Thank You Weston A Price for this information!
"Peer review is critical for ensuring that evidence assembled in a meta-analysis is complete and impartial. Regrettably, the recent AHA Advisory  relied heavily upon a one-line meta-analysis cited in a non peer-reviewed book chapter  to support its position that high intakes of omega-6 fatty acids reduce CHD. Unfortunately, the credibility of this advisory is undermined by four additional critical errors."
1) The AHA Advisory mistakenly cited the Sydney Diet-Heart Study...
2) Although the AHA Advisory  criticizes other studies for failing to distinguish between “distinct effects” of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, it commits this error throughout.
3) The AHA Advisory imprecisely contends that its analysis pertains to trials that “evaluated the effects of replacing saturated fatty acids with PUFAs”  despite its citation of trials where experimental diets displaced large quantities of trans fatty acid-rich partially hydrogenated oils.
4) The AHA Advisory failed to indicate that the Rose Corn Oil Trial  gives a rare opportunity to evaluate the specific effects of increased LA, because corn oil has little omega-3 ALA.
The advisory unfortunately moves from suggestive and highly conditional interpretations to theunsupported clinical admonition that “To reduce omega-6 PUFA intakes from their current levels would be more likely to increase than to decrease risk for CHD.”
Please read the complete paper here.