Bad Science

Patrick Holford- DON'T BE FOOLED BY THE OMEGA 3 SCAM

The headlines in the newspapers read 'Experts cast doubts on Omega 3' BBC.. 'The benefits of fish and linseed oils as elixir of life are another health myth' the Times… 'The Benefits of Omega 3 Seem Fishy' CBS News.

This is due to a 'systematic review' of studies on omega 3 and it's effects on cardiovascular disease, cancer and mortality, published on Friday in the British Medical Journal. This is not a new study, but a study of studies. The authors conclude that 'omega 3 fats don't have a clear effect on total mortality, combined cardiovascular events or cancer.'

It's my job to read and analyse the whole paper and it soon becomes clear there is something very fishy going on. The main analysis is on 15 'randomised controlled studies'. Of these studies nine show benefit of omega 3, five show no big difference, and one is shown as negative. So nine for omega 3, one against. The author of the 'negative' study, Dr Bemelmans from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands questions how his study could be used to turn this review paper from positive to negative. For good reason. If you read the abstract of this paper (which you'll find on-line by typing in Bemelmans + margarin) the first thing you'll find is that this isn't a study on fish or fish oils, it's a study on margarine! The authors gave their subjects a margarine containing alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) – that's the omega 3 found in flax – or linoleic acid (omega 6) and found 'no significant difference existed in the 10 year estimated heart disease risk.'

Combs Spouts Off- They call this science?

In the past few months, several studies have been widely reported that supposedly discredited some widely-used nutritional supplement or alternative treatment. The fine folks at the Life Extension Foundation (LEF) have had enough of the shoddy studies, misleading press releases, and terrible reporting, and they're preparing a full-fledged response. A preliminary article is available on their website now:

Over the past several months, the media has questioned the efficacy of several popular dietary supplements. In the upcoming June 2006 issue of Life Extension magazine, we dissect these negative media reports down to the bone to reveal the hard scientific facts.

In doing so, we expose the absurdity of the headline-hungry media making proclamations such as “another natural remedy bit the dust” when describing the recent glucosamine study. We also reveal the inappropriateness of conventional doctors, with little knowledge about the proper use of nutrients, but with strong financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, conducting studies that contain so many flaws that their findings are largely irrelevant.

As usual for LEF, this article is footnoted to a fare-thee-well -- 181 references, most to studies published in peer-reviewed medical and scientific journals. If you print the article, it runs about 6 pages, depending on margin settings, etc. The references add about 6 more pages. The article provides brief preliminary critiques -- scathing ones -- of studies claiming that:

* Eating a low-fat diet doesn't reduce women's risk of heart attacks, strokes, breast cancer, or colon cancer.

* Calcium and vitamin D don't protect women's bones.

* Glucosamine and chondroitin aren't effective for osteoarthritis of the knee.

* Saw palmetto is ineffective in treating prostate enlargement.

Each of those four claims is easily shown to be false. In fact, a couple of them are even contradicted by the studies, which were mischaracterized in press releases and media reports.

Labels: Cancer, Fish, Omega