Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by Firestormm, Jun 23, 2014.
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.
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.
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.
And stress is also link to stomach ulcers, right?
How reliable is that method as a measure of "psychosocial stress"?
That makes a lot more sense at least. The abstract was rather incomprehensible.
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.
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.
I think the same one is at http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/06June/Pages/Stress-causes-damage-to-the-heart.aspx
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
Generally I have always found NHS web info good. Shame that doctors don't seem to read it!
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.