Doubts on benefits of oily fish

[NeilC]

"There is no evidence of a clear benefit to health from fats which are commonly found in oily fish, researchers say."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4838086.stm

Am I being stupid here or is this bad reporting or even bad science? The report says that they "found no evidence the fats offered protection" but when you read into it it then says "That trial looked at the impact of omega-3 fats on patients with chronic heart disease and suggested the fatty acid did nothing to prevent a recurrence of these conditions."

Surely this is entirely different to saying that healthy people get no protection from years of eating a high oily-fish diet.

[El Greco]

Look at this statement:

"It seems that for healthy people the health advice remains well-founded but for people with chronic heart disease there is now a doubt" - Dr Eric Brunner
Epidemiology expert

So, there are two groups of people: Either healthy or chronic heart disease patients.

I suspect there's a big idiot somewhere here, but I'm not sure whether he's a researcher or a reporter.

Just go to pubmed and search for omega-3, there are thousands of studies in virtually every field of medicine. From urology to oncology and from opthalmology to neurology. Nobody says that omega-3 are a panacea of course. But even in cancer, while they may not offer protection, off the top of my head I certainly recall studies that they help in treating cancer-associated cachexia.