Believe It Or Not . . .

[tex]

Researchers have determined that higher mercury levels in the brain are associated with a lower risk of developing Alzheimer's disease or age-related dementia. That's not how most science reporters are writing about this discovery of course, but it's definitely what the research data show. Consider this quote:

Researchers who examined human brains confirmed that people who eat more seafood have more mercury in their brains. But, they found no link between higher brain levels of that neurotoxin and the kind of brain damage that is typical of Alzheimer's disease and dementia.

Naturally they tried to attribute the benefit to eating fish:

"Everybody's saying seafood has so many health benefits, but everybody's afraid of the mercury," said lead study author Martha Clare Morris, professor of nutritional epidemiology at Rush University in Chicago.

But my point is that there is way to determine from the research data whether the mercury in the fish lower the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease and dementia, or something else in the fish provide the benefit (in spite of the increased mercury levels).

Obviously this is another case of biased reporting where assumptions are made to present the information in the most favorable light to support their preconceived goals. But why not be impartial, and report the data objectively? Because for all they know, based on the data, the increase in mercury levels might be the reason for the reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease and dementia development.

I kinda doubt that's the case, but the big question here is, "If something other than mercury in the fish provided the protection against the development of Alzheimer's and dementia, why couldn't they discover what it was?" They were certainly able to discover the increased levels of mercury easily enough. And they admitted that there was no evidence that the higher mercury levels had any negative effects. So "Where's the beef?

"We saw absolutely no evidence that higher levels of mercury in the brain were associated with any of the neuropathologies associated with dementia," she said.

Seafood Might Protect Brain in People at Genetic Risk for Alzheimer's

Here's a link to the original article:

Association of Seafood Consumption, Brain Mercury Level, and APOE ε4 Status With Brain Neuropathology in Older Adults

Despite my "devil's advocate" approach to presenting this information, this is a very interesting discovery (that increased mercury levels apparently do not adversely affect Alzheimer's and dementia development risk.)

Tex

[Blueberry]

It really is difficult to tell who is telling the truth or who to trust. So much of health reporting has a bias to it, it seems. Not Alzheimer's disease but I was reading about the history of syphilis recently. I wasn't interested about the disease so much, as to the thought process of what the disease is interested me. It wasn't the easiest writing for me to understand. It was a German medical book translated into English. The main gist of the book was about how the definition and beliefs about syphilis have changed greatly over the years. For example for a long while many didn't even believe syphilis was a disease. For those seeking treatment in the past, one of the main medications given for syphilis was high doses of mercury. The symptoms for mercury poisoning and syphilis have overlapping characteristics, with the development of insanity being a symptom. But to add to the confusion, it might depended on the type of mercury given. I remember also this article on Robb Wolf's sight about mercury not being as big of an issue in fish and Alzheimer disease due to fish being a good source for selenium, which counter acts the mercury. Who knows? Sounds like it might be the case though.

"Are there 9.6 Billion Reasons We Should Fear Mercury in Fish?"

http://robbwolf.com/2013/06/06/9-6-bill ... cury-fish/

[tex]

That's a good article. It appears that a selenium deficiency may be the problem with mercury, rather than the mercury itself.

That means your tuna and salmon have more selenium then mercury, rendering the mercury harmless. This is good because consuming fish 1-2 times per week showed a 36% decrease in cardiovascular disease and a 17% decrease in overall mortality

Thanks for the link.

Tex

[Blueberry]

I thought it was a neat article also. I'm hoping it is true too! I'm back to eating tuna regularly again. I've been trying off and on for awhile a grass wild, wild caught fish diet. I've had luck with it in the past, and wonder maybe I didn't go long enough with the diet. At least the diet gets rid of the muscle aches. Will see. I know of a couple guinea pigs that have been eating tuna everyday for a few years. My mom feeds her cats a can of tuna every day. I've though the two kitties would go mad from all the tuna mercury they consume. As far as I can tell the two cats seem to be doing alright, mentally and physically. Then again as I joke if the cats were crazy how would one know.

[tex]

if the cats were crazy how would one know.

Good question.

Tex