I wouldn't deny that ALA seems to be a very important substance in the body. I'm glad that it's part of a good chelation protocol because I'm sure it can only be doing my body good, and I would supplement with it even if I weren't chelating.

However, I still question this statement that it's better than fish oil. The body does make DHA and EPA from it and the amounts are small. This person is claiming that we don't need much DHA anyway. It's a widespread notion, because you'll find various fish oils that have little or no DHA in them. However, I think the best rule of thumb to have is always what nature intended, and therefore what foods we have been eating and evolving on for millions of years. Fish tend to have roughly equal concentrations of DHA and EPA. DHA is actually important in the body for things like brain structure. Giving ourselves EPA with little DHA (or, in the case of children's supplements, DHA with little EPA) just isn't the balance we would have if we were getting our omega-3 from our food, like all humans did until very recently.

I'm not going to sit here and say I'm right and everyone else is wrong, end of story, but I wouldn't mind seeing specifically what the doctors or studies are saying to support this. Is there a site that gives more details about Dr. Rudin? My intention would be, if he seemed to have convincing info, to discuss it with my naturopath and find out what she says about it.

Linda.