In an article recently published in the British Medical Journal, researchers examined the extensive Framingham, Massachusetts data from 1983 to 2003 that looked at a social network of over 4,000 people and their neighbors, acquaintances, friends, and spouses (who actually had less effect on happiness than friends!).  Approximately 50,000 social ties were represented on the questionnaires the subjects filled out. The BMJ study concluded that there was a group happiness factor, that “peoples’ happiness depends on the happiness of others with whom they are connected.  This provides further justification for seeing happiness, like health, as a collective phenomenon.”

Critics of the study quickly pointed out in another study published in the same journal that other environmental factors the subjects had in common may have caused the effects of apparent contagious happiness.

Here is my take:

*   The Framingham data was compiled mainly to study heart disease, but reanalyzing it now to look for social networking clues is interesting. This analysis may lack a certain observer bias. The original researchers who compiled the information could not be influenced since they did not have “happiness” in mind.
*   On the other hand, data obtained about happiness by questionnaire are often weak, and further studies would have to be done before any firm observations could be made. It is quite possible that the perceived socially connected happiness may be another factor that the subjects had in common.
*   But it is certainly interesting to consider that happiness, like worry, may be infectious. In my book “False Alarm; the Truth About the Epidemic of Fear,” I looked at the effects of transmitted worry on the negative health of our society. It is reasonable to consider the opposite – that if those around you are happy and have a positive attitude, you may be less likely to become stressed and ultimately ill. This phenomena could involve emotional as well as hormonal triggers.

The expression “be happy, be healthy,” could end up being more than just a gratuitous expression.

Dr. Marc Siegel is an internist and associate professor of medicine at the NYU School of Medicine. He is a FOX News Medical Contributor and writes a health column for LA Times, where he examines TV and movies for medical accuracy. Dr. Siegel is the author of “False Alarm: the Truth About the Epidemic of Fear” and “Bird Flu: Everything You Need to Know About the Next Pandemic.” Read more at www.doctorsiegel.com

The National Institutes of Health recently published an interesting study in the “BMJ,” where they approached 1,200 internists and rheumatologists about what they called “placebo treatments,” where patient expectations rather than an expected physiological response was the rationale for the treatment. Only 679 physicians responded, which limited the conclusions, along with the design of the study itself, as this type of survey is a weak form of science. Nevertheless, the results were disturbing – about half of the responding doctors indicated they prescribed these kind of treatments on a regular basis, and more than 60 perecent believed there was no ethical problem in doing so. It has long been known that cures and responses to treatment can be affected by a patient’s mental attitude and expectation, and that healing itself involves suggestion as well as chemical intervention.

But I find these results deeply disturbing for the following reasons:

1) Most of those surveyed were not using sugar pills or harmless salt water, they were using medicines with potential side effects. These included over-the-counter analgesics (41percent), vitamins (38 percent), sedatives (13 percent), and antibiotics (13 percent).

2) More than 90 percent of upper respiratory infections are viral, yet physicians are knowingly prescribing antibiotics to meet patient expectation.

3) Patients are fueled to ask for pills because of advertising, the Internet and a culture of instant gratification.

4) Physicians are motivated to provide a quick fix rather than a more elaborate explanation which could eliminate the need or urge for the treatment. A study published in the “Annals of Family Medicine” published in 2005 concluded that physicians only spend 55 percent of their time in face-to-face patient care. In this environment of 5 to 10 minute office visits, it is often easier for doctors to provide a quick placebo treatment rather than a more elaborate diagnosis and explanation.

5) This is a survey of doctors, but it is highly doubtful to me that patients would be satisfied with this approach. I suspect that a similar survey of patients would reveal that less than 10 percent of patients believe that it is okay for placebo treatments to be given for deceptive reasons, with false expectations. I suspect that most patients would like an interaction with their doctor to be completely honest and based on full disclosure.

Do my readers agree?

VIDEO: Watch Dr. Siegel Talk About The Placebo Problem

Dr. Marc Siegel is an internist and associate professor of medicine at the NYU School of Medicine. He is a FOX News Medical Contributor and writes a health column for LA Times, where he examines TV and movies for medical accuracy. Dr. Siegel is the author of “False Alarm: the Truth About the Epidemic of Fear” and “Bird Flu: Everything You Need to Know About the Next Pandemic”. Read more at www.doctorsiegel.com