(NaturalHealth365) The ‘official’ study linking omega 3 to prostate cancer relied on negligible or non-existent evidence. This study was carried out by researchers from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and published in the peer reviewed Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The only problem is – it looks like a fraud!
According to the published reports, this was a well designed study that supports previous research that linked high blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids with prostate cancer. This study suggests a higher risk of prostate cancer among men who eat omega-3 fatty acids, such as those found in fatty fish like sardines and salmon or in fish oil supplements.
This is what they want you to believe
What was reported was that high concentrations of EPA, DPA and DHA – the three best known anti-inflammatory and metabolically related fatty acids derived form fatty fish and fish-oil supplements are associated with a 71 percent increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer an overall 44 percent increased risk for low-grade cancer and a 43 percent increased risk for all prostate cancers.
The study also concluded that a higher blood level of linoleic acid was associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer. Linoleic acid is the main fatty acid found in vegetable oils such as soybean oil, corn oil and rapeseed oil. It is used for manufacturing margarine, shortening, and salad and cooking oils, as well as soaps, emulsifiers, and quick-drying oils.
There’s only one problem with this study
This so called study amounted to having researchers analyze existing data from the Selenium and vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) from 2008.
This study had been coordinated by SWOG (the Southwest Oncology Group), a network of more than 4,000 researchers from more than 500 institutions. It was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). This study’s purpose was to see if ether vitamin E and selenium prevented prostate cancer.
Time to take a closer look
Taking the data from the SELECT study researchers looked at plasma data from 834 participants with prostate cancer. The original SELECT study’s primary endpoint wasn’t to test the effects of omega-3. The fact is they did not look at the participants’ diet or whether or not they took omega-3 supplements.
The research was based only on samples of a single blood draw; the red blood cell analysis would have given a better picture of long-term omega-3 intake by showing a couple months of eating salmon, for example, instead of what happens in the body after a single meal.
The fact is the difference in mean blood plasma phospholipids fatty acids or omega-3s was 4.66% in the combined cancer group verses 4.48 in the control group. The researchers based their results on just 0.2% difference in omega-3 levels.
The original study had the men complete a questionnaire about their backgrounds and health at the start of the study, while the staff measured their height and weight to calculate body mass index (BMI).The original 2008 test was questionable – at best – and rebranding it as a way to vilify pmega 3 fatty acid amounts to nothing more than a witch hunt.
Let’s challenge the study’s claim
The American diet is high in omega-6 fatty acid; linoleic acid is a pro-inflammatory fat. The findings say that linoleic acid decreases prostate cancer – but the opposite is true – the rates are increasing.
The Japanese have had a low rate of prostate cancer despite a traditional diet that includes a fair share of fatty fish. Males in Japan have some of the highest levels of these fats, and have some of the lowest rates of prostate cancer.
Naturally, as the Japanese men get away from their natural diet of fish, seaweed, and vegetables – the rates of prostate cancer are rising.
The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) and the Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3s (GOED) spoke out against this study. OED added that “if the findings of this analysis were true, then prostate cancer would be rampant in any country with high seafood consumption (Scandinavia, Japan, etc,) and conversely, low-level consumption should be protective. Clearly this is not the case.”
A good reason not to trust this type of ‘research’
If you look whose behind these types of studies – you come away with a clear picture of why these studies can’t be trusted. The National Cancer Institute, which is part of the National institute of Health, conducted these tests. Why is that a problem?
Because , the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society, both support pharmaceutical companies like, AstraZeneca which profit from cancer-causing drugs like, Tamoxifen.
Healthcare consumers must be careful – do your research
AstraZeneca (formerly known as Zeneca before it merged with the Swedish pharmaceutical company Astra) was owned by Imperial Chemical Industries, a leading international manufacturer of industrial chemicals and carcinogenic pesticides. Teaming up with taxpayer-supported NCI and “charitable” ACS was a masterful public relations coup for AstraZenec.
In 1992, tamoxifen promoter Dr. Bernard Fisher, working for the National Cancer Institute (NCI), received $68 million in federal money to assess whether the drug could prevent breast cancer. Fisher made every effort to make tamoxifen appear save and effective.
But, as if we should be surprised, Fisher failed to report falsified data and enrolment fraud. He made it appear as if tamoxifen reduced breast cancer by 50%, in reality there was only a 1.3% reduction.
The NCI has failed to develop or publicize a registry of avoidable exposures to carcinogens, and has failed to respond to a Congressional request to create one. This is in despite of the fact that they are required to by law (the National Cancer Act of 1971).
A book by a leading cancer expert, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein blames the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society of losing the war against cancer in America.
The pharmaceutical industry is seen as having total control over the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration. They are known to fund many millions of dollars to bogus scientific studies. They have a budget in the billions and are able to control the media also.
Science is being manipulated for profit
I wonder how many people bought into the dangers of omega-3 – in regard to prostate cancer risk. Sound off and let us know how much these kind of studies influence you.
Looking for natural health solutions? Sign up now – for our free, weekly show featuring the greatest minds in natural health and science plus a free gift!
About the author: Blanche Levine has been a student of natural healing modalities for the last 25 years. She has the privilege of working with some of the greatest minds in natural healing including Naturopaths, scientist and energy healers. Having seen people miraculously heal from all kinds of dis-ease through non-invasive methods, her passion now is to help people become aware of what it takes to be healthy.
SUBSCRIBE TODAY! Click here to join the NaturalNews Inner Circle – a monthly (online) subscription offering exclusive audio interviews, video events, natural health product discounts, free gifts plus much more!