Yes, Ron, and as I've told you many times before, there is no direct
evidence that omega 3s and/or omega 6s are essential.  In fact, the
body makes a PUFA called the Mead acid, which does what arachidonic
acid does, only in a much safer way.  Actually, I got a nasty cut the
other day which punctured a vein.  It stopped bleeding quickly, and
the inflammation was gone within a couple of hours.  If I had
arachidonic acid in my cells, as most Americans do, the inflammation
would persist (as it used to when I got even a paper cut prior to a
few years ago, when I had arachidonic acid in my cells), and this is
the underlying cause of "heart disease," cancer, diabetes, AD, etc.

Now I've asked to several times to address the direct evidence, but
instead you cite evidence that is either highly misleading (such as
when you cited a Malaysian study, when in fact this society is now
consuming a much more Western diet than other Asian peoples who are
still eating a lot of coconut products) or is in some way
not relevant.  One example is the many fish oil studies, which are
contextual and short-term.  They appear to show a "benefit," but this
is only due to its action against arachidonic acid metabolites, and
fish oil has very toxic qualities for a "food" item.  I will ask the
key question again:  How can people like myself (and many Asians)
consume a diet very low in PUFAs yet very high in SFAs and still be
healthy (in fact, I "cured" myself of a terrible wasting disorder on
my present diet)?  If SFAs are so unhealthy where are all the
"diseases" people like you claim will occur?  Did you see the film,
"Supersize Me?"  If you did, you saw how Spurlock deteriorated rapidly
on his omega 6 rich diet.  If the SFAs were so unhealthy, I would have
had a similar experience back in 2002 or 2003 - don't you realize that
simple fact?

I don't understand people like you, Ron - do you consider yourself a
scientist or not?  If so, how can you simply ignore evidence you don't
like?  Do you feel that you are bound by any ethical standards at all?

Let's get back to the point of the original post now; did you or did
you not see how omega 6 PUFA consumption increased nearly vertically
since the early 1960s (I saw the show again and it appeared to show
the rise really going vertical around 1960s or a year or so later)?
If so, why would anyone advise that people consume omega 3s or 6s?
Where is your evidence that it is "essential?"  And how do you explain
the direct refutation of this claim by M.I.T. researchers in the
1940s?

I'm more than willing to do some experiments that are on point, if you
wish, with the stipulation that the "loser" pays for all expenses.  If
you are so sure of your notions, Ron, why not take me up on one of my
offers?  I'm willing to negotiate the exact experimental apparatus,
and you have nothing to lose, since you can simply refuse in the end.
Do you or do you not understand that if a direct experiment can be
conducted, it should be, because it represents the strongest possible
evidence?

I understand that "some people say" that omega 3s and 6s are
"essential," but since researchers have refuted this long ago, why do
you care about what "some people say," and in fact feel the need to be
one of those people?  Have you conducted any experiments yourself?  If
not, why have you decided that some research deserves to be promoted
while other research should be totally ignored?  As I've pointed out,
there are indeed studies in which the author claims that there is
"rapid DHA turnover in the brain."  This claim is simply impossible,
since I avoid all sources of omega 3s, and have since 2001.  I also
saw a great grandfather live to be over 100 with no source of omega
3s.  Hopefully, some day you will realize that just because a person
with a Ph.D. after his name makes a statement, that does not mean it
is accurate.  Fortunately, I was trained to examine evidence
critically, and will continue to point out that there is only one
reasonable interpretation of the evidence when viewed comprehensively,
though I fear you will continue to "cherry pick" what is consistent
with your pre-conceived notions, thereby misleading people into the
realm of "chronic disease."

It is actually very good idea to feed omega-3 to prisoners and
mentally ill people to dampen down their libido and aggressivity and
make them powerless.  I have seen several studies on this topic how
prisoners became well behaved after omega-3 supplementation.  It is
probably less inhumane than other measures like castration or feeding
bromide.