--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- 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?
Well, I can't find the article where I read it, but apparently they were trying to get a positive PR statement from the NIH. > > And what did the "latest data" consist of? Was the study > ongoing, and what was being published just an interim > report? No way of knowing what the latest data says until (If) the paper is published. The study has been on-going for 9 years and will likely continue until the last person dies or stops doing TM. > > > 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. Eh, the editors may not have known who requested the data and the authors may not have felt comfortable revealing who it was without checking first. THeir initial letter just said "external reviewers." > > And can you say where you got the information, at least in > general terms? http://blogs.forbes.com/larryhusten/2011/06/29/very-little-new-light-shed-on-the-archives-meditation-fiasco/ Can't find another article I read earlier that goes more in depth. Google search isn't as reliable after the one-month period, it seems. > > > 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." > That last part is correct: it hasn't happened before. L.
