Too many misleading or inaccurate statements in this article for me to tackle now, though there are some things worthy of consideration. I do think that high dietary consumption of these kinds of oils makes people more susceptible to all kinds of "diseases," especially with AA in one's cells. This is a simple hypothesis to test. In contrast, the author is making all kinds of assumptions when making his claims. Often, when this is done, there are typical problems, such as confusing physiological with therapeutic levels of various substances. It's a good example of "being right" (in general) but for the wrong reasons (or for statements that are scientifically imprecise).
Let's take this example "By now it should be obvious that congested blood and lymph flow negatively affect every part of the body. Moreover, using processed foods containing canola oil, soy oil and chemical additives confuses the body and weakens the immune system..."
Where is the evidence for this, and what, exactly, do they mean by it?
By contrast, I would point out that lipid peroxidation can lead to damaged biomolecules, which the body might then attack as "foreign." If there is too much of this, macrophages can become dysfunctional, accumulating in places like lymph nodes, "leaking" dangerous substances and causing damage to the body. This is also the process of "atherosclerosis" in arteries, leading to "heart disease."
The author also seems unaware of certain things, such as how dangerous erucic acid can be (the body can't metabolize it well at all), and instead talks about the pH of the body of the boy with ALD. What is that all about? Is he "making this up as he goes along?" It seems to me that this is a distinct possibility. He claims that "Lorenzo's Oil" is olive oil, when in fact olive oil does not contain erucic acid (perhaps the tiniest of trace amounts), which in the film is clearly what was given to the boy (that is, an oil very rich in erucic acid).
Then there is: "In the end, they will discover that glaucoma is the result of insufficient blood flow due to agglutination (clumping together) of the red blood cells and waste buildup in the cells and intercellular fluids..."
What evidence is there for this notion? By contrast, I point to experimental findings and try to make the evidence comprehensible in a larger framework. Often, the scientists conducting the experiments have already made the points I do, but in a more technical way (like with Spiteller's work and PUFAs). And it's also common for two scientists to have good ideas, but if they are put together, so to speak, there are even more interesting insights inherent in the findings. |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
