sparaig wrote: > > I've made it a hobby for 30 years to read and analyze the TM research > (as best I can with my limited math background --who the hell is > Jenkins, and what is he doing in a box?). > > The physiological stuff has gotten quite sophisticated. The Ayurvedic > research is getting pretty mature, also. ME stuff isn't studied any > more, AFAIK.
It would be interesting to see a compilation of the solid research, and the grounds on which it's considered solid. I heard something second-hand during my MIU days. A science journal editor purportedly waded through the hundreds of TM studies extant at the time (1978 or '79) and pronounced 25% to be junk, 50% to be of common rigor and 25% to be tight, solid research. Can't remember who reported that, however. Makes a big difference whether Keith Wallace said it or a graduate student said it. - Patrick Gillam To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
