Sounds more like fish oil may be just as ineffective as a certain kind of medication (statins) in prolonging survival in congestive heart failure.

Let's look at those results: a prescription medicine derived from fish oil was given to a group of patients with CHF (a control group got placebo instead). 1,981 patients in the fish oil drug group died of heart failure or were admitted to the hospital for CHF-associated problems. 2,053 patients who got placebo died of heart failure or were admitted to the hospital due to CHF.

At best, that's a very tiny benefit; it's nowhere near convincing evidence that the drug is good for CHF patients (fish oil, of course, has some cardiovascular benefits for people in general). And nowhere in that report is it stated that "just plain fish oil" would work as well as the prescription drug, though it's hoped that more inexpensive supplements or just eating more fish would work the same way.

As far as statins go, most recent evidence suggests they don't improve survival in CHF patients, but a major recent trial showed other benefits.

In any case, fish oil isn't an herb, and the study was paid for by drug companies. Imagine - drug companies bankrolling a study that suggests that simple dietary modification and the use of cheap supplements might work as well as expensive statin drugs! What were they thinking? Even more bizarre - the American Heart Association (which has been denounced elsewhere in this forum for not being attentive enough to alternative remedies) promotes eating fish for heart health!! Conspiracy theorists are probably spinning in circles trying to figure this one out. ;)

"Italian researchers gave nearly 3,500 patients a daily omega-3 pill, a prescription-formulation pill derived from fish oils, produced by Norway's Pronova BioPharma...Both studies were paid for by an Italian group of pharmaceuticals including Pfizer Inc., Sigma Tau SpA and AstraZeneca PLC."

One final note - reading the entire article, I see no claim from anyone that congestive heart failure patients should throw away all their prescription meds and rely on fish oil instead.

I haven't seen all the details, but a single pill suggests a rather low dose. While some of the symptoms of n-3 fatty acid deficiency can be alleviated by a small dose, treating other conditions with fish oil requires a larger dose. One consideration is not merely whether or not a dollop of n-3 fats is consumed, but the balance of n-3 to n-6 fats. If a person continues to consume 20 or 40 times more n-6 than n-3 fats, the effects of fish oil may be quite limited.

When it comes to psoriasis and fish oil, the studies for a small daily dose taken orally showed little or no effect; with intravenous fish oil, a rapid, dramatic effect on psoriasis has been documented.

Dose, bio-availability, and other fats in the diet.

As for psoriasis (a rather dramatic change of subject from congestive heart failure), I'm unaware that fish oil has been proven to have a "rapid, dramatic effect on psoriasis", but maybe you could explain where that conclusion comes from.

No. I am saying that the effect was small but significant, which is different from miniscule. I am questioning the dose - in spite of your faith in homeopathy, there is something called the dose-response curve, which indicates that sometimes, more actually is better. I am not saying that I know a larger dose of fish oil would be more effective, but that is a reasonable possibility that should be raised when discussing this study.

The dose and the method of administration do make a difference when using fish oil for psoriais - you can look up all the studies that used small oral doses and compare them to the ones that used IV infusions of fish oil. Small oral doses typically had little or no effect, larger IV doses did.

As one person close(r) to the study said: "It's a small benefit, but we should always be emphasizing to patients what they can do in terms of diet that might help," said Dr. Richard Bonow, chief of cardiology at Northwestern University Hospital in Chicago and past president of the American Heart Association. I take it you don't agree?

Maybe a larger dose of fish oil would have had a greater effect. Maybe not. We'll know if and when someone rolls up their sleeves and tests the idea. It can't be assumed that when a drug doesn't do much, it automatically follows that a much higher dosage would do the trick.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, fish oil has other potential cardiac benefits for people in general, and has been recommended by the American Heart Association (the same organization you've criticized elsewhere in this forum as being unresponsive to non-pharmaceutical/alternative therapies). I'm glad to see you now standing in the support of the AHA.

Still, neither the AHA or any responsible health organization would ever suggest that congestive heart failure patients can get by on fish oil pills alone. The initial poster has previously said that she wants to get off all her prescription CHF meds and go with herbs/supplements alone, and made the claim here that "Just plain fish oil as good as pills". It's important to recognize the limitations of the cited study, and not to encourage the belief that fish oil is some klnd of panacea that replaces the current standard of care.

Wouldn't you agree?