And I'm not convinced that a temporary throat sting is necessarily a bad sign, so it's nice to get a different and informed perspective like yours, Van, to challenge my own. I greatly appreciate having someone put my speculations through fiery trials.
Whiskey and other alcoholic beverages can also be hormetically beneficial for some people, which I've written about in other threads, so that's another good sign. Do you think there's anything to the notion that "the dose makes the poison" or Nietzsche's "That which does not kill us makes us stronger"? Why couldn't there be potential benefits from medicinal/hormetic doses of RFCLO? Even if RFCLO is purely toxic, that could actually be a reason for it to be medicinally/hormetically beneficial (
http://gettingstronger.org/hormesis), rather than harmful at any dose.
I consider studies more potential small clues within the bigger picure than solid proof. They can suggest that more inquiry may be warranted, and are particularly intriguing when they contradict common modern assumptions and fit with thousands or millions of years of tradition, experience and biology. They are a starting point, rather than a final answer. When it comes down to it, our individual experience is the final arbiter (also bearing in mind potential long-term risks).
Your point about the funding of the study is well taken. Unsurprisingly, it's a Norwegian cooperative that sells fish oil, TINE SA ((
https://oda.hio.no/jspui/bitstream/10642/1011/2/ulven_bjnutr-2011.pdf). Who else but a fish oil seller would fund a fish oil study? TINE SA could discount a negative finding of oxidation of fish oil if they wished by taking measures such as including antioxidants in the oil. So it wouldn't be the end of the world for them if some harm had been found from oxidation. The fact that another study found no beneficial effect on plasma lipid peroxides from adding antioxidants to fish oil (
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9930401) matches the results of this study that oxidation of fish oil is more a theoretical problem than a real one. FWIW, the authors of this TINE-funded study claimed they have no financial interest in the cooperative, though funding sources are effectively a potential conflict of interest.
In my personal experience, I haven't noticed any ill effects from raw fermented CLO and it appears to have beneficial effects on my dental health. Raw fermented CLO is also a traditional food (
http://www.westonaprice.org/cod-liver-oil/update-on-cod-liver-oil-manufacture) that goes back centuries, and raw fermented fish and raw fermented fish sauce (aka Worcestershire sauce, garum) go back even farther. Now we also have some research matching personal experience and tradition, albeit funded by a seller of the food (as with most food studies).
Granted, RFCLO has been just one small part of my broader approach and I don't take it every day, in case that might deplete my own body's ability to produce vitamins A and D (
http://gettingstronger.org/2012/11/why-i-dont-take-vitamin-d-supplements), so I don't follow the recommendations of the biggest promoters of fish oils to consume them in daily megadoses. I use RFCLO and raw fermented fish in more fractal/intermittent/hormetic ways, as foodlements rather than chronic supplements.
Do you have any evidence of harm from RFCLO or other fermented fish foods beyond a temporary throat sting (which I personally enjoyed and now miss), or studies that contradict the above studies? I even got some of the throat sting the first time I tried fresh raw sardines, and I don't consider them harmful because of that, do you?