Talk:Emily Rosa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
and
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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drtcbear (talk • contribs) 02:33, 15 March 2006.
-
- Just adding links to articles I will create but are currently orphaned: Dorothy Straight, Souza Barra Teixeira, Bertha Wood. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 23:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
