Magical treatments and (lack of) peer review

[Sly Saint]

Let's start with the most recent paper of this set that I could find. Here it is: "YXQ-EQ Induces Apoptosis and Inhibits Signaling Pathways Important for Metastasis in Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma Cells" https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/493223 …

It is about "YXQ-EQ" that can inhibit lung cancer cells. At first glance that sounds amazing. And although it was not published in a grand journal, some of the authors are from @Harvard, @BrighamResearch, and @DanaFarber - so it must be excellent research, right?

So, what is this magical compound "YXQ-EQ", you might ask. Excellent question. Let's look at the abstract.

"This study was aimed to investigate cytotoxic effect of external qi of Yan Xin Qigong (YXQ-EQ) toward human lung adenocarcinoma A549 cells". Mmm, that sounds a bit vague. What is it, exactly? The introduction text does not help a lot, either.

Let's take a look at the Methods section. Surely, we will learn more about how the researchers treated the cells with "YXQ-EQ". After all, the Methods section of a scientific paper should have enough detail so that other researchers can reproduce the study.

There is nothing in the methods about the "YXQ-EQ" treatment. Let me repeat that, so it is very clear: nothing. No "Briefly, this involved...". No reference. Only that it lasted 5 minutes.

A good reviewer should have asked for a detailed description of the magical treatment. If not given by authors in revised manuscript, that is reason to reject. That is the strength of #PeerReview. Apparently, none of the reviewers/editors asked this question.

Yet, this elusive method has great powers. It magically kills cancer cells, so how does it work? Let's look at the references about the "YXQ-EQ" method. There is a lot of self-citation going on here. Another red flag.

Another red flag: the corresponding author, from @Harvard / @DanaFarber does not list their institutional email. That does not necessarily mean anything (people hop around and so emails change), but I consider this a red flag here.

Let's take a look at some of the other references about the mysterious "YXQ-EQ" treatment. I suddenly realize that "Yan Xin Qigong" refers to the name of the first author. It is his method, and only Dr. Yan Xin has written about it.

There is another paper (same journal) by Dr. Yan Xin, in which "YXQ-EQ" inhibits colon cancer cells. "External Qi of Yan Xin Qigong Inhibits Activation of Akt, Erk1/2 and NF-kB and Induces Cell Cycle Arrest and Apoptosis in Colorectal Cancer Cells"

In a third paper, from 2012, "YXQ-EQ" inhibits growth of another cell line of lung cancer.

Dr. Yan Xin will now reveal how the method works. (hold on to that jaw, folks).

Here is a translation of the scientific language. Here is how YXL-EQ works: Dr. Yan Xin will take the cancer cells to a private room, and will do something secret. So secret that he can only do it in a locked room. Then he will give the cells back. And voila - they are dead.

eta:hmm, maybe he draws a magic circle and says stop?

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

I wouldn't want to comment on the quality of the methodology but the ethics look fine to me. I would say it is rock solid.

 

[Wonko]

If I had the resources, and some boiling bleach, I could probably achieve the same result.

Especially if combined with high doses of radiation, a very shiny hammer, and a rubber duck.

I would tend to agree with the OP - this isn't science and as such.....

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

and a rubber duck

Rubber ducks don't work. Too much Yang - pretty much quackery in fact.

 

[Diluted-biscuit]

Rubber ducks don't work. Too much Yang - pretty much quackery in fact.

So we just need to work out the opposite of a duck for the ying and everything will be ok.

I suggest a rock because it doesn’t float or quack.

 

[Andy]

Anybody want to point her towards Crawley's LP paper?