Study: Omega-3 fish oil supplements may increase aggressive prostate cancer risk

[Freepressright]

Of course this information comes from the partners of big pharma, so take it with a grain of salt.

Taking omega-3 fish oil supplements may increase the risk of aggressive prostate cancer by 70% | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2359466/Taking-omega-3-fish-oil-supplements-increase-risk-aggressive-prostate-cancer-70.html)

QUOTE FROM ARTICLE:

"The team from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre in Seattle warned: ‘There is really no evidence that taking dietary supplements is beneficial to health, and there is increasing evidence that taking high doses is harmful.’

Dr Alan Kristal said the levels of omega-3 linked to the increased cancer risk would be reached by taking just one supplement a day, or three or four meals of fish such as salmon and mackerel each week."

Fuck Fred Hutchinson, Dr. Alan Kristal and the horses they rode in on. I'm not buying it.

[O_RYAN_007]

BS!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is horse shyte!

[Enuke65]

BS!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is horse shyte!

I second that

[Cdsnuts]

I guess they're not making enough money with Lovaza, so it's time to bad mouth the whole deal.

- - - Updated - - -

Quackity quack: Eight evil genius ways to fake a vitamin study (and scare consumers into being afraid of fish oils) (http://www.naturalnews.com/041154_fish_oils_scientific_study_science_fraud.ht ml)

[Freepressright]

Wonder how their profits are faring on NiSpan? Next thing you know, they'll release a study that says slo-release Niacin is causing cancer.

[burlyman30]

Never know what their strategy is until it plays out. Several years ago, an allergy medicine was taken off the market for reasons of heart trouble. Funny how, upon their announcement, they had a replacement waiting in the wings. Also interesting to note was that the patent on the first drug was due to run out within the year. Ulterior motives is standard practice with big pharma.

[O_RYAN_007]

I guess they're not making enough money with Lovaza, so it's time to bad mouth the whole deal.

- - - Updated - - -

Quackity quack: Eight evil genius ways to fake a vitamin study (and scare consumers into being afraid of fish oils) (http://www.naturalnews.com/041154_fish_oils_scientific_study_science_fraud.ht ml)

I was just coming here to post this article. You beat me! Either way, thanks for spreading the word!

[Cdsnuts]

Wonder how their profits are faring on NiSpan? Next thing you know, they'll release a study that says slo-release Niacin is causing cancer.

Then they'll move onto fruits and veggies. They'll do an ass backwards study that tells people they're dangerous and the only food that's safe is food that comes out of a box or can or bag. The mass media will hype it up for them. Then take these B.P and cholesterol pills as a preventative measure. And while you're at it, you'll end up needing these diabetes pills and along with them some cialis or viagra when your pipes clog. Then to forget about it all, take this xanax and these antidepressants. You'll be on the viagra already so your dick will still work despite the side effects. Look.....all better.

[Cdsnuts]

Check this out....

Unbelievable.....Please read and help out. (http://www.swolesource.com/forum/misc/1383-unbelievable-please-read-help-out.html)

- - - Updated - - -

Don't know why it still surprises me, but it does.

[josh]

Fish oil is the most over rated supplement. The more you learn about omega fats the less you desire to have any substantial amount of them. I will see if I can find the source study of this article since they didnt cite it.

[Freepressright]

Yes, because industry-sponsored studies aren't clouded with money-related agendas and conflicts of interest...

[pman42]

if the fish oils were oxidized i can see it increasing prostate cancer risk. there have been other studies that suggest both a protective effect and an increase in risk. i am not sure of the mechanism at play but may have to look into this. there are so many ways to prevent prostate cancer anyway, and most men who have it die with it rather than from it.

natural news is such a biased site. he goes into the ways big pharma rigs studies but i can show you 25 errors, omissions, glossing-overs, and logical fallacies-- on the front page alone. mike is a poor scientist, he picks and chooses evidence to support his conslusions but ignores contrary evidence

[josh]

if the fish oils were oxidized i can see it increasing prostate cancer risk. there have been other studies that suggest both a protective effect and an increase in risk. i am not sure of the mechanism at play but may have to look into this. there are so many ways to prevent prostate cancer anyway, and most men who have it die with it rather than from it.

natural news is such a biased site. he goes into the ways big pharma rigs studies but i can show you 25 errors, omissions, glossing-overs, and logical fallacies-- on the front page alone. mike is a poor scientist, he picks and chooses evidence to support his conslusions but ignores contrary evidence

Mike is a shit head. He is up there with Mercola

[josh]

Yes, because industry-sponsored studies aren't clouded with money-related agendas and conflicts of interest...

You do realize the vast majority of studies are academia ones right?

[pman42]

Mike is a shit head. He is up there with Mercola
I don't read mercola's site a lot but the one thing i will give him is that he has actual clinical experience, very much unlike Mike Adams whose only claim is that he was sick, got well, and was pronounced the "healthiest" person his naturopath had ever seen.

[Cdsnuts]

natural news is such a biased site. he goes into the ways big pharma rigs studies but i can show you 25 errors, omissions, glossing-overs, and logical fallacies-- on the front page alone. mike is a poor scientist, he picks and chooses evidence to support his conslusions but ignores contrary evidence

He's just doing exactly what the Mass media does, except in the other direction, without all of the huge life changing repercussions. He'll straight out admit to that. Most everyone is biased and leans one way or the other. But If I have to pick a side to lean to, his is the side I'm going with for blatantly obvious reasons. I'd always rather err on the side of caution.

[josh]

because two wrongs make a right?

Why is it you have to choose between one extreme and another extreme? Why not take the middle oath and learn to think objectively about information presented and make a rational decision? How come using an evidence based approach not an option?

This is the same with politics. I dont want someone who is republican and subscribes to every republican ideology or a democrat who subscribes to every liberal ideology. How come we cant get a politican who makes decisions based upon evidence and not his partys talking points? Your mindset is what leads to such clusterfucks in society where one side is pitted against another without any voice of reason.

[Cdsnuts]

because two wrongs make a right?

Why is it you have to choose between one extreme and another extreme? Why not take the middle oath and learn to think objectively about information presented and make a rational decision? How come using an evidence based approach not an option?

This is the same with politics. I dont want someone who is republican and subscribes to every republican ideology or a democrat who subscribes to every liberal ideology. How come we cant get a politican who makes decisions based upon evidence and not his partys talking points? Your mindset is what leads to such clusterfucks in society where one side is pitted against another without any voice of reason.

I completely agree with the last paragraph of this quote....wholeheartedly.

My reasoning (and opinion) is as follows: When the mass media does it, they do it for things geared in favor of big pharma, corporations and censoring truth...for the most part. All of these systems care about is their bottom line. If I'm going to be weary of anyone, it's big business, whether in the form of big pharma or not. Now to me, anything chemically related, by it's very nature, is going to have a much much bigger chance of negatively effecting the biological system then something that's not a chemical will. Hence my propensity to lean toward more natural and less harsh things to consume.

There are many shades of gray here. Some chemicals are completely inert and do nothing in the human body. That's not the case for most of them unfortunately. If something is coming out of a lab man made and not straight from the ground unadulterated and unchanged, I'm not going to have a hard time believing it could do damage from being consumed. It is after all, a chemical. So until they can show me thirty years or more of human safety trials (which is a reasonable amount of time seeing as it can take that long to grow certain cancers, etc) I'm going to try and steer clear and not be surprised when someone says "chemical X" gave me this, or is bad for you, or whatever the case may be.

In regards to myself, I don't need someone to show me clinical trials when it comes to certain artificial sweeteners. They give me pounding headaches, bottom line. That's enough proof for me. I'm not the only one either. When I take my own experience into account and then listen to other negative reactions for say, aspartame, it really doesn't surprise me one bit. It's not a stretch.

Now Mike Adams on the other hand, while he can be somewhat of a zealot, I admit, he stands to point out the censorship by mass media and the straight out lies and deception by the pharmaceutical industry and big business. There is plenty of eye rolling in to be had in alot of his stuff, but again, where are you going to get new's that covers the stuff he covers?

I don't take anything at face value and neither should anyone else. I read mass media and I read Natural New's to balance it. If anything he has a huge target on him because of the powerful toes he's stepping on. Who has more to gain out of the two of them?

That's how I look at it.