Talk:Emily Rosa

message: This is pretty sad. Emily Rosa played a minor part in a fabricated report of a supposed study of Therapeutic Touch. As a science fair project it was unlikely to meet the usual criteria of being primarily the work of a student due to the acknowledged participation of adults in recruitment and statistical analyses. The data reported in the JAMA article, when properly analyzed, actually contradict the much heralded conclusions reported in the JAMA article.
Two pieces:
* Nursing Philosophy: "Dialogue Transgressing the boundaries of science: Glazer, scepticism, and Emily's experiment" Thomas Cox. April, 2004, Vol. 5 Issue 1, p75-78, 4p
* Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine: "A nurse-statistician reanalyzes data from the Rosa therapeutic touch study" Thomas Cox. Aliso Viejo: Jan/Feb 2003. Vol. 9, Iss. 1; p. 58 (7 pages)
demonstrate that the author's published JAMA data do not support the over-reaching conclusions offered in the same article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drtcbear (talk • contribs) 02:33, 15 March 2006
You are a Quack. TT is no better then snake oil. Well you get an actual product with snake oil. So, TT is even more of a rip-off then snake oil. 70.243.125.134 (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I removed the "or worse" part, because it is mathematically incorrect.  The word "expectation" when talking about random events is the raw probability of an event.  For example, when flipping a fair coin the expectation is .5 heads and .5 tails.  See Expected value.  I don't know who this Thomas Cox is and it doesn't really matter.  To say that .4 is no worse than the expected value of a coin flip (.5) is simply mathematically wrong.  However, I'll concede that the word "worse" is a value statement so I've adjusted the text to be more neutral. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a misunderstanding of statistics. If the result was inside of the confidence interval of expected value (which it was) than we say that it was "no better or no worse" even though it *is* slightly lower than the expected value. This is because it needs to be significantly outside (higher or lower) of the range of expected values to be considered statistically significant with a 95% confidence interval.  Mccartneyac (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

text: I'm good with the new wording -- both accurate and neutral.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 00:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Stephen Barrett's website www.quackwatch.com reported 122 correct responses at the same time the JAMA article reported 123 correct responses. Both reports refer to the same 280 trials. Both Barrett and Sarner refused to discuss this disparity. As well, the JAMA power calculations were based on a single phase of 10 trials while the standard for accepting practitioner's skills involved two independent sets of 10 trials. Hence the published JAMA power calculations are incorrect. The test of "Hand" was also incorrectly analyzed and reported in the JAMA article. How many mistakes in analysis in a single article are acceptable?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drtcbear (talk • contribs) 18:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Just adding links to articles I will create but are currently orphaned: Dorothy Straight, Souza Barra Teixeira, Bertha Wood.
– Kitia 23:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related articles

message: I haven't read the book "Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion", but I did read Emily Rosa's contribution, titled "Growing Up Godless: How I Survived Amateur Secular Parenting". The title is mostly in jest, I'd say.
I think I'll add a mention of this to the article sometime soon.
– Misha (216.254.12.114/talk) 17:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More recently

message: I think the recent rewrite of the study section is just dandy, but there is one thing Linda Rosa removed which I think is worth mentioning. I'll show the removed bit:
The daughter of a registered nurse and an inventor...
That's an interesting thing. If "Ms L. Rosa/Linda Rosa, BSN, RN" is important enough to be mentioned in the JAMA article that made Emily notable, I think she ought to be mentioned somewhere in this article, especially because of the apparent nurse connection — no matter what she herself thinks. Objections?
Misha Vargas (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Study" rewrite 

message: added criticism section as there are quite a few criticisms of this study. --stmrlbs|talk 08:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  added criticism section 

message: "Hufford pointed out that research by CAM proponents ..." Someone who knows, please define what CAM means here. - SamIAmNot (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: CAM = complementary and alternative medicine. All that medical stuff that hasn't passed (some have been tested and failed) the scientific method is called alternative, such as homeopathy, reflexology, bioharmonics, ear candles, rolfing, chiropractice, palmistry, orgone energy, angel therapy, prayer, psychic surgery, feng shui, past life regression therapy, aura therapy, chakra, pray the gay away, acupuncture, etc. However, that piece of text is no longer present in the article. I guess between July 16, 2012 and now, someone removed it. Vmelkon (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undefined term