P2P, or not P2P, that is the question
As the 16 January, 2015 deadline for responding to the controversial P2P draft report draws near, and in the interests of balance and representing the whole community, Phoenix Rising presents two differing views on how to react. Today, Clark Ellis flags up important content to...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Daily Telegraph: ‘Direct biological link between chronic stress and chronic inflammation’

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by Firestormm, Jun 23, 2014.

  1. Firestormm

    Firestormm Guest

    Messages:
    5,823
    Likes:
    5,988
    Cornwall England
     
    merylg likes this.
  2. Valentijn

    Valentijn Activity Level: 3

    Messages:
    7,814
    Likes:
    13,165
    Amersfoort, Netherlands
    The article seems to be at http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nm.3589.html (pay to read).

    Based on the abstract, it sounds like conjecture + mice + one or two human test subjects (or just more conjecture)?

    At any rate, they're presenting some very big conclusions in the Telegraph based on rather tenuous evidence.
     
    biophile and SOC like this.
  3. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,726
    Likes:
    16,321
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    I think this is the second thread on this? The first talks about stress inducing disruption of biofilms, so that bacterial colonies etc break away and can block arteries.
     
    merylg and Valentijn like this.
  4. MeSci

    MeSci ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6

    Messages:
    5,332
    Likes:
    6,752
    Cornwall, UK
    Here is what looks like a good article about the study, but the link may change as the news does.

    They looked at 29 medical students.
     
    Valentijn, merylg and Firestormm like this.
  5. Firestormm

    Firestormm Guest

    Messages:
    5,823
    Likes:
    5,988
    Cornwall England
     
    MeSci likes this.
  6. Kati

    Kati Patient in training

    Messages:
    2,684
    Likes:
    3,776
    And stress is also link to stomach ulcers, right? :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2014
    Valentijn likes this.
  7. biophile

    biophile Places I'd rather be.

    Messages:
    1,485
    Likes:
    6,301
    How reliable is that method as a measure of "psychosocial stress"?
     
    Wildcat and Valentijn like this.
  8. Valentijn

    Valentijn Activity Level: 3

    Messages:
    7,814
    Likes:
    13,165
    Amersfoort, Netherlands
    That makes a lot more sense at least. The abstract was rather incomprehensible.
     
  9. Valentijn

    Valentijn Activity Level: 3

    Messages:
    7,814
    Likes:
    13,165
    Amersfoort, Netherlands
    I'd imagine there would be a HUGE problem with specificity. But the psychobabblers won't mind, since it means they'd get to screw around with a lot of biologically ill people.

    The review linked by @MeSci actually has a really good summary of the weaknesses of the study.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2014
    Wildcat and biophile like this.
  10. MeSci

    MeSci ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6

    Messages:
    5,332
    Likes:
    6,752
    Cornwall, UK
    But it has now vanished from the site and I can't find it again. :( Should have copied the text. @Firestormm's one is good though.
     
  11. Valentijn

    Valentijn Activity Level: 3

    Messages:
    7,814
    Likes:
    13,165
    Amersfoort, Netherlands
    MeSci likes this.
  12. Firestormm

    Firestormm Guest

    Messages:
    5,823
    Likes:
    5,988
    Cornwall England
    I must say that recently (what with the Julia Newton PoTS study and headlines) and now this, I have been impressed with NHS Choices and their ability to analyse such science-behind-the-headlines. I don't know who write it but they are doing a far far better job that e.g. Science Media Centre etc. and certainly the newspapers ever do :thumbsup:
     
    Valentijn likes this.
  13. MeSci

    MeSci ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6

    Messages:
    5,332
    Likes:
    6,752
    Cornwall, UK
    Generally I have always found NHS web info good. Shame that doctors don't seem to read it!
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page