Omega-3 Supplements Linked To Prostate Cancer

When they use the term subcohort they mean people with the same condition, from the same subset, they were cohorts of Prostate cancer. Meaning they also had cancer as well, some had high grade and others had low grade, they break down the differences for us, what this shows maybe that omega 3's can make cancer worse(almost anything can make it worse though), not better as some including the authors of this study assumed. The crazy thing seems to me how the article was slanted to make it seem as if people that don't have cancer would get it from eating fish or omega 3 supplements, in a sense this could be possible but was not what was measured. They measured the effects of it on people already diagnosed with prostate cancer, the tabloid journalists just muddied the waters by leaving that tiny little bit of info out of their piece. But it likely had the desired effect on someone that just read the headline and didn't read any further than the story to read the study itself, which most people don't bother with assuming the journalist tells them no lies or makes no mistakes, and of course this helps pharma out to report it this way. Supplements are not perfect, but sometimes it maybe all you have if modern medicine has nothing for you that can work.

reply to post by iwilliam


So, you are and have been taking Supplements that alter your mood?

This is before those Pills come to the Market to make everyone happy and obey?

It is bad news though, I agree.... they have been making people more ill than they were...

reply to post by bubbabuddha


You are somewhat right, I did read the Article but assumed it meant not to take Omega 3 tablets as they can cause Cancer!

Anyway, it is still a worrying story when you take into account that Omega 3 can increase Cancer!

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


Oh for God's Sake....let us bring just a tiny speck of common sense to the subject.

1. What is the actual risk of prostate cancer in the United State?

seer.cancer.gov...

Answer: The risk is 152 cases of prostate cancer per 100,000 for all races. This amounts to just 0.152 %.
This means that over the course of a man's life, his risk of prostate cancer is less than 1 % and he has a 99 % chance of NEVER getting prostate cancer.

2. The estimated increase in risk if you take Omega-3 supplement is 17 %. That would be 17 % of 0.152 % =
0.003 %. So the total estimated increase in risk if you take Omega-3 supplement is a big fat whopping 0.153 %.
If you are man, and you take fish oil supplements, you would still have a risk of prostate cancer of less than 1 % and still have a 99 % change of NEVER getting prostate cancer.

(allow me to change this to 71 % increase in risk)

71 % of 0.152 % = 0.1 % increase for a total of 0.252 % increase in risk

So if you are man, and you take fish oil supplements - you would still have a risk of prostate cancer of less than 2 % and still have a 98 % change of NEVER getting prostate cancer).

So you gonna stay up late at night worrying about it?

The so-called "increase in risk" truthfully means the hypothesis "does taking fish oil supplements cause prostate cancer" has been proven not to be true by this study.

The scientist in this study lives in a "publish or perish" world where grants are only given to scientists who can deliver desired results. There are three questions to ask here:

Are you really going to worry about an increase of risk of 0.003 % for a rare cancer?
What are the benefits of taking fish oils and do the benefits outweigh the risks?
Who funded this study and do they have a vested interest in alarming the public?

Tired of Control Freaks

Read this. It seams that study was a load of Boo-larx

This study and no other studies in existence can currently be used to say that fish oil causes prostate cancer. If anything, this study begets a plethora of questions in regards to the relationship between prostate cancer and omega-3 but proves nothing.

Originally posted by iwilliam
This was terrible news, but I need to find out more about this study and how it was conducted.

As with all these studies you are right to be cautious about its findings.
Was the study commissioned by any party that may have an interest in damaging the Omega 3 fish oil
supplement market?
How can a study of less than a thousand subjects find that the increase in cancer was definitely due to the Omega 3...............how can we be sure that other factors weren't the real cause of the increased cancer rates.
More studies need to be conducted before the newspapers put their alarmist spin on things.........newspapers after all are out to sell their product..........and any alarmist story only helps sell copy.

Oh great, now I'm going to die.

Did you morons even read the article before decrying and disparaging "Big Pharma"? Here's some quotes from the Big Pharma minions right from the article=> Nutritionist Nicole Berberian told Sky News: "The fact is that just from this snapshot ... we can't actually say cause of effect, so there is a long way to go before we can say that the cause of this correlation is the actual intake of oily fish.

" "So as yet, it is not a cause to panic."."

...GP Dr Ellie Cannon said caution was needed when looking at the results of this study.

"It's the type of study where we don't actually know how controlled the trial is and what I mean by that is we don't actually know what other conditions or the other environment that the people within the trial are actually in," she told Sky News.

There, a nutritionist and general practitioner employed by Evil Big Pharma saying to approach the results of the study with caution.

This is evidence of the most prevalent and dangerous of the afflictions affecting the Anti-Vaxer, natural-only, down with Big Pharma crowd - stupidity.

Next time read past the headline please.

reply to post by Tetrarch42


Hey wise one, did you not realize the article that was published makes it appear to the "layman" that it does cause cancer, and of course in the article someone will say "maybe" and of course if you read the actual study it will make even less sense. But this still serves the lazy doctor or health practitioner, they are busy, don't have time to read everything, but they and average person sees the headline and thinks something else. Pharma gets another way to muddy the water and claim doubt and add another reason why you should have to go to the Doc just to get a supplement, the effect maybe the same as saying let the buyer beware. One thing leads to another.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


When I want to find the most effective disease cures ,I first check FDA lists of NEVER EVER EVER EVER TAKE THIS !
and start my research there .
Lol ...

YeH,omega threes are so bad for us . Just like organic food is bad for us.
It's mind boggling how much money they sink into these news campaigns to scare everyone into eating crap .

Ah..
This is most interesting .
~~~~~~~~~~~

Quackity quack, the quacks are back, and this time they're targeting fish oil supplements, claiming that taking fish oils raises your risk of prostate cancer.

Hogwash. This is just another case of pure fearmongering quackery by the anti-vitamin crowd. Remember: All these people attacking vitamins are the very same people who are on the take from Big Pharma. Remember, too, that companies like GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) have already been convicted of multiple felony crimes by the U.S. Department of Justice. And today in China, GSK was caught yet again engaging in widespread bribery and criminal fraud.

See the Natural News story: GlaxoSmithKline admits to criminal pharma fraud in 3 billion dollar case

Do you honestly think these companies wouldn't fake a bunch of studies (and pay off a bunch of researchers) in order to try to discredit vitamins, superfoods and fish oils?

So here's how they do the quackity quack dance: Seven ways they fake vitamin studies to scare people into being afraid of lifesaving nutrition:

Read the rest here :
www.naturalnews.com...

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


1) I'm not worried.

2) Thanks for the Stats

And

3) I'm only posting what was in the News.

reply to post by PtolemyII


Thanks for your input but I'm not going to visit that Site as it 'Displayed 1 or 2 Risky Behaviors' according to my Anti-Virus.

And yet the inuits who eat only fish never ever or very rarely get prostate cancer...Go figure.....

Originally posted by minor007
And yet the inuits who eat only fish never ever or very rarely get prostate cancer...Go figure.....

I read about a reference to this yesterday when some "expert" says that although the Inuit don't get much heart disease........ due to their large consumption of fish........and that is how the rest of the world came to know of the benefits of Omega 3..........but what we didn't know was that the inuits must have eaten something else that counteracts the harmful effects of Omega 3............for some reason this "expert" did not specify what this other component of their diet was..............I wonder why?

I would rather take the fish oil then buy the fish high in Omega 3 because of the mercury levels in the fish is unknown.

If you live long enough almost all men get Prostate Cancer.
Autopsy studies of Chinese, German, Israeli, Jamaican, Swedish, and Ugandan men who died of other causes have found prostate cancer in thirty percent of men in their 50s, and in eighty percent of men in their 70s and in ninety five percent of men over 95

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


Natural News is a risky site ? Been going there for years
Neh .

reply to post by Logical one


Omega 3 otherwise known as linoleic acid is an essential fatty acid. Do people who have large amounts of olive oil get prostate cancer? No in fact olive oil prevents prostate cancer.........olive oil is mainly linoleic acid...GO figure....

Correlation does not equal causation. This study doesn't prove anything.

This study is about supplementing omega-3's, not eating fish to get them.

Deep down, I don't really trust supplements anyway. Then again, they put supplements in almost all of the foods we eat. I think a balanced diet and getting enough is far more important than how many supplements you take. To me, that's what's most important in the poorer nations. There's a good reason why so many in those countries eat base foods like potatoes or rice: they're cheap. Consequently, they do not get all of the necessary micro-nutrients, so they're somewhat malnourished. Their lifespans are usually measured from 50 to 70 years. And then there're the poorest nations that can't even afford rice or potatoes. They're the ones that get the headlines.

I wouldn't worry about eating fish. Just don't eat too much. 1 to 2 servings per week. Same for most anything. Try to mix up what you eat, but keep in mind a balanced diet is expensive.

Therein lies hte crux of all this. Eating a balanced diet is expensive. So what do they do? They supplement cheap foods, like rice or milk or bread or whatever. It's cheaper that way. It solves some of the malnourishment problems, but it's plagued by unknowns and corporate secrecy.

Our GMO/Supplement/etc future is really just an attempt to feed the poorest. It's about satisfying the lowest common denominator. The problem is, as already stated, unknowns are fed into it and (as always) corporate greed. If you're wealthy enough, don't get mixed up in it. Of course, being wealthy, others will be jealous and spiteful and will learn to hate you for it. But such is life.

Life is give and take. Nothing is free. You cannot feed -everyone- without sacrifices.