--- In [email protected], "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> > > wrote: > > <snip> > > > I'm not sure if you'l find this relevant but... > > > I used to work in the TM press office and one day a > > > really negative article came in that actually had > > > someone in tears as it was so critical of MMY. I > > > asked the press officer, a damn nice chap who is > > > now a Raja bless him. I asked him how bad a peice > > > has to be before they would sue anyone and he said > > > they *never* sued no matter what was said because > > > either they are right, in which case it's our karma. > > > Or it's wrong, in which case it's theirs. I thought > > > that was quite an enlightened perspective. He also > > > caught me spending a lot of time replying to negative > > > e-mails and told me not to bother because rolling > > > in the dirt just creates negativity in the mind > > > when we should be concentrating on the positive at > > > all times. > > > > > > Not as much fun though is it ;-) > > > > Nope! > > > > In any case, two TMO-related organizations *did* > > sue Andrew Skolnick for that disgraceful muck- > > raking article he wrote for JAMA, and that certainly > > must have been with blessings from the top. > > Sued successfully? > > The only story by Skolnick I can find in JAMA is > the one about Chopra and co lying about having > financial intertsts in ayurveda. This one in fact: > > http://www.skeptictank.org/gs/sci603.htm
Yup, that's the one. > Doesn't sound like muckraking to me. Maybe he has > expectations borne of experience about how researchers > should conduct themselves. Perhaps this is a case of > your opinion clouding judgement? It's a long and complicated story with many angles; hard to give you a precis. We hashed it out in exhaustive (and exhausting) detail on alt.m.t some years ago, if you want to have a look. Best Google Groups Advanced Search term would probably be "JAMA." That'll turn up most of the posts, but there were an awful lot of 'em. Aside from the accusation that Chopra and his co- authors misrepresented their financial interests, a great deal of the ancillary details of other alleged TM-related sins were presented in an extremely (and knowingly) misleading manner by Skolnick. But you have to know the facts and then read Skolnick's version very closely to see how he twisted these details to create a serious misimpression. As to Chopra & co., it isn't clear exactly what happened. Their omission of certain TMO connections from the disclosure forms may or may not have been deliberate. I'm not sure it wasn't a setup by the folks at JAMA. The notion that they weren't aware of Chopra's status as a spokesperson for TM and MA-V is very hard to credit; he was all over the media at the time that "Letter from New Delhi" was published in JAMA. <snip> > > > But then I was never > > > a believer and the only Darwinist at the academy so > > > maybe it was just a matter of time. > > > > Sheesh. What was everybody else? > > You've gotta be kidding! Did you never do SCI? Only the abbreviated mini-SCI course. I don't recall anything about evolution per se, so perhaps that part wasn't included in the mini-course. I'm surprised to hear that the TM version is inconsistent with Darwinism. I would have assumed that the Vedic notions were a sort of meta-account, sort of the way reputable Christian biologists believe God designed the Darwinian evolutionary process. > > > I think my criticisms of the research are fair but > > > it's a work in progress. Trouble is they don't do > > > enough research into the most contentious aspects > > > of MMYs teachings. > > > > Such as? You mean the Maharishi Effect? > > I've not seen anything convincing about the ME yet, > I think that as that is the main thing that sets the > whole show apart from the rest of the meditation > techniques they should be concentrating on that, but > then they are with the invincible America course and > that doesn't seem to be producing supportive data does > it? Charitably I would say it's case not proven. Nowhere close. Some of the published studies are suggestive, but that's about it. > Yagyas and jyotish should also be tested scientifically > partly because they are considered part of vedic science, > mostly because they are a criminal (in my view) money > making machine for the TMO, were talking pots of cash here, > millions. I don't see why they should be exempt, what is > the point of doing the same old experiments into blood > pressure and happiness etc if the TMO has a "technology" > that can change your life so totally, wiping out a previous > lives karma. The way they promote it says to me they are > confident. Seems to me even if they *could* scientifically show that yagyas and jyotish are effective, it wouldn't be a good use of their resources. Blood pressure studies and the like are much more likely to gain acceptance from the scientific community. Plus which, whatever the effects of yagyas and jyotish, they'd be incredibly difficult to document convincingly--way too many variables. Same problem with the Maharishi Effect, but at least with that they can use publicly available statistics. And even so they haven't gotten very far with it.
