--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > (Problems with meditation research were highlighted recently > > when a study on hypertension lead by an MUM physician was > > pulled just minutes before publication in a major journal.) > > The researchers shot themselves in the foot. They requested a > statement from the NIH about the study and the NIH suggested > that the latest data be included in the study since some time > had passed since the study was first submitted for review.
Can you be more explicit about how they shot themselves in the foot? They should have known better than to request the statement from NIH? Or to request it before the study was published? And what did the "latest data" consist of? Was the study ongoing, and what was being published just an interim report? > This suggestion happened one week before the publication date > and the new data was submitted 24 hours before the publication > date, so the publishers decided to pull the study since the > new data hadn't been reviewed. Why did the editors make such a mystery of this? Why didn't they (or the authors, for that matter) explain what you just did? They must have known not explaining it would generate lots of dark speculation. And can you say where you got the information, at least in general terms? > There is no indication that the study won't pass the new > review process and be published. Well, one thing we know now for sure is that Vaj lied outright when he wrote on July 6: "Actually the latest study was found to have had the data deliberately skewed. "In an unprecedented move, the Archives of Internal Medicine yanked a paper by the TM Org that was nine years in the making, only minutes before publication."
