Buzz
If you listen to sources like CNN, Time, and The Guardian, you'd think a revolutionary medical discovery was made about 'man flu,' finally settling the long-running question of whether men are just weak when they catch a cold. However, the study on man flu is part of an amusing tradition where scientists publish tongue-in-cheek research papers, which are then eagerly picked up by media outlets for clicks.
These studies are typically published in the Christmas edition of the BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal). While the studies are based on real science, they are crafted with humor and are not meant to be taken seriously. If man flu were truly being studied as a significant health issue, you'd expect a much larger research team to be involved.
A perfect example from past years was a playful study conducted with genuine scientific rigor. The study, a survivorship analysis (which is typically applied to high-risk populations like cancer patients), was humorously applied to boxes of chocolates in hospital wards. The 'survivorship' rate was low, as staff members kept eating the chocolates. The study concluded with a finding that revealed which chocolates were the least popular and survived the longest.
Watch for These Stories in the Headlines
It's not unusual for medical researchers to share a laugh about their favorite topics, but the BMJ takes it further by sending press releases for these studies. These releases often make their way into the headlines, mainly because they're funny, surprising, and easy to click on. News outlets that reported on the 'man flu' study varied in how they mentioned its origin. Some, like Business Insider, included significant disclaimers in their headlines, while others, such as CNN, presented it without hesitation.
We often don't realize these are jokes, especially when we only see the headlines fly by. It's easy to believe we're living in a world where groundbreaking discoveries about man flu have been made by researchers.
Every year, these studies frustrate me due to how they're reported. But then, I read them in the journal as intended by their creators, and they're absolutely hilarious. Here are a few of the standout stories from the 2017 issue:
'Does Peppa Pig promote the inappropriate use of primary care resources?' - This one, written by a physician who is also a parent (with the conflict of interest statement: 'It may seem like my child is sponsored by Peppa Pig, but such claims are false'), sharply criticizes Dr. Brown Bear for wasting patients' time and draining the UK health system's funds with unnecessary house calls, prescriptions, and severe breaches of patient confidentiality, including treating Pedro Pony's cough in the middle of his preschool class.
'Does pride come before a fall? Longitudinal analysis of older English adults' - In short, do people feel a lot of pride in the two years before they fall and injure themselves? (Spoiler: They don’t.)
The BMJ Christmas issue offers plenty of enjoyment, but please, if you're sharing or writing about it, do so with care and responsibility.
