I wouldn't say that it is misleading per se, just that it is only part of the overall picture. There is no one factor involved in any bodily process. And there are several destructive metabolites in inflammatory conditions, simply referred to as inflammatory mediators. The problem I see the most is that people, including scientists attach the wrong conclusion to these mediators and typically view them as "bad". This view is erroneous in the fact that they are all normal by products of metabolism. The problem is the imbalances of them which occur due to faulty diet.

 

Longstanding dietary habits cause longstanding deficiencies and excesses of nutrients and metabolites such as these, which in turn causes chronic inflammatory states to exsist over a lifetime. Another problem I see is the illogical approach taken to combat these chronic conditions. Aside from labeling a metabolite as "bad", the most common method of mainstream dedicine in dealing with that excessive destructive element is to produce a drug to combat it's ill effects, rather than to look at the big picture and see what is going wrong and treat it with proper diet.

 

Then on the other side of the fence we have the supplement industry who determine what natural substance blocks the effects of the questionable substance, and push for supplementation of it to ward off disease. While natural food substances may be safer and less toxic than a drug, to overuse them in large amounts is also not safe. Every molecule in the body has an effect, and excesses of one can cause deficiencies of another. But all the "health gurus" out there would interpret the above study as proof that more omega 3 is needed in the diet to prevent excessive AA production. While it is shown that omega 3 does also inhibit PGE 2 and therefore bone resorption, taking huge amounts of it is not without ill effects. IMO, the added burden of free radicals caused by such supplementation can only add fuel to the fire.

 

No logical treatment is found on either side of the fence. How can that be? How is it that the supplement industry is as bad as the pharmaceutical companies in distorting information and leading us down a primrose path of more destruction. Even the AHA is recommending "heart healthy" omega 3 supplementation. The reason is simple, and that is that big pharma is also profitting from the supplement industry, because they are the ones producing all the vitamins and other supplements. So if they can't get you to take a drug, they get you to take highly processed, fractionated nutraceuticals instead. Some of these supplements cost more than drugs, so they are not losing profits in any way, they are simply covering all the bases.

 

There are plenty of studies which compare saturated fats vs polyunsaturated fats, and both show cancerous effects as well as other maladies. The problem is the sources of fats used in these studies. Using oxidized saturated fats in comparison to omega 3 fats would have the same outcomes, as both produce free radicals. To get the beneficial effects of CLA noted above without any deleterious effects would require consuming fresh cream from raw milk, rather than the highly pasteurized stuff we are forced to consume.