The following report appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.
“An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds represent the most frequently given reason for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid — a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil — as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism.”
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The argument in question seeks to draw a connection between fish consumption and the reduction of colds, thereby suggesting that fish consumption is a panacea for all of mankind. The authors are not aware of any studies that prove that people who consume more fish have fewer colds. Nevertheless, they argue that since fish consumption is widespread in Meria, this suggests that fish consumption does indeed prevent colds. While it is possible that fish consumption does prevent colds, there is not enough evidence to substantiate this claim.
The authors go on to state that Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, can prevent colds and lower absenteeism. They explain that in order to test the preventative effects of Ichthaid, they conducted a study in which 1,000 people were divided into three groups. The first group consumed no Ichthaid, the second consumed 250 mg of Ichthaid per day, and the third consumed 500 mg of Ichthaid per day. The study showed that the group that consumed 500 mg per day of Ichthaid showed a significant decrease in the frequency of colds compared to the same group that did not consume Ichthaid. However, when the researchers compared the frequency of colds in the group that consumed 250 mg per day of Ichthaid to that in the group that consumed no Ichthaid, the frequency was not significantly different. These findings, then, do not support the conclusion that Ichthaid can prevent colds and lower absenteeism. In the first place, the researchers did not conduct a double-blind study in which neither the participants nor the researchers were aware of the group assignment. This would have ensured that people did not consciously or unconsciously alter their behavior because of the supplement’s consumption. Another possible flaw in the study is that the researchers did not measure the level of overall fish oil intake in all of the groups. It is possible that people who consumed more fish than recommended in the study would have fared better than those who consumed the recommended amount. In addition, there was some anecdotal evidence that indicated that people who consumed large amounts of fish, such as cod liver oil, were more prone to infections and increased colds. This anecdotal evidence, however, does not negate the fact that Ichthaid is unlikely to reduce colds and lower absenteeism. Another consideration is that, unlike antibiotics, Ichthaid is not effective against all types of colds. This study did not test the effectiveness of Ichthaid against other types of colds.
The authors conclude their argument by urging people to consume more fish in an effort to reduce the incidence of colds and lower absenteeism. This recommendation is based on the assumption that eating more fish can prevent colds and lower absenteeism, which is far from proven. People may form their own opinions based on anecdotal evidence that fish consumption can prevent colds and lower absenteeism, but this argument cannot be considered scientifically valid.