--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 17, 2006, at 8:02 AM, dhamiltony2k5 wrote: > > > > > > > Seems pretty clear they're willing to sanitize *anything*, even > > research they claim is scientific. > > > While the sanitizing is a reflection of humorous victorian > sensibilities, it hardly can be generalized to falsifying research, if > that is you implication. Most acknowledge some research is poor. That > does not make all TM research invalid or unscientific. >
There are studies done only out of MUM, and studies that are done in collaboration with other institutes (not affiliated with TM). It is not always easy to tell which non-MUM researchers are TMers, but people who have established a history of research on topics other than TM seem the most likely to not be TMers, or at least have less of a philosophical ax to grind. It is easy to figure out the TM-only researchers. Click on their name-link at the top of an article abstract in the pubmed search and see if they've published much/any research on something other than TM. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/ keyword-with-quotes: "transcendental meditation"
