All:
I'm suspecting poor science once again. Did they administer an oil based antioxidant with the fish such as vitamin E? Are there any humans consuming fish oil and not supplementing vitamin E?
The krill oil comes with significant vitamin E (and, as its vendors like to scream, astaxanthin and other antioxidants) in it; "Dietary supplementation of krill oil attenuates inflammation and oxidative stress in experimental ulcerative colitis in rats; there is a small amount of E added to Lovaza capsules; standard rodent chow contains a generous supply of vitamin E, which is more than can be said for the general population; and there's no evidence of long-term benefit to vitamin E supplementation in man or mouse.
My comment was in relation to the major opponents argument against fish oil of the risk of omega-3 tissue lipid per-oxidation (which I've always felt was over blown).
Hm. Your comment seemed to be saying the opposite: that the study would be flawed if it did not administer antioxidants.
Regardless, Ta5's post #19 sums up the papers argument of the possible causes of early mortality. And I stand by my post #21 in my response to those concerns
From the full text Discussion:
Of the pathologies found upon necropsy, hemorrhagic diathesis seems likely to be responsible for a significant proportion of the early mortality of the treated mice. It was substantially and significantly elevated in both the Lovaza- and krill oil-treated mice (Table 1). It is a probable consequence of the anticoagulant effects of dietary marine oils observed in both rodents and humans (Calder and Yaqoob 2012; Sano et al. 2003). The increase in lung tumors in the Lovaza- and krill oil-treated mice also may have contributed to their early mortality. Recent evidence suggests that a diet containing fish oil promotes tumor growth by suppressing CD8+ activation in mice (Xia et al. 2014). Thus, the anti-inflammatory effects of marine oils may have negative as well as positive consequences. A fish oil-containing diet significantly decreased the number of CD8+ T cells in the lungs of influenza virus-infected mice, leading to elevated rates of morbidity and mortality (Schwerbrock et al. 2009).
This is the exact reason why I use and will continue to use fish oil. The ONLY genetic red flag I received from my 23andMe results was an extremely elevated genetic risk for "deep vein thrombosis" which is blood clots leading to strokes and other problems.....and which didn't surprise me since deep vein thrombosis induced stroke is what killed my father and his father before him. My father spent the final years of his life on warfarin but it was too little too late for him. I'll take my chances with fish oil and aspirin which I have been using for at least the past 15 years and I'm 57.
And in spite of fish oil and aspirin, I don't bleed or bruise and clot like a normal person. With respect to the immune suppression via CD8+ suppression, all I can say is I haven't had so much as a sniffle in probably the past 10 years...in spite of everybody else in the office sick and hacking with every single bug that comes along. I'm the one that NEVER gets sick....knock on wood.
edit...just wanted to add that probably more people are eventually at risk for some degree of elevated clotting and stroke risk than not. Probably like everything else, the only way to know how much supplements such as fish oil and aspirin will be beneficial is through genetic risk testing and medical evaluation.
First, I would put a lot of salt substitute on your 23andMe report: if it's your only reason to think you're at elevated risk, I would suggest you either get professional guidance from a specialist or a genetic councilor or both. When the GAO looked into direct-to-consumer personal genetics services, they found wide variations (including some opposite risk assessments) in the risk predictions given by different companies to the same people's spit, even amongst the more professional companies (23andMe, deCODEme, Pathway Genomics, Navigenics ). We are still in the very early days of genetic association studies, with lots of convincing-looking findings being contradicted in subsequent studies, or suggestions of specificity to particular populations, or just lack of replication: there are a few very solid gene-disease-risk links (ApoE haplotype, BRCA1 mutations), but the significance of the vast majority of SNP associations are dubious.
Second, even if you really are at high genetic risk, that risk is relative: if you're not yet collecting Social Security and are not at risk for other reasons (smoking, obesity, sedentary lifestyle), your absolute risk of DVT is low. Third, there are plenty of other things one can do to reduce the risk of DVT. Fourth, no matter what your DVT risk is, aspirin is not indicated, and I would drop it unless you have some other, strong reason to be on it: aspirin is an antiplatelet medication, and useful for thrombi formed at atherosclerotic lesion sites (which is why it's useful in persons who've had heart attacks or strokes) and other places where the blood vessels have been injured (like after a cut), but DVT happens in otherwise-healthy veins and is managed with anticoagulants like heparin and warfarin. (Antiplatelet vs anticoagulant agents). And finally, even if you develop DVT, most cases can be managed post facto: lung collapse stories are dramatic, but rare.
With all of that said: the evidence supporting fish oil for DVT is inconsistent (perhaps in part because fish oil has weak but nontrivial effects on elements of both the platelet and the coagulant pathways), but favorable enough (notably this recent study) that I would say that if you really are at elevated risk, taking a bit more fish oil than is justified in the average bear might be sensible, granted the relatively low risk of the supplement. But that's a far cry from the widespread, lifelong use of megadose long-chain omega-3 that is widespread amongst the health-conscious community.
And perhaps mice are not prone to deep vein thrombosis and accompanying disorders and if so, would not only gain no advantage from those benefits but would only suffer adverse side effects as the paper suggests, once again demonstrating that mice aren't men.
Most humans are not at meaningful risk of DVT either. Again, in the general human population, the available evidence supports consumption of the equivalent of two fatty fish meals a week, and not more. This rodent study suggests the risks of long-term overconsumption, and certainly is evidence against the very many health claims made for such supplementation.
If you don't have hypertriglyceridemia, specific diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, possibly depression, or established, clinical cardiovascular disease), the dose of EPA+DHA that is justified for preventive purposes is the equivalent of two fatty fish meals a week); I know many, many health-nutty folk who are consuming more than two fatty fish meals a week, and taking 300-1500 mg of supplemental EPA+DHA a day.
Are two fatty fish meals a week all it takes? I thought the goverments dietary recommendation was bollocks.
I used to think so too, until I actually started reading the reports underlying them 
. The actual gov't dietary recommendations are very cautious and hedged in by conflicts between the USDA's twin missions of nourishing the country and supporting the ag industry, but the Insitute of Medicine reports that lie at their foundation (the Dietary Reference Intakes manuals) are solid expert assessments made on strict, thorough methodological assessment of all available evidence; one is often baffled by the critics of their conclusions after actually reading their assessments. Indeed, I am in many cases forced to conclude that the critics either haven't read the reports, or have and are hoping that when they issue their silly rebuttals (whose objections are covered in the original reports), their customers will just take their criticism at face value and won't bother to read the reports themselves.
IAC, I came to the conclusion that going beyond 2 fish meals a week was of no further benefit (in average, basically-healthy people) and possibly harmful long before the IOM came out with a recommendation consistent with that conclusion, based on evaluation of the epidemiological evidence. Again, I am not saying that there are not people for whom higher doses may be sensible, such as those with existing heart disease, hypertriglyceridemia, a range of autoimmune disorders, and other specific indications (which might include a real, near-term risk of DVT).
the funny bit reading this is few people saying "oh well fish oil doesnt compare in rats as well as it does in humans" and it makes me ask what study in rats ever compares well to humans....
From following such results for over a decade, it seems to me that mouse and rat studies rarely translate into anything actionable for human longevity.
Of course, whether or not a positive finding from rodent studies translates from mouse to human is one thing; people's insistence on doing this for which there isn't even support in rodent studies, or that is contraindicated from the rodent studies is another.
