Comments on: That old devil stress

By: Tresho

Tresho — Fri, 05 May 2006 00:15:23 +0000

A self-reported survey like the source was, is worthless.

By: tcobb

tcobb — Wed, 03 May 2006 23:12:00 +0000

Unfortunately, I have given up believing in much of anything that comes out in the way of “studies” that come out in politicized fields. The results may very well be valid. I simply don’t know, but I’m not willing to put any faith at all in them, one way or the other. These days there are simply too many results of “studies” which are nothing more than agit-prop. If you pray frequently, you will live longer, or so one study says. “Relative poverty,” that is, knowing that someone else makes more money than you do, causes great distress and suffering says yet another study. There are no agendas there, not at all. Believe it and move along. . .

By: nittypig

nittypig — Wed, 03 May 2006 20:25:01 +0000

To reinforce XWL’s point:

Those who are males between 55 and 64 might be surprised by this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3463175.stm
That’s right, in the UK they don’t do routine PSA tests. Now the incidence of prostate cancer diagnoses in the US just about doubled when the routine PSA testing began in the 80′s.
(80,000 per year to 140,00 per year http://www.aafp.org/afp/980800ap/lefevre.html). Prostate cancer is something like 25% of all cancer (in men) in this age group.

So the absence of PSA testing alone in the UK for this age group means you can expect about a 10% change in the incidence of cancer in these population. The discrpancy in the reported results is 70%, but this is a huge effect from one little test.

Now I think it’s possible that the UK policy on PSA is better than the (de facto) US policy. The test has led to much improved cancer survival rates and cure rates, but the evidence that it’s significantly improved mortality is hard to come by. That said I’d personally have the PSA anyway – unlike mammograms there isn’t any real evidence of the test having negative effects on mortality.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 03 May 2006 16:14:17 +0000

This seems like a flawed way to do this study. Do American and British doctors diagnose “illness” the same? For example, would the exact same levels of colesterol in each country be diagnosed as a need for colesterol-lowering medicine?

Unless the study corrects for deviations like that, it’s comparing free-market medicine to socialized medicine and noting that you get a lot more of the latter than the former.

By: Wallace

Wallace — Wed, 03 May 2006 16:12:52 +0000

Being in the age group reported upon, I can add my own findings. The chief cause of stress in men between 55 and 64 is women between 55 and 64.

By: tim maguire

tim maguire — Wed, 03 May 2006 14:58:14 +0000

Maybe the years are shorter in Europe. We all know Europe’s had a lot more of them.

By: t-bird

t-bird — Wed, 03 May 2006 14:52:32 +0000

High-fructose corn syrup should be the difference.

The health care figures are just a symptom. You spend money on healthcare if you’re sick, not if you’re well.

By: Rick Z

Rick Z — Wed, 03 May 2006 13:35:42 +0000

On reflection, it’s quite obvious to me that European males enjoy greater longevity because a disproportionate number of their vital organs are pickled and smoked — alcohol and tobacco being widely recognized as preservatives.

By: jmc

jmc — Wed, 03 May 2006 12:18:23 +0000

The biggest red flag for me is that only 20% of the Univ of Michigan data set was used to draw conclusions about US health whereas the whole UK dataset was used for the UK.

Looks like cherry picking of the US data set to me.

By: Tollhouse

Tollhouse — Wed, 03 May 2006 10:42:07 +0000

TWL, that’s my read of it as well. Any study that relies on surveys triggers my skeptometer.