According misleading information that even MrFord, the

According to a Daily Mail article, a study claims that there is an improvement inGCSE grades due to the consumption of fish oil. However, there has been a heateddebate regarding the overall credibility of the study that was mentioned by the DailyMail article. So, the big question we have to ask after reading the article is – Does fishoil really boost one’s grades?Based on the article, the study that was used to highlight the effects of fish oil on theGCSE grades contains contradictory and even misleading information that even MrFord, the study’s representative, fails to clarify. To verify the credibility of the study,details of the study have to be scrutinised.Firstly, the inconsistencies in their sample size make the study’s validityquestionable. Initially, there were over 3,000 pupils partaking in the trials, whichdwindled to only 832 pupils after 2 years when the trials first began and furtherreduced to a mere 629 pupils who supposedly shown improvements in their grades.The lack of accountability of the other 2,371 students who didn’t see anyimprovements shows a confirmation bias by the Durham education chiefs as theyonly highlight the probable benefits that only few pupils experience. Thus, this hurtsthe reliability of the study itself as a result.Commonly, the procedures of trials will be clearly available to the public tounderstand how the trial is conducted. This includes expectations of the trials andsubsequently whether the results coincide with the expectations. However, themurkiness of the trials’ procedures puts a greater strain on the thin ice that Mr Fordand friends are already walking on. According to Ben Goldacre (Goldacre, 2008), theDurham education chiefs fail to reveal any methodology of the trials which results inspeculation regarding the authenticity of the findings. This is because the lack oftransparency would mean the possibility of data manipulation or skewing results tofit their own personal agenda.The Daily Mail, who published this article, has been infamously known forsensationalizing stories (Jackson, 2017). Furthermore, the author of the article,Laura Clark, has a career writing pieces about education in the United Kingdom. Thismeans the lack of the expertise on the matter at hand damages the credibility of thearticle as this issue requires some degree of scientific knowledge about the industry.Moreover, given Daily Mail’s publishing history, the lack of credible sources to helpback the studies which is also highlighted in the article in which the Food StandardsAgency’s refusal to support the study due to the lack of insufficient evidence goesagainst the reliability of the article.All in all, it can be said that the article is not credible because it fails to find the truthbehind the study before publishing it. If there was greater competence in doing so,such a study can be easily dismantled for being disingenuous as its findings arehighly dubious in nature.Yet, fish oil is still believed to have benefits and has booming market worth 1.15billion dollars despite the lack of evidence (Whoriskey, 2015)