--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 17, 2006, at 9:06 AM, new.morning 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. > > > It's an organization wide trend. If you want to trust their research, > good for you. > > Show me the research on all the negative side effects of TM done by > the TMO. I'll anxiously await your response. >
Show me the research on all the negative side effects of Buddhist, SSRS, Chopra, etc, research... Still awaiting a response on your rsearcher list, BTW...
