Quote:
|
69xxx wrote
You found flaws in a scientific peer reviewed study?....uhhh, ok
|
Things aren't perfect simply because they're peer reviewed.
First, the article you cited has several mischaracterizations of the research which I will discuss below.
Quote:
|
Article wrote
After six months, the tai chi group had nearly twice the level of immunity against shingles than the education group.
|
This is false. The rate of increase was nearly double for the TCC group than for the education group.
Quote:
|
69xxx wrote
Tai chi combined with the vaccine showed a 40 percent increase in immunity than the vaccine alone, researchers found
|
False. Vaccine alone produced a change of about 15%.
Other notes. The analyses seemed to use a lot of
t-tests, rather than an overall ANOVA. For independent measures, this inflates the Type I error rate (the probability of seeing something that wasn't there). Further, and for whatever reason, the reporting format of the tests is off of APA standards (no t values or degrees of freedom?). This isn't critical, but it certainly is odd. Finally, the researchers themselves acknowledge several limitations to their study, such as the fact that there was a ceiling effect before vaccination (can't make reliable inferences based on post vaccination scores).