Mostly true Certainty of evidence: moderate provisional C-SUP-05

Omega-3 capsules do not prevent cardiovascular disease and increase the risk of atrial fibrillation; Elawady rejects omega-3 capsules.

Conclusion: Mostly true for typical fish-oil capsules, with exceptions for prescription high-dose EPA.

Original statement
Scientific assessment
In plain language
Studies on this claim
Regional context
What applies in my country?
References

Original statement

حين أُخضعت المكملات الفموية الأكثر مبيعاً — من الكالسيوم والبيتا كاروتين وفيتامين E، إلى أوميغا-3 والمتعددات والجلوكوزامين والسيلينيوم وفيتامين A — لاختبارات عشوائية مضبوطة بالغفل وبأحجام كبيرة ومتابعة طويلة، لم تَفِ في الغالب بوعودها؛ بل أن بعضها أحدث ضرراً صريحاً: زيادة في الوفيات، وفي سرطان الرئة والبروستاتا، وفي احتشاء عضلة القلب، وفي الرجفان الأذيني، وفي كسور الورك، وفي حصى الكلى. ما يُسوَّق على أنه «وقاية» انقلب في عدة تجارب إلى مصدر للأذى. | حذّر بشدة من المكملات الغذائية الفموية، معتبرًا إياها غير ضرورية وقد تضر الكبد، وشدد على أن التغذية السليمة هي الأساس… ويرفض المكملات الغذائية وبروتين مصل اللبن (واي بروتين)، ومكملات الكولاجين والكرياتين والأوميجا 3.

not verbatim – paraphrase. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.

Translation

Omega-3 capsules do not prevent cardiovascular disease and increase the risk of atrial fibrillation; Elawady rejects omega-3 capsules.

Origin

Source status: Archive editors
Attribution: Archive editors (eltayebat.com); not verified as Elawady's own words
Origin: https://eltayebat.com/rule/oral-supplements/
Attribution uncertainty: Written by the archive operators; study selection is the archive's, not necessarily Elawady's.

Claimed mechanism: Not specified.
Claimed health effect: No CV benefit; more atrial fibrillation.
Population concerned: Adults with or without CVD.
Geographic restriction by Elawady: none found

Diverging source versions

حذّر بشدة من المكملات الغذائية الفموية، معتبرًا إياها غير ضرورية وقد تضر الكبد، وشدد على أن التغذية السليمة هي الأساس… ويرفض المكملات الغذائية وبروتين مصل اللبن (واي بروتين)، ومكملات الكولاجين والكرياتين والأوميجا 3.

Source status: Archive quote (no location given)
Attribution: Elawady (archive paraphrase; source video not given)
Origin: https://eltayebat.com/rule/oral-supplements/

وتاخد قرص اوميجا 3 عشان ده بقى بيحافظ على التصلب قصدي بيقلل التسبب برده ما تفهمش ازاي زيت من نوع تاني هيخش يشيل التصلب يعني الزيت الاولاني سد الشريان ده فرضا فردا ده فرضا فرضا ان الزيت الاولاني سد الشريان الزيت التاني هيفك الانسداد ازاي ها لو كان المتكلم عاقل يبقى المصطبح مجنون ازيك يا مريم بالحاج بس احنا عايزين نناقش الموضوع علميا يعني من غير انحيازات انت فاهم انا من غير انحيازات انا عايز اناقش الموضوع علميا طالما الزيت اتلزق على الشريان مالوش حل غير ان انا اجحته او افور الشريان لكن ما تدينيش زيت تاني يفكه ما تدينيش زيت تاني يفكه الزيت الاولاني لزق يا باشا على الشريان الزيت الثاني ازاي هيفك الزيت الاولاني الاولاني طب اديني بقى سبرتو يعني الزيت الاولاني زيت اغسل بسبرتو بقى طالما انا يا ايها الجحب باص شكرا يا مايكل شكرا عشان يبيعوا الاوميجا

Source status: Video transcript (own words)
Attribution: Elawady (machine transcript)
Video: Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! النخاميه (Open source)
Published: 25 June 2025
Timestamp: 0:18:25 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)

Scientific assessment

Mostly true – Correct at its core, but with limitations or minor inaccuracies.

Certainty of evidence: moderate – Further research may still affect the assessment.

1. What was claimed?

Omega-3 pills don't work and cause AF.

2. What is demonstrably correct?

VITAL HR 0.92 (0.80–1.06), ASCEND RR 0.97 (0.87–1.08), STRENGTH HR 0.99, Alpha Omega HR 1.01 – all non-significant; AF risk increased (Gencer 2021).

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

Not entirely 'no benefit': Cochrane 2020 reported RR 0.91 (0.85–0.97) for CHD events (low certainty), VITAL showed fewer total MIs (HR 0.72, secondary end point), and REDUCE-IT showed a 25% relative reduction in high-risk patients. AF risk with ≤1 g/day was small (HR 1.12).

4. What remains unclear?

Role of placebo choice (mineral oil vs corn oil) in high-dose trials.

5. Which studies support it?

A-SUP-07, A-SUP-08, A-SUP-09, A-SUP-10, A-SUP-11.

6. Which studies contradict it?

A-SUP-12 (Cochrane small CHD benefit), REDUCE-IT (I-SUP-09).

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

Applies equally.

8. What is known about Egypt?

Applies equally.

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

Over-the-counter fish-oil capsules are not needed for heart protection in most people; prescription EPA may be indicated in specific high-risk patients.

Assessment details

Rationale for certainty of evidence: Large RCTs at ~1 g/day (VITAL, ASCEND, Alpha Omega) and high-dose STRENGTH found no significant reduction in major CV events; meta-analysis of 7 RCTs found AF HR 1.25 (1.07–1.46), larger at >1 g/day. However, the Cochrane review (86 RCTs) found small reductions in coronary heart disease mortality and events (low certainty), and REDUCE-IT (4 g/day icosapent ethyl) reduced events by 25% in high-risk statin-treated patients (debate about mineral-oil placebo not covered by the abstract).
Source quality: Archive cites the null trials and the AF meta-analysis correctly; omits positive findings.
Regional transferability: High.
Individual exceptions: Prescription EPA in hypertriglyceridaemia is an established exception.
Regional scope of the claim: general (biological/medical)
Last reviewed: 25 October 2026 provisional

In plain language

Big trials of fish-oil capsules in ordinary doses did not prevent heart attacks or strokes, and they slightly increased an irregular heartbeat called atrial fibrillation. A high-dose prescription form helped some high-risk patients in one large trial. For most people, the capsules are not needed.

Studies on this claim

Studies supporting the claim (5)

Low-dose omega-3 after heart attack

Kromhout D et al.. N Engl J Med 2010 · PMID 20929341 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1003603

Randomised controlled trialcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked

No reduction in cardiovascular events.

Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

Original publication · Scientific details

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?
Omega-3 after MI.
How was the study done?
RCT.
How many people, animals or samples were studied?
4,837.
What was actually found?
No effect.
How large was the observed effect?
HR 1.01.
What do the results mean in everyday life?
Low doses don't help.
What are the study's limitations?
Low dose.
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Dutch.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
High-dose effects.
Scientific details →
VITAL: fish oil in healthy adults

Manson JE et al.. N Engl J Med 2019 · PMID 30415637 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1811403

Randomised controlled trialcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked

No reduction in major cardiovascular events or cancer.

Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

Original publication · Scientific details

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?
Primary prevention.
How was the study done?
RCT.
How many people, animals or samples were studied?
25,871.
What was actually found?
Null primary end points.
How large was the observed effect?
HR 0.92.
What do the results mean in everyday life?
Not needed for prevention.
What are the study's limitations?
Fewer MIs secondary.
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Effect in high-risk.
Scientific details →
ASCEND: fish oil in diabetes

ASCEND Study Collaborative Group et al.. N Engl J Med 2018 · PMID 30146932 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1804989

Randomised controlled trialcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked

No reduction in serious vascular events.

Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

Original publication · Scientific details

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?
Diabetes prevention.
How was the study done?
RCT.
How many people, animals or samples were studied?
15,480.
What was actually found?
Null.
How large was the observed effect?
RR 0.97.
What do the results mean in everyday life?
Not useful.
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
UK.
Scientific details →
STRENGTH: high-dose omega-3

Nicholls SJ et al.. JAMA 2020 · PMID 33190147 · DOI 10.1001/jama.2020.22258

Randomised controlled trialcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked

No benefit vs corn oil; more GI side effects.

Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

Original publication · Scientific details

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?
High-dose omega-3.
How was the study done?
RCT.
How many people, animals or samples were studied?
13,078.
What was actually found?
Null.
How large was the observed effect?
HR 0.99.
What do the results mean in everyday life?
Not useful.
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Why REDUCE-IT differs.
Scientific details →
Fish oil and atrial fibrillation

Gencer B et al.. Circulation 2021 · PMID 34612056 · DOI 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.055654

Meta-analysiscited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked

Omega-3 pills raised AF risk by 25%, more at higher doses.

Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

Original publication · Scientific details

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?
AF risk.
How was the study done?
Meta-analysis.
How many people, animals or samples were studied?
81,210.
What was actually found?
More AF.
How large was the observed effect?
HR 1.25.
What do the results mean in everyday life?
Consider AF risk.
What are the study's limitations?
Few trials.
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable.
Scientific details →

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (1)

REDUCE-IT: prescription EPA

Bhatt DL et al.. N Engl J Med 2019 · PMID 30415628 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1812792

Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract only checked

High-dose purified EPA reduced cardiovascular events by 25% in high-risk patients; more AF.

Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

Original publication · Scientific details

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?
High-dose EPA.
How was the study done?
RCT.
How many people, animals or samples were studied?
8,179.
What was actually found?
Fewer events.
How large was the observed effect?
HR 0.75.
What do the results mean in everyday life?
Exception to 'omega-3 useless'.
What are the study's limitations?
Industry; placebo debate.
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Limits C-SUP-05.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
OTC capsules.
Scientific details →

Studies with mixed or unclear results (1)

Cochrane: omega-3 and heart health

Abdelhamid AS et al.. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020 · PMID 32114706 · DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003177.pub5

Meta-analysiscited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked

Little or no effect on deaths; small reductions in coronary events (low certainty).

Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

Original publication · Scientific details

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?
Omega-3 effects.
How was the study done?
Cochrane review.
How many people, animals or samples were studied?
162,796.
What was actually found?
Little effect on death; small CHD benefit.
How large was the observed effect?
RR 0.91 CHD events.
What do the results mean in everyday life?
Modest benefit at most.
What are the study's limitations?
Low certainty.
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Mixed.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Large benefits.
Scientific details →

Regional context

Germany / EU

Applies equally.

Egypt

Applies equally.

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

Mostly true Mostly true for typical fish-oil capsules, with exceptions for prescription high-dose EPA.

The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:

Veterinary medicines and antibiotics
Contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, nitrate)
Pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, etc.)
Animal husbandry and feed

Fish and seafood

Choose a country to see the checked information for it.

Limits: legal rules describe what is allowed, not what every single food contains. Measurement data come from samples and are meaningful only together with their method details.

Country of residence or purchase Compare with another country

References

n-3 fatty acids and cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction.. Kromhout D et al.. N Engl J Med 2010 · PMID 20929341 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1003603
Marine n-3 Fatty Acids and Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer.. Manson JE et al.. N Engl J Med 2019 · PMID 30415637 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1811403
Effects of n-3 Fatty Acid Supplements in Diabetes Mellitus.. ASCEND Study Collaborative Group et al.. N Engl J Med 2018 · PMID 30146932 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1804989
Effect of High-Dose Omega-3 Fatty Acids vs Corn Oil on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients at High Cardiovascular Risk: The STRENGTH Randomized Clinical Trial.. Nicholls SJ et al.. JAMA 2020 · PMID 33190147 · DOI 10.1001/jama.2020.22258
Effect of Long-Term Marine ɷ-3 Fatty Acids Supplementation on the Risk of Atrial Fibrillation in Randomized Controlled Trials of Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Gencer B et al.. Circulation 2021 · PMID 34612056 · DOI 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.055654
Cardiovascular Risk Reduction with Icosapent Ethyl for Hypertriglyceridemia.. Bhatt DL et al.. N Engl J Med 2019 · PMID 30415628 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1812792
Omega-3 fatty acids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.. Abdelhamid AS et al.. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020 · PMID 32114706 · DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003177.pub5

← Back to overview

Omega-3 capsules do not prevent cardiovascular disease and increase the risk of atrial fibrillation; Elawady rejects omega-3 capsules.

Original statement

Translation

Origin

Diverging source versions

Scientific assessment

1. What was claimed?

2. What is demonstrably correct?

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

4. What remains unclear?

5. Which studies support it?

6. Which studies contradict it?

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

8. What is known about Egypt?

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

Assessment details

In plain language

Studies on this claim

Studies supporting the claim (5)

Low-dose omega-3 after heart attack

VITAL: fish oil in healthy adults

ASCEND: fish oil in diabetes

STRENGTH: high-dose omega-3

Fish oil and atrial fibrillation

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (1)

REDUCE-IT: prescription EPA

Studies with mixed or unclear results (1)

Cochrane: omega-3 and heart health

Regional context

Germany / EU

Egypt

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

References