--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <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-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".
