[FairfieldLife] Re: More lies from Judy, was More lies from...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: Right,...basically anything coming from MUM-associated bogus researchers have peer reviews submitted by peers right down the hall at MUM. No serious scientist would accept anything from that source as having a gnat's hair's worth of credibility. I guess in that respect they are a bit like Albert Einstein, who in my understanding didn't believe in HUP... :0
[FairfieldLife] Re: More lies from Judy, was More lies from...
yifuxero wrote: Right,...basically anything coming from MUM-associated bogus researchers have peer reviews submitted by peers right down the hall at MUM. No serious scientist would accept anything from that source as having a gnat's hair's worth of credibility. Can you cite any scientists that peer-reviewed this research that are right down the hall at MUM? Which ones? Can you be specific? Judy wrote: One more time: Yes, it *is* listed on the AHA Web site for the conference; it's in the final program, #1177, page 129, scheduled for 4:15 on Monday, November 16: Effects of Stress Reduction on Clinical Events in African Americans with Coronary Heart Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More lies from Judy, was More lies from...
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:42 PM, ShempMcGurk wrote: But it takes away from both your dignity and your reputation of high intelligence when you DECLARE someone to be lying or that you have THE TRUTH about this or that situation. You sound like Rush Limbaugh who continually tells us he has access to THE TRUTH; same absolutism, different side of the spectrum. Like I've suggested to you before: if you want to win friends and influence people, don't TELL me that Vaj is lying; give me the facts as you see them and order the telling of them in such a way that I will come to that conclusion myself. Thanks for posting this Shemp, otherwise I would have missed it. Unbelievable. Rush Limbaugh? More like Rosie O'Donnell on a meth bender. Apparently Ms. Digital Stalker loves to post elaborate straw men to draw responses from certain writers. They are typically fictional, imaginary schemes Our Dear Editor concocts. My only response to this latest pathetic strawman campaign is LOL: No, no, no. EVERYONE who presents a talk or a poster at a medical specialty scientific conference gets an automatic mention (name and abstract--in this case the one you've seen plastered all over the web and emails) and they're published in an addendum to that specialties journal (in this case Circulation). This does not constitute publication in the main journal, nor does it constitute appearing in the news section or in the important paper section of the website. Typically you'll find it in the addendum (big deal), but if it's minor it won't bear actual this paper was presented at the conference status on the actual website. The TM, unpublished research does not get any such mention. Kinda surprising to find, now that I've received around 50 emails announcing it being posted somewhere. Amazing really the level of deception and the mass mailing suggesting importance. The mass seeding of this abstract make it appear as if this is important news from this conference--but a quick search of the website will show this is NOT the case. It won't even come up because it is not part of the major news, merely a talk given at the conference. Anyone can present a paper, few get mentioned on the website as important papers. This latest TM paper, as with many before, it gives the impression that it's important. Clearly, a search of the website shows it does not even get mention in the important papers presented or a search of the website (search function on homepage) for the paper title or a author's name. It turns out the paper is not nearly as important as it's been made out to be. A quick search of the web site reveals this to be, in fact, the case.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More lies from Judy, was More lies from...
Right,...basically anything coming from MUM-associated bogus researchers have peer reviews submitted by peers right down the hall at MUM. No serious scientist would accept anything from that source as having a gnat's hair's worth of credibility. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:42 PM, ShempMcGurk wrote: But it takes away from both your dignity and your reputation of high intelligence when you DECLARE someone to be lying or that you have THE TRUTH about this or that situation. You sound like Rush Limbaugh who continually tells us he has access to THE TRUTH; same absolutism, different side of the spectrum. Like I've suggested to you before: if you want to win friends and influence people, don't TELL me that Vaj is lying; give me the facts as you see them and order the telling of them in such a way that I will come to that conclusion myself. Thanks for posting this Shemp, otherwise I would have missed it. Unbelievable. Rush Limbaugh? More like Rosie O'Donnell on a meth bender. Apparently Ms. Digital Stalker loves to post elaborate straw men to draw responses from certain writers. They are typically fictional, imaginary schemes Our Dear Editor concocts. My only response to this latest pathetic strawman campaign is LOL: No, no, no. EVERYONE who presents a talk or a poster at a medical specialty scientific conference gets an automatic mention (name and abstract--in this case the one you've seen plastered all over the web and emails) and they're published in an addendum to that specialties journal (in this case Circulation). This does not constitute publication in the main journal, nor does it constitute appearing in the news section or in the important paper section of the website. Typically you'll find it in the addendum (big deal), but if it's minor it won't bear actual this paper was presented at the conference status on the actual website. The TM, unpublished research does not get any such mention. Kinda surprising to find, now that I've received around 50 emails announcing it being posted somewhere. Amazing really the level of deception and the mass mailing suggesting importance. The mass seeding of this abstract make it appear as if this is important news from this conference--but a quick search of the website will show this is NOT the case. It won't even come up because it is not part of the major news, merely a talk given at the conference. Anyone can present a paper, few get mentioned on the website as important papers. This latest TM paper, as with many before, it gives the impression that it's important. Clearly, a search of the website shows it does not even get mention in the important papers presented or a search of the website (search function on homepage) for the paper title or a author's name. It turns out the paper is not nearly as important as it's been made out to be. A quick search of the web site reveals this to be, in fact, the case.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More lies from Judy, was More lies from...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: snip EVERYONE who presents a talk or a poster at a medical specialty scientific conference gets an automatic mention (name and abstract--in this case the one you've seen plastered all over the web and emails) and they're published in an addendum to that specialties journal (in this case Circulation). This does not constitute publication in the main journal, nor does it constitute appearing in the news section or in the important paper section of the website. Typically you'll find it in the addendum (big deal), but if it's minor it won't bear actual this paper was presented at the conference status on the actual website. The TM, unpublished research does not get any such mention. Kinda surprising to find, now that I've received around 50 emails announcing it being posted somewhere. Amazing really the level of deception and the mass mailing suggesting importance. Since Vaj has decided to stonewall his lies, let's look again at what he claimed that I was commenting on and go over it once again: The much touted study by Schneider on Cardiac health in African Americans that's been pushed all over the internet and posted all over the place--I've received over 30 emails on this one study--not only was never published (let alone peer reviewed) that I can find... No, *of course* it hasn't been published yet, because it was *just completed*. And of course I never claimed it had been published, so Vaj's huffing and puffing above in an attempt to make *me* out to be a liar is just another of *his* lies. ...it isn't even listed in on the AHA website for the conference it was supposedly presented at Yes, it *is* listed on the AHA Web site for the conference, as I've already documented; it's in the final program, #1177, page 129, scheduled for 4:15 on Monday, November 16: Effects of Stress Reduction on Clinical Events in African Americans with Coronary Heart Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial. ...No PDF available. No PDFs for *any* of the presentations are available on the Web site--at least as of when Vaj made his post--so this is another red herring. Those are *facts*, folks. Vaj is now trying to walk back his lies, but those pesky facts are sending him sprawling.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More lies from Judy, was More lies from...
On Dec 5, 2009, at 8:34 PM, yifuxero wrote: Right,...basically anything coming from MUM-associated bogus researchers have peer reviews submitted by peers right down the hall at MUM. No serious scientist would accept anything from that source as having a gnat's hair's worth of credibility. Yes, but no so much my point. Of course as soon as you see they used Health Education as their control, you know it's not serious (it's not an honest way to control for placebo). They submitted, and probably easily, had a paper and presentation allowed for a scientific conference. If you've ever been to one of these affairs, they have a lot of topics: some good, some so-so, and some just filler. If you were a Cardiologist you could get credits, CME's, just for sitting in. All those who participate, even those who merely post posters are listed on the list of particpants for the conference. The good stuff you HEAR about and the course fills fast. People talk, it gets noticed, it get's it's own page on the website (in this case of the American College of Cardiology). The PDF is ubiquitous and printed copies are floating around. Etc. In this case: no serious mention on the website, still unpublished, only mentioned as a talk in the typical addendum (i.e., the minimum) and still the same old bad controls they use to massage minimal numbers from. Yet it's been posted virally, all over the WWW.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More lies from Judy, was More lies from...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: Right,...basically anything coming from MUM-associated bogus researchers have peer reviews submitted by peers right down the hall at MUM. Very highly unlikely. Journals don't tend to pick friends of the authors as peer reviewers. (You are aware that it's the journal editors who pick peer reviewers, right?)
[FairfieldLife] Re: More lies from Judy, was More lies from...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: snip They submitted, and probably easily, had a paper and presentation allowed for a scientific conference. If you've ever been to one of these affairs, they have a lot of topics: some good, some so-so, and some just filler. If you were a Cardiologist you could get credits, CME's, just for sitting in. All those who participate, even those who merely post posters are listed on the list of particpants for the conference. More backpedaling. Here's what Vaj said originally: ...not only was never published (let alone peer reviewed) that I can find, it isn't even listed in on the AHA website for the conference it was supposedly presented at. One more time: Yes, it *is* listed on the AHA Web site for the conference; it's in the final program, #1177, page 129, scheduled for 4:15 on Monday, November 16: Effects of Stress Reduction on Clinical Events in African Americans with Coronary Heart Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial. The good stuff you HEAR about and the course fills fast. People talk, it gets noticed, it get's it's own page on the website (in this case of the American College of Cardiology). The PDF is ubiquitous and printed copies are floating around. Etc. Vaj's initial claim was that there was no PDF on the AHA conference Web site--which is true, but irrelevant, because there are *no* PDFs of the presentations on the AHA conference Web site. They may put them up at some point, but they weren't up when Vaj made his post. In this case: no serious mention on the website Now it's no *serious* mention on the website. To start with--see above--he said there was *no* mention on the Web site. He was trying to make us believe that the TMO was lying about the paper even having been *presented*. still unpublished Again, irrelevant, since it was only just completed. It takes *months* to get a paper published in a peer reviewed journal. , only mentioned as a talk in the typical addendum If Vaj had even a shred of honesty, he'd say, I was wrong, it *is* mentioned on the Web site. And the listing in the conference program isn't an addendum.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More lies from Judy, was More lies from...
Some follow-up: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: snip Apparently Ms. Digital Stalker loves to post elaborate straw men to draw responses from certain writers. They are typically fictional, imaginary schemes Our Dear Editor concocts. I have no idea what Vaj's fantasy is here about my wanting to draw responses from certain writers. I exposed his lies as one more example of why readers should not trust anything he says. And as far as typically fictional, imaginary schemes are concerned, Vaj has not rebutted--nor can he rebut-- a single one of the facts I've posted. My only response to this latest pathetic strawman campaign is LOL: No, no, no. This, my friends, is not a rebuttal. snip The TM, unpublished research does not get any such mention. Kinda surprising to find, now that I've received around 50 emails announcing it being posted somewhere. Amazing really the level of deception and the mass mailing suggesting importance. Again, the presentation is listed in the final program on the AHA conference Web site. I don't know what people are telling Vaj in email, but this is what Dick Mays originally posted here on November 17 (the only place I've seen it). Remarkable is his term, not that of the press release. I don't see anything in the press release that does anything but state the facts of the study and the quoted opinions of the investigators. But note in the third paragraph that the study was funded by a grant from NIH and was conducted at The Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. None of the other researchers named appears to be associated with TM. Here's the press release: TM helped lower heart attack, stroke, and death by nearly 50 % Dick Mays Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:40:14 -0800 Remarkable finding presented at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association! News Release -- Medical College of Wisconsin For more information, contact: Office of Public Affairs Toranj Marphetia (tor...@mcw.edu) mailto:(las...@mcw.edu)mailto: (las...@mcw.edu) 8701 Watertown Plank Road Director of Media Relations Milwaukee, WI 53226 Cellular: 414-303- 1242 Fax (414) 456-6166 Office: 414-456-4700 EMBARGO PRESS RELEASE: NOVEMBER 16, 2009, 4:15 PM, ET. CONTACT for MUM/INMP: Ken Chawkin, 641-470-1314, kchaw...@mum.edu Transcendental Meditation helped heart disease patients lower risks of heart attack, stroke, and death by nearly 50 percent Results of first-ever study to be presented at annual meeting of the American Heart Association in Orlando, Nov. 16 Patients with coronary heart disease who practiced the stress-reducing Transcendental Meditation® technique had nearly 50 percent lower rates of heart attack, stroke, and death compared to non-meditating controls, according to the results of a first-ever study presented during the annual meeting of the American Heart Association in Orlando, Fla., on Nov.16, 2009. The trial was sponsored by a $3.8 million grant from the National Institutes of Health-National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and was conducted at The Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee in collaboration with the Institute for Natural Medicine and Prevention at Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa. The nine-year, randomized control trial followed 201 African-American men and women, average age 59 years, with narrowing of arteries in their hearts who were randomly assigned to either practice the stress-reducing Transcendental Meditation technique or to participate in a control group which received health education classes in traditional risk factors, including dietary modification and exercise. All participants continued standard medications and other usual medical care. The study found: * A 47 percent reduction in the combination of death, heart attacks, and strokes in the participants * Clinically significant (5 mm Hg average) reduction in blood pressure associated with decrease in clinical events * Significant reductions in psychological stress in the high-stress subgroup According to Robert Schneider, M.D., FACC, lead author and director of the Center for Natural Medicine and Prevention, Previous research on Transcendental Meditation has shown reductions in blood pressure, psychological stress, and other risk factors for heart disease, irrespective of ethnicity. But this is the first controlled clinical trial to show that long-term practice of this particular stress reduction program reduces the incidence of clinical cardiovascular events, that is heart attacks, strokes and mortality. This study is an example of the contribution of a lifestyle intervention-stress management-to the prevention of cardiovascular disease in high-risk patients, said Theodore Kotchen, M.D., co-author of the study, professor of medicine, and associate dean for clinical research at the Medical College. Other
