Quit eating Sushi many years ago because of this fear and ( edit ) Hepatitis A - C. I really did enjoy it too . http://www.livestrong.com/article/135365-causes-hepatitis-a/
Comment on "Red Meat Consumption and Mortality" Dean Ornish, MD Arch Intern Med. Published online March 12, 2012. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.174 Is red meat bad for you? In a word, yes. In this issue, Pan et al1 describe the outcomes from more than 37 000 men from the Harvard Health Professionals Follow-Up Study and more than 83 000 women from the Harvard Nurses Health Study who were followed up for almost 3 million person-years. This is the first large-scale prospective longitudinal study showing that consumption of both processed and unprocessed red meat is associated with an increased risk of premature mortality from all causes as well as from cardiovascular disease and cancer. In a related study by Pan et al,2 red meat consumption was also associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Substitution of red meat with fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy products, and whole grains was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality. We have a spectrum of choices; it's not all or nothing.3 Plant-based foods are rich in phytochemicals, bioflavonoids, and other substances that are protective. In other words, what we include in our diet is as important as what we exclude, so substituting healthier foods for red meat provides a double benefit to our health. Pan et al1 reported that adjustment for saturated fat, dietary cholesterol, and heme iron accounted for some but not all of the risk of eating red meat. Thus, other mechanisms such as nontraditional risk factors may be involved. For example, a recent study by Smith4 found that high-fat, high-protein, low-carbohydrate (HPLC) diets (which are usually high in red meat, such as the Atkins and Paleolithic diets) may accelerate atherosclerosis through mechanisms that are unrelated to the classic cardiovascular risk factors. Mice that were fed an HPLC diet had almost twice the level of arterial plaque as mice that were fed a Western diet even though the classic risk factors were not significantly different between groups. The mice that were fed the HPLC diet had markedly fewer circulating endothelial progenitor cells and higher levels of nonesterified fatty acids (promoting inflammation) than mice that were fed the Western diet.5 Therefore, studies of HPLC diets that only examine their effects on changes in weight, blood pressure, and lipid levels may not adequately reflect the negative influence of HPLC diets on health outcomes, such as morbidity and mortality. There is an emerging consensus among most nutrition experts about what constitutes a healthy way of eating: little or no red meat; high in "good carbs" (including vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, and soy products in their natural forms); low in "bad carbs" (simple and refined carbohydrates, such as sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, and white flour); high in "good fats" (-3 fatty acids found in fish oil, flax oil, and plankton-based oils); low in "bad fats" (trans fats, saturated fats, and hydrogenated fats); more quality, less quantity (smaller portions of good foods are more satisfying than larger portions of junk foods, especially if you pay attention to what you are eating). http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/archinternmed.2012.174
First of all, this study was conducted by having participants fill out questionnaires. These 'Food Frequency Questionnaires" are often used in long term studies and have long been called into question for the accuracy of the data collected. In this particular study, the questionnaires were only collected once every 4 years. And what if data was missing? To quote from the study: "We replaced missing values in each follow-up FFQ with the cumulative averages before the missing values" (Related article- "Is it time to abandon the food frequency questionnaire?") http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/14/12/2826.full Another quote from the study: Men and women with higher intake of red meat were less likely to be physically active and were more likely to be current smokers, to drink alcohol, and to have a higher body mass index". They differentiated between processed and fresh meat in the study, but with no context. For example, a meal of steak and potato is the same as a hamburger and coke (hamburger patty is fresh meat in the study) There is a vast difference nutritionally between grass-fed, free range animals and industrially farmed and processed meat. That's like lumping pizza and ketchup in with real carrots and tomatoes and calling them all vegetables. Oh wait, the government already does that. This study is a perfect example of "correlation is not causation". You can pick out all kinds of correlations from the data, but that does nothing to prove what is causing the result. Perfect example- Danish researchers link obesity with increasing levels of CO2 in the air. http://sciencenordic.com/new-theory-co2-makes-you-fat
here is another one you can rationalize away: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...ll_n_1339428.html?ir=Canada+Living&ref=topbar Eating a red meat-rich diet not only raises cholesterol and blood pressure levels but can also have potentially lethal health risks, according to new research. Researchers from Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, warn that high consumption of red meat, especially processed meats, can dramatically increase heart disease and cancer risks
Same crap, different pile. Non-controlled study using questionnaires. You can find all kinds of correlations in poorly conducted studies, but it has nothing to do with causation. Here's one for you- Did you know that heart disease has increased right along with use of toilet paper and modern plumbing? Headline - "Wiping your ass causes heart disease!"
Thanks, my worms are smiling and are saying hello Japanese eat a LOT of sushi and are generally in very good health.
It's sort of astounding in a sinister way. Big Medical has been prescribing drugs to lower cholesterol. Cholesterol is bad, it's what repairs cracks of the walls of your arteries.. so research has shown that lowering the cholesterol doesn't really affect your lifespan but they continue with the drugs, themselves quite harmful. What really works is to raise your Hyaluronic Acid and keep the artery walls flexible so they don't crack and need repair. You can do that by taking lots of Vitamin C or you can take... drumroll... wait for big announcement... Hyaluronic Acid! Just buy some, take it every day and no problems with arterial plaque.. not to mention that you can probably remove the existing plaque with a supplemented enzyme or maybe it will clean itself out naturally if your arterial walls are not cracking... I CAN'T STAND these bullshit doctors! They can't graduate unless they submit to the brainwashing... they are told that the good effects of all supplements are from placebo effect and they will stick to their guns on that issue.. Meanwhile, the supplement industry is free to benefit from research from all over the world and has moved as far ahead of the Big Medical as science fiction was ahead of science in 1940..
Salmonella is not all that dangerous to a healthy person. It's hell on little kids and old people though..
Exotic eggs are they safest bet. Personally I eat nothing but crocodile and ostrich eggs. The ostrich is easy enough to farm but the crock is a real animal.