Pharmacology Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the first time I've looked for Lovaza here, though I know this is not the normal way for Wikipedia to list medication or suppliments, it is what's here. I'll take a picture and work on adding some basic information here. It might be better as Omega-3-acid ethyl esters (LOVAZA) as it's noted in the GlaxoSmithKline information on it and is more normal for Wikipedia. --Bcw142 (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 38% + 47% + 17% = 102% (>100% due to rounding)

Question: Is rest all fish oil?

"Each 1-gram capsule of LOVAZA contains at least 900 mg of the ethyl esters of omega-3 fatty acids sourced from fish oils. These are predominantly a combination of ethyl esters of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA - approximately 465 mg) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA - approximately 375 mg)." Source: http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_lovaza.pdf (Section 11 Description)

Hence: ~37.5% DHA ethyl esters, ~46.5% EPA ethyl esters, >=~6% other Omega-3 (which equals >=90%) Hence: ~10% other fish oils (an assumption?)

Can someone explain the signicance of ethyl esters versus "natural forms"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.3.227 (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible contextual discussion needed: The third sentence of this article (as of 22 OCT 2010) describes the process by which GlaxoSmithKline "transformed" a dietary supplement into a "pharmaceutical." Was there any controversy about this? That is to say, it seems to me that what GlaxoSmithKline appears to have achieved is to convince the FDA to approve an excluse right to market (purified) fish oil as a pharmaceutical (with all attendant potential financial gain) while others must market it as a dietary supplement. Does this fit within standard practice of the FDA? Could another company, for example, apply to the FDA to market St. John's Wort capsules as a "pharmaceutical" with exclusive rights? Eenwikilekter (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. The world's fish are no longer safe to eat, so we have to clean them up chemically.

That's it in a nutshell, folks. The end isn't coming: it's here. This is the beginning. If it keeps up like this, pretty soon we're all going to be stuck eating soy disks with sauce like in Buck Rogers.

The 2nd reason, however, is a little more interesting. It's worth noting that the same chemical process that liberates this fatty acid from glycerin and joins it to ethanol is used by the food industry to do exactly the opposite!. No joke - deadly trans-fats are being replaced with "transesterified oils" or "interesterified oils". What this means is they take a healthy, unsaturated fat, and replace the unsaturated fatty acid parts with vein-clogging saturated fatty acids. At least its no worse than eating straight lard - it's an improvement from trans-fats to be sure, but still... So much for getting skinny because the food discs are so revolting.. :(

What's really sad is that the exact same people who are buying the junkfood on the shelf, are now having to buy this oil, made using the exact opposite ideas, to eat the unsaturated fatty acids they avoided in the first place by buying processed junk-food.

This is just one more reason that the FDA needs to be separated into two agencies; the food and drug industries are in ethical conflict. If you want to avoid needing to buy this pill, avoid eating chemically modified fats in the first place, religiously! Zaphraud (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]