<<A while ago when we were talking about fish oils...>>

1. Any concerns with PCBs or other organic pollutants in fish oils?

2. RE: research + funding

Please note that I wrote that funders *can* influence the outcome of a study
by manipulating study design and/or exercising preferential interpretation
of results.  This is different than writing that the outcome of studies
*are* influenced by who funds them.

The scientific method dictates that materials and methods be stated so that
the experiment or analysis can be reproduced and verified.  Therefore, overt
flawed design can generally be detected via a trained eye.  The most common
weaknesses in study design include small populations (therefore results may
not be statistically significant) and lack of a randomized, controlled
design over a long enough period of time.

More insidious biases are revealed by means such as a whether a study gets
funding in the first place, whether results showing 'no effect' are ever
published (publication bias), whether the interpretation of the results is
complete and accurate, and whether the study results are actively 'marketed'
or buried to oblivion.

The most common reporting error is interpreting the results of
epidemiological studies (population-based) studies as causal.  True
cause-and-effect is best demonstrated via multi-centered, randomized
clinical trails.  Population-based studies can only suggest cause and effect
because they are subject to many confounding variables, but they are highly
useful none-the-less because the data is based in the 'real world' and they
help to identify what clinical trials need to be done.

Rob