Thursday, April 3, 2014

Why Fish Oil Supplementation Fails



Why Fish Oil Fails: A Comprehensive 21st Century Lipids-Based Physiologic Analysis

B. S. Peskin

The medical community suffered three significant fish oil failures/setbacks in 2013. Claims that fish oil’s EPA/DHA would stop the progression of heart disease were crushed when The Risk and Prevention Study Collaborative Group (Italy) released a conclusive negative finding regarding fish oil for those patients with high risk factors but no previous myocardial infarction. Fish oil failed in all measures of CVD prevention—both primary and secondary. Another major 2013 setback occurred when fish oil’s DHA was shown to significantly increase prostate cancer in men, in particular, high-grade prostate cancer, in the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) analysis by Brasky et al. 

Another monumental failure occurred in 2013 whereby fish oil’s EPA/DHA failed to improve macular degeneration. In 2010, fish oil’s EPA/DHA failed to help Alzheimer’s victims, even those with low DHA levels. These are by no means isolated failures. The promise of fish oil and its so-called active ingredients EPA / DHA fails time and time again in clinical trials. This lipids-based physiologic review will explain precisely why there should have never been expectation for success. This review will focus on under publicized lipid science with a focus on physiology.


1. Introduction


The object of this review is to show how there could be no possible expectation of general patient benefit with prophylactic fish oil use. It will be shown that the amount of EPA/DHA from routine fish oil recommendations is 20Xs-500Xs more than the body would naturally produce on its own from alpha-linolenic acid (ALA)—Parent omega-3.

Advances in quantitative analysis have been made in the 21st century which are not yet disseminated in the medical community; that is, the delta-6/-5 enzymes are not impaired in the general patient population, and the amount of EPA/DHA required on a daily basis by the brain is now known to be less than 7.2 mg/day. Neither extremely important fact was known in the 20th century. Lipid physiology makes the following clear: 

  • Marine oil’s EPA/DHA spontaneously oxidizes at room temperature and more rapidly at normal body temperature—no level of antioxidants can stop this deleterious effect. 
  • Fish oil blunts the insulin response and raises resting blood glucose levels. 
  • Fish oil decreases critical prostacyclin (PGI2) in patients with atherosclerosis—a very bad outcome. 
  • Fish oil rapidly decreases arterial compliance—increasing “hardening of the arteries.” 
  • In contrast to researcher’s expectations, fish oil accelerates metastases in animals. 
  • Fish oil’s EPA/DHA do nothing to increase cellular and tissue oxygenation; to the contrary, marine oils increase inflammation. 
  • Marine oil consumption impairs mitochondrial functionality, making it an anti-aging substance.


The medical profession is unaware of or is not acknowledging the lipid science unequivocally showing the great harm that marine/fish oil’s supraphysiologic amounts of EPA/DHA cause. As will be shown, the claim that prophylactic use of marine oil produces positive patient results is completely counter to 21st century lipid science.

Read the entire article at Natural Healing Tools. 

The International PEO Society, P.O. Box 56507, Houston, TX 77256, USA

Correspondence should be addressed to B. S. Peskin; prof-peskin@peskinpharma.com
Received 26 September 2013; Revised 10 November 2013; Accepted 11 November 2013; Published 16, January 2014

Academic Editor: Angel Catala´
Copyright © 2014 B. S. Peskin. 
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.