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 M

The author of the newsletter has relied on several arguments to arrive at the conclusion that a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil will prevent colds and lower absenteeism. 1. A study reports in a location – East Meria, 2. Eating substantial number of fish prevents colds. 3. That colds represent the most frequent reasons for absences from school and work. 4. That the nutritional supplement contains the same active compound in fish that prevents cold. A deeper look into these arguments will reveal that they fail to answer very cogent questions in which these assumptions are founded. Failure to substantiate this with the relevant evidence amounts to a very poor advice.
First, the author cites a particular study of a nearby town or city. This invariably assumes that the study of this place is a reflection of the entire population. This is likely not the case in this scenario. To have a more robust understanding, there is need to carry out a study in at least a sizeable sample that is a representative of the population being considered. In addition, the study should be tried in other demography to ascertain whether it is viable or just an accident. Failure to do this may lead to arriving at a conclusion that is not grounded on well carried out experimentation of a sizeable sample.
Secondly, the author also claims that fish is responsible for the low visits in treatment of colds. This is a case of confusing a cause-and-effect with a mere temporal correlation. Is eating fish, the only cause of prevention of cold or general the people of East Meria also led healthy lives like keeping their surrounding clean to prevent insects that transmits pathogens such as malaria, typhoid, cholerae, etc. Do they also take enough vitamins to fight against possible diseases? Also, is there scientific research in this aspect and how do one quantify “substantial”. The authors argument fails to substantiate the above thus, we may not be able to draw such conclusion.
Furthermore, if the assumption that fish prevents cold is valid, the author fails to substantiate how the use of Ichthaid — a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil would suffice for a fish. Does the active compound in the fish found in the fish oil? The author does not provide evidence to suggest that it is, thus, drawing a conclusion of the use of this supplement is unwarranted. What is the process used in extracting the oil from the fish, does the process have little or no effect on the active compound, these and many other questions have not been answered?
To strength this argument, the author of the newsletter should outline whether the study has been carried in other places other than the aforementioned and that this represents a sufficient sample size of the population. Also, what are the health habits of the demography where such study has been carried out. Is it generally the same as the entirely population? Is there scientific evidence that sufficient proves that eating of fish prevents cold and is it all fishes?
Does fish oil contain the active compound responsible for prevention of colds and does the process of extraction and preparation of the supplement adequate enough to prevent the damage of this active compound. Failure to attend to these questions would amount to providing a particularly poor advice.