Study: Seafood Consumption Linked To Cognitive Decline (Repost)

What is the dirtiest food you can eat? I say this once a week. It’s seafood!*

Now, go to Google and type in “brain food.” What food occupies a prominent position in those images? Seafood! Here’s an example:

Salmon or other seafood is not brain food.

How can one of the dirtiest foods you can eat be one of the best foods for your brain? Because it isn’t…

Cognitive Performance In Older Adults Is Inversely Associated With Fish Consumption But Not Erythrocyte Membrane N-3 Fatty Acids, The Journal of Nutrition, March 2014

“Inversely” means that as one variable goes up, the other goes down. In this case, as fish consumption went up, cognitive performance went down. It says it right there in the title. It says it throughout the article too.

Higher current fish consumption predicted worse performance on several cognitive speed constructs.

Greater fish consumption in childhood predicted slower perceptual speed and simple/choice reaction time.

We found no evidence to support the hypothesis that higher proportions of long-chain n–3 fatty acids or fish intake benefits cognitive performance in normal older adults.

These were healthy people eating seafood only about twice a week:

The mean frequency of fish consumption in the group we studied was twice per week. … Our sample consisted of predominantly Caucasian, relatively high-functioning, community-dwelling older adults.

Imagine if they were not healthy or if they ate seafood more often?

* Fish are contaminated with mercury, lead, PCBs, dioxins, pesticides, fire retardants, prescription drugs, microplastics, and other chemicals that act as endocrine disruptors. Our Paleolithic ancestors ate fish that did not contain these contaminants which is why it’s pretty near impossible to eat a Paleolithic diet today.

But what about omega-3 fatty acids in fish? EPA and DHA? Fish oil! Isn’t that good for the brain? Note that the study above found no benefit from consuming “higher proportions of long-chain n–3 fatty acids.”

Nor does this one:

Omega-3 Fatty Acids And Risk Of Cognitive Impairment And Dementia, Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, October 2003

In the prospective analysis, a higher eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA, and omega-3 fatty acid] concentration was found in cognitively impaired cases compared to controls while higher docosahexaenoic acid [DHA, and omega-3 fatty acid], omega-3 and total polyunsaturated fatty acid concentrations were found in dementia cases.

These findings do not support the hypothesis that omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids play a protective role in cognitive function and dementia.

Nor does this one:

Omega 3 Fatty Acid For The Prevention Of Cognitive Decline And Dementia, Cochrane Library, June 2012

The available trials showed no benefit of omega‐3 PUFA supplementation on cognitive function in cognitively healthy older people.

Nor does this one:

Intakes Of (N-3) Fatty Acids And Fatty Fish Are Not Associated With Cognitive Performance And 6-year Cognitive Change In Men Participating In The Veterans Affairs Normative Aging Study, The Journal of Nutrition, December 2009

Our findings in this sample of aging men do not support the hypothesis that higher fish/(n-3) PUFA intake is associated with better cognitive function or with less cognitive decline on any of the cognitive tests.

This isn’t to say that omega-3s aren’t necessary nutrients or that seafood isn’t a good source for them. It’s that we’ve polluted seafood so much that the harm from contaminants outweighs the benefit from their omega-3s.

The Inuit who consume seafood from some of the most pristine waters surrounding the Arctic:

Inuit natives, whose diets consist largely of fish, have been found with PCB levels of 15.7 ppm in their fat, far higher concentrations than the maximum amount considered to be safe in fish by the EPA (.094 ppm). Nearly all Inuit have PCB levels far above guideline levels that health officials consider safe, and some Inuit have ingested so much contamination from fish that their breast milk and body tissues would be classified as hazardous waste.

I shall end where I started. Seafood is some of the dirtiest food you can eat.

Different Types Of Data Analysis Can Yield Different Results

Study Of The Week: Choices, Oh My, The Choices, Sensible Medicine, 15 August 2022

The paper above describes how a study’s results depend upon how its data was analyzed. The author, Dr. Mandrola, recalls a study that was done to test the hypothesis that different types of analysis yield different results – from the same data.

Nosek and colleagues recruited 29 teams of expert researchers to analyze one data set to answer one simple question: were professional soccer referees more likely to give red cards to dark-skin-toned players than light-skin-toned players?

The 29 teams of researchers analyzed the same data in 29 different ways.

Two-thirds of the expert teams of data scientists detected a significant result and one-third found no statistical difference. Two teams of experts found results that were highly suggestive of implicit bias amongst referees.

Studies describe the method that was used to analyze data. It’s usually only one method.

As if it wasn’t already difficult to trust results.

There Is No Safe Level Of Air Pollution

Despite the relatively clean air, the study found that nearly 8,000 Canadians were dying early each year from outdoor air pollution. Photograph: Robert McGouey/Alamy

Even Low Levels Of Air Pollution Can Damage Health, Study Finds, The Guardian, 12 August 2022

Census records for more than 7 million Canadians from between 1981 and 2016 were combined with air pollution data to find out if small amounts of particle pollution were still harmful.

Despite the relatively clean air [Canada has some of the cleanest air in the world], the study found that nearly 8,000 Canadians were dying early each year from outdoor air pollution. Notably, even people in the cleanest areas were experiencing an impact on their health.

The Canadian study was one of three funded by the US Health Effects Institute. The other two looked at more than 60 million people in the US and 27 million people in Europe. They reached similar conclusions: there is no lower limit that can be used to define safe air quality.

Look at the air in that photo. LOOK AT THE AIR IN THAT PHOTO. And still, it’s killing people.

What, then, is the fate of people living in Los Angeles?

Looking down from the Hollywood Hills, with Griffith Observatory on the hill in the foreground, air pollution is visible in downtown Los Angeles on a late afternoon. – Wikipedia: Air Pollution In The US

… Or Phoenix, or Cleveland, or New York City, or Houston, or Fairbanks, or Chicago, or Philadelphia, or …

the rest of the world.

We treat our planet like a dumping ground.

Plastics: “In Short, We’re Poisoning Ourselves”

Plastic Can Take Hundreds Of Years To Break Down – And We Keep Making More, The Guardian, 8 August 2022

Plastics with chemicals to make them flexible, and those that are biodegradable but have endocrine-disrupting effects, may both increase rates of cancer, infertility and obesity – for starters.

In short, we’re poisoning ourselves.

“With skyrocketing plastic production, low levels of recycling, and poor waste management,” writes Brian Hutchinson for the Oceanic Society, “between 4 and 12 million metric tons of plastic enter the ocean each year – enough to cover every foot of coastline on the planet! And that amount is projected to triple in the next 20 years.”

Plastics now jam the stomachs of seabirds, sea turtles, sharks and whales that wash up dead. They litter remote beaches from the Aleutians to Midway to Pitcairn Island. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch – two huge floating masses of plastic debris, each bigger than Texas – is so large (and growing) that Captain Charles Moore, who discovered it in 1997, has said cleaning it up would “bankrupt any country” that tried.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

What do you do when you see the train heading for a cliff and there’s nothing you can do to stop it?

New Study: We Have Passed The Tipping Point, PFAS “Forever Chemicals” Have Polluted The Whole Planet

“Rainwater all over the planet exceeds US safety guidelines say scientists.” BBC

New research shows that rainwater, surface water, and soil throughout the planet has now been contaminated with PFAS “forever chemicals” at levels above which the EPA considers safe:

Outside the Safe Operating Space of a New Planetary Boundary for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), Environmental Science and Technology, 2 August, 2022

It is hypothesized that environmental contamination by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) defines a separate planetary boundary and that this boundary has been exceeded. This hypothesis is tested by comparing the levels of four selected perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) (i.e., perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)) in various global environmental media (i.e., rainwater, soils, and surface waters) with recently proposed guideline levels.

On the basis of the four PFAAs considered, it is concluded that:
(1) levels of PFOA and PFOS in rainwater often greatly exceed US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Lifetime Drinking Water Health Advisory levels and the sum of the aforementioned four PFAAs (Σ4 PFAS) in rainwater is often above Danish drinking water limit values also based on Σ4 PFAS;
(2) levels of PFOS in rainwater are often above Environmental Quality Standard for Inland European Union Surface Water; and
(3) atmospheric deposition also leads to global soils being ubiquitously contaminated and to be often above proposed Dutch guideline values.

It is, therefore, concluded that the global spread of these four PFAAs in the atmosphere has led to the planetary boundary for chemical pollution being exceeded.

Levels of PFAAs in atmospheric deposition are especially poorly reversible because of the high persistence of PFAAs and their ability to continuously cycle in the hydrosphere, including on sea spray aerosols emitted from the oceans.

Because of the poor reversibility of environmental exposure to PFAS and their associated effects, it is vitally important that PFAS uses and emissions are rapidly restricted.

I keep saying … the only recourse is to stop making PFAS chemicals. Once they are made, the products diffuse throughout the environment and into our bodies. They stay there for years. They accumulate.

According to the CDC, PFAS may lead to:

    • Increased cholesterol levels
    • High blood pressure
    • Kidney disease, kidney cancer
    • Testicular cancer
    • Liver damage
    • Immune system damage
    • Birth defects, delayed development

From BBC:
Pollution: ‘Forever Chemicals’ In Rainwater Exceed Safe Levels, BBC, 2 August 2022

New research shows that rainwater in most locations on Earth contains levels of chemicals that “greatly exceed” safety levels.

Such is their prevalence now that scientists say there is no safe space on Earth to avoid them.

The researchers from Stockholm University say it is “vitally important” that the use of these substances is rapidly restricted.

There are around 4,500 of these fluorine-based compounds and they are found in almost every dwelling on Earth in hundreds of everyday products including food packaging, non-stick cookware, rain gear, adhesives, paper and paints.

The study’s findings lead the authors to conclude that a planetary boundary has been crossed – that there simply is no safe space on Earth to avoid these substances.

“We argue here that we’re not within this safe operating space anymore, because we now have these chemicals everywhere, and these safety advisories, we can’t achieve them anymore,” said Prof Ian Cousins, the lead author from Stockholm University.

“I’m not saying that we’re all going to die of these effects. But we’re in a place now where you can’t live anywhere on the planet, and be sure that the environment is safe.”

“In this background rain, the levels are higher than those environmental quality criteria already. So that means that over time, we are going to get a statistically significant impact of those chemicals on human health,” said Prof Crispin Halsall from the University of Lancaster. He was not involved with the Swedish study.

“And how that will manifest itself? I’m not sure but it’s going come out over time, because we’re exceeding those concentrations which are going to cause some harm, because of exposure to humans in their drinking water.”

The rest of this article goes on to say that, oh well, guidelines schmidelines. It’s too late, the chemicals are everywhere now, and the cost for cleanup is prohibitive:

I think they’ll do the same thing with the US drinking water advisories [relax the guidelines], because they’re not practical to apply. … It’s just impossible, from an economic viewpoint to apply any of those guidelines.

These chemicals weren’t around when I was a child. In my short lifetime, we have desecrated the planet!

Paper: mRNA Vaccine Suppresses Immune Response: Increasing Risk For Infections, Bell’s Palsy, Shingles, Cancer

This is an interesting paper. It describes mechanisms by which the mRNA vaccine can cause Bell’s palsy (one side of face weakens and droops), shingles, myocarditis (heart inflammation), and cancer (disturbs DNA repair mechanisms). It can cause early, undetected cancers or those in remission to grow aggressively.

Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs, Food and Chemical Toxicology, June 2022


  • mRNA vaccines promote sustained synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
  • The spike protein is neurotoxic, and it impairs DNA repair mechanisms.
  • Suppression of type I interferon responses results in impaired innate immunity.
  • The mRNA vaccines potentially cause increased risk to infectious diseases and cancer.
  • Codon optimization results in G-rich mRNA that has unpredictable complex effects.

From the abstract:

The mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were brought to market in response to the public health crises of Covid-19. The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease has no precedent. The many alterations in the vaccine mRNA hide the mRNA from cellular defenses and promote a longer biological half-life and high production of spike protein. However, the immune response to the vaccine is very different from that to a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

In this paper, we present evidence that vaccination induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health. Immune cells that have taken up the vaccine nanoparticles release into circulation large numbers of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites.

We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances potentially have a causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell’s palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis. We show evidence from the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis.

This is their graphical abstract. Note the pathway for how the vaccine causes reactivation of latent viruses, such as viruses that cause shingles (herpes zoster), Bell’s palsy (herpes simplex), hepatitis.

One basic concept I walk away with is … the mRNA vaccines suppress “type I IFN signaling”. IFN stands for interferon, and this paper is a master class in the interferons (proteins that contribute to immunity).

It’s not light reading. I’ve visited it on and off since its early online release in April. There’s a lot here. I’ve learned a lot.

I’m posting it so I can easily refer to it later and for anyone else interested in the topic.