Harry Reid On Race & Identity Politics
Posted by Michelle Moquin on August 12th, 2013
Good morning!
Steve: Absolutely not. Stay tuned.
Kaatje: Please see above comment to Steve.
Louis: Good luck with your potential lady love.
Flora: Disappointed in Obama? I am in no way disappointed in Obama. I am so grateful that he is our president. I am however disappointed in those that oppose him strictly to be against him with their main goal to see him fail, at the expense of the betterment of our country. That is something to be disappointed over.
LeTa0: I agree with you. People don’t police themselves and the FBI is certainly not going to. I was watching Maddow a few nights ago and she referenced the New York Times article written by Charlie Savage, “The F.B.I Deemed Agents Faultless in 150 Shooting.” A segment and write worth a watch.
And thank you so much for the Civics 101 course. So many people who blame Obama for so many things that are not in his control, really don’t understand how the 3 branches of government work. I am with you on the next midterms. If the Dems sit back like they did in 2010, the last 2 years of Obama’s presidency will not be very productive. I am not counting on a more “cooperative House of repubs to work with.” Nope. Bottom line: The Dems need to get off the couch, go to the polls and get back in control.
Vicki: I like your comment. My sentiments exactly.
George, WN: I have a feeling the inadequacy that you feel every time you go to the bathroom, pull down your pants, and look down, is the reason you say such things. From the anger you’re spewing, me thinks you just visited the little boys room, got another reminder of what you lack in the sack, and decided to post your thoughts here. You can rant all you want, even throw in some caps with lots of exclamation points, but sorry, it won’t make your little willy any bigger.
Anonymous: I agree with the commenter: “Sickening.”
Anonymous: I repeat the above.
So…speaking of uncooperative republicans and their main goal, I found this on the Maddow Blog:
Harry Reid trolls Republicans on race and identity politics
From time to time, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has a knack for making provocative comments that infuriate Republicans. Friday offers just such an example.
“My counterpart, Mitch McConnell, said at the beginning of the presidency of Barack Obama that he had one goal — and that is to defeat Obama and make sure he wasn’t re-elected. And that’s how they legislate in the Senate,” he said. “It was really bad. And we’re now seven months into this second term of the president’s and they haven’t changed much.”
“It’s been obvious that they’re doing everything they can to make him fail,” Reid said. “And I hope, I hope — and I say this seriously — I hope that’s based on substance and not the fact that he’s African American.”
The suggestion that Republicans might be motivated by racism — as opposed to, say, the party’s radicalism and ideological extremism — was not well received. The National Republican Senatorial Committee called Reid’s comments “insane,” and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, Congress’ only African-American Republican urged Reid to “apologize” for his “offensive” remarks.
As a rule, Reid’s comments are not the way I like to see the discourse work. If leading Democrats have examples of Republicans using racism to attack President Obama — examples that come up more often than they should – Dems should say so. Passive-aggressive trolling, and “hopes” that Republicans aren’t racist, isn’t constructive.
That said, whether you find Reid’s approach inappropriate or not, it’s worth noting he’s playing the game by Republican rules. Indeed, let’s take a brief stroll down memory lane, pointing to some incidents from the Bush/Cheney era that the political world may not recall.
As long-time readers may recall, Republicans in the last decade had quite an annoying habit: when Democrats took positions the GOP didn’t like, Republicans routinely accused Dems of bigotry and discrimination.
When Harriet Miers’ Supreme Court nomination came under fire, Republicans suggested Democrats, including Democratic women, were being sexist.
When Bill Pryor’s nomination to the 11th Circuit drew opposition, Republicans suggested Democrats, including Catholic Democrats, were anti-Catholic.
When Miguel Estrada’s D.C. Circuit nomination drew opposition, Republicans suggested Democrats were anti-Hispanic.
When Samuel Alito’s Supreme Court nomination was criticized, Republicans suggested his liberal opponents don’t like Italian-Americans.
When Janice Rogers Brown D.C. Circuit nomination came under fire, Republicans suggested Democrats were racists.
When Lurita Doan of the General Services Administration appeared to violate the Hatch Act at Karl Rove’s behest, Republicans accused Democrats of not liking conservative women.
In each of these instances, Democrats had specific, substantive concerns, but for Republicans, it was easier to accuse Democrats, without proof or decency, of being motivated by bigotry.
To clarify, this isn’t a defense for Reid’s comments, which I don’t think he should have made — leaders should call out racism, not hope aloud that a party isn’t being racist. But before Republicans complain too loudly about Reid’s rhetoric, I hope they’ll take a moment to realize he very likely learned this approach to identity politics by watching them.
*******
Readers: I agree with the writer of this write – Call ‘em on out on their racism, when they’re being racist. I’m done today. Your turn. Blog me. Happy Monday! I HOPE that today promises a fantastic rest of the week. Thanks for being here.
Peace & Love…
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
Thank you for your loyal support!
All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2012
“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream
" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"
August 12th, 2013 at 11:17 am
Yes, let’s have that debate here. Your proposal that we change the location to Venus because the thickness of the atmosphere and the heat of the planet prevents earthlings from monitoring us fails because those same characteristics are deadly to many of the council members.
Many of them do not have the ability to counter one of both of those, but the additional problem of the sulfuric acid being a trade contention between several of the major participators just makes this a very bad idea.
August 12th, 2013 at 12:00 pm
This 7-Minute Workout Really Works
Don’t have the time to exercise? Then here’s the workout for you! It is a series of 12 resistance and aerobic exercises that can be completed in seven minutes. It’s a tough seven minutes. The exercises are easy to learn, but they will push your body to the limit.
HOW IT WORKS
We designed the following workout for “corporate athletes”—busy adults without a lot of free time or access to a health club. The exercises can be done at home or in a hotel room because the only “equipment” that’s required is the weight of your body and a sturdy chair.
This approach, known as high-intensity circuit training, is effective for weight loss as well as metabolic and cardiovascular health. Workouts that are done at high intensity—during which the heart will beat at up to 80% to 90% of its maximum rate—cause changes in the muscles that are comparable to the changes produced by lengthier workouts at moderate intensity.
You don’t need a heart monitor to determine exercise intensity. I recommend the talk test. If you can speak an entire sentence while exercising, you’re not pushing hard enough. If you can’t speak at all, you’re working too hard. You’re in the right zone when you can speak a few words before pausing for breath.
On an exertion scale of one to 10—with one being at rest, and 10 being almost impossible—the workout should be an eight or a nine. This can be a very tough workout. No one should do it without getting a physical and the go-ahead from a doctor.
EASE INTO IT
If you’re not already an athlete, start slowly. While you’re learning and getting in shape, you might take a little longer than seven minutes to complete all 12 of the exercises.
Your goal is to get the time down to seven minutes using correct form and technique for each exercise. Do the seven-minute workout every other day.
You may need to go to your local fitness center and get guidance from a certified fitness professional. When you get stronger, you can do the seven-minute workout two or three times in a row if you wish for the ultimate 15-to-20-minute workout.
It’s important to do the exercises in the order listed.
Reason:
The workout includes total-body exercises, which are more aerobic in nature, and exercises that give the lower- and upper-body muscles some time to recover.
When you’re doing a leg exercise, the muscles in the upper body have a chance to rest. When you’re working the upper body, the legs have the opportunity to rest. These intervals of exertion and rest help make the workout so effective.
THE EXERCISES
Aim to perform 15 to 20 repetitions of each exercise over a period of 30 seconds, but don’t compromise form and technique for repetitions. When you finish one exercise, don’t rest. Immediately start the next one.
Caution:
If you have high blood pressure or heart disease, skip the isometric exercises (wall-sit, plank and side plank). These movements involve extended muscle contractions that can impede blood flow. A trainer can suggest safer alternatives.
• Jumping jacks.
Start the routine with a classic jumping jack—with your feet shoulder-width apart, arms at your sides, jump slightly and spread your legs while bringing your arms together over your head until your hands almost touch.
Jump again as you bring your feet back to the starting position while lowering your hands to your sides. Helpful: If you’re uncomfortable doing jumping jacks, you can run or walk in place.
• Wall-sit.
Start out standing with your back against a wall. Bend your knees, and slide down until your thighs are parallel to the floor. Hold the position for 30 seconds.
• Push-up.
Support your body on your hands and toes, your palms about shoulder-width apart. Lower your upper body toward the floor until the elbows form a 90o angle. Then raise your body. If you want, you can start out on your knees and progress to a full push-up as you become stronger.
• Abdominal crunch.
Lie on your back, with your knees bent, your feet flat on the floor and your arms extended toward your knees. Using the abdominal muscles, lift your head and shoulders a few inches off the floor. Then lower your head/shoulders back down.
• Step-up.
Leading with your left leg, step onto a sturdy chair. (If you aren’t sure of your strength or balance, you can substitute something that’s lower than a chair, such as a step or a low bench.) Use the strength of your left leg to bring your other foot onto the chair. Then step off the chair, leading with your left leg. Repeat, alternating legs each time.
• Squat.
Stand with your feet shoulder-width apart and your arms at your sides. Bend your knees, and squat until your thighs are parallel to the floor. While lowering your body, extend your arms in front of your body. Keep your knees over your toes. Then rise to the starting position.
• Triceps dip on chair.
Sit on the edge of a sturdy chair (or step or low bench), with the heels of your hands on either side of your butt. Slide off the seat so that your weight is supported on your hands.
Your legs will be extended forward. Bend your elbows, and lower your butt toward the floor. When your waist is a few inches lower than the seat of the chair, push up with your arms until your elbows are straight. Keep your shoulders flat, not shrugged.
• Plank.
Lie facedown on the floor while supporting your weight on your toes and forearms. Hold the position, keeping your body straight for 30 seconds.
• High knees/running in place.
This exercise combines a running motion with exaggerated knee lifts. While “running,” raise your knees as high as you comfortably can, without compromising your rhythm or balance. Stay on your toes, not your heels.
• Lunge.
While keeping your upper body straight, step forward with one leg. Lower your hips until both knees are bent at a 90° angle. Push back with the leading leg until your body returns to the starting position. Then step forward with the other leg and repeat.
• Push-up and rotation.
Assume the normal push-up position. As you come up, rotate your body so that your right arm rises overhead. Return to the starting position, and lower yourself. Do another push-up, this time extending the other arm. Do this for 30 seconds, alternating sides.
• Side plank.
Lie on your side, with one forearm under your shoulder. Your upper leg will be directly on top of the lower leg, with your knees straight. Raise your hips until your body forms a straight line from the ankles to the shoulders. Hold the position for 30 seconds, then repeat on the other side.
Source:
Chris Jordan, CSCS, director of exercise physiology at Human Performance Institute in Orlando, Florida. He designed the exercise programming portion of the Corporate Athlete Course, which was described in an article—which he coauthored with Brett Klika—in American College of Sports Medicine’s Health and Fitness Journal. http://www.HPInstitute.com
August 12th, 2013 at 12:53 pm
I just saw this statistic.
A new poll on whether American relationships are segregated found 40 percent of whites and 25 percent of non-whites do not have any close friends of other races.
I’m surprised it’s not higher.
August 12th, 2013 at 3:36 pm
I’m not a white girl can’t be too careful these days.
August 12th, 2013 at 4:50 pm
I am sorry for staying away from Michelle’s Blog for so long. I was bored of the finger-pointing at Commentators and the attacks which followed.
Monsanto is running the FDA and doing what they please because they govern themselves.
Many European nations will NOT purchase American grain because it is not made public so that most of the population is uninformed. The uninformed public has not been informed of what is being done to our meat and grain supply which used to feed much of the world.
American produce and cattle are genetically engineered and given antibiotics and hormones to grow fast, yet most Americans are oblivious to what is and what isn’t Genetically modified. Our government doesn’t care whether we are informed.
We are poisoning our food supply and this will make Mary Shelly’s ‘Frankenstein’ story become a reality.
It is only a matter of time.
HOWIE
August 12th, 2013 at 4:56 pm
“…the racketeering case against 83-year-old Whitey Bulger, whose 16 years on the run embarrassed the FBI and exposed the bureau’s corrupt relationship with its underworld informants.”
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeTA0
48 Fans
2 seconds ago ( 7:43 PM)
This comment is pending approval and won’t be displayed until it is approved.
This trial just emphasizes that more control and independent oversight is necessary for the FBI. It seems it is rogue agency that has operated with impunity since its beginnings. That is to be expected when a police agency is allowed to police themselves.
After a while the criminals get promoted to the top and what you have is an atmosphere hostile to anyone who wants to be a good cop. The agents in the FBI have been guilty of selling out our secret agents to the Russians and allowing Russian spies to escape or be killed at the height of the Cold War.
One can hardly expect an agency with this proclivity to be to circumspect when faced with the option to abuse their permission to shoot to kill. Data showing a 100% justification of all FBI killings speaks loud and clear to that fact.
The problem is no one in a position to ask for any independent oversight is willing to speak up against a possible rogue agency which has the national authority to abuse you and your only recourse is to ask the same agency to investigate itself.
August 12th, 2013 at 4:57 pm
Great to have you back Howie.
August 12th, 2013 at 8:13 pm
mandalay007
Delightful tax $$$ are saved on a trial— more importantly, she doesn’t have to be a witness. Predators like this deserve what they get—- most happen to be male -actually
Reply Fave
0 second ago LeTA0
I have no objection to the way it ended for the perp. I just don’t think the FBI should continue to get away with possibly murdering people like Ibragim Todashev with impunity.
This is maybe a rogue agency doing much worse than we suspect of the NSA because who knows whose pocket they could be in?
It’s not like they don’t have a history of cooperating with organized crime, or being bought off by the enemy. What other conspiracies could they be involved in? Kennedy?, Martin Luther, if this murder is any indication http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/why-the-fbi-shouldnt-be-trusted-to-investigate-the-death-of-ibragim-todashev/277040/Who knows what they may be up to?
August 12th, 2013 at 10:57 pm
Howie, good to have you back. So what is happening with the aliens?
August 12th, 2013 at 11:01 pm
Thanks Michelle. I am certainly looking forward to seeing more of Zen Lill.
August 12th, 2013 at 11:10 pm
Hafa adai, here is another reason why Guam can’t get the revenue it needs to fix shit on this island. “Guam – Ten hotels have not been paying their hotel occupancy taxes and a total of $2.1 million dollars is owed to GovGuam. However Vice-Speaker B.J. Cruz believes the number could be even higher and he’s requesting an independent audit of all 39 hotels on Guam.
After being tipped off by someone he only described as a “leader within the tourism industry”, Vice-Speaker B.J. Cruz asked the Department of Rev&Tax if it was true that some Hotels weren’t paying their hotel occupancy taxes. DRT Director John Camacho and Public Auditor Doris Flores Brooks both said they believed that the hotels were up to date with their payments.”
======================
The crooks are on an honor system. That is an oxymoron if I have ever heard one.
Hafa adai
Peter
August 13th, 2013 at 12:13 am
Worried That Fish Oil Causes Prostate Cancer? We Separate the Facts from the Hysteria
Cardiovascular disease, arthritis, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, fatigue, psoriasis and bedsores. What do all these conditions have in common? All can be helped by omega-3 fatty acids, the healthful fats found in fish and certain other foods.
The benefits of omega-3s have been proven over and over again, which explains why fish oil is one of the most commonly used supplements in the US, following only multivitamins and calcium.
That’s why many people were shocked, disappointed, appalled or even angry when a recent study in Journal of the National Cancer Institute called omega-3s’ benefits into question by showing that men who had higher blood levels of these long-chain fatty acids had a greater chance of developing prostate cancer, especially the more dangerous, aggressive form of the disease.
That news set off a firestorm, with some articles and interviewers in the media taking leaps and reaching conclusions that weren’t suggested by the study. With so much dissention swirling about in the media and medical community, it’s no wonder that many men are confused. So to help separate the facts from the hysteria, we looked very closely at the study behind the controversy.
RESEARCH REVISITED
Most importantly, this latest study does not prove that eating fish or taking fish oil supplements causes cancer. It only shows an association between high blood levels of certain fatty acids and increased risk for prostate cancer.
This study was piggybacked onto an earlier study that was designed to see whether selenium and/or vitamin E would protect against prostate cancer. In the largest-ever prostate cancer prevention trial, more than 35,000 men were randomly assigned to take one, both or neither of those nutrients. (Note that fish oil supplements were not among the supplements tested.)
In the following years, however, it became clear that prostate cancer rates were not lower among men taking selenium or vitamin E…and in fact, researchers determined that vitamin E actually increased prostate cancer risk.
All the information about these study participants, including their blood samples, was available for analysis, so researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle took advantage of the data.
Among the participants, they found 834 men who had gone on to develop prostate cancer, of which 156 were high-grade (advanced) disease. The researchers then looked closely at the types of fats in the blood samples that had been taken from the men at the start of the original trial.
Startling finding:
Compared with men who had the lowest blood levels of the omega-3 fatty acids found in fish—eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)—men with the highest blood levels had a 43% greater chance of developing prostate cancer…and a 71% greater chance of developing the most dangerous and aggressive form of the disease.
The researchers also measured blood levels of alpha-linolenic acid, a plant-based omega-3 found in flaxseed, soy and walnuts. It was not associated with increased prostate cancer risk, and neither were omega-6 fatty acids or trans fats.
The results of the study were surprising, even to the lead author, Theodore Brasky, PhD. He wasn’t caught completely off guard, however, because an earlier study of his involving a different group of men had had the same basic results.
Debate sparked:
When news of this study hit the media, many people expressed serious skepticism about the validity of the findings. That’s a good thing—constructive dialog among experts leads to questions that often can be addressed in future studies, furthering our scientific knowledge overall.
Below are objections that have been raised about the study and what we found when we investigated them.
INNNOCENT BYSTANDER?
Among those questioning the study was Anthony D’Amico, MD, PhD, a Harvard Medical School professor and radiation oncologist. He was concerned, he said, about whether the study researchers had adequately controlled for all of the other factors known to increase prostate cancer risk.
Blaming high omega-3 levels for prostate cancer without controlling for other risk factors would be bad science—and could lead to unjustly blaming “innocent bystander” omega-3s while ignoring the true culprit.
Those other risk factors include family history of prostate cancer…increasing age…elevated blood levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA), a protein produced by the prostate gland that is often elevated in men with prostate cancer…black race…results of a rectal exam to check for enlarged prostate…and diabetes.
So the question is, did the study researchers take all these risk factors into account? As it turns out, yes.
At the start of the study, none of the men’s rectal exams were abnormal, and the researchers did adjust for family history of prostate cancer and for diabetes. Also, in making their comparisons, the researchers matched the men who developed prostate cancer with those who did not by both age and racial group, Dr. Brasky said.
At the start of the study, all participants were put into subgroups based on age and race. Because black men in general face a significantly higher risk for prostate cancer than men of other races, analysis of their data was kept separate.
For example, a 75-year-old black man was not compared with a 60-year-old white man, but only with other black men in the same age bracket.
As for PSA, all the men had normal PSA levels at the start of the study when the blood was first collected, which was done up to nine years before anyone was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
However, Dr. D’Amico pointed out that increasing PSA levels are a risk factor for aggressive prostate cancer—and the study indeed was not designed to detect such increases.
Dr. Brasky contended, though, that it’s possible that omega-3s affect PSA, and that PSA in turn affects cancer risk—which means it would be inappropriate to adjust for PSA levels.
In addition, he said, his team “made several attempts to adjust for the timing of the last prostate cancer screening, which is less problematic in terms of adjustment, and there was no meaningful change in the results.”
WHICH CAME FIRST, HIGH PSA OR FISH OIL?
Some people who faulted the study suggested that men might have rushed to take fish oil after they were diagnosed with prostate cancer in an attempt to make themselves healthier.
However, that was not the case. All the men in the study had normal rectal exams, normal PSA levels and no history of prostate cancer at the time their blood samples were drawn—so they did not yet have a cancer diagnosis to motivate them to take fish oil supplements, eat more fish or make other dietary changes.
As a group, the men who ultimately developed prostate cancer did tend to have more relatives with prostate cancer and higher education—so it is plausible that these men might have started taking fish oil supplements proactively in an attempt to prevent prostate cancer.
If that’s the case, then the higher omega-3 levels were actually a result of perceived increased risk rather than a suspected cause of increased risk.
However, this effect was likely negligible, given that the researchers did adjust for both family history and education level.
The men who ended up with prostate cancer also tended to have slightly higher baseline PSA levels. Since their PSA test results were all within the normal range, though, Dr. Brasky thought it unlikely that these men would have tried to protect themselves against cancer by eating more fish or taking fish oil supplements in the time between the PSA test and the baseline blood draw used for the analysis of the fatty acids.
A QUESTION OF GEOGRAPHY
Some critics say that the study just doesn’t make sense, given that prostate cancer rates are much lower in parts of the world where people generally eat a lot more fish than Americans do. For instance in Asia, where fish consumption is high, the prostate cancer rate is very low.
However, a separate study of Japanese men has shown that those who ate fish more than four times a week had a prostate cancer risk more than 50% higher than men who ate fish less than twice a week.
We also should acknowledge that the factors driving geographic and/or ethnic differences in cancer rates are quite complicated. For instance, here in the US, men from different ethnic groups have quite different levels of risk for prostate cancer, with the rate among black men (the highest) being nearly three times the rate among Native Americans and Alaskan natives (the lowest).
What drives those differences isn’t easy to determine. It’s likely that genetic and environmental factors—not just dietary factors—play some role in the difference.
So we cannot assume that omega-3s protect against prostate cancer simply because Asian men eat lots of fish and their prostate cancer risk is low. After all, Scandinavian men eat lots of fish, too, and their prostate cancer rate is relatively high.
WHERE THE OMEGA-3 REALLY CAME FROM
Another objection raised about the study was that it did not identify the source of the participants’ fatty acids—for instance, whether they got their omega-3s from taking fish oil supplements, eating fish or eating something else.
But:
Food frequency questionnaires, which ask about consumption of certain foods and supplements, are notoriously inaccurate. Most people can’t recall specifically what they ate when, and they frequently misjudge serving sizes.
For that reason, many experts say that measuring blood levels of nutrients, as the researchers did in this study, is actually a far more reliable indicator of a person’s nutritional status.
That said, questions do remain about the types of fish and other omega-3-rich foods that the participants ate…and about the types of fish oil supplements they may have taken.
For instance, fish and fish oil pills could contain contaminants—mercury, PCBs or something else we don’t yet know about—that might be the true culprits behind any association between omega-3s and prostate cancer.
While existing studies on mercury exposure and prostate cancer have shown mixed results, with most large studies showing little or no risk, we can’t dismiss the possibility that some type of contaminant in fish, rather than the omega-3s themselves, are to blame.
Critics of the study also questioned the significance of the omega-3 blood levels. Reason: After a person eats fish or takes a fish oil pill, his blood levels of free fatty acids rise and stay elevated for four to 12 hours, but then go back down within about 48 hours as the fatty acids leave his system.
So the omega-3 levels in the men’s blood samples represented just a certain moment in time and did not necessarily accurately represent the participants’ long-term diet or supplement habits.
To that objection, Dr. Brasky said, “This is not as problematic as it sounds. Yes, there is always a concern that a single blood draw is not representative of habitual diet.
However, plasma phospholipid fatty acids (versus free fatty acids) are reasonably correlated with dietary intake and are reflective of weeks to about a month of diet”—and those phospholipid fatty acids are what the researchers measured.
It’s also worth noting that this same situation applies to all epidemiologic studies that use blood biomarkers of fatty acids to assess the risk of any disease—heart disease, breast cancer, etc.—and so it is not at all unique to this particular study.
“ANTI” AGENDA?
Some skeptics suggest that certain studies are funded by pharmaceutical companies whose money-driven agenda is to discredit the nutritional supplement industry in order to increase the market for their drugs.
Be that as it may, it’s not the case in this study—because the funding came from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine and the National Cancer Institute.
Other critics of the study point to Dr. Brasky’s earlier research on omega-3 fatty acids and prostate cancer as evidence that he is pushing an “anti-supplement” agenda.
And it didn’t help that another of the study authors was quoted in the study center’s own press release as saying, “We’ve shown once again that use of nutritional supplements may be harmful.”
But:
Dr. Brasky, an epidemiologist who studies the effects of inflammation on cancer, also published a study with findings that were favorable toward supplements, showing that fish oil supplementation was associated with reduced risk for breast cancer.
He was just as surprised and disappointed as everyone else the first time he found the link between omega-3s and increased prostate cancer risk, Dr. Brasky told us.
He had expected that omega-3s would have a protective effect, given that they are anti-inflammatory and that other inflammation-fighters, such as aspirin, have been shown to reduce prostate cancer risk in animals and people.
“When the results of our studies showed the opposite effect, meaning more cancer rather than less, those findings were most definitely not celebrated in our lab,” Dr. Brasky said.
YOUR NEXT MOVE
Prostate cancer is the leading cancer for men, and there will be approximately 238,600 new cases diagnosed in the US in 2013. Though fewer than 10% of those cancers will be the most dangerous aggressive type, the disease kills nearly 30,000 American men each year.
To put that in perspective, though, heart disease kills nearly 600,000 American men each year—and a lot of research suggests that omega-3s are beneficial in helping prevent heart disease.
Even if what is good for the heart is bad for the prostate, we’re left to ponder the balance between omega-3s’ pros and cons.
So what’s a man to do? “I would not tell people that eating fish or taking fish oil supplements is dangerous. There isn’t anything in the study proving that fish or fish oil causes prostate cancer—and we know that omega-3s help the heart,” Dr. D’Amico said.
A wise move would be for men to discuss their own personal situations with their physicians. For instance, a man with excellent heart health but a strong family history of prostate cancer might be advised to avoid fish oil supplements and limit fish consumption while otherwise following an anti-inflammatory diet.
However, a man with no signs of prostate trouble but multiple risk factors for heart disease might be counseled to continue eating fish and taking fish oil pills.
As for how much omega-3 might be too much, Dr. Brasky’s study did not look at the question in those terms.
However, in his study the difference in omega-3 blood levels between the highest-risk group and the lowest-risk group was not very large—it was about the difference you’d expect to see if the highest-risk group ate two more servings of salmon per week than the lowest-risk group.
Interestingly, that’s in line with an earlier study that we covered here at Daily Health News. It showed that eating just two servings of fish per week—for an average omega-3 intake of approximately 400 mg per day or 2,800 mg per week—provided enough of the essential fatty acids to reduce the risk of dying from any cause, while eating more than two servings did not provide any additional benefit.
So until additional studies provide clearer answers, your doctor may advise you that, when it comes to omega-3s—as with most things in life—moderation is generally the best policy.
Sources: Theodore Brasky, PhD, assistant professor, James Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus. The study he led was published in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and the majority of the research was conducted at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
Anthony D’Amico, MD, PhD, professor, department of radiation oncology, Harvard Medical School, and chief, genitourinary radiation oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, all in Boston.
August 13th, 2013 at 12:18 am
Not being in America I didn’t hear the good news until about 10 minutes ago. Great!!!!
Looking forward to some more Zen Lil.
Thanks Michelle.
August 13th, 2013 at 12:52 am
Louis, that bitch is every bit the tramp her reputation says she is. Sabina may come off to you as the helpless innocent. But let me tell you she uses that sexy body of hers to get what she wants.
She lured my brother into a life of crime. He did anything she asked him to because he wanted to please her as you do. Now he is running from the law. I haven’t told him about you two because he would kill you.
Get a clue and leave that poison pill alone.
August 13th, 2013 at 12:57 am
Ditto on George. I have one I am married to. I love him but he is over the top racist against black men. I once asked him what he had against Obama that constantly made him get ill every time he saw the man on TV.
He said “he’s a “N.”
Sad when you allow someone to threaten your self esteem so badly.
August 13th, 2013 at 7:18 am
Reid is right on about the racism by the republicans. Everyone knows he is. The only ones saying different are those that lie to hide their disgusting behavior. The house nigger, Tim Scott is just one of many of his ilk who uncle tom for white folk.
August 13th, 2013 at 7:33 am
I agree with Reid. There can be no denial that the way this president has been treated is so different than the way the other 43 and the office of POTUS has been treated since a black man got the job.
The vitriol and pure hatred is unprecedented. The lackadaisical attitude towards those that disrespect the office of POTUS is unprecedented. The media calls no one on what they will say about this president or the office which he now holds.
None of the main stream media will use the word torture when it comes to the capture and incarceration of enemy prisoners by the US. They used to have the same standards about what they would print when it came to disrespecting the office of POTUS.
But now that a black man is sitting in the office, the white media is as shitty as those they give voice to so they can tell the world that a white man is putting the black guy in his place.
When they can’t find someone who is doing it they take it upon themselves to fill that spot. It is insulting that they continue to give that clown donald trump a platform to preach his birther shit. But they do it to maintain an image that any white man can denigrate a black man regardless of who he is.
The white media is on the same page with the racists when it comes to perpetuating their overt and subliminal message that any white man is better than any black one.
August 13th, 2013 at 7:36 am
The insulting thing to me is when white motherfuckers write in pretending to disbelieve that something was done racially against this man. I can’t wait until my race has the upper hand.
We will show those motherfuckers what it means to be racists.
August 13th, 2013 at 7:44 am
Who does white America think it is fooling when it participates in the derogating of their black president?
August 13th, 2013 at 7:47 am
Emily#15, I know what you are talking about. My male relatives are as insecure and threatened by having an intelligent image of a black man constantly in the face of white America.
They make it a point to put him down in some way every time he appears on the screen.
August 13th, 2013 at 7:51 am
Howie welcome back. I am delighted to see that you are alright and able to blog again. We here in Israel are looking forward to once again begin our day with your posts. Me I like to catch you when I get my shift change.
A cup of coffee and Howie makes my day.
ברוך שובך אח
August 13th, 2013 at 7:53 am
Time will bring all this to an end. When Latinos control the vote, we will throw those bigots out and their attempts to gerrymander to keep hold of their government power will NOT stand.
If we have to get those bastards out by force we will.
August 13th, 2013 at 7:56 am
White america is so hot on arming themselves because they know that they will one day lose their vote superiority. They think they will be able to hold on to power the way a few well armed whites did in South Africa.
That is going to be the worst mistake of their life. We are getting armed also and unlike those cowards that can only get off when they are the ones with the guns, we have been in the trenches fighting all our lives.
We will show the putas what it means to take up arms.
August 13th, 2013 at 8:01 am
LeTa0, I am one of your fans on Huffpost. You are a trip. We are counting the days to when they ban you.
Some of my friends say you go too far. I look at it as just how far should a black man(I’m assuming you are black and a man) go to tell us whites what he thinks about how he feels we treat him and his?
When I put myself in your place, I say let they anger come forth. We can’t say we weren’t warned.
Bravo.
August 13th, 2013 at 8:05 am
My experience with my white male friends and male relatives is mostly the same as Yours Renee #20. They don’t always make their statements as overtly racists but they are.
I can sometimes feel the tension in the room when we are listening to a nationally televised speech by Obama. It is quite apparent that the white males in the room are not comfortable with the image of an intelligent black male on the screen.