--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: > > On Jul 6, 2011, at 2:32 PM, richardjwilliamstexas wrote: > [Vaj wrote:] > >>> Actually the latest study was found to have had the > >>> data deliberately skewed. > >>> > > authfriend: > >> Actually "was found" = one medical journalist said he > >> thought it was skewed in a blog post on Forbes.com.
This blog post is what Vaj reproduces below (without acknowledging what it is; note that he hasn't quoted anything to show it's from Forbes.com--he hopes you'll think it's a different and More Important piece). And again, in his earlier post, Vaj attempted to make it seem that the Archives of Internal Medicine had "found" the purported skewing, by deliberately using the passive voice in the sentence quoted above, so he wouldn't have to say who had done the "finding." The blogger may or may not be correct in his suspicions, but he's more honest than Vaj: he says explicitly that we don't know why the journal withdrew the paper. Again, according to the editors, it was because the authors had sent in some additional data at the last minute that required evaluation. If Vaj had told you what I just have, it wouldn't have sounded nearly as impressive. It's interesting that Vaj couches an accusation of dishonesty on the part of the study authors in deliberately deceptive terms. > >> > > We should not misinterpret this unusual delay. It was a > > nine year study, and it received all the normal reviews > > at each stage of the process. > > > > Apparently the authors of the study welcomed this delay, > > as it would allow additional analyses and information. > > > > "The study focused on teaching the TM technique as a > > stress-reduction approach to a group of 201 African > > American patients with coronary heart disease (CHD)..." > > > > 'Meditation Can Reduce Stress and Lower Risk of Heart > > Disease' > > Health News, June 28, 2011 > > http://tinyurl.com/3rjwb3z > > > > Larry Husten > CARDIOBRIEF > > PHARMA & HEALTHCARE > > > New Concerns Raised About Withdrawn Archives Meditation Paper > > Jun. 28 2011 - 1:52 am | 2,229 views | 0 recommendations | 0 comments > I don't know why Archives of Internal Medicine stopped the > publication of a paper only moments before its scheduled debut (see > my previous post for the details). But a news story on the study > (published despite the withdrawal of the paper, and provoking further > questions about gullible journalists) provides firm evidence that the > study's authors are clearly guilty of gross scientific exaggeration > and misstatement. And a closer look at the paper intended for > publication raises additional questions. > > Transcendental meditation can cut heart attacks and strokes by 50%, > writes Richard Alleyne in a news article in the Telegraph that > contains not a single caveat or statement of caution. He quotes Dr. > Norman Rosenthal of the NIMH, who calls the study results "a seminal > finding." Even more: > > The prevention of heart attack and stroke and actual lengthening of > lifespan by an alternative treatment method is exceedingly rare, if > not unprecedented. If Transcendental Meditation were a drug > conferring so many benefits, it would be a billion-dollar blockbuster." > > Study co-author Theodore Kotchen is also quoted (update: the director > of media relations at the Medical College of Wisconsin has informed > me that this quote should have been attributed to the first author of > the paper, Robert Schneider): > > These findings are the strongest documented effects yet produced by a > mind-body intervention on cardiovascular disease. The effect is as > large or larger than major categories of drug treatment for > cardiovascular disease. > > And here's the study's first author, Robert Schneider: > > This study builds on previous research findings showing that the > Transcendental Meditation program reduces high blood pressure, high > cholesterol, insulin resistance, psychological stress, and > atherosclerosis, and takes it to the next step lower rates of > death, heart attack, and stroke. > > Now let's be clear: even if the data from this study turns out to be > completely reliable (a point which we can no longer take for > granted), the results are at best hypothesis generating and tell us > absolutely nothing about the actual value of TM. Only about 200 > people were randomized in the study most studies with hard clinical > endpoints require thousands of patients. And a cursory examination of > the actual paper raises all sorts of red flags. > > Here are a few other items of concern: > > Although 201 patients are reported in the analysis, the study > assessed 451 patients for eligibility and randomized 213 patients. > Of the 105 patients randomized to TM, 19 didn't even receive TM. > 12 patients 6 in each arm were randomized but then excluded because > they did not meet the trial's inclusion criteria. > 41 patients 20 in the TM arm, 21 in the control arm were lost to > followup. > But my biggest concern is with the analysis of the primary endpoint, > which was the composite of all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke. This > occurred in 17 patients in the TM group compared with 23 patients in > the control group, a difference that the authors claim achieved > significance (p=0.03) after adjusting for differences in the age, > sex, and use of lipid-lowering drugs between the groups. However, > there was no significant difference between the groups in any of > these factors. Even worse, there were very significant differences in > the amount of education (11.3 years in the TM group versus 9.9 years > in the control group, p=0.003) and the CES-D clinical depression > scale (13.8 versus 17.7) for which the authors did not make an > adjustment, although in both cases the imbalance would appear to > favor the TM group. In other words, to use the old cliché, they > tortured the data until they made it talk. Strange behavior, perhaps, > for supposedly laid back TM types, no? > > See more on this story from Erika Check at the Nature.com newsblog. >
