• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Fish oil possibly unsafe

omega threes fatty acids cancer dangerous

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 serp777

  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 11
  • Location:who cares

Posted 19 August 2014 - 03:02 AM


It appears that fish oil, which so many members here swear too, may be dangerous and increase the rate of prostate cancer. Sources-

 

http://www.cancer.or...ate-cancer-risk

 

http://www.nlm.nih.g...ript090313.html

 

http://jnci.oxfordjo...djt174.abstract

 

http://www.healthnew...ories-off-base/


Edited by serp777, 19 August 2014 - 03:02 AM.

  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • dislike x 1

#2 nightlight

  • Guest
  • 374 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 19 August 2014 - 09:11 AM

They only found a statistical link on non-randomized samples, and a very weak one at that. Further, they even didn't have data on diets or intake of fish oil in any form. It's a typical junk science scare mongering.


  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for BRAIN HEALTH to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 serp777

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 11
  • Location:who cares

Posted 19 August 2014 - 04:52 PM

They only found a statistical link on non-randomized samples, and a very weak one at that. Further, they even didn't have data on diets or intake of fish oil in any form. It's a typical junk science scare mongering.

 

Not according to this--

 

"The analysis compared 834 men from the trial who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer to a comparison group of 1,393 men selected randomly from all 35,000 participants. The researchers expected to find a protective factor from the presence of omega-3 fatty acids in the blood. Instead, they found that those with the highest levels of omega-3 fatty acids had a 43% higher risk of developing prostate cancer, and a 71% higher chance of developing high-grade prostate cancer, which is more likely to be fatal. Previous studies found similar results."

 

http://www.cancer.or...ate-cancer-risk


  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#4 Murraythemailman

  • Guest
  • 19 posts
  • -0
  • Location:Boston Massachusetts

Posted 19 August 2014 - 06:16 PM

Wish I didn't read that. Fish oil is something I've been taking religiously since I don't eat seafood in my diet.

#5 serp777

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 11
  • Location:who cares

Posted 19 August 2014 - 06:42 PM

Wish I didn't read that. Fish oil is something I've been taking religiously since I don't eat seafood in my diet.

 

It's probably not all fishoil that's bad--it's just unnecessarily high doses that humans would never have been able to get normally without supplements that are probably unhealthy. It's probably good for all your cells--including cancer cells that grow really fast and need plenty of resources which is why you get higher cases of deadly prostate cancer 


Edited by serp777, 19 August 2014 - 06:43 PM.


#6 nightlight

  • Guest
  • 374 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 19 August 2014 - 06:56 PM

 

They only found a statistical link on non-randomized samples, and a very weak one at that. Further, they even didn't have data on diets or intake of fish oil in any form. It's a typical junk science scare mongering.

 

Not according to this--

 

"The analysis compared 834 men from the trial who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer to a comparison group of 1,393 men selected randomly from all 35,000 participants. The researchers expected to find a protective factor from the presence of omega-3 fatty acids in the blood. Instead, they found that those with the highest levels of omega-3 fatty acids had a 43% higher risk of developing prostate cancer, and a 71% higher chance of developing high-grade prostate cancer, which is more likely to be fatal. Previous studies found similar results."

 

http://www.cancer.or...ate-cancer-risk

 

 

That is a case control study, not a randomized trial. Hence one cannot make causal inference such as that omega-3 causes prostate cancer. Namely, the researchers did not randomly select test subjects to be supplemented with fish oil, but simply observed the omega-3 in blood of subjects, some with prostate cancer some without. The subjects' intake of the omega-3 was a self-selected attribute. Hence, there could be an underlying common cause (e.g. some other habits or genetic traits affecting omega-3 metabolism or intake) causing both, their higher omega-3 blood levels and prostate cancer. Since  the study didn't even establish temporal precedence of the omega-3 in the blood vs onset of cancer, the observed excess of omega-3 may be due to metabolic effects of the prostate cancer itself (or of its actual causes) on omega-3 presence in the blood or craving. On top of all these holes, the association RR=1.43 is much too small to even suspect causal relation -- for non-randomized or self-selected samples, one needs factor at least 2-3 to even begin investigating possible causality.

 

In short, leaping to causality from this kind of study is a typical junk science that public is swamped with daily in the news media. There is usually some other agenda behind such PR efforts, such as scaring people away from beneficial supplements that are diminishing profits of the study sponsors (or bureaucrats making funding decisions) . After all, it costs money to produce and publicize even the junk science. Hence, the study is in fact quite informative to consumers, pointing to fish oil as a supplement beneficial enough to their health to be worthy to the sickness industry all the trouble and expense in trying to scare them away from it.

 

 

 


  • like x 4
  • Informative x 1

#7 Murraythemailman

  • Guest
  • 19 posts
  • -0
  • Location:Boston Massachusetts

Posted 19 August 2014 - 07:13 PM

Thanks nightlight. I feel better about my fish oil now. Haha. Yeah I'd take this survey with a grain of salt, but that would probably kill me too. Haha
  • Cheerful x 1

#8 serp777

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 11
  • Location:who cares

Posted 19 August 2014 - 07:31 PM

 

 

They only found a statistical link on non-randomized samples, and a very weak one at that. Further, they even didn't have data on diets or intake of fish oil in any form. It's a typical junk science scare mongering.

 

Not according to this--

 

"The analysis compared 834 men from the trial who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer to a comparison group of 1,393 men selected randomly from all 35,000 participants. The researchers expected to find a protective factor from the presence of omega-3 fatty acids in the blood. Instead, they found that those with the highest levels of omega-3 fatty acids had a 43% higher risk of developing prostate cancer, and a 71% higher chance of developing high-grade prostate cancer, which is more likely to be fatal. Previous studies found similar results."

 

http://www.cancer.or...ate-cancer-risk

 

 

That is a case control study, not a randomized trial. Hence one cannot make causal inference such as that omega-3 causes prostate cancer. Namely, the researchers did not randomly select test subjects to be supplemented with fish oil, but simply observed the omega-3 in blood of subjects, some with prostate cancer some without. The subjects' intake of the omega-3 was a self-selected attribute. Hence, there could be an underlying common cause (e.g. some other habits or genetic traits affecting omega-3 metabolism or intake) causing both, their higher omega-3 blood levels and prostate cancer. Since  the study didn't even establish temporal precedence of the omega-3 in the blood vs onset of cancer, the observed excess of omega-3 may be due to metabolic effects of the prostate cancer itself (or of its actual causes) on omega-3 presence in the blood or craving. On top of all these holes, the association RR=1.43 is much too small to even suspect causal relation -- for non-randomized or self-selected samples, one needs factor at least 2-3 to even begin investigating possible causality.

 

In short, leaping to causality from this kind of study is a typical junk science that public is swamped with daily in the news media. There is usually some other agenda behind such PR efforts, such as scaring people away from beneficial supplements that are diminishing profits of the study sponsors (or bureaucrats making funding decisions) . After all, it costs money to produce and publicize even the junk science. Hence, the study is in fact quite informative to consumers, pointing to fish oil as a supplement beneficial enough to their health to be worthy to the sickness industry all the trouble and expense in trying to scare them away from it.

 

Well firstly the title of this thread is "FIsh oil POSSIBLY unsafe"

 

Methods: Case subjects were 834 men diagnosed with prostate cancer, of which 156 had high-grade cancer. The subcohort consisted of 1393 men selected randomly at baseline and from within strata frequency matched to case subjects on age and race. Proportional hazards models estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between fatty acids and prostate cancer risk overall and by grade. All statistical tests were two-sided.

 
"On top of all these holes, the association RR=1.43 is much too small to even suspect causal relation"
 
Furthermore relative risk has nothing to do with confidence and causality. Confidence = signal/noise * sqrt(sample size)
 
 
From the wikipedia page-- "
  • An RR of > 1 means the event is more likely to occur in the experimental group than in the control group."

 

' 834 men from the trial who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer to a comparison group of 1,393 men selected randomly from all 35,000 participants"

 

In what way is the above not random? Of course they used men with prostate cancer, because how else would you be able to tell the effect of omega 3s on prostate cancer? 

 

" increased risk of prostate cancer among men with high blood concentrations of long-chain ω-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids"

 

So the study does not explicitly say that omega 3's cause cancer or are carcinogenic, perhaps like you mentioned it is just a result of different metabolism. But perhaps it is also that cancer cells require more omega 3's since they utilize more resources, which increases capability of cancer cells to grow and thrive, in which case it would be partial causality.

 

Either way the science on omega 3's is very inconsistent. Probably best not to take something that probably doesn't provide you any benefits and could potentially increase cancer.


  • Disagree x 3

#9 nightlight

  • Guest
  • 374 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 19 August 2014 - 08:07 PM

<i>So the study does not explicitly say that omega 3's cause cancer or are carcinogenic</i>

 

The non-randomized study cannot claim causality and pass peer review. But, as you can see from the comments in this thread, once the media starts retelling it, such finer points are lost and even the Longecity members who ought to know better are getting scared away from fish oil. That's how junk science is meant to work -- the guarded claims in the published paper are followed by the predictable sloppy retelling by the media and hysterics spreading the scare. If it's good enough to fool Longecity members, it's more that good enough for general public.

 

<i>Confidence = signal/noise * sqrt(sample size)</i>

 

The sqrt(sample_size) is only valid for randomized sample, where one can assume that variations or errors are independent from the signal. But that is not the case in non-randomized or self-selected samples. E.g. polls on websites are always dismissed as unscientific since the website visitors are a self-selected sample and in such case one cannot use sqrt(sample_size) as the expected poll error.


  • like x 2

#10 Flex

  • Guest
  • 1,629 posts
  • 149
  • Location:EU

Posted 20 August 2014 - 10:44 PM

Besides any evidence or non-evidence and in regards to any new claims in the future:

It is the dose that makes the Poision.

 

I know that this sentence sounds too smart, but I said it in the hope that people wont become so panicking anymore.

Inuits have a high daily intake of omega 3 and I never heard that they are in a high risk group of prostate cancer.  



#11 serp777

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 11
  • Location:who cares

Posted 21 August 2014 - 03:10 AM

<i>So the study does not explicitly say that omega 3's cause cancer or are carcinogenic</i>

 

The non-randomized study cannot claim causality and pass peer review. But, as you can see from the comments in this thread, once the media starts retelling it, such finer points are lost and even the Longecity members who ought to know better are getting scared away from fish oil. That's how junk science is meant to work -- the guarded claims in the published paper are followed by the predictable sloppy retelling by the media and hysterics spreading the scare. If it's good enough to fool Longecity members, it's more that good enough for general public.

 

<i>Confidence = signal/noise * sqrt(sample size)</i>

 

The sqrt(sample_size) is only valid for randomized sample, where one can assume that variations or errors are independent from the signal. But that is not the case in non-randomized or self-selected samples. E.g. polls on websites are always dismissed as unscientific since the website visitors are a self-selected sample and in such case one cannot use sqrt(sample_size) as the expected poll error.

Plenty of junk science has been written to support omega 3's. The evidence is very inconsistent. The supplement industry makes billions, so it would make sense to try and find support for them. And in what way is this not random? The people were randomly selected from a group that had prostate cancer and a control group that didn't. Did you expect them not to use people who had prostate cancer in a study aimed at looking at prostate cancer? I quoted the exact l passage.

 

Again, this does not guarantee causality. The title of this post is still Fish oil possibly unsafe. Anyone who does a black and white analysis of this stuff is foolish. For the people who disagree, are you denying the link at all? Because that what this article is about. Just because some people misinterpret stuff doesn't mean this is junk science. It clearly does not conclude that omega 3s cause cancer, just that there is a possible link supported by other studies. 

 

Anyways fish oil does not have very good evidence, and yet people here take them religiously. 

 

  • There has been a substantial amount of research on supplements of omega-3s, particularly those found in seafood and fish oil, and heart disease. The findings of individual studies have been inconsistent. In 2012, two combined analyses of the results of these studies did not find convincing evidence these omega-3s protect against heart disease.
  • There is some evidence that omega-3s found in seafood and fish oil may be modestly helpful in relieving symptoms in rheumatoid arthritis. For most other conditions for which omega-3s have been studied, definitive conclusions cannot yet be reached, or studies have not shown omega-3s to be beneficial.

 

http://nccam.nih.gov...ntroduction.htm


Edited by serp777, 21 August 2014 - 03:12 AM.

  • Disagree x 1

#12 nightlight

  • Guest
  • 374 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 21 August 2014 - 05:17 AM

 

 And in what way is this not random? The people were randomly selected from a group that had prostate cancer and a control group that didn't. Did you expect them not to use people who had prostate cancer in a study aimed at looking at prostate cancer? I quoted the exact l passage.

 

Randomized study requires researchers to pick randomly subjects to be given higher omega3 and control group which is not supplemented, then monitor the two groups for any differences. That's how drugs are tested, since any difference can be attributed (within the statistical confidence intervals, including the mentioned sqrt(n) expected error) to the substance used in test group, such as omega3. Otherwise, there could have been unknown common cause (genetic, cultural, environmental etc) which itself increased simultaneously the blood levels of omega3 and the rate of prostate cancer.

 

With randomized study, the cause for the higher omega3 in the test group is known -- it is the random number generator (e.g. computer program) used by researchers to pick subjects for the test group that receives omega3 supplements. But that computer program cannot by itself cause prostate cancer, hence it cannot be a common cause for anything else but for what it was used (to raise omega3). Therefore, if the test group selected in such manner does show higher incidence of prostate cancer one can infer that omega3 is the cause of the cancer (within statistical confidence intervals based on sample size).

 

Again, this does not guarantee causality. The title of this post is still Fish oil possibly unsafe. Anyone who does a black and white analysis of this stuff is foolish.

 

As you can see in this thread, the study scared away some Longecity members who ought to know better. Mere qualifier "possibly" or "may" (you said: may be dangerous and increase the rate of prostate cancer) is obviously inadequate even at Longecity (let alone for general public) in communicating that this type of study could not detect causal relation. Further, due to the low odds ratio of 1.43 the link doesn't even rise to a level of a hint i.e. the ratio would need to be at least 2-3 before one can see it as a hint for further research. Hence, it's a typical junk science of the kind inundating us daily from the mass media.


Edited by nightlight, 21 August 2014 - 05:27 AM.

  • Agree x 1

#13 redFishBlueFish

  • Guest
  • 186 posts
  • 218
  • Location:USA

Posted 21 August 2014 - 06:19 AM

Here is an article, Jarrow posted on their website. From Forbes:

 

In the new study, UCLA researchers had rats spend a few days learning to navigate a maze. Then some of the rats ate diets rich in omega-3 fatty acids or deficient in them; some rats also drank a fructose solution in the place of their regular drinking water. After six weeks on their respective diets, the team put the rats back in the maze to see how well they recalled it.

The rats who had eaten omega-3-deficient diets were slower at completing the maze than the ones who ate diets rich in omega-3s. Those who drank the fructose solution instead of water were the worst-off of all when it came to their cognitive capabilities.

 

The rats also had important differences in how their bodies – and brains – were metabolizing sugar and functioning overall. The rats who had eaten diets without omega-3s had higher triglyceride levels as well as higher glucose and insulin levels. In fact the rats seemed to enter a state of insulin resistance (a precursor to diabetes), but this too was reversed by the addition of omega-3s.

 

 

http://www.forbes.co...en-you-back-up/


  • like x 1

#14 serp777

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 11
  • Location:who cares

Posted 21 August 2014 - 06:43 AM

 

 

 And in what way is this not random? The people were randomly selected from a group that had prostate cancer and a control group that didn't. Did you expect them not to use people who had prostate cancer in a study aimed at looking at prostate cancer? I quoted the exact l passage.

 

Randomized study requires researchers to pick randomly subjects to be given higher omega3 and control group which is not supplemented, then monitor the two groups for any differences. That's how drugs are tested, since any difference can be attributed (within the statistical confidence intervals, including the mentioned sqrt(n) expected error) to the substance used in test group, such as omega3. Otherwise, there could have been unknown common cause (genetic, cultural, environmental etc) which itself increased simultaneously the blood levels of omega3 and the rate of prostate cancer.

 

With randomized study, the cause for the higher omega3 in the test group is known -- it is the random number generator (e.g. computer program) used by researchers to pick subjects for the test group that receives omega3 supplements. But that computer program cannot by itself cause prostate cancer, hence it cannot be a common cause for anything else but for what it was used (to raise omega3). Therefore, if the test group selected in such manner does show higher incidence of prostate cancer one can infer that omega3 is the cause of the cancer (within statistical confidence intervals based on sample size).

 

Again, this does not guarantee causality. The title of this post is still Fish oil possibly unsafe. Anyone who does a black and white analysis of this stuff is foolish.

 

As you can see in this thread, the study scared away some Longecity members who ought to know better. Mere qualifier "possibly" or "may" (you said: may be dangerous and increase the rate of prostate cancer) is obviously inadequate even at Longecity (let alone for general public) in communicating that this type of study could not detect causal relation. Further, due to the low odds ratio of 1.43 the link doesn't even rise to a level of a hint i.e. the ratio would need to be at least 2-3 before one can see it as a hint for further research. Hence, it's a typical junk science of the kind inundating us daily from the mass media.

 

AGAIN, relative risk has nothing to do with confidence. It just shows the increase of risk. Are you saying a 10% increase of risk is impossible because those odds would be too low? That's not what relative risk is about. YOu're looking for confidence. I gave you the definition from wikipedia earlier.

 

" the ratio would need to be at least 2-3"

 

That would be 200-300% increase in risk. That would be crazy high.

 

"the study scared away some Longecity members who ought to know better"

 

There is no evidence that omega 3s are helpful for humans in supplement doses anyways. It's not my fault people are scared by an increase in possible risk. Maybe they should be concerned that the science is not reliable on omega 3s. 

 

 

" used by researchers to pick subjects for the test group that receives omega3 supplements"

 

This study, again, was picked from 35,000 people randomly. Some with prostate cancer and some without. 

 

"Randomized study requires researchers to pick randomly subjects to be given higher omega3 and control group which is not supplemented"

 

No, this study was aimed to see if, between random people, that lower levels of omega 3s were associated with less cancer. They found the opposite, which leads to a possible link the omega 3s might increase the risk of some cancers. 


Here is an article, Jarrow posted on their website. From Forbes:

 

In the new study, UCLA researchers had rats spend a few days learning to navigate a maze. Then some of the rats ate diets rich in omega-3 fatty acids or deficient in them; some rats also drank a fructose solution in the place of their regular drinking water. After six weeks on their respective diets, the team put the rats back in the maze to see how well they recalled it.

The rats who had eaten omega-3-deficient diets were slower at completing the maze than the ones who ate diets rich in omega-3s. Those who drank the fructose solution instead of water were the worst-off of all when it came to their cognitive capabilities.

 

The rats also had important differences in how their bodies – and brains – were metabolizing sugar and functioning overall. The rats who had eaten diets without omega-3s had higher triglyceride levels as well as higher glucose and insulin levels. In fact the rats seemed to enter a state of insulin resistance (a precursor to diabetes), but this too was reversed by the addition of omega-3s.

 

 

http://www.forbes.co...en-you-back-up/

This study is not relevant because omega 3s in the right doses are important for development as the brain depends on them. For example, vitamin E deficiency exists, but if you overdose on the supplement you could increase your risk for cancer. 


  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

#15 nightlight

  • Guest
  • 374 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 21 August 2014 - 02:12 PM

 

" the ratio would need to be at least 2-3"

 

That would be 200-300% increase in risk. That would be crazy high.

 

Not at all, risk ratios 2-3 on non-randomized samples aka in epidemiology (as is the case in the omega3 study) is a weak correlation or weak hint. Only randomized study, experiments or reverse engineering of the actual biochemical chain of causation could show causality.  Namely, there are thousands of meaningless correlations of just about everything with everything else in that range of strengths, hence cherry picking particular one to attack or scare away people from substances, or to attack people using them, is not science but some other agenda ($$$ e.g. sales of competing pharma products, extra taxation, etc). See some examples of strong but clearly silly correlations here. Or here is an excerpt from chapter 2 of a book "Science Without Sense" on the strengths of epidemiological correlations (as tongue in cheek advice to aspiring junk scientist looking for a project to earn his keep):

 

 

                                                                2-4-6-8 What Can We Associate!

Epidemiology is your key to success. Remember, it's the study of real people in the real world... or at least that's the way you should play it. Epidemiology is very convincing to the public - even though it's often no more reliable than a shaky alibi. So you need to be careful.

Epidemiology is the study of, that's right, epidemics. Arising from the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century, epidemiologic studies have been responsible for many genuine advancements in public health. It's how scurvy among 19th Century sailors was linked with vitamin C deficiency, how cholera outbreaks in 19th Century London were associated with untreated drinking water and how typhoid fever was found to be contagious. Epidemiology has a celebrated history, and its distinguished coattails can take you a long way.

There are two basic types of epidemiology studies that you can perform - cohort and case-control. Avoid cohort studies. They involve following a specific group of people into the distant future. Although cohort studies are the better type of epidemiologic study, they can take 20 years or more to complete. You would have to put your ambitions on hold. By the time your results are in, the general public may have wised up and called a halt to the public health gold rush.

On the other hand, case-control studies are preferred because they're fast. Instead of following a group of people into the future, you simply scrounge up a group you can look at in retrospect. It's like Monday morning quarterbacking, only better. At the end of this game, you can adjust the score almost anyway you want.

All you need is a group of people with the disease you're interested in (the cases) and another group of persons without the disease (the controls). Survey the cases and controls (we'll talk about how to do this in a later chapter) to determine who has been exposed to the risk you're studying. If the prevalence of exposure among the cases is greater than the prevalence of exposure among the controls, you may have a winner. For our purposes, we'll call the statistical representation of this comparison the relative risk.

                              Rate of exposure among cases
             Relative risk = ----------------------------------------
                              Prevalence of exposure among controls


What does relative risk mean? Let's say you've studied the association between high fat diet and lung cancer. You've calculated a relative risk of 6. The correct interpretation of this relative risk is that the incidence of high fat diets in the study population was six times greater among those with persons with lung cancer than those without lung cancer. Now is that boring or what? This interpretation will take you nowhere fast.

You need to reword and generalize this interpretation to give it some sex appeal. A risk assessor on the make would say something like "this study shows the risk of lung cancer is six times greater among persons with high fat diets." Notice how we've replaced "incidence" with "risk," two very different concepts and used the word "shows."

"Incidence" means we merely observed the reported result in our study. "Incidence" does not imply, one way or the other, that a high fat diet is associated with lung cancer. By replacing "incidence" with "risk," however, we communicate that a high fat diet causes lung cancer. Our study didn't really say that, but don't worry. That's a small detail that the general public won't notice. Finally, use of the word "shows" implies the study proves the risk. In fact, with a single epidemiologic study, it's impossible to prove anything except the limited observations of that study.

The size of your relative risk is very...no, extremely...no, critically important. The basic rule is simple: the higher the relative risk, the more convincing the association you want to prove.

 

                 INTERPRETING RELATIVE RISKS
    
   Relative risk       Interpretation (career implications)

  • Greater than 3      Strong association (jackpot!)
  • Between 2 and 3     Weak association (may need life support)
  • Between 1 and 2     Very weak association (call the coroner)
  • 1                   No association (sorry)
  • Less than 1         Negative association (whoops!)

Now remember, technically a relative risk is only statistical association. It's an apparent relationship between the exposure and disease of interest. Notice the word "apparent" has been struck out. This is not a typo. It's just that you should pretend you never read it. As a matter of science, we really don't know whether the statistical associations identified through epidemiology are real or not. After all, we've only identified them through statistics, and statistics are not science. If science is the sun, statistics are Pluto. In fact, all sorts of wacky associations can be identified through statistics, as shown by the following chart. Tap water and miscarriages, for instance, or whole milk and lung cancer.

 

                      SAMPLE STATISTICAL ASSOCIATIONS
    
       Exposure and disease                          Reported relative risk (by size)

  • Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer       1.19
  • Consuming olive oil and breast cancer             1.25
  • Vasectomy and prostate cancer                     1.3
  • Obesity in women and premature death              1.3
  • Sedentary job and colon cancer                    1.3
  • 3 cups of coffee per week and premature death     1.3
  • Birth weight of 8+ pounds and breast cancer       1.3
  • Baldness in men under 55 and heart attack         1.4
  • Eating margarine everyday and heart disease       1.5
  • Drinking tap water and miscarriage                1.5
  • Regular use of mouthwash and mouth cancer         1.5
  • Abortion and breast cancer                        1.5
  •  
  • Eating yogurt and ovarian cancer                  2
  • Drinking whole milk and lung cancer               2.14
  • Obesity in nonsmoking women and premature death   2.2
  • Eating red meat and advanced prostate cancer      2.6
  •  
  • Chlorinated drinking water and bladder cancer     2 to 4
  • Douching and cervical cancer                      4
  •  
  • Workplace stress and colorectal cancer            5.5
  •  
  • Eating 12+ hot dogs per month and leukemia        9.5
  •  
  • Wearing a brassiere all day and breast cancer     12,500

 

Now between you and me, if you start worrying whether associations you identify through epidemiology make sense, you'll never cut it in risk assessment. A well-developed conscience is not necessary here. So for your purposes, you shouldn't really care whether an association is fact or fiction, only that you've found it. But there is this thing called biological plausibility that you will need to remember.

In addition to just finding a statistical association between exposure and disease, you're supposed to show the statistical association is biologically plausible. That is, it should make sense from a biological standpoint. For example, it is generally accepted as biologically plausible that too much exposure to the sun's ultraviolet rays is associated with an increased risk of skin cancer. However, it is not biologically plausible that too much sun is associated with cavities. So you wouldn't even try to make that association, would you?

Public health researchers have had such a difficult time convincing people electromagnetic fields are harmful because, to date, there's been no convincing evidence the association is biologically plausible.

How do you get biological plausibility? Short of having lots of highly credible epidemiology, laboratory experiments with animals may be necessary. We'll talk more about this in the chapter on biological plausibility.

If you don't have any supporting animal experiments, you're going to have to be creative... maybe even extremely creative. However, biological plausibility is not the equivalent of biological "truth" or "reality" and no one expects it to be (although you must proclaim it such). At best, it means a biological explanation that enjoys the firm possibility of a definite maybe.

Fortunately, it's likely no one will be able to prove you wrong. But your biological explanation should still pass the "red face" test. Depending, that is, on how confident you are no one will challenge you on this.
 


Edited by nightlight, 21 August 2014 - 02:49 PM.


#16 Dolph

  • Guest
  • 512 posts
  • 122
  • Location:Germany

Posted 21 August 2014 - 02:40 PM

The differences in Omega 3 levels this study found is so insignificant in itsself(!), and so very low allover, that any correlation with whatever disease can be safely assumed to be caused by chance right from the start...

By the way Serp, this is already at least the second time you are turning a very big wheel on something you obviously have absolutely no clue about, based on a very strange piece of... let's call it "science". (http://www.longecity...his-supplement/) I think it always makes sense to accumulate a certain minimum of factual knowledge before spamming the forums and spreading bullshit!
  • like x 1

#17 serp777

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 11
  • Location:who cares

Posted 21 August 2014 - 06:15 PM

The differences in Omega 3 levels this study found is so insignificant in itsself(!), and so very low allover, that any correlation with whatever disease can be safely assumed to be caused by chance right from the start...

By the way Serp, this is already at least the second time you are turning a very big wheel on something you obviously have absolutely no clue about, based on a very strange piece of... let's call it "science". (http://www.longecity...his-supplement/) I think it always makes sense to accumulate a certain minimum of factual knowledge before spamming the forums and spreading bullshit!

You seem to have a bad concept of spamming, and also a bad reading capability. The title is fish oil possibly unsafe, not bullet proof evidence that fish oil is unsafe. I think it makes sense to actually read the thread before making a comment.  

 

Also you have problems with plurality. Their were multiple studies that I have cited. And low concentrations? Not according to the researchers. You could argue against any study in existence with your tactics. 

 

"This study confirms previous reports of increased prostate cancer risk among men with high blood concentrations of LCω-3PUFA. The consistency of these findings suggests that these fatty acids are involved in prostate tumorigenesis. Recommendations to increase LCω-3PUFA intake should consider its potential risks."

 

Also have a chip on your shoulder much? 


Edited by serp777, 21 August 2014 - 06:30 PM.


#18 serp777

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 11
  • Location:who cares

Posted 21 August 2014 - 06:26 PM

 

 

" the ratio would need to be at least 2-3"

 

That would be 200-300% increase in risk. That would be crazy high.

 

Not at all, risk ratios 2-3 on non-randomized samples aka in epidemiology (as is the case in the omega3 study) is a weak correlation or weak hint. Only randomized study, experiments or reverse engineering of the actual biochemical chain of causation could show causality.  Namely, there are thousands of meaningless correlations of just about everything with everything else in that range of strengths, hence cherry picking particular one to attack or scare away people from substances, or to attack people using them, is not science but some other agenda ($$$ e.g. sales of competing pharma products, extra taxation, etc). See some examples of strong but clearly silly correlations here. Or here is an excerpt from chapter 2 of a book "Science Without Sense" on the strengths of epidemiological correlations (as tongue in cheek advice to aspiring junk scientist looking for a project to earn his keep):

 

 

                                                                2-4-6-8 What Can We Associate!

Epidemiology is your key to success. Remember, it's the study of real people in the real world... or at least that's the way you should play it. Epidemiology is very convincing to the public - even though it's often no more reliable than a shaky alibi. So you need to be careful.

Epidemiology is the study of, that's right, epidemics. Arising from the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century, epidemiologic studies have been responsible for many genuine advancements in public health. It's how scurvy among 19th Century sailors was linked with vitamin C deficiency, how cholera outbreaks in 19th Century London were associated with untreated drinking water and how typhoid fever was found to be contagious. Epidemiology has a celebrated history, and its distinguished coattails can take you a long way.

There are two basic types of epidemiology studies that you can perform - cohort and case-control. Avoid cohort studies. They involve following a specific group of people into the distant future. Although cohort studies are the better type of epidemiologic study, they can take 20 years or more to complete. You would have to put your ambitions on hold. By the time your results are in, the general public may have wised up and called a halt to the public health gold rush.

On the other hand, case-control studies are preferred because they're fast. Instead of following a group of people into the future, you simply scrounge up a group you can look at in retrospect. It's like Monday morning quarterbacking, only better. At the end of this game, you can adjust the score almost anyway you want.

All you need is a group of people with the disease you're interested in (the cases) and another group of persons without the disease (the controls). Survey the cases and controls (we'll talk about how to do this in a later chapter) to determine who has been exposed to the risk you're studying. If the prevalence of exposure among the cases is greater than the prevalence of exposure among the controls, you may have a winner. For our purposes, we'll call the statistical representation of this comparison the relative risk.

                              Rate of exposure among cases
             Relative risk = ----------------------------------------
                              Prevalence of exposure among controls


What does relative risk mean? Let's say you've studied the association between high fat diet and lung cancer. You've calculated a relative risk of 6. The correct interpretation of this relative risk is that the incidence of high fat diets in the study population was six times greater among those with persons with lung cancer than those without lung cancer. Now is that boring or what? This interpretation will take you nowhere fast.

You need to reword and generalize this interpretation to give it some sex appeal. A risk assessor on the make would say something like "this study shows the risk of lung cancer is six times greater among persons with high fat diets." Notice how we've replaced "incidence" with "risk," two very different concepts and used the word "shows."

"Incidence" means we merely observed the reported result in our study. "Incidence" does not imply, one way or the other, that a high fat diet is associated with lung cancer. By replacing "incidence" with "risk," however, we communicate that a high fat diet causes lung cancer. Our study didn't really say that, but don't worry. That's a small detail that the general public won't notice. Finally, use of the word "shows" implies the study proves the risk. In fact, with a single epidemiologic study, it's impossible to prove anything except the limited observations of that study.

The size of your relative risk is very...no, extremely...no, critically important. The basic rule is simple: the higher the relative risk, the more convincing the association you want to prove.

 

                 INTERPRETING RELATIVE RISKS
    
   Relative risk       Interpretation (career implications)

  • Greater than 3      Strong association (jackpot!)
  • Between 2 and 3     Weak association (may need life support)
  • Between 1 and 2     Very weak association (call the coroner)
  • 1                   No association (sorry)
  • Less than 1         Negative association (whoops!)

Now remember, technically a relative risk is only statistical association. It's an apparent relationship between the exposure and disease of interest. Notice the word "apparent" has been struck out. This is not a typo. It's just that you should pretend you never read it. As a matter of science, we really don't know whether the statistical associations identified through epidemiology are real or not. After all, we've only identified them through statistics, and statistics are not science. If science is the sun, statistics are Pluto. In fact, all sorts of wacky associations can be identified through statistics, as shown by the following chart. Tap water and miscarriages, for instance, or whole milk and lung cancer.

 

                      SAMPLE STATISTICAL ASSOCIATIONS
    
       Exposure and disease                          Reported relative risk (by size)

  • Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer       1.19
  • Consuming olive oil and breast cancer             1.25
  • Vasectomy and prostate cancer                     1.3
  • Obesity in women and premature death              1.3
  • Sedentary job and colon cancer                    1.3
  • 3 cups of coffee per week and premature death     1.3
  • Birth weight of 8+ pounds and breast cancer       1.3
  • Baldness in men under 55 and heart attack         1.4
  • Eating margarine everyday and heart disease       1.5
  • Drinking tap water and miscarriage                1.5
  • Regular use of mouthwash and mouth cancer         1.5
  • Abortion and breast cancer                        1.5
  •  
  • Eating yogurt and ovarian cancer                  2
  • Drinking whole milk and lung cancer               2.14
  • Obesity in nonsmoking women and premature death   2.2
  • Eating red meat and advanced prostate cancer      2.6
  •  
  • Chlorinated drinking water and bladder cancer     2 to 4
  • Douching and cervical cancer                      4
  •  
  • Workplace stress and colorectal cancer            5.5
  •  
  • Eating 12+ hot dogs per month and leukemia        9.5
  •  
  • Wearing a brassiere all day and breast cancer     12,500

 

Now between you and me, if you start worrying whether associations you identify through epidemiology make sense, you'll never cut it in risk assessment. A well-developed conscience is not necessary here. So for your purposes, you shouldn't really care whether an association is fact or fiction, only that you've found it. But there is this thing called biological plausibility that you will need to remember.

In addition to just finding a statistical association between exposure and disease, you're supposed to show the statistical association is biologically plausible. That is, it should make sense from a biological standpoint. For example, it is generally accepted as biologically plausible that too much exposure to the sun's ultraviolet rays is associated with an increased risk of skin cancer. However, it is not biologically plausible that too much sun is associated with cavities. So you wouldn't even try to make that association, would you?

Public health researchers have had such a difficult time convincing people electromagnetic fields are harmful because, to date, there's been no convincing evidence the association is biologically plausible.

How do you get biological plausibility? Short of having lots of highly credible epidemiology, laboratory experiments with animals may be necessary. We'll talk more about this in the chapter on biological plausibility.

If you don't have any supporting animal experiments, you're going to have to be creative... maybe even extremely creative. However, biological plausibility is not the equivalent of biological "truth" or "reality" and no one expects it to be (although you must proclaim it such). At best, it means a biological explanation that enjoys the firm possibility of a definite maybe.

Fortunately, it's likely no one will be able to prove you wrong. But your biological explanation should still pass the "red face" test. Depending, that is, on how confident you are no one will challenge you on this.
 

 

Ok, your science book might be right, but then you'd better rewrite wikipedia and dismiss all of their sources.

 

"

Statistical significance (confidence) and relative risk[edit]

Whether a given relative risk can be considered statistically significant is dependent on the relative difference between the conditions compared, the amount of measurement and the noise associated with the measurement (of the events considered). In other words, the confidence one has

  • A relative risk of 1 means there is no difference in risk between the two groups.
  • An RR of < 1 means the event is less likely to occur in the experimental group than in the control group.
  • An RR of > 1 means the event is more likely to occur in the experimental group than in the control group."

http://en.wikipedia....i/Relative_risk

 

Again, you're claiming that a 10% increase in risk is impossible because the correlation is too weak. That's ridiculous. You can have a legitamte 5% increase in risk if you have enough data. Why would relative risk mean risk and confidence? It makes no sense. Relative risk does not depend on the amount of data used, only the ratio between the numerator and denominator. Confidence is what you're looking for. 


Edited by serp777, 21 August 2014 - 06:28 PM.

  • like x 1

#19 nightlight

  • Guest
  • 374 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 21 August 2014 - 11:14 PM

 

Ok, your science book might be right, but then you'd better rewrite wikipedia and dismiss all of their sources.

 

"Statistical significance (confidence) and relative risk[edit]

Whether a given relative risk can be considered statistically significant is dependent on the relative difference between the conditions compared, the amount of measurement and the noise associated with the measurement (of the events considered). In other words, the confidence one has

  • A relative risk of 1 means there is no difference in risk between the two groups.
  • An RR of < 1 means the event is less likely to occur in the experimental group than in the control group.
  • An RR of > 1 means the event is more likely to occur in the experimental group than in the control group."

http://en.wikipedia....i/Relative_risk

 

Again, you're claiming that a 10% increase in risk is impossible because the correlation is too weak. That's ridiculous. You can have a legitamte 5% increase in risk if you have enough data. Why would relative risk mean risk and confidence? It makes no sense. Relative risk does not depend on the amount of data used, only the ratio between the numerator and denominator. Confidence is what you're looking for. 

 

 

You clearly don't understand the difference between statistical significance or relative risk (or odds ratio) in randomized (such as randomize trial) and non-randomized samples (such as the omega3 junk study). Even the small odds ratios, such as 10-15% (e.g. at P=0.05 or smaller), in randomized trials are meaningful regarding causal relation between the correlated variables. In contrast, odds ratios 200%-300% are at best a weak hint at a possible causality, but no more. The reason for the major difference in semantics and the associated threshold is that on non-randomized samples, as you can see in the examples of spurious risk ratios given earlier, thousands of variables statistically correlate within such range. Hence, which correlation of that kind researchers pick to point in their junk study is merely a function of what the sponsor paying for such "research" wants to scare public about.

 

E.g. subjects who wear bra daily will have 12,500 times higher risk of breast cancer than those who don't wear bra daily. That is 8741 times higher risk ratio than the one you cited for omega3 risk ratio in the junk study. Yet you would be laughed out of the forum if you posted a thread titled "Major breast cancer risk (12,500x) from wearing bras."  The samples in the two examples are of the same kind, non-randomized -- subjects wear bras for the reasons of their own (e.g. because they have female breasts) which are not controlled or randomized between the samples of bra wearers and bra non-wearers. But these ignored (or unknown) "reasons of their own" can in turn simultaneously cause the subjects to wear bras and to get breast cancer. Similarly, in the junk omega3 study, subjects consume higher (or lower) omga3 for their own reasons which were not even measured, let alone controlled or randomized between samples.

 

Hence, taking into account the difference in risk ratios of the two "studies", the consumption of omega3 has as 8741 time weaker safety implication for the prostate cancer than wearing of bra has for breast cancer. In other words, posting a thread warning about unsafety of omega3 consumption (based on the study discussed) is 8741 times more ridiculous than posting a thread warning about unsafety of wearing bras :).



#20 serp777

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 11
  • Location:who cares

Posted 21 August 2014 - 11:58 PM

 

 

Ok, your science book might be right, but then you'd better rewrite wikipedia and dismiss all of their sources.

 

"Statistical significance (confidence) and relative risk[edit]

Whether a given relative risk can be considered statistically significant is dependent on the relative difference between the conditions compared, the amount of measurement and the noise associated with the measurement (of the events considered). In other words, the confidence one has

  • A relative risk of 1 means there is no difference in risk between the two groups.
  • An RR of < 1 means the event is less likely to occur in the experimental group than in the control group.
  • An RR of > 1 means the event is more likely to occur in the experimental group than in the control group."

http://en.wikipedia....i/Relative_risk

 

Again, you're claiming that a 10% increase in risk is impossible because the correlation is too weak. That's ridiculous. You can have a legitamte 5% increase in risk if you have enough data. Why would relative risk mean risk and confidence? It makes no sense. Relative risk does not depend on the amount of data used, only the ratio between the numerator and denominator. Confidence is what you're looking for. 

 

 

You clearly don't understand the difference between statistical significance or relative risk (or odds ratio) in randomized (such as randomize trial) and non-randomized samples (such as the omega3 junk study). Even the small odds ratios, such as 10-15% (e.g. at P=0.05 or smaller), in randomized trials are meaningful regarding causal relation between the correlated variables. In contrast, odds ratios 200%-300% are at best a weak hint at a possible causality, but no more. The reason for the major difference in semantics and the associated threshold is that on non-randomized samples, as you can see in the examples of spurious risk ratios given earlier, thousands of variables statistically correlate within such range. Hence, which correlation of that kind researchers pick to point in their junk study is merely a function of what the sponsor paying for such "research" wants to scare public about.

 

E.g. subjects who wear bra daily will have 12,500 times higher risk of breast cancer than those who don't wear bra daily. That is 8741 times higher risk ratio than the one you cited for omega3 risk ratio in the junk study. Yet you would be laughed out of the forum if you posted a thread titled "Major breast cancer risk (12,500x) from wearing bras."  The samples in the two examples are of the same kind, non-randomized -- subjects wear bras for the reasons of their own (e.g. because they have female breasts) which are not controlled or randomized between the samples of bra wearers and bra non-wearers. But these ignored (or unknown) "reasons of their own" can in turn simultaneously cause the subjects to wear bras and to get breast cancer. Similarly, in the junk omega3 study, subjects consume higher (or lower) omga3 for their own reasons which were not even measured, let alone controlled or randomized between samples.

 

Hence, taking into account the difference in risk ratios of the two "studies", the consumption of omega3 has as 8741 time weaker safety implication for the prostate cancer than wearing of bra has for breast cancer. In other words, posting a thread warning about unsafety of omega3 consumption (based on the study discussed) is 8741 times more ridiculous than posting a thread warning about unsafety of wearing bras :).

 

You keep saying this is non randomized. What part of "randomly selected from 35,000 people" is non random? They picked random people with prostate cancer and random people without cancer; are you saying the fact that they picked people with prostate cancer throws off the results? That would be like saying a study that picks smokers and non smokers to participate in a study is fundamentally flawed. It's no reasonable. By comparing this to breast cancer and bras, you're saying there's an obvious reason why there couldn't be a reasonable causation effect. There is no such obvious explanation here, WHICH IS WHY THIS IS A POSSIBILITY. Just because you can make a comparison to another study doesn't mean that they're the same at all. 

 

And what possible motive would be here to dismiss omega 3s? You have much more to gain for supporting omega 3s than you do for trying to make up science against them, since you can sell omega 3s. You cant sell "not omegas 3s". The supplement industry makes billions off of junk supplements. It's much more likely for studies supporting omega 3s, which are already scant, 

 

And here's an analysis that provides 50 more studies, some of which were already cited here. 

 

"To meet the bioenergetic requirement for rapid cell proliferation in prostate cancer, there is elevated fatty acid oxidation that provides both ATP and acetyl-CoA; subsequently, increased availability of acetyl-CoA makes acceleration of citrate oxidation possible, which is also an important energy source. Fatty acid oxidation as a dominant bioenergetic pathway has the potential to be the basis for drug targeting and diagnostic imaging in prostate cancer, for example, a new PET tracer C11-acetate, which measures oxidative metabolism of fatty acids, has shown promising results on clinical trials and were more sensitive than FDG-PET in both primary and metastatic prostate lesions.4950"

 

"here are many possible associations between dietary fat intake and risk of prostate cancer, the most significant is that dietary fat may change androgen milieu.40 Hill et al.43 reported that urinary androgen levels decreased in blacks and white males who reduced fatty intake. Dorgen et al.44 performed a randomized crossover study of high- and low-fat dietary intervention in which levels of total and free testosterone were increased when men consumed a higher fat diet. Additional mechanisms to explain an association between dietary fat and prostate cancer are free radicals and proinflammatory fatty acid metabolites such as specific leukotrienes and prostaglandins produced by dietary fat.45"

 

http://www.nature.co...l/4500879a.html

 

This contains a possible scientific explanation for how supplementing with omega 3 fats could increase rates of cancer. 


Edited by serp777, 21 August 2014 - 11:59 PM.


#21 nightlight

  • Guest
  • 374 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 22 August 2014 - 02:07 AM

 


You keep saying this is non randomized. What part of "randomly selected from 35,000 people" is non random? They picked random people with prostate cancer and random people without cancer; are you saying the fact that they picked people with prostate cancer throws off the results?

 

It is the two variables they are correlating with each other, omega3 levels and prostate cancer, which are not mutually randomized.  The two variables came together from outside, connected for reasons of their own which were not under control (for randomization purposes) of the scientists. Among others, they could have come together because there was some other underlying variable which caused both, high omega3 levels and prostate cancer. That's exactly the same as in the correlation between 2 variables 'wearing bra' and 'breast cancer' -- the two came together for the underlying reasons of their own (e.g. because of presence/absence of underlying female breasts in subjects), which affected both variables, 'wearing bra' and 'breast cancer'.

 

To make it a randomized study, one would need to randomize one variable being correlated, in this case omega3 levels e.g. by randomly selecting half the subjects as test group, to receive omega3 supplement, and remaining non-supplemented half as control group. Then one would observe over time how many subjects in the test and control group develop prostate cancer. Only then the correlation (either way) implies causation i.e. it has safety implication (either way). Without randomization of one of the two correlated variables, it is as meaningless for safety regarding prostate cancer as wearing bra is for safety regarding breast cancer, or any of the other silly "risks" illustrated earlier.

 

That would be like saying a study that picks smokers and non smokers to participate in a study is fundamentally flawed.

 

You don't get it. What is fundamentally flawed is drawing safety conclusions from that kind of correlations, just as it is (in more obvious way) fundamentally flawed to draw conclusion that waring bra is unsafe because of huge risk of breast cancer (12,500 times higher "risk" in those wearing bras).

 

Looking for correlations on non-randomized sample is perfectly fine as long as any finding of correlations is understood and presented as a mere hint for further research with methods of hard science (e.g. experiments, randomized trials). It becomes junk science as soon as one leaps from hint to causality claims. For that reason much of what is peddled as science by mass media is junk science, usually a thinly veiled corporate or government PR aiming to sell something or to scare people away from competing products.

 

Scientifically, all that such correlations on non-randomized sample mean is that variable X (e.g. some exposure, habit, lifestyle etc.) and variable D (e.g. disease) are in the same web of causes and effects. They provide no scientific information about the nature of the links (e.g. whether they are causal or accidental connection due to some common cause) that bind the two into that common web. To clarify what kind of links connect the two, you need hard science.


  • Well Written x 1

#22 nightlight

  • Guest
  • 374 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 22 August 2014 - 02:15 AM

And what possible motive would be here to dismiss omega 3s? You have much more to gain for supporting omega 3s than you do for trying to make up science against them, since you can sell omega 3s. You cant sell "not omegas 3s".

 

One can sell treatments or medications for diseases which could be prevented or treated inexpensively and safely by omega3 (e.g. chronic inflammatory conditions). The sickness industry, especially big pharma, helped by their bought of enforcers from government bureaucracies (FDA, CDC, NIH,... etc) are in constant war against herbal and other supplements, especially those that are the most effective.


Edited by nightlight, 22 August 2014 - 02:16 AM.


#23 medicineman

  • Guest
  • 750 posts
  • 125
  • Location:Kuwait

Posted 22 August 2014 - 02:27 AM

You can sell Omega 3. Omacor

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for BRAIN HEALTH to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#24 Flex

  • Guest
  • 1,629 posts
  • 149
  • Location:EU

Posted 22 August 2014 - 02:41 AM

Same game on the new E-liquid law in Europe.

They do less harm the Lungs, but good old friend Marlboro, has changed the Law

for his needs.

(actually not that hard in this chaotic Parlament with a bunch of random people who do random stuff)

Exactly in the moment when the new law came up which only allows 2ml cartridges,

they have allready produced them and started selling them.

How did they knew that this law will pass ?

 

What a coincidence...

oh, and the small "safety" cartridges are far expensiver than the bulk bottles.

Remebers me somewhat on the pricing of the normal cigarettes.. next coincidence ..


Edited by Flex, 22 August 2014 - 02:45 AM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: omega, threes, fatty, acids, cancer, dangerous

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users