Sensationalist Reporting

[SilverliningsForNow]

The Daily Mail are at it again! Scaring people half to death and saying AF is the silent killer.

mol.im/a/13319189

Over to you Bob 🤣

[OldGrit]

They are at it again? They never stop 😂 … that’s their mission. Within the article there is information based on studies which are solid but in my view the presentation is designed to be sensationalist.

On this forum you’ll find a balance of very good Information, differing opinions and all in much more useful that that publication.

I wouldn’t use that publication to line a cat’s litter tray.

[BobD Volunteer]

Ah the Daily Fail! It is often said that there is no such thing as bad publicity but I make an exception with the Fail.

[bean_counter27 in reply to BobD]

Better bad publicity than it being ignored. The article may well be using statistics and associations to exaggerate the risks of AF but anything that brings attention to AF and elicits statements like "the critical need for treatments to further decrease stroke risk as well as for heart failure prevention strategies among patients with atrial fibrillation" is a net positive from my perspective. The more the general public knows of AF and it's potential effects, the more likely it is to get funding for research and treatment.

[Finvola]

I saw that ridiculous article and the stupid sensationalism of the few facts it contained. The people who have been scared and worried by it obviously don't matter to the clowns in charge of the comic.

[Jalia in reply to Finvola]

The heart failure connection needs to be taken seriously though.

[Finvola in reply to Jalia]

Totally agree Jalia - it was the sensationalist tone of the article and the fact that treatment wasn't mentioned meant it wasn't particularly helpful. This seemed to be borne out by the readers' discussion which was in places a rant about vaccines. But then, perhaps a balanced article doesn't get clicks or sell newspapers. 🙁

[Silky57]

The headline is a bit sensationalist, but that’s what tabloid newspapers do to attract readers in print or as clickbait. Footfall attracts advertisers which pays the wages. The body is of the text seems factual to me and will doubtless raise awareness of the condition which can only be a good thing. For people who are unaware of their condition, and are therefore unmedicated, it can be a killer.

[Rosie1066 in reply to Silky57]

As I have said on here before it was secondary on my late husband’s death certificate. So, in my mind it should be taken seriously, at least in some cases if there are also other medical conditions present.

[mjames1]

The Daily Mail are at it again...over to you Bob..

First of all, it's not just the Daily Mail. It's being reported all over today, including the BMJ.

And while more or less an observational study, it should not be ignored. I assume you called out     BobD because he is fond of saying (paraphrase) -- don't worry, afib will not kill you if you are simply anti-coagulated.

That kind of thinking is not current. The fact is they have known for quite some time an association between afib and heart failure, especially if the Afib is uncontrolled. This current study just shows the association may be more than we previous thought.

That's why it's so important to take your afib, very seriously and seek the best treatment as soon as possible.

Unless you want the entire thread deleted by the moderators per the new forum rules, I would suggest you take out the link to the article and just do a little paraphrase or excerpt. This is potentially a good thread and I'd hate to see it lost.

Jim

[Jalia in reply to mjames1]

I agree , certainly with the heart failure aspect.

I've had first hand experience of this very recently and indeed would have been in more serious trouble had I not been aware of the HF connection.

[bantam12]

I see nothing wrong with the article, it states the facts and may help some people who are unaware of the risks.

[Hidden]

The article reads as a pretty sensible report on some new medical information from bonafide sources. I'm surprised that the Daily Mail can actually do some proper reporting! I'm surprised to see it dismissed so readily.

[babs1234]

well I’d like to tell them my mums had it for approx 35 years and is now 95

[OzJames in reply to babs1234]

thats amazing i'd be interested to know whether she chose the drug or surgery route over that 35 years

[babs1234 in reply to OzJames]

She had a stroke at the age of 76 She was then on digoxin and warfarin. No surgery.

[OzJames in reply to babs1234]

goes to show you ablation isn't for everyone! so how often does she go into AF or does the digoxin keep it at bay?

[babs1234 in reply to OzJames]

I think she’s pretty much irregular constantly.

[OzJames in reply to babs1234]

I guess the drugs must be doing something to help her but goes to show there are other issues and co morbidities that ultimately cause serious HF in other people.

[Nerja2012 in reply to babs1234]

Same here Babs, my Mam was 98 when she died, she had AF and wouldn't take any meds. She died with it not of it.

[OzJames in reply to Nerja2012]

wow that’s interesting…. and how many years did she have AF

[Buffafly]

I don’t think anyone is but just in case: ‘Don’t panic!’ As we frequently have to say, HF is not what it says on the tin. Only when you get to the highest of 4 or 5 stages is there a danger of death. If you look up the symptoms of the first stage of HF it is mild tiredness but it’s still called ‘heart failure’ which is ridiculous really.

[bean_counter27 in reply to Buffafly]

The risk of "sugar-coating" AF is some people not taking it as seriously as they should.

Although the article appears to exaggerate the risks of AF by using its association with certain causes of death, AF is not a benign condition and we need to ensure we don't understate the risks.

However, I also understand why many comments on this forum are biased towards being reassuring i.e. are silent on some of the risks of AF. It's a "fine line we walk".