Recently, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a conclusion that fish oil for cardiovascular problems is not effective. The title of the article is Associations of Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplements Use with Cardiovascular Disease Risk and was published on January 31, 2018. A better title would be “an example of an unscientific attempt at sabotage of fish oil use for aiding cardiovascular health.”
This study illustrates a common method of nutritional study sabotage, that is insufficient dosing for an insufficient duration, which will discuss later.
JAMA is considered to be authoritative and is used extensively by the media. We should keep in mind that JAMA is notorious for publishing pro-drug and anti-nutrition articles. We are seeing a massive conflict of interest, as journals such as JAMA make multi-million dollar profits for their pro-drug stance. JAMA and similar journals make money by making space for pro-drug ads, by selling reprints of the pro-drug articles to drug companies. Richard Smith, the former editor of the British Medical Journal, stated that these journals and their practices make them an effective extension of the marketing departments of drug companies. (PLoS Med May 2005).
The journals endorse pro-drug treatment protocols, the drug companies take this validation (along with the reprints) to help pass pro-drug legislation and we end up with mandatory drug and vaccine protocols.
An example is an article titled Effect of Soy Protein Containing Isoflavones on Cognitive Function, Bone Mineral Density and Plasma Lipids in Postmenopausal Women. July 7, 2004. This is a study designed to fail as each of these conditions should be analyzed separately and require completely different metrics. Also, this study was immediately made available free online as is their practice for nutrition negative articles. Dr. Alex Vasquez et al replied to the journal to point out serious failings of the study and conclusions but their response was heavily edited to make sure the study would appear to stand on its own.
Going back to the article at hand. We are looking at a meta-analysis of 10 trials involving about 78,000 patients. Their findings: randomization to omega-3 fatty acid supplementation (eicosapentaenoic acid dose range, 226-1800 mg/d) had no significant associations with coronary heart disease death rate, non-fatal myocardial infarction or any coronary heart disease events. Therefore, there is no basis for continued use of fish oil (omega-3 fatty acids) for anyone with risk or history of cardiovascular disease.
All major media outlets quickly ran with the news with headlines like “Omega-3 Supplements Don’t Protect Against Heart Disease” or “Fish Oil Supplements May Not Help Your Heart: Study”.
Sounds convincing, so far, doesn’t it. Well, in our next blog we’ll pull back the curtain and see who is really behind there by looking at study errors. In the meantime, check out our Omega 3 and other supplements for cardiovascular health at OVitaminPro.com.