http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/2009/10/do-people-with-high-cholesterol-live.html#more

Also an interview with the MD Phd who first did much of this research
http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com

The following article from BBC Science & Nature talks about the Durham Trial using an ‘experimental’ method called a randomised double-blind controlled trial. Where half of pupils got the Omega 3 and the other half got Placebos. Are they talking about the same “Durham Trial” or is this article completely incorrect?

I note that the article still doesn’t say how many children took part in this amazing, spectacular ‘experimental’ randomised double-blind controlled trial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/intelligenceandmemory/omega_three.shtml

http://ezinearticles.com/?Fish-Oil-and-Children–The-Durham-Trials&id=471285

its worth a look for a laugh.

I posted a comment a week ago pointing out one or two salient things, and guess what? My comments have disappeared and not been published. Wonder why.

http://www.dystalk.com/talks/88-the-use-of-fish-oils-for-children-with-dyslexia-and-adhd

What do we think?

Will

Referenties :

Richardson AJ, Puri BK. Prog Neuro-Psycho-Pharmacol 2002; 26: 233-9
http://www.fabresearch.org/view_item.aspx?item_id=201

Starobat-Hermelin B, Kozielec T. Magnes Res 1997; 10: 149-56
Van Oudheusden LJ, Scholte HR. Prostagl, Leukotr Ess fatty Ac. 2002; 67(1): 33-8

McCruiskeen: “Have you noticed how far back Equazen have stepped in this? [...] I doubt they wish the product they gave so generously and philanthropically to be sullied by any of this criticism.”

Then again… I’ve just picked up a leaflet in a health food shoo, advertising Eye Q. Front cover: “Look Mum! The fish oil used in the largest ever omega-3 schools trial was eye q.” Inside it refers to “the Durham Schools Trial” four times and also bangs on about the “Middlesbrough Trial” and how robust, unbiased, etc that is. It finishes with the delightfully fallacious statement that “eye q was the only [fatty acid supplement] used by the Middlesbrough and Durham LEAs, and therefore the only one worthy of your consideration … To find out more about the Durham School trials please visit http://www.durhamtrial.org.”

I guess any publicity is good publicity.

(Sorry if this is all old news, by the way.)

maccruiskeen.wordpress.com

(Sorry about the earlier mistyped link!)

Chapter 8 (in a couple of weeks) will be about the questions I asked in the DCC council chamber and DCC’s pathetic response(s)!

This evening, while searching for other examples of ‘Dumbo’s feather’ in education, I stumbled on an on-line study run by the Univ. of Northumbria psychology department to assess the effect of Omega 3/Fish Oil on memory performance.
(Link is: http://www.omega3research.org.uk )
I decided to participate in the study, playing both parent and child roles. I proceeded to the end, wondering when I would be asked for some type of validating information. I know you’ll never guess – there was none! The only potential trap might have been when I selected a weight and height for my 14 year old child – couldn’t remember what a stone was equal to in pounds – had to spend a moment looking it up.

In any case, I’m sure this study’s results will someday be publicized, yet it’s results are totally bogus. Any idiot, including this 62 year old Vermont chemistry teacher, can participate!

Keep up the great work exposing bad science!

http://maccruiskeen@wordpress.com

I think I’ve partly misunderstood what the HD is, and partly expressed myself badly.

There is some kind of provision in the law against experimentation on people (and for that matter animals) without ethical approval, isn’t there?

Or is it nothing but guidelines and professional contracts? I know Wakefield stands before the GMC and not a court, but still … Does this mean that it’s only a problem if a registered doctor does it, while Joe Q. Public can go ahead and do as he pleases?

The local safeguarding children board could be asked to investigate how children were exploited in an exercise that essentially told them they would get better results if they took the fish oil capsules. The board has some independence from the council and could set in place clear guidance on the way children should be used in studies in the future.

I think it is definitely worth referring the Mr Ford to the Standards Committee. What does anyone else think?

“A recommendation to use Omega 3 supplement was made by officers in line with the normal advisory relationship between the county council and its schools. In that sense, members were not directly involved in the decision, although key members were made aware of and supported providing this opportunity to schools.”

Was this always part of David Ford’s plan or was this “explanation” put together following my question. My own view is that they simply tried ignoring my question, but when I immediately wrote to Councillor Vasey (who had given the answers in the chamber) saying that she had not answered my important question in the chamber, she was continuing to avoid answering it, she was clearly avoiding having an answer put on the public record and that her actions were morally reprehensible. A couple of weeks later, the above answer appeared!

One year later, in February 2008, I submitted my three questions to the Public Questions session in the council chamber, as Ben mentions on page 149 of his excellent book, and dragged out of them the response that Ben notes.

The really fascinating thing is the version of this whole affair given by the DCC Corporate Director of Children and Young People’s Services (David Ford’s new boss) to the Honourable Member for North Durham (Labour) Kevan JOnes MP, which is not congruent with DCC’s own official version of events.

As I replied to Kevan Jones MP, having received a copy of this “explanation” from him, “Unfortunately,far from being useful in explaining the situation, David Williams explanation to you actually continues the county council’s apparent practice of obfuscation in this affair by “rewriting the script” whilst being economical with the truth. His account is in contradiction with the evidence, minimises and omits key features, is at best misleading and at worst, untrue.”

Kevan Jones replied saying there was basically nothing he could do and suggested I complain to the Local Government Ombudsman, helpfully enclosing a complaint form.

As I said in an earlier post, what chance do we concerned people stand if DCC is quite prepared to “bullshit” a Labour MP?