WHO SAYS LARGE DOSES OF NATURAL MARINE OIL ARENT MAJOR HEALTH BENEFIT?

Name(required)

Email(required)

Website

Comment(required)

who says Large doses of fish oil don’t prevent heart attack or stroke?

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.

Thus  it can only be concluded from the Italian R&P trial that addition of patented processed EthylEster EFAs for only 5 years  gives no more benefit than the already major protection of olive oil and  mediterranean lifestyle alone. Contrary to Topol-Rowen-Peskin, this  R&P trial says nothing about the longterm benefits of vigorous fish oil intake in a high-risk population eg in USA/ other populations (especially smokers)  not  on a mediterranean/ Asian  high-fish intake.

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 ,

     and a tsp of DMSO, and  2 tsp coconut oil/day.

   A recent Australian paper analyses usefully the growing problem of dwindling resources and  the inestimable health importance   of marine  oil – but does not mention viable  marine  om3   synthesis. Like a cure for HIV-AIDS,  the latter  is an elusive  improbability.  .  There is still no objective independent eg  Cochrane review of  prescription omega-3-acid ethyl esters (P-OM3), despite Omacor being on the market for over 20 years .  Why is this?

      Wikipedia specifically notes that  Lovaza/Omacor  has not been shown to lower the rates of all cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, or the combination of mortality and non-fatal cardiovascular events.^[3] “It is .. fishoil that has been  chemically altered”…  and the USA FDA still hasnt licensed such derivatives for anything but severe hypertriglyceridemia.   And the US Supreme Court banned patenting of any natural marine oil extract.  Whereas in stark contrast, unpatentable  natural marine omega3  EPA+ DHA–   clean  marine  oil- lowers all  major morbidity  from conception,  and all-cause mortality.

what say you?…

Advertisements