On 02/15/2015 12:28 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 11:48:47 -0800, T wrote:

On 02/15/2015 03:50 AM, Shadow wrote:
They only used drugs that passed previous and smaller
evidence-based trials. No "natural medicine" made the mark. No point
in wasting money if you are doing a trial as big as ALLHAT.

They should have thrown it in anyway. They were making assumptions.
And there is a lot of evidence that fish oils treat hypertension.

There is none at all, except at your friendly fish-oil scam
merchant.
[]'s


Hi Shadow,

So why not throw it into your double blind study and prove it?
They only went after things that made them money. They had
the perfect opportunity to disprove fish oil. This is
one of the reasons why I do not like the study. That
and the assumptions they made.

By the way, did you go to Pub Med before you made that
statement? I do so love the scientific method:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22345681
A systematic review of fish-oil supplements for
the prevention and treatment of hypertension.

Fish oils are widely believed to promote cardiovascular
health by lowering blood pressure (BP) but the evidence
supporting this is not conclusive. We aimed to
systematically review existing evidence.

METHOD: We undertook a systematic review of randomized
controlled trials and crossover trials that evaluated
the effectiveness of fish-oil supplements. We included
trials enrolling adults who were given fish-oil supplements
with at least 8 weeks' follow up. Effects on systolic and
diastolic BP were assessed using meta-analysis.
Meta-regression was undertaken to explore the relationship
between dose of fish oil and BP outcomes.

RESULTS: We included 17 studies, with a total of 1524
participants. We explored the effects of fish-oil supplements
in both normotensive and hypertensive participants with BP
140/85 mmHg at least. Meta-analyses were performed using the
inverse-variance method. Data from eight studies in hypertensive
participants found a statistically significant reduction in
systolic and diastolic BP; 2.56 mmHg (95% CI 0.58 to 4.53) and
1.47 mmHg (95% CI 0.41 to 2.53), respectively. Nine studies
in normotensive participants showed a non-significant reduction
in both systolic and diastolic BP. Meta-regression showed no
significant relationship between dose of fish oil and the effect
on BP.

CONCLUSION: The small but statistically significant effects
of fish-oil supplements in hypertensive participants in this
review have important implications for population health
and lowering the risk of stroke and ischaemic heart disease.
Their modest effects, however, mean that they should not
be recommended as an alternative to BP-lowering drugs
where guidelines recommend treatment.

Here is another one:
The role of fish oil in hypertension.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17966723

Pub med lights up with this stuff.

Hmmmmmm. Apparently someone from the allopathic community
hosed you pretty good.

When it comes to my body, I only accept the Scientific
Method. I completely reject the "Wallet" method.

You are an awful good sport to put up with me.

-T

Time for me to adjust my tin foil hat. :-)