For free updates in your inbox…subscribe here

One last thing on the fish oil / prostate cancer study

Share Button

DrHouse

One last thing regarding the dubious fish oil study and increase risk of prostate cancer.

It’s been two weeks since the fish oil / prostate cancer study was published and I am still answering questions from concerned patients, readers and radio show listeners. The media clearly succeeded in inducing a false scare by sensationalizing the misleading conclusion of a study that one can argue should have never been published.

By now  you know my views on this multi-flawed study.

In case you don’t:

click HERE

and

click HERE

But here is one thing I did not mention which further emphasizes why this study shouldn’t have been published in the first place.

Not only did they never study the consumption of fish or fish oils and its relation to aggressive prostate cancer, but Brasky and clan categorized gleason 7 cancers (4 +3) as aggressive cancers. Gleason 7 cancer are considered intermediate  cancers not aggressive. So part of the “70% higher risk of aggressive prostate cancer” that they purported included those with gleason 7 disease.

The gleason grading system is used only in prostate cancer and measures how aggressive the cancer is. It also help to determine a prognosis. The higher the number, the more aggressive, therefore,  the higher the potential for cancer to spread.

I wonder how  Dr. House would respond to this study?

 

Other excellent reads on this by topic:

Prostate.net – click HERE

Video of Dr. Anthony D’amico interview : click HERE and HERE

Dr. Michael Murray: click HERE

Dr. Ron Hoffman: click HERE

Dr. Duffy Mackay from the Council from Responsible Nutrition: click HERE

Dr. Mark Hyman writes in the Huffington Post: click HERE

 

 

Share Button

by Dr. Geo

1 comment… add one

  • There are many ways to skew information to discredit supplements. Here’s one: we don’t know what terrible condition the subjects were in in the first place. Maybe they were about to die and selected to prove their point. We don’t see the actual study to evaluate it for ourselves.

    Reply

Leave a Comment


Next Post:

Previous Post: