PUFA

Good day, Mr. Jelínek. I am very interested in your stance on this article about PUFA, in which a strongly opinionated author points out the significant harmfulness of consuming otherwise universally recommended omega-3. According to the article, PUFAs promote the formation of free radicals, are carcinogenic, slow down metabolism, cause hormonal imbalances, suppress the immune system, etc.
What relevant sources can one rely on today, and what can one safely believe when the internet is full of conflicting information? Of course, this is more of a sigh or rhetorical question :)
Thank you.

https://www.elihealth.cz/pufa-omega-3/

You've encountered a textbook example of the presentation and dissemination of misinformation in nutrition. There are a number of reasons why systemically alternative views on the diet-health relationship are suppressed. If we want to assert that any substance has a specific effect on the body, we need to rely on scientifically substantiated information. Even though scientific knowledge is dynamically evolving and thus continuously changing, there is always a certain consensus in society, built on facts, at any given time. And here's where (figuratively) the rubber meets the road, as we need to agree on what is a fact and what isn't. Since we aim to draw from scientific knowledge—the only avenue capable of achieving a rational perspective on the world from a factual standpoint through the systematic building of a theoretical framework—it is essential to consider serious scientific studies that address the issue.

An enormous number of scientific studies are conducted worldwide, and in order to derive concrete conclusions from them, it is (logically) necessary to work with those that:

1. Meet fairly strict conditions for their execution.
These are defined by science itself, excluding from evaluation those studies that do not meet the spectrum of conditions. Such studies lack the necessary relevance and thus should not be used for argumentation. This essentially applies to the cited references in the article you mentioned.

2. Are available in greater numbers.
Here arises another problem, because in relation to a specific evaluated situation, there isn't always a "reasonable" number of studies that can be taken into account. Generally, it holds that as the number of scientific studies on a given topic increases, we approach real knowledge. For this reason, in recent years, attention has increasingly been given to meta-analyses (the statistical combination of results from previously published studies). Here, among other things, we encounter the additional problem of the lack of enough meta-analyses.

At any rate, the work is approached such that, if you have, for instance, 20,000 scientific analyses at your disposal for a given situation, clearly pointing to certain relationships and connections they generally agree on, alongside just a handful that indicate the opposite, it is quite clear where human rationality will be directed. The fact that there are opposite—not viewpoints, as these are essentially just philosophical outcomes of the debate on the topic—but opposite research results, is wholly acceptable from a scientific perspective since the principles of science rest on constant questioning, which is the driving force of human knowledge.

The article you referenced is oppositional from beginning to end, even towards information that is no longer widely debated on scientific platforms today (just as it is no longer debated that the earth is not flat, despite some individuals who are capable of claiming this publicly in the media with a straight face). It is beyond my capacity (= time constraints) to dissect every sentence by the author along this route; in summary, roughly 90% of all that is presented would not pass a review on an academic platform (half of the scientists would laugh at it, while the other half would painstakingly refute it sentence by sentence). Here, I don't just mean the presentation of information (= facts), but especially their attempt to interpret and relate them to health.

Given that in nutrition, in relation to individual individuality, nothing is firmly set, don't perceive my statements as an attempt to disparage another's opinion. In practice, it is indeed possible to encounter situations where excess O3 is harmful. However, the broad generalization of the opinion that PUFA in general are toxic, etc., is beyond acceptable limits and, concerning the used references and citations, completely out of context.

Don't let this dishearten you for the future; it is absolutely vital to have space for expressing opinions. However, the health domain is part of a broader legislative control, which, in its attempt (not always well or correctly directed and used, but still an attempt) to monitor adherence to certain rules, is already starting to employ AI systems (i.e., artificial intelligence) with the aim of suppressing the spread of misinformation. It is somewhat of a thin ice situation, but what's happening on the internet is that similar opinions on the impact of diet on health are increasingly being deprioritized in search engines—I fear that relatively shortly, this will also occur on social media. I won't claim this is the correct direction and method to avoid manipulating the population, but in today's context, no better option is available.

In the course, I strive to present you with information that is today considered factual, while simultaneously encouraging you to develop a critical way of thinking, i.e., to view these from different perspectives and draw conclusions applicable to practice. It's not always easy for me, let alone for you (students), but it's the only way to guide you in real life onto the right path...