|
Good point, i'm wondering why he would have plugged it -- especially
since mercola is a lunatic. I guess he is just trying to point to how
good coconut oil is, which I don't disagree with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mattlb@angelfire.com
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 36
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:06 am Post subject:
Re: Newest coconut oil product being sold through mercola.com.
|
|
|
msamson11975@yahoo.ca wrote:
| Quote: | MattLB wrote:
Fish oil clearly isn't toxic to fish, or animals that subsist on fish
like seals and sea-birds. You have given no evidence that fish oil is
toxic either, though your definition of toxic is probably as loosely
interpreted as your definition of essential.
Show this molecular level detail you always harp on about, or instead
show that you're all talk.
Good points Matt. Especially the last couple. Why doesn't the omega
3's (DHA/EPA) oxidize in a bear when it eats salmon? You are right
that Monty doesn't provide any evidence that fish oil is toxic..just a
couple of weak quotes on his site. So would you say that Monty is
completely out to lunch?
|
It's more that he's completely led by other people's unsubstantiated
theories - like those of Ray Peat and Gilbert Ling. He doesn't have a
scientific background and seems to be convinced more by the person than
the evidence. He's also excessively hung up on ancient texts, despite
there having been many decades of discovery since.
| Quote: | Does he really think that cells don't contain lipid membranes?
|
Oh yes. A few quotes:
" Ling's got the evidence, whereas the "lipid
bilayer," as it is explained in textbooks, is
physically and biochemically impossible. "
"No only can the “lipid
bilayer” claim not account for all the data, but those who write
textbooks cannot account for the data in a way that makes any sense
even in a simplified form. "
" the "lipid bilayer" was just an interesting idea, that became a
"model" in textbooks because it was easy to teach to students, but the
experimental evidence was never
obtained."
"Once again, I’ll ask: where is the experimental data
demonstrating that a lipid
bilayer could have structural integrity (to withstand the shearing
forces) in a human body? I’ll leave aside this model’s
absurd qualities for the moment."
"When you decide to supply some evidence to support the "lipid bilayer
membrane," then I'll take a look at it. Until then, you get filed in
the "deluded fool" category. "
He's never managed to provide an alternate model, particularly for red
cell ghosts, despite being asked. It remains to be seen if he remains
characteristically silent on the EFA-deficiency studies once again.
MattLB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Thu Feb 07, 2013 8:30 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
email marketing campaigns ,
electronics forum,
Science forum,
Unix/Linux blog,
Unix/Linux documentation,
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Medicine forums
»
nutrition
