Prof. David Ma has discovered that marine-based omega-3s are eight times more effective at inhibiting tumour development and growth.
"This study is the first to compare the cancer-fighting potency of plant- versus marine-derived omega-3s on breast tumour development," said the professor in the Department of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences. "There is evidence that both omega-3s from plants and marine sources are protective against cancer and we wanted to determine which form is more effective."
[...] Published in the Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, the study involved feeding the different types of omega-3s to mice with a highly aggressive form of human breast cancer called HER-2. HER-2 affects 25per cent of women and has a poor prognosis.
[...] Ma found overall exposure to marine-based omega-3s reduced the size of the tumours by 60 to 70 per cent and the number of tumours by 30 per cent.
However, higher doses of the plant-based fatty acid were required to deliver the same impact as the marine-based omega-3s.
Source: https://news.uoguelph.ca/2018/01/choose-omega-3s-fish-flax-cancer-prevention-study-finds/
Journal Reference: Jiajie Liu, Salma A. Abdelmagid, Christopher J. Pinelli, Jennifer M. Monk, Danyelle M. Liddle, Lyn M. Hillyer, Barbora Hucik, Anjali Silva, Sanjeena Subedi, Geoffrey A. Wood, Lindsay E. Robinson, William J. Muller, David W.L. Ma. Marine fish oil is more potent than plant based n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in the prevention of mammary tumours. The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, 2017; DOI: 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2017.12.011
(Score: 2) by stormwyrm on Thursday February 01 2018, @10:16PM (2 children)
If scientists fall into the trap of becoming attached to their own ideas, despite strong evidence that points to those ideas being false, then they have, in as far as they do so, stopped doing science and stopped being scientists. Science works by testing theories against evidence, and goes where the evidence leads, and if they aren't doing evidence-based practice then what they are doing is not science, by definition.
This is the true test of a scientist: ask them what it would take to make them change their minds about something. A scientist will be swayed by evidence and arguments from evidence. In contrast, nothing will sway an ideologue.
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @11:20PM
You are being a bit naive. Scientists are people, too, with all the human frailties - ambition, career concern, economic concern, human relations, jealousy, etc.
Bet on science (i.e., empirical verification), not scientists.
(Score: 2) by beckett on Thursday February 01 2018, @11:54PM
I agree with this - Scientists must be extremely comfortable when they are wrong, as it should happen continuously and on a daily basis. It's called "research" for a reason. Scientists should always be willing to throw out ideas when the data does not support them. As you point out, nothing sways the ideologue. When the previous poster suggested he "prays" to the "alter of science", i felt we crossed from data analysis and into ideology.
I think, however, the AC's and the posters that are responding in this subthread actually all more-or-less agree, but the semantics of religious ideology seemed a bit over-the-top for me.