From
Our Readers
Dear
Editor,
Please
inform your readers of incorrect information that was published in
the Summer 2005 issue of The Permanente Journal. The article,
Meditation, Prayer and Spiritual Healing: The Evidence by Marilyn
Schlitz, PhD was biased and misleading. Her claim that the majority
of studies on distant healing have produced significantly positive
results negates the fact that most of these so-called studies represent
absolute nonsense published in paranormal and alternative magazines.
She fails to mention that Daniel Wirth, the lead author of more than
a dozen of the most meticulously designed studies on distant healing,
is now serving five years in federal prison for criminal fraud. Whether
any of these studies were actually conducted is now open to question.
My investigation of this bizarre healing research has been summarized
in Time Magazine twice over the past two years. (Google search
"Time Flamm" to get to these Time articles or use
these links, www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,660053,00.html,
www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,982245,00.html).
Although
Dr Schlitz mentions Dr Harold Koenig at Duke University, she fails
to mention that his group recently conducted a comprehensive nine-hospital
multi-center randomized controlled trial of distant intercessory prayer.
The results were crystal clear; distant prayer had no effect whatsoever.
I have
been a physician with Kaiser Permanente for 23 years and served for
most of those years as area research chairman, initially in Orange
County and subsequently, in Riverside. Kaiser Permanente has a long
history of conducting well-designed research and implementing best
practices. It is sad to see Kaiser Permanente's hard-won reputation
as an advocate of modern evidence-based medicine tarnished by the
publication of superstitious nonsense in The Permanente Journal.
The goal of the Symposium on Meditation, Prayer and Spiritual Healing
was no doubt well-intentioned. Meditation and relaxation make scientific
sense since physiologic principles do explain how the mind can effect
one's own health. In contrast, distant healing is a mystical concept
that defies all known scientific principles. In fact, the James Randi
Foundation will pay one-million dollars to anyone who can show, under
proper observational conditions, evidence of any paranormal or supernatural
phenomena. (www.randi.org/research/). The fact that no psychic, medium,
or faith healer has collected this money speaks volumes. I urge all
physicians to visit Quackwatch (www.quackwatch.org/)
to learn more about claimed methods of healing that are incompatible
with established scientific concepts.
Bruce
L Flamm, MD
Kaiser
Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Editor's
note: We have honored Dr Flamm's request that we publish his letter
"... exactly as written ..." and have made no changes, corrections,
or edits.
--Reply
To
the Editor and Dr Flamm,
There
have been ten published studies on distance healing (DH): half reported
significance. The mantra study (Duke study Dr Flamm mentions) was
not published at the time of my presentation or the write-up for your
journal. Regarding Daniel Wirth, he was not the lead researcher and
there is no indication that his crime relates to his study. I believe
there are some very supportive data coming from the basic science
work that I reported in my talk. Thirty-five formal studies have been
published looking at distant intention on human physiology and have
been reviewed critically and published in a leading psychology journal;
overall the database provides support for the DH phenomena in a basic
science context. Dr Flamm's letter reflects the strong viewpoints
many have regarding this issue.
Marilyn
Schlitz, PhD
Institute of Noetic Sciences
Dear Editor,
I just
read the article on Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Patients with Breast
Cancer: Five-Year Experience (Perm J 2005 Winter;9(1):77-83). Figure
4 (Graph shows SLNB experience of KP surgeons) on page 81 is confusing--how
can the X axis (number of false neg results per surgeon) (a value
up to ~125) = 0-1% on the Y axis (false neg rate)? Should the X axis
be labeled "number of sentinel node bx procedures per surgeon"?
Or am I missing something?
Steven
Thalberg, MD
Salmon
Creek Medical Office
Vancouver,
WA
--Reply
Dr
Thalberg,
Yes,
you are absolutely right. This is an editing error.
The
graph plots number of SNLB procedures per surgeon on the X axis, against
their false negative rate on the Y axis. For example, the surgeon
who did 120 procedures (who happens to be Dr Godfrey's wife) had a
near 0% false negative rate. The text in the last paragraph of the
results section, which is to accompany this table is, however, correct.
It appears that only the label of the X axis in Figure 4 is incorrect.
The second editing error that was made was that Dr Holmes' and my
e-mail addresses were incorrect (drholmesmd@aol.com,
anjaliskumar@yahoo.com).
Anjali
S Kumar, MD
Department of Surgery
University of San Francisco
San
Francisco, CA
