Fwd: very interesting studies

[Guest guest]

I've just been sent the following info....

 

--\

--\

--\

---------

 

Hi everyone, apologies for the mass mailing but I just saw on the BBC

digital news, two interesting stories both from the British Medical

Journal which I think will be of great interest to you all ... I've said

it before but the BBC digital news on freeview (where you press the red

button on your TV to access it) always seems to have stories like this

on it whereas you might not see them anywhere else ... has anyone got a

mole in there ??? ;-)

 

1) first shows that research shows vegetarians have higher IQ's ...

 

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/bmj.39030.675069.55v1?maxtoshow= & HITS=10\

& hits=10 & RESULTFORMAT= & fulltext=IQ & andorexactfulltext=and & searchid=1 & FIRSTINDEX=\

0 & sortspec=relevance & resourcetype=HWCIT

 

 

*Abstract:*

 

*Results* 366 (4.5%) participants said they were vegetarian,^ although

123 (33.6%) admitted eating fish or chicken. Vegetarians^ were more

likely to be female, to be of higher social class^ (both in childhood

and currently), and to have attained higher^ academic or vocational

qualifications, although these socioeconomic^ advantages were not

reflected in their income. Higher *IQ* at^ age 10 years was associated

with an increased likelihood of^ being vegetarian at age 30 (odds ratio

for one standard deviation^ increase in childhood *IQ* score 1.38, 95%

confidence interval^ 1.24 to 1.53). *IQ* remained a statistically

significant predictor^ of being vegetarian as an adult after adjustment

for social^ class (both in childhood and currently), academic or

vocational^ qualifications, and sex (1.20, 1.06 to 1.36). Exclusion of

those^ who said they were vegetarian but ate fish or chicken had little^

effect on the strength of this association.

 

*Conclusion* Higher^ scores for *IQ* in childhood are associated with an

increased^ likelihood of being a vegetarian as an adult.

 

apparently it also explains why people with higher IQs are more healthy

.... because they are veggies! and being a veggie is more healthy at

least thats what it said on the digital news :-)

 

2) and also that Prof Ian Roberts has produced a report comparing animal

study results to actual clinical trials on humans and shown that in half

the cases the animal studies gave misleading results ... thats got to be

a first ... they actually admit at least some vivisection is useless

 

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/bmj.39048.407928.BEv1?maxtoshow= & HITS=10\

& hits=10 & RESULTFORMAT= & author1=Roberts & andorexactfulltext=and & searchid=1 & FIRSTIN\

DEX=0 & sortspec=relevance & resourcetype=HWCIT

 

 

*Abstract:*

 

*Results* Corticosteroids^ did not show any benefit in clinical trials

of treatment for^ head injury but did show a benefit in animal models

(pooled^ odds ratio for adverse functional outcome 0.58, 95% confidence^

interval 0.41 to 0.83). Antifibrinolytics reduced bleeding in^ clinical

trials but the data were inconclusive in animal models.^ Thrombolysis

improved outcome in patients with ischaemic stroke.^ In animal models,

tissue plasminogen activator reduced infarct^ volume by 24% (95%

confidence interval 20% to 28%) and improved^ neurobehavioural scores by

23% (17% to 29%). Tirilazad was associated^ with a worse outcome in

patients with ischaemic stroke. In animal^ models, tirilazad reduced

infarct volume by 29% (21% to 37%)^ and improved neurobehavioural scores

by 48% (29% to 67%). Antenatal^ corticosteroids reduced respiratory

distress and mortality in^ neonates whereas in animal models respiratory

distress was reduced^ but the effect on mortality was inconclusive (odds

ratio 4.2,^ 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 20.9). Bisphosphonates

increased^ bone mineral density in patients with osteoporosis. In

animal^ models the bisphosphonate alendronate increased bone mineral^

density compared with placebo by 11.0% (95% confidence interval^ 9.2% to

12.9%) in the combined results for the hip region. The^ corresponding

treatment effect in the lumbar spine was 8.5%^ (5.8% to 11.2%) and in

the combined results for the forearms^ (baboons only) was 1.7% (-1.4% to

4.7%).

 

*Conclusions* Discordance^ between animal and human studies may be due

to bias or to the^ failure of animal models to mimic clinical disease

adequately.

 

--\

--\

--\

---------