Over the many years I have been writing to you I have written numerous “This is Rich” Entries to try to highlight what I consider is the double standard applied to the supplement industry versus the rest of the world.
Make no mistake about it your right to free choice is going to be defended by the alphabet agencies who will protect you from charlatans, quacks, money grubbing baxxrds and most of all yourself and your own education and free will. Frankly I’m surprised they still allow the First Amendment although I have seen all kinds of incredible offenses and affronts taken by all kinds of people to shut down the opinions of others.
When it comes to supplements I am taking a page from something called “fat shaming”. Fat shaming apparently became poplar enough in France to warrant a social outcry. As I understand it, it occurs most often when fat people (is that still allowed?) are seen buying stuff in a bakery. They are then ridiculed for their poor dietary choices by the not fat people.
While I think this is a pointless waste of time- we all make our own choices, as long as I am not paying for your health care I do not really care.
So now I am coining the term “Supplement Shaming”.
This occurs when Big Pharma sponsored agencies attack the supplement industry and demand it complies with the same standards drugs do. While I would love to have 5 million dollars to do a randomized double blinded double dummy placebo-controlled trial with my fish oil versus say, a statin for cardiovascular outcomes, I don’t and I am not likely to unless I win the lottery.
And then there would be the attacks by you know who!
The latest example of supplement shaming has to do with my favorite supplement.
The headline reads “Omega-3 FA Supplements May Only Modestly Impact High-Risk Populations from CVD”.
A previous headline of the same study stated there was “NO EFFECT” because the 7% concluded improvement was not considered statistically significant.
Of course, this trail was a “meta-analysis” scientists new tool to avoid doing new research and cherry pick old research to show the foregone conclusion they already have before the run the number through a computer.
The only trial they chose that had significant positive results including on all because mortality was the GISSI trial which is actually 4 trials all of which supply data. They chose GISSI Prevenzione only.
This was also the only trial that had a significant dosage of Omega 3 at 2.5 grams- way below what most people will need for an effective Land’s ratio of 60% Omega 3. One trial only used EPA and this was under 2 grams. As a matter of fact, some of the trial only used 1 gram a day. Then there was the infamous margarine trial.
Remember that one? The makers of Lantus insulin had egg on their face because their magic insulin did not improve outcomes in diabetics with heart disease. But to obfuscate the results they did a sub group using 1 gram of crappy triglyceride cod oil in a stick of margarine that subjects were required to consume.
At the end of the trial the conclusion was: fish oil didn’t help either.
So, what you have is what I entitled Fish Oil- Failure by Design. Yet again.
There seems to be an endless stream of studies that are meta-analysis and not real studies using the same old “let’s fall back on these!” known negative studies using doses that mean nothing and no mention of Omega6/3 Land’s ratios.
The conclusions range from the first on “NO BENEFIT” which is clearly not correct to “modest benefit”.
I guarantee you BIG Pharma will never do a study with meaningful doses and compare the outcomes to drugs. Why should they shame themselves when they can shame supplements with big BS trails run on computer?
And they call that “original research”.
Now I have included a statin-based study on risk just for your understanding. Please look at the headlines and read the study. Notice that aggressive multiple drug therapy including statins and blood pressure meds would have at best yielded 11% reduction.
Note also this is not a real study either- its just what they think would happen based on other studies. Sound familiar? Did anyone shame Big Pharma for getting only 11% out of 3 or more drugs. Then notices the magical statistical manipulation accounting for “regression dilution”. That is not a real-world thing but a way to fit data on to a straight line that is widely accepted to make data look “nice”.
Any body do it with the fish oil data?
Finally note the magical conclusion that states and I paraphrase “We need to use more statins in more people including those who are not at this high risk to see the benefits” In other words more statin prescriptions and more drugs for us all. Lower the threshold for cholesterol, lower it for blood pressure, lower it for blood sugar and then tell people the only way to do it is drugs.
Why even bother with lifestyle modifications!
But remember the status quo (not the musical group but the state of things) is good and anyone who challenges it like me is bad, misguided or far worse and should be censured and attacked.
Also remember that your body and your health and your future don’t give a rat’s ass about meta-analysis and regression dilution.
Educate yourself and don’t take everything that is status quo as good. And remember even a crappy study showed 7% improvement. That is not NOTHING!!!
And when you are done go here.
“’All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer”
We are at the violent opposition stage.
Associations of Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplement Use With Cardiovascular Disease RisksMeta-analysis of 10 Trials Involving 77 917 Individuals
Theingi Aung, MBBS, FRCP1,2,3; Jim Halsey, BSc1,2; Daan Kromhout, PhD4; et al
Eur Heart J. 2004 Mar;25(6):484-91.
Evaluating the impact of population and high-risk strategies for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.
Emberson J1, Whincup P, Morris R, Walker M, Ebrahim S.
To estimate the potential effectiveness of different “high-risk” and “population” approaches to the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in middle-aged British men, after correction for regression dilution bias.
METHODS AND RESULTS:
We used a combination of cohort and randomised controlled trial evidence to estimate the effectiveness of high-risk strategies, based on the identification of high-risk factors or high absolute risk, and strategies based on population-wide reductions in cholesterol and blood pressure. High-risk strategies were potentially effective but would need to be used widely to have a substantial effect on CVD in the population. Aggressive pharmacological treatment (using statins, beta-blockers, ACE-inhibitors and aspirin) in individuals with a 10-year Framingham event risk of >or=30% (6% of population) would have reduced major CVD by at most 11%. This figure increased to 34% at a >or=20% treatment threshold (26% of population). In contrast, modest downwards shifts in the population distributions of serum total cholesterol and systolic blood pressure led to marked expected reductions in major CVD. Taking regression dilution bias into account, 10% reductions in long-term mean blood cholesterol and blood pressure could have reduced major CVD by 45%.
If high-risk strategies are to have a major impact on CVD in the population, they need to be more widely used than previously envisaged. Population-wide reduction of major risk factors is needed if CVD is to be substantially reduced.