

New Theory Links Depression to Chronic Brain Inflammation  - cwan
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101020091857.htm

======
Retric
There is a small chance that this is true, however it's far more likely that
it's either related to the truth, or simply wrong. Linking to early research
like this (complex topic / hard to verify) is generally a waste of time.

PS: I am not saying it does not belong on HN so much as it does not belong
anywhere outside of a research community.

Edit: Linking to the actual research would be fine IMO. It's the 2nd hand
press release of this stuff that's horrid.

~~~
SkyMarshal
I once asked a research scientist friend, how many studies confirming the same
thing do laypeople have to hear about before we can start thinking maybe
there's something to the finding?

She said for laypeople, a good rule of thumb is 5 studies of at least 250,000
sample size and all with different funding sources. Though in her field, with
multiple large cohorts available, that sample size isn't unusual, so I'm not
sure how it applies to other areas of research like this article.

But it's a good reminder not to bother reading these, especially 2nd hand
press releases and news reports, unless you've already seen several others
previously.

------
Flam
I think this is simply stupid.

