No Detectable Risk From Mercury In Seafood, Study Shows

[Guest guest]

No Detectable Risk From Mercury In Seafood, Study Shows JoAnn Guest Aug 26,

2005 16:32 PDT

University Of Rochester Medical Center

 

2003-05-16

 

No Detectable Risk From Mercury In Seafood, Study Shows

 

An exhaustive study of 643 children from before birth to 9 years of age

shows no detectable risk from the low levels of mercury their mothers

were exposed to from eating ocean seafood, according to a study in the

May 16 issue of The Lancet.

 

Children born to mothers-to-be who ate an average of 12 meals of fish a

week about 10 times the average U.S. citizen eats showed no harmful

symptoms.

 

 

The study by scientists at the University of Rochester Medical Center is

the latest in a series of updates on children who have been studied

since their birth in 1989 and 1990 in the Republic of the Seychelles, an

island nation in the Indian Ocean. The children have been evaluated five

times since their birth, and no harmful effects from the low levels of

mercury obtained by eating seafood have been detected.

 

" Consumption of fish is generally considered healthy for your heart, yet

people are hearing that they should be concerned about eating fish

because of mercury levels, " says lead author Gary Myers, M.D., a

pediatric neurologist. " We've found no evidence that the low levels of

mercury in seafood are harmful. In the Seychelles, where the women in

our study ate large quantities of fish each week while they were

pregnant, the children are healthy. "

 

In a commentary on the research in The Lancet, Johns Hopkins scientist

Constantine Lyketsos writes that, " For now, there is no reason for

pregnant women to reduce fish consumption below current levels, which

are probably safe. " He calls the Seychelles study a " methodological

advance over previous studies. "

 

Questions about the health effects of mercury often boil down to seafood

because fish are the primary source of exposure to mercury for most

people. Scientists estimate that about half the mercury in the Earth and

its atmosphere originates from natural sources such as volcanoes, and

about half comes from man-made sources.

 

People receive most of their mercury exposure by eating ocean fish like

tuna, swordfish and shark. The fish eaten by women in the Seychelles had

approximately the same levels of mercury as those eaten by consumers in

the United States but they ate much more fish than most people in the

United States. The Seychelles women, however, had an average of six

times as much mercury in their bodies, as measured in hair samples, as

most people in the US.

 

" This study indicates that there are no detectable adverse effects in a

population consuming large quantities of a wide variety of ocean fish, "

says Myers, the senior author of the Seychelles study and an

internationally recognized authority on mercury. " These are the same

fish that end up on the dinner table in the United States and around the

world. "

 

In the current study doctors and nurses tested the children in a variety

of ways and measured 21 different cognitive, behavioral, and

neurological functions such as concentration, attention span,

problem-solving abilities, intelligence, and motor skills. Only two

functions varied slightly according to mercury level: Children of women

with higher mercury levels were slightly less likely to be hyperactive,

and sons of such women did slightly worse on a pegboard task.

Statistically, both findings are likely due to chance, the researchers

say.

 

The Seychelles findings apply to fish bought and sold commercially, at

grocery stores, supermarkets, seafood markets, and restaurants. Those

fish are already regulated based on their mercury levels. Consumers

should carefully follow advisories about eating fish caught in lakes and

rivers, since there are hundreds of polluted waterways whose fish are

dangerous to eat in abundance, often because of pollutants like PCBs.

 

The Seychelles study came about as a result of previous work by the same

Rochester team, which put together the first precise data showing that

pre-natal exposure to mercury could harm a developing child. Their study

of the victims of an accidental mercury poisoning event in Iraq more

than 30 years ago spurred them to start the Seychelles study to try to

pinpoint the levels at which mercury poses a danger.

 

Now the team is launching a new study in the Seychelles to compare the

levels of nutrients pre-natally to the health of children early in their

lives. The study has its roots in a finding in one of the previous

Seychelles reports, that children born to mothers with slightly higher

mercury levels did better on some neurological and intelligence tests

than their counterparts. That may be because those children's mothers

with the higher mercury ate more fish. This study, funded by the

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, is being done with

colleagues at the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland and Cornell

University.

 

" There are a lot of good, vital nutrients in fish, " says Myers, who is

directing the team that is studying 300 children to compare their health

with the levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids, selenium, and other

nutrients in their mothers during pregnancy.

 

The Seychelles study, ongoing since 1989 with funding from the National

Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, is one of the longest

" longitudinal " studies ever done in children. The research has been

funded by the NIH, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the

Republic of the Seychelles.

 

" The cooperation from people in the Seychelles and the Ministry of

Health has been extraordinary, " Myers says. " They recognize the

importance of this subject both to their own citizens and to the people

around the world who consume fish. "

 

In addition to Clarkson and Myers, the Seychelles team includes Philip

Davidson, Ph.D.; Donna Palumbo, Ph.D.; Li-Shan Huang, Ph.D.; Elsa

Cernichiari; and Jean Sloane-Reeves, all of the University of Rochester;

and Conrad Shamlaye of the Republic of the Seychelles. Christopher Cox,

Ph.D., of the National Institutes of Health; Gregory Wilding, Ph.D., of

the University at Buffalo; and James Kost, Ph.D., also took part.

 

 

--

 

http://www.loc.org/resources/cleaning.asp

 

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjo-

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets

 

 

 

 

AIM Barleygreen

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Start your day with - make it your home page

 

 

[Guest guest]

The conflict of interest of this study by Gary Myers on mercury and

pregnant women.

 

The EPRI granted $486,000 for the Seychelles project-a mercury-fish

consumption project for children that concluded that there is no

effect of mercury on children and infants at lower exposure

levels.(20) The University of Rochester researchers also produced a

study whereby the conclusion was not supported by the data, which

declared mercury in thimerosalized vaccines was not enough to cause

harm to full-term infants.(21) But, it was learned that Dr Pichichero,

the author of the thimerosalized vaccine, had financial ties to

numerous vaccine manufacturers including the developer of thimerosal,

Eli Lilly.(22)

 

 

 

The University of Rochester, with support from industry including the

Electric Power Research Institute (a consortium of power companies

that is lobbying to stop regulation of mercury emissions from

coal-burning power plants)

 

 

http://www.sfms.org/sfm/sfm404e.htm

 

 

Consider the issue of mercury pollution. A heavy metal released into

the air largely by electric utilities, and especially coal-fired power

plants, mercury falls to the earth in rain and makes its way into

bodies of water. There, bacteria change it into methylmercury, which

can cause brain damage and developmental problems in fetuses and

children.

 

 

Donna

 

 

 

 

 

On 8/26/05, JoAnn Guest <angelprincessjo wrote:

> No Detectable Risk From Mercury In Seafood, Study Shows JoAnn Guest Aug

26, 2005 16:32 PDT

> University Of Rochester Medical Center

>

> 2003-05-16

>

> No Detectable Risk From Mercury In Seafood, Study Shows

>

> An exhaustive study of 643 children from before birth to 9 years of age

> shows no detectable risk from the low levels of mercury their mothers

> were exposed to from eating ocean seafood, according to a study in the

> May 16 issue of The Lancet.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Wow, who would have known...Thanks to establishment science we now

know that Mercury is GOOD for you.

 

The article revealed that " children born to mothers with slightly

higher mercury levels did better on some neurological and intelligence

tests than their counterparts " .

 

That must mean the more mercury the more intelligence, huh? And here

all of this time I was under the silly impression that mercury was one

of the most toxic substances on the planet. This information kind of

turns most of science for the last couple of hundred years or so on

it's head. A highly toxic substance is now not only deemed " no problem

to health " , but implies that it can be beneficial to intelligence.

 

They probably were also right when they told us that " toxic sludge was

good for us " as well, and how there was nothing to worry about when

eating genetically modified foods, or mad cow meat. Not to mention

hormones in our milk, poisons in our vegetables, vitamins are bad

while drugs are good for you, etc, etc. etc. ad infinitum. Hell they

told us that none of that was any problem, but stubborn me just

wouldn't listen. I probably could have been real smart if I would have

only listened to them and ate my mercury, toxic, sludge, synthetic

hormones, pharma pills, etc. and shunned vitamins as they told me to.

 

But even in the face of these " experts " , somehow, I have a little

problem putting my faith into this " study " . Can't put my finger on

exactly why but, maybe with time it might come to me.

 

just my 2 cents,

 

Frank

 

 

 

 

, JoAnn Guest

<angelprincessjo> wrote:

> No Detectable Risk From Mercury In Seafood, Study Shows JoAnn

Guest Aug 26, 2005 16:32 PDT

> University Of Rochester Medical Center

>

> 2003-05-16

>

> No Detectable Risk From Mercury In Seafood, Study Shows

>

> An exhaustive study of 643 children from before birth to 9 years of age

> shows no detectable risk from the low levels of mercury their mothers

> were exposed to from eating ocean seafood, according to a study in the

> May 16 issue of The Lancet.

>

> Children born to mothers-to-be who ate an average of 12 meals of fish a

> week about 10 times the average U.S. citizen eats showed no harmful

> symptoms.

>

>

> The study by scientists at the University of Rochester Medical

Center is

> the latest in a series of updates on children who have been studied

> since their birth in 1989 and 1990 in the Republic of the

Seychelles, an

> island nation in the Indian Ocean. The children have been evaluated

five

> times since their birth, and no harmful effects from the low levels of

> mercury obtained by eating seafood have been detected.

>

> " Consumption of fish is generally considered healthy for your heart,

yet

> people are hearing that they should be concerned about eating fish

> because of mercury levels, " says lead author Gary Myers, M.D., a

> pediatric neurologist. " We've found no evidence that the low levels of

> mercury in seafood are harmful. In the Seychelles, where the women in

> our study ate large quantities of fish each week while they were

> pregnant, the children are healthy. "

>

> In a commentary on the research in The Lancet, Johns Hopkins scientist

> Constantine Lyketsos writes that, " For now, there is no reason for

> pregnant women to reduce fish consumption below current levels, which

> are probably safe. " He calls the Seychelles study a " methodological

> advance over previous studies. "

>

> Questions about the health effects of mercury often boil down to

seafood

> because fish are the primary source of exposure to mercury for most

> people. Scientists estimate that about half the mercury in the Earth

and

> its atmosphere originates from natural sources such as volcanoes, and

> about half comes from man-made sources.

>

> People receive most of their mercury exposure by eating ocean fish like

> tuna, swordfish and shark. The fish eaten by women in the Seychelles

had

> approximately the same levels of mercury as those eaten by consumers in

> the United States but they ate much more fish than most people in the

> United States. The Seychelles women, however, had an average of six

> times as much mercury in their bodies, as measured in hair samples, as

> most people in the US.

>

> " This study indicates that there are no detectable adverse effects in a

> population consuming large quantities of a wide variety of ocean fish, "

> says Myers, the senior author of the Seychelles study and an

> internationally recognized authority on mercury. " These are the same

> fish that end up on the dinner table in the United States and around

the

> world. "

>

> In the current study doctors and nurses tested the children in a

variety

> of ways and measured 21 different cognitive, behavioral, and

> neurological functions such as concentration, attention span,

> problem-solving abilities, intelligence, and motor skills. Only two

> functions varied slightly according to mercury level: Children of women

> with higher mercury levels were slightly less likely to be hyperactive,

> and sons of such women did slightly worse on a pegboard task.

> Statistically, both findings are likely due to chance, the researchers

> say.

>

> The Seychelles findings apply to fish bought and sold commercially, at

> grocery stores, supermarkets, seafood markets, and restaurants. Those

> fish are already regulated based on their mercury levels. Consumers

> should carefully follow advisories about eating fish caught in lakes

and

> rivers, since there are hundreds of polluted waterways whose fish are

> dangerous to eat in abundance, often because of pollutants like PCBs.

>

> The Seychelles study came about as a result of previous work by the

same

> Rochester team, which put together the first precise data showing that

> pre-natal exposure to mercury could harm a developing child. Their

study

> of the victims of an accidental mercury poisoning event in Iraq more

> than 30 years ago spurred them to start the Seychelles study to try to

> pinpoint the levels at which mercury poses a danger.

>

> Now the team is launching a new study in the Seychelles to compare the

> levels of nutrients pre-natally to the health of children early in

their

> lives. The study has its roots in a finding in one of the previous

> Seychelles reports, that children born to mothers with slightly higher

> mercury levels did better on some neurological and intelligence tests

> than their counterparts. That may be because those children's mothers

> with the higher mercury ate more fish. This study, funded by the

> National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, is being done with

> colleagues at the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland and Cornell

> University.

>

> " There are a lot of good, vital nutrients in fish, " says Myers, who is

> directing the team that is studying 300 children to compare their

health

> with the levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids, selenium, and other

> nutrients in their mothers during pregnancy.

>

> The Seychelles study, ongoing since 1989 with funding from the National

> Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, is one of the longest

> " longitudinal " studies ever done in children. The research has been

> funded by the NIH, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the

> Republic of the Seychelles.

>

> " The cooperation from people in the Seychelles and the Ministry of

> Health has been extraordinary, " Myers says. " They recognize the

> importance of this subject both to their own citizens and to the people

> around the world who consume fish. "

>

> In addition to Clarkson and Myers, the Seychelles team includes Philip

> Davidson, Ph.D.; Donna Palumbo, Ph.D.; Li-Shan Huang, Ph.D.; Elsa

> Cernichiari; and Jean Sloane-Reeves, all of the University of

Rochester;

> and Conrad Shamlaye of the Republic of the Seychelles. Christopher Cox,

> Ph.D., of the National Institutes of Health; Gregory Wilding, Ph.D., of

> the University at Buffalo; and James Kost, Ph.D., also took part.

>

>

> --

>

> http://www.loc.org/resources/cleaning.asp

>

>

> JoAnn Guest

> mrsjo-

> www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets

>

>

>

>

> AIM Barleygreen

> " Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

>

> http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets.html

>

 

>

>

> Start your day with - make it your home page

>

>

[Guest guest]

This article doesn't make it very clear in that it implies that those who eat

fish have considerably higher intelligence scores.

As we all know, fish contains more omega 3 fatty

acids.

Our brain flourishes on omega 3 fatty acids, in fact our

brains are COMPOSED of 80% fatty acids. This is why the children did so much

better on the tests, not because they had higher mercury levels. This is where

their logic is totally lacking.

 

The children's intelligence occurred in SPITE of their mercury levels obviously.

We need to clarify this.

 

As others have stated, there are other sources of mercury as well.

So how do they really know that the mercury levels were coming from the fish

their mothers ate? They don't. The mercury may very well have been from their

teeth (mercury fillings)

or even from vaccinations. God knows there are numerous other sources of mercury

in our very toxic world! They do not take this into consideration.

 

The FDA and other government agencies seem to be on a campaign to malign fish

because of high mercury levels, and cold water fish may very well be the most

healthy food we can eat. If it had not been for my frequent consumption of " cold

water "

fish I am convinced that I would not have recovered from my heart

and artery problems so swiftly and so thoroughly.

However it is important note as well that we be selective regarding our choices!

We cannot rely on any of these articles for consistent and

comprehensive information because obviously they are prejudiced in

their views. We need to do our own research in these areas since

this is such a serious topic!

 

I agree in one respect anyway, these articles leave a lot to be desired as to

the information that they relay to us.

I neglected to make a notation at the very bottom. If you will open the link at

the very lower portion of this article you will note that it contains some

little known and very important information regarding fish contaminants and how

to remove them from your life forever!.

 

This is why we need to eat fresh fish and eat those which are low on the

food chain! Those which are lower on the food chain contain the

least contaminants of all! As I have stated so

many times I believe

that it is important to choose our fish very carefully.

 

The link tells us how to get rid of these contaminants. When the MEDIA is

warning us about possibly the most healthy food on the planet do they give us

this information??? I think not!

As any TRUE fisherman will tell

you, when the MUD LINE is removed from any fish, this also removes

ALL of the contaminants as well!!!!

 

I was shocked and surprised to

discover this information recently on a health show (cable TV).

If everyone knew this, they would not be so afraid to eat fish.'

But as you say...media never tells us the whole story! Thank God for

the INTERNET! :-)

 

Watmest regards, JoAnn

In , " califpacific "

<califpacific@g...> wrote:

> Wow, who would have known...Thanks to establishment science we now

> know that Mercury is GOOD for you.

>

> The article revealed that " children born to mothers with slightly

> higher mercury levels did better on some neurological and

intelligence

> tests than their counterparts " .

>

> That must mean the more mercury the more intelligence, huh? And

here

> all of this time I was under the silly impression that mercury was

one

> of the most toxic substances on the planet. This information kind

of

> turns most of science for the last couple of hundred years or so on

> it's head. A highly toxic substance is now not only deemed " no

problem

> to health " , but implies that it can be beneficial to intelligence.

>

> They probably were also right when they told us that " toxic sludge

was

> good for us " as well, and how there was nothing to worry about when

> eating genetically modified foods, or mad cow meat. Not to mention

> hormones in our milk, poisons in our vegetables, vitamins are bad

> while drugs are good for you, etc, etc. etc. ad infinitum. Hell

they

> told us that none of that was any problem, but stubborn me just

> wouldn't listen. I probably could have been real smart if I would

have

> only listened to them and ate my mercury, toxic, sludge, synthetic

> hormones, pharma pills, etc. and shunned vitamins as they told me

to.

>

> But even in the face of these " experts " , somehow, I have a little

> problem putting my faith into this " study " . Can't put my finger on

> exactly why but, maybe with time it might come to me.

>

> just my 2 cents,

>

> Frank

>

>

>

>

> , JoAnn Guest

> <angelprincessjo> wrote:

> > No Detectable Risk From Mercury In Seafood, Study Shows JoAnn

> Guest Aug 26, 2005 16:32 PDT

> > University Of Rochester Medical Center

> >

> > 2003-05-16

> >

> > No Detectable Risk From Mercury In Seafood, Study Shows

> >

> > An exhaustive study of 643 children from before birth to 9 years

of age

> > shows no detectable risk from the low levels of mercury their

mothers

> > were exposed to from eating ocean seafood, according to a study

in the

> > May 16 issue of The Lancet.

> >

> > Children born to mothers-to-be who ate an average of 12 meals of

fish a

> > week about 10 times the average U.S. citizen eats showed no

harmful

> > symptoms.

> >

> >

> > The study by scientists at the University of Rochester Medical

> Center is

> > the latest in a series of updates on children who have been

studied

> > since their birth in 1989 and 1990 in the Republic of the

> Seychelles, an

> > island nation in the Indian Ocean. The children have been

evaluated

> five

> > times since their birth, and no harmful effects from the low

levels of

> > mercury obtained by eating seafood have been detected.

> >

> > " Consumption of fish is generally considered healthy for your

heart,

> yet

> > people are hearing that they should be concerned about eating

fish

> > because of mercury levels, " says lead author Gary Myers, M.D., a

> > pediatric neurologist. " We've found no evidence that the low

levels of

> > mercury in seafood are harmful. In the Seychelles, where the

women in

> > our study ate large quantities of fish each week while they were

> > pregnant, the children are healthy. "

> >

> > In a commentary on the research in The Lancet, Johns Hopkins

scientist

> > Constantine Lyketsos writes that, " For now, there is no reason

for

> > pregnant women to reduce fish consumption below current levels,

which

> > are probably safe. " He calls the Seychelles study

a " methodological

> > advance over previous studies. "

> >

> > Questions about the health effects of mercury often boil down to

> seafood

> > because fish are the primary source of exposure to mercury for

most

> > people. Scientists estimate that about half the mercury in the

Earth

> and

> > its atmosphere originates from natural sources such as

volcanoes, and

> > about half comes from man-made sources.

> >

> > People receive most of their mercury exposure by eating ocean

fish like

> > tuna, swordfish and shark. The fish eaten by women in the

Seychelles

> had

> > approximately the same levels of mercury as those eaten by

consumers in

> > the United States but they ate much more fish than most people

in the

> > United States. The Seychelles women, however, had an average of

six

> > times as much mercury in their bodies, as measured in hair

samples, as

> > most people in the US.

> >

> > " This study indicates that there are no detectable adverse

effects in a

> > population consuming large quantities of a wide variety of ocean

fish, "

> > says Myers, the senior author of the Seychelles study and an

> > internationally recognized authority on mercury. " These are the

same

> > fish that end up on the dinner table in the United States and

around

> the

> > world. "

> >

> > In the current study doctors and nurses tested the children in a

> variety

> > of ways and measured 21 different cognitive, behavioral, and

> > neurological functions such as concentration, attention span,

> > problem-solving abilities, intelligence, and motor skills. Only

two

> > functions varied slightly according to mercury level: Children

of women

> > with higher mercury levels were slightly less likely to be

hyperactive,

> > and sons of such women did slightly worse on a pegboard task.

> > Statistically, both findings are likely due to chance, the

researchers

> > say.

> >

> > The Seychelles findings apply to fish bought and sold

commercially, at

> > grocery stores, supermarkets, seafood markets, and restaurants.

Those

> > fish are already regulated based on their mercury levels.

Consumers

> > should carefully follow advisories about eating fish caught in

lakes

> and

> > rivers, since there are hundreds of polluted waterways whose

fish are

> > dangerous to eat in abundance, often because of pollutants like

PCBs.

> >

> > The Seychelles study came about as a result of previous work by

the

> same

> > Rochester team, which put together the first precise data

showing that

> > pre-natal exposure to mercury could harm a developing child.

Their

> study

> > of the victims of an accidental mercury poisoning event in Iraq

more

> > than 30 years ago spurred them to start the Seychelles study to

try to

> > pinpoint the levels at which mercury poses a danger.

> >

> > Now the team is launching a new study in the Seychelles to

compare the

> > levels of nutrients pre-natally to the health of children early

in

> their

> > lives. The study has its roots in a finding in one of the

previous

> > Seychelles reports, that children born to mothers with slightly

higher

> > mercury levels did better on some neurological and intelligence

tests

> > than their counterparts. That may be because those children's

mothers

> > with the higher mercury ate more fish. This study, funded by the

> > National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, is being

done with

> > colleagues at the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland and

Cornell

> > University.

> >

> > " There are a lot of good, vital nutrients in fish, " says Myers,

who is

> > directing the team that is studying 300 children to compare their

> health

> > with the levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids, selenium, and

other

> > nutrients in their mothers during pregnancy.

> >

> > The Seychelles study, ongoing since 1989 with funding from the

National

> > Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, is one of the

longest

> > " longitudinal " studies ever done in children. The research has

been

> > funded by the NIH, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and

the

> > Republic of the Seychelles.

> >

> > " The cooperation from people in the Seychelles and the Ministry

of

> > Health has been extraordinary, " Myers says. " They recognize the

> > importance of this subject both to their own citizens and to the

people

> > around the world who consume fish. "

> >

> > In addition to Clarkson and Myers, the Seychelles team includes

Philip

> > Davidson, Ph.D.; Donna Palumbo, Ph.D.; Li-Shan Huang, Ph.D.;

Elsa

> > Cernichiari; and Jean Sloane-Reeves, all of the University of

> Rochester;

> > and Conrad Shamlaye of the Republic of the Seychelles.

Christopher Cox,

> > Ph.D., of the National Institutes of Health; Gregory Wilding,

Ph.D., of

> > the University at Buffalo; and James Kost, Ph.D., also took

part.

> >

> >

> > --------------------------------

---

> >

> > http://www.loc.org/resources/cleaning.asp

> >

> >

> > JoAnn Guest

> > mrsjo-

> > www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > AIM Barleygreen

> > " Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

> >

> > http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets.html

> >

>

> >

> >

> > Start your day with - make it your home page

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

My son was born with severe mercury poisoning, He does NOT have

autism. He does have spastic quad cp, microcephaly, seizures, he is

completely non verbal. His mercury level was 13.78mcg this was for a

17 lb infant. A healthy adults level is 1.58mcg. They consider an

adult toxic at 4 mcg. (I had 4 fillings in my mouth)

 

I do NOT eat fish. I was injected with 35 mcg of mercury while I was 6

months pregnant via Rhogam.(A fetus weighs about 2 1/2 lbs at this

time) Was injected again with 35 mcg of mercury right after giving

birth while I was breastfeeding, Then my son was also injected with

12.5 mcg the day he was born with the Hep B vaccine. My son is among

the hundreds that are suffering. Just like the children who were born

with congential minamata disease (Mercury poisoning in utero) The

majority were born normal and started to show symptoms at 6 months and

later.

 

A mother I know she was on a fad diet and ate tuna every day for six

months right before getting pregnant, Her child was born normal and

did not develop seizures until he was 3, By the time he was 5 the

seizures were uncontrolable(he is much older and was born at the time

children usually got vaccinated right before school) Where as my son

was/ is much more disabled then her child. The omega in the fish I

think saved her child from being more severely disabled, The mercury

in the vaccines do not contain omega. Also the (Michael) Myers study

was done in an area where mercury was pretty low in fish. I am

disgusted with Myers as he is a Pediatric Neurologist! Guess he wants

to be sure to have future patients. (This is why I have nic named him

Michael Myers!!)

 

 

 

When you do eat fish, choose younger and smaller fish which contain

lower levels of chemicals like mercury.

 

You might have heard that you can avoid pollutants in fish by removing

all skin and fatty tissue before cooking, or by grilling so the fat

can drip away. This does remove PCBs, but it doesn't remove mercury,

which exists in the flesh of the fish.

 

http://www.nwf.org/getgreen/Mercury.cfm

 

 

 

Donna

[Guest guest]

, Donna Arnold

<donna.arnold@g...> wrote:

 

> A mother I know she was on a fad diet and ate tuna every day for

six months right before getting pregnant, Her child was born normal and did not

develop seizures until he was 3, By the time he was 5 the

> seizures were uncontrolable(he is much older and was born at the

time children usually got vaccinated right before school) Where as my son was/

is much more disabled then her child. The omega in the fish I think saved her

child from being more severely disabled, The

mercury in the vaccines do not contain omega. Also the (Michael) Myers study

was done in an area where mercury was pretty low in fish. I am disgusted with

Myers as he is a Pediatric Neurologist!

 

Guess he wants to be sure to have future patients. (This is why I have nic named

him Michael Myers!!)

> Donna

 

Personally, this is the problem I have with this mercury propaganda

that is surfacing, Everyone associates fish with Tuna! Tuna is the

worst (or best) example of processed devitalized commercially

*manufactured* foods known to man! When I learned that one of the

most commonly used additives in TUNA.... " Chicken Broth " contains MSG

I was devastated and horrified! The majority of the american public

is eating this stuff thinking they are doing their bodies a favor.

Nothing could be farther from the truth! If you want to see REAL

tuna flick over to the food channel some day and you will see tuna

as the Japanese eat it! CANNED TUNA is linked with neurotransmitter

problems such as you just described and this is because of the MSG

exclusively! Our store shelves are FULL Of the stuff and the food

manufacturers advocate eating this processed devitalized food when

moms have all they can deal with without taking any more additives

into their bodies! And then they just add even more drugs to their

system while they are trying to deal with the terrible side effects

of the processed foods they are forced to eat (thanks to our lovely

manufactured foods)! Its a wonder that any of the babies survive.

Those who choose to " keep " their babies then just load more

additives into their system while they're carrying them.

If you want to get some REAL fish just go to your Kroger or natural

foods store and get some WILD fish. or if you are unable to afford

that eat some ALASKAN CANNED SALMON or SARDINES IN WATER. If you do

this, you are getting omega 3s in their very best form. The american

people need to be educated regarding their omega 3s. Then they will

be able to avoid many of these health problems.

But as we all know, this is not going to happen any time soon. The

pharmaceutical companies do NOT want us to heal. If everyone knew

this vital information, they would not be able to purvey their toxic

wares so easily!! Perhaps we would have a better quality of life

though. since changing over to this better way of eating, I have had

no health problems to speak of. It sounds simplistic I know, but its

true. Take it or leave it. Its up to you.

 

JoAnn