posted
Hum, here is my two cents : I think fish oil helps the lymphatic system but if it is not well evacuated, the build up of bacterila toxins in the colon can lead to cancer...
Posts: 723 | From Montreal | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
how do you know if it is evacuating well...or not ?
-------------------- "Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues , but the parent of all others "....Cicero Posts: 254 | From new jersey | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It also causes heart rhythm issues in a small segment of the population - if you have any irregularities in heartbeat when you take it, you should switch.
Posts: 360 | From New York | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are many other studies that show fish oil reduces inflammation.
Bea Seibert
Posts: 7306 | From Martinsville,VA,USA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
randibear
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 11290
posted
is this large amounts or what? i only take one per day.
-------------------- do not look back when the only course is forward Posts: 12262 | From texas | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
gwb
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 7273
posted
Man, it never stops. One day we're told fish oil is one of the greatest supplements we can take, the next day we're told it may cause cancer in our colons. My head is spinning from all this conflicting information.
posted
I would assume this study used the equivalent to a megadose, so I wouldn't worry about it so much.
Although there is the question of immune suppression with all fish oils. I don't see it being brought up much, but relatively normal doses of fish oil can suppress NK activity. I recall one pubmed study showing 720mg EPA reducing NK pretty significantly.
And immune suppression isn't exactly what most of us here would be looking for. Lowish dose fish oil should be fine and should reduce inflammation, but I'm not sure if high dose fish oil (several grams of Omega 3s daily) is really so safe longterm.
Posts: 584 | From NY | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
chiquita incognita
Unregistered
posted
I'm skeptical, for several reasons. I read herbal studies on the government's medical database all the time, www.pubmed.gov:
A) To be credible, studies need to be long-term, not short-term as this study was.
B) Cancer doctors have written all over the web that the cancer is often undetected for as long as 10 years or more, and may take that long to develop. When tumors are said to form after four weeks, it raises my eyebrows. Of course, animals are different than people and that has to be kept in mind.
C) Studies need to be ongoing, one study alone is not proof. Instead, it could only be proof of a paid-off, intentionally biased result. LOts of studies are done in the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry, particularly in universities because it only *looks* to be credible in those sources. Not necessarily so.
D) To the credit of the researchers here, they state that excess may be the concern, not fish oils in and of themselves. That shows less of a bias and adds some credibility.
E) Toxicologist, immunologist and dentist Hal Huggins has done extensive research with regard to mercury toxicity. He has logged the recovery rates of 65,000 patients world-wide after their mercury-containing dental amalgam fillings were removed and replaced, using his own method which gives advanced protection from mercury re-exposure. He also has tested consenting humans and animals for more than 35 years, His is no small database and here is what his research found with regard to cancer/mercury:
Remove mercury-containing dental filligns from peoples' mouths, and those with cancer would begin to show signs of remission (the numbers of cases in which this occurs, is no longer in my memory. SOrry about that). Replace the fillings by consent of the patient, and they began to relapse. Remove yet again with consent, and remission began anew....
Could this be, that these mice were fed mercury-contaminated fish oils? That is the question. In that case, the study would be completely "thrown off" and it would not be the fish oils that should be suspected. Instead, it would be the mercury. Period. End of story.
F) The greater body of research into fish oils shows protection from inflammation, and not medical malaise as a result thereof. To repeat, studies need to be long-term, based on mass evidence and not one study alone.
Who funded this study? It would be interesting to know. What other materials other than fish oil were used? Why did they select rats with inflammatory bowel disease as the subjects? That is an interesting detail too. They could have been trying to prove anti-inflammatory action by the fish oils, but then again, you know, rats have not particularly known to be fish eaters as a norm. Perhaps their bodies aren't even made for it.
That debunks the so-called "Study" right there.
I could be wrong, but this study looks to me like it is ill-informed even if it may be well-meaning. Again I could be wrong. Only time will tell. Time has born out, however, that the fish oils are anti-inflammatory even in large doses. Contaminants are the key question, and probably not the fish oils.
Were they cold-pressed or not? If not, then they are prone to oxidizing. This right there would be like ingesting rancid fish oils, imagine the health impacts! It causes tissue oxidation and yes that in itself could lead to colon cancer proneness, particularly if IBS is already present.
Also, sheep and cows grazing on GMO crops have been seen to develop torques or ulcerous patches in their intestines (according to Dr Joseph Mercola and other sources I have read, alas I no longer recall, sorry not to have links!)
The question then becomes:
Was the fish oil given to these rats, laced with GMO soy oil? Many fish oils are laced with it, such as the Kirkland brand (From Costco) which also, to note, contains an excess of 300 ppm (parts per million) of mercury, PCBs and other contaminants.
So the quality of the fish oil could be the question here, and very likely is.
A good quality fish oil would very likely not have produced these results, particularly if tested in a subject whose bodies are made for eating fish/fish oils to begin with.
Again I could be wrong folks and I am not asserting my skepticism as fact. I offer the facts informing my skepticism for further research. If I have further evidence to prove me wrong, I am very open to that evidence. Based on larger bodies of research, I remain skeptical, at least for now.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by gwb: Man, it never stops. One day we're told fish oil is one of the greatest supplements we can take, the next day we're told it may cause cancer in our colons. My head is spinning from all this conflicting information.
NO kidding... I'm with Chiquita on this.
-------------------- --Lymetutu-- Opinions, not medical advice! Posts: 96173 | From Texas | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
randibear
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 11290
posted
don't forget -- hair dye causes cancer too.....LOL
-------------------- do not look back when the only course is forward Posts: 12262 | From texas | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
At my appointment two weeks ago, my LLMD told me to triple my fish oil, so I am now taking 7000 mg a day!
Yikes!
-------------------- ? date of bite/no rash 10/09 symptoms, 4/10 diagnosed, after 6 mos. ER visits, tons of docs/tests CDC+ 23/39/41/45/58/66/93 currently on oral plaquenil, doryx, rifampin, pyrazinamide, nystatin, numerous supplements Posts: 718 | From Pennsylvania | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
chiquita incognita
Unregistered
posted
Triathletelymie, if you are concerned you should ask your doctor about this. I have seen studies on fish oils in which patients took 7,000 mg daily and they did very well. Again I suspect it's the contaminants in the fish oil, or the oxidation thereof if not cold-pressed, which would be the causal factor here. I think this study may be "tweaked" and wouldn't necessarily trust it at first glance. My hunch could be incorrect but for now, that would be my assertion. I am a formally trained herbalist and have done extensive reading for 7 years, almost daily, and am very very careful about my sources.
IP: Logged |
posted
It's just like when they used to say Vitamin E was great for the heart and then all of a sudden it was damaging. I don't believe the latter.
Big Pharma is trying to discredit all supplements.
-------------------- --Lymetutu-- Opinions, not medical advice! Posts: 96173 | From Texas | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
chiquita incognita
Unregistered
posted
Lymetoo, you are right! There is lots of solid evidence to prove this. Get this: The FDA has said that we have no right to control what goes into our own bodies, without government consent! That is right. This was referring to raw milk, but there is so much evidence all across the board of their campaigning against naturopathics that it is ridiculous. One herbalist from Ecuador (where there are no laws against his formulas) is sitting in FEDERAL prison for the crime of quoting the science about herbs he formulated for cancer! That's right. He quoted teh science, listed on the US Gov'ts own database, and was *kidnapped* from Ecuador, a judge rushed to the plane to say that this was illegal but American Airlines claimed he was on US Territory and flew him in...and they put him in FEDERAL prison for trying to help cancer patients, based on science! My god. So much for free speech, eh?
You had better believe they are trying to undo the naturopathics. And they tried to pass a law making it illegal to quote the science about herbs/vitamins. A US District Court judge in DC struck it down as an unconstitutional gag order, and the FDA may appeal however. We'll have to wait and see...or get up and sue them? I suggest the latter. CLass action suits get publicity where private suits fail. And they have more power/clout. This really needs to happen if we want to retain our freedom of health choices. It's not even funny. I think everybody should be free to choose their own medical path, naturopathic or not, even if I happen to be a herbalist. Hey I have used mainstream meds on occasion and they can be necessary at times. I know that too. But the blockade, the gag orders? This does not belong in America, the Land of the Free.
Lymetoo, you are all too right. People need to be aware of this.
"STudies" such as those above are probably part of that game. Why did they choose non-fish-eating rhodents for this "Study" and why didn't they choose dogs instead, whose bodies would be better suited to fish oils? This smacks of quackery right there, if you ask me. GLare!!! My two cents worth. It is the Feds who are the quacks and the evil doers, not the naturopaths. I get so mad when I read about drug side effects, I don't even want to go there. It's criminal stuff, truly.
Studies are not necessarily automatically to be trusted, folks. Once again, let us ask: Who funded this study? It would be interesting to find out .
IP: Logged |
posted
So what about Krill oil which is what my Lyme doc told me to take instead of fish oil
Less chance of mercury contamination with krill than fish.
Posts: 412 | From Virginia | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
steve1906
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 16206
posted
If you look long enough, you�ll find a negative to every positive.
-------------------- Everything I say is just my opinion! Posts: 3529 | From Massachusetts Boston Area | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
chiquita incognita
Unregistered
posted
Hello everybody I don't know about krill being less contaminated with mercury than fish though it could be, since it is lower on the food chain (a generally good rule of thumb to go by).
I do know that the Nordic Naturals brand of fish oil (I do not work for them, am not affiliated, selling for them, or anything of the kind) is third-party tested and consistently tests at 0 ppb (Parts per billion) of PCB's, mercury and other contaminants. Their fish oils are cold pressed, very critically important to prevent oxidation and rancidity, and tend to outlast other products by as much as 6 months. The Norwegian waters are a) very cold, resulting in more secretion of oils by the fish to shield themsleves from the cold b) much more pure than our waters c) Norwegian government standards for contamination are very high, allowing for very little polluting matter d) Nordic Naturals surpasses the Norwegian government standards. Again third party tested.
I recommend them all the time.
Here is a good chart to consult about mercury levels in fish:
Dr. Joseph Mercola has written quite a bit about krill oil, you could go to his webpage and enter krill into the search box to read more.
I hope this helps. Best wishes to everybody!
PS Did anybody here know that rifampin is "tumorigenic" according to the pharmacy's handouts, meaning that it can cause tumor growth? It is ill advised for nursing mothers, can cause coma and death....how often does this occur? So why fear fish oil? Perhaps that can put things into a bit of perspective.
IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic