--- 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
> re
--- 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 m
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
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 condu
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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 t
--- 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 t
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
blo
--- 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 a
--- 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 r
--- 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.
> > >
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.
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 gen
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/mess
--- 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 stu
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 oft
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 serio
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, fes
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 anythi
--- 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
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, you
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
> > 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
--- 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 har
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@yahoogro
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 p
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
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
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 sever
--- 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 boar
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 s
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
33 matches
Mail list logo
