I thought I'd create a page with quotations from the professional nutritional literature (which "experts" are supposed to have read), along with a few other "gems." If a "health professional" advises you to consume flax, canola, or fish oil, I suggest you print this out and have him or her read it.

In "Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease" (by Shils and Young, 7th edition, page 102), for example, they say the "data certainly do not support the widely published assumption that n-3 fatty acids possess a specific retarding effect on atherogenesis... in rabbits at least, they seem to stimulate atherosclerosis." The animals had liver damage as well as "Periportal fibrosis, lipogranulomas filled with lipofuscin, and bile duct hyperplasia." The authors go on to say: "Other potentially harmful effects of 20:5 n-3 and 22:6 n-3 [that is, EPA and DHA] rich fish oils are neglected by the advocates of increased human consumption of fish oils. The pathologically increased bleeding times, as observed after aspirin ingestion, also occurs in Eskimos on a high fish oil diet."

The authors go on to talk about "a promoting role of [EPA/DHA] in the development of carrdiac necrosis and an increased sensitivity to catecholamine stress." They then talk about extreme tocopherol ("vitamin E") deficiency in animals and say that to repeat the experiments in humans might be dangerous.

Another telling quotation: "...the most severe degree of atherosclerosis was observed in rabbits fed fish oil, with a similar trend in the [flax] oil group., rather than after feeding palm oil with its high concentration of palmitic and stearic acid [saturated fatty acids]."

In the second addition of Maria C. Linder's "Nutritional Biochemistry and Metabolism," second edition, page 462, we learn of the "potential toxic effects of such fatty acids [the omega 3s in fish oil], causing inreased bleeding, 'yellow fat disease,' cardiac necrosis... as well as ulcers, platelet and immune malfunction..." Another interesting point about how toxic and potent fish oil is: "...fish oils may be...better than cyclosporine in suppressing the immune system..." Page 77.

In "Diet and Health," by the National Research Council, page 192, they say: "...it has not been established that inake of omega-3 fish oils per so will reduce the risk of CHD ["heart disease"]. Furthermore, it is not known whether long-term ingestion of these PUFAs will lead to undesirable side effects. The information available does not support a rcommendation to use fish oil supplements to reduce the risk of CHD." They also note that the use of the native Greenlander diet as an example of the supposed benefits of fish oil need to be considered more carefully, since these people "...usually die before middle age." And they point out a basic and disturbing biochemical fact that many medical doctors are not even aware of, that is "...the extreme susceptibility of the omega 3 fatty acids in fish oil to oxidation." Page 601.

The following abstract is all too familiar these days, but you hardly ever hear about anything resembling this in the mainstream media. Notice how they mention that both arachidonic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, which is found in high amounts in fish oil, are responsible for the dysfunction and "diease." Here again, I agree with them completely, but I go on to ask the obvious question, "why are we consuming these substances at all if there is no need for them?" If the only reason is that a flawed experiment was done in 1930 that was refuted directly in 1948 became entrenched in textbooks, then it's time to "get the word out," which is what I am trying to do. I welcome new experiments, and may even pay for all expenses if I am wrong about this (if we can agree on the experimental design so that it does not repeat the mistakes of 1930 and other similar experiments), but nobody who believes in the "essential fatty acid" claim has ever expressed interest in this offer.

Neuroscientist. 2006 Jun;12(3):245-60.

Phospholipase A2-generated lipid mediators in the brain: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Farooqui AA, Horrocks LA.

Department of Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Phospholipase A2 (PLA2) generates arachidonic acid, docosahexaenoic acid, and lysophospholipids from neural membrane phospholipids. These metabolites have a variety of physiological effects by themselves and also are substrates for the synthesis of more potent lipid mediators such as eicosanoids, platelet activating factor, and 4-hydroxynonenal (4-HNE). At low concentrations, these mediators act as second messengers. They affect and modulate several cell functions, including signal transduction, gene expression, and cell proliferation, but at high concentrations, these lipid mediators cause neurotoxicity. Among the metabolites generated by PLA2, 4-HNE is the most cytotoxic metabolite and is associated with the apoptotic type of neural cell death. Levels of 4-HNE are markedly increased in neurological disorders such as Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, ischemia, spinal cord trauma, and head injury. The purpose of this review is to summarize and integrate the vast literature on metabolites generated by PLA2 for a wider audience. The authors hope that this discussion will jump-start more studies not only on the involvement of PLA2 in neurological disorders but also on the importance of PLA2-generated lipid mediators in physiological and pathological processes.

Fish oil also changes one's "immune system" in a way that is similar to what happens in many "AIDS" cases, for example:

"...the anti-inflammatory effects of FO may be explained in part by a shift in the Th1/Th2 balance, due to the direct suppression of Th1 development, and not by enhancement of the propensity of CD4+ T cells to be polarized toward a Th2 phenotype..."

Thus, the "anti-inflammatory" effect is "toxic," that is, it prevents the body from protecting itself, and so it counteracts the effects of arachidonic acid overload syndrome by creating a condition that may be much worse!

Source: J Nutr. 2005 Jul;135(7):1745-51.

In a book that appears to me to be designed for undergraduate college students, "Perspectives in Nutrition," by Gordon M. Wardlaw, et al (fourth edition), there is:

"An upper limit of 10% of energy intake as polyunsaturated fatty acids is often recommended, in part because the breakdown (oxidation) of those present in lipoproteins is linked to increased cholesterol deposition in arteries [note that it is more than a "link," as the molecular evidence is clear about exactly what is occurring]... This breakdown may alkso increase the risk of cancer. Depression of immune function is also suspected to be caused by an excessive intake of polyunsaturated fats." Page 135.

"An excess of omega-3 fatty acid intake can allow uncontrolled bleeding and may cause hemorrhagic stroke... Overall, excessive consumption of omega-3 fatty acids as such can be as problematic as inadequate consumption. Currently, health experts do not recommend that healthy people use fish oil supplements..." Page 120.

What is interesting here is that the National Research Council noted that one would have to consume a great deal of omega 3s to acheive the "desired effects," and thus one will be taking great risks in doing so. Is it necessary to take such a risk? Not until it is clear that "essential fatty acid deficiency" in a non-pregnant adult human is possible on a diet that substitutes something like fresh coconut oil for all other major sources of fat. I've done this experiment on myself for several years now and have seen only benefits, but if we look at the molecular-level evidence, we can see why.

For example, Watkins, et al. found that the AA metabolite, PGE2, is responsible for bone degeneration, and that omega-3 fatty acids, as anyone who understands the biochemistry would know, block the formation of PGE2. But these researchers also found that: "Saturated fat intake led to increased bone density..." and that "...butter fat... reduced ex vivo bibe PGE2... and increased bone formation rates... compared to those given diets higher in n-6 [omega 6] fatty acids," and they talk about how "saturated fatty acids... can benefit bone modeling."

Source: "Bioactive fatty acids: role in bone biology and bone cell function," in Porgress in Lipid Research 40 (2001) 125-148.

Now a key point here is that if they had used lard, which some "experts" call a "saturated fat," it is highly unlikely that they would have gotten the same result. Butter is a safe "saturated fat," whereas the lard sold in the West is not (and I trim off the yellowed sides of the butter stick before using it, because that is oxidized lipid and is dangerous). Turning back to omega 3s, what this shows is that you do not have to ingest something dangerous to counteract something dangerous, because there are much safer alternatives: butter, yogurt, coconut oil, dark choclate, etc. Now that the molecular evidence has made it clear that oxidation is the problem, a highly saturated fat source, like coconut oil, is undeniably very healthy, whereas a fat source with a great deal of unsaturated fatty acids and little or no antioxidant protection (like today's lard) is very dangerous.

In another study:

"...addition of cod liver oil to to the diet elevated the rate of peroxidation by 20-fold."

And that was on top of the 10-fold increase over rats on the fat free diet (when corn oil was added).

Source: from the text of the following (which is just the abstract):

Free Radic Biol Med. 1988;5(2):95-111.

A role for dietary lipids and antioxidants in the activation of carcinogens.

Gower JD.

Division of Comparative Medicine, Clinical Research Centre, Harrow, Middlesex, U.K.

"The ways in which dietary polyunsaturated fats and antioxidants affect the balance between activation and detoxification of environmental precarcinogens is discussed, with particular reference to the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon benzo(a)pyrene. The structure and composition of membranes and their susceptibility to peroxidation is dependent on the polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) content of the cell and its antioxidant status, both of which are determined to a large degree by dietary intake of these compounds. An increase in the PUFA content of membranes stimulates the oxidation of precarcinogens to reactive intermediates by affecting the configuration and induction of membrane-bound enzymes (e.g., the mixed-function oxidase system and epoxide hydratase); providing increased availability of substrates (hydroperoxides) for peroxidases that cooxidise carcinogens (e.g., prostaglandin synthetase and P-450 peroxidase); and increasing the likelihood of direct activation reactions between peroxyl radicals and precarcinogens..."

Biologist Ray Peat has cited much older studies, such as how dogs fed fish oil all died of cancer:

"Fifty years ago, it was found that a large amount of cod liver oil in dogs' diet increased their death rate from cancer by 20 times, from the usual 5% to 100%. A diet rich in fish oil causes intense production of toxic lipid peroxides, and has been observed to reduce a man's sperm count to zero. [H. Sinclair, Prog. Lipid Res. 25, 667, 1989.]"

Source: http://www.healthythyroid.com/vegetableoils.htm

Peat notes of the Sinclair experiment:

"An oil researcher spent 100 days eating what he considered to be the Eskimo diet, seal blubber and mackerel paste. He observed that his blood lipid peroxides (measured as malondialdehyde, MDA) reached a level 50 times higher than normal, and although MDA is teratogenic, he said he wasn't worried about fathering deformed children, because his sperm count had gone to zero." Original source: Sinclair, H., Prog. Lipid Res. 25: 667-72, "History of EFA & their prostanoids: some personal reminiscences."

Finally, I recommend reading "The Cholesterol Conspiracy" by Russell L. Smith (1991). He cites a great deal of the pre-1990 literature and also gives a good account of the politics involved in medical and nutritional advice. About fish oil, he notes:

"...the Eskimo study was yet another example of poor scientific analysis and reporting. First, the authors of the study offered no convincing evidence that the Eskimos had low CHD ["heart disease"] rates. The few hundred Eskimos located over a very large area had little in the way of physician care and autopsy data confirming cause of death were rare. Primitive Eskimos rarely live beyond age 50, long before CHD symptoms emerge in the vast majority of people. The Eskimo study authors neither mentioned this fact, nor provided the reader with such basic data as average age of Eskimos in their study. Such an omission was incredible for a 'scientific' article because of the interpretation of CHD rates depends heavily on age. The average cholesterol level of the Eskimos was higher than the average value of Americans." Page 79.

And: "...diets high in polyunsaturates seriously suppress the body's natural immune system... a possible third contributor to cancer is the process of 'auto-oxidation' of polyunsaturated fatty acids..." Page 96.

And: "And since omega-3 fatty acids are more unsaturated than the common polyunsaturated vegetable fats (omega-6), they are even more prone to oxidation than the vegetable fats..." Page 103.

Omega 3s are said to be necessary for eye health, but the opposite may be the case:

QUOTE: "Over the past decade, Salomon's research has expanded to other diseases such as macular degenerative diseases that result in blindness and involve "brain lipids" that contain an omega-3 fatty acid that is abundant in fish oil. Brain lipids are very rare in the body, but are found in nerve cells and in the photoreceptor rod cells of the eye. Salomon and Clinic researchers suspected that the energy from light on the receptors might promote oxidation and damage. Through mass spectroscopy studies, they have begun to see protein modifications that are similar to those in heart disease." UNQUOTE.

Source: http://www.cwru.edu/pubaff/univcomm/2002/june/cholesterol.htm

So at this point, you might be asking, "then why are all these studies we hear about in the media saying that fish oil is so good?" Many of the studies are obviously flawed, and others simply reveal the socio-economic reality in nations like the USA, that is, oily fish that people like to eat costs more, and so the more affluent, who have better health care, live easier lives, eat higher quality food, are more aware of what is considered healthy, etc., are more likely to eat such items, and also to cook them in less dangerous ways. Mostly, the results (almost all short term) reflect how two unhealthy items in small amounts are usally less dangerous than one unhealthy item in large amounts. However, it is also true that in some ways fish oil is not quite as dangerous as arachidonic acid, for example:

"These data suggest that the cardioprotective properties of n-3 fatty acids may derive in part from their less reactive oxidized lipid metabolites."

Source: J Nutr Biochem. 2005 Apr;16(4):213-21.

And this one is important: J Lipid Res. 2006 Oct 30.

Immunosuppressive effects of polyunsaturated fatty acids on antigen presentation by HLA class I molecules.

Shaikh SR, Edidin M.

Dietary supplementation with polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) has immunosuppressive effects... [lowering] target cell susceptibility to lysis by effector T cells. Treatment of B lymphoblast targets with the -6 PUFA arachidonic acid (AA) or -3 docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) lowered their susceptibility to lysis by alloreactive CD8+ T cells by ~20-25%... PUFAs significantly lowered APC-T cell conjugate formation, by ~30-40%...