This is the usual "have their cake and eat it too" sort of claim.  If "EFAD" is so unlikely, why even mention it?  On the other hand, having Mead acid in your cells is supposed to be a clear sign of being "EFAD."  Also, consider that in most "modern" nations today, the vast majority of peoples' cells have AA in them rather than the Mead acid, and so they assume that this is the "normal" state, even though it's only been the case for several decades.

 

As to the studies on "EFAD," I've seen a few that talk about people who are in very bad shape, physically, and when dealing with such people, you can easily mistake symptoms for whatever "disease" you are seeking.  But again, they need to state their claims in a formal hypothesis, just like the "HIV/AIDS" crowd, and then the scientific process can go forward in a manner consistent with the scientific method.  However, I've already seen the obvious differences, in myself and in my great grandparents, and there is also the molecular-level evidence showing clear differences in the "inflammatory response" in cells with AA or EPA versus cells with Mead acid.

 

In any case, the question is, what amount allows Mead acid to replace AA, if you have AA in your cells at present?  I think the .025 gram claim is extreme - I've never seen it before.  Can you cite the source?  The least I've seen is 1.5 g of omega 3 and also 1.5 g of omega 6s.  For example, at: http://www.wellnessalternatives-stl.com/essentialfattyacids.htm

 

Interestingly, take a look at the list of "deficiency" symptoms that one company is telling people they might experience if they are "EFAD:"  http://www.anyvitamins.com/fatty-acids-info.htm

 

Now the question for such people is, what do you say to someone like me, who does not have any "EFAD" symptoms after years on a diet with only a tiny amount of omega 6s and hardly any omega 3s?  If they are "essential," they cannot be partially essential, some of the time, in some people.  Basically, their claims are a house of cards resting upon a fictional foundation.  It was refuted in 1948, but because it's been considered so "minor," scientifically, until recently, nobody has paid much attention to it one way or the other.  However, there is now "big money" in it, such as in fish oil supplement sales, and so even studies that are outright refutations are ignored, though many "experts" are just plain ignorant, of course.

My problem started about a year and a half after I started omega 3 supplementation.  And yes, I meant .25 g was low; .025 would be miniscule.  And yes, if that was the case, "EFAD" would be nearly impossible.  However, if you were rasied on food that led to your having Mead acid in your cells, taking a gram or so a day of something like sunflower oil would not necessarily mean that the Mead acid would be replaced with AA, though obviously I think it's a bad idea.  So the key point is, how low can you go if you have AA in your cells in order to keep it there?  Since I would want the AA gone, I would keep omega 6 and 3 intake very low for a couple of years, at least.

 

As to the "alternative" crowd: many want to sell supplements and make profits, so I discount those people immediately - too much conflict of interest possible.  Their attitude is that the body just "breaks down" for no reason, unless you "get back to nature" with their supplements.  Fortunately, I witnessed my great grandparents live to be 96 and 100+ years old, and they ate a low PUFA diet (they used olive oil, due to their ethnic background).  However, they ate plenty of dairy and sugar-rich foods.  They ate some canned fruit and grew their own vegetables, with only small servings of meat once a day.  They never had any major source of omega 3s.

 

Something else to consider, in terms of things like dry skin; it may be that in a tropical climate with high humidity, this would never be a problem.  In any case, all I do is use a little coconut oil on my face in the morning.  Otherwise, my skin is fine.  I usually wash my hair every few days with just water, because it never gets greasy like it used to.  But as I said, most of their "studies" on humans involve people who just had surgery or people who were on fed through tubes for a while, not on healthy college students, though they use healthy college students to try to show that omega 3s are "beneficial."  They feed them an omega 6 rich diet, adding fish oil, and look at various markers a few weeks or so later.  The fish oil interferes with AA being made into dangerous molecules like LTB4 or PGE2, so this is the "benefit."  With Mead acid in your cells, however, your body cannot make LTB4 or PGE2 in the first place, so it's not even an issue.

With Mead acid in your cells and a good diet, the "germs" and "toxins" are much less of a problem.  Ingesting a lot of fish oil makes your body much more reactive biochemically, and that makes the "germs" prompt an inflammatory response more easily and it means the "toxins" will be involved in dangerous reactions.  I don't want to put a picture of myself up here, but I'm in my early 40s and people think I'm in my early 30s.

 

Another point is the claim about "balancing" omegas 6s and 3s.  I don't think this is what happens.  You can only have one PUFA that acts as a substrate for metabolites when stressed beyond a certain threshold (and that threshold is lower if AA is there rather than the Mead aci).  When I tried a lot of omega 3 suppolementation, I noticed that my wounds/cuts didn't heal well - sort of a thin, wrinkely scab.  With AA, my scabs were like a hard plastic.  Obviously, the omega 3s were being used to heal the wounds/cuts, and not AA.  There was no "balance."  It's amazing how various "scientific experts" generate stories that sound good to the general public, but which make no sense scientifically.

It would be interesting to know how Mercola came to believe in his ideology of food and health.  Perhaps he already had an idea about sugar being unhealthy, and he only paid attention to reports of studies that seemed to support this view.  It's a very common problem, so if he is a "quack" then there are few "experts" who are not, unfortunately.  I had a "health" teacher in high school who was like this; he blamed all of the "chronic disease" on bleached flour, though his only "evidence" was that its consumption appeared to coincide with various "chronic disease" epidemics.  Now, however, there is more than enough molecular-level evidence to show what is causing problems and what is not, though when I've contacted these kinds of people, some has said that they just didn't understand this evidence, and could only rely on the statistically oriented correlation studies ("epidemiology"), which I consider a weak excuse at best, particularly from those with advanced degrees in science or who are medical doctors.