update 8 August 2013 the OregonUniversity Linus Pauling Institute website still promotes the numerous benefits of fishoil.
update 2 August 2013 the Topol- Rowen- Peskin rejection of need for fish oil EPA+DHA was not supported by the recently NEJM-published R&P 5 year trial in Italy, which compared modified ie patented ethylester marine essential fatty acids with olive oil.
This R&P trial was thus not a trial of fish oil (concentrate or otherwise), nor placebo-controlled, since olive oil is hardly a placebo- in the 13.4year Spanish EPIC trial published last year , olive oil dramatically reduced all-cause mortality by 1/4 and CVD mortality by 44%. The full 2013 NEJM R&P paper is inexcusably silent in omitting this cardinal fact that it was no ways placebo-controlled- placebo means an inert comparator.
the 2010 Nordic study ( Dyerberg ea Copenhagen University- who first reported in 1978 the association between marine omega3 PUFA and health in Eskimos) http://www.nordicnaturals.com/images/pdfs/tgstudy.pdf details the better bio-availability of natural ie triglyceride- bound fish oil- EPA+DHA compared to that in processed ethylester low-triglyceride omega3 products- as used in the R&P and GISSI trials of patented commercial designer products. .
2 June 2013 Its some 4 years since this healthsite started promoting marine oil for optimal development and health.
what say you to the latest hype about the predictable negative result of the Italian N-3 Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention trial R&P from the NEJM? ie that omega3 oil was no better than olive oil.
the major problem is that the R&P trial didnt use natural clean FISH OIL, nor in primary prevention.
Nowhere does it say it used fish oil- it says N-3 ie omega3, and in patients with multiple vascular disease. Nor does the original 2010 R&P plannng paper state that in fact it used a patent formula of chemically changed ethyl esters in tertiary prevention,
like the GISSI trial used apparently patent branded altered Om3 after heart attacks – it wasnt natural clean fish oil..
the GISSI abstracts 1999 and 2008 also dont mention fish oil.So it wasnt natural fish oil like I use and promote- clean codliver oil or clean om3 concentrate from clean factories in northern Europe and now even from Cape Town.. The R&P abstract paper cleverly doesnt mention the brand Omega3 name- but Pfizer funded the trial…Its the “top” journals likely up to their old tricks, publishing probable infomercials paid for in this case by Pfizer and mates, without making that clear.I cant see if these Italian trials used Lovza/Omacor or whatever Big Pharma chemically altered snakeoils.But looking at the extensive debate already around Dr Topol’s condemnation of real fishoil supplement, many commentators fell into the same trap- they didnt notice that R&P didnt use fish oil, but about 850mg/day ethyl esters of omega3.
Synthetic patent designer drugs dont do what the natural food/supplement/human biophysiologic product does.
Ethyl esters eg ethinylestradiol, and xenohormones eg Premarin, are dangerously different from estradiol. Look at the controversy, the danger in using altered natural products eg:
slowrelease niacin instead of natural niacin.
or neurontin/lyrica or benzos instead of natural GABA to bind to the GABA receptors. or anabolic steroids eg methyltestost instead of testosterone. or methylprogesterone Provera instead of progesterone. or margarine instead of butter !. or methanol – dangerously different from ethanol; or synthetic substitutes for natural digoxin…
or the Women’s Health Initiative- which through gross misrepresentation stopped many women from using beneficial physiological human HRT for 10 years, despite the bad design of the WHI that used long-proven risky xenohormones (premarin, provera) at dangerous older age, while in the first 6 years it enormously benefitted women in the first decade after menopause.. .It’s dis-ingenouos of Messrs Rowen, Topol and Peskin not to state this, that the R&P TRIAL DIDNT USE FISH OIL..
Dr Rowen and Mr Peskin are heavily promoting their own PEO Parent Essential Oil Brand of Omega6 plant oils. The evidence is that such combination is excellent benefit- but I see no science, no reason not to balance it with clean fish oil since this is now so deficient in general diet.But surely Prof Topol is doing patients a huge disservice in backing the R&P trial in dumping fish oil -when that trial didnt use fish oil, and makes no conclusion about fish ol?
I await the full copy of the R&P study – which the NEJM mysteriously doesnt make available on line as they usually do with any seriously important new study.. .No-one doubts that good plant oils , good mixed diet have benefit.there is no doubt that a few gms of fish oil a day have huge benefit.
Its the balance that matters- and the avoidance of smoking, sloth, adiposity, refined sugars and cooked animal fats that matters.so I see no reason to change from taking/ recommending daily a tsp (or 4) of codliver oil (ie about 800 – 3000mg EPA+DHA) ,
and olives/ mixed nut/plant/olive oils on salads/pasta etc ,
what say you?…