3 ms·
A study or even a few does not prove anything. There are just too many ways to get it wrong. You need multiple high quality studies that all agree before you ca
by spikels 12y ago
A study or even a few does not prove anything. There are just too many ways to get it wrong. You need multiple high quality studies that all agree before you can be sure. And even then a small chance will remain that it is a statistical mirage that will be disproven by a future high quality study. Sorry to let you down but that is the nature of medical research.
- dredmorbius 12y agoMy point isn't that the claims are all proven. I was pointing out that the Wikipedia claims are sourced to actual research papers, rather than some random blog (or worse: some random supplement sales site). What this addresses is TFA's claim that fish oil has no benefits based on an analysis of one study concerning one claimed benefit. That claim is just as unsubstantiated as it claims the Inuit study benefits are.
- virtue3 12y agothe article focuses on the cardiovascular benefits... which appear to have been self-propagated by some adhoc "because x study says it helps!" without anyone doing critical thinking on their own part. Unfortunately it isn't apparent that that is the the focus until you look at where the article is hosted. So I'll vehemently agree with your initial observation that the original title is link-bait at best. There are many studied and documented benefits of fish oil. This hardly "puts a nail in the coffin" for the supplement but hopefully it gets people thinking and some more studies funded so we can get a better picture. Of course if our food just had a better omega-3 :omega-6 ratio we'd be in a situation where the supplement wouldn't be the necessary...