This is from 2004, there has been serious criticism of their conclusions. See for example http://www.issfal.org.uk/index.php/lipid-matters-mainmenu-8/hooper-reb

This is from 2004, there has been serious criticism of their conclusions. See for example http://www.issfal.org.uk/index.php/lipid-matters-mainmenu-8/hooper-rebuttal-mainmenu-38?showall=1 http://www.issfal.org.uk/index.php/lipid-matters-mainmenu-8/... two key paragraphs (but they list several other concerns as well): The null conclusion of the Cochrane report rests entirely upon inclusion of one trial, DART 2 2. This was a randomized dietary trial with clinical endpoints testing the effects on total mortality of either giving advice to eat fish or providing fish oil capsules to men with angina. Surprisingly, while total mortality was not statistically different in the two groups, there was less sudden death in the control group than in the intervention group. Upon exclusion of DART 2 from the meta-analysis, the overall decrease in relative risk with omega-3 consumption became similar to that reported in a previous meta-analysis by Bucher et al: 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 0.91) 3 In our view, the weight of the evidence available in May of 2006 is sufficient to conclude, even in light of the Cochrane analysis, that EPA and DHA reduce risk for cardiovascular diseases. Not only do we feel so, but also the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology 15 , the European Society for Cardiology 16 , a systematic review conducted for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality at the NIH 17 , the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis 18 , and a number of other national and international bodies 19-22