anyone know anything about this stuff Omax3?

www.naturaljustice.org.uk/history.html

“…The double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial, published in the British Journal of Psychiatry (2002) Vol. 181, pages 22-28 attracted an extremely favourable response from the academic community for the high standard of the methodology, as well as considerable press interest…”

The publication mentioned above:
www.naturaljustice.org.uk/files/Gesch_et_al_2002_British_Journal_of_Psychiatry.pdf

NIH workshop studies on Omega 3 and Mental Health (not quite the same as improving IQ perhaps but related):

videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega1.ram (introduction)

videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega2.ram

videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega3.ram

videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega4.ram

videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega5.ram

videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega6.ram

videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega7.ram

www.itnews.it/2008/0109131602587/growing-need-for-learning-disability-treatment-options.html

I recently saw a consultant neurologist at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in London about my persistent memory problems among other things. In addition to booking me in for some tests, he suggested that in the meantime I try Omega 3 (fish oil) and Evening Primrose oil.

I queried this (on the grounds of lack of research evidence) and we had a brief but intelligent discussion. He said that despite the lack of research data he thought they would at least do no harm, and the anecdotal evidence suggests that they might help. He said it would be hard to test their efficacy on e.g. demented patients, and they may have no beneficial effect on normal people, but they might help in-between cases like me with mild memory problems.

I reckon he suspected the effect might be largely placebo, as do I, but that is not a reason not to try it. (In addition to testing for identifiable causes.)

I’ve just received, as Chair of Governors of my local primary school, some bumpf from Equazen with photocopies of various newspaper headlines.

I need to investigate how exactly this came to be circulated, but given that I have received it in my offical capacity does this offer;

1. An opportunity for me to require Durham to release the information they have been so coy about in refusing FOI requests.

2. A reason to kick up a fuss with whatever nitwit in my County Council lies behind me recieving this promotional material.

Can I use my little bit of official leverage to useful effect?

Ideas? Suggestions?

Also, I’m not fully up to speed with some of the background on this, could someone tell me where this paper fits into the picture?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15867048

www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN12286781

Can I be the first one on this thread to post a link to this old favourite describing the earlier Durham “work”:

www.durhamtrial.org/

I’m sure it’s been up before on various other threads, but figured it would bear re-linking here.

Again a reminder, the only proper scientifically-described peer reviewed published study relating to anything Durham have ever done is Alex Richardson’s 2005 paper, available here:

pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/115/5/1360

——————————–

Also welcome back to our old friend Madeleine “NoPapers” Portwood.

Well, I take that back. One paper. A PubMed search with Portwood MM reveals one hit:

Nutr Health. 2006;18(3):233-47.
The role of dietary fatty acids in children’s behaviour and learning.

Portwood MM.

Educational Psychology Service, DCC Education Development Centre, Co Durham, DL16 6YP, UK. madeleine.portwood@durham.gov.uk

- which from the abstract looks to be a review (if you’re feeling charitable) or a piece of self-puffing (if you’re feeling snide)

——————————

The paper hclark refers to is a bit of a mystery. The “Puri PK” in question is clearly another old friend of Badscience, the prolific Basant K Puri. (So “BK” not “PK”)

www.badscience.net/?p=385

The website for Veg EPA, another fatty acid supplement pushing outfit, refers here:

www.vegepa.com/vegepa.php?n=researchreferences&indi=&ti=

- to the following, clearly the same study:

Portwood, M., Lowerson, S.A. and Puri, B.K. (2005).

High-eicosapentaenoic acid-containing long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in drug-naïve children with developmental coordination disorder and childhood-occurring dyslexia and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptomatology: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial.

Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids (in press).

The journal is a perfectly respectable PubMed-listed one, and Puri has published there a lot. And “in press” is usually taken in science to mean: “accepted in final form and waiting to appear”.

BUT…. two years later no such paper has ever appeared, leaving various alternatives (withdrawn, rejected, still in the works). But it seems crystal clear that the results of this trial have never appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

Now there’s a surprise.

“You’re completely right – what we need is proper scientific research to find out once and for all whether parents should consider Omega 3 a worthwhile supplement. I’m in touch with Dr Alex Richardson on the subject (she also pointed me in the direction of Ben’s site!) and it seems that up until now no one is willing to take on funding for this research.
In the meantime we are left with just anecdotal evidence and the Oxford-Durham report – do we keep quiet about the potential help omega 3 can offer children with learning difficulties and hope that sometime soon the proper research will happen ?
Best wishes
Cathy Court
Netmums”

It sounds like she is actually trying to do the right thing, in fairness. My main misgiving here is that having agreed that there isn’t any proof for the efficacy of the pills, all the Equazen stuff is still posted up for any number of mums to read.

And I guess that Equazen pay for the advertorial, and that Cathy and her colleagues do have a living to make.

None of which alters the fact that the fish oil pedlars are still fibbing. A lot.

www.netmums.com/h/n/FOOD/HOME/ALL/322//

Not only do you get a whole load of Equazen PR guff (and, it has to be said, downright lies).

It also has link to a section on ‘double blind placebo tests’, wherein Equazen thoughtfully explain how they conduct such tests themselves, using Durham as an example.

Since this stuff is demonstrably false, are Equazen not breaking about 6 dozen laws here?

True enough, but by looking at the Key Stage whatever results you will get an idea of how much better _this_ cohort is likely to be compared to the year before – and then estimate what sort of magnitude improvement would be consistent with the known improvovement of this cohort.

I did this:

www.badscience.net/?p=297#comment-7740

And estimated a 3-7% improvement (no I can’t remember my exact methodology!)

A massive waste of money – the quacks are rubbing their hands while money that could be invested directly into the education system, or into school meals, is thrown at bottles of completely unproven pills.

The worst kind of gimmicky, modern pseudo-polito-science bullshit.