I have a rebuttal: I hope you read it with an open mind. I don't think you're wrong. I just think that there is a flip side (an upside) to the coin that you are not considering.

I want to point out that the original study they measured IL-6 levels. IL-6 is a pretty specific inflammation marker - I think the author of the article uses "unhealthy inflammation" for better readability.

The study claims that they can attribute 30% of the decrease they found in IL-6 levels from pretreatment to a 4-month follow-up can be attributed to mindful meditation. *bingo -- this is why I agree with you on the results of the study are probably not as significant as what the NYT article suggests. The authors of the original study do some statistical magic to arrive at this 30% number.

Studies have to start somewhere... You have to have some basis before going to larger - more impactful trials. No one is going to fund or carry-out a study for 350 patients without having some data in smaller sample sizes before. So, sure, smaller sample size study outcomes carry less weight/influence - but that doesn't mean they are all bullshit just because they have a small number. Small sample size studies serve the purpose for initial investigation - their impact SHOULD remain small but doesn't make it insignificant if a real difference is found.

And I think it is great that this study was done - alone it probably doesn't mean much - but it could lay the groundwork for more - larger - studies to look at mindfulness meditation and connect it with real inflammation markers.

Best of all - it's free! compared to the alternative --> meds from big pharma.