Tiassa
12-17-04, 12:41 AM
Where to start? I suppose I should look to scientists and say, "Any ideas on how this could happen?"
From SeattleTimes.com:
The self-correcting nature of science should have run its course, and Bruce Flamm should have been able to drop this whole thing almost as soon as it started in 2001.
Flamm, after all, was just looking for a simple answer:
Why did a peer-reviewed scientific journal publish a study that defied all known laws of science? ....
.... In 2001, the Journal of Reproductive Medicine published a study that suggested that women undergoing in vitro fertilization in Korea who were prayed for by Christians in the United States, Canada and Australia were twice as likely to become pregnant as those who were not.
SeattleTimes.com (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002121132_prayer16.html)
So a Riverside, California OB-GYN had a hard time swallowing it. Dr. Bruce Flamm wrote JRM to inquire about the study. Questions of design, intent and outcome took the lead role.
Flamm, who is also a published author and clinical professor at UC-Irvine, received no response from JRM.
His peers noticed, however, and through 2002 corresponded with Flamm. Many discussed their own probes into seemingly questionable work done by one of the study's authors, a California attorney named Daniel Wirth, who also holds a degree in parapsychology. Throughout 2002, despite continued attempts to make contact, Flamm received no response from JRM.
In May 2004, Wirth and an associate, Joseph Steven Horvath, pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy, fraud and theft. They had used the names of dead children to obtain bank loans, jobs and passports. The FBI charged them with bilking $2 million from Adelphia Communications. Horvath hanged himself in his Pennsylvania prison cell two months later. On Monday, Wirth was sentenced to 60 months in prison.
SeattleTimes.com (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002121132_prayer16.html)
And that's what it took. Since then, the study has been criticized, discredited, and condemned. Time Magazine, the Australian Doctor's Review, and others chimed in. Columbia University set about an internal investigation, dropped after Rogerio Lobo, formerly the chair of CU's OB-GYN department, removed his name from the study.
Recently Dr. Flamm finally received a response from JRM editor-in-chief Lawrence Devoe; the journal would publish an editorial statement about the study. The editorial statement, currently available at the journal's website (http://www.reproductivemedicine.com/Letters/Letters.htm), is a defense of the study written by Dr. Kwang Y. Cha, one of its authors.
This whole thing seems absurd, but then again I'm not a scientist. This would seem a massive blow to the Journal of Reproductive Medicine, but Time's Leon Jaroff notes that the study, with the Rogerio Lobo's name still attached, has returned to JRM's website (http://www.reproductivemedicine.com/Features/2001/2001Sep.htm), including Rogerio Lobo's name.
For now, the journal appears prepared to stand by the study.
I once tried to follow a prayer-healing study conducted by the Institute for Noetic Sciences (see Targ, Elisabeth, "Distant Healing (http://www.noetic.org/publications/review/issue49/r49_Targ.html)", "Research Methodology for Studies of Prayer and Distant Healing (http://www.noetic.org/research/dh/studies.html)"), but ne'er did they attempt claims so grand as this. Those folks know what they're up against. Or, at least, Dr. Targ did. Elisabeth Targ (http://www.etarg.net/treatments) passed away in July, 2002, and no, distant healing could not save her.
Frankly, if the folks over at the Institute for Noetic Sciences can figure out what they're up against when pursuing positive results for distant healing, it puzzles me greatly how the Journal of Reproductive Medicine could get themselves into this sort of scandal.
I suppose now I need to go dig up some peer review on the original study published by Cha, et al.
But what, exactly, happened? If the study really is so bad, how did it get into JRM in the first place? Or do I have a completely inflated perception of JRM's prestige? Is the press on this blown completely out of proportion? It sounds like a bad comedy, from where I'm sitting.
____________________
Notes:
Saar, Mayrav. "Doctor's doubts launch lengthy scientific saga". SeattleTimes.com, December 16, 2004. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002121132_prayer16.html
See Also
Cha, Kwang Y., et al. "Does Prayer Influence the Success of in Vitro Fertilization-Embro Transfer?" Journal of Reproductive Medicine v. 46 n. 9, September, 2001. See http://www.reproductivemedicine.com/Features/2001/2001Sep.htm
Jaroff, Leon. "Questioning Healing Prayer". Time.com, July 1, 2004. See http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,660053,00.html
Jaroff, Leon. "More Questions on Healing Prayer". Time.com, December 10, 2004. See http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,982245,00.html
Targ, Elisabeth. "Distant Healing". Noetic Sciences Review #49. August-November, 1999. See http://www.noetic.org/publications/review/issue49/r49_Targ.html
Targ, Elisabeth. "Research Methodology for Studies of Prayer and Distant Healing". Clinical Research in Complementary Therapies: Principles, Problems and Solutions. 2001. See http://www.noetic.org/research/dh/research/ResearchMethodology.pdf (.pdf download)
From SeattleTimes.com:
The self-correcting nature of science should have run its course, and Bruce Flamm should have been able to drop this whole thing almost as soon as it started in 2001.
Flamm, after all, was just looking for a simple answer:
Why did a peer-reviewed scientific journal publish a study that defied all known laws of science? ....
.... In 2001, the Journal of Reproductive Medicine published a study that suggested that women undergoing in vitro fertilization in Korea who were prayed for by Christians in the United States, Canada and Australia were twice as likely to become pregnant as those who were not.
SeattleTimes.com (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002121132_prayer16.html)
So a Riverside, California OB-GYN had a hard time swallowing it. Dr. Bruce Flamm wrote JRM to inquire about the study. Questions of design, intent and outcome took the lead role.
Flamm, who is also a published author and clinical professor at UC-Irvine, received no response from JRM.
His peers noticed, however, and through 2002 corresponded with Flamm. Many discussed their own probes into seemingly questionable work done by one of the study's authors, a California attorney named Daniel Wirth, who also holds a degree in parapsychology. Throughout 2002, despite continued attempts to make contact, Flamm received no response from JRM.
In May 2004, Wirth and an associate, Joseph Steven Horvath, pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy, fraud and theft. They had used the names of dead children to obtain bank loans, jobs and passports. The FBI charged them with bilking $2 million from Adelphia Communications. Horvath hanged himself in his Pennsylvania prison cell two months later. On Monday, Wirth was sentenced to 60 months in prison.
SeattleTimes.com (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002121132_prayer16.html)
And that's what it took. Since then, the study has been criticized, discredited, and condemned. Time Magazine, the Australian Doctor's Review, and others chimed in. Columbia University set about an internal investigation, dropped after Rogerio Lobo, formerly the chair of CU's OB-GYN department, removed his name from the study.
Recently Dr. Flamm finally received a response from JRM editor-in-chief Lawrence Devoe; the journal would publish an editorial statement about the study. The editorial statement, currently available at the journal's website (http://www.reproductivemedicine.com/Letters/Letters.htm), is a defense of the study written by Dr. Kwang Y. Cha, one of its authors.
This whole thing seems absurd, but then again I'm not a scientist. This would seem a massive blow to the Journal of Reproductive Medicine, but Time's Leon Jaroff notes that the study, with the Rogerio Lobo's name still attached, has returned to JRM's website (http://www.reproductivemedicine.com/Features/2001/2001Sep.htm), including Rogerio Lobo's name.
For now, the journal appears prepared to stand by the study.
I once tried to follow a prayer-healing study conducted by the Institute for Noetic Sciences (see Targ, Elisabeth, "Distant Healing (http://www.noetic.org/publications/review/issue49/r49_Targ.html)", "Research Methodology for Studies of Prayer and Distant Healing (http://www.noetic.org/research/dh/studies.html)"), but ne'er did they attempt claims so grand as this. Those folks know what they're up against. Or, at least, Dr. Targ did. Elisabeth Targ (http://www.etarg.net/treatments) passed away in July, 2002, and no, distant healing could not save her.
Frankly, if the folks over at the Institute for Noetic Sciences can figure out what they're up against when pursuing positive results for distant healing, it puzzles me greatly how the Journal of Reproductive Medicine could get themselves into this sort of scandal.
I suppose now I need to go dig up some peer review on the original study published by Cha, et al.
But what, exactly, happened? If the study really is so bad, how did it get into JRM in the first place? Or do I have a completely inflated perception of JRM's prestige? Is the press on this blown completely out of proportion? It sounds like a bad comedy, from where I'm sitting.
____________________
Notes:
Saar, Mayrav. "Doctor's doubts launch lengthy scientific saga". SeattleTimes.com, December 16, 2004. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002121132_prayer16.html
See Also
Cha, Kwang Y., et al. "Does Prayer Influence the Success of in Vitro Fertilization-Embro Transfer?" Journal of Reproductive Medicine v. 46 n. 9, September, 2001. See http://www.reproductivemedicine.com/Features/2001/2001Sep.htm
Jaroff, Leon. "Questioning Healing Prayer". Time.com, July 1, 2004. See http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,660053,00.html
Jaroff, Leon. "More Questions on Healing Prayer". Time.com, December 10, 2004. See http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,982245,00.html
Targ, Elisabeth. "Distant Healing". Noetic Sciences Review #49. August-November, 1999. See http://www.noetic.org/publications/review/issue49/r49_Targ.html
Targ, Elisabeth. "Research Methodology for Studies of Prayer and Distant Healing". Clinical Research in Complementary Therapies: Principles, Problems and Solutions. 2001. See http://www.noetic.org/research/dh/research/ResearchMethodology.pdf (.pdf download)