4 ms·

You're interpreting "their lawyers won't allow them to say X" to mean "they don't actually believe X", "they can't substantiate X", or "X isn't true". Except w

by cbr 12y ago

You're interpreting "their lawyers won't allow them to say X" to mean "they don't actually believe X", "they can't substantiate X", or "X isn't true". Except with medical advertising, at least in the US, there's very strong restrictions on what medical claims you're allowed to make for your product.

beejiu 12y ago
And the reason for those restrictions is to protect consumers. If there was evidence that fish oil pills improved health, RB would have paid for the medical research already.
- cbr 12y ago
  There's some evidence, enough that some doctors will recommend you take them, but there's not strong enough evidence that the FDA will let you make the marketing claim.
  - beejiu 12y ago
    There is absolutely NO conclusive evidence. Your doctor is not a scientist (http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/328/7454/0.9.full.pdf http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/328/7454/0.9.full.pdf). It's not up to doctors to decide what works and what doesn't. The fact that doctors prescribe Omega 3 pills means absolutely nothing. The fact that there is no scientific evidence to say the pills are conclusively beneficial DOES mean something. The only evidence of effect has been based on studies of large groups of people who claimed to consume Omega 3 or not. However, proper blind experiments do not reach any conclusive outcome. There is no evidence to suggest the effect is anything but correlatory. (That said, most supplementary pills will do you no harm, either.) Even RB themselves write this on the homepage: "Supportive, but not conclusive research shows that consumption of EPA and DHA Omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease."
    - cbr 12y ago
      I didn't say there was conclusive evidence, and I agree that correlational evidence is low quality. A large randomized study on Omega 3 consumption would really help here, but in the mean time we have to use the evidence that's available. (Though http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/omega-3-fatty-acids-fish-oil-alpha-linolenic-acid/evidence/hrb-20059372 http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/omega-3-fatty-ac... judges the evidence behind the pills as "strong scientific evidence for this use" in several categories.)
- moioci 12y ago
  Note that Lovaza is a fish oil preparation that is FDA-approved for treatment of "very high" triglyceride levels. There's probably a patent issue preventing other similar agents getting approved for the same indication for a number of years.

by cbr 12y ago

beejiu 12y ago

And the reason for those restrictions is to protect consumers. If there was evidence that fish oil pills improved health, RB would have paid for the medical research already.

cbr 12y ago
There's some evidence, enough that some doctors will recommend you take them, but there's not strong enough evidence that the FDA will let you make the marketing claim.
- beejiu 12y ago
  There is absolutely NO conclusive evidence. Your doctor is not a scientist (http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/328/7454/0.9.full.pdf http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/328/7454/0.9.full.pdf). It's not up to doctors to decide what works and what doesn't. The fact that doctors prescribe Omega 3 pills means absolutely nothing. The fact that there is no scientific evidence to say the pills are conclusively beneficial DOES mean something. The only evidence of effect has been based on studies of large groups of people who claimed to consume Omega 3 or not. However, proper blind experiments do not reach any conclusive outcome. There is no evidence to suggest the effect is anything but correlatory. (That said, most supplementary pills will do you no harm, either.) Even RB themselves write this on the homepage: "Supportive, but not conclusive research shows that consumption of EPA and DHA Omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease."
  - cbr 12y ago
    I didn't say there was conclusive evidence, and I agree that correlational evidence is low quality. A large randomized study on Omega 3 consumption would really help here, but in the mean time we have to use the evidence that's available. (Though http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/omega-3-fatty-acids-fish-oil-alpha-linolenic-acid/evidence/hrb-20059372 http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/omega-3-fatty-ac... judges the evidence behind the pills as "strong scientific evidence for this use" in several categories.)
moioci 12y ago
Note that Lovaza is a fish oil preparation that is FDA-approved for treatment of "very high" triglyceride levels. There's probably a patent issue preventing other similar agents getting approved for the same indication for a number of years.