Laughter: Good for the Soul, maybe, but also can be bad for the Body!

A fellow of the BMJ has written a paper on the study of laughter.  While touted as being overall good for improving the mental state but also promoting health in lung functions, lowering blood pressure and improving mental health. 

But in all honesty the author points out that there are numerous severe side effects that can be quite debilitating, such as: dislocated jaw, incontinence, headaches, cardiac rupture,syncope,oesophageal rupture,  protrusion of abdominal hernias (from side splitting laughter or laughing fit to burst), asthma attacks, interlobular emphysema, cataplexy. 

It should also be noted that infectious laughter can disseminate real infection, which is potentially preventable by laughing up your sleeve., or into your elbow. 

There are of course pathological causes laughter that have to be treated medically, but for the most part someone needs merely to be made aware that they are at risk of injury (ie a short swift blow to either side of the head) is often enough to effect a prevention of any of the above mentioned side effects.

The paper goes on to   category references for laughter being less than beneficial: 

• Psychological harms:   Humour weakens resolve and promotes brand preference   
• Respiratory harms: The quick intake of breath that accompanies laugher can provoke inhalation of foreign bodies  
• Gastrointestinal harms: A good belly laugh can make a hernia protrude 
• Musculoskeletal harms: Laughing can dislocate the jaw     
• Urinary tract harms:  Laughter can cause stress incontinence. ( “giggle ncontinence”) 

and many and much more...Here is a link to the BMJ 

What's Inside a Poop? Inquiring Minds Want to know!

You know I just could not stay away from this one!  I really thought it was a joke when I saw the first link on Boing Boing.  Especially when it liked out to an article named:  

• An In-Depth Analysis of a Piece of Shit: 

Stranger still, it seems to be legit!  Links lead to PLOS: Neglected Tropical Diseases and talks about hook worms and other fecal egg counts....HONEST!!!  of course it is some of the methodology that set me over the juvenile edge.    Stuff like 

• 222 samples were collected....not saying a thing....each sample was cut into four pieces.  (turd cutter....hows that for a job description...I think I need professional help) 
• and of course this line "Some samples were homogenized"  
• and the infamous " keeping collected stool samples cool and moist

Not making fun of important research,  but I am totally amazed at some of the projects  and some of the people who contribute....that might have been a poor choice of words....

PLOS article

2011's Top Science Scandals

The Scientist Magazine via Boing Boing has compiled a list of some of 2011's most deliberate fumbles in the realm of science.

How about the "link" between a mouse leukemia virus and chronic fatigue syndrome. This paper was cited in over 200 other scientific papers that was before other labs failed to recreate the findings. The paper was retracted but  when they were demanded, the author refused to hand over key lab notebooks. An assistant allegedly was ordered to take the notebooks. The author then relocated to California, only to be arrested on counts of felony theft,  jailed overnight, and is now awaiting trial.

or how about this.... A Boston University scientist's  paper identifying 19 genes associated  longevity.  Soon after publication, however critics discover that the correlation was due to an error in the sequencing chip the team used. After accounting for the error, the researchers found  that the results were ummm less impressive, and Science ultimately retracted the paper, which was cited 25 times in just a year.

Or the well cited paper on changes in the climate that was retracted when it was discovered that many passages were lifted from other sources, including Wikipedia.

And the horrific breast cancer study that was administered by Duke University that is now being sued by families of breast cancer patients who died during the study - saying that Duke fraudulently and negligently allowed a flawed cancer trial to continue. The patients were enrolled in a trial led by oncologist Anil Potti, who in 2010 admitted to pretending to be a Rhodes Scholar and to fabricating a statistical analysis of chemotherapy response in breast cancer.   

There are others equally disturbing at The Scientist web article here