Controversial "Cancer-prone personality" theory ruled unsafe

Work of renowned UK psychologist Hans Eysenck ruled ‘unsafe’

Quote:

Eysenck’s ‘cancer-prone’ personality theory had come under criticism for decades The work of one of the most famous and influential British psychologists of all time, Hans Eysenck, is under a cloud following an investigation by King’s College London, which has found 26 of his published papers “unsafe”. King’s says the results and conclusions of the papers “were not considered scientifically rigorous” by its committee of inquiry. Prof Sir Robert Lechler, the provost at King’s, has contacted the editors of the 11 journals where the papers appeared, recommending they should be retracted. Eysenck, who died in 1997, published prolifically and wrote many well-known books, holding controversial views on a number of subjects, including race and IQ. The investigation centred on research that claimed personality played a bigger part in people’s chances of dying from cancer or heart disease than smoking. ... Among more than 3,000 people in the studies, Eysenck and his colleague claimed people with a “cancer-prone” personality were 121 times more likely to die of the disease than those without, and people with “heart-disease prone” personalities 27 times more likely. Cancer-prone personalities were described as generally passive in the face of stress from outside. Those who were heart disease-prone were unable to leave an unsatisfactory situation alone, which made them increasingly aggressive and hostile. A healthy personality was autonomous, with a positive outlook. Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek apparently even had a “cure” for cancer. In one study, they gave 600 “cancer-prone” individuals a leaflet on how to be more “autonomous” and take control of their destiny. It contained such advice as: “Your aim should always be to produce conditions which make it possible for you to lead a happy and contented life.” It appeared to deliver miracles. Over 13 years, the 600 people randomly assigned to bibliotherapy, as it was called, had all-cause mortality of 32%, compared with 82% of 600 people not fortunate enough to receive a leaflet.

tl;dr the studies were probably fraudulent.

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2nKylsM