--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> 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. >>
And what are your qualifications for saying that? ..and in which respected peer-reviewed journal is there evedence that the other studies are not valid. 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. >> I don't. I am the only one on FFL life who has said that even if there were ONLY one quarter the amount of published TM studies in respected peer- reviewed journals, that showed the opposite, or negated them, then I would change my mind about the science on TM. This makes me the open- minded one on FFL. However, your stance is that of an anti-science freak, like GW Bush, Ted Haggard, Condi Rice, Mike Huckabee, John Ashcroft, etc, because you think your opinion is worth more than scientific research published in respected peer-reviewed journals. OffWorld
