3 ms·

I see after a Google search that it has been mostly popular press outlets without experienced medical reporters who have commented on this story so far. For the

I see after a Google search that it has been mostly popular press outlets without experienced medical reporters who have commented on this story so far. For the most part, what we are seeing online are recycled editions of the study group's press release. The underlying journal publication "Mindfulness-based cancer recovery and supportive-expressive therapy maintain telomere length relative to controls in distressed breast cancer survivors" is open-access,[1] so medically knowledgeable people here can read the study and check whether its methodology makes sense. I note that the lead author of the study, Linda E. Carlson, is part of a group of cancer researchers promoting "integrative" approaches to cancer treatment. Another cancer researcher commenting on this approach thinks that "integrative" cancer therapy so far promises much more than it can actually deliver in improved patient outcomes.[2] The original headline of the Fast Company article submitted here, already changed by the Hacker News moderation team, is surely wrong, and it's not at all clear that this extraordinary claim will replicate if an independent group of researchers attempt to replicate the results. If I or any of my loved ones should happen to have a case of cancer (which is rather rare in my family), I will ask for advice on how to treat it from a doctor who practices science-based medicine. [1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.29063/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.29063/full [2] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/selling-integrative-oncology-as-a-monograph-in-jnci/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/selling-integrative-onco...

reader5000 12y ago
Your argument appears to be that the word "integrative" implies non-science based medicine/research. Is there any reason to believe the journal Cancer is in some way lacking in scientific standards? I have no idea. But assuming it is a well-respected publication the results appearing in it require more evidence to dismiss other than a paper author does "integrative" research.
- tokenadult 12y ago
  One of my problems with this study (and many preliminary medical intervention studies hyped mostly by press releases) is that it deals with a biomarker--telomere length--rather than with a hard endpoint, for example actual improved cancer survival and reduced all-cause mortality in the patients. Anyone looking on can read the paper for themselves for issues like sample size, the reported statistics, whether the expected finding was specified in advance, and so on. A recent submission to HN[1] cautions that press releases are not usually good guides to what a study has actually found. [1] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/communicating-health-science-news/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/communicating-health-sci...
  - cscurmudgeon 12y ago
    > One of my problems with this study (and many preliminary medical intervention studies hyped mostly by press releases) is that it deals with a biomarker--telomere length--rather than with a hard endpoint, for example actual improved cancer survival and reduced all-cause mortality in the patients. That is not an issue with the study's quality. It is more of an issue with the study's motive (goal?).

reader5000 12y ago

Your argument appears to be that the word "integrative" implies non-science based medicine/research. Is there any reason to believe the journal Cancer is in some way lacking in scientific standards? I have no idea. But assuming it is a well-respected publication the results appearing in it require more evidence to dismiss other than a paper author does "integrative" research.

tokenadult 12y ago
One of my problems with this study (and many preliminary medical intervention studies hyped mostly by press releases) is that it deals with a biomarker--telomere length--rather than with a hard endpoint, for example actual improved cancer survival and reduced all-cause mortality in the patients. Anyone looking on can read the paper for themselves for issues like sample size, the reported statistics, whether the expected finding was specified in advance, and so on. A recent submission to HN[1] cautions that press releases are not usually good guides to what a study has actually found. [1] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/communicating-health-science-news/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/communicating-health-sci...
- cscurmudgeon 12y ago
  > One of my problems with this study (and many preliminary medical intervention studies hyped mostly by press releases) is that it deals with a biomarker--telomere length--rather than with a hard endpoint, for example actual improved cancer survival and reduced all-cause mortality in the patients. That is not an issue with the study's quality. It is more of an issue with the study's motive (goal?).