Bad science does not mean that fish oil may not be beneficial to some children, only that it is not proven.

Few people would argue otherwise. However, it is not established that it is and before recommending something as a therapeutic intervention, it should be assessed not only for clinical efficacy but for real world practicality.

Yes – there is a strong need for trials. Until such time as those trials are done, there should not be misleading information on fish oil advertising, and parents should be fully informed as to the state of the clinical evidence.

Bad science does not mean that fish oil may not be beneficial to some children, only that it is not proven.

I belive in facts! I belive in what I can see with my own eyes!

My son – 5 years – hav got a NEW LIFE thanks to Omega3 and EyeQ!
He is NOT the only one! Lot’s of parents in Sweden have noticed remarkable effekts on their children.
My son has ADHD. Children’s with ADHD, Aspergers, Tourettes and Autism CAN get a “new life” thanks to EyeQ (omega3)!

I say: MORE OMEGA3 to the people! If you cares for your children: give him Omega3!

sorry for my bad english!

Beckan in Sweden

The pupils had the bottles of fish oils doled out to them at intervals and were expected to take them at home. We didn’t monitor compliance. We have absolutely no way of knowing which pupils actually took them and which didn’t, nor am I aware of any follow up (pupil questionnaires, etc.) to monitor compliance.

The school prefers to think that our good GCSE results were a result of good teaching; and, indeed, our results have continued to improve in subsequent years without the ‘benefit’ of fish oils.

I would like to see the details of the study/trial/initiative.

The whole affair is very fishy…

(Sorry…)

Then again, I feel that way about some of the speakers.

If any journalists have been offered freebie tickets – it would be interesting to read what they make of it. I would expect some of the academics to give appropriately nuanced interpretations of the state of the art and their findings. I would expect other, less qualified, speakers and enthusiasts to display no such reticence and to over-claim hopelessly. It would be interesting to see if the other speakers have any qualms about that.

@Lee – I don’t know when, but at some point I will finish researching my history of fish oil and unleash it upon the world. Suffice it to say that in addition to the rich folkloric history of fish oils, the first ‘hospital’ trial of it for a specific disorder was conducted in Manchester in 1705 (so far, the earliest that I’ve found). For all sorts of unbelievably interesting reasons that tumble across the history of science, politics, fortunes of war, scientific cul de sacs, the treatment of the first formally-qualified female research academics, the history of fish-oil research has been remarkably tendentious – and 300 years on there is no change in that.

Oddly enough fish oil – as what we would call a nutritional supplement – has been available in the UK for hundreds of years.

And yes – it is entirely possible that using matched pairs in the scenario that you outline would reduce the effect size. Again, because of the lack of detail, we simply don’t know.