Friday, May 26


Missed this last week, but ya gotta love this lede:

"Putting a confusing twist on the health value of fish oil, a new study suggests that eating lots of fish may actually boost the risk of atrial fibrillation, a potentially dangerous heart condition, in certain people." The "HealthDay" reporter isn't the only one who's confused, as documented here via our panoply of studies showing dangerous effects of fish consumption. Those who are familiar with this volume of scientific studies, of course, are not confused at all about the purported "health value" of fish.

But there's more. As with milk and calcium, there's a bizarre double-standard that seems to blind either the reporting or the scientific inquiry behind it: When there's a positive benefit, it's ascribed to the food (fish, milk) rather than the active component (Omega-3s, calcium), and plant-based sources (flax, leafy greens) are ignored as alternative foods. The take-away is simply "eat fish" or "drink milk." But as here, when there's a problem, suddenly this is ascribed to the component itself rather than the food. Was the study actually done on Omega-3s? Not from the sound of it. Why didn't they do a comparison of people consuming fish oil vs. people consuming flax in order to nail down whether Omega-3s themselves actually cause any heart problems? It's almost as if... they don't want to know!

No comments: