Here are some thoughts and links for salyavin and others here who have expressed their concerns about the "TM science" and its validity.
As we have discussed in the past, there is much to criticize about the "TM science." Bad methodology, selection bias out the wazoo, data manipulation, and a high probability of bias on the part of the scientists (who, after all, are often "in it" to get strokes from their spiritual teachers, arguably a *much* bigger temptation to bias their results than mere economics) are a few of the things we've talked about. But I've been doing some research into the issue of late, and have found that the root of the problem often lies as much with the people *reporting* on the "science" as it does with the "scientists" creating it. Someone does a new TM-related study, and TM TB hacks at Global Good News or their counterparts on Huffington Post or at other papers jump on the study and claim things about it that are NOT supported by the actual studies. This is a big problem these days, not only when it comes to TM and scientists/writers pitching to an audience so gullible that they'll spend money on almost anything if someone calls it "science." It's a huge problem in more mainstream research as well. How the News Media May Hurt Not Help Health Literacy Efforts http://engagingthepatient.com/2011/10/17/how-the-news-media-may-hurt-not\ -help-health-literacy-efforts/ <http://engagingthepatient.com/2011/10/17/how-the-news-media-may-hurt-no\ t-help-health-literacy-efforts/> This fellow, who runs an award-winning watchdog site called http://www.healthnewsreview.org/ <http://www.healthnewsreview.org/> , is my new hero. He's published a book (available free to Association of Health Care Journalists members, so he isn't "in it for the money") and written a set of guidelines and tips for science, medical, and health care writers that he's put up for free on the Internet to help them *avoid* some of the things that turn good science into bad reporting, or (as with the TM studies) mediocre science into charlatanry. Those interested in such subjects might enjoy looking over a few of his tips for how to understand scientific studies (and thus report on them correctly) here: http://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/tips-for-understanding-studies/#\ tip1 <http://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/tips-for-understanding-studies/\ #tip1> I know in advance that this won't be of interest to most here, who would probably prefer reading some Woo Woo bullshit extrapolated from science that makes them believe they understand actual science. But I pass it along to those few who actually understand the scientific method, and hate seeing it perverted by those who would misuse it in the name of profit or fanaticism, and the "journalists" who help them do so.
