How I feel about how Liberman feels about Omega-3

It seems that Liberman isn't necessarily against Omega-3 fish oil as my title suggests; he's more against the science writers for publications that publish false information regarding the fish oil. By using a report used by Campbell to prove his point, Liberman proves his own point; That popular magazines may be providing false information to a large audience. Liberman, throughout his blog post, shares several different ways how Campbell was completely wrong in the article he produced for the Guardian.

What can be learned from the blog post is that what you read in the popular media may or may not be wrong, and that you should always do your homework about the subject at hand. This is to ensure that the writer actually did his own homework. Often times, writers may publish something contrary to the facts because it may benefit them financially. Perhaps Campbell holds stock in a company that produces fish oil. Anything to make more people buy fish oil pills would benefit Campbell. Then, there's always the chance that the writer isn't as smart as he's given credit to be, and completely misunderstood the purpose of the report based on the study. Given how off Campbell was, either would be reasonable.

To back his argument, Liberman uses the results from the study that Campbell claims to use, as I said previously. He shares that the report didn't show any real improvement in kids that took the pills, and if anything it made them react slower. This is all contrary to what Campbell shared. He also uses an article written by another journalist at the same organization, Ben Goldacre, to show that Campbell was hesitant to even share the report that his article was based on, probably because he knew how foolish it would make him look. I'd say that the evidence used by both Liberman and Goldacre is very helpful, because it shows how entirely incorrect the original article was.

The main way Liberman provides to fix this mistake is for all media outlets to hire a 'bad science' writers, that go back and double check the actual science writers; as was done by Goldacre for the Guardian. Perhaps if every organization did this, less false information would be published, and people wouldn't continue to pour what has become billions of dollars into an industry that does little to no good for them. I would even suggest that every organization does this, not just science magazines. Perhaps if every publication has someone go back and double check the facts (aside from the ones who already claim that they do), there would be a lot less information and a lot less anger in the world.

Liberman: link
Goldacre: link