Your cart
Your cart is empty.HEALTH NEWS
Bogus Omega-3 Study Questions Heart Health Benefits
September 13, 2012
A meta-analysis is the most frequently used type of “study” to deter people from taking vitamins to assist their health. It is the easiest type of study to manipulate, thus generating misleading sound bites that mainstream media gobble up and erroneously promulgate as fact. The zeal with which the media spreads lies about nutrition raises questions about their general integrity, especially considering that Big Pharma is one of their largest advertisers. The latest volley in this ongoing anti-supplement campaign involves fish oil. A ridiculous study concludes that fish oil does not improve heart health. The study, as well as the media trumpeting of the study, is an extreme disservice to public health.
No person should ever take any anti-vitamin meta-analysis seriously. These are studies where researchers with an agenda select studies that fit their desire, and then massage the data to appear as they wish. In this case their desire was to conclude the following, “Omega-3 PUFAs are not statistically significantly associated with major cardiovascular outcomes across various patient populations. Our findings do not justify the use of omega-3 as a structured intervention in everyday clinical practice or guidelines supporting dietary omega-3 PUFA administration.” This is nothing but propaganda to get people to try to take drugs, which are inherently toxic and ineffective, instead of safe and effective fish oil. Billions of dollars are at stake in this ongoing turf battle.
The researchers selected studies with an average intake of 600 mg of DHA per day. DHA is the most important omega-3 oil for heart health. A dose of 600 mg per day is a good general dose for an already healthy person, but too low for a person in poor health (as were the patients analyzed by this study). Such a person needs at least 1,000 mg of DHA per day and would have higher benefits from 2,000 mg of DHA per day. At most, the analysis proves that a dose too low in DHA does not provide protection to the diseased people it was trying to evaluate.
However, the individual studies did not control for omega-3 status in the first place. This makes any conclusion about omega-3 effectiveness irrelevant, since they have no way of knowing. Drug confounders, which were not controlled for, further haze the issue and water down the value of omega-3 oils.
The basic strategy of any anti-vitamin meta-analysis is to water down benefits with faulty studies that add numbers to the total, and dilute the benefits of any one positive study. Sooner or later it is easy to come up with “proof” that the nutrient is of no value. This is garbage science, in this case performed by Greek researchers and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association – a notorious marketing magazine for Big Pharma.
The solid science relating to DHA and heart health is ironclad. Thousands of studies support this; in the Related Posts section below I list some of the more important ones.
No person should ever take any anti-vitamin meta-analysis seriously. These are studies where researchers with an agenda select studies that fit their desire, and then massage the data to appear as they wish. In this case their desire was to conclude the following, “Omega-3 PUFAs are not statistically significantly associated with major cardiovascular outcomes across various patient populations. Our findings do not justify the use of omega-3 as a structured intervention in everyday clinical practice or guidelines supporting dietary omega-3 PUFA administration.” This is nothing but propaganda to get people to try to take drugs, which are inherently toxic and ineffective, instead of safe and effective fish oil. Billions of dollars are at stake in this ongoing turf battle.
The researchers selected studies with an average intake of 600 mg of DHA per day. DHA is the most important omega-3 oil for heart health. A dose of 600 mg per day is a good general dose for an already healthy person, but too low for a person in poor health (as were the patients analyzed by this study). Such a person needs at least 1,000 mg of DHA per day and would have higher benefits from 2,000 mg of DHA per day. At most, the analysis proves that a dose too low in DHA does not provide protection to the diseased people it was trying to evaluate.
However, the individual studies did not control for omega-3 status in the first place. This makes any conclusion about omega-3 effectiveness irrelevant, since they have no way of knowing. Drug confounders, which were not controlled for, further haze the issue and water down the value of omega-3 oils.
The basic strategy of any anti-vitamin meta-analysis is to water down benefits with faulty studies that add numbers to the total, and dilute the benefits of any one positive study. Sooner or later it is easy to come up with “proof” that the nutrient is of no value. This is garbage science, in this case performed by Greek researchers and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association – a notorious marketing magazine for Big Pharma.
The solid science relating to DHA and heart health is ironclad. Thousands of studies support this; in the Related Posts section below I list some of the more important ones.
Share this content
Recent News
