another prayer study fraud
edwar...@verizon.net
>From Ob.Gyn.News, vol 42, issue 6:
[headline] Prayer Study Author Charged With Plagiarism
"A controversial study claiming that anonymous prayers from people in
the United States, Canada, and Australia doubled the success rate of
in vitro fertilization treatments performed on patients in Korea is
making international news again. Once again, the news is not good.
The study, by Dr. Kwang Cha, Dr. Rogerio Lobo, and Daniel Wirth, was
published in 2001 in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine. Dr. Cha,
first author of the prayer study, has now been charged with plagiarism
involving a more recent study. According to a Feb. 18 Los Angeles
Times article, Dr. Alan DeCherney, editor-in-chief of Fertility and
Sterility, concluded that a 2005 article by Dr. Cha and associates.
was a word-for-word, chart-for-chart copy of a paper previously
published by a different author in a Korean medical journal. "I'm sure
that it's plagiarism," Dr. DeCherney told the L.A. Times...
"Dr. Cha's 2001 prayer paper was apparently rejected by several other
journals including the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal
of the American Medical Association. But the JRM published the bizarre
manuscript and the astounding results were reported in the New York
Times and even discussed on ABC's Good Morning America. However, the
study soon began to fall apart.
In October 2002, coauthor Daniel Wirth, a mysterious man with no
medical or scientific training, was indicted by a federal grand jury
on multiple felony charges. An FBI investigation found that Mr. Wirth
and an accomplice had been using the identities of dead boys to
orchestrate criminal schemes. Inexplicably, editors at the JRM still
refused to respond to questions about the paper.
In May 2004, Mr. Wirth pled guilty to felony charges and was taken
into custody by federal marshals. He admitted that he was the man who
designed the prayer study and supposedly set up and managed prayer
groups in three nations. Mr. Wirth's role in the controversial prayer
study was reported by newspapers and magazines all over the world and
the JRM finally removed the study from its Internet site. Even so, the
journal stopped short of retracting the prayer publication, apparently
because there were still two credible authors who could verify the
study's miraculous results. But not for long...
After Mr. Wirth's revelation, Columbia University announced that Dr.
Lobo had only provided editorial assistance, actually had nothing to
do with the alleged research, and could not even verify that the study
had ever been conducted. In November 2004, Mr. Wirth was sentenced to
5 years in federal prison and 1 month later the New York Times
reported that Dr. Lobo had removed his name from the Cha/Wirth/Lobo
paper. Then came something even more surprising. Dr. Lawrence Devoe,
editor-in-chief of the JRM, placed the prayer study, minus Dr. Lobo's
name, back on the JRM Internet site.
In summary, the man who designed and supposedly conducted the prayer
study resides in federal prison, and the man originally listed as lead
author admits he knows nothing about the alleged research. The only
remaining author has now been charged with plagiarism...
"...One must therefore wonder if the Columbia researchers and the JRM
editors have been blinded by religious beliefs. Everything else being
equal, if the claimed supernatural intervention had involved Tarot
cards or crystal balls rather than distant prayers, would the
reviewers and editors have taken this study seriously? Would they have
fought for 5 years to keep the study from being retracted? Certainly
not."
cite: http://www.obgynnews.com/home
>From Infidel newswire
Kermit
Holy cow! Are the creationists secretly buying up medical journals and
putting their own editors in charge? I am not familiar with that
journal, but it has lost all credibility, at least until the
management has been replaced.
Kermit
edwar...@verizon.net
>
> > cite:http://www.obgynnews.com/home
The "Think I'll wash my hands now" department:
On the front introductory page of the Ob.Gyn.Journal:
"The site now contains additional features and a new look-and-feel."
edwar...@verizon.net
> putting their own editors in charge? I am not familiar with that
> journal, but it has lost all credibility, at least until the
> management has been replaced.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
obgyn.net says the JRM is peer reviewed.
Here's a few other cites from Quackwatch:
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/wirthstudy.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/wirth.html
This gets better and better: one of the authors (Wirth) has no medical
degree but has an MS is "parapsychology"
Quackwatch: How did a bizarre study claiming supernatural results end
up in a peer-reviewed medical journal' We may never know because the
editors of the Journal of Reproductive Medicine also refuse to answer
calls or respond to letters about this study. Worse yet, the entire
study remains accessible through their Web site [by subscription--EE],
and the public has been given no reason to doubt its validity.
Ironicaly the NCBI index notes that the JRM "Continues Lying-In."
Bobby Bryant
edwar...@verizon.net writes:
> On Apr 18, 2:57 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Holy cow! Are the creationists secretly buying up medical journals and
>> putting their own editors in charge? I am not familiar with that
>> journal, but it has lost all credibility, at least until the
>> management has been replaced.
>>
>> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> obgyn.net says the JRM is peer reviewed.
>
> Here's a few other cites from Quackwatch:
> http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/wirthstudy.html
> http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/wirth.html
>
> This gets better and better: one of the authors (Wirth) has no medical
> degree but has an MS is "parapsychology"
>
> Quackwatch: How did a bizarre study claiming supernatural results end
> up in a peer-reviewed medical journal'
Trivially easy, if kookish editors carefully select like-minded kookish
reviewers.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Pete G.
>
> This gets better and better: one of the authors (Wirth) has no medical
> degree but has an MS is "parapsychology"
But you've overlooked *the best bit of all*:
"In April 2004, Wirth and an accomplice (Joseph Horvath) pleaded guilty to
conspiracy to commit mail and bank fraud and agreed to forfeit assets of
more than $1 million acquired through their schemes. Documents in the case
indicate that the pair used assumed names, obtained bogus identifying
documents, and obtained employment with a large financial institution from
which Horvath improperly paid to Wirth for alleged services [13]. Wirth's
long pattern of dishonest behavior raises the question about whether the
studies in which he was involved actually took place and, if so, whether the
results were reported honestly."
LOL!! You couldn't make this shit up, could you...?!? Looks to me like Wirth
thinks he can get that million back through a bunch of TV appearances; a
world-wide lecture tour taking in benighted, superstitious third-world
shit-holes like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the USA; and a slew of profitable
book deals...
P.
Craig T
> On Apr 18, 2:57 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Holy cow! Are the creationists secretly buying up medical journals and
> > putting their own editors in charge? I am not familiar with that
> > journal, but it has lost all credibility, at least until the
> > management has been replaced.
>
> > Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> obgyn.net says the JRM is peer reviewed.
>
>
> This gets better and better: one of the authors (Wirth) has no medical
> degree but has an MS is "parapsychology"
>
> Quackwatch: How did a bizarre study claiming supernatural results end
> up in a peer-reviewed medical journal' We may never know because the
> editors of the Journal of Reproductive Medicine also refuse to answer
> calls or respond to letters about this study. Worse yet, the entire
> study remains accessible through their Web site [by subscription--EE],
> and the public has been given no reason to doubt its validity.
>
> Ironicaly the NCBI index notes that the JRM "Continues Lying-In."
How did it get in? Here's a hint:
"The lead author, whose name was eventually withdrawn from the study,
was Dr. Rogerio Lobo. Dr. Lobo was the chairman of the Obstetrics and
Gynecology Department at Columbia University in New York at the time.
He was also on the editorial board of the Journal of Reproductive
Medicine, the same medical journal that published this study."
http://www.improvingmedicalstatistics.com/Columbia%20Miracle%20Study1.htm
When questions arose about the study, Lobo claimed that he had only
reviewed the paper and took off his name. Prior to this, Lobo spoke to
WebMD and was quoted on the Columbia University web page as though he
was the head of the study. "We were very careful to control this as
rigorously as we could. We deliberately set it up in an unbiased way."
The articles are reposted at http://lkm.fri.uni-lj.si/xaigor/slo/znanclanki/prayer.htm
A list of Wirth's "scientific" publications before arrest can be found
at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Wirth+DP%22%5BAuthor%5D
Pete G.
news:1176958241.767551.143590@
>
> How did it get in? Here's a hint:
> "The lead author, whose name was eventually withdrawn from the study,
> was Dr. Rogerio Lobo. Dr. Lobo was the chairman of the Obstetrics and
> Gynecology Department at Columbia University in New York at the time.
> He was also on the editorial board of the Journal of Reproductive
> Medicine, the same medical journal that published this study."
[snip]
> When questions arose about the study, Lobo claimed that he had only
> reviewed the paper and took off his name. Prior to this, Lobo spoke to
> WebMD and was quoted on the Columbia University web page as though he
> was the head of the study.
That's *exactly* how it works: you buy your way into a journal by quietly
offering someone on the Editorial Board *a co-authorship credit*. Result:
s/he gets another article on their 'list of publications' in return for a
total time investment of less than 45 seconds -- while you get your
piece-of-shit drivel published in a 'quality' journal for merely the cost of
a phone-call. And *everyone's a winner* -- because 'peer-reviewed science'
is *the best there is*...
P.
John Wilkins
Wow. Can you put me in touch with anyone who managed to do that? I need
the fine details...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Ron O
> On Apr 18, 5:10 pm, edward_...@verizon.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 2:57 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Holy cow! Are the creationists secretly buying up medical journals and
> > > putting their own editors in charge? I am not familiar with that
> > > journal, but it has lost all credibility, at least until the
> > > management has been replaced.
>
> > > Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > obgyn.net says the JRM is peer reviewed.
>
>
> > This gets better and better: one of the authors (Wirth) has no medical
> > degree but has an MS is "parapsychology"
>
> > Quackwatch: How did a bizarre study claiming supernatural results end
> > up in a peer-reviewed medical journal' We may never know because the
> > editors of the Journal of Reproductive Medicine also refuse to answer
> > calls or respond to letters about this study. Worse yet, the entire
> > study remains accessible through their Web site [by subscription--EE],
> > and the public has been given no reason to doubt its validity.
>
> > Ironicaly the NCBI index notes that the JRM "Continues Lying-In."
>
> How did it get in? Here's a hint:
> "The lead author, whose name was eventually withdrawn from the study,
> was Dr. Rogerio Lobo. Dr. Lobo was the chairman of the Obstetrics and
> Gynecology Department at Columbia University in New York at the time.
> He was also on the editorial board of the Journal of Reproductive
>
> When questions arose about the study, Lobo claimed that he had only
> reviewed the paper and took off his name. Prior to this, Lobo spoke to
> WebMD and was quoted on the Columbia University web page as though he
> was the head of the study. "We were very careful to control this as
> rigorously as we could. We deliberately set it up in an unbiased way."
>
> A list of Wirth's "scientific" publications before arrest can be found
>
> - Show quoted text -
Looks like the ID scam artists aren't even trying. If this toad could
get these papers published what does that say about the intelligent
design scam and what Behe and Minnich had to admit to under oath
during the Dover fiasco? No scientific papers supporting ID had ever
been pubilshed, and no scientific testing of ID was being done that
they knew of. They didn't even cite Meyer's lame paper as supporting
ID.
Ron Okimoto
chris.li...@gmail.com
> "Craig T" <craig.te...@fortbend.k12.tx.us> wrote in message
You'll note how well it worked for Dr. Wirth...
Chris
Robert Carnegie
Sounds like he didn't get busted for /this/, but for "other" crimes.
If his life had been otherwise blameless, he'd get away with it.
On the other hand, if his life was otherwise blameless, then he
wouldn't have /needed/ to make friends with pastors and believers by
running a bent "study" into the actual efficacy of prayer. I mean, by
the sound of it, he was and is such a sleaze that he can't be
motivated by /sincere/ religious belief, or at least not the kind of
religious belief that tells believers not to sin. I suppose there are
religions where sin is a plus, or at least is accepted. I mean like
"If God didn't see you do it then you're free and clear" for
instance. Where God can't see in the dark.
jcon
>
>
>
> > Holy cow! Are the creationists secretly buying up medical journals and
> > putting their own editors in charge? I am not familiar with that
> > journal, but it has lost all credibility, at least until the
> > management has been replaced.
>
> > Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> obgyn.net says the JRM is peer reviewed.
>
>
> This gets better and better: one of the authors (Wirth) has no medical
> degree but has an MS is "parapsychology"
>
Peck: Are you Peter Venkman?
Venkman: Yes, I'm *Doctor* Venkman!
Peck: Exactly what are you a doctor of, Mr. Venkman?
Venkman: Well, I have a PhD in parapsychology *and* psychology.
It's sad how many people believe Ghostbusters was
a serious movie.
-jc
slothrop
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have to admit, as someone who has an ever-growing hatred of all
things dualistic and/or mystical, I've never understood the whole
"prayer-studies" thing.
Most people who believe "prayer" works believe there is an intention-
laden entity Out There who gives a shit, right? This entity is
supposedly gifted with something akin to intelligence and would know
that He/She/It was being scientifically studied, and having an intense
hatred of human arrogance (prefering us to trust our "instincts" or
our "faith" without ever giving thought to these things actually
*mean*) would not want to show He/She/Its non-corporeal hand.
So if you believe in the whole thing or not, would you ever be
satisfied by any results whatsoever? If you get no-better-than-chance
or worse results, you can just say "God doesn't want anything to do
with your satanically-inspired empirical methods", and if you get much-
better-than-chance results why wouldn't one just think that they've
stumbled onto something along the lines of "mind-energy" causing the
phenomenon?
How in the world can one point to prayer studies, in other words, as
anything even related to an intentional other-worldly entity?
slothrop
Walter Bushell
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
And the next best trick is to reference someone else's paper, in
exchange for a reference to yours. This would be really easy in
philosophy, a brief refutation of the other author's point should be
easy to work in.
jcon
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 2:57 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Holy cow! Are the creationists secretly buying up medical journals and
> > > putting their own editors in charge? I am not familiar with that
> > > journal, but it has lost all credibility, at least until the
> > > management has been replaced.
>
> > > Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > obgyn.net says the JRM is peer reviewed.
>
>
> > This gets better and better: one of the authors (Wirth) has no medical
> > degree but has an MS is "parapsychology"
>
> > Quackwatch: How did a bizarre study claiming supernatural results end
> > up in a peer-reviewed medical journal' We may never know because the
> > editors of the Journal of Reproductive Medicine also refuse to answer
> > calls or respond to letters about this study. Worse yet, the entire
> > study remains accessible through their Web site [by subscription--EE],
> > and the public has been given no reason to doubt its validity.
>
> > Ironicaly the NCBI index notes that the JRM "Continues Lying-In."
>
> How did it get in? Here's a hint:
> "The lead author, whose name was eventually withdrawn from the study,
> was Dr. Rogerio Lobo. Dr. Lobo was the chairman of the Obstetrics and
> Gynecology Department at Columbia University in New York at the time.
> He was also on the editorial board of the Journal of Reproductive
>
> When questions arose about the study, Lobo claimed that he had only
> reviewed the paper and took off his name. Prior to this, Lobo spoke to
> WebMD and was quoted on the Columbia University web page as though he
> was the head of the study. "We were very careful to control this as
> rigorously as we could. We deliberately set it up in an unbiased way."
> The articles are reposted athttp://lkm.fri.uni-lj.si/xaigor/slo/znanclanki/prayer.htm
>
It's amazing to me that Lobo has gotten a pass on this. I
mean, Cha is from an obscure Korean hospital ("Cha Hospital"!)
and Wirth is from some fringe "institute", so who cares,
right? But this is Columbia f*%$ing University we're talking
about here. You'd think they'd be a wee bit pissed off that
someone had pimped their reputation so blatantly.
Also, it seems odd to me that the Head of ObGyn at Columbia
would feel the need to pad his resume, unless he was in
the habit of doing this sort of thing. I suspect that
a careful reading of the rest of his CV will turn up more
"virtual collaborations" of this sort.
-jc
> A list of Wirth's "scientific" publications before arrest can be found
> athttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&it...
Pete G.
news:1176998434.614984.78070@p77g2000hsh.
>
> It's amazing to me that Lobo has gotten a pass on this. I
> mean, Cha is from an obscure Korean hospital ("Cha Hospital"!)
> and Wirth is from some fringe "institute", so who cares,
> right? But this is Columbia f*%$ing University we're talking
> about here. You'd think they'd be a wee bit pissed off that
> someone had pimped their reputation so blatantly.
>
> Also, it seems odd to me that the Head of ObGyn at Columbia
> would feel the need to pad his resume, unless he was in
> the habit of doing this sort of thing.
He's padding his resume with 'virtual collaborations' because he knows that
*everyone else is doing the same*...
> I suspect that
> a careful reading of the rest of his CV will turn up more
> "virtual collaborations" of this sort.
Hell, every specialist I ever came into contact with in my postgraduate
years was stealing the research of his students. Make a fuss about the
theft, and he'd shit-can you; let him publish the best bits himself, and
you'd get your degree with the scraps he let you keep.
P.
Walter Bushell
jcon <cire...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's sad how many people believe Ghostbusters was
> a serious movie.
Next to fundamentalist Christianity, it's a sensible as a dictionary.
Walter Bushell
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> On the other hand, if his life was otherwise blameless, then he
> wouldn't have /needed/ to make friends with pastors and believers by
> running a bent "study" into the actual efficacy of prayer. I mean, by
> the sound of it, he was and is such a sleaze that he can't be
> motivated by /sincere/ religious belief, or at least not the kind of
> religious belief that tells believers not to sin. I suppose there are
> religions where sin is a plus, or at least is accepted. I mean like
> "If God didn't see you do it then you're free and clear" for
> instance. Where God can't see in the dark.
You're justified by faith (alternatively grace) not acts. Even sin
cannot separate you from Jesus, who has already atoned for all sin.
Robert Carnegie
Walter Bushell wrote:
So I was told. On the other hand, supposedly, Jesus separates you
from sin. If you do continue to sin - I don't mean you, I mean Prayer
Study Guy - then it appears that Jesus is falling down on the job. St
Paul has a few words to say about that.
Robert Carnegie
"Once again, the news is not good."
Can we clarify the question of calling this "another prayer study
fraud"? The quote above, on close reading, appears to refer to the
previous problems with this particular study.
There is a point of view that all religion and therefore all prayer is
fraud somewhere along the line, but I suspect that wasn't the
argument, either.
How far have other prayer experiments in the literature been actually
fraudulent?