Comments on: Daily Mail Continues Its Plan to Bewilder the Nation and Gaslight Us into Believing That We Need Fish Oil Supplements

By: GidAbove

GidAbove — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:59:14 +0000

Apologies (again – see this is what happens when you try to drop a few titbits for you Holford Watchers in 5 minutes in your lunch break…) – the “omegaschools website” appears to have been Healthy & Essential Ltd’s cash-in the “official” Durham trial, but it’s not accessible. Makes it difficult to see the connection between Dr Richardson but rather thoughtfully Google have cached it so you can see it here: http://tinyurl.com/9de7h4 But if you want to buy their products (the top-scorers) just go to their main site http://www.healthyandessential.co.uk and they’ll sort you out for a modest sum.

By: GidAbove

GidAbove — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:43:36 +0000

oh – the omegaschools link won’t work as they’ve taken it down but google it and you’ll see that is/was a sales site for the “winning” products.

By: GidAbove

GidAbove — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:39:22 +0000

I’ll leave it to you hardcore fact-guys to check this, but it appears that the good Dr Richardson is involved in your favourite bit of omega 3 research, the “Durham Trial”. Lead Researcher or something…

And then… who owns the website for the Durham trial, http://www.omegaschools.com ? It’s “Healthy & Essential Ltd” who distribute… (drum roll please) the two top-scoring supplements in the article (Barlean’s and MorEPA). This bit of blatant advertorial is actually pretty transparent when you notice how they studiously avoid reviewing any of the other fish oil supplements out there that actually contain the same stuff as the two favourites.

Keep eating the sardines!

By: dvnutrix

dvnutrix — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:17:51 +0000

Dr*T – agreed, it may look plausible to think that fish oils are good for people but there is a thin evidence base for supplements (as opposed to dietary sources of Omega 3 that may encompass more than fish), specific demographics, particular conditions, recommended amounts etc. etc.

Dr Harriet Hall likens this sort of lacuna to Tooth-Fairy science:

This study falls into the category of what I call Tooth Fairy science. You could measure how much money the Tooth Fairy leaves under the pillow, whether she leaves more cash for the first or last tooth, whether the payoff is greater if you leave the tooth in a plastic baggie versus wrapped in Kleenex. You can get all kinds of good data that is reproducible and statistically significant. Yes, you have learned something. But you haven’t learned what you think you’ve learned, because you haven’t bothered to establish whether the Tooth Fairy really exists.

jdc – glad to be of service in identifying affordable sources of Omega 3. :-) And yes, this is a set of circumstances in which consumers definitely need:
i) decent evidence
ii) analyses of products
iii) joined-up thinking.

By: Dr* T

Dr* T — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:42:58 +0000

“Is your Omega-3 fish oil supplement any good – or a load of old codswallop?”

Not : Is you Omega-3 fish oil supplement DOING any good, or a load of old codswallop?

It annoys me that it is tacitly a given that we *should* be taking fish oil pills, and this article just makes sure its the right ones, when really someone should be looking objectively at whether they do any good at all.

Another failed attempt to do so occurred in New Zealand recently.

Too many vested interests.

By: jdc325

jdc325 — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:05:49 +0000

You say it is something quite small, but the point regarding the issues raised in the previous Mail piece about fish oil is significant IMHO. It’s not just the lack of joined up thinking (which is so common in MailWorld I barely even notice it any more – or that’s my excuse anyway), it’s that the information in the first piece impacts on the fish oil ratings in the second yet can be blithely ignored by the Mail.

Nice work on the oily fish alternatives too!