Fish Oil Supplements May Increase Cancer Risk by 70% - Are You in the Health Niche?

39 replies
This post really isn't about fish oil supplements, but more about protecting your backside because misleading or incomplete claims are made on your website.

Fish oil supplements have been popularly promoted as a means of reducing cholesterol and heart disease. Personally, my doctor recommended I take 1200 mg a day to reduce cholesterol risk, and my bottle of Nature Made supplements proudly says it may reduce the risk of heart disease.

It is a common type of claim for supplements, not necessarily unique to fish oil.

Now there is apparently a study indicating the one pill a day plan may increase the risk of deadly prostate cancer by 70 percent:

Taking omega-3 fish oil supplements may increase the risk of aggressive prostate cancer by 70% | Mail Online

If the one study turns out to be medically established, anyone recommending the supplements is fair game for a lawsuit. Doctors. Supplement makers. Retailers. Website promoters. It is a huge potential opportunity for lawyers.

(Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if lawsuits started to be filed this month.)

So how do you protect yourself in the health niche? Not just from fish oil supplements, but for any health product you promote. You never know when a study may come out and it suddenly appears you are recommending a cancer causing product.

1. Include disclaimers on your website. If you are in the health niche you should already have disclaimers, including disclosures about supplements not being regulated. Since health and medical issues are so varied, persons should be told to always consult with their doctor before taking a health related product or supplement.

A product good for most of the population could turn out to be deadly or dangerous for persons with certain conditions, a condition you may never have considered. This is why you have disclaimers.

2. Double-check you do not have false claims on your site. A disclaimer does not "disclaim away" false statements.

3. If you are promoting a product you may want to indicate that claims about the product come from the manufacturer and not something you dreamed up.

4. Never use the word 'cure'. Sorry, but whatever you are promoting will likely not cure cancer, blindness, hair loss, etc.

5. Keep on top of your industry. You want your website to be a trusted source of information so visitors come back and readers rely on your recommendations for buying products. This means discussing bad news, such as one study suggesting increased cancer risks of 70% and perhaps doing additional reporting about any other study of the issue.

In fact, even if you are not promoting fish supplements, discussing this news fish story on your site could be useful to highlight how a product even doctors think is healthy to take can turn out to be dangerous. You can use this to impliedly suggest even though you are promoting what are believed to be healthy products, it may turn out in the future they have problems. There are plenty of examples in medical history where products once touted as healthy, or believed benign, turned out to be horribly dangerous.

.
#70% #cancer #fish #health #increase #niche #oil #risk #supplements
  • Profile picture of the author ravenx
    Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

    4. Never use the word 'cure'. Sorry, but whatever you are promoting will likely not cure cancer, blindness, hair loss, etc.
    Guess this doesn't apply to your signature...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8269195].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Bisturi
    Did you even bother to dig into the study and see how it was totally taken out of context, or do you usually take for granted what a gossip newspaper publishes to gain more readership? Did you double check that what was written in that newspaper is actually the truth?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8269270].message }}
  • I know not to trust any study, i got sick doing it especially government approved ones they are the worse. It's hard to figure out what is real and what not and my guess is it's good for people (for them it's good) to be sick, can you imagine if everyone was healthy? They can't allow that kind of thing to go on so they is why more then half of people are sick, just my guess. I got healthy doing opposite of what they tell me it works for me at least.
    Signature
    soon people... Relax...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8269389].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LandenLakewood
    I give up, we're all gonna die.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8269587].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SandraLarkin
    Banned
    If the government endorses it you know it is a flat out, bold faced, lie.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8269598].message }}
    • Originally Posted by SandraLarkin View Post

      If the government endorses it you know it is a flat out, bold faced, lie.
      ha, ha but 99% think if government FDA says it's good to eat then it is and they eat it!

      Even if the food is genetically modified to sterilize and kill you as long as it has an FDA stamp the 99% will eat it and love it, I did it, i was that stupid almost died out of ignorance.
      Signature
      soon people... Relax...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8274588].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Johnny12345
    Maybe the study is true. (How the heck would I know, I'm not a doctor or scientist.)

    But my question is this...

    Who paid for that "study"? Because, in my view, it fairly reeks of Big Pharma.

    It's interesting... the article makes a SWEEPING statement that they've never found a supplement that helped any health condition.

    Specifically, Dr. Kristal said, "There is not really a single example of where taking a supplement lowers chronic disease risk."

    Really?

    Well, if that's true, it's certainly GREAT news for the pharmaceutical companies because the only remaining alternative will be their expensive and dangerous drugs.

    I love the drug commercials that show what could only be described as "the happiest people in the world" in beautiful, picturesque surroundings. Then, in a whispered voice or tiny print, they describe the potential side effects -- which are often extremely serious.

    But, yes, by all means, lets get rid of supplements -- the drug companies (and a corrupt FDA) need the money.

    Finally, whether it's true or not, I prefer NOT to get my health information from a website that provides BOTH health advice... and peeks at Paris Hilton's posterior.

    But what do I know... maybe I'm just a misguided skeptic.

    John
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8269747].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author writeaway
    That is a scary report since I take fish oil. As you can imagine, I have stopped. I now use FLAXSEED for my omega 3 but it's not the same compound configuration
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8269782].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author clever7
    Never use the word 'cure'. Sorry, but whatever you are promoting will likely not cure cancer, blindness, hair loss, etc.
    There are safe natural cures that don't depend on traditional medicine. They can cure cancer and many other incurable diseases, but there is a fierce competition in this field.

    Many new alternatives are hidden from the public, or they are despised because many doctors, pharmaceutical industries, and drugstores are quite powerful in our world and they try to eliminate their competitors. They do everything they can to make the public prefer their solutions.

    In this commercial fight, nobody cares about saving human lives. Everyone cares only about selling their own products.







    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8269868].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ChrisDouthit
    Everything causes cancer. I have a better chance of dying of cancer than every other possible death combined.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8269871].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      People are losing the point of the thread. You can argue about the veracity and usefulness of supplements all you want - but if you are making claims about a supplement you are SELLING you need to cover your backside.

      I have a friend who sells machines that "make water alkaline" and insists alkaline water with the proper pH will cure migraines and allergies and arthritis....and cancer. She claims a doctor in the 1930's discovered the magic properties of this water and he cured over 30,000 people who had cancer.

      Of course it's the same old theme of "the medical community and the FDA don't want you to know about this".

      From what I can tell, the machine is nothing more than an ionizer for water - and I've warned her the claim of "cures" could lead to headaches for her.

      She can believe all she wants in the "magic water" - but when she starts selling water machines telling people they'll be "cured" she's on dangerous ground.
      Signature
      Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

      Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8269976].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        People are losing the point of the thread.
        The point seems to have gone over most everyone's head. Keeps my office busy.

        I liked the statement "do you usually take for granted what a gossip newspaper publishes to gain more readership?" At the time I posted, the UK paper had the best article for what was then breaking news. You can now get reports on Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and so on.

        And kudos to whoever claimed the study was taken out of context without providing any facts whatsoever for their drive by post. Aside from the fact the post is not about fish oil, this is apparently the third study to have these results. It was a follow-up to a 2011 study and is similar to a study in Europe.

        Ironically, since posting this morning my office settled an advertising case. Just your average marketer who didn't think a "bet your company" legal claim would arrive in the mail. One day it did.

        .
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8270112].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Johnny12345
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        People are losing the point of the thread.

        Nope. I got the point. It just seemed like a natural tangent to go off on. (Again, who PAID for that study?)

        That said, Kindsvater's post reveals the reason why I very rarely write sales copy for supplements or any product that makes specific health claims.

        It's dangerous to swim in the shark-infested waters of the FDA.

        John
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8273544].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dan Grossman
          Originally Posted by Johnny12345 View Post

          (Again, who PAID for that study?)
          The National Cancer Institute at the National Institute of Health (cancer.gov/nih.gov)... this was not privately funded by any company or interest group. The NCI has been funded by Congress to do cancer research for the benefit of the nation since its creation by the National Cancer Institute Act of 1937. It's pure public good science, and they give grants to universities and hospitals doing research on preventing or curing cancer.

          The original trial (SELECT) from which this data came was on 35,000 men who were followed for 7 years. Omega-3 fatty acids are only one of the supplements whose possible link to cancer rates were studied by multiple research groups funded by multiple grants. Selenium and vitamin E were the first studied and what the trial was named after (Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial), but selenium had no benefit and taking too much vitamin E slightly increased the risk of prostate cancer compared to placebo.

          There's absolutely no angle you can attack this study from with some conspiracy theory. It was good, pure, publicly funded, peer-reviewed science with a clear result at high statistical confidence.
          Signature
          Improvely: Built to track, test and optimize your marketing.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8273568].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dan Grossman
    I've set up e-commerce stores for health shops before. If they sell a single supplement, I won't let the design get published without at least this disclaimer on every product's page:

    Statements about products and health conditions have not been evaluated by the US Food and Drug Administration. Products and information presented herein are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should consult with a physician or other healthcare professional.
    ...ESPECIALLY if you do any private labeling. If you push a supplement and someone gets sick or dies because of it, they're going to sue you for millions. If you didn't get an insurance policy that specifically underwrites selling health supplements, you're screwed.
    Signature
    Improvely: Built to track, test and optimize your marketing.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8270156].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author FreeMeal
    The British Press are known for paying Universities and academics to come up with all sorts of stuff. The Daily Mail / Mail Online has a particularly bad reputation for it. It's pretty much gutter-press rag.

    That said, I think your advice is applicable for marketers across a lot of niches, not just the health niche.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8270314].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kencalhn
    Brian's post is outstanding, as he says at the beginning, it's all about putting in place protective measures by avoiding claims that can cause problems. That's the point. And it's a very smart one to make. Working with an excellent IM attorney like Brian is a good way to help stay on the right side of things; staying legally correct and compliant is key. He knows his stuff. Brian's very good at what he does, and he highlights one good example of something to check into, with the point being there may be similar claim-related issues that can cause problems for marketers in that and other niches, so be careful out there.

    The point of his post is not about fish oil supplements. (insert facepalm graphic here, lol). It's about claims on your website, and staying compliant. Big picture compliance issues are really important to be aware of, and stay correct with, in everything from claims, testimonials, and everything else the FTC requires compliance in. Thanks for the example, Brian, makes sense.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8270331].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dan Grossman
    Originally Posted by FreeMeal

    The British Press are known for paying Universities and academics to come up with all sorts of stuff. The Daily Mail / Mail Online has a particularly bad reputation for it. It's pretty much gutter-press rag.
    This study was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. It is one of the most, if not the most, prestigious journals that peer-reviewed cancer research can be published in.

    Plasma Phospholipid Fatty Acids and Prostate Cancer Risk in the SELECT Trial

    This was a large, prospective study that was done to either confirm or invalidate previous studies that showed the same link; it confirmed that these fatty acids in the blood are associated with very elevated prostate cancer rates which means there are now multiple large studies with the same result. The researchers were from University of Texas, University of California, University of Washington, National Cancer Institute and the Cleveland Clinic with additional authorship from professors at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center.
    Signature
    Improvely: Built to track, test and optimize your marketing.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8270339].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author SteveSki
      Interesting Audio that Disputes Those Claims at: http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/wp-...-INTERVIEW.mp3
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8272956].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
        Originally Posted by SteveSki View Post

        Interesting Audio that Disputes Those Claims at: http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/wp-...-INTERVIEW.mp3
        Those are some good arguments, but....

        Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

        This post really isn't about fish oil supplements, but more about protecting your backside because misleading or incomplete claims are made on your website.
        ...and...



        If the one study turns out to be medically established, anyone recommending the supplements is fair game for a lawsuit. Doctors. Supplement makers. Retailers. Website promoters. It is a huge potential opportunity for lawyers.

        So it doesn't matter if the study is flawed or if the conclusions derived from it are false, what matters is that if it becomes accepted by the scientific/medical community that fish oils cause cancer, then anybody making contradictory statements to that could get their asses in some legal trouble.
        Signature

        :)

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8275872].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Janice Sperry
    Now the studies need to go further. There is a huge disparity in the quality of health food supplements including fish oil and krill oil.

    "In contrast, the krill oil produced by one company showed very high concentrations of TMA, TVN and TMAO, indicating spoilage… and in one case even unfit for human consumption according to the Commission Decision 95/149/EC. Click here to view the results for yourself." (Quote from Dr. Mercola) Some cheaper fish oil supplements are filled with contaminants, fillers and all sorts of things that could be the real cause of the higher rates of cancer. Accurate or inaccurate studies, either way it does not change what Brian wrote.

    I have taken a lot of supplements over the years. I stopped promoting them in any way about five years ago. I decided that I am only comfortable deciding what I want to take. If something helps me or hurts me it was my decision based on my own research.

    I agree with every single thing Brian said and he is giving the perfect example for why it is so important. For years now fish oil is a very mainstream recommendation but that does not mean you can't get drawn into legal issues for promoting it.

    I can't believe some of the claims on Clickbank and other products. A long sales page with charts and fancy graphics and then an almost unreadable disclaimer at the bottom. Those "copy and pasted", shrunken and lightened disclaimers aren't 'worth the websites they are published on.'
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8273060].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dan Grossman
    Originally Posted by Janice

    Some cheaper fish oil supplements are filled with contaminants, fillers and all sorts of things that could be the real cause of the higher rates of cancer
    The researchers at 6 universities and the hundreds more that reviewed the methodology and conclusions of this study for 7 months before it was published are not stupid. If the elevated cancer rates in the study group (of thousands of men) were caused by something other than the fatty acids in their blood, then they wouldn't have found that direct relationship with such incredibly high statistical confidence.

    They didn't study the effect of omega-3 supplements on cancer rates, they studied the effect of high fatty acid blood concentrations, measured in actual blood samples from the men in the study, on cancer rates. The men weren't necessarily even taking omega-3 supplements; they could be eating omega-3 fortified eggs, lots of fish, etc. The men without high fatty acid concentrations could have been taking other supplements that could be contaminated; yet that group did not have elevated cancer rates. The paper also suggested the chemical mechanisms by which high fatty acid concentrations can lead to tumorigenesis.

    The result of the study shows that *taking the most pure, fresh, non-contaminated omega-3 supplement* will greatly increase the risk of developing prostate cancer (and greatly increase the risk of the tumor being a rare aggressive type). A spoiled pill that was 75% filler to begin with would be SAFER as far as cancer risk!! And this study was a follow-up confirming previous studies with the exact same result.
    Signature
    Improvely: Built to track, test and optimize your marketing.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8273530].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    [source]
    • In 2001, an estimated 17,537 children 14 years and younger were treated in U.S. emergency departments for choking episodes -- more than 100 visits for every choking-related death.
    • 60% of these events were associated with food items, 31% were associated with nonfood objects including coins, and in 9% of the episodes the substance was unknown or unrecorded.

    Don't own a money niche site, you might be responsible for choking.
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8273581].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dan Grossman
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      Don't own a money niche site, you might be responsible for choking.
      Come on yukon. Normally I appreciate your humor, but this time it doesn't make sense. Nobody is advising the consumption of coins, while people marketing supplements ARE advising their consumption and making claims about the safety and health results of that consumption. The consumption of coins is not regulated, while there are regulations on marketing of actual consumables.

      Plus, Buckyballs was just run out of business by the CPSC for marketing magnets, covered in disclaimers about not letting them near children, because a few children ate them. If you sold spiky coins designed to somehow entice children to eat them, you would be held responsible!.
      Signature
      Improvely: Built to track, test and optimize your marketing.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8273597].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Johnny12345
    Originally Posted by Dan Grossman View Post

    There's absolutely no angle you can attack this study from with some conspiracy theory. It was good, pure, publicly funded, peer-reviewed science with a clear result at high statistical confidence.

    If only that were true...

    For example, here's what sourcewatch.org has to say about the NIH...

    The Senate is calling for the National Institutes of Health to clean up corrupt business dealings involving consulting agreements. According to an agency spokesman, approximately 228 scientists employed by the NIH have outside consulting agreements (out of 6,000 scientists). Furthermore, many of the (total of 365 agreements) do not require public disclosure.

    [...]

    Some researchers have received stock options worth as much as $300,000. In 1996, researcher Sheldon Krimsky of Tufts University; studied nearly 800 scientific papers in prominent biology and medical journals. In one third of all cases, the author had financial interests in the company sponsoring the research. This information was not disclosed to readers in most cases.
    Furthermore, ahrp.org cites a 2003 article by a Los Angeles Times Pulitzer Prize winner, David Willman.

    Willman documents how top NIH officials have violated the "honor system" by accepting secret consultancy fees and corporate stock options.

    He states...

    Increasingly, outside payments to NIH scientists are being hidden from public view. Relying in part on a 1998 legal opinion, NIH officials now allow more than 94% of the agency's top-paid employees to keep their consulting income confidential. As a result, the NIH is one of the most secretive agencies in the federal government when it comes to financial disclosures.

    [...]

    NIH scientists claim an entitlement to secret corporate contracts and immunity from government regulations about double dipping. The institutes comprising NIH have been essentially corrupted. NIH no longer serves as a model "island of objective and pristine research.
    Of course, that STILL doesn't mean the study is wrong. IT MIGHT VERY WELL BE TRUE.

    Again, how would I know? I'm not a medical researcher.

    But, if the NIH was (according to some sources) under suspicion 10 years ago, what reason do we have to believe they can be trusted in a world that has become increasingly corrupt?

    Perhaps I should have asked, "Who paid and who got paid?"

    John
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8273742].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Barna
    Pharma has in the past (eg St Johns Wort trial) paid Dr's to produce negative results.Who caused thalidomide victims?This article by the Daily Mail which has the best online photos of any online paper but low quality journalism gives very poor information on one trial which confirms that maybe the small number tested didn't even take Omega 3.They can't patent Omega 3 so put the boot in;should we not eat fish then?
    Back to the poster.I personally would never market anything which people put inside or outside their bodies.Believe me the disclaimers are useless because you will be sued by one of the many vexatious litigants out there.There are loads of no win no fee lawyers so some dodgy people may want to make a false claim.Getting to the point you need full insurance cover which covers personal injury and a legal action.I remember pointing this out to a Herbalife distributor who didn't take the point. All online entrepreneurs should at least have business insurance cover.PS..best supplements IMHO are Omega 7,Graviola and CQ10
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8275295].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rbtmarshall
    Our litigious society sucks. Too many lawyers with nothing to do
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8275823].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
    Whenever I write about health supplements, I use some advice I learned a long time ago when I worked at a General Nutrition Center store.

    They always cautioned employees about this and I learned to never say that anything we sell really cures or actually does anything.

    So instead of saying, "These pig testicle extract pills can cure cancer and gout", the way I learned to say it without making any sort of claim would be:

    "Many people use pig testicle extract pills as a treatment for cancer or gout."
    or

    "Many people come in our store to purchase pig testicle extract pills for their cancer and gout. Many say that they have seen positive results.
    The second statements make no direct statement as to the pills' effectiveness, while still telling the customer what they are used for.

    I don't do much in the natural healing niche, but there's a lot of harm that can be done by natural supplements, either by misleading people in believing something works for an ailment when it does not, or by encouraging someone to take something that could be harmful to them. Remember too, that just because something is natural doesn't mean it's safe. Rattlesnake poison is one such substance that comes to mind...
    Signature

    :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8275843].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Lloyd Buchinski
      Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

      Whenever I write about health supplements, I use some advice I learned a long time ago when I worked at a General Nutrition Center store.

      They always cautioned employees about this and I learned to never say that anything we sell really cures or actually does anything.

      So instead of saying, "These pig testicle extract pills can cure cancer and gout", the way I learned to say it without making any sort of claim would be:



      or



      The second statements make no direct statement as to the pills' effectiveness, while still telling the customer what they are used for.

      I don't do much in the natural healing niche, but there's a lot of harm that can be done by natural supplements, either by misleading people in believing something works for an ailment when it does not, or by encouraging someone to take something that could be harmful to them. Remember too, that just because something is natural doesn't mean it's safe. Rattlesnake poison is one such substance that comes to mind...
      I don't think I've ever quoted a whole post before, but this was nice work mo. I appreciate the literary talent
      Signature

      Do something spectacular; be fulfilled. Then you can be your own hero. Prem Rawat

      The KimW WSO

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8276586].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AZMD
    Give it a few weeks and you'll be hearing...

    PUBLIC NOTICE: New study shows fish oil curing cancer. LOL
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8276441].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CPH007
    You all need to take a step back. You will find studies opposing and agreeing with the same supplement.
    You only have to look at cholesterol and the fact 50% of people with it have heart disease so must be a factor of heart disease. What about the 50% who have high cholesterol and no heart disease???
    The OP is correct you need to take steps and they had better be good ones as even totally flawed studies are accepted by the government and medical areas. Pharma companies have massive power and will use it.
    Signature

    Double Or Even Triple Your Sales With Powerful Copy Writing …

    …PM For Details

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8276553].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dan Grossman
      Originally Posted by CPH007 View Post

      You only have to look at cholesterol and the fact 50% of people with it have heart disease so must be a factor of heart disease. What about the 50% who have high cholesterol and no heart disease???
      That's not how science works. Nobody publishes a study that says "high cholesterol = heart disease".

      Health conditions like that arise from a mix of biochemistry, accumulating damage over time, your general level of health and fitness (affecting your body's ability to tolerate and repair damage), genetics, etc.

      They'll do a study that says here's 30,000 people without heart disease. They are asked to visit their doctor every few weeks for, say, 10-20 years, for a blood test and survey. Maybe 10,000 of them develop high cholesterol levels over the course of the study. If 30% of that group develops heart disease, while 5% of the 20k people without high cholesterol don't, then the researchers can say that high cholesterol levels increase your chance of developing heart disease. That's all they say, and they only say it when there's a high enough statistical confidence that the affect is so significant there is virtually no chance it's random.

      The researchers won't look at just cholesterol, either. They'll control for other factors (i.e. are the high and low cholesterol groups composed of the same percentage of people of certain race, family history of heart disease, other ailments, taking the same medication, etc). A study that doesn't look at and account for confounding variables doesn't pass peer review and get published.
      Signature
      Improvely: Built to track, test and optimize your marketing.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8276602].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Cali16
        Thanks, Brian, for the excellent reminder regarding the importance of disclaimers. In reality, we all must exercise caution because new research is always enlightening us and may disprove things in the future that we believe to be true today.

        Originally Posted by Dan Grossman View Post

        A study that doesn't look at and account for confounding variables doesn't pass peer review and get published.
        Dan, you make some decent arguments, but unfortunately, the statement above is simply not true. First, it's virtually impossible to account for all the potential confounding variables in these types of studies. Many of them (if not the vast majority) rely at least in part on self-reporting (i.e. patients keep track of what they ate or what supplements they took or symptoms they experience), and self-reporting, by it's very nature, is highly unreliable.

        Second, two examples of research that is very flawed yet continues to come out are the many studies on the dangers of red meat and the whole dairy issue. Red meat studies rarely, if ever, take into consideration that there's a HUGE difference in beef from 100% grass-fed cows and beef from CAFO cows fed grains (including GMO soy and corn) their entire life. The nutritional profile is very different between the two, and thus the impact on those who consume them can be significantly different.

        With dairy, studies almost always use pasteurized and homogenized milk as opposed to raw milk - again, two foods that are drastically different in their nutritional profile. For example, many people who think they are lactose intolerant find they tolerate raw milk (and dairy products made from raw milk) quite well.

        And then there's all the studies about eggs and cholesterol from years past.... :rolleyes: Not to mention that people with "egg allergies" may in fact be reacting to the soy that's fed to most commercially raised chickens. So, again, subtle confounding variables that get overlooked lead to inaccurate conclusions from these types of studies.

        My point isn't about whether or not red meat, milk, or eggs are good for you; rather just citing these as three foods on which a plethora of very flawed (yet peer-reviewed and accepted by most of the medical community) research has been done over the years. But flawed research leads to inaccurate conclusions. And then "experts" make unfortunate blanket statements - e.g. high red meat consumption significantly increases cancer risk - often because these ostensibly subtle but extremely important confounding variables are overlooked or ignored.

        The conventional "healthy" diet endorsed by the USDA is actually quite unhealthy. Soy is one of the most unhealthy foods you can eat, yet it's in almost everything and over 80% grown in the U.S. is GMO. But soy is BIG business, as are corn and wheat, so you bet biased (and subtly flawed) studies are done to support the industry (Monsanto, anyone?).

        I don't, however, think there's a conspiracy behind everything. Human error and ignorance (scientists don't know everything) also play a big role in why so many studies are flawed and lead to inaccurate conclusions. Not to mention, as we make progress in technology, new things come to light - that may contradict prior research - due to the use of more advanced research tools and techniques.

        Part of my graduate training involved courses in statistics, research methodology, and experimental design. It takes only slight errors (in design) to create a very flawed study, and it's very easy to skew (intentionally or unintentionally) the results by manipulating the statistical analysis (e.g. by choosing the wrong statistical tests to obtain your results). I'm not suggesting that all or most research is done with hidden agendas (in which the flaws are intentional), but no doubt that occurs in more cases than most of us realize or want to believe. Personally, I would never put all my trust in a study just because it was "peer-reviewed" or done by a large government agency like the NIH.
        Signature
        If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8276813].message }}
  • So you worked hard and you though you where entailed to retirement, well that's not good someone has to pay for it, nothing is free. We already got your money why would we pay you. In any case a senator go this idea why don't we work on killing you so less people like you get the benefits. That was 2000+ years ago, the Romans figure they need to do things to lower the number of people who are healthy to get benefits at old age. WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING ON TODAY? They want us to die just like back then so they feed us stuff that will make us not use benefits. I know you don't believe it, but whatever.
    Signature
    soon people... Relax...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8277499].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lloyd Buchinski
    A story on the CNN front page today reminded me of this toxic topic, and this story is bad. Some people were hospitalized after taking a vitamin supplement with steroids added to it illegally.

    FDA warns one brand of vitamin B supplement contains harmful steroids

    The product manufactured by New-York based Mira Health Products Ltd is sold online and in stores. The company has not issued a response to the warning.
    If I remember right I saw a product called 'Mira hair oil' on paydotcom a couple of years ago.
    Signature

    Do something spectacular; be fulfilled. Then you can be your own hero. Prem Rawat

    The KimW WSO

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8333317].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Vincent Abrugar
    I hope its not true as I just started taking Fish Oil Supplement this month.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9021420].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Meharis
      Conclusion: How many of you stopped taking Omega 3 Fish Oil 1000/1200 mg..?

      Meharis
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9021775].message }}

Trending Topics