Is there a correlation on whether it is EPA or DHA that can potentially cause the recently discussion on prostrate cancer. Is one component viewed as safer than the other from the prostrate cancer standpoint? Big discussion on Omega3 and prostrate cancer on Fox news this morning. Never in my life have I seen any stock face such a barrage of bad news. It is stunning that it just never seems to end. Seems a common event on yahoo news for Amarin is another headline article as today......"5 Biggest Market Losers for the Week". It is now hard to count how many times Amarin has joined that elite group of stocks. Could have thrown darts and made a pile of money on almost ANY stock other than Amarin over the last year. Amarin mgmt seems content to just tell investors to bend over cause here it comes. Have grown to hate this POS stock. And I now fear the new debate on prostrate cancer will impact the AdCom recommendations. Is there even one damn thing can can go positive for this thing!
My concern is the apparent dislocation between the proponents of Vascepa and pure EPA, and
what seems to be hitting the headlines recently. IMHO the issue has always been getting doctors to prescribe Vascepa to new patients, and getting doctors to switch from Lovaza to Vascepa. How much real progress we are making on either front is anyone's guess.
Playing devil's advocate only....let me ask the physicians on this Board the following questions:
1. You have patients with TG's above 500. Are you going to prescribe for them statins alone;
Lovaza alone; statins plus Vascepa; statins plus Lovaza? Only Vascepa?
2. You have patients with TG's from 200 to 375. Again...Same questions as (1) above.
3. You have male patients above 50 with TG's above 500. You feel high dosage fish oil would be of benefit to them, but In view of the recent NBC health article on fish oils you would:
a. Have no problem whatsoever in prescribing Vascepa because you are extremely confident that only DHA in fish oils like Lovaza can cause a significant increased risk in prostate cancer,
and Vascepa is pure EPA.
b. Believe the above (a), but are now not willing to take the risk of prescribing even pure
EPA to males above 50 in large dosages because of the recent bad press on fish oils in general..
4. I will wait until the results of Reduce It to see if even pure EPA like Vascepa will be a treatment regimen for my high risk CV patients.
5. As of now I intend to prescribe for my lower risk, lower TG patients, pure EPA, ie, Vascepa, if the Anchor indication is approved for such? True__ False____....
6. I am already prescribing Vascepa for my patients and intend to continue doing so, and in fact, I intend to increase my prescription rates for patients who are currently on statins in the months ahead.
7. .I have patients currently taking Lovaza, but I intend to switch them to Vascepa in the months ahead. True____ False____
The study looked at correlation between EPA+DHA+DPA pooled, and the correlation of EPA, DHA and DPA alone. DHA was the component that stuck out and showed statistical significance. But reading the conclusions makes you wonder about the agenda of this study. They are "sticking up" for inflammatory trans-fats (and inflammation is a known thief in most all sorts of cancer). They also write that the only type of transfat with a weak correlation with prostate cancer is TFA 16:1. Still TFA 16:1 had a significantly higher correlation than EPA, but they don't mention EPA's even weaker, this speaks for the whole study imho.
DHA alone does stick out in this study. (i've read the whole study), still, other studys doesn't confirm this, and this is a study of correlation not causation, what can be causing this? Also, the way the subjects are pooled makes a huge difference.
To look at it another way. Those with high EPA in their blood probably also had high DHA, but still the values were alot more favourable for those with high EPA, thus EPA could actually mitigate the risk, and taking pure EPA could swing to being a positive for prostate cancer. Thats just another way of looking at it, and pure speculation on my part, this study doesn't tell the tale of causation.
Fish oi/prostate cancer article makes headlines but has major faults. Also, DHA, NOT EPA the chemical that possibly may be a problem. To the extent that there is ANY relevance it is actually positive news. While AMRN takes hit after hit, the actual value to improved CV outcomes (to be proven in Reduce-It), possible use in inflammatory disorders (future studies), better profile than Lovaza, achieving all goals to date, etc. actual script growth, Marine approval, highly likely Anchor approval (despite naysayers) all point to significant pps sharp increase by end of year IMO. While I am disappointed, as most longs are, about current situation, I still am quite hopeful about the longer term pps outcome. I've just shifted my time frame from daily or weekly concerns about the pps to longer view. GWTA (Good WISHES, not just luck). zbd
Sounds like you are still making the same mistakes you made you've made over the past 12 months. It is always better to really understand what you are investing in as opposed to having just a superficial understanding of Omega 3s.