![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 41 to 65 of 95. Go back in thread:
Posted by Ron Hill on July 10, 2002, at 13:23:05
In reply to Re: Shawn, are you confusing DHA with DHEA? » Ron Hill, posted by BarbaraCat on July 9, 2002, at 21:21:40
>Long-story-short, I am currently taking roughly 10g/day of natural fish oil concentrate (in capsule form) containing 1200g/day DHA and 1800g/day of EPA
Correction: make that 1200mg/day DHA and 1800mg/day of EPA. I forgot to put the "m" in front of my milligrams.
-- Ron
Posted by johnj on July 10, 2002, at 13:41:03
In reply to Re:Ron Hill, posted by colin wallace on July 10, 2002, at 12:14:11
Hi Colin:
Have a good holiday. Wish I was so close to another country I could get away from it all without costing me an arm and a leg. I have a good friend from London who always drives me mad telling me about Germany, France, etc.
I saw you post about fish oil and what 3g's did to you. I took anywhere from 3 to 5g's and was ok at first. But, I too had dreaming and broken sleep problems. I find it interesting you had those problem too. Haven't really seen any other responses about fish oil causing such problems so that piqued my interest a bit. How long did you take the fish oil? And when did you see the broken sleep and dream problems? Have a good one
Johnj
Posted by deli on July 10, 2002, at 14:04:45
In reply to Re: What's best; DHA alone or DHA with EPA et al? » BarbaraCat, posted by Ron Hill on July 10, 2002, at 10:55:28
>
> On the one hand, most all of the research is pointing to DHA as the most beneficial fish oil ingredient.According to Dr. Stoll in his book the Omega Connection he favors a higher ratio of EPA to DHA. The product he endorses in his book Omegabrite contains EPA1,125mg and DHA 165mg a 7 to 1 ratio.
Deli;)
Posted by Ron Hill on July 10, 2002, at 15:13:19
In reply to Re:Ron Hill, posted by colin wallace on July 10, 2002, at 12:14:11
> Hope you're faring well right now.I see you're up to 400mg of Sam-e? Ambitious!I trust you managed to overcome the flash anger issue- if so, do you attribute that to the fishy intervention?
Colin, recall that I had roughly five months of excellent results with 200 mg of SAM-e. Then I began to experience extreme irritability/flash rage problems and I did not know why. As a last dig effort to identify the culprit causing the foul mood, I discontinued all vitamins and supplements (including SAM-e) but continued taking my Lithobid. The irritability continued.
I slowly began to re-add vitamins supplements to my daily intake and when I added 400mg/day of chelated magnesium, the crises state of my irritability subsided. I still have ongoing bouts of irritability (I think all bipolars do) but nothing like what it was without the magnesium.
I then resumed my 200 mg/day SAM-e intake, but it did not provide the same beneficial effect that it had during the first five months of use, so I increased to 400 mg/day. At 400 mg/day, SAM-e currently provides some benefit and I deem it worthwhile, but it has lost a lot of its effectiveness compared to what it once did for me. I do not know whether or not SAM-e was at least partially to blame for the initiation of the extreme irritability, but the current 400 mg/day does not cause irritability.
So in answer to your question, it was not fish oil that solved my extreme irritability problems. The magnesium had already brought that problem under control before I even tried fish oil. Having said that, however, I do think that omega-3 PUFA's help my mood and further reduce my irritability. Time will tell regarding the long term effectiveness.
> 10 gms a day is a lot- you must feel as though you've swallowed a giant squid if you're unfortunate enough to burp.
10g of fish oil contains only 3g of EPA/DHA. A typical recommended dose cited in the literature is about 2g/day of EPA/DHA, but doses as high as 15g/day of EPA/DHA can be used in the treatment of severe neurological disorders. I decided to start at 3g/day. Colin, when you get back from holiday, I want you to read some of the DHA research. (Did you notice my attempt to use the Brit vernacular in the previous sentence?).
I'm thinking that we need to add an omega-3 PUFA product line to our existing SAM-e line. SAM-e sales are down; time to diversify!
> The broken sleep and outlandish dreams proved too much for me though, at a mere 3g daily.
I'm having some trouble getting to sleep since I started the fish oil, but no broken sleep or outlandish dreams. As an aside, I had vivid dreams on Depakote.
> Currently feel like death on toast, so I'm going away for a few weeks.
Have a good time on Holiday (there, I did it again). I am currently doing very well and I hope the same for you in the very near future.
Ron's prescription for Colin:
1. Moodstabilizer
2. SAM-e
3. DHA
4. Small amount of a benzo on an as needed basisJust my opinion, and I'm NOT a pdoc.
-- Ron
Posted by Ron Hill on July 10, 2002, at 15:35:48
In reply to Re: What's best; DHA alone or DHA with EPA et al?, posted by deli on July 10, 2002, at 14:04:45
Deli,
You are absolutely right! Thank you so much for correcting my error. I'm not sure how I got this so turned around in my mind, but I sure did. Thank you again for bring my mistake to our attention.
I mistakenly stated in one or more of my posts above in this thread that Omegabrite (the product endorsed by Dr. Stoll) is almost 100% DHA. That is absolutely UNTRUE. In fact, Omegabrite has the highest concentration of EPA available and a 7:1 ratio of EPA to DHA. I am very sorry for my mistake and thanks again to you, Deli, for catching it.
-- Ron
------------------
> > On the one hand, most all of the research is pointing to DHA as the most beneficial fish oil ingredient.
>
> According to Dr. Stoll in his book the Omega Connection he favors a higher ratio of EPA to DHA. The product he endorses in his book Omegabrite contains EPA1,125mg and DHA 165mg a 7 to 1 ratio.
>
> Deli;)
Posted by Leighwit on July 10, 2002, at 15:52:57
In reply to High dose fish oil is effective, posted by BarbaraCat on July 3, 2002, at 0:55:15
Hi BarbaraCat,
So great to have you back, by the way!
Does Barry Sears' book (yes, I'm too cheap right now to buy it) recommend only Omegabrite? Ed O'Flaherty has posted here that Omegabrite might elevate diabetics' glucose levels, whereas Eskimo 3 will not, which is my reason for using the Eskimo 3 product. It's very expensive. Does Barry Sears talk about this at all in his book as you recall? What exactly is pharmaceutical grade anyway, do you know? I'm wondering if Eskimo 3 is pharmaceutical grade or not. I didn't notice a difference at first, but now I'm taking more (9grams/day) and I am noticing that I feel better.
Thanks much,
Laurie> Hi Everyone,
> I've been taking Omega-3 fish oil for a while now, but only 1-2 capsules twice a day. I recently read Barry Sears' 'The Omega Zone' and decided to give the pharmaceutical grade high-dose fish oil a try. I can definitely feel it. The best I can relate it to is when I was transferring off Paxil to Remeron and had a few days of extra serotonin power or whatever it was going on. A little giddy, colors brighter, mucho enhanced mood, calmer. The fish oil purportedly enhances serotonin and dopamine production and I can believe it.
>
> I'm taking the brand Dr. Sears' plugs in his book, which is rather ridiculously expensive at $70 a pop, however, it does seem to be remarkably good quality. I'm mixing it with Carlson's lemon flavored high quality cod-liver oil as an extender and flavour enhancer (yes, you read that right; Carlson's cod-liver oil actually tastes good). Together, I'm taking a little less than one tablespoons twice a day, which is a moderately high dose of this oil. Considering how it's helped with my anxiety and depression is impressive enough, but my fibromyalgia seems to be much improved. I'm reminded of the Tin Man receiving a well-needed oiling of his parts. I believe I'm a believer. I'll keep you informed. - BarbaraCat
Posted by colin wallace on July 10, 2002, at 16:00:14
In reply to Re: Colin's going on holiday » colin wallace, posted by Ron Hill on July 10, 2002, at 15:13:19
Ron,
Really pleased that you're maintaining your wellness.
I'm intrigued by your use of magnesium and its effect on your irascibility; I was actually just about to buy some (!) for my fibromyalgia ,for which it appears to be very effective.I had no idea that it had any effect on mood though, and this is very interesting.I'll grab some tomorrow, and take it for the week I'm away.At the very least it should help with the muscle pain/stiffness.(I'll be withdrawing from Zoloft completely, but maintaining the sam-e/small dose benzo.I'm going to have to join you on the lithium bandwagon too-it's inevitable in my case).
As for your Sam-e experience, I can't help wondering whether this is another case of an AD losing its efficacy the second time around- one of the reasons I hesitated to go off Zoloft.
As for the fish-oils, I came across a pretty definitive,fascinating, 12page study detailing all the latest research/findings etc.I have it stashed, and will post the link when I get back.(from...vacation..hell, I'm always vacant.)Seeya,
Col.
ps.I find evening primrose oil to be quite calming, without the sleep disruption.
Posted by Ed O`Flaherty on July 10, 2002, at 17:09:52
In reply to Re: What's best; DHA alone or DHA with EPA et al? » BarbaraCat, posted by Ron Hill on July 10, 2002, at 10:55:28
The DHA is generally regarded as the more important in children and pregnant women but otherwise the emphasis is on EPA.Have a look at www.omega3.20megsfree.com
Posted by BarbaraCat on July 12, 2002, at 14:16:58
In reply to Is Sears' rec only OmegaBrite? » BarbaraCat, posted by Leighwit on July 10, 2002, at 15:52:57
Hi Laurie, and thanks for the Welcome back. Made me feel good. Dr. Sears recommends two brands as being of 'pharmaceutical grade', i.e., highly distilled and absent of toxic levels of pollutants. The two brands are OmegaBrite, and his own brand that he sells at his drsears.com website. Most likely there are others that are comparable. I don't know about the Eskimo brand, but I've tried others. Some (Costco brand) made me burp fishy. I've also tried Carlson's lemon flavored cod liver oil and I think it's a good one. It costs about $9 a bottle vs. $70 for Dr. Sears. You need twice as much to get the same amount of DHA/EPA, but for the money, what the heck. My preference is the liquid oil rather than pills. About dosage: what you're looking for is the combined amount of EPA and DHA (usually 2:1 ratio). Many oils also have other things in them, like Omega-6's, so a gram of oil may only result in a half gram's worth of EPA/DHA. That's another reason to stick with 'pharmaceutical grade' - it generally has only EPA/DHA and not other not so good oils.
I'm combining the two brands - Dr. Sears and Carlson's and taking 1 tablespoon twice a day, which is about 12 grams a day.
www.iherb.com sells Carlson's for cheap. It also sells alot of other Omega-3 oils (I think your Eskimo is there too). Definitely check it out.
Regarding Diabetes, Dr. Sears devotes a chapter to it. His bottom line is that in order to control diabetes (mainly type II), you have to follow an insulin controlling diet - the oil alone makes no difference. But the two combined have had very positive results. His recommendations are 2.5 to 5 grams EPA/DHA daily. You might just want to spring for the book (Costco has it for $14.79). Aside from some blatant ego-ism from Dr. Sears, it makes good sense all around.
> Hi BarbaraCat,
>
> So great to have you back, by the way!
>
> Does Barry Sears' book (yes, I'm too cheap right now to buy it) recommend only Omegabrite? Ed O'Flaherty has posted here that Omegabrite might elevate diabetics' glucose levels, whereas Eskimo 3 will not, which is my reason for using the Eskimo 3 product. It's very expensive. Does Barry Sears talk about this at all in his book as you recall? What exactly is pharmaceutical grade anyway, do you know? I'm wondering if Eskimo 3 is pharmaceutical grade or not. I didn't notice a difference at first, but now I'm taking more (9grams/day) and I am noticing that I feel better.
>
> Thanks much,
> Laurie
>
> > Hi Everyone,
> > I've been taking Omega-3 fish oil for a while now, but only 1-2 capsules twice a day. I recently read Barry Sears' 'The Omega Zone' and decided to give the pharmaceutical grade high-dose fish oil a try. I can definitely feel it. The best I can relate it to is when I was transferring off Paxil to Remeron and had a few days of extra serotonin power or whatever it was going on. A little giddy, colors brighter, mucho enhanced mood, calmer. The fish oil purportedly enhances serotonin and dopamine production and I can believe it.
> >
> > I'm taking the brand Dr. Sears' plugs in his book, which is rather ridiculously expensive at $70 a pop, however, it does seem to be remarkably good quality. I'm mixing it with Carlson's lemon flavored high quality cod-liver oil as an extender and flavour enhancer (yes, you read that right; Carlson's cod-liver oil actually tastes good). Together, I'm taking a little less than one tablespoons twice a day, which is a moderately high dose of this oil. Considering how it's helped with my anxiety and depression is impressive enough, but my fibromyalgia seems to be much improved. I'm reminded of the Tin Man receiving a well-needed oiling of his parts. I believe I'm a believer. I'll keep you informed. - BarbaraCat
Posted by BarbaraCat on July 13, 2002, at 15:01:36
In reply to Re: What's best; DHA alone or DHA with EPA et al? » BarbaraCat, posted by Ron Hill on July 10, 2002, at 10:55:28
Hi Ron,
Thanks for your concern. Yes, I'm back on level ground again. I hate to admit it, but I have a definite weekness for Chardonnay and I overdid it with some friends. I don't know if the fish oil has sensitised things, or what, but I was in a deep horrible place that brightened up as soon as I got the booze out of my system. I am now on the wagon. I've learned my lesson well, it was so horrible. Plus, my husband chewed my ass royally.About your question, I really don't know, and am as confused as you are about the EPA/DHA question. What I've heard is that DHA is the preferred branch for brain function and EPA is better for reducing inflammatory cytokines. But they are synergistic in their overall efficacy. I tend to go with Dr. Sears' recommendations, because, like you, I think he's on to something with the Zone. His recommended ratio is about 2:1 EPA:DHA. Let me know if you hear anything else. One other benefit I've found is my skin and hair look terrific since taking it. At 51, this is no small thing. - BarbaraCat
> Hi Barb,
>
> I've been reading bits and pieces about omega-3 PUFA's for a couple of years but never gave them a trial (nor did I fully investigate the literature on the subject) until a few days ago. When I found out, via your post, that Dr. Barry Sears is now advocating omega-3 supplementation, I was compelled to look deeper into this fishy omega-3 issue. I value Dr. Sears' opinions because I have found his Zone diet to be quite helpful.
>
> Long-story-short, I am currently taking roughly 10g/day of natural fish oil concentrate (in capsule form) containing 1200g/day DHA and 1800g/day of EPA. (Recall that I also take 600 mg/day Lithobid and 400 mg/day SAM-e and that I am bipolar II). So far, I really like the effect the omega-3's have on my brain [with the exception that I have been experiencing some difficulty falling asleep (small amount of hypomania?) which may or may not be related to the fish oil consumption]. Further, almost everything I read on this subject makes sense.
>
> Here's my question Barb. The literature almost unanimously points to DHA as the omega-3 PUFA that is providing most of the body and mind health benefits. Therefore, knowledgeable professionals, such as Dr. Anthony Stoll, market products containing almost 100% DHA. Conversely, the product sold by Dr. Sears', for example, contains DHA and EPA, and so do natural fish oils. Which do you think is better, DHA alone or DHA with EPA?
>
> On the one hand, most all of the research is pointing to DHA as the most beneficial fish oil ingredient. On the other hand, I've seen it over and over again where the initial research shows one thing and we later find out that extracting the component from its natural matrix was not the best approach after all. What da ya think?
>
> A few days ago you posted that you were going through a rough spot in the road of life. Are you back on level ground?
>
> -- Ron
Posted by Ed O`Flaherty on July 13, 2002, at 16:39:21
In reply to Re: What's best; DHA alone or DHA with EPA et al? » Ron Hill, posted by BarbaraCat on July 13, 2002, at 15:01:36
There is a consensus view that it is the EPA that is important in adults while DHA is important in children and pregnant women.It is fair to say that most people would like a bit of both though.Stoll`s Omegabrite had a ratio of 7:1 in favor of EPA.
Posted by Ron Hill on July 14, 2002, at 10:34:17
In reply to Re: What's best; DHA alone or DHA with EPA et al? » Ron Hill, posted by BarbaraCat on July 13, 2002, at 15:01:36
Hi Barb,
Thanks for getting back to me regarding the EPA/DHA issue. Also, I'm happy to hear that you have got past the recent dip in the road. Your writing sounds like you again.
As much as I enjoy have two or three beers with friends or having a couple glasses of nice wine at family gatherings, I've learned that I just can't do so because of my bipolar disorder. Just like clockwork, my mood is cheerful and jovial while consuming the alcohol, but depression always follows for the next couple of days.
I read an article a week or so ago that said alcohol inhibits the desaturase enzymes necessary for DHA synthesis. To which I said to myself, hmmmm.
-- Ron
------------> Hi Ron,
> Thanks for your concern. Yes, I'm back on level ground again. I hate to admit it, but I have a definite weekness for Chardonnay and I overdid it with some friends. I don't know if the fish oil has sensitised things, or what, but I was in a deep horrible place that brightened up as soon as I got the booze out of my system. I am now on the wagon. I've learned my lesson well, it was so horrible. Plus, my husband chewed my ass royally.
>
> About your question, I really don't know, and am as confused as you are about the EPA/DHA question. What I've heard is that DHA is the preferred branch for brain function and EPA is better for reducing inflammatory cytokines. But they are synergistic in their overall efficacy. I tend to go with Dr. Sears' recommendations, because, like you, I think he's on to something with the Zone. His recommended ratio is about 2:1 EPA:DHA. Let me know if you hear anything else. One other benefit I've found is my skin and hair look terrific since taking it. At 51, this is no small thing. - BarbaraCat
Posted by BarbaraCat on July 14, 2002, at 23:54:52
In reply to Re: What's best; DHA alone or DHA with EPA et al? » BarbaraCat, posted by Ron Hill on July 14, 2002, at 10:34:17
Hi Ron,
Yeah, it's a bummer about the alcohol, because it's a quick road to bliss. But then, arrrghh! If you can find that article on alcohol/desaturase/DHA, I'd be mighty interested in reading it.BTW, how are you doing with the SAM-e? That is you, isn't it? I'm taking 200 mg. of the Nature Made 'Joint Action' and think it's helping. Hard to tell with all the other items in my armament.- BCat
Posted by Ron Hill on July 15, 2002, at 17:52:35
In reply to Re: What's best; DHA alone or DHA with EPA et al? » Ron Hill, posted by BarbaraCat on July 14, 2002, at 23:54:52
Hi Barb,
>If you can find that article on alcohol/desaturase/DHA, I'd be mighty interested in reading it.
Here's the link, but it doesn't say much more on the topic than what I quoted in my previous post. The brief blurb is located in the 22nd paragraph (or thereabouts).
http://www.benbest.com/health/dha.html
> BTW, how are you doing with the SAM-e? That is you, isn't it?Yep, that's me alright. For a while there I considered changing my screen name to "Sam E. Hill". Just as well that I didn't.
I had roughly five months of excellent results with 200 mg of SAM-e. Then I began to experience extreme irritability/flash rage problems and I did not know why. As a last dig effort to identify the culprit causing the foul mood, I discontinued all vitamins and supplements (including SAM-e) but continued to take my Lithobid. The irritability continued.
I slowly began to re-add vitamin supplements to my daily intake and when I added 400mg/day of chelated magnesium, the crises state of my irritability subsided. I still have ongoing bouts of irritability (I think all bipolars do) but nothing like it was without the magnesium.
I then resumed my 200 mg/day SAM-e intake, but it did not provide the same beneficial effect that it had during the first five months of use, so I increased to 400 mg/day. At 400 mg/day, SAM-e currently provides some benefit and so far I deem it worthwhile, but it has lost a lot of its effectiveness compared to what it once did for me. I don't know whether or not the SAM-e was partially to blame for the initiation of the extreme irritability, but the current 400 mg/day does not (yet??) cause irritability.
-- Ron
Posted by Scootermacgruder on August 14, 2002, at 21:52:06
In reply to Re: High dose fish oil is effective...as laxative, posted by BekkaH on July 5, 2002, at 22:58:38
People, please all go to http://www.mercola.com and check out some of his info on fish oil (do a search for fish oil). Also, while you're there, check out his eating plan. I think it's been the best thing for me, I'll never eat another way. I feel so good.
-Scott
Posted by Phil on August 17, 2002, at 9:01:14
In reply to Bottom Line on Fish Oil , posted by Scootermacgruder on August 14, 2002, at 21:52:06
Go to Quackwatch.com and search on Mercola. Buyer beware. He talks about money hungry organizations yet charges up to $3000.00 to tell you what to eat? He's selling tons of stuff. I, personally don't trust doctors selling 'easy' alternative ways to health but charge a fortune for books, consultations, tape series, EFT, yada yada.
He also implies that he can get you off of pain meds, AD's, etc. by using simple techniques.
Doing some of the diet things he suggests will certainly make you feel better but it's not news.My opinion, nothing personal,
Phil
Posted by Randal on August 18, 2002, at 13:30:55
In reply to Mercola is a little fishy, posted by Phil on August 17, 2002, at 9:01:14
Phil,
Thanks for bringing up Quackwatch. I just thought I'd put an additional plug in for it. I have a friend who was curious about all of the alternative/complementary health claims being made out there. She didn't know what to make of it, so I recommended that site. She then asked the very good question "How do you THEY are a good source of information".
I quickly (!) found a list of organizations who recommended the site. Just thought I'd post it since I had it handy:
American Medical Association article: "Navigating the Maze of Medical Research"
http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/7_15_98/pp0715.htmU.S. Food and Drug Administration: "How to Spot Health Fraud"
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1999/699_fraud.htmlAmerican Cancer Society (one of two Alternative and Complementary Therapies sites listed)
http://www.cancer.org/eprise/main/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_3_2X_Related_Web_SitesTime Magazine Cancer Resource File
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,110203,00.htmlMinnesota Dietetic Association (1 of 12 health information sites listed)
http://www.eatrightmn.org/nutritionlinks.aspConsumer Reports (Recommended Health sites):
http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv2.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=21271&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=21135AARP (see list of health and medical fraud sites):
http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/may00/health.htmlUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison Medical School "Evaluating Internet Information"
http://www.medsch.wisc.edu/chslib/consumer/evaluate.htmNational Library of Medicine (part of the National Institutes of Health): Health Fraud
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/healthfraud.htmlForbes Magazine (lists as one of 6 best online health sites)
http://www.forbes.com/bow/b2c/category.jhtml?id=38I don't know if all of these links are current.
Again, a great site and thanks for bringing it up.
Randal
> Go to Quackwatch.com and search on Mercola. Buyer beware. He talks about money hungry organizations yet charges up to $3000.00 to tell you what to eat? He's selling tons of stuff. I, personally don't trust doctors selling 'easy' alternative ways to health but charge a fortune for books, consultations, tape series, EFT, yada yada.
> He also implies that he can get you off of pain meds, AD's, etc. by using simple techniques.
> Doing some of the diet things he suggests will certainly make you feel better but it's not news.
>
> My opinion, nothing personal,
>
> Phil
Posted by sjb on August 19, 2002, at 12:49:48
In reply to Bottom Line on Fish Oil , posted by Scootermacgruder on August 14, 2002, at 21:52:06
I agree with the posts that note Quackwatch. I looked on the Mercola site and the link for therapy, can't remember what they called it, sounded really bizarre.
Posted by BarbaraCat on August 19, 2002, at 18:44:10
In reply to Bottom Line on Fish Oil , posted by Scootermacgruder on August 14, 2002, at 21:52:06
Hi Scott,
I checked out Dr. Mercola's website and agree with you. His ideas are somewhat severe, but I know from my own research and experience that he's right on. The only downside I see is in the strictness of his health plan. But that doesn't detract from the soundness of his ideas. I guess the negative reactions are typical from those who will not look further or will not look within, and his being exiled to 'Quack-dom' is pretty extreme and rather ridiculous.Listen up, folks, ignore what he has to say at your peril (what, flouride bad for me? bah! What's wrong with vaccinations anyway?). He's by no means the first one to sound these warnings about our water, lousy diets, electronic pollution, insulin resistance, animal and human vaccination-induced illness, etc. There are definitely things out there that we'd prefer not to see, and it's so much easier to just drive on up to a McDonald's. Spongiform encephalitis with fries, anyone? You know, one has to be discerning with everthing and not be conned or hoodwinked - the research has to be done impeccably. There's so much crap that will readily relieve you of your money. But Quackwatchers throws the baby out with the bathwater. They throw in a few good nuggets and then flood you with disinformation. They're pretty much greeted with derision and sniggers in more esteemed circles than are ever reported in US News, CNS, or God forbid, the AMA.
> People, please all go to http://www.mercola.com and check out some of his info on fish oil (do a search for fish oil). Also, while you're there, check out his eating plan. I think it's been the best thing for me, I'll never eat another way. I feel so good.
>
> -Scott
>
Posted by Randal on August 19, 2002, at 19:53:25
In reply to Mercola and Quackwatchers » Scootermacgruder, posted by BarbaraCat on August 19, 2002, at 18:44:10
Hi,
I really don't want to get drawn into a long argument on this, so I will just make a couple observations and sign off.
Modern medicine has been responsible for a dramatic increase in over the last 100 years. This is largely due to two things: antibiotics and vaccines.
The mainstream medical community, which has been responsible for these advances, is not in a conspiracy to wreck our health. Scientists and physicians have devoted their lives to find cures and treatments for what ails us.
Think of the difference it would make in sub-Saharan Africa if there were an AIDS vaccine, to again mention the good of vaccines. Lifespans there have decreased as much as 20 years in some countries! The research and medical community does not want to see people suffer. You may possibly be here to read this only because we have vaccines for smallpox, polio, measles, etc.
Look at the organizations who make health claims. One can certainly criticize the AMA (American Medical Association) for their power as a political lobby, yet they have no reason to recommend things that endanger our health. They have been at the forefront of promoting healthier diets. The Stoll fish-oil study, which more than anything has catalyzed the use of fish-oil as a treatment for psychiatric disorders (and which started this thread), was published in the Archives of General Psychiatry. This is in fact the psychiatry journal of the AMA!
By the way, what are these "more esteemed circles" who greet Quackwatch with "derision and sniggers". Examples, please. Unsubstantiated claims should always be questioned.
Again, look at which organizations support which health claims. Who stands to make a profit? Who do you trust? I'm sorry, but there is no conspiracy by the medical establishment to perpetuate illness. Look at their track record over the last 100 years.
Randal
> Hi Scott,
> I checked out Dr. Mercola's website and agree with you. His ideas are somewhat severe, but I know from my own research and experience that he's right on. The only downside I see is in the strictness of his health plan. But that doesn't detract from the soundness of his ideas. I guess the negative reactions are typical from those who will not look further or will not look within, and his being exiled to 'Quack-dom' is pretty extreme and rather ridiculous.
>
> Listen up, folks, ignore what he has to say at your peril (what, flouride bad for me? bah! What's wrong with vaccinations anyway?). He's by no means the first one to sound these warnings about our water, lousy diets, electronic pollution, insulin resistance, animal and human vaccination-induced illness, etc. There are definitely things out there that we'd prefer not to see, and it's so much easier to just drive on up to a McDonald's. Spongiform encephalitis with fries, anyone? You know, one has to be discerning with everthing and not be conned or hoodwinked - the research has to be done impeccably. There's so much crap that will readily relieve you of your money. But Quackwatchers throws the baby out with the bathwater. They throw in a few good nuggets and then flood you with disinformation. They're pretty much greeted with derision and sniggers in more esteemed circles than are ever reported in US News, CNS, or God forbid, the AMA.
>
> > People, please all go to http://www.mercola.com and check out some of his info on fish oil (do a search for fish oil). Also, while you're there, check out his eating plan. I think it's been the best thing for me, I'll never eat another way. I feel so good.
> >
> > -Scott
> >
>
>
Posted by Randal on August 19, 2002, at 19:58:03
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers » BarbaraCat, posted by Randal on August 19, 2002, at 19:53:25
Previous post should read :
Modern medicine has been responsible for a dramatic increase in *lifespan* over the last 100 years. This is largely due to two things: antibiotics and vaccines.
Posted by Phil on August 20, 2002, at 12:32:53
In reply to Mercola and Quackwatchers » Scootermacgruder, posted by BarbaraCat on August 19, 2002, at 18:44:10
I'm at work but will address your statements later. Several of your general statements about those who will not look within has nothing to do with Mercola. But it assumes we aren't too deep.
You'll get my reply.
Posted by sjb on August 21, 2002, at 7:32:47
In reply to Mercola and Quackwatchers » Scootermacgruder, posted by BarbaraCat on August 19, 2002, at 18:44:10
I agree with Randall. Listen, the Mercola site has some good advice, but so does Quackwatch. I've been scammed before and when I checked out the link for Mercola on some therapy that involved tapping parts of your body, well, I am skeptical. Doesn't have anything to do with being closed-minded. It also had a bunch of tesimonials, then recommended a bunch of tapes for a not unsubtantial price.
If the Mercola site, helps folks, I'm so glad for all of you. As a binge eater who tries to eat healthy but then just loses control over junk food, I wish I could eat as he recommends. However, I have'nt had the willpower/whatever, to do so. I try to eat healthy. I do not eat at McDonalds, btw. But how can one be so anal about the water, for instance, and live and function in the real world?
BarbaraCat, Scott. Are you lives just wonderful now due to Mercola?
Posted by IsoM on August 21, 2002, at 13:42:24
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers, posted by sjb on August 21, 2002, at 7:32:47
"As a binge eater who tries to eat healthy but then just loses control over junk food..."
sjb, excuse me for sticking my nose in, but if you do binge on junk food, where do you binge? At home? How does the junk food get in your house? I eat healthy & try to avoid most junk food, but I have a weakness for a few things. To make sure I won't succumb to these foods, I never buy them or bake them. I could honestly sit down & eat a whole pie (has to be home-made) in a day (would get up to eat it at night if it was there) so I rarely make pies. I do so about twice a year - when fresh blueberries & peaches are in season but I make sure to have my sons over to eat it with me.
That's just an example of one of my beloved foods, but could you not do something similar? Keep such food out of your house? Avoid the shops where you'd buy such foods? Just curious, hope you don't mind.
Posted by sjb on August 21, 2002, at 13:50:51
In reply to Re: binge-eating » sjb, posted by IsoM on August 21, 2002, at 13:42:24
I wish I had your willpower. I keep the stuff out of the house but it doesn't matter. When cravings are overwhelming, I get stuff around where I work (in a small city) and hide in my office or while driving in car. It's pathetic. It's messy. It's awful.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.