Presenting medical related data whether it is epidemiological, trial based, case study oriented, or descriptive study based must be well defined, succinct, properly analyzed, and cautiously controlled. The author or authors of the present online article chose to report on the benefits of eating fish with respect to delay the decline of mental abilities and heart disease of individuals 65 years of age and older.

             The material and information presented by the writer leads the reader to believe that eating a certain amount of fish on a weakly basis lowers the risk of stroke, Alzheimer's, heart disease, and the decline of mental abilities. Support for this line of reasoning was noted by way of a research investigative study conducted by researchers in Chicago. The research investigators concluded that although a certain percentage decline in lowered mental abilities was halted it was not necessarily reliable due to the possibility of questionnaire error and the lack of sufficient evidence linking brain decline and the eating of omega-3 fatty acids. Unfortunately the research investigators reporting on the Chicago study confused the latter issue by stating that there might well be something else in eating fish that assists in keeping the human mind sharp and, according to Dr. William E. Connor, testing the blood for omega-3 fatty acids should have taken place.

             For this reviewer the information presented in the article can best be classified as an editorial presentation in the most general of terms. There is no exculpatory information to lead the reader to believe that omega-3 fatty acids do or do not improve brain functioning. More importantly the author or authors of the chosen CNN.com article failed to identify the journal source of the data, the publication date and the main articles research question and testable hypothesis. Not having this information provides the reader with no scientific information upon which the CNN.