Drug Like Fish Oil Proves Cardiovascular Benefit

For several years now a drug company called Amarin has been trying to get their drug Vascepa accepted by the FDA for several medical indications.

Before we get to this there are a few things you should know.

First there was a long long delay in the FDA approval even though the drug was approved in other countries.


It depends on who you believe! IF you believe the FDA its because the study design did not show enough data to prove efficacy. If you believe people who view the politics and economics of the situation you think the FDA was stalling to give major drug companies a chance to develop other statin alternatives and allow the statins to go generic and continue to make billions of dollars. Everything about the statin market, the known side effects and the marginal outcomes benefit suggest this drug was stretched to its maximum in terms of earning and time on the throne.

Of note the REDUCE-IT trial contained data that showed an additional 25% benefit (which far outweighs any statin benefit) in reduced overall vascular mortality. This drug Vascepa is a slightly modified form or ETHYL ESTER fish oil.

Note that when you hear people lash out against this form of fish oil  BS claims that this molecule does not exist in nature and is not even a natural product should fail in the face of these new findings.

Or are they new? The GISSI Prevenzione study done in 1999 showed almost the same numbers in risk reduction as PREVENT-IT. 28% reduction on ethyl ester fish oil at a dose of 2 grams a day.

Note also the latest study was done at 4 grams a day! How often have you heard me say that all of the publicized “fish oil no good for heart disease” were done with way to low a dose. Somehow when it’s a “drug” its ok to use bigger doses. Smell fishy?

Also be aware of the tirade of “Don’t even dream these results can be generalized to regular fish oil”.

Again, if you could get the same results out of a natural product as a drug it would wreck an industry that is too big to fail.

Speaking of which I recently priced numerous drugs including statins and metformin in Mexico. Generic or brand US citizens who buy their medicine in the US are paying up to 20X the price. And they say we don’t have subsidized health care. We do… we are simply subsidizing the cost of drugs in other countries by paying far more than they do.

Don’t you love Big Pharma!

Sub group analysis of the latest trial mentioned above basically showed that all on its own the drug fish oil reduced mortality and events in complete absence of statins and if you figure it all together you get another GISSI like finding. Most of the mortality and even reduction was due to the Omega 3 not the statin.

As a matter of fact its scary how drugs affect the mortality end points. In many cases its minimal or non existent, but they pick numbers like blood pressure below 130/80 and cholesterol less than 180 as the end point, not mortality or morbidity. Drugs do hit the target numbers while doing little to improve morbidity and mortality.

Interesting no?!

One final interesting point: Amarin the company that makes the “new drug” Vascepa was screaming bloody murder when they were multiply rejected. Now they “thank the FDA” and its Kumbaya all around! The indications of this drug are mainly for reduction of very high triglyceride levels. It remains to be seen if it will be OK to use it for cardiac prevention.

But remember only the drug fish oil can help you. The parent compound ( an example of which is Lovaza) or really even fish oil should not be substituted in any way. Remember fish oil doesn’t work for anything especially any condition where there is an expensive high profit margin drug available. All fish oil does is give you expensive urine, even though its metabolites are excreted in the stool.

Get it?!


Prestigious Medical Journal Finds No Benefit to Fish Oil in Preventing Heart Disease

You may remember an email I sent to you a few months ago. I described the flaws in a study published in JAMA- the Journal of the American Medical Association. The biggest flaws were the fact that the study was not a study at all but a meta-analysis which means it’s easy to skew data and get the result you “want”. In this case fish oil was worthless.

The second flaw was of course the total lack of ratio evaluation between Omega 3 and Omega 6 and tiny doses of fish oil. The only exception was the GISSI trial which used 2 grams of fish oil a day and showed unquestionable benefits.

A few weeks after that I wrote to you detailing the 1 Billion dollar campaign by Big Pharma to shore up its image. This included direct attacks on the supplement industry via the FDA and the FTC. It also included numerous Big Pharma mouth piece web sites and writers publishing anti- supplement and particularly anti- fish oil articles.

One in particular has marvelous track records which include supporting Big Tobacco and of course Big Food and Big Pharma.

This association no longer has transparency in its donor source.

Wanna guess who gives ‘em money.

So, the New England Journal of Medicine, famously supported by Pharma and famously anti-supplement published an article in 26 August basically saying the same thing that JAMA did, Fish oil is worthless for cardiac event prevention.

This was however an actual study with an excess of 15,000 participants.

The fish oil group got 1 gram a day which as I have pointed out numerous times is way too low to do anything. Again, no ratios were used, and finally, there was actually a statistically significant difference in the death rate from cardiovascular events in the fish oil group (196 vs 240 in the placebo group) but it was down played.

Does this sound familiar? It should since it is all part of the scheme to control your choices of nutraceuticals and convince you that vitamins give you expensive urine.

All the while there are a new bevy of astronomically expensive cancer drugs that are only offered to a select few who will more likely respond and make the drugs and the drug companies look good.

There are astronomical rises in the prices of certain key drugs/delivery systems like the Epi Pen which go unchecked and unfought.

There continues to be the aforementioned attacks on all things progressive in medicine except the use of drugs.

Blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol values are lower and lower requiring doctors to prescribe more drugs.

Meanwhile the US continues to pay on average 4 to 10X the amount for drugs in other coun tries and the populations foots the bill.

So do you trust Big Pharma?

How about Bayer Pharmaceuticals which now owns Monsanto getting nailed for cancer causing pesticides. But don’t worry they will pay people off and it will all blow over.

Take your fish oil!!! and watch out for more of the nonsense, cheating and lies from all quadrants of the drug industry. Hint: that does not just include the Pharmaceutical companies!


Dr Dave

When Should You Take More?

I have often gotten the question about dosage of fish oil.

How did I come up with 6 caps a day?

The answer is actually fairly simple but comes in 3 parts.

1) I tested 150 people who had low Omega 3’s and found the average value needed to restore their Land’s ratio (Omega 6/3) to optimal as defined by Dr. Lands and his many articles on the topic.
2) Someone actually did a mathematical calculation and came up with- 5.8 grams- so close to my observation!
3) All of the studies that show benefit (hint they are not generally published in journals paid for by Big Pharma) require a minimum of 3grams or more before any benefit is seen and usually its upwards of 4 grams.

Now please note when I am talking grams, I am talking grams of Total EPA and DHA- that is you add the mg of each together and divide by 1000 to get the grams supplied by the product. DO NOT simply buy into the misleading labeling where the product is listed as “Grams of Fish Oil”. This can include all kinds of non-Omega 3 things that may be found in various fish and manufacturers often seek to boost the number on the bottle by not listing the Omega 3 (EPA+DHA) except in the fine print on the back of the bottle!

Conditions where additional Omega 3 may be very helpful include any form of disease that is inflammatory in nature, obesity, sleep deprivation, depression, high level athletic training, poor diet.

I have detailed the specifics of this ad nauseum since 2003 so I am not going to go into individual conditions. Chances are if you are sick in any way you need more.

Exceptions include blood disorders where you do not clot well, drugs that thin your blood, and if you are going to have major surgery within the next 2-3 weeks. I have detailed this ad nauseum as well since 2003.

But you would be surprised how often more is better!

Right now, I am finishing an aggressive running training program and you can bet I am taking more than 6 caps a day.

Also remember the amount of Omega 3 is not really dependent on sex, body mass or weight- its completely dependent on how much Omega 3 and 6 you get in your diet.

This was brought home to me when testing a Vegetarian and Vegan population that did not consume marine based Omega 3’s. Plant based Omega’s are a lousy substitute and even the thinner smaller Vega/Vegetarian individuals had low Omega 3.

I hope this helps you in your quest to live longer, live better and do more!

Dr Dave

PS Don’t forget the huge savings on cases!

Does Your Kid Need Fish Oil?!

I get a surprising number of people asking about doses of fish oil for their kids.

The amounts may be different but not as much as you might think. If we work backwards I would tell you that the same 4-6 grams a day of Omega 3 I recommend for adults would be good for today’s 16 year olds!

Now there are no solid studies on this but understand that in most cases body mass of a teenager these days equals that of adults 30 or 40 years ago. In addition, the amount of Omega 3 needed is not tied to body mass as much as it is diet.

Women often ask me if they shouldn’t take less than I usually recommend. This is entirely linked to diet and not sex or body mass. So, the answer is usually the same of adults of both sexes and children 16 and over, especially with today’s carb/sugar rich diets!

Guidelines for under 16: When your child is old enough to safely swallow a capsule start them on one a day or break open the contents and add it to their favorite foods like applesauce.

At age 10 you can to 2 a day, age 14 3 a day and then by 16 adult doses.

In spite of constant mention of “potential dangerous side effects” of too much fish oil there have never been any solidly reported. As with all people taking fish oil if you start to see bruising back off for a week and start at half the dose.

There is another reason why you might want to consider supplementing your children.

Behavioral studies suggest that aggressive, violent and disruptive behaviors may improve, along with attention span. These studies transcend age and gender as well.

As always consider asking your Pediatrician if you are unsure, but please make sure they actually know something about Omega 3 biochemistry!

Now more than ever our children could benefit from Omega 3!

Dr Dave


PS please keep in mind most of the highly publicized studies that doctors “believe” are done with way way way too low a dose of Omega 3 to show benefit. This will undoubtedly continue until the Pharmaceutical Industry controls all supplement distribution. Then as always, the tune will change completely!

Tumors and Fish Oil

This is one of those emails that has to start with a disclaimer because it contains the “C” word e.g. cancer.

Whenever anyone suggests that there is a potential way to prevent, treat, or suppress cancer in anyway that is different than what Big Pharma and our government has spent 3 trillion dollars on (genetic research, gene products and chemo cocktails) they are immediately targeted, vilified and sometimes worse.

So please research everything I say here for yourself and do not take any of it as anything but FYI.

Especially don’t infer imply or even cogitate that anything said here might have any impact on cancer.

This is for entertainment only!

About 5 years ago I was speaking in front of an audience of around 1200 people in California.

I showed a slide that reported the different effects of Omega 6 and Omega 3 on cancer cells and tumor growth. That slide is published in our National Library of Medicine database along with tons of other information on the following topic: How fish oil type Omega 3’s inhibit cancer and may be useful in the treatment of cancer. And how the inflammatory Omega 6 fats drive cancer forward. And how you can add one and then the other to a cancer cell line and play see saw with tumor growth.

Please remember this when the next Big Pharma sponsored anti-fish oil smear campaign comes out and gets tons of press.

An article that was recently released (see reference below) did not get big press. It shows much like I did several years ago how fish oil metabolites get converted into many things that resolve inflammation (prostaglandins/prostacyclins/resolvins/protectins and finally endocannabanoids. Yep that is the chemical you get from the none psychogenic part of dope.

When I was head of my original company I wrote several articles on this topic and frankly I am surprised they have not been reprised by the individuals that now have the company. They have certainly reprised much else of what I wrote years back.

Anyway, the path is clear: inflammation drives cancer and certain anti-inflammatories inhibit that drive and reduce tumor load. Sadly, for Big Pharma their beloved aspirin, statins and NSAIDS are not among them.

Omega 3’s are.

And as I titled one email a while back “Are YOU Getting Enough”, I ask that question again.

It’s a standard trick to do a study with less than 2 grams a day of fish oil to get a negative result. It’s a standard trick to get a major power base like say, the American College of Cardiology to say, “For God’s sake don’t take more than 3 fish oil a day”.

It’s a standard trick to leave out studies that use higher doses and show great results.

It’s a standard trick to call attention only to negative studies and leave out the positive ones.

Don’t be tricked!!!!! 





Reference: Please note information like this has been published many times in the past over the past several years. None of these studies got anything near the air time that the negative ones did. I have only to remind you to the infamous Braskey study of 2012 which insinuated that fish oil caused prostate cancer as an example. As wrong as that study was it got and still gets major air play.

Reference: Antitumorigenic Properties of Omega-3 Endocannabinoid Epoxides
Jahnabi Roy§, Josephine E. Watson⊥, In Sup Hong⊥, Timothy M. Fan‡, and Aditi Das*†⊥¶
†Department of Comparative Biosciences; ‡Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine; §Department of Chemistry; ⊥Department of Biochemistry; ¶Beckman Institute for Advanced Science, Division of Nutritional Sciences, Neuroscience Program, and Department of Bioengineering, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61802, United States
J. Med. Chem., 2018, 61 (13), pp 5569–5579

Fish Oil for Kids (and Adults!)?

A recent study in the Journal Pediatrics should call into question all the nonsense that was touted as science in the recent JAMA metanalysis that panned the effects of fish oil in heart disease. That article is now 3 months old and still being cited and published around the world as definitive.

It was definitive in its complete lack of knowledge about the doses required for effect. They used only studies that dosed below 2 grams a day except for the one study that used 2.5 grams a day. That study was, by the way, the only positive result included in the analysis. Surprise Surprise fish oil at really low doses does not work.

Then again neither do statins and no one is doing studies with 2 or 5 mg a day of lovastatin.

My conclusion is that this was deliberately misleading by the authors and I would bet they are being paid by Big Pharma.

Now let me tell you something else I have learned from experience.

The government does not care about right or wrong or your personal rights once they have you in their sights. If they spend money and time on you personally you are going to pay somehow. Money, reputation, freedom… it doesn’t matter- you are going to pay right or wrong.

Still there is too much wrong out there to ignore and plenty of right that does not get any attention.

So today I am going to sum up the article in pediatrics for you and then you can read it if you like.

The study compared Omega 3 fish oil with olive oil.

Fish oil worked olive oil didn’t in spite of the Dean Ornish crowd. You can by the way find similar studies on olive oil versus fish oil on Pub Med. Olive oil falls far short versus fish oil in the health department. Simple reason: Olive oil is primarily a MUFA (mono unsaturated fat) Fish oil is a PUFA (poly unsaturated fat).

Children supplemented with an appropriate dose of fish oil at birth for 2.5 and 5 years showed all kinds of improvements including: lower waist circumference (basically a body fat measurement) and much lower insulin secretion (considering the diabetes epidemic this is important!).

The final conclusion was that these benefits were carried through into adolescents and could have major benefits in adulthood.

I suspect they are right!

If you have a child and want to give them my fish oil simply carefully puncture the capsule and squeeze the contents onto a favorite food such as apple sauce and there you go!

Your kids will thank you for it down the road!


Dr Dave

Watch Out for these Two New Trends in Fish Oil

I have watch fish oil grow from a back water industry into a giant machine in the supplement world.

Honestly, I am going to blow my own horn here and tell you I had a lot to do with it. Of course no one would dream of saying that out loud but I have seen my exact words copied, paraphrased and used to sell other people’s products for almost 18 years now.

I have seen people slowly but surely adopt my “arguments” against the nonsense that masquerades as research in Omega 3 fatty acids including most recently, a decent sized back lash at the supposed “reputable group of scientists” who published yet another BS meta analysis that did not include, address or otherwise mention dosage as an issue.

These same scientists would scream bloody murder and never allow something to be published that used 2.5 mg of one of their vaunted statin drugs and then said they were worthless.

If you are going to evaluate the effects of fish oil the dose must be correct, and if you’ve been reading me for a while you know it needs to be between 4 and 6 grams a day in spite of the ACA statement that anything over 3 grams is worthless. If they had ever done a study with anything over 3 grams I might listen but again BS is BS.

Now the supplement industry is not free of BS by a long shot.

I have seen two disturbing trends coming to the forefront by clever marketing.

The first is advertising a huge dose right on the front label panel. I am seeing doses of 3300 etc. glaring out at you from the label front. In tiny print on the back they put dose: 4 capsules daily. So, the amount you are getting per capsule is less than 1 gram, especially when you add up the EPA and DHA amounts.

Remember, a lot of fish oils are not that pure. They may contain only 500mg of so of the essential fats and another 500 of “fish oil or marine lipid concentrate”. That is not contributing to the Omega 3 amount you want and need. It may even contain a fair amount of Omega 6.

So, watch you for what I like to call label fraud and look at the total EPA and DHA numbers PER CAPSULE, not per the recommended dose in the fine print. It is very hard to get more than 1 gram of EPA and DHA in a capsule because it starts getting hard to swallow. Our capsules always always always require a special run by the encapsulator because they are larger than the standard size although no one complains about swallowing them!

Next trend to watch out for is clever but also falls short on the science. Someone has decided that “clear” fish oil is going to convince people its purer and better. Unfortunately, this flies in the face of reason.

Fish oil is naturally slightly rose colored if it is not distilled (purified) or naturally golden if highly distilled. It also has to do with the type of fish used, salmon oil having a more orange hue than white fish which are more straw colored in their oil.

Clear color has nothing to do with the purity or potency. As a matter of fact the actual amount of EPA and DHA in this oil appears to be at best mediocre-less than 500 mg per capsule. If it were so highly refined and distilled it would approach the 85% levels my oil does.

It falls far short of that which can only mean it is NOT more pure or more distilled or more free of contaminants. It would be hard to exceed the vanishingly low levels of oxidation and toxins in the Longevity Edge Fish Oil.

I applaud people’s attempts to create new things and distinguish their products.

I just wish it would be something meaningful because every new nonsensical thing that comes out is just more fuel for Big Pharma sponsored science and our dear friends at the alphabet agencies to attack the supplement industry.

I have been at this for 18 years from all angles including biochemistry, production and human biology. I consider it my job to keep you informed of the tricks and marketing hype out there so you can make an informed decision. Remember, I take the same oil you take!!!

Yours Truly!

Dr. Dave

*Since I make and take my own fish oil I freely admit a personal bias for it.  That said I will go toe to toe with any oil out there any time.  Any takers?!!!

Fish Oil as an Anti- Aging “Drug”

Please note the word drug is in quotes. I am not suggesting it is a drug in the pharmaceutical sense and of course no sane person would ever suggest in this era of censure that fish oil has drug like properties or any properties that compete with preexisting drugs.

Silly me I used to think that ageing was sacro sanct from the alphabet agencies since there is no ICD code and it is repeatedly denied that aging is disease by some of the most respected and erudite medical minds in the country.

Then the FTC took action against TA Sciences for false claims*. The guise was primarily the claims in one of their studies that showed improved bone mass. I was not privy to those discussions but second source info told me that was the bugaboo and it makes sense given that there is a drug out there for said condition.

Never mind that side effects may include osteonecrosis of the jaw and other bones. Ironic that the drug to prevent bone loss in the hip may cause it in the jaw no? In terms of studies it appears that the studies done by TAS were insufficient to prove efficacy even though they were done by good and reputable scientists.

Perhaps “more studies were needed”. Never heard that before! I would have asked how many but I can only guess the answer would have been “more than you did!”

So is aging a disease or isn’t it. The above response in all its glory suggests that its not nice to fool with mother government. Or is that who’s your daddy?!

In either case the bottom line is this: I am not making medical claims, mitigating claims, diagnosing claims but I am guessing I may still have the right to report the data as it is published.

I guess I will find out soon enough!

A recent study by one of my favorite scientists Maria Blasco showed the relationship between inflammatory Omega 6 content in red blood cells and white blood cell telomere length.

So, in a sense this study combines a bunch of my favorite topics- Omega 3 and its opposing relationship to Inflammatory Omega 6 fats (nuts vegetables, processed oils and foods) and another favorite, telomere length.

Maria pioneered what is now known as TAT, the best telomere length measurement out there www.lifelength.com several years ago.

This study shows that white blood cell telomere length is dependent on the red blood cell content of Omega 6 inflammatory fatty acids.

Now if this sounds confusing it should not be, especially if you are a regular reader of my writings.
If not or if you’ve forgotten here are a few facts to clarify the issue:

  1. The ratio of Omega6 to Omega 3 fats often called the “Land’s ratio” after Dr Bill Lands the man who pioneered it uses red blood cells as a source of how much Omega 6(inflammatory) and Omega 3 (anti-inflammatory) you have in your body.
  2. This test was developed for commercial use after it was found there was a high correlation between red blood cell fatty acid content and tissue fatty acid content. The Land’s ratio takes that into account. Note: most companies that sell this test omit the reference to DR Lands. I know the man as a great scientist and I refuse to ignore the source of this test.
  3. Telomere testing as developed by DR Maria Blasco (another great scientist I am pleased to call a friend) uses white blood cells to measure telomeres because they are easy to obtain by a simple blood draw.
  4. Please note I am not longer affiliated with DR Dave’s Best or its products. My web site and the only source for my product line is www.thelongevityedge.com. I attempted to make this well-known but was prevented from doing so by legal issues.
  5. The reason white blood cells are used for telomere testing and not red blood cells is that telomeres “live” in the nucleus of the cell and red blood cells have no nuclei.
  6. Dr. Lands found that tissue fatty acids correlate very well with red blood cell fatty acids in Omega 6/3 ratios. Dr Blasco and others found a correlation between white blood cell telomere length and other tissues in the body*
  7. The white blood cell is a primary arbiter of the Immune System, and the immune system is instrumental in organizing the protection of the body from damage due to infections of all kinds, toxins of all kinds, cancer cells that develop, and healing damaged tissues. As such it may be the most important system in the body in determining how the body ages!
  8. Dr Blasco’s study has effectively merged the two concepts of essential fatty acids and telomere testing and showed a direct effect of inflammation to telomere shortening at a cellular level. Others have shown the effects at a clinical level.
  9. Many articles state telomeres are directly related to aging and disease and that their measurement is critical. This is in spite of Harvard scientists saying it is not really useful. That is the typical party line which I personally think is wrong! I think it is useful and I think you can affect changes in telomere length and those changes have a good chance of improving your health and perhaps your life span.

Taken in context I would argue that since higher levels of Omega 3 in your body displace Omega 6 inflammatory fats from their shared (Omega 3 and 6 use the same pathways metabolic pathways, and that the Omega 6/3 ratio must must must = 100% that having higher Omega 3’s will always result in lower Omega 6’s. For instance, if you have 30% Omega 6 you will have 70% Omega 3 and you will be in an “anti-inflammatory state” unless you have some super weird metabolic disorder!

This would suggest that having a higher Omega 3 is good for your telomeres as Dr. Farzeneh Farr showed clinically several years ago. Now Dr Blasco has equated it directly to your cells!

Dr Dave

* Then there was the infamous Suzanne Summers infomercial which was interpreted to be misleading because it looked like a news piece. Can’t do that unless maybe you are some other mainstream TV doctor whose show is basically one giant infomercial sponsored by a list of “trusted sponsors”.

Frankly I don’t see how that is any different but I don’t work for the government.

Something We Don’t Get Enough Of!!!

You might expect me to get launch into a sales pitch for one of my products as I am often want to do.

That will probably come later as it always seem to, LOL,  but bear with me for a moment.

I recently saw the “explosion” of “Fish oil not good for…” articles yet again, this time with dry eye.

This is another classic illustration of internet headline tactics that we should all expect by now.
As seems to be the case it flies in the face of previous scientific research that showed exactly the opposite.

Last week fish oil was good for dry eye, now its not!?

Have you ever noticed how often this happens when the topic is fish oil?

The best comment I ever heard came about 2 years ago when a relatively famous journalist who was interviewing me about fish oil threw up his hands in disgust and said, “Why can’t we just get a final answer?!”

Remember a few weeks ago we actually did. Several internet outlets pronounced the “final” verdict on fish oil and heart disease was in once and for all, for good, really settled, never again to be revisited.

A JAMA meta-analysis by a “reputable” group stated fish oil was only moderately effective at preventing heart disease, with a modest 7% reduction while statins in similar analysis delivered 11% reduction (provided several medications for high blood pressure were also present!).

Then numerous experts including me destroyed the validity of the study by pointing out the lack of appropriate dosage and lack of any monitoring of Omega6/3 levels. That stuff did not get the airplay.

In similar fashion the fact that the FDA recently ok’d an eye drop containing Omega 3 for dry eye also seemed to be missing from the internet headlines.

So here is my advice:

  1. Take your fish oil because for every “no good” headline there are often several “good studies”.
  2. Remember there are no Fact Police on the internet and headlines are designed to get you to instantly draw a sound byte conclusion based on the 2 seconds it takes you to read them. “No Good” sounds bad right? But “No Good” has never meant harmful or bad or anything worse than “no better than placebo”. Most times it means something different- like 7% reduction in heart disease which got stated as “no good”.
  3. Keep your eyes peeled, no pun intended, for another study in the next 2 months that shows the exact opposite for dry eye suggesting that fish oil is good for it. And then look for the ads touting the eye drops with Omega 3 as an ingredient.

And, the thing we could all use more of and don’t get enough of, in addition to fish oil is the magic little attribute called patience.

In the case of fish oil, you can bet that with a little patience you will see the exact opposite of something you just read as a headline within a few weeks.

You can also bet that whenever there is a known or shown benefit, someone in the medical/pharma community will try desperately to nay say it!

But in the end, if you are patient, you will know what is real.



The Mystery Ingredient, or, If it Doesn’t Work Why Are They Still Doing It?

I gotta tell you, I have to laugh sometimes. I think as mentioned in past blogs and emails there has been a stepped-up effort to discredit any beneficial effects of fish oil, especially in heart disease. The most ludicrous of these attempts has been what I call the “mystery ingredient”.

The mystery ingredient theory suggests that there are as yet some unknown uncharacterized magical ingredients in fish that account for the health benefits ascribed thereof. No one knows what they might be, and there is no research to support their existence, but they are out there somewhere in fish and only in fish so don’t take fish oil.

If that smells fish to you it should. Eating fish has a series of risks conveniently left out but easy to research

There are many agendas at work here but if you follow the money you wind up looking at Big Pharma and squarely in the eyes. Now if that is OK with you far be it from me to make waves but at least do your research and find out the truth.

Along those lines I will get back to fish oil supplements in a moment, but I want to ask you to look at something else and this time we have to blame the supplement industry for hyperbole and agendas.

There is a fairly common defect called 5-MTHFR that affects folate metabolism in about 15% of Americans (some estimates are higher). Folate is a critical player in methylation pathways which are in turn critical players in epigenetic regulation our genome and Genome repair.

The supplement industry has tried to convince everyone they need a “reduced folate form” to correct this deficiency. This form is considerably more expensive and is probably needed by very few people. Increasing the folic acid form by 2-3X the dose will probably do the same thing and save you some money.

I am not “against” the reduced form of folate but its not as necessary as the industry would convince you it is. I am against misinformation.

So here is some more: Folic acid is an “acid” e.g. it must be bad because its an acid and acids are bad right. In addition, the “natural” form of folate is non-acid reduced and far more complex in its chemical appearance. This makes it better right.

Actually, it means that even in the harvesting of folate rich foods such as green leafy vegetables you may destabilize folate and lose as much as half of it. Also, true if you cook it so now you are down again on your folate. Now add the purported poor soil and you’ll see why I wrote “The Case for a Multi Part 3”.
Folic acid is FAR MORE stable and works just fine to raise folate levels in the body even if you have the 5-MTHFR deficiency. You just have to take enough.

Another example of supplement company hype is “reduced glutathione” versus N-Acetyl Cysteine. Big cost differences, no studies by non-agenda interested parties and the continued use of N-Acetyl Cysteine in alcohol and acetaminophen overdoses leads me to conclude you are fine with N-AC!

Ok now back to fish oil. What I have tried to demonstrate above in the process of busting some balloons and undoubtedly setting myself up for the usual “you are so ignorant hate mail” is that sometimes the simple tried and true non-sexy non new stuff is all you need.

Case in point- Fish Oil!

There have been many new sources of Omega 3’s out there both marine and vegetable but not one of them has been around nearly as long as fish oil as a supplement and not one of them has the huge body of non agenda funded research for (or against it!).

Trust me if krill were more than 13% of the market share or mussels were the new source for marine lipids 4 things would happen.

1) You would see an explosion of scientists using these forms of Omega 3 to evaluate their benefits. This clearly has not happened and what few studies are done are almost always paid for by these “alternative” manufacturers.

2) The words fish oil would be dropped from other marine lipid sources completely and their uniqueness would be touted. You do not have to look far to find brands that are krill based but contain the words “fish oil” in the title. That tells you what people are really looking for.

3) The Pharmaceutical industry and their mouth pieces would claim that krill is not useful and “gives you expensive urine” or some other nonsense. You do not see an attack on these alternative forms because they are not the perceived source of the problem from an industry stand point because they are not making enough of an impact on Pharma and other profits to be worth attacking.

4) Finally, you would see tons and tons of beneficial headlines using these forms, and see drug companies trying to usurp Mother Nature and patent these other oil formats for their own benefits as well. All you ever see both “good” and “bad” is fish oil.

The truth is that every Omega 3 based industry from krill to hemp to chia, to algae is all built upon the back of the genuine article.

After 18 years making and taking my own, I do know a thing or two!

Best, Dr. Dave

Remember we offer big discounts on cases of the real deal!



Suggested reading: