jstein wrote: > No, you were incorrect in your suspicions (actually > you knew they were incorrect), and also in your > claim that your suspicions were justified because > nobody would give you a (nonexistent) link to the > article. > I'm still suspicious - after re-reading the relevant threads, it would appear that not a single one of the respondents had actually read the report published in JAMA, much less the "Hoodwinked JAMA Caper" written by Skolnick.
> Moreover, you misrepresent the debate with Skolnick, > which began well before you joined alt.m.t, continued > on and off for several years, with many participants, > and in which you were only minimally involved, if at > all. > So, when are you going to read it? You are supposed to read the report BEFORE you make your comments. From: Kurt Arbuckle Date: Thurs, Dec 29 1994 1:44 pm Groups: alt.meditation.transcendental, sci.skeptic, sci.med, alt.journalism Subject: JAMA editor and Ayurveda http://tinyurl.com/y3g3b6 This post is about the current thread(s) concerning the JAMA article about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's version of Ayurveda. The story is that some proponents of MA (Maharishi's Ayurveda) were permitted to publish an article on the subject in JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association).
