From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,sci.med
Subject: Re: Fish oils good for arthritis (Re: News on C-rective Protein and 
	LDL, with notes by S. Harris)
Message-ID: <N5Lk9.1551$Rt5.165509@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 21:36:45 GMT

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in message
<3D93668E.5D8D585D@heartmdphd.com>...

>Actually, you should be surprised because many of my patients are seeking
>alternative approaches.  My ethnic background is asian so culturally I am
>probably inclined to be more open-minded about this topic than most.
>Folks who are crippled by their arthritis typically are not willing to
>wait three months for fish oil to possibly work.
>
>--
>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>Atlanta Cardiologist
>http://www.heartmdphd.com


COMMENT

But your other patients I'm sure have other reasons to be changing their
n-3/n-6/sat ratios.  If you've reading the NEJM you know that now there is
some prelimary mechnistic data that n-3 fatty acids are antiarrythmic. Fish
eating has long been associated with less risk of sudden cardiac death
epidemiologically, and this may be part of the reason. IOW, people may have
other reasons besides triglyceride lowering and less CHD, to have less
cardiac mortality as a result of a high fish (3x/week) diet.

SBH

--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book.  A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.

From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,sci.med
Subject: Re: Fish oils good for arthritis (Re: News on C-rective Protein and 
	LDL, with notes by S. Harris)
Message-ID: <npMk9.1739$Rt5.183466@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 23:05:55 GMT

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in message
<3D938449.EA1F4ADB@heartmdphd.com>...
>Steve Harris wrote:
>
>> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in message
>> <3D93668E.5D8D585D@heartmdphd.com>...
>>
>> >Actually, you should be surprised because many of my patients are
>> >seeking alternative approaches.  My ethnic background is asian so
>> >culturally I am probably inclined to be more open-minded about this
>> >topic than most.  Folks who are crippled by their arthritis typically
>> >are not willing to wait three months for fish oil to possibly work.
>> >
>> >--
>> >Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>> >Atlanta Cardiologist
>> >http://www.heartmdphd.com
>>
>> COMMENT
>>
>> But your other patients I'm sure have other reasons to be changing
>> their n-3/n-6/sat ratios.  If you've reading the NEJM you know that now
>> there is some prelimary mechnistic data that n-3 fatty acids are
>> antiarrythmic. Fish eating has long been associated with less risk of
>> sudden cardiac death epidemiologically, and this may be part of the
>> reason. IOW, people may have other reasons besides triglyceride
>> lowering and less CHD, to have less cardiac mortality as a result of a
>> high fish (3x/week) diet.
>
>I do encourage my patients to shift their protein anf fat intake toward fish
>for the reasons you describe.  However, if there is substrate for SCD, I
>arrange for an AICD implantation rather than rely on the promise of higher
>n-3/n-6/sat ratios.



My, either you must be "arranging for" automatic defibrilator implantation
in just about everybody who has coronary disease in your practice, or else
you must have some magical powers to tell you who is going to have a
thrombosis and who isn't.

You know full well that most sudden deaths from acute V-fib without
preceding CHF are people who hever met criteria for AICD by anybody's
reasonable standards. They get dyrhythmia due to new ischemia which is due
to some sudden thrombotic event which there is no predicting, except vaguely
with numbers far too low for anything as drastic as an implantable
defibrillator. So until you cath everybody to see who has CHD, and put an
implantable defibrillator in everybody who does, I suggest you recommend
that everybody eat fish, in the same way they wear seat belts. It's a lot
less of a pain in the chest than a zapper.

SBH

--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book.  A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: fish oil beats statins for lowering mortality risk
Date: 24 Apr 2005 17:59:41 -0700
Message-ID: <1114390781.529527.109840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

April 13, 2005


Fish oil beats statins for lowering mortality risk


The April 11 2005 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine published a
review of the effects of various lipid lowering regimens on overall
mortality and mortality from coronary heart disease. Researchers from
Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and University Hospital in
Basel, Switzerland reviewed 97 clinical trials published between 1965
and 2003 that included 137,140 men and women being treated and 138,976
control subjects. The current analysis compared the association with
mortality risk of diet, lipid lowering drugs categorized as statins,
fibrates and resins, and the nutritional supplements omega-3 fatty
acids (commonly found in fish oils) and niacin.


While the fibrate class of drugs failed to influence overall mortality
and mildly elevated noncardiac mortality, and while diet, resins and
niacin appeared to provide insignificant benefits, statins and omega-3
fatty acids signifcantly lowered both overall and coronary heart
disease mortality risk during the trial periods. The risk of overall
mortality was reduced by 13 percent by statins and 23 percent by
omega-3 fatty acids compared to the risk experienced by those who did
not receive treatment. When the risk of mortality from heart disease
alone was analyzed, the use of statin drugs and omega-3 fatty acids
were found to lower the risk by 22 and 32 percent, respectively.


The superiority of omega-3 acids in lowering the risk of overall and
cardiac mortality cannot be explained by an ability to reduce
cholesterol, which averaged 2 percent in this meta-analysis compared to
an average reduction of 20 percent acheived via the use of statins. The
protection provided by omega-3 fatty acids against heart arrhythmias,
along with their antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory properties may be
responsible for the mortality risk reduction suggested by this review.


full study available only to subscribers:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/c=ADgi/content/abstract/165/7/725?=ADmaxtoshow=
..=2E.



COMMENT by S. Harris

There you go. I've been saying this for awhile now. It's not statins
that should be in the water, but fish. :)

Some things speak for themselves, as Thoreau said, "like a trout in the
milk." The Italian GISSI study of cardiac disease and fish oil is very
nearly one of those things.

Unfortunately, they don't make fish at Pfizer, so it will take some
time before medical and public awareness catches up.

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: fish oil beats statins for lowering mortality risk
Date: 24 Apr 2005 21:04:47 -0700
Message-ID: <1114401887.700831.319890@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

>>Pfizer can make anything they want including fish oil. The problem I
see is mercury content of fish. Buy stock in fish oil and see the price
go up.  Supply and demand. <<

Fish oil is obviously the way to go, since the mercury doesn't
partition to the oils.

Obviously if you want to eat fish and don't want mercury, stay away
from top predators like tuna. Tuna eating is environmentally gross
anyway. It's like eating lions and tigers. I hope the Japanese choke on
it.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: fish oil beats statins for lowering mortality risk
Date: 25 Apr 2005 21:53:30 -0700
Message-ID: <1114491210.925730.32420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

Cows are near the bottom of the foodchain and are hardly endangered.
Yellowfin tuna are on the top of the foodchain, and half of them
disappeared in the last decade, often at 15K a pop to the Japanese
markets. This is going to continue and it's not good. Ethnocentricity
has nothing to do with this judgement.  I used to eat tuna, but have
quit it due to the mercury. I still eat sushi often, but not with tuna.
If the Japanese would even switch to skipjack tuna they might avert
disaster for yellowfins, but they'd still have the mercury problem. All
in all, somebody needs to wise up.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,sci.med
Subject: Re: fish oil beats statins for lowering mortality risk
Date: 24 Apr 2005 18:33:22 -0700
Message-ID: <1114392802.155151.43310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

>>Why do I have the fear that there's something called Pfish in the
Pfizer development pipeline? <<

I'm sure there is. And you can bet the development studies will be full
of Fisher exact tests and Poisson distributions...

A fish-hating priest from Dubuque
Was caused by some sermons to puke.
The barf left its ownah
At a mention of Jonah
Or even the lake scene in Luke.

--S. Harris

[Yes, I claim that limerick]

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,sci.med
Subject: Re: fish oil beats statins for lowering mortality risk
Date: 25 Apr 2005 16:54:44 -0700
Message-ID: <1114473284.522621.267660@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

>>Concentrated fish oil supplements have been part of the AHA
recommendations for a while now, Steve. <<

COMMENT

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4632

Oh, indeed, but nothing in those recommendations suggests that fish oil
is even more likely to save your life if you suffer from heart disease
than statin treatment, which is universally used by cardiologists
(whereas fish oil surely is NOT). As a secondary preventive fishoil
decreases heart attack mortality and TOTAL mortality. That's
impressive, considering that many things the AHA "recommends" for heart
disease patients in many circumstances (fibrates, cholesterol binding
drugs, niacin) have NEVER been shown to reduce mortality.

So what's the deal? The AHA is ready to recommend several classes of
drug treatments before they have been shown to save lives, and even
when they've failed to show it in good studies that have looked for it,
but when it recommends fish oil, it carefully refrains from *comparing*
it to the only class of drugs which HAVE been shown to save lives?
*And* doesn't point out that fish oil saves lives, whereas many classes
of drugs used by cardiologists apparently do NOT?

Don't you think this stinks of bias?  In fact, stinks on ice?  Smells
really fishy?

I'm not against using fish oil and statins both, since they probably
have separate and additive effects (we haven't proven this yet, but
it's reasonable from what we know of mechanisms). But since fishoil is
a more effective (in terms of DEATH prevention) secondary preventive
than statin treatment, and since statins are expensive and have many
possible side effects, why aren't ALL cardiac disease patients on fish
oil supplementation, and only SOME of them on (additional) statins?
Rather than the other way around?

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,sci.med,alt.support.diabetes
Subject: Re: fish oil beats statins for lowering mortality risk
Date: 26 Apr 2005 14:15:09 -0700
Message-ID: <1114550109.486581.74610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

>>Prescription drug advertising to consumers should not be allowed for
particular brands and there should be particular criteria for when any
advertising to consumers is allowed.<<


Why differentiate over the counter drugs from prescription drugs?

There's something pernicious in not allowing advertising of products to
people who will be buying them. It's a bit less pernicious to prohibit
advertising to consumers who aren't going to be paying for themselves,
but you'll first have to start with TV advertising to children. And
when you move on to adults, you'll be treating them like
sweetened-cereal-obscessed children. Adults who are paying for these
things in taxes won't be amused.

Except possibly in Canada, where one supposes the populace are used to
their Nanny Government treating them as children.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,sci.med,alt.support.diabetes
Subject: Re: fish oil beats statins for lowering mortality risk
Date: 26 Apr 2005 18:22:34 -0700
Message-ID: <1114564954.473268.244590@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

Katie, being an adult, should know that NOT all Commemorative Items
sold on the Shopping Channel "Can only increase in value".  Just as we
men more or less suspect that if we buy a certain personal grooming
product, it won't actually make women who get on elevators with us,
take all their clothes off within 2 floors.

Why all the ordinary and normal consumer judgement that runs a market
economy, should be put on suspension when you're buying a pill from a
for-profit company, is not clear. Why you even think a world in which
this is possible, even *could* exist, is not clear. Communism is dead,
you know. Perhaps the reason you're so pissed about the statin drugs,
is that you're a failed idealist, who missed out on the Utopia which
you assumed lurked in pharmacies in places run by politburos. Well, be
enlightened.

Sorry, nobody has ever seen such a utopia. There isn't a single field
of human endeavor, and that includes the doing of pure science, where
you don't have to sort out the advertising from reality as regards any
new thing (yes, you can wait for time and experience to do it for you,
but that has penalties also). If you can't even get married or have sex
without having to do this chore (ie, evaluating advertising, see
"thinking") then why in the world do you think this burden should, or
even could, be magically removed from you by some Powers That Be, when
it comes to medical care? Personal is personal.

Today's Newsflash: It's a dangerous world out there. Your body is
unique. Many of your experiences are unique. Also, you're mortal. You
take your life in your hands when you drive, and in many other spheres.
On the whole, nobody is as good at keeping you from harm as you are
(due to the fact that you have the most time and interest in the
result). Also, people are stupid and prone to lie to themselves as well
as others. Caveat emptor. You can't trust the seller, nor the
government, nor politicians, nor anybody else who stands to financially
benefit, or benefit in power or reproductive success, as a result of
doing ANYTHING they do. And you can't even always trust people who
don't obviously have any ulterior motives, because (again) people are
sometimes not very bright. And even the bright ones can have holes in
their knowledge. And are short on time, etc. And there are no
certainties, except that it's stupid to wish for a world composed of
certainties.

You can and should be skeptical of THIS message. Fine. You can be
skeptical of doctors and big pharma and the FDA. Fine. But have the
integrity to extend your skepticism to its natural end, and try for
just a moment to be skeptical of the political process also. Don't
suggest we put laws into place to give people any idea that somehow
they don't have to think for themselves anymore, because it has all
been done for them by disinterested government experts (LOL). That's
never a good attitude to inculcate in anybody.  "The effect of removing
men from the results of their folly, is to fill the world with fools."
(Herbert Spencer}.  We have too many fools already. Treating adults
like children encourages a world where people never fully grow up. The
best world requires everybody to exercise their full judgement as much
of the time as they can. Bringing force into areas in which there are
legitimate disagreements between reasonable and fully informed people
(ie, medicine and most of business) only puts sand in the gears of the
giant thinking machine that is your economy and your society. Leave it
alone!  Whenever the correct choice isn't obvious and clear to all,
give people freedom to choose for themselves. You will only injure
people more in the end, if you don't.

Let me put this one more way. Buying a product on the market, is
exactly like voting, except that it's voting with your money instead of
your ballot. There is no argument against limiting advertising which I
cannot just as legitmately (or illegitimately) apply to the process of
limiting political campaining or limiting democracy, or limiting
religious choice (which collection plate, if any, gets your money, in
return for the favor of god). We can do something about out-and-out
lies in politics, but they have to be pretty bad or they aren't clearly
recognizable as lies. Pre-emption, however, almost never works. You
think certain people are too stupid to know when an ad campaign is
taking them in?  Well, then they shouldn't be allowed to vote, either,
hey? Or to chose their own religion. I think it follows by logic. But
you see where it leads. So don't go there. Democracy can be ugly,
except the fixes are even uglier (to paraphase Churchill). The internet
and the press can also be ugly, but the same applies. Religious
argument is tedius, but adding force only makes it tedious and terrible
too. And capitalism and a market economy are ugly--- but they are also,
in the end, the same thing as a free press and a free political process
and any kind of freedom of thought. Homely as they sometimes are,
they're already as comely as they're ever going to be. So smile and
bow.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology
Subject: Re: fish oil beats statins for lowering mortality risk
Date: 26 Apr 2005 18:35:40 -0700
Message-ID: <1114565740.548819.254310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

>>Ah yes, and I suppose you agree that producers of liquor and
cigarettes should also be allowed to advertise? <<

You bet. It set a horribly dangeous precident when they were not. What
next? McDonalds because it gives you heart disease or makes you fat?


SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: fish oil beats statins for lowering mortality risk
Date: 27 Apr 2005 10:21:35 -0700
Message-ID: <1114622495.114570.26260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

>>Cows themselves are not endangered. And as Dr. Proctor notes, there
are some areas where raising livestock is a good use of land. The problem
is that beef-eaters aren't willing to stop there, but have to use up
other precious resources, such as water and forests.

I agree that tuna, as well as other fish, are being harvested at above
sustainable rates. The ethno-centricity comes from (1) saying that you
hope the Japanese choke to death, and (2) being unwilling to recognize,
apparently, that meat-eaters are at least as guilty of environmental
damage. <<


COMMENT:

But farming meat eaters are simply NOT doing the kind of environmental
damage that comes from hunting rare meat-animals half into extinction
because they taste good. Something the Japanese are doing with
yellowfin, but most other countries haven't done since the 19th century
(I think of whaling, but-- guess what-- the worse whaling and
bottom-dredging damage has ALSO been done by the Japanese, and in
modern times also).

BTW, if you're sensitive to "ethnocentrism" I don't know what the devil
you're doing in Japan, which has been historically, and still remains
today, one of the most ethnocentric societies on the face of the Earth.
Boy, you must be miserable.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: fish oil beats statins for lowering mortality risk
Date: 27 Apr 2005 17:11:16 -0700
Message-ID: <1114647076.582273.211720@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

>>Have you also fallen victim to the myth that Japan is one of the most
protectionist countries in the world? Japan is a little less guilty of
protectionism than the US and this has been true since the 80s. <<

COMMENT:

I said "ethnocentrism" not "protectionism."  Ethnocentrism is what we
call "racism" in caucasians, except that it's not politically correct
to call it "racism" *except* in caucasians. Probably because
caucasions, and WASPs in particular, literally invented the whole idea
of racism. Or so we're told in America. :)   In any case,
"ethnocentrism" usually has to do with the idea that YOUR people are
specially favored by providence.  Are specially "chosen" by god.  Are
descended from god. Are better than other peoples. That sort of thing.
The Japanese have it bad, but of course they're not alone.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: fish oil beats statins for lowering mortality risk
Date: 27 Apr 2005 16:52:46 -0700
Message-ID: <1114645966.708502.132340@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

>        In the US,  competition from farmed salmon means that wild
>canned salmon (rich in omega-3's) is pretty inexpensive.

>>But that is cheap Alaskian salmon, not NorthEast Atlantic
(Atlantic/polar Norwegian salmon, which is dreadful expensive and a
threatened variety by overfishing. <<


COMMENT:

Yes, but so what??

There's nothing wrong with Alaskan salmon.

If you're worried that you might be getting farmed salmon, just buy
Alaskan sockeye, aka "red" salmon. It's always wild because they
haven't been able to figure out how to farm it! The flesh is red
because it's high in astaxanthin, the red carotenoid pigment in krill
and algae in northern waters. This stuff itself may be good for you.

Sockeye is a bit less rich in omega-3s than other salmons, but still
has plenty. You can figure that even the lean flesh is at least 1%
omega-3's (EPA+DHA). So 3.5 ounces will give you at least a gram of
these omega-3's.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: fish oil beats statins for lowering mortality risk
Date: 30 Apr 2005 15:30:52 -0700
Message-ID: <1114900252.744966.21100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

>>I am ignoring this study in my Yahoo newsgroup.  Anybody remotely
familiar with the subject knows that fish oil is NOT the way to go.

Why?  Because you have to swallow approximately 21 horse pill size
capsules of fish oil a day to get any significant benefits.  I reviewed
this subject about 7 years ago and pasted on it.  And, now SBH the dork
is acting like it is a major new discovery!!!  Ha, ... Hah, Ha!  What a
dork!  You have my condolences.

I shall repeat it one more time for the mentally challenged on this ng.

You have to swallow approximately 21 horse size capsules of fish oil a
day, day and day out, week after week and month after month. <<


COMMENT:

The article which prompted this thread appeared in the Annals of
Internal Medicine, and is primarly based on the results of the Italian
GISSI trial. In that trial, the dose was 1 gram of DHA+EPA per day.
That's is equivalent to 2 to 4 capsules per day, depending on which
product you buy. It's three of the Costco Enteric fishoil caps, and
they certainly are not horse pills, but moderately sized lozenges
containing 850 mg oil. If you can take horse pills (1 gram oil), you
can get GISSI doses with 4/day (cheapie Kirkland) or 2/day (expensive
Trader Joe's molecularly distilled).

None of these numbers look like 21. You are an innumerate, ignorant,
horse's ass. Also, you should stay away from blackjack tables in Vegas.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.life-extension
Subject: Fish Oil and the Feds
Date: 9 May 2005 22:18:04 -0700
Message-ID: <1115702284.303532.286140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

>>The study advances scientists' understanding of how fatty fish affect
the heart, said Dr. Jean Olson of the National Heart, Lung and Blood
Institute, which funded it. For consumers, "the bottom line is, 'Eat
more fish,'" she said .<<

COMMENT:

Another unhelpful opinion from another government "expert" who just
doesn't get it.

We are repeating the vitamin wars of 20 years ago, in which all kinds
of good things were found out about this or that vitamin (folate,
say), and a ton of government money was spent to find out how much this
or that vitamin was in foods, and how they should be prepared, and how
much leached out into the water you boil your vegetables in, and ad
nauseum. But it made a lot of nutritionists happy for decades because
it paid their salaries. And did the public no good at all. Finally, in
the case of folate, after a few thousand more deformed babies were
born, there was a giant argument between a bunch of government
conservatives (at the NIH) and another set (at the FDA) until finally a
third bunch of government types who were a wee bit more enlightened (at
the USDA) finally won out. Then the feds just started mandating the
addition of folate to "enriched" flour. That actually began solving the
problem. It was very much the same story as adding iodide to salt three
generations earlier. And as with iodine, the food-fettish nutritionists
fought folate pills all the way until the day folate finally wound up
in flour. Then they shut up. And moved on to the next nutrient.


We've seen this before. It took about half a century for
multivitamin/mineral pills to be accepted by nutritionists, because
such pills made about half of what nutritionists did for the whole 20th
century (measuring vitamins and minerals in foods and recommending
foods with particular nutrients), irrelevent. But that doesn't mean
that nutritionists have stopped hating supplement pills just because
they finally gave in on multivitamins. As we said, if what's in the
supplement pill is added to your food by your helpful government, that
nutrient will drop off the nutritionist radar screens. Until then,
however, professional nutritionists will be in the middle of things,
screwing things up, wasting money, and trying to get people to do
*anything* but take the nutrient pill.


I suspect we won't be rid of the unwanted and unhelpful advice of this
pesky profession on the omega-3 issue until the USDA finds a way to add
EPA+DHA to the food supply somehow---- and since that's going to be
very difficult due to the needed dose and oxygen sensitivity of these
nutrients, I suspect his nonsense will instead drag on for decades.
Look for a lot more fishmeal to be fed to chickens and pigs and beef,
but it won't be enough. After all, it took decades to get DHA into
canned infant formula (lowering a lot of infant IQs in the process, no
doubt), and that is an EASY chemical problem compared with getting DHA
into the general adult food supply in any kind of preventive amounts.


So meanwhile, here we are again, back with a new thing (long chain
omega-3 FA's) and we're stuck at war with the anti-supplement-pill
nutritionists as usual. Will we never learn? Unless you eat sardines or
red/sockeye salmon, you really don't know how much omega-3's in that
fish in front of you. So why go through all the nonsense trying to
figure it out?  Take an omega-3 EPA/DHA supplement! It's cheap (25
cents a day). It works (has been proven in prospective double blind
studies of fish oil supplements in heart patients). End of omega-3
problem. It seems too simple. It IS too simple.


The simple fix is not happening for more than one reason. Not only do
we have the anti-pill nutritionists screwing things up so more people
don't take fishoil pills, but on the other side we have the Rx
*pill-pushing* pharm-FDA industrial complex. This coalition has made
sure the government (or your government sponsored health plan) is
paying for some share of your prescription items, and that you don't or
won't really count a pill as "real" medicine or "strong" medicine
*unless* a doctor prescribes it for you, a pharmacist gives it to you,
and your health plan pays for it. Which, in the case of fish oil
capsules, the FDA and the DHHS and USPTO are making difficult enough
that it's not likely to happen.


Again, however, fish oil pills are supplements which do as well or
better than the top-selling statins at preventing cardiac death in
people with coronary disease. But, even though the AHA weakly endorses
fish oil pills (along, of course, with all the various kinds of fatty
and confusing fish) relatively few people with coronary disease take
them. The government pays for their angioplastics, their bypasses and
(yes) their statins. And their cholesterol binders and niacin and
fibrates and so on. Even their aspirin (provided it can be made to look
powerful and be extra expensive). But not their fish oil pills. The
only thing the government DOES pay for nutritionally, is studies by a
bevy of nutritionists to look at fish as food and figure out ways to
divert people's attention from fish oil supplements. Go figure.


Fish oil capsules are example of an easy, inexpensive, and fairly
effective treatment for a very difficult and expensive problem
(coronary disease--- I don't review the many other uses for them). Of
course, fish oil capsules are not a cure-all. They won't fix heart
disease. They don't lower cholesterol that well, though they do a good
job on triglycerides. They are apparently excellent antiarrhythmics.
They may act synergistically with prescription drugs in heart disease
to prevent death, and I expect they do. They merely deserve to be seen
as on par with the best pharmacological therapies (in terms of effect)
and as easily beating many medical therapies in terms of cost, safety,
and side effects. I personally have zero commercial interest in them.
But in terms of bang-for-buck, I find them incredibly impressive.


And yet, your government is doing almost everything it can, short of
making fish oil pills actually *illegal,* to keep the average person
from swallowing them. They pay for prescription drugs that don't work
(fibrates). They pay for studies on what fish to eat (but none which
can tell you for sure how to avoid those full of mercury and which have
little omega-3s). The government is unlikely to pay for studies on fish
oil pills (the biggest one was done in Italy), and the government
prescription drug benefit of course will not pay for the fish oil pills
themselves. How is that for strange?  It's almost enough to make one
wonder about conspiracies. But it's not. It's simply the usual
confederacy of dunces we saw with iodine, niacin, folate, and so on.
And it's the usual information problem which crimps our use of almost
any nutrient in a pill.


And it's not as though the health care system we have, has much "bang
for buck," that they don't need to look for other ways to attack health
problems. Rather the opposite. Those treadmills, CCU's, nuclear heart
scans, bypasses, angioplasties and statin drugs are breaking the
healthcare system. They contribute greatly to medicaid costs which are
growing exponentially everywhere. I heard the governnor of Virginia the
other night on CNN bemoan the fact that medicaid is now 24% of his
state budget, and doubing in cost every 7 years (that way lies
bankrupcy very soon). Medicaid costs now DRIVE most state budgets, even
ahead of K-12 ed.  But no state is going broke trying to supply
"vulnerable populations" with fish oil capsules. They ARE, however,
going broke trying to decide whether to pay for Lipitor vs Pravachol.
The fish oil, by contrast, would actually be financially do-able. How's
that for irony?


SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.life-extension,sci.med.cardiology,sci.med.nutrition,
	misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: Fish Oil and the Feds
Date: 10 May 2005 10:18:42 -0700
Message-ID: <1115745522.349957.153670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

>>The big problem, of course, is that nobody will give physicians cash
or vacations or whatnot to push the stuff.  A physician will write a
prescription for a statin (also good things) in a heartbeat, because
there is an infrastructure in place that incents a lot of people with
big bucks for that action. <<

COMMENT:

Though, in truth, not the physician writing the prescription. All he or
she gets is a free pen. And he gets that whether he prescribes a lot or
a little statin. The cash and vacations is for the lecturers, but
everybody knows very well they're biased and are on the take. Their
influence is undoubted, but it's there because of the huge money
available to pharma, as a result of the structure of patents and the
nature of the FDA.  If you want the source of the problem, look there.
Big industry influences politics also. Is this essentially because of
the differential "greed" of campaign managers, vs. other professions?
No.  It's money corrupting truth. It happens in every field and every
human endevor.

Maybe we need free fish pens?  You heard it here first. Sponsored by
the Alaska Salmon Institute?

Actually, "prescribing" fish oil is not a painless or low-time
exercise, as there are endless questions about it from patients, and
enough complaints and drama from many of them to sound as though you'd
asked them to swallow live goldfish every day.  They can't remember.
They complain of the cost (not covered). They can't find Costco. They
get to Costco and can't find the fish oil. They complain about horse
pills and fish burps and gas. They want to know about alternative fish
products. Nobody pays the doctor a nickel to explain this stuff, and a
doctor has to generate $200 an hour to keep his/her practice afloat.
It's not a matter of greed so much as economic survival. YOU just try
getting your dentist to spend 15 minutes with you explaining proper
brushing technique and discussing various brands of powered
toothbrushes.  YOU get your local plumber on the phone and see how long
you can get him to talk about the virtues of the various draincleaners
and drain unclogging methods. Get a lawyer on the phone for 15 minutes
of free discussion about your favorite legal bind. This is (damnit) not
some special greed problem of doctors. This is an problem of
information transfer which all professions and professions run into.

Fish oil has one other problem. Unlike the statins, fishoil at a dose
of 3 or 4 grams a day doesn't lower some magic number (like LDL) to
show that it's "working." It might have some minor effect on
triglyerides, but the average person's triglycerides are in "normal"
range anyway. Fish oil is mostly an antiarhythmic, but like some
classes of antiarythmic (notably the beta blockers) it does better at
blocking the bad and nasty rhythms than it does in inhibiting the minor
and meaningless dysrhythmias (PVDs, PADs, etc).  People tend to use
things they can see an immediate effect from, and for a long time that
problem plagued beta blockers vs. oral Class I agents.  A lot of people
died that way. It wasn't greed (doctors don't get paid to prescribe one
more than the other). Just human nature. Fish oil has the same problem.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.life-extension,sci.med.cardiology,sci.med.nutrition,
	misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: Fish Oil and the Feds
Date: 10 May 2005 22:57:22 -0700
Message-ID: <1115791042.900299.189320@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

> The fish burps, at least, can be mostly avoided by taking the pills
> right before bed.  You may still get the fish burps, but you won't
> know it.

>>I've never noticed them.  Do they cause the production of excess gas
or is the problem just the odour for those who already have it. And, what
about flax oil, for instance instead of fish oil? <<


COMMENT:

Digestive systems differ, and I suspect all adapt to new diets
eventually, unless there's a true allergy.

I've never had the gas, so can't tell you about it except secondhand. I
gather that the problem is shear volume, not particular smell.

The burps, which I call Beluga Burps, seem to be worse or better
depending on what you eat. They're not particularly annoying unless
you're not used to eating sardines or sushi or King Oscar kippered
herring filets (yum says Opus).  So far as I can tell, none of this
make it to the breath, if you take merely pills.  If you can't stand
the burps, they can be considerably decreased with the enteric coated
fish oil, which is also available from Costco (albeit at a markup per
gram of w-3, something a bit over a factor of 2).

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.life-extension,sci.med.cardiology,sci.med.nutrition,
	misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: Fish Oil and the Feds
Date: 10 May 2005 23:44:06 -0700
Message-ID: <1115793846.188645.48410@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

>>And, what about flax oil, for instance instead of fish oil?


Efficiency in converting the 18:4w3 ALA from flax to 20:5 EPA and
22:6w3 from algea (and the fish that eat them) is rather poor. Even the
fish have a hard time, since they get them from the algae.

Furthermore, epidemiological studies of ALA consumption have not turned
up nearly the protective effect against heart disease that EPA and DHA
confer. Canadians get twice the ALA we do, from Canola. But their heart
disease rates aren't much diffferent.

Flax or Canola are fine, but fish oil has it's own special functions.
Although ALA also may itself have some functions we don't know about,
aside from being a EPA and DHA precursor. Jury's still out.  So Canola
or linseed AND fish.  2 grams of ALA a day should be plenty. Though you
might need more if you're a vegan and get no fish at all.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,misc.health.alternative,sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Study: Broil or bake fish for heart benefits
Date: 9 May 2005 20:49:18 -0700
Message-ID: <1115696958.074465.105770@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

Thank you.  I'm sure that study must have been a shock to him. No, I
don't think I'm going to see that bet money he offered.

It is too bad he didn't read the coconut oil/tropical oil literature,
which has recently pointed out quite reasonably that many studies which
purport to show the atherogenicity of coconut and palm oils, are really
showing the atherogenicity of EFA deficiency. Populations which eat
tropical oils, but which get enough EFA from other sources, don't have
specially high rates of heart disease. It's not so much that saturated
fats are bad per se, but that very *high* sat fat/PUFA ratios are bad,
especially in the setting of poor vitamin nutrition (as we see in
Finland and Ireland of years ago).

It's quite a shock that you can give rats and dogs atherosclerosis by
depriving them of EFAs. How much easier is it to do the same with
monkeys and people?  Quite easy. But all this was forgotten a long time
ago in the war on specific nutrients like saturated fats, which then
proceded to get mixed up in the very much more legitimate war on trans
fats. Through it all, there were all those French and Italians and
Greeks eating all the butter and cheese they liked, and doing very
well, thanks. But they also got a lot of fish and produce and vitamins,
so it wasn't as much of a paradox as first appears.  It's only one if
you think saturated fat PER SE is evil and atherogenic. Which it is
not.

Montygram has gone to the other extreme dumb position, and thinks that
essential fatty acids and PUFAs are evil.  That's wrong also.  Many of
them are necessary nutrients. If you don't have them, your arteries
will clog up and you'll die. Even if you're a rat or a dog.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,misc.health.alternative,sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Study: Broil or bake fish for heart benefits
Date: 9 May 2005 21:07:30 -0700
Message-ID: <1115698050.619036.191750@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

>>Fish oils will often have anchovy oils but even salmon oil will be
higher in purines than a salmon meal. <<

Good heavens, no.  Purines are found in DNA and aren't in general oil
soluble. Fish oil will have far less purines in it than and equivalent
amount of the meat itself, which still contains lots of DNA. Remember,
the meat of most Salmon is only 1 to 2% w-3 EFAs, and the capsules are
typically 30-50%.  You need to use that factor of 30 it comparing them.

Gout sufferers, take the fishoil capsules. They're antiinflammatory.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,misc.health.alternative,sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Study: Broil or bake fish for heart benefits
Date: 9 May 2005 21:12:22 -0700
Message-ID: <1115698342.533882.213750@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

>>Fish oils will often have anchovy oils but even salmon oil will be
higher in purines than a salmon meal.<<

No. You must be confusing the purine content of anchovies or sardines
in oil, with the oil itself. The purines are in the organs of those
small fish, which you eat when you eat them whole. NOT in their oils.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,misc.health.alternative,sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Study: Broil or bake fish for heart benefits
Date: 10 May 2005 09:42:33 -0700
Message-ID: <1115743353.912901.189130@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

>>I don't know what the purine content of fishoils is. They don't list
that on the label. I noticed most fishoil (here at least) is not pure
salmon oil. It's a combination including salmon but listing anchovy
first.

So...ummm...they fillet the critters before packing them into the
capsule? <<

COMMENT:

No, of course they don't. But when they mash them, the DNA and ATP in
the organs of the critters does not come out in the oil, since DNA and
ATP don't dissolve in oil. And you can take my word on that.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,misc.health.alternative,sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Study: Broil or bake fish for heart benefits
Date: 10 May 2005 09:47:28 -0700
Message-ID: <1115743648.612194.276620@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

>>How about a spoonful of natural honey as an alternative to
policosanol? <<

How about a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down?  How about
Mary Poppins and some dancing penquins?

In fact, there is very little evidence that "lifestyle" changes (if by
"lifestyle" that you mean changing your diet and exercising, as opposed
to taking fishoil pills) work as a secondary preventive for cardiac
death in those with cardiac disease. The endpoint in Ornish wasn't
death, and in fact his study was too underpowered to show any mortality
difference. And it was quite draconian.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,misc.health.alternative,sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Study: Broil or bake fish for heart benefits
Date: 10 May 2005 09:51:17 -0700
Message-ID: <1115743877.416708.300450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

>>Any thoughts on polycosanol as a statin alternative?


Polycosinols are a sugarcane alcohol, and most of the work on them is
from Cuba, and is basically iron-curtain science, even after the iron
curtain is gone from Europe. Mostly unrepeatable except in Cuba, where
there seems to be a magical force field that produces them. Probably
from the iron curtain's having moved over and contracted about what JFK
called that "imprisoned isle."

Polycosinol has done nothing in my own patients on LDL, whereas I've
never failed to see SOME statin effect.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.life-extension,sci.med.cardiology,sci.med.nutrition,
	misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: Fish Oil and the Feds
Date: 11 May 2005 11:52:39 -0700
Message-ID: <1115837559.222927.241120@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

>>Fish oils lower CRP if some magic marker is needed. I wouldn't say
that fish oils have a minor effect on triglyserides. <<

They do at reasonable GISSI doses, and for mortality reduction. In the
triglyceride reduction study you quote, the doses are 7 grams w-3 a
day, which is indeed the 20 capsules that Ghode was complaining about.
For triglyceride treatment, you really need a lot of fishoil. But we
weren't talking about triglycerides.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: Fish Oil and the Feds
Date: 11 May 2005 11:49:41 -0700
Message-ID: <1115837381.749385.265590@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

>>To the question if fish oil is being ignored by the scientific
community, a quick look at medline shows 3616 seperate scientific papers
of which it has some part.  If one reads the nutrition related journals
it is clear that it is not an avoided subject of research. <<



COMMENT:

I didn't suggest that. Only that it's being (relatively) avoided by the
clinical community. Which is where it needs to go.  Safety and efficacy
have been demonstrated. What we lack right now is advertising, because
there's no money for it. And prescription health plan pay coverage. As
with Levitra or Crestor.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,misc.health.alternative,sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Study: Broil or bake fish for heart benefits
Date: 15 May 2005 11:38:22 -0700
Message-ID: <1116182302.517819.64040@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

>>Fishmeal for human use exists. But maybe forbidden to be imported in
the US. If concerned about omega-3 intake, import it. It is produced
at least in Iceland and Norway (where you may buy it in health shops,
in packages of 250 g, now packed in inert atmosphere) <<


COMMENT:

Hey, you can buy lutefisk, too, but I don't know why you would. Yecch.
Just buy the frigging pills, okay?  Unless you're into Scandinavian
fish tortures.

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,sci.med
Subject: Re: fish oil doesn't lower risk for AFIBBERS with defibrillators
Date: 9 Jun 2005 12:08:24 -0700
Message-ID: <1118344104.396024.12690@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

If fish prevents MI sudden death without interfering with the worst
dysrhythmias PER SE, then perhaps it's preventing new acute MI's
somehow. Fascinating!

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: misc.kids.pregnancy,sci.med,sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: good sources of dha?
Date: 25 Jul 2005 14:15:18 -0700
Message-ID: <1122326118.300923.285210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

billybob@beetle.net wrote:
> what are some good natural (preferably vegetarian) sources of DHA, and
> omega-3 fatty acid (I believe).  Does flax seed contain it?  thanks.

There are no good vegetarian sources of DHA readily available, as you'd
have to get it from ocean plankton. Perhaps somebody's molecularly
distilling it from that source by now (look on the web) but it's going
to be VERY expensive.

The omega-3 in flax is 18 carbons, and is turned into the 22 carbn DHA
in your body only poorly. It's better than nothing, but fish oil
capsules or red salmon is a much better way to get DHA.

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: misc.kids.pregnancy,sci.med,sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: good sources of dha?
Date: 26 Jul 2005 11:40:26 -0700
Message-ID: <1122403226.369636.25890@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Dawid Michalczyk wrote:
> Rich sources of EPA and DHA: cod liver oil and fatty fish.

Cod liver oil has too much vitamin A to be a very good source. "Fatty
fish" must be from cold water, not have mercury, and (above all) must
not be farmed, since that results in lower levels of omega-3 EFAs (fish
can't make omega-3 EFA either-- they have to eat it; fish farms usually
don't give them much in their feed).



> Rich sources of GLA: black currant, borage, primrose.


COMMENT:

"Rich" in some cases means you have to BE rich to buy much GLA, if you
use the wrong one. Per gram of GLA, evening primrose is very expensive,
black current next, and borage by far the least expensive. If you
insist on evening primrose you'll pay 5 times as much for a gram of GLA
as with borage.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Vegetarians have lower CHD risk than omnivores
Date: 17 Aug 2005 21:37:52 -0700
Message-ID: <1124339872.528258.5540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Just Cocky wrote:
> How do you explain that the longest living people on this planet, the
> Okinawans, are not vegetarians?

COMMENT:

Because it's just as Huxley suspected in _After Many A Summer Dies the
Swan_.  A significant antiaging principle is to be found in fresh fish
and fish guts, and peoples who eat those, live longest (Japanese
including Okinawans, Icelanders, Pacific Islanders).

Vegans miss out in our closest present answer to an antiaging pill.

Sorry, you poor dumb vegan sods. Sorry, Monty-- maybe one of your
coconuts will hit you on the head hard enough to knock some sense into
it. Meanwhile I'm taking my fish oil and lots of it. :). I urge all to
do the same.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Vegetarian diets: what are the advantages?
Date: 17 Aug 2005 21:45:48 -0700
Message-ID: <1124340347.984787.52920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

George Cherry wrote:
> Name just ONE "animal-sourced lipid or protein"
> not available in plant foods. The only non-plant essential
> nutritional substance identified by science is cobalamin.
> Try http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed
> The abstracts there have been vetted a bit.


COMMENT:

The only natural plants that make EPA and DHA are out in the ocean and
are hard to get for vegans, unless you're a krill or a big eater of
krill. Humans make DHA and EPA out of ALA, but we're bad at it when
we're young and when we're old, and I suspect that as people get older,
most of them don't get enough. Thus, these are conditionally essential
nutrients, and are suboptimal on a vegan diet in the elderly. Thus, as
you age, you had better eat some cold water fish or their oils. Or grow
a baleen and do a lot of swimming up North.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Study Casts Doubt on Homeopathy
Date: 29 Aug 2005 15:15:08 -0700
Message-ID: <1125353707.972384.232530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

Just Cocky wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:14:45 -0400, "Dr_Dickie"
> <Dr_Dicke@chembench.com> wrote:

> >BS. If there is substantial, solid scientific evidence that a therapy is
> >effective and safe, it is no longer alternative.
> >
>
> Depends on what you mean by alternative. In many cases, it simply
> means therapies not approved by the FDA or developed by pharmaceutical
> companies. I'd suggest that approval by Government bureaucrats is no
> test of scientific credibility.


COMMENT:

But nobody ever suggested otherwise. For example, based on the ISIS and
other studies, the American Heart Association recommdends that
everybody with coronary disease eat either coldwater fish 3x a week, or
take fish oil pills. None of this is "FDA approved" or government
approved treatment for heart disease (yet--- I'm sure they'll figure
out some way to make you and/or the insurance companies pay more,
probably by isolating DHA as a "drug"). But even though not FDA
approved, because it's an official AHA recommendation, fishoil for
hearts is NOT alternative medicine. The AHA is as orthodox as medicine
gets.

I could say similar things about exercise as a treatment for coronary
event rehab, or for diabetes or obesity. That's not FDA approved,
because it's not a drug or a device. But it's not alternative medicine.
It's as orthodox as there is.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,sci.med,misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: Deficiency in omega-3 fatty acids tied to ADHD
Date: 4 Sep 2005 15:19:18 -0700
Message-ID: <1125872358.747261.286870@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

montygram wrote:
> is discussed in relation to animal models of chemical carcinogenesis
> and the epidemiology of human cancer.
>
> Biochemist Ray Peat has cited much older studies, such as how dogs fed
> fish oil all died of cancer:
>
> "Fifty years ago, it was found that a large amount of cod liver oil in
> dogs' diet increased their death rate from cancer by 20 times, from the
>
> usual 5% to 100%.


COMMENT:

Cod liver oil, which has toxic amounts of vitamin A if used as a major
dietary component, cannot be compared with fish (body) oil.


>  A diet rich in fish oil causes intense production of
> toxic lipid peroxides, and has been observed to reduce a man's sperm
> count to zero.  [H. Sinclair, Prog. Lipid Res. 25, 667, 1989.]"

COMMENT:

No such paper exists on medline. Would you like to provide the full
citation?

The idea is dunderheaded, anyway. If diets rich in fish oils reduced
men's sperm counts to zero, there would be no Eskimos to be transported
here and there in the North, by their cancerous sled dogs.

Give us a break.  I've posted a dozen papers showing omega-3
supplementation makes oxidative damage drop, in vivo. The only papers
where it climbs are artificial ones where they mince the tissue, expose
it to oxygen, and let the normal protective antioxidant systems die.
But inside your body, it doesn't happen that way.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,sci.med,misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: Deficiency in omega-3 fatty acids tied to ADHD
Date: 5 Sep 2005 19:44:39 -0700
Message-ID: <1125974679.352331.309190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

C.Health wrote:
> Considering your background, why do you think that [fish oil] is not
> regularly used as part of a protocol for ADHD, based on the clinical
> studies showing its efficaciousness?


COMMENT:

All the usual reasons. No profit in it. Bigger pills, harder to
swallow.

Fish oil, contain as it does the main fatty acid of the brain, DHA, has
a calming and salutory effect on the brain, increasing serotonin and
decreasing irritability if the person hasn't been getting optimal ALA
or DHA in the diet. If I were top shrink, DHA it would be the base of
all treatment of all mental illnesses, along with a good stiff megadose
vitamin.

The problem with nutrition and mental illness, is that experimentally
induced shortage in human volunteers of many vitamins (and probably w-3
too) produces either 1) lethargy, 2) irritablity, or 3) depression. And
those are all so common in psychiatry (as are very bad diets), that how
in the world can you be sure you're not seeing some effect of bad diet
unless you correct it, THEN see what mental illnesses are left?

Back in the bad old days, ship Captains knew that when the crew fights
began to break out about 2 months into the voyage, scurvy was next.

Anyway, medicine will eventually come around. Neither the
orthomolecular people or the standard shrinks are right, in my humble
opinion.  A better strategy is some middle ground. You first do up the
nutrition really well (even using drugs as a stopgap to get supplements
down your patients if you must), THEN back off and use the long term
psych drugs only on what's LEFT after a month of supplementation and
talk therapy.

Of course, all this takes a huge amount of nursing care (anxious,
depressed, nauseous, angry, schizoid patients are not going to want to
swallow ten big pills even if they are fishoil and vitamins), and
thereby institutional expense. And there's the rub. But in the end, it
would probably pay for itself. I don't have time to post the positive
studies of things like fishoil on psych problems (at least down here in
the American corn-fed heartland), but as you say, there are quite a few
of them.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology
Subject: Re: Meta-analysis finds fish oil reduces heart rate
Date: 27 Sep 2005 17:46:56 -0700
Message-ID: <1127868416.823979.11490@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Dan wrote:
> The results of a meta-analysis reported online on September 19, 2005 in
> the American Heart Association journal Circulation, "provide firm
> evidence that fish oil consumption directly or indirectly affects
> cardiac electrophysiology in humans," via the finding that consuming
> the oil reduces heart rate. Higher heart rate is a major independent
> risk factor for death from cardiovascular disease, especially sudden
> death.
>
> http://debunkbigpharma.blognation.us/blog/_archives/2005/9/27/1262873.html

I've seen that rate decrease in myself, I think. I dropped 5 to 10 bpm
going from 0 to 10 grams of fish oil per day. But attributed it to
something else I was doing right.

How about that.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Especially For Montygram: Fish and the Aging Brain
Date: 11 Oct 2005 18:02:20 -0700
Message-ID: <1129078940.477792.23240@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/10/health/webmd/main931654.shtml

I'm thinking I need a fish symbol on my trunk to show my commitment to
saving my brain. But it appears I've been scooped there.

I keep thinking of Dr. Obispo in Huxley's _After Many A Summer Dies the
Swan_. He'd have loved this.

SBH

(Not statins in the water-- FISH in the water).

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Especially For Montygram: Fish and the Aging Brain
Date: 13 Oct 2005 16:43:08 -0700
Message-ID: <1129246988.682811.139500@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Juhana Harju wrote:
> "The evidence for association between the different types of [omega]-3 fatty
> acids and cognitive change was weak at best and only with [alpha]-linolenic
> acid in analyses restricted to long-term fish consumers. These findings are
> in contrast to our previous study, in which we observed strong reductions in
> Alzheimer disease risk among persons with high intakes of total [omega]-3
> fatty acids, DHA, and [alpha]-linolenic acid. - -
>
> "The absence of association with DHA raises the possibility that the
> observed fish association was due to some other dietary constituent or
> perhaps to another factor that is related to cognitive health and fish
> consumption."
>
> So it could be some other factor, perhaps phospholipids in fish, as I
> suspect.


COMMENT

Or, it could be they were right about the association the first time,
and missed it the second time. Other work from other groups makes me
suspect the latter.


SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,sci.med.nutrition,sci.med
Subject: Re: Costco fishoil equivalent to wild salmon oil?
Date: 22 Oct 2005 10:10:31 -0700
Message-ID: <1130001031.220832.250170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

fresh~horses wrote:
> "2) what is the omega-3 fatty acid content? That's the important
> fraction"
>
> This could be hard to figure out. It's not on the bottle or the website
> for the one I use, bought on sale. When they're gone I'll shop around a
> bit more. What's ideal, do you know?


Presumably there's no ideal, as the best clinical trials have been done
with cold water fishoil (standardized to 30 to 35% EPA + DHA), mostly
derived from menhaden, not the purified EPA/DHA. We presume the EFA or
the DHA is the good stuff, but cold water fishoil is many dozens of
fatty acid triglycerides, some of them very odd and rare ones. The
other 70% may not be just junk.

Recently we've seen some purified fishoil concentrates on the market
with higher quantities of EPA/DHA (around 55%-60%). Whether these are
any better for you is up for grabs. They aren't what the studies were
done with it, so we can't be sure. Costco formerly had two brands-- a
non-concentrated and a concentrated enteric. Contents are on the label.
Costco fish oil had been analysed by Consumer Reports which gave it a
superior rating for rancidity. Other than that, I can't advise. It is
very inexpensive, and it's what I personally take.

Red (sockeye) salmon has been recommended for eating because it can't
be cultured, and cultured salmon has variable quantities of EPA and DHA
(depending on what the fish were fed), as well as whatever contaminants
happen to be in the feed. Cultured salmon can has as little has half
the EPA nad DHA in it as wild cold water fish, which all seem to
contain somewhere around 30% to 40% EPA+DHA in their tissues. Red
salmon are red because of the high amounts of astaxanthin in their
normal marine diet of krill, so they are red for precisely the same
reason that flamingos are pink. This carotenoid might be good for you,
too-- though you won't get any vitamin A from it.

As for red salmon *oil,* I don't have any figures for precise EPA+DHA
content, but it's no doubt about 35% as a natural source cold water
fishoil. Nor do I know if the oil is red (which would mean it contains
astaxantin). You can buy astaxanthin separately, and red salmon oil
tends to be hard to find and expensive in the states. Whether it's
worth the extra money, I cannot say.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,sci.med.nutrition,sci.med
Subject: Re: Costco fishoil equivalent to wild salmon oil?
Date: 22 Oct 2005 10:35:39 -0700
Message-ID: <1130002539.220575.97410@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Steve Harris wrote:

> Red (sockeye) salmon has been recommended for eating because it can't
> be cultured, and cultured salmon has variable quantities of EPA and DHA
> (depending on what the fish were fed), as well as whatever contaminants
> happen to be in the feed. Cultured salmon can has as little has half
> the EPA nad DHA in it as wild cold water fish, which all seem to
> contain somewhere around 30% to 40% EPA+DHA in their tissues. Red
> salmon are red because of the high amounts of astaxanthin in their
> normal marine diet of krill, so they are red for precisely the same
> reason that flamingos are pink. This carotenoid might be good for you,
> too-- though you won't get any vitamin A from it.
>
> As for red salmon *oil,* I don't have any figures for precise EPA+DHA
> content, but it's no doubt about 35% as a natural source cold water
> fishoil. Nor do I know if the oil is red (which would mean it contains
> astaxantin). You can buy astaxanthin separately, and red salmon oil
> tends to be hard to find and expensive in the states. Whether it's
> worth the extra money, I cannot say.


COMMENT:

I should add that canned red (sockeye) salmon is cheap anywhere you go
in the world, and is excellent. In all ways it's a better nutritional
choice than tuna (much less mercury, more of other good stuff), and
better ecologically, too (Alaska has a good record of sustainable
fishing). I long ago switched to red salmon sandwiches instead of tuna.
Just mix in nonfat mayo, salt and pepper, some chopped onions, and
whatever else you like, to make a good sandwich spread.

There's been some complaining in this newsgroup about pesticide and
organohalogen contamination of wild caught fish, but that's a problem
with cultured fish, too (even more so). Whether there's enough of these
things (polutants which are NOT mercury) to be worried about, I cannot
say. All chemicals are detectable everywhere, in SOME amounts. It's the
dose only that makes the poison.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,sci.med.nutrition,sci.med
Subject: Re: Costco fishoil equivalent to wild salmon oil?
Date: 22 Oct 2005 14:36:05 -0700
Message-ID: <1130016965.162496.234400@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Susan wrote:
> If I understand it correctly, fish oil that's been distilled or labeled
> "cholesterol free" has been processed in a way that removes the
> offending pollutants no matter where the fish is from.
>
>
> Susan


COMMENT:

One hopes so, but some of those polutants are volatile, too, so it's
not a done deal. Do you have any studies where they've measured this,
to see? I can't seem to find any.

It is mainly out of faith that any kind of purificatin is good
purification, that I take the distilled stuff. However, irony of
ironies, it's possible they may be distilling out the stuff in fishoil
that actually prevents the heart attacks. :)

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,sci.med.nutrition,sci.med,sci.life-extension,
	talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Capitalism and Life (Re: Costco fishoil equivalent to wild salmon 
	oil?)
Date: 22 Oct 2005 13:19:38 -0700
Message-ID: <1130012378.889096.207650@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

William Wagner wrote:
> In article <1130002962.976194.108800@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>  Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > William Wagner wrote:
> >
> > > I take EPA-DHA
> > > Omega-3 Fish Oil 500
> > >
> > > EPA 300 MG
> > > DHA 200 Mg
> > >
> > > 300 Soft Gels for $42 US     I take  1 a day
> > >
> > > This from "The Vitamin Shoppe"    Item # VS-1045
> > >
> > > Grasping for longivity.
> > >
> > >
> > > Bill
> >
> >
> > Grasping for financial ruin!  The same stuff at COSTCO (same number of
> > roughly equivalent caps, containing 450 mg EPA+DHA) is about a third of
> > the price.
> >
> > SBH
>
> What is COSTCO ?      42/300 = 14 cents a day   You are suggesting  five
> cents a day.  Do you count pennies in 2005?
>
> I leave them at the register otherwise my house vacuum  gets em.
>
> Bill


COMMENT:
If you only take 1 a day I suppose it doesn't matter. I take 10 a day
(about equal to 7 oz of salmon) and it does to me, if only as a matter
of aesthetics in not buying the same stuff in a diffferent bottle, for
3 times as much.  Costco's 300 mg EPA/DHA standard fishoil cap is only
2.3 cents.

FYI Costco: a large discount store in the US, where people who do not
wish to flush their money down the toilet, shop. See also Walmart,
Target, Food-4-Less, and the like.

Being a fan of capitalism and the way it's transforming the world, I
enjoy megastores. Today, as an example, I note that Costco has added a
"universal casket" kiosk. I am not making this up. There are sample
"corners" of 6 universal casket types to touch and feel, and a photo,
and some promo. And order forms. Cost for any casket is $800, plus
shipping free in a 75 mile radius (order to delivery time 48 hours).
Outside that radius, shipping charge $125.  You can have The Kentucky
Rose Casket, the Brian Casket, the Mother Casket, the In God's Care
casket, the Morgan Casket, and finally the Catholic special, the Lady
of Guadelupe Casket.  Just fill out the handy Costco Wholesale order
form with name of deceased, contact info, Date of Viewing and Service,
Funeral Home contact info, and there you are. You can confirm orders by
calling 1-866-458-2800.

I've seen stand-alone casket wholesale stores in places like San
Francisco, for some years (in the 1990's people were dying to get in).
However, this is the first time I've seen a casket section in a
megastore. The price of $800 is extremely reasonable for this kind of
thing. And I'll bet it gives the average funeral director the same
feeling my vet gets when he sees the TV-mail order PETMEDs. But that's
Gresham's Law of the Jungle.

Over in another corner of the Costco store are basinetts. You may have
heard of cradle to grave socialism?  In the US, it's possible to see
cradle to grave capitalism, and all under one roof. And it's not that
expensive, because it all comes from China. You see. I'm glad I don't
have to explain this. :)

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,sci.med.nutrition,sci.med
Subject: Re: Costco fishoil equivalent to wild salmon oil?
Date: 22 Oct 2005 14:50:46 -0700
Message-ID: <1130017846.142617.313460@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

fresh~horses wrote:
> Costco memberships are $50 annually and one would have to add that to
> the price of the fishoil.


Yes, if that's all you used it for. But there's other stuff at Costco.
See my other message in this thread.  You can buy _Harry Potter and His
New Pubic Hair_ for $5.99. It's an amazing place.


> Prairie Naturals
> Salmon-Force
> 1000 mg Wild Salmon Oil
> Each softgel contains:
> wild salmon oil = 1,000 mg
> capsule consists of gelatin, glycerine and purified water
> contains no wheat yeast starch, dairy, artificial colour or
> preservatives.
> Yes. The oil is red.
>
> $12.99 for 180 softgels


Fascinating. Well, you're getting a 2-fer-1 with the red astaxanthin
you're seeing, so it's hard to compare.

SBH

From: Steve Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,sci.med.nutrition,sci.med
Subject: Re: Costco fishoil equivalent to wild salmon oil?
Date: 23 Oct 2005 12:31:57 -0700
Message-ID: <1130095917.681287.308100@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

fresh~horses wrote:
> If you have a freezer <<cough>> you can buy whole dressed wild Alaska
> Salmon in season and freeze it.


It's on my list of things to do. I think I'll also add some red-oil
salmon capsules to my distilled stuff, for reasons mentioned (perhaps
they distill out the good stuff?). I'm a fan of brightly colored
supplements and foods, for their magical properties.

SBH