Psychosomatic Factors Involved in the Process of Cancerogenesis

Abstract

In a Yugoslav village, psychosocial, anamnestic medical, and pathophysiological data were recorded for 1,353 persons in a longitudinal study. The role of psychosocial stress in carcinogenesis, as far as we have investigated it, may be described as follows: (1) Psychosocial stress in terms of high hopelessness, high antiemotionality, etc. has a strong relevance for cancer incidence which does not act via one of our physiological variables associated with cancer. This follows from the results of our multivariate analysis. (2) Psychosocial stress is substantially associated with a low lymphocyte percentage, which in turn is a relatively strong risk factor for cancer. (3) Psychosocial stress is relatively weakly associated with the cholesterol minimum; but apart from the fact that the cholesterol characteristics of cancer subjects are more marked descriptively under stress conditions, psychosocial stress significantly enhances the efficacy of the most important physiological risk variables for cancer.

Personality and risk of cancer: 20-year follow-up of the Western Electric Study.

“…They found that the 20 students who subsequently developed cancer had lower scores at baseline on a questionnaire which measured closeness to family than 402 student who did not develop cancer. Grossarth-Maticek et al (10) similarly noted that feelings of hopelessness and depression at baseline were significantly associated with incidence of cancer among 1353 persons examined in a Yugoslav village and followed a total of 10 years. However, they did not control for age, weight, smoking history, or alcohol intake.…”

“…Previous investigators have presented evidence that depression, loss of close personal relationships, and the use of denial and repression in coping with stress may be associated with development of cancer (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14). Most of these studies have utilized the retrospective, case-comparison method and have, therefore, been subject to the possibility of observer bias as well as the From the Epidemiology/Biometry Program, School of Public Health, University of Illinois and the Illinois Cancer Council, Chicago, Illinois (V.W.P.…”

Quandaries Created by Unlikely Numbers in Some of Grossarth-Maticek's Studies

“…The aforementioned list of numbers of internal dis- eases appeared in at least two articles, the first containing only percentages of subjects who became ill with one or more internal diseases (Grossarth-Maticek, 1980) and the second (Grossarth-Maticek, Kanazir et al, 1983), where the actual numbers were cited. However, in Grossarth-Maticek, Frentzel-Beyme, Kanazir, Jankovic, and Vetter (1987), one finds a different count for internal diseases.…”

Prediction of Cancer From Psychological Measures

“…Despite what appears to be Eysenck's preference for more behavioral, less psychodynamic approaches, it should be noted that Grossarth-Maticek's initial personality dimensions appear to derive from psychodynamic literature and theorizing (Grossarth-Maticek et al, 1982). The theory is later restated in learning terms, but psychodynamic theorists could rightfully complain that the contributions of their theories to the early series of studies are not being duly credited.…”