[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is there anyone here besides me who has actually read original TM
> research studies?  Anyone here with enough science background, and
> importantly statistical methods education, to understand what you 
are
> reading? Does anyone here understand that there are serious bias
> issues regarding research conducted, designed or supported by 
insiders?

I think we all understand this, Ruth. It's been discussed
to death here.

The trick is to interest independent researchers in
doing such studies. If they won't do it on their own,
one good way to tempt them is for the "insiders" to
publish their own studies (in peer-reviewed journals)
and let the independents attempt to replicate them.

It's one thing to criticize the TMO studies on their
merits; it's quite another to suggest they should
never have been done in the first place. (I'm not
sure if that's what you're doing, but some here have
done exactly that.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jan 1, 2008, at 11:39 AM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
> 
> > Is there anyone here besides me who has actually read original TM
> > research studies? Anyone here with enough science background, and
> > importantly statistical methods education, to understand what you 
are
> > reading? Does anyone here understand that there are serious bias
> > issues regarding research conducted, designed or supported by  
> > insiders?
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> And even if you weren't a scientist/statistician you could wade  
> through the previously posted U. of Alberta study to see he 
specifics  
> in regards to health claims, esp. re: bias. The article on  
> Neuroscience and Meditation in the Cambridge Handbook of 
Consciousness  
> is also rather honest on meditation research in general, but also 
on  
> the specious claims of the TMO.

But do NOT, whatever you do, read any TMO responses
to these "studies."

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[Vaj]

On Jan 1, 2008, at 11:39 AM, ruthsimplicity wrote:


Is there anyone here besides me who has actually read original TM
research studies? Anyone here with enough science background, and
importantly statistical methods education, to understand what you are
reading? Does anyone here understand that there are serious bias
issues regarding research conducted, designed or supported by  
insiders?



Yes.

And even if you weren't a scientist/statistician you could wade  
through the previously posted U. of Alberta study to see he specifics  
in regards to health claims, esp. re: bias. The article on  
Neuroscience and Meditation in the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness  
is also rather honest on meditation research in general, but also on  
the specious claims of the TMO.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[ruthsimplicity]

Is there anyone here besides me who has actually read original TM
research studies?  Anyone here with enough science background, and
importantly statistical methods education, to understand what you are
reading? Does anyone here understand that there are serious bias
issues regarding research conducted, designed or supported by insiders? 

I was looking at Doug's index this morning and found this thread. 
Reading this thread is an interesting review of confirmation bias,
probably the most common cognitive error that humans make.  

Methinks y'all protest too much. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 
> Speaking as one of those biased observers :-),
> I can tell you that I knew that this press
> release was written by a TM teacher within
> several paragraphs.

Here's Barry, preparing to critique a study he
hasn't seen and would be utterly incompetent to
evaluate if he did see it.

He goes on to suggest the study is invalid on the
basis of a press release that he's read so
inattentively that his "analysis" of it is riddled
with howling errors, not to mention the mistakes
he makes that reveal his ignorance of how science
is conducted (all specifics on request).

Barry may not consider himself "anti-science,"
but with supporters like Barry, science doesn't
need anybody to tear it down.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[off_world_beings]

--- In 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Curtis writes snipped:
> I wonder if many movement people have any issues with BP?  I would
> think that with a health conscious group this would be kind of a non
> issue.  Certainly not enough to spend this much time on.  Eat well,
> exercise, and hope you don't have a genetic pre-disposition for high
> blood pressure.  Of course I could be way off with our aging
> mediators, maybe some of them have this problem now.
> 
> Tom T;
> 34 years of TM and the last 9 years in FF, currently retired and
> Lotrel 5/10 has worked wonders. BP last spring was at 180 over 100 and
> the dentist refused to work on me, last time I had it checked three
> weeks ago it was 115 over 75. You take what you need and leave the
> rest. Tom>>

Jeez Tom, just go on a fruit diet for a week or two, your blood 
pressure will become beautiful. No need for meds fo BP. Then after that 
just favor fruit, and eat other stuff only when strong cravings come. 
Done deal.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[boo_lives]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
"tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Curtis writes snipped:
> I wonder if many movement people have any issues with BP?  I would
> think that with a health conscious group this would be kind of a non
> issue.  Certainly not enough to spend this much time on.  Eat well,
> exercise, and hope you don't have a genetic pre-disposition for high
> blood pressure.  Of course I could be way off with our aging
> mediators, maybe some of them have this problem now.

It's interesting referring to ffld meditators as a health conscious
group.  When you observe the sidha group in ffld, it's certainly a
real mixed bad, with an above average number of campus-types looking
not so great.  There is certainly an intense awareness in sidhas of
the importance of the body in their desire for evolution, though
that's mainly expressed in terms of "purity" of the physiology,
balance of the doshas, eating organic vegetarian food if possible. 
OTOH, many sidhas while obsessing on their food purity, are clearly
not getting enough protein and B-vitamins and an overamount of
sugar/carbs.  Many of the mental breakdowns in town are associated
with an obsession over purity which leads to not eating properly or
avoiding life in general.  Lack of exercise is my main complaint about
sidhas lifestyle.  MMY's recent ban against it is horrible in my
opinion (for those not knowing about this - MMY said earlier this year
that "exercise is not in our tradition" - Bevan later clarified that
leisurely walk and talks were okay).  I've known so many ffld sidhas
going through physical and especially mental/emotional difficulties
that cleared up with just the addition of a little vigorous exercise
each day.  Meditating may be helping sidhas' BP a little but lack of
exercise then undermines it - the heart is a muscle that needs
exercise.  There are still lots of sidhas waiting for program to cure
their lifelong tendencies toward depression, OCD, paranoia etc. and
refuse to accept that it's not that good a program for those types of
disorders and eventually a lack of attention to these issues can cross
over into health issues.  Of course there are lots of very healthy
sidhas who basically don't go fanatic about anything and  but just
incorporate meditation into their otherwise normal lifestyle which is
a good thing.

PS - very curious to see what happens to purusha and MD as they all
enter their 50s and 60s now and start to have health issues with no
health insurance, no money, often no family support, and they get
kicked out if they get seriously sick.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
"tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Curtis writes snipped:
> I wonder if many movement people have any issues with BP?  I would
> think that with a health conscious group this would be kind of a non
> issue.  Certainly not enough to spend this much time on.  Eat well,
> exercise, and hope you don't have a genetic pre-disposition for high
> blood pressure.  Of course I could be way off with our aging
> mediators, maybe some of them have this problem now.
> 
> Tom T;
> 34 years of TM and the last 9 years in FF, currently retired and
> Lotrel 5/10 has worked wonders. BP last spring was at 180 over 100 and
> the dentist refused to work on me, last time I had it checked three
> weeks ago it was 115 over 75. You take what you need and leave the
> rest. Tom

I think there is a genetic component that would require meds to deal
with beyond lifestyle changes. Glad you are getting it under control
any way you can man!



>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis]

Curtis writes snipped:
I wonder if many movement people have any issues with BP?  I would
think that with a health conscious group this would be kind of a non
issue.  Certainly not enough to spend this much time on.  Eat well,
exercise, and hope you don't have a genetic pre-disposition for high
blood pressure.  Of course I could be way off with our aging
mediators, maybe some of them have this problem now.

Tom T;
34 years of TM and the last 9 years in FF, currently retired and
Lotrel 5/10 has worked wonders. BP last spring was at 180 over 100 and
the dentist refused to work on me, last time I had it checked three
weeks ago it was 115 over 75. You take what you need and leave the
rest. Tom

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 2:10 PM, feste37 wrote:
> 
> > No it is not. If you are reduced to claiming that someone "really
> > meant" something quite different from what he actually wrote, 
there is
> > no possibility of any meaningful discusssion.
> 
> OK, suit yourself.  But that seems to be the subtext behind the 
often- defensive posts citing claims that "TM works.">>

No, this is the typical anti-science paranoia that you display Sal, 
that wants to turn what someone said into somthing else to suit their 
egocentric irrational agenda.
Just like Dumbya, Rice, Ashcroft, and their good friend Ted Haggard, 
etc. -- all anti-science.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Since there has been some discussion about research on TM, I'm 
> > > posting this recent press release from the University of 
Kentucky. 
> > > It would be hard for even the most biased observer (and we have 
> > > many on this board) not to recognize the value of this. The 
fact 
> > > is, uncomfortable though it may be for some, that TM works. 
> > 
> > Speaking as one of those biased observers :-),
> > I can tell you that I knew that this press
> > release was written by a TM teacher within
> > several paragraphs. There are several simple 
> > tip-offs. Referring to TM as "the Transcendental 
> > Meditation technique" is the first. No one who 
> > hasn't been schooled in the proper use of this 
> > copyrighted term would ever do that; a real 
> > researcher would have just called it "Trans-
> > cendental Meditation."
> > 
> > Another terminology tip-off is the repeated
> > use of "peer-reviewed scientific journals," a
> > term I haven't really seen much *except* in
> > TM-written press releases. Being in a "peer-
> > reviewed journal" doesn't insure that the
> > study is real, only that the methodology of
> > the study "passed muster" among a reviewing
> > group of scientists, based on what was sub-
> > mitted to them. As has been shown often in 
> > tobacco industry sponsored studies, it's quite
> > possible to LIE about one's methodology to the
> > reviewing committee, just to get it published.
> > The *only* thing that proves a study real 
> > scientifically is having it *repeated* by other
> > researchers, not "reviewed" by other researchers.
> > 
> > The next tip-off is the need to assert the
> > *superiority* of TM, not just its comparative
> > value compared to other techniques. Again, no
> > real researcher who wasn't specifically pushing
> > TM would have done that.
> > 
> > A *BIG* tip-off is the admission that the entire
> > *purpose* of this "study" is to "rebut" a report
> > that was less than favorable to TM. WHY would any-
> > one *but* TMers undertake such a "study?" Pure
> > scientists wouldn't; they wouldn't care.
> > 
> > There is also the giveaway term "meta-analysis,"
> > which in this situation seems to mean "cherry-
> > picking the studies *we* think are relevant,
> > and finding some way to analyze them statist-
> > ically to slant them towards showing that TM
> > is superior." They even *admit* that they cherry-
> > picked the studies: "includes only high quality 
> > studies on all available stress reduction 
> > interventions." WHO got to decide what was
> > "high quality" and what was not, eh? Duh. The
> > people who wanted to prove TM "best," that's
> > who.
> > 
> > The "statistician" who massaged this cherry-
> > picked set of data works for MUM. 'Nuff said.
> > 
> > Finally, even though the cherry-picking and the
> > data massaging were clearly done at MUM by TM
> > personnel, the study wasn't released by MUM.
> > WHY? Again, duh. Because it would look as if
> > it came directly from the TM movement, which
> > of course it did. So they found someone sym-
> > pathetic (probably a TMer) from the University
> > of Kentucky to publish it.
> > 
> > Don't get me wrong -- there may BE some studies
> > of merit among the ones cherry-picked by this
> > MUM "statistician." Some of them may even indi-
> > cate some benefits to TM, and that's completely
> > fine with me. But this "study" and this press 
> > release are as bogus pieces of pseudo-science 
> > as I've ever seen, and I cannot help but think 
> > that real researchers in the field will see it 
> > that way as well. 
> > 
> > My bet is that the only people who will be taken
> > in by this "study" are those who were taken in
> > long ago, and are trying to avoid having to admit
> > that they *were* taken in. Hint, hint, feste.
> > 
> > What is needed is REAL studies, done by non-TM
> > researchers who have neither an axe to grind or
> > a technique to sell, and whose only motivation 
> > is to find out if there is any verifiable benefit 
> > to meditation or not. Such a REAL study would not 
> > only have control groups who don't meditate, it 
> > would have other groups utilizing other forms of 
> > meditation, following exactly the same research
> > protocols. And at the end, ALL data would be
> > released and available to other researchers (not
> > just cherry-picked data), and the statistical
> > methods used would be described in detail so that
> > other researchers could duplicate them in their
> > own studies and see if they hold up. 
> > 
> > This is just another claim, coming from employees
> > of an organization that has something to gain 
> > (money!) from claiming TM not only effective but
> > superior. Only idiots would believe that the 
> > potential financial gain didn't bias their 
> > findings.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote:
> 
> > > > According to what I've read, there have been several
> > > > independent studies that indicate that the practice
> > > > of TM lowers blood pressure.
> > > >
> > Vaj wrote:
> > > In many ways this is just like the "TM coherence"
> > > scam
> > >
> > Like I said, your comments a highly biased.
> 
> 
> Again, not my comments, they are the findings of world-class  
> Neuroscientists.>>

Unpublished of course. What a joke.

In the 21st century only research published in respected peer-
reviewed journals has any credibility. Anything else is only for 
early afternoon talk show hosts to gaggle over. 

Your extreme bigotry is shocking to the civilized world. You deny 
200+ peer-reviewed published studies in respected journals, and 
instead tout one unpublished opinion as the real truth over all 
those. This is the VERY action of the anti-science freaks like GW 
Bush, Condi Rice, Ted Haggard, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Turq., 
boo_lives, Peter, etc that I was talking about. 

You loose Vaj.
Research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals is the 
future. Get used to it.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[feste37]

I make no claims to being a "precise thinker." When I wrote that "TM
works" I was referring to that study and others that show it produces
measurable physiological changes that are correlated with improved
health and well-being. The exaggerated claims you ascribe to me are
entirely your invention. 



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> >
> > No it is not. If you are reduced to claiming that someone "really
> > meant" something quite different from what he actually wrote, there is
> > no possibility of any meaningful discusssion. 
> 
> You said the blood pressure study proved that TM works.  What does
> that mean to you?  What most people who make that claim in ffld or on
> this forum mean is "how dare you question MMY's scientifically
> validated programs to create world peace, perfect health and
> invincibility when studies show that TM works."  You may be a more
> precise thinker about this than most though.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[Sal Sunshine]

On Dec 13, 2007, at 2:14 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:


I wonder if many movement people have any issues with BP?  I would
think that with a health conscious group this would be kind of a non
issue.  Certainly not enough to spend this much time on.  Eat well,
exercise, and hope you don't have a genetic pre-disposition for high
blood pressure.  Of course I could be way off with our aging
mediators, maybe some of them have this problem now.  I sure don't.  I
have to laugh at myself for being so concerned about this when I was
young.  I was so busy fixing problems I didn't even have that I
ignored many real ones!


Same here, pretty much, Curtis. I also believed the whole TM thing  
about staying away from Western doctors, counselors, etc.  Bad idea  
to let someone else make decisions for you, especially medical ones.


I did, however, have the sense not to buy into the whole AV thing,  
and I never got into Amrit.


Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[Richard J. Williams]

Vaj wrote:
> Don't you know you're supposed to read the posts 
> before responding?
>
Vaj wrote:

"In many ways this is just like the "TM coherence" scam 
where they attempted to make a slight up-click in waking 
state coherence appear significant."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/157641

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[boo_lives]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No it is not. If you are reduced to claiming that someone "really
> meant" something quite different from what he actually wrote, there is
> no possibility of any meaningful discusssion. 

You said the blood pressure study proved that TM works.  What does
that mean to you?  What most people who make that claim in ffld or on
this forum mean is "how dare you question MMY's scientifically
validated programs to create world peace, perfect health and
invincibility when studies show that TM works."  You may be a more
precise thinker about this than most though. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[Sal Sunshine]

On Dec 13, 2007, at 2:10 PM, feste37 wrote:


No it is not. If you are reduced to claiming that someone "really
meant" something quite different from what he actually wrote, there is
no possibility of any meaningful discusssion.


OK, suit yourself.  But that seems to be the subtext behind the often- 
defensive posts citing claims that "TM works."


Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[curtisdeltablues]

 But isn't that really what you meant, feste?  Most here would agree  
> (and have many times in the past) that TM has positive effects on
BP-- > it's one of the main reason many of us started.  It's the other  
> ludicrous claims that most rational meditators can't bring
themselves > to take seriously.

I wonder if many movement people have any issues with BP?  I would
think that with a health conscious group this would be kind of a non
issue.  Certainly not enough to spend this much time on.  Eat well,
exercise, and hope you don't have a genetic pre-disposition for high
blood pressure.  Of course I could be way off with our aging
mediators, maybe some of them have this problem now.  I sure don't.  I
have to laugh at myself for being so concerned about this when I was
young.  I was so busy fixing problems I didn't even have that I
ignored many real ones!

It seems like the most likely people to actually do meditation are the
least likely to need it for this.  So it comes down to the other
claims as the reason to meditate, and the health thing was just
something useful for the sales pitch.  The people who could use
meditation the most are the least likely to do it IMO.  The super
agitate people I taught TM usually dropped it pretty quickly.  Sitting
still was torture for them.  For a space case like me it was a blast!


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:35 PM, feste37 wrote:
> 
> >> The argument isn't over TM
> >> and blood pressure, it's (1) how the TMO sees science as just a tool
> >> to be manipulated to sell its products and (2) how TBs point to blood
> >> pressure study to "prove TM works" really meaning "everything MMY  
> >> says
> >> about anything must be true".
> >
> > I never said anything remotely resembling this. You invented it
> > yourself. It's your fantasy.
> 
> But isn't that really what you meant, feste?  Most here would agree  
> (and have many times in the past) that TM has positive effects on BP-- 
> it's one of the main reason many of us started.  It's the other  
> ludicrous claims that most rational meditators can't bring themselves  
> to take seriously.
> 
> Sal
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[feste37]

No it is not. If you are reduced to claiming that someone "really
meant" something quite different from what he actually wrote, there is
no possibility of any meaningful discusssion. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:35 PM, feste37 wrote:
> 
> >> The argument isn't over TM
> >> and blood pressure, it's (1) how the TMO sees science as just a tool
> >> to be manipulated to sell its products and (2) how TBs point to blood
> >> pressure study to "prove TM works" really meaning "everything MMY  
> >> says
> >> about anything must be true".
> >
> > I never said anything remotely resembling this. You invented it
> > yourself. It's your fantasy.
> 
> But isn't that really what you meant, feste?  Most here would agree  
> (and have many times in the past) that TM has positive effects on BP-- 
> it's one of the main reason many of us started.  It's the other  
> ludicrous claims that most rational meditators can't bring themselves  
> to take seriously.
> 
> Sal
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[Sal Sunshine]

On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:35 PM, feste37 wrote:


The argument isn't over TM
and blood pressure, it's (1) how the TMO sees science as just a tool
to be manipulated to sell its products and (2) how TBs point to blood
pressure study to "prove TM works" really meaning "everything MMY  
says

about anything must be true".


I never said anything remotely resembling this. You invented it
yourself. It's your fantasy.


But isn't that really what you meant, feste?  Most here would agree  
(and have many times in the past) that TM has positive effects on BP-- 
it's one of the main reason many of us started.  It's the other  
ludicrous claims that most rational meditators can't bring themselves  
to take seriously.


Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[feste37]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Since there has been some discussion about research on TM, I'm 
> > > posting this recent press release from the University of Kentucky. 
> > > It would be hard for even the most biased observer (and we have 
> > > many on this board) not to recognize the value of this. The fact 
> > > is, uncomfortable though it may be for some, that TM works. 
> > 
> > Speakin
> I agree with all of the above but want to add this comment.  In fact,
> the TM-blood pressure studies are the best of all the TM studies,
> maybe the only ones that really impress me.  Whether TM is the best
> method for reducing blood pressure or not depends on who is doing the
> meta-analysis, but clearly TM has beneficial effects.  The problem I
> have and most of us criticizing TMO science have is that feste and
> other TBs take this study to mean "TM works", really meaning
> everything the TMO claims is true.  In fact, the study referenced
> above suggests that TM has a beneficial effect on blood pressure, it
> doesn't prove anything else about TM.  It doesn't prove anything about
> any other physiological effect (like the nonsense we use to say about
> 2x as deep a rest as sleep), much less about MMY's state of supreme
> enlightenment, the TMO's unique role in creating a golden age on
> earth, including invincibility to every nation and perfect health for
> everyone who uses maharishi ayurvedic products; it doesn't prove
> anything about how indian male brahmins (in the TMO) chanting prayers
> to gods eliminates all problems on earth, it doesn't prove anything
> about sidhas flying in domes creating world peace, it doesn't prove
> anything about group consciousness effects, doesn't prove anything
> about how living in homes built by the TMO solves all your problems
> (even if the homes are cheap, toxic and ugly like most of the ones in
> ffld).  All of these above claims constitute 95% of what the TMO
> claims and puts its energy into, and there is nothing close to an
> impressive replicated study on any of it.  The argument isn't over TM
> and blood pressure, it's (1) how the TMO sees science as just a tool
> to be manipulated to sell its products and (2) how TBs point to blood
> pressure study to "prove TM works" really meaning "everything MMY says
> about anything must be true".

I never said anything remotely resembling this. You invented it
yourself. It's your fantasy.  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[Vaj]

On Dec 13, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote:


> > According to what I've read, there have been several
> > independent studies that indicate that the practice
> > of TM lowers blood pressure.
> >
Vaj wrote:
> In many ways this is just like the "TM coherence"
> scam
>
Like I said, your comments a highly biased.



Again, not my comments, they are the findings of world-class  
Neuroscientists.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[Vaj]

On Dec 13, 2007, at 12:10 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote:


Vaj wrote:
> There's been a lot of desperation from the TM side
> as their "science" has been shown to be unsound,
> esp. their cardiac claims. This is merely another
> attempt to side-step those findings.
>
The claim that TM lowers blood pressure is one of
the most agreed on effects of the TM practice,
according to most researchers.


I would hope ALL researchers would agree it drops BP. That's a no- 
brainer. But unfortunately, the amount of drop is insignificant  
according to objective science.



Your comments indicate
a severe bias, so cannot be trusted.


Uh, they're not my comments, they're are researchers from the Univ.  
of Alberta.


Don't you know you're supposed to read the posts before responding?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[Richard J. Williams]

> > According to what I've read, there have been several
> > independent studies that indicate that the practice
> > of TM lowers blood pressure.
> >
Vaj wrote:
> In many ways this is just like the "TM coherence" 
> scam
>
Like I said, your comments a highly biased.

> where they attempted to make a slight up-click 
> in waking state coherence appear significant. It 
> was actually rather unremarkable.
>
And your other comments are misinformed and misleading.
According to this report, the reduction in risk was
"significant":

"The reported decrease, measured by ultrasound, was 
tiny -- about 98 hundredths of a millimeter 
(slightly less than four-hundredths of an inch) 
-- but significant, the study concluded. Just that 
small reduction in deposits could reduce the risk 
of heart attack by 11 percent, and reduce the risk 
of stroke by 15 percent."

Full story:

'Meditation may lower blood pressure'
CNN, July 24, 2000
http://tinyurl.com/2bjkdc

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[boo_lives]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> >
> > Since there has been some discussion about research on TM, I'm 
> > posting this recent press release from the University of Kentucky. 
> > It would be hard for even the most biased observer (and we have 
> > many on this board) not to recognize the value of this. The fact 
> > is, uncomfortable though it may be for some, that TM works. 
> 
> Speaking as one of those biased observers :-),
> I can tell you that I knew that this press
> release was written by a TM teacher within
> several paragraphs. There are several simple 
> tip-offs. Referring to TM as "the Transcendental 
> Meditation technique" is the first. No one who 
> hasn't been schooled in the proper use of this 
> copyrighted term would ever do that; a real 
> researcher would have just called it "Trans-
> cendental Meditation."
> 
> Another terminology tip-off is the repeated
> use of "peer-reviewed scientific journals," a
> term I haven't really seen much *except* in
> TM-written press releases. Being in a "peer-
> reviewed journal" doesn't insure that the
> study is real, only that the methodology of
> the study "passed muster" among a reviewing
> group of scientists, based on what was sub-
> mitted to them. As has been shown often in 
> tobacco industry sponsored studies, it's quite
> possible to LIE about one's methodology to the
> reviewing committee, just to get it published.
> The *only* thing that proves a study real 
> scientifically is having it *repeated* by other
> researchers, not "reviewed" by other researchers.
> 
> The next tip-off is the need to assert the
> *superiority* of TM, not just its comparative
> value compared to other techniques. Again, no
> real researcher who wasn't specifically pushing
> TM would have done that.
> 
> A *BIG* tip-off is the admission that the entire
> *purpose* of this "study" is to "rebut" a report
> that was less than favorable to TM. WHY would any-
> one *but* TMers undertake such a "study?" Pure
> scientists wouldn't; they wouldn't care.
> 
> There is also the giveaway term "meta-analysis,"
> which in this situation seems to mean "cherry-
> picking the studies *we* think are relevant,
> and finding some way to analyze them statist-
> ically to slant them towards showing that TM
> is superior." They even *admit* that they cherry-
> picked the studies: "includes only high quality 
> studies on all available stress reduction 
> interventions." WHO got to decide what was
> "high quality" and what was not, eh? Duh. The
> people who wanted to prove TM "best," that's
> who.
> 
> The "statistician" who massaged this cherry-
> picked set of data works for MUM. 'Nuff said.
> 
> Finally, even though the cherry-picking and the
> data massaging were clearly done at MUM by TM
> personnel, the study wasn't released by MUM.
> WHY? Again, duh. Because it would look as if
> it came directly from the TM movement, which
> of course it did. So they found someone sym-
> pathetic (probably a TMer) from the University
> of Kentucky to publish it.
> 
> Don't get me wrong -- there may BE some studies
> of merit among the ones cherry-picked by this
> MUM "statistician." Some of them may even indi-
> cate some benefits to TM, and that's completely
> fine with me. But this "study" and this press 
> release are as bogus pieces of pseudo-science 
> as I've ever seen, and I cannot help but think 
> that real researchers in the field will see it 
> that way as well. 
> 
> My bet is that the only people who will be taken
> in by this "study" are those who were taken in
> long ago, and are trying to avoid having to admit
> that they *were* taken in. Hint, hint, feste.
> 
> What is needed is REAL studies, done by non-TM
> researchers who have neither an axe to grind or
> a technique to sell, and whose only motivation 
> is to find out if there is any verifiable benefit 
> to meditation or not. Such a REAL study would not 
> only have control groups who don't meditate, it 
> would have other groups utilizing other forms of 
> meditation, following exactly the same research
> protocols. And at the end, ALL data would be
> released and available to other researchers (not
> just cherry-picked data), and the statistical
> methods used would be described in detail so that
> other researchers could duplicate them in their
> own studies and see if they hold up. 
> 
> This is just another claim, coming from employees
> of an organization that has something to gain 
> (money!) from claiming TM not only effective but
> superior. Only idiots would believe that the 
> potential financial gain didn't bias their 
> findings.

I agree with all of the above but want to add this comment.  In fact,
the TM-blood pressure studies are the best of all the TM studies,
maybe the only ones that really impress me.  Whether TM is the best
method for reducing blood pressure or not depends on who is doing the
meta-ana

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[feste37]

You are right about one of the two named authors of the press release,
who is an MUM employee and an acquaintance of mine. So what? Whatever
you say about it, the people who practice TM will continue to enjoy
the benefits that come from lowering their blood pressure. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> >
> > Since there has been some discussion about research on TM, I'm 
> > posting this recent press release from the University of Kentucky. 
> > It would be hard for even the most biased observer (and we have 
> > many on this board) not to recognize the value of this. The fact 
> > is, uncomfortable though it may be for some, that TM works. 
> 
> Speaking as one of those biased observers :-),
> I can tell you that I knew that this press
> release was written by a TM teacher within
> several paragraphs. There are several simple 
> tip-offs. Referring to TM as "the Transcendental 
> Meditation technique" is the first. No one who 
> hasn't been schooled in the proper use of this 
> copyrighted term would ever do that; a real 
> researcher would have just called it "Trans-
> cendental Meditation."
> 
> Another terminology tip-off is the repeated
> use of "peer-reviewed scientific journals," a
> term I haven't really seen much *except* in
> TM-written press releases. Being in a "peer-
> reviewed journal" doesn't insure that the
> study is real, only that the methodology of
> the study "passed muster" among a reviewing
> group of scientists, based on what was sub-
> mitted to them. As has been shown often in 
> tobacco industry sponsored studies, it's quite
> possible to LIE about one's methodology to the
> reviewing committee, just to get it published.
> The *only* thing that proves a study real 
> scientifically is having it *repeated* by other
> researchers, not "reviewed" by other researchers.
> 
> The next tip-off is the need to assert the
> *superiority* of TM, not just its comparative
> value compared to other techniques. Again, no
> real researcher who wasn't specifically pushing
> TM would have done that.
> 
> A *BIG* tip-off is the admission that the entire
> *purpose* of this "study" is to "rebut" a report
> that was less than favorable to TM. WHY would any-
> one *but* TMers undertake such a "study?" Pure
> scientists wouldn't; they wouldn't care.
> 
> There is also the giveaway term "meta-analysis,"
> which in this situation seems to mean "cherry-
> picking the studies *we* think are relevant,
> and finding some way to analyze them statist-
> ically to slant them towards showing that TM
> is superior." They even *admit* that they cherry-
> picked the studies: "includes only high quality 
> studies on all available stress reduction 
> interventions." WHO got to decide what was
> "high quality" and what was not, eh? Duh. The
> people who wanted to prove TM "best," that's
> who.
> 
> The "statistician" who massaged this cherry-
> picked set of data works for MUM. 'Nuff said.
> 
> Finally, even though the cherry-picking and the
> data massaging were clearly done at MUM by TM
> personnel, the study wasn't released by MUM.
> WHY? Again, duh. Because it would look as if
> it came directly from the TM movement, which
> of course it did. So they found someone sym-
> pathetic (probably a TMer) from the University
> of Kentucky to publish it.
> 
> Don't get me wrong -- there may BE some studies
> of merit among the ones cherry-picked by this
> MUM "statistician." Some of them may even indi-
> cate some benefits to TM, and that's completely
> fine with me. But this "study" and this press 
> release are as bogus pieces of pseudo-science 
> as I've ever seen, and I cannot help but think 
> that real researchers in the field will see it 
> that way as well. 
> 
> My bet is that the only people who will be taken
> in by this "study" are those who were taken in
> long ago, and are trying to avoid having to admit
> that they *were* taken in. Hint, hint, feste.
> 
> What is needed is REAL studies, done by non-TM
> researchers who have neither an axe to grind or
> a technique to sell, and whose only motivation 
> is to find out if there is any verifiable benefit 
> to meditation or not. Such a REAL study would not 
> only have control groups who don't meditate, it 
> would have other groups utilizing other forms of 
> meditation, following exactly the same research
> protocols. And at the end, ALL data would be
> released and available to other researchers (not
> just cherry-picked data), and the statistical
> methods used would be described in detail so that
> other researchers could duplicate them in their
> own studies and see if they hold up. 
> 
> This is just another claim, coming from employees
> of an organization that has something to gain 
> (money!) from claiming TM not only effective but
> superior. Only idiots would believe that the 
> potential financial gain didn't bias their 
> findings.
> 
> 
> > FOR

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[Richard J. Williams]

Vaj wrote:
> There's been a lot of desperation from the TM side 
> as their "science" has been shown to be unsound, 
> esp. their cardiac claims. This is merely another 
> attempt to side-step those findings.
>
The claim that TM lowers blood pressure is one of
the most agreed on effects of the TM practice, 
according to most researchers. Your comments indicate
a severe bias, so cannot be trusted. You almost
always attempt to mislead and misinform. You are
next to worthless as an informer. Almost all researchers
on meditation agree that ANY form of meditation lowers 
blood pressure.

"...the American Heart Association noted that "people 
with high blood pressure may want to medicate and meditate."

Full story:
 
'Meditation may lower blood pressure'
CNN, July 24, 2000
http://tinyurl.com/2bjkdc

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[feste37]

I think anyone who reads the press release will see that your
explanation is weak in the extreme. You would have more credibility 
if you acknowledged that some TM research is valid, even if some of it
may be dubious. I think that would be a fair conclusion. Your refusal
to acknowledge, in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary,
the value of any scientific study of TM shows only that your bias
warps your judgment.  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There's been a lot of desperation from the TM side as their "science"  
> has been shown to be unsound, esp. their cardiac claims. This is  
> merely another attempt to side-step those findings.
> 
> Of course when you rest your HR and BP comes down! It seems very  
> silly to try to make this into any sort of big deal.
> 
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 10:45 AM, feste37 wrote:
> 
> > Since there has been some discussion about research on TM, I'm posting
> > this recent press release from the University of Kentucky. It would be
> > hard for even the most biased observer (and we have many on this
> > board) not to recognize the value of this. The fact is, uncomfortable
> > though it may be for some, that TM works.
> >
> > FOR RELEASE
> >
> > Transcendental Meditation More Effective in Reducing High Blood  
> > Pressure
> > Compared to Other Stress Reduction Programs, Study Shows
> >
> > LEXINGTON, Ky. (Dec. 4, 2007) - People with high blood pressure may
> > find relief from Transcendental Meditation, according to a definitive
> > new meta-analysis of 107 published studies on stress reduction
> > programs and high blood pressure, which will be published in the
> > December issue of Current Hypertension Reports.
> >
> > The Transcendental Meditation technique produces a statistically
> > significant reduction in high blood pressure that is not found with
> > other forms of relaxation, meditation, biofeedback or stress  
> > management.
> >
> > The new meta-analysis reviewed randomized, controlled trials of all
> > stress reduction and relaxation methods in participants with high
> > blood pressure that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific
> > journals.
> >
> > Blood pressure changes for the Transcendental Meditation technique
> > included average reductions of 5.0 points on systolic blood pressure
> > and 2.8 on diastolic blood pressure, which were statistically
> > significant, according to the review. The other stress reduction
> > programs did not show significant changes in blood pressure.
> >
> > Blood pressure changes associated with Transcendental Meditation
> > practice were consistent with other controlled studies showing
> > reductions in cardiovascular risk factors, improved markers of heart
> > disease, and reduced mortality rates among participants in the
> > Transcendental Meditation program.
> >
> > The new meta-analysis was conducted by researchers at the
> > University of Kentucky College of
> > Medicine and at the NIH-funded Institute of Natural Medicine and
> > Prevention at Maharishi University of Management.
> >
> > According to Dr. James Anderson, professor of medicine at the
> > University of Kentucky and co-author of the new meta-analysis, the
> > findings of the new review rebut a July 2007 report sponsored by the
> > Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the
> > NIH-National Center for Complementary and
> > Alternative Medicine, which concluded that most research on meditation
> > is low quality and found little evidence that any specific stress
> > reduction effectively lowers blood pressure. The new meta-analysis
> > identified all high quality meditation studies published through 2006
> > and rigorously analyzed their effects, which the previous government
> > report failed to do.
> >
> > Anderson said the new meta-analysis includes only high quality studies
> > on all available stress reduction interventions. The studies on
> > Transcendental Meditation were conducted at five independent
> > universities and medical institutions, and the majority of them were
> > funded by competitivegrants from the National
> > Institutes of Health.
> >
> > "The magnitude of the changes in blood pressure with the
> > Transcendental Meditation technique are at least as great as the
> > changes found with major changes in diet or exercise that doctors
> > often recommend," Anderson said. "Yet the Transcendental Meditation
> > technique does not require changes in lifestyle. Thus many patients
> > with mild hypertension or prehypertension may be able to avoid the
> > need to take blood pressure medications—all of which have adverse side
> > effects. Individuals with more severe forms of hypertension may be
> > able to reduce the number or dosages of their BP medications under the
> > guidance of their doctor."
> >
> > Anderson added that long-term changes in blood pressure of this
> > magnitude are associated wit

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[Vaj]

On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote:


TurquoiseB wrote:
> My bet is that the only people who will be taken
> in by this "study" are those who were taken in
> long ago, and are trying to avoid having to admit
> that they *were* taken in.
>
So, how much would you be willing to wager?

According to what I've read, there have been several
independent studies that indicate that the practice
of TM lowers blood pressure.



It does, but the amount was insignificant ("small, non-significant  
improvement" the Alberta meta-analysis showed), the study giving the  
best claim for TM also happened to be of the shortest duration of any  
study and "The medium- or long-term trials did not find statistically  
significant differences between TM® and HE [Health Education] for  
changes in SBP [Systolic Blood Pressure]."


What's also bizarre and an obvious attempt to make tiny,  
insignificant drops in BP look significant is what they compared it  
to: Health Education. I'd like to see a comparison to other relaxing  
forms of meditation. But if they did that, their control would truly  
render the changes they are so desperately trying to tout, look truly  
unimpressive.


In many ways this is just like the "TM coherence" scam where they  
attempted to make a slight up-click in waking state coherence appear  
significant. It was actually rather unremarkable.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[Richard J. Williams]

TurquoiseB wrote:
> My bet is that the only people who will be taken
> in by this "study" are those who were taken in
> long ago, and are trying to avoid having to admit
> that they *were* taken in. 
> 
So, how much would you be willing to wager? 

According to what I've read, there have been several 
independent studies that indicate that the practice 
of TM lowers blood pressure.

"Scientists at the Medical College of Georgia discovered 
why people who practise transcendental meditation daily 
had significantly lower blood pressure than those who 
did not."

'Meditation lowers blood pressure'
BBC News, Monday, 2 August, 1999
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/410003.stm

'Transcendental meditation improves blood pressure'
Archives of Internal Medicine, June 12, 2006
http://www.theheart.org/article/714763.do

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Since there has been some discussion about research on TM, I'm 
> posting this recent press release from the University of Kentucky. 
> It would be hard for even the most biased observer (and we have 
> many on this board) not to recognize the value of this. The fact 
> is, uncomfortable though it may be for some, that TM works. 

Speaking as one of those biased observers :-),
I can tell you that I knew that this press
release was written by a TM teacher within
several paragraphs. There are several simple 
tip-offs. Referring to TM as "the Transcendental 
Meditation technique" is the first. No one who 
hasn't been schooled in the proper use of this 
copyrighted term would ever do that; a real 
researcher would have just called it "Trans-
cendental Meditation."

Another terminology tip-off is the repeated
use of "peer-reviewed scientific journals," a
term I haven't really seen much *except* in
TM-written press releases. Being in a "peer-
reviewed journal" doesn't insure that the
study is real, only that the methodology of
the study "passed muster" among a reviewing
group of scientists, based on what was sub-
mitted to them. As has been shown often in 
tobacco industry sponsored studies, it's quite
possible to LIE about one's methodology to the
reviewing committee, just to get it published.
The *only* thing that proves a study real 
scientifically is having it *repeated* by other
researchers, not "reviewed" by other researchers.

The next tip-off is the need to assert the
*superiority* of TM, not just its comparative
value compared to other techniques. Again, no
real researcher who wasn't specifically pushing
TM would have done that.

A *BIG* tip-off is the admission that the entire
*purpose* of this "study" is to "rebut" a report
that was less than favorable to TM. WHY would any-
one *but* TMers undertake such a "study?" Pure
scientists wouldn't; they wouldn't care.

There is also the giveaway term "meta-analysis,"
which in this situation seems to mean "cherry-
picking the studies *we* think are relevant,
and finding some way to analyze them statist-
ically to slant them towards showing that TM
is superior." They even *admit* that they cherry-
picked the studies: "includes only high quality 
studies on all available stress reduction 
interventions." WHO got to decide what was
"high quality" and what was not, eh? Duh. The
people who wanted to prove TM "best," that's
who.

The "statistician" who massaged this cherry-
picked set of data works for MUM. 'Nuff said.

Finally, even though the cherry-picking and the
data massaging were clearly done at MUM by TM
personnel, the study wasn't released by MUM.
WHY? Again, duh. Because it would look as if
it came directly from the TM movement, which
of course it did. So they found someone sym-
pathetic (probably a TMer) from the University
of Kentucky to publish it.

Don't get me wrong -- there may BE some studies
of merit among the ones cherry-picked by this
MUM "statistician." Some of them may even indi-
cate some benefits to TM, and that's completely
fine with me. But this "study" and this press 
release are as bogus pieces of pseudo-science 
as I've ever seen, and I cannot help but think 
that real researchers in the field will see it 
that way as well. 

My bet is that the only people who will be taken
in by this "study" are those who were taken in
long ago, and are trying to avoid having to admit
that they *were* taken in. Hint, hint, feste.

What is needed is REAL studies, done by non-TM
researchers who have neither an axe to grind or
a technique to sell, and whose only motivation 
is to find out if there is any verifiable benefit 
to meditation or not. Such a REAL study would not 
only have control groups who don't meditate, it 
would have other groups utilizing other forms of 
meditation, following exactly the same research
protocols. And at the end, ALL data would be
released and available to other researchers (not
just cherry-picked data), and the statistical
methods used would be described in detail so that
other researchers could duplicate them in their
own studies and see if they hold up. 

This is just another claim, coming from employees
of an organization that has something to gain 
(money!) from claiming TM not only effective but
superior. Only idiots would believe that the 
potential financial gain didn't bias their 
findings.


> FOR RELEASE
> 
> Transcendental Meditation More Effective in Reducing High Blood 
> Pressure Compared to Other Stress Reduction Programs, Study Shows
> 
> LEXINGTON, Ky. (Dec. 4, 2007) - People with high blood pressure may
> find relief from Transcendental Meditation, according to a definitive
> new meta-analysis of 107 published studies on stress reduction
> programs and high blood pressure, which will be published in the
> December issue of Current Hypertension Reports.
> 
> The Transcendental Meditation technique produces a statistically
> signi

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[feste37]

Since there has been some discussion about research on TM, I'm posting
this recent press release from the University of Kentucky. It would be
hard for even the most biased observer (and we have many on this
board) not to recognize the value of this. The fact is, uncomfortable
though it may be for some, that TM works. 


FOR RELEASE

Transcendental Meditation More Effective in Reducing High Blood Pressure
Compared to Other Stress Reduction Programs, Study Shows

LEXINGTON, Ky. (Dec. 4, 2007) - People with high blood pressure may
find relief from Transcendental Meditation, according to a definitive
new meta-analysis of 107 published studies on stress reduction
programs and high blood pressure, which will be published in the
December issue of Current Hypertension Reports.

The Transcendental Meditation technique produces a statistically
significant reduction in high blood pressure that is not found with
other forms of relaxation, meditation, biofeedback or stress management.

The new meta-analysis reviewed randomized, controlled trials of all
stress reduction and relaxation methods in participants with high
blood pressure that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific
journals.

Blood pressure changes for the Transcendental Meditation technique
included average reductions of 5.0 points on systolic blood pressure
and 2.8 on diastolic blood pressure, which were statistically
significant, according to the review. The other stress reduction
programs did not show significant changes in blood pressure.

Blood pressure changes associated with Transcendental Meditation
practice were consistent with other controlled studies showing
reductions in cardiovascular risk factors, improved markers of heart
disease, and reduced mortality rates among participants in the
Transcendental Meditation program.

The new meta-analysis was conducted by researchers at the
University of Kentucky College of
Medicine and at the NIH-funded Institute of Natural Medicine and
Prevention at Maharishi University of Management.

According to Dr. James Anderson, professor of medicine at the
University of Kentucky and co-author of the new meta-analysis, the
findings of the new review  rebut a July 2007 report sponsored by the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the
NIH-National Center for Complementary and
Alternative Medicine, which concluded that most research on meditation
is low quality and found little evidence that any specific stress
reduction effectively lowers blood pressure. The new meta-analysis
identified all high quality meditation studies published through 2006
and rigorously analyzed their effects, which the previous government
report failed to do.   

Anderson said the new meta-analysis includes only high quality studies
on all available stress reduction interventions. The studies on
Transcendental Meditation were conducted at five independent
universities and medical institutions, and the majority of them were
funded by competitivegrants from the National
Institutes of Health.

"The magnitude of the changes in blood pressure with the
Transcendental Meditation technique are at least as great as the
changes found with major changes in diet or exercise that doctors
often recommend," Anderson said. "Yet the Transcendental Meditation
technique does not require changes in lifestyle. Thus many patients
with mild hypertension or prehypertension may be able to avoid the
need to take blood pressure medications—all of which have adverse side
effects. Individuals with more severe forms of hypertension may be
able to reduce the number or dosages of their BP medications under the
guidance of their doctor."

Anderson added that long-term changes in blood pressure of this
magnitude are associated with at least a 15 percent reduction in rates
of heart attack and stroke. "This is important to everyone because
cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death in the U.S.
and worldwide," Anderson said.

The study's biostatistician, Maxwell Rainforth, assistant professor of
Physiology and Health Statistics at Maharishi University of
Management, said the meta-analysis used state-of-the-art statistical
methods to review 107 published studies in the field of stress
reduction, relaxation and blood pressure. "The twenty-three separate
studies included in the final analysis met well-known criteria for
high scientific quality. That is, these studies used repeated blood
pressure measurements and participants were randomized to either a
stress reduction technique or placebo-type control for at least eight
weeks.  The data we used are all published in peer-reviewed scientific
journals," Rainforth said. 

According to Dr. Robert Schneider, director of the
Institute of Natural Medicine and Prevention
and co-author, this rigorously conducted meta-analysis indicates that
the Transcendental Meditation program is distinctively effective
comp

[FairfieldLife] Re: Off's kind of TMmovement research published

[off_world_beings]

This is not published in a peer-reviewed respected scientific journal 
and no one in their right mind would give it credence until it is. 
That would be like Vaj claiming research that is not published under 
peer-review in a respected scientific journal is somehow comparable 
to that which is. It would be foolish. It doesn't mean the data is 
wrong or not interesting, it just means that it is not validated in a 
scientific way, and therefore is no more than opinion at this point ( 
a bit like Rick's rumors ), and is not something that can be used as 
a measuring stick.

So thank for re-iterating my point.
Only research published in respected peer-reviewed scientific 
journals is valid in the 21st cenutry (like the 200+ published on TM 
so far -- and rising)

OffWorld



OffWorld--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> front page of Fairfield Ledger,
> 
> If it is published then it makes it true.  
> 
> 
> Dec 11th Edition of the Ledger:
> 
> "Positive trends fulfill predictions for group meditation study.  
> 
> "The results are in…
> "From the first-ever scientific demonstration project to document 
the 
> long-term positive effects of large group meditations on national 
> trends."
> 
> "According to quantum physicist Dr. John Hagelin, exec director of 
> the International Center for Invincible Defense and the project's 
> science director…" 
> 
> "After a two-year surge, violent crime is down suddenly…"
> 
> "After decades of unremitting escalation, nuclear tensions between 
> the US and North Korea are ending swiftly and peacefully…"
> 
> "violence is down 60% in Iraq…"
> 
> "Wall Street is on pace for its second most profitable year ever…"
> 
> 
> 
> ""It is possible that any one or two of these positive trend, 
> unforeseen by experts even six months ago, could have occurred on 
> their own.  But the fact that all this good news is coming now – 
> exactly as we predicted 500 days ago- is well beyond chance.  It is 
> the direct result of the coherence created by the Invincible 
America 
> Assembly," Hagelin said.
> 
> "Extensive published research shows that coherence and positivity 
is 
> created in collective consciousness when a small number of people 
> practice the Transcendental Meditation and more advanced Yogic 
Flying 
> techniques together in a group-"  
> 
> "The decrease is the direct and publicly predicted result of the 
> increased coherence in national consciousness created by the large 
> group of 1700 advanced Transcendental Meditation Program experts in 
> Iowa," Hagelin said, "The non-linear partial differential equations 
> governing the weather satisfy the characteristics of chaos theory.  
> As a consequence, weather patterns are sensitive to infinitesimal 
> fluctuations – a phenomenon popularly known as the – Butterfly 
> Effect.  This means that even minute changes in people's behavior 
can 
> precipitate or prevent a hurricane.  "
> 
> The Invincible America Assembly is raising the quality of 
collective 
> consciousness and behavior throughout society to be more 
harmonious, 
> more life supporting.  And Nature is responding more positively."
> 
> End of story
>