New study shows fish oil safe and effective alternative to drugs for ADHD

On Jul 23, 6:10 pm, Peter Bowditch wrote:
bigvince wrote:
On Jul 23, 9:07 am, Peter Bowditch wrote:
GMCarter wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 03:22:37 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

bigvince wrote:

The Australian researchers looked at the effect of eye q (CORR) fish
oil capsules on a group seven to 12-year-olds with ADHD.

Any time a specific brand name substance is used, one should suspect
that something is fishy.

Yes. And any time a drug is named in a clinical trial, one can be
pretty sure that the study is merely a tool for future marketing of
the product.

Actually, what you really want to look for is who sponsored the study.
If it is a company that has an interest in the outcome, you can bet
that indeed, data are spun to SELL and have almost NOTHING to do with
health outcomes or wisest use of an intervention.

George M. Carter

It was sponsored by the very eye Q people who made the potion.
--
- Show quoted text -

Fish oil is what the study talked about. Not a specific brand. Please
site some creditable source for your statement

I'll cite BigVince:

bigvince wrote:

The Australian researchers looked at the effect of eye q (CORR) fish
oil capsules on a group seven to 12-year-olds with ADHD.

You really try hard to look foolish, don't you?

Actually, he makes it look very easy.


--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Projecthttp://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraudhttp://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skepticshttp://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 23, 9:50 am, "D." wrote:
On Jul 22, 8:22 pm, Mark Probert wrote:

bigvince wrote:
The Australian researchers looked at the effect of eye q (CORR) fish
oil capsules on a group seven to 12-year-olds with ADHD.

Any time a specific brand name substance is used, one should suspect
that something is fishy.

I only look seriously at those pieces of research that DO list a
specific product, when it talks about natural products or supplements
like fish oil. There are so many variables in the production and
content of commercial fish oil, for example, or herbal dietary
supplements (which can vary even more, one from another) that I'd only
feel confident buying the brand that was used in the trial (if it was
a legitimate piece of research).

I'd agree with you Mark, 100%, about pharmaceutical trials. When some
brand name drug is used in the trial, something is fishy indeed.

Dave

Dave lets not overlook the children that this may help. as the article
noted
'
" The number of hyperactive children on medication is soaring, with a
staggering 330,000 prescriptions written out each year, or 6,350 a
week.


Nine British children have died after taking the drugs. Two died of
heart problems, while others suffered illnesses including strokes and
swelling of the brain. Dr Timimi, a consultant child and adolescent
psychiatrist at Lincolnshire NHS Trust, said: 'Drugs like Ritalin
have
considerable dangers associated with them, including insomnia,
changes
in personality and cardiotoxicity - they are bad for the heart and
can
cause heart attacks, strokes and sudden death.


'It must be preferable to that.'


Nick Giovannelli(CORR), of the Hyperactive Children's Support Group,
urged parents to consider using natural alternatives to Ritalin.


He said: 'GPs seem to be too quick to prescribe medication.


'This new study adds to the mounting evidence that nutrition is safer
and more effective than stimulant medication.'

According to Dr. .Timmini these drugs have 'considerable dangers'
associated with them .How any sales rep could overlook and minimise
these dangers speaks to the nature of this industry. Parents
fortunately are able to evaluate for themselfs. Thanks Vince

GMCarter wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 03:22:37 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

bigvince wrote:

The Australian researchers looked at the effect of eye q (CORR) fish
oil capsules on a group seven to 12-year-olds with ADHD.

Any time a specific brand name substance is used, one should suspect
that something is fishy.

Yes. And any time a drug is named in a clinical trial, one can be
pretty sure that the study is merely a tool for future marketing of
the product.

Nope. Many trials are post market.

Actually, what you really want to look for is who sponsored the study.
If it is a company that has an interest in the outcome, you can bet
that indeed, data are spun to SELL and have almost NOTHING to do with
health outcomes or wisest use of an intervention.

Perhaps, sometimes.

bigvince wrote:
On Jul 23, 9:07 am, Peter Bowditch wrote:
GMCarter wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 03:22:37 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:
bigvince wrote:
The Australian researchers looked at the effect of eye q (CORR) fish
oil capsules on a group seven to 12-year-olds with ADHD.
Any time a specific brand name substance is used, one should suspect
that something is fishy.
Yes. And any time a drug is named in a clinical trial, one can be
pretty sure that the study is merely a tool for future marketing of
the product.
Actually, what you really want to look for is who sponsored the study.
If it is a company that has an interest in the outcome, you can bet
that indeed, data are spun to SELL and have almost NOTHING to do with
health outcomes or wisest use of an intervention.
George M. Carter
It was sponsored by the very eye Q people who made the potion.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Projecthttp://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraudhttp://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skepticshttp://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fish oil is what the study talked about. Not a specific brand. Please
site some creditable source for your statement


Vinnie...there goes your credibility and comprehension problems.
Obviously, you either did not read the article you posted, or, you did
not understand it. The article said:

"The Australian researchers looked at the effect of eye q (CORR) fish
oil capsules on a group seven to 12-year-olds with ADHD."

See the nice pretty bottles:

http://www.alternativehealth.com.au/Product/eyeQ.htm

There have been numerous "studies" by the manufacturer. All bull****
designed to promote sales.

bigvince wrote:
On Jul 23, 6:21 am, GMCarter wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 03:22:37 GMT, Mark Probert

wrote:
bigvince wrote:
The Australian researchers looked at the effect of eye q (CORR) fish
oil capsules on a group seven to 12-year-olds with ADHD.
Any time a specific brand name substance is used, one should suspect
that something is fishy.
Yes. And any time a drug is named in a clinical trial, one can be
pretty sure that the study is merely a tool for future marketing of
the product.

Actually, what you really want to look for is who sponsored the study.
If it is a company that has an interest in the outcome, you can bet
that indeed, data are spun to SELL and have almost NOTHING to do with
health outcomes or wisest use of an intervention.

George M. Carter

George you are Entirely correct. fish oil is not a patented drug and
the study referred to the benefitof fish oil .

The fact is, idiot, that the study was by a manufacturer of a specific
brand. If you had any ability to comprehend what you read, you would
know that.

The other comment by
Probert is very true when talking about patented drugs such as
ritalin;

Incorrect. For the past 10 years I have seen that the vast majority of
the studies on methylpheniate are sponsored by NIMH.

vioxx; ketek and other dangerous drugs where all the relavent
studys are sponsered by the maker. A real potential to 'cook the
data' studys on natural foods after all fish oil is a food provide no
such economic incentive. Thanks Vince

D. wrote:
On Jul 22, 8:22 pm, Mark Probert wrote:
bigvince wrote:
The Australian researchers looked at the effect of eye q (CORR) fish
oil capsules on a group seven to 12-year-olds with ADHD.
Any time a specific brand name substance is used, one should suspect
that something is fishy.

I only look seriously at those pieces of research that DO list a
specific product, when it talks about natural products or supplements
like fish oil. There are so many variables in the production and
content of commercial fish oil, for example, or herbal dietary
supplements (which can vary even more, one from another) that I'd only
feel confident buying the brand that was used in the trial (if it was
a legitimate piece of research).

A few years ago there was a report that even in the same bottle,
concentrations varied by a factor of 10.


I'd agree with you Mark, 100%, about pharmaceutical trials. When some
brand name drug is used in the trial, something is fishy indeed.


Sometimes, only the brand name is available. Methylphenidate is well
studied, and the generics are used.

Mark Probert wrote:

D. wrote:
On Jul 22, 8:22 pm, Mark Probert wrote:
bigvince wrote:
The Australian researchers looked at the effect of eye q (CORR) fish
oil capsules on a group seven to 12-year-olds with ADHD.
Any time a specific brand name substance is used, one should suspect
that something is fishy.

I only look seriously at those pieces of research that DO list a
specific product, when it talks about natural products or supplements
like fish oil. There are so many variables in the production and
content of commercial fish oil, for example, or herbal dietary
supplements (which can vary even more, one from another) that I'd only
feel confident buying the brand that was used in the trial (if it was
a legitimate piece of research).

A few years ago there was a report that even in the same bottle,
concentrations varied by a factor of 10.


I'd agree with you Mark, 100%, about pharmaceutical trials. When some
brand name drug is used in the trial, something is fishy indeed.


Sometimes, only the brand name is available. Methylphenidate is well
studied, and the generics are used.

And if there are generics --- the patent must have expired! So much
for the idiocy about making millions from patented medicine as against
unpatented foodstuffs.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:10:47 GMT, Peter Bowditch
wrote:


It was sponsored by the very eye Q people who made the potion.

"Potion"? Fish oil?

Anyway, where is the support for your claim? Perhaps "eye Q" merely
donated the product for the study. Or perhaps they funded the study.
The article here doesn't say that as far as I can see.

So you claim it was sponsored by the eye Q people. What do you have
to back that claim?

Do you have a copy of the original paper? Love to see it!

And you bet--I think ANYONE with a kid with ADHD should try fish oil
before ritalin or other such horrifically toxic, overpriced
stuff...that should be the LAST resort. Don't you think so?

George M. Carter

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:41:30 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

snip
Vinnie...there goes your credibility and comprehension problems.
Obviously, you either did not read the article you posted, or, you did
not understand it. The article said:

"The Australian researchers looked at the effect of eye q (CORR) fish
oil capsules on a group seven to 12-year-olds with ADHD."

See the nice pretty bottles:

http://www.alternativehealth.com.au/Product/eyeQ.htm

There have been numerous "studies" by the manufacturer. All bull****
designed to promote sales.

Probert, there goes your credibility. As if you had any...but that
statement merely states WHAT was used in the study.

Perhaps they did sponsor the study. Perhaps they merely donated
product.

I hardly think that donating product compares to the kind of invidious
**** pharma pulls on universities, preventing them from publishing
negative data or spinning data when they sponsor a study!

But perhaps you, like Bowditch, have other information?

Or do you merely project your nonsense in order to defend the sales of
drugs? Profit over life and health, right Mark?

George M. Carter

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:45:09 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

snip
The fact is, idiot, that the study was by a manufacturer of a specific
brand. If you had any ability to comprehend what you read, you would
know that.

Well, "idiot' the STUDY was conducted at the University of Adelaide.
You have provided no evidence that the study was funded by the fish
oil industry....

The other comment by
Probert is very true when talking about patented drugs such as
ritalin;

Incorrect. For the past 10 years I have seen that the vast majority of
the studies on methylpheniate are sponsored by NIMH.

LOL...this may well be true--but only goes to undercut the ****ing
lies of pharma that they spend so goddamn much on R&D to justify their
outrageous, rapacious and economically genocidal pricing of drugs.

US consumers pay TWICE.

I think we SHOULD have good studies--with STRONG conflicts of interest
laws--done by NIH. That's fine...but the NIH and FDA are in the
revolving door pocket of pharma. Data are distorted...licenses handed
over...and the prices charged by pharma for having done VERY little,
especially after tax breaks, then in turn help destroy the US
"healthcare system."

Really SiCKO.

George M. Carter