As I pointed out, the lead author (who also wrote the response in the Letters to the Editor), is now pretty good friends with Schneider and announced at the MUM speech he gave that he was doing his own research on TM.
Coincidentally enough, the research the he will be doing is exactly of the kind that he says needs to be done to boost TM's rating, should it find that TM *does* have a positive effect on BP. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote : Which shows that the TM leaders and their medical shills like that jack-ass Bob Schneider are greedy for nothing less than a world wide endorsement of TM as the sovereign remedy to cure all society's ills and all man's diseases. And a few other excerpts from the letter: "About practicality, there is a marked difference between providing a treatment in a randomized controlled trial and referring unselected patients with hypertension for TM training in clinical practice. TM is also more expensive than other approaches ($1500), and access to certified training may be more limited. For example, the Cleveland area has only 2 listed sites covering a population of ≈2 million people We objectively and fairly presented the published data about the lowering of BP from TM. Its efficacy was indeed shown to be on par with some other alternative approaches when cross-comparing summary meta-analyses results (although few direct comparisons are available). We clearly stated that most approaches have modest efficacy (not just TM), and that patients requiring >10 mm Hg reductions should be monitored closely. TM was not invented to lower BP. We acknowledge that meditation techniques may offer numerous benefits to people. Nevertheless, we believe that existing limitations need to be addressed before revisiting a higher class of recommendation concerning TM for the sole purposes of managing high BP" Had I been the doctor replying to Greedy Bob's request to mark TM as being the be all and end all of life, I would have concluded the letter by saying "Bob Schneider can kiss my ass, not on the left side and not on the right side, but right down the middle." From: "LEnglish5@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:22 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: "Mind of the Meditator" In case you hadn't noticed, the lead author of the American Heart Association report that said that TM was (and still is two years later, even after revisions) the only form of meditation that the AHA says can be recommended by doctors for the treatment of hypertension is now pretty good friends with Robert Schneider, has appeared on the same stage with him, and has announced that he is doing his own study on TM and hypertension. He's also recently published an article discussing when to recommend alternative therapies for hypertension. When and How to Recommend "Alternative Approaches" in the Management of High Blood Pressure. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25644320 When and How to Recommend "Alternative Approaches" in the Management of High Blood ... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25644320 1. Am J Med. 2015 Jan 30. pii: S0002-9343(15)00079-0. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.12.029. [Epub ahead of print] View on www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25644320 Preview by Yahoo When discussing TM research in a formal response to Robert Schneider's request for an upgrade to the AHA's evaluation of TM, he politely refused but said: We do agree that TM is unique in the robustness and quality of evidence among meditation techniques for BP-lowering http://hyper.ahajournals.org/content/62/6/e43.full http://hyper.ahajournals.org/content/62/6/e43.full L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : Let's not forget its power as advertising. Everyone knows science carries weight so being able to say you have 4000 studies published in 750 peer reviewed journals is a big help with the apparent credibility. No matter how well or not it stands up, and a lot of it is crap. Some of the newer stuff is better but they make unreasonable claims for it and even had to be told to stop using some results from the AMA because they simply weren't true. They totally blew it when they tried to stop non-accredited TM teachers from using the same research in their literature though. What happened about that I wonder?
