So it is true, you CAN die of a broken heart!

A phrase normally associated with romantics, poetry and the arts, it can now be revealed that one can actually be heavily - and fatally - affected by one's feelings.  The "nocebo" effect or reaction (Latin meaning "I will harm"), is a medical term used to describe harmful, unpleasant and unwanted effects manifesting in a patient upon receiving a dummy drug.  As discussed by Penny Sarchet in her award winning essay for the Wellcome Trust science writing prize, this is the opposite to the "placebo" effect, whereby upon receiving the fake sugar pill, the patient actually feels better.  According to Sarchet's research these were evident during pharmaceutical trials in the eighties, where heart patients were more likely to suffer side effects from blood-thinning medicines if they had been told of any potential side effects the drugs may have.  The nocebo effect is also contagious; psychological-bourne illnesses have been reported worldwide effecting en-masse, "usually affecting close communities and spreading most rapidly to female individuals who have seen someone else suffering from the condition."

Very little is known about how the nocebo effect works.  A study carried out earlier this year by a group led by Professor Irene Tracey (Oxford) found that when volunteers were subjected to noecbo pain, brain activity corresponding to actual, neurological pain registered on an MRI scanner.  One of the neurochemicals responsible for converting this expectation of pain into a real sensation has been identified by Fabrizio Benedetti (Turin) and colleagues as cholecystokinin, a neuropeptide that acts on CCK receptors that are found throughout the human nervous system.  Cholecystokinin acts on the gastrointestinal system is responsible for bringing about the digestion of fat and protein.  However, it is also causes anxiety and nausea and is administered to test subjects in order to cause artifical panic attacks for research and the development of anti-anxiety drugs.

From these findings Parchet highlights the importance of the doctor-patient relationship.  Since the life and wellbeing of the patient is in the hands of the doctor, trust and confidence in his or her methods are vital.  In light of these findings, if the doctor lacks empathy and social skill or fails to project self confidence, then there is the danger that the patient, fearing the worst, will not respond well to any treatment given to them, as actually verified by Irene Tracey's team.

I would like to expand on that a little.  While not being a researcher in this subject, it is clear that anxiety is rife this modern age and doesn't just exist in medical terms.  It is there as soon as we open our eyes in the morning; it is there as we make our way to work and school; it is there during our entire day and it is there waiting for us when we get home.  From these findings I would say we need to examine our relationships with everyone - if we were all kinder, more tactful and showed greater empathy for eachother, physically, mentally and emtionally we might all be better off. 

Less stress, less anxiety and less heartache.

             

Of Science and Religion

Depiction of Jesus Christ on stained glass. Image by Toby Hudson

While enjoying the Easter holidays I came across this article in the New Statesman where the author, Andrew Zak Williams, interviewed a variety of leading public figures and scientists on their views on Christian faith and their reasons for believing. The responses are diverse as they are fascinating - Religious leaders James Jones and Richard Chartres describe the Christian faith as unquestionable. Others such as the barrister Cherie Blair, journalist Jeremy Vine and former Conservative minister Jonathan Aitken see religion as natural and a form of solace, something that cannot be explained. The British author Peter Hitchens and Professor of Psychology David Myers find that faith provides a guide and a meaning to life, that it holds the key to the many questions of the universe and of our existence.

It is perceived that the scientist's view is a little more divorced than those expressed and in this article it shows - Quantum Physicist Paul Davies prefers "useful concepts" than belief; that the word 'God' is undefined and idea of a spiritual entity capable of thought and control is unacceptable. Theoretical physicist Peter Richmond goes further, stating that although the teachings of the Bible are still relevant to this day, the scriptures should not be taken literally. However, the likes of Professor of biology Kenneth Miller, astrophysicist Hugh Ross and Professor of climate change Mike Hulme confirm a personal belief in the Bible and in God; a belief that stems from, surprisingly, scientific findings, scientific rationality and scientific values.

There is a concept perpetuated in the UK media that science is very much against religion - that it is God versus Nature; creationism versus evolution. However, from these short interviews it can be seen that the lines are blurred - that there are well respected and successful scientists who openly embrace religion and the concept that scientific methodology is not appropriate to explain or define faith.

Source: New Statesman