Another example of potentially very significant benifts of omega threes.
Why are they not followed up.
The researchers clearly know they exist and are sufficiently impressed to include the information in the trail summary.
Human nature? A lack of investment in preventative trials by independent agencies ?
Should it be a corporate offence to not to bring to public attention non profitable, / less profitable potential agents that are found in research. I am not suggesting that they are obliged to develop them or trial them but at least fully and freely bring it to public attention they exist.
How else are we to avoid the potential for illness to be perpetuated in the quest for profitability when more effective solutions may exist given human behaviour and motivation within a corporate environment? (eg at the extreme Enron)
RB
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
ABSTRACT
............Our results showed that n-3 PUFA and both SERMs decreased triglyceride levels in the serum, and that SERMs also decreased serum cholesterol levels while n-3 PUFA had no similar effect. SERMs had no effect on IL-6, IL-1 beta, or IL-10 levels, but they decreased ex vivo tumor necrosis factor (TNF-alpha). N-3 PUFA decreased secretion of non-induced IL-6 and TNF-alpha from cultured BMC and IL-1 beta levels in vivo (i.e., in bone marrow plasma), but its main effect was a significant elevation in the secretion of IL-10, a known anti-inflammatory cytokine.......................This activity could be mediated via the elevation of IL-10 which was shown to suppress B-lymphopoiesis. Both SERMs and n-3 PUFA inhibited the increase in adipose tissue thickness caused by OVX in mice. Our results showed that n-3 PUFA, could prevent some of the deleterious outcomes of estrogen deficiency that were not affected by SERMs...............
Threaded Mode